Hegel has also criticized analytic thinkers for being guided by empirical sciences alone. If your step was forward, it does not mean that your next step will also be forward. He argues that Kant’s claim that faith can go beyond understanding and reason leave us with scepticism. Hegel never agrees anything irrational would govern you blindly. He also said, it makes no sense to talk about something
The story proves that society does not want to recognize its past. It wants to create one that justifies their current actions. A history that people forge will never be indicative of society. The myth, therefore, fails to establish a sense of national
In this book, ‘What is Islam? The importance of being Islamic:’ Shahab Ahmed has presented a complete, a fascinating definition of Islam that contradicts with the dominant Islam in this contemporary society. Shahab’s idea of Islam is built upon various subdivisions, and these subdivisions serves as a scaffolding to help him construct the idea of historical Islam sophisticatedly. Since he wants us to be sophisticated, therefore he has endorsed the notion of Sufism i.e. mysticism and paradoxical poetic rhetoric in his definition of historical Islam thus discarding the predominated form of Islam, i.e.
Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince. Lao-Tzu’s writing is mainly based off the religion Taoism. This type of religion believes that the way of the universe is the natural way of life and that it shouldn’t be interfered with by man. Lao-Tzu believes that one shouldn’t have total control of the government, that everything should run its course as it is supposed to do not as the humans want to make it. He believes that the ruler should be carefree and should not rule forcefully but be kind and silent.
He links the use of reason with freedom and this use of reason helped us achieve a system of morals. However, Nietzsche disagrees with Kant and mocked the idea that using reason can help us since reason is something created by man and his view of the world, therefore none of these concepts can have true meaning. He wanted to know how and why did such morals come to have this value and this is how through the use of Nietzsche’s philosophy, I will critique Kant’s moral
Although, Thoreau does not like the way government rule however his not an anti-government. He believes the government is necessary for ruling the country, but the corrupt government is not beneficial at all because it is only benefiting people who are involved in the politics. He believes government power should come from the people and citizens should receive all the advantage than political leaders. Therefore, Thoreau thinks the current government is flawed; thus, we must create new form political system. When he mentions this statement his intentions become more clear “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.
Angel also insisted that it is a physical and economic impossibility to capture the trade of another nation by military conquest. At last but not least he says that the wealth and prosperity of a nation do not depend in any way on the nation’s political power. He says that if that was true states that exercise no political power should be less commercially prosperous than the bigger states, however this is not the case. He gives for example Switzerland and Belgium where the wealth per capita is even more that of those of the “great
In contrast, they represent societies which do not construct the Eurocentric tension between modernity and religion; and therefore do not conform to unidimensional secularization. Indeed, this fact fits well with the rational choice theorists who have used the comparative data to argue that secularization is actually a myth. Accordingly, differences in the prominence of religious influence are not the result of geographically specific secularization processes but are instead the result of each region’s “religious market”. For the rational choice theorists, the dearth of religious vitality in Europe is an effect of the insufficient supply of religious products. It is not an effect of decreased demand for religion (as secularization theorists would suggest).
This shows that removing the flawed components of a theory would make nearly all theories defensible, therefore this argument should not be used to refute paradigm shift. He also demonstrates that theories are stripped of their predictive value when viewed through this lens. If a theory is so heavily restricted that it is simply a special case, then it no longer possesses any scientific value. It can only describe phenomena that have already been observed. The success of a theory depends on its ability to be both useful and accurate, and this type of theory has no further practical
I have not, so far, been able to find any scholarly or credible resources on why modern art is good and can be considered art, but I will continue to support this idea with factual statements alongside my own opinions and definitions. Many of the arguments used in the art world as bias against modern art forms is that it isn’t simply as good as traditional or classical art. In my opinion, modern art is just a different form of art, not necessarily good or bad wholly, but just different, and it differs enough that it shouldn’t be compared to the stunning idealistic realism of renaissance art movements, because that isn’t what modern art is about. An article by Karsten Harries describes modern art as no different than the classical forms that preceded it. The author outlines the ideas that art is a representation of the ideal form of man, and “as that image changes, so must art” and that the emergence of modern art could be the “disintegration of the Platonic-Christian concept of man,” where “the artist no longer has an obvious, generally excepted route to follow” (Harries).