To understand if John Locke has an answer to Aristotle’s question or if he’s even interested in such a question it is necessary to look deeper and explore more how Aristotle and John Locke views the states and constitutions, how they explain them and what are their views on citizenship (if they have any). Aristotle points out that though the status of citizenship in most cases are reserved for those who are born from citizen parents (in other words inherited from citizen parents) becomes irrelevant in such cases as constitutional change,
Conclusively, Broken Spears is an eloquent testimony that Miguel León-Portilla, so passionately dedicated hard-work and effort to have this book be published. For he is determined to have the Nahuatl passages publicized and have their voices heard, which is something that Gustavo Verdesio would have wanted. As Verdesio argued that passages that have been written by marginalized people are disregard by many historians and authors, and so when a book like Broken Spears is published, it helps bring awareness the argument that Verdesio has been claiming. Proving, that although it may be hard to give into account the stories of those who are marginalized, it is possible to bring those historical anecdotes to light, paving a path for future historical
This being said, it must be taken into consideration that The Return of Martin Guerre uses little concrete factual evidence to support all of Davis’ claims. She may incorporated bias into her explanations for the actions of Bertrande, and she has no way of knowing for certain the thought processes and ideas of de Rols. Davis often makes statements that seem as if she is certain of the notions of Bertrande, using words such as “must have”, and statements such as these should be taken extremely lightly. If she wishes to psychologically analyze Bertrande she should ensure that she uses language that makes it apparent that there is no record of what Bertrande de Rols knew or desired. Davis sheds a new light upon the events of the Martin Guerre mystery and how du Tilh possibly got away with his charade, but her claims should not be considered historical fact.
In Wiggins’ case of fission he undermines the belief that all questions of personal identity must have answers. The belief when asked in response to brain division is found implausible. According to Parfit, ‘If all the possible answers are implausible, it is hard to decide which of them is true, and hard even to keep the belief that one of them must be true’. (1971, p.8) He also undermines the second belief that personal identity plays a part in survival. Wiggins’ case shows that you may not have identity but you may have everything you need for survival.
The most important thing a historian can do is provide the world with a reliable, sound knowledge of history and the truth in what has happened in our society. Without a solid understanding of where we came from, we cannot understand why things are the way they are, how we got here, and where we’re going. The farther back time goes, the harder it is to know for sure what the absolute facts are, however, there is plenty of evidence to let us know what happened during some of the most important time periods of our nation’s history. In The Last Of The Fathers: James Madison & The Republican Legacy, Drew R. McCoy uses both primary and secondary sources to show us facts about James Madison’s life and how he helped to build America. His use of reliable
The James Holmes Conspiracy Introduction The James Holmes Conspiracy has brought about contradicting views from those who do not believe the word of the government and media as evident through the link https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/james-holmes-conspiracy/. There have been arguments about the condition of his mind prior to the shooting in addition to controversies on whether he was the real shooter. Many tend to believe that he was not the shooter at all while others have confidence that he was not alone in the shooting. From the assessment of these contradicting views, I draw my belief that James Holmes at the time of shooting was simply a competent, cold-blooded murderer who was fully aware of his actions. Prior to the incident, he had no criminal record whatsoever.
For example, in the article “Kennewick man James C. Chatters wrote“If the corps persist its refusal to allow additional studies and decides on immediate repatriation, experts will lose the chance to directly study this rare phenomenon.” (5). This is crucial evidence because this directly shows that we would be able to learn much more about Kennewick man culture if we were able to study him. Also, we should have Kennewick man for study because of the article “Kennewick man by James Chatters quotes “We do not know if he is truly anyone ancestor”. (5). This matters because this is showing that we don 't even know if Kennewick man is even
Discuss the following questions: (you will need to know about the 1st Amendment to answer #3) 1. Was the question in poor taste? Was it badly motivated? Do either of these matter? The question was a direct question in which, he was told not to ask but he asked the question anyway.
This, however, cannot be done with every piece of information we acquire since it is not humanly possible. Memory therefore proves to be a untrustworthy way of knowing that can only be trusted in very specific cases like the ones pointed out previously. Historians always try to get the most unbiased and true information possible in order for them to then share their knowledge, but this is only viable to a certain limited point. A solution to this everlasting limitation is receiving information from as many sources as possible and then coming out with one’s own conclusions. Doing so might not conserve the truth in historical information, but it is the closest we can get to acquiring knowledge through the use of
Obviously enough, in the most cases, historians are not the direct reporters of past events, because there is no way to revisit the specific period of time; but, rather, historians use primary and secondary sources in order to report the historical event. As a result, Davis is exposed to stinging attack from Robert Finlay. He reviews Davis 's book in his article on The Refashioning of Martin Guerre by criticizing her method in writing the story as a historical work. For him, Davis’s treatment of Martin’s story is not a historical work, but rather fiction. Primarily, Finlay focuses on his criticism on Davis’s imagination of reconstructing of the Martin Guerre’s story in order to make a dramatized story.
Both of these biographies are based on direct interviews of Hewes himself. Other sources Young draws upon include court records, archives, tax documents, newspapers, journals, baptismal records, and the stories of family descendants. All of these sources offer insights into the events of Hewes’ life, before, during, and after the war. They also bring with them new questions and at times, cast doubt on their historical accuracy. Yet, Young acknowledges this and draws from these many and at times, opposing sources, to somehow illustrate a deeper truth.
This begs the question, what right and obligation does an author have to write outside of their experience concerning historical representations? In Debbie Reese’s blog, she argues that a description of historical fiction requires a certain level of historical accuracy that Cooper sometimes lacks. In Jonathan Hunt’s review of the book for Heavy Medal, he contends that Cooper’s work was entirely embedded in fiction, and did not matter whether historical accuracy was maintained. Often through artistic mediums, we are not trying to portray something truly accurate or realistic (apart from realism). Often, a poem or a piece of fiction is never going to be a true representation of, say, someone’s experience of war, it could, nevertheless, evoke a strong feeling.