Niccolò Machiavelli, Baldassare Castiglione and George Washington all had small factors of similarity within their interpretation of an ideal person, some more than others. Machiavelli valued the unpleasant truth, so that people would view the world with a notion of realism. He also always wanted to be in control and make his own decisions without anyone else's opinion to mar his idea of keeping authority with others. And he furthermore pushed the trait of fake sincerity. Instead of truthfully being honest, religious and merciful, he told one that you should fake it, so that when the time arrives, you can switch your personality.
Because of that, I find myself in the middle of the debate about who benefited most from this time period. I think the best way to look at history is to try understanding both sides of an issue. Of course doing this isn 't a way to justify truly sickening behavior, and it shouldn 't be. However staying in the middle of this debate is the most reasonable stance because it is fairly easy to see the pros and cons on each side. There is no side that is one hundred percent correct rather they both have plausible answers to an open ended question.
Unlike Marx who views Multiculturalism from the theory heading downwards Dalrymple views multiculturalism from the ground going up. His day to day experiences prove that "not all cultural values are compatible or can be reconciled by the enunciation of platitudes." This means that although multiculturalists support the idea that people should embrace different cultures, there are many challenges that make implementation difficult. Dalrymple argues that the idea that we can co-exist in a society whereby the law doesn't favor one culture at the expense of another one is a lie. In short, the author's main argument is that some cultural values will always be superior to others in every society and the idea that all cultural values can be compatible with every ethnic group makes no
It is expected that a judge’s decisions be unbiased, but by allowing social identities to be present in decision making would cause this to be not only implausible, but practically impossible. The major criticism seems to develop from her disagreement with the statement “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases” (Alcoff 122). To me, this statement seems to imply that judges and justices are under the impression that they invoke the ideal version of John Rawl’s ‘veil of ignorance’, a thought experiment in which Rawls implores us to imagine we are in a rational, conscious state before we have any perception of what sort of circumstances we will be living in; among other things, this is to help make laws fair for everyone. Basically, judges and justices who agree with the statement above seem to think they are making decisions and coming to unbiased conclusions from behind a veil of ignorance. However, they are not exactly achieving this, in fact is seems that it is beyond the bounds of possibility.
Hume's claim against miracles is that it does not matter how strong the evidence for a miracle it may be it is rather more rational to reject the miracle than to believe in it. Hume states that there are two ways in order to decide to believe a piece of evidence. The reliability of a witness is the first factor. A witness can be dishonest or be ignorant about a situation which would make their claims worth little. So Humes says to take in consideration how reliable the witness is.
Stop Political passivity, but know what you stand for when you actively oppose the authority. THOREAU True prestige is in independent thought as we live in a constantly imperfect world Not to say “down with conformity” for uniquenesses sake, as this would simply be an emerging perspective of circular logic, both conformity and individuality are neither inherently good or bad, but thinking critically on a deeper level, past the surface is an essential part of developing as an individual. Why do we have an attachment to free will and individuality? -useful in
One must be able to balance their optimism and cynicism is the perfect way to counteract one overshadowing the other. In healthy doses and in appropriate matters, it allows people to think and be practical. It is better to be safe and doubt than to blindly trust and become unbearably naïve. Cynicism is not the total absence of hope or faith, but rather a perspective on how exactly that hope may be obtained or evaluating why you put your faith in certain people. Ultimately, the cynic is a mix of realism and skepticism.
Individuals will compare the cost and reward of their decision by which scenario benefits them more and cost them less. Now, one key element in rational choice theory is the belief that all action is fundamentally "rational " in character. (thoughtco.com) This differentiates it from other theories because it denies the essences of any other actions other than rational. So in all I would say that the dramaturgy theory complements the exchange theory, and would disagree with the rational choice theory. Even though, they are very close in ideal principles, rational choice doesn 't quite fit the theory of dramaturgy as well as exchange theory.
CHAPTER 6 The Subjective-Objective Dialectic The rational and the intuitive strive to remain exclusive of the other at the expense of obvious deficiencies. The rational objectifies life existence through foresight, prudence and regularity but emphasises the artistic view less. The intuitive has a contrarian view that minimally emphasises rationality but is subjective to the importance of illusion, imagination, dreaming and beauty. This separation evolved the Newtonian atomic thinking that in many respects is disintegrative but has dominated rational thought at the expense and exclusion of sociological considerations in most technological innovations. Our thinking needs to be holistically inclusive of the non-physical and intangible to quantum
Generally confidence can be defined as the state of feeling certain about the truth of something, while if it is defined in the ToK context knowing what you're good at, the value you provide, and acting in a way that conveys that to others confidence is the belief people has from a choice or proposition that are based on evidence that is correct, it is a form of certainty. However, a certainty doesn’t mean an increase in confidence. While doubt is the state of mind which lies between belief and disbelief that involves uncertainty. When people have doubt, they will question every knowledge that they have and just had. It arises a questioning and creates a revaluation regarding the knowledge that could result in a new knowledge and furthering the knowledge that was simple into a complex mind.