Category: Philosophy 1203

Confessions by Augustine is a series of books by St. Augustine, which describe his lifes journey and transformation from a sinful paganistic individual to a devout Christian. These books are some of the earliest theological and scholastic works depicting ones path towards religion. It is often described as a self-help book in that it demonstrates Augustines ideals and his path towards salvation. The 13 books are noteworthy because of their message and the historical place they have in the popularization and development of Christianity and for their rhetorical rigor.

Prior to his conversion, Augustine received formal rhetoric training, which reflects on his writing throughout the books. The books managed to advance my knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy in several ways. I observed the implementation of tenets of Rhetorica ad Herennium, learned of Ciceronian forensic oration techniques, and the use of direct openings in order to set up a proper argument in a way beneficial to oneself (Augustine 77). The former laid the foundation for his writing, as could be seen in the scene where he describes his own theft of pears (Augustine 123). The forensic oration was utilized to evaluate how sinful thoughts came into existence, and direct openings were used to lure in the audience with an open and inquisitive mind.

The central questions of scholarly inquiry of the book include the nature of sin, his conversion to Christianity, the journey and justification of his beliefs. The traveling he undertook was a metaphorical and physical journey from paganism and debauchery into finding happiness and God (Augustine 172). Another purpose of the book was to defend oneself and ones conversion against skeptical Christians who doubted a man of pagan rhetorical education among their ranks. These inquiries support a central argument that an individual of any background can find a path to God and repent for the sins of their youth (Augustine 173). They demonstrate how Augustus himself found redemption and realized in his own accord the folly of his old ways.

I agree with his position on the subject of redemption and finding God, as many sins he accused himself of having committed are forgivable in the eyes of Heavens so long as the person repents. Realizing that one was doing wrong, tracing the origins of it, and striking at the root of it to prevent re-emergence, essentially becoming a better person, is pleasant to God (Augustine 19). I realize, however, that my position and understanding of his writings is affected and biased by my own culture, which has advanced much based on the humanistic ideas of St. Augustine as discussed in his Confessions.

The book presents an interesting lesson that applies both to communication and marketing. The texts themselves were used not only to defend St. Augustines conversion but also to invite conversation about God. By utilizing a direct opening and presenting a subject to either be praised or condemned, one opens up a conversation and makes people more receptive to ones thoughts (Augustine 78). Since getting the customers initial attention is one of the most difficult parts of marketing, the value of achieving so through rhetoric is valuable. Forensic examination of events can also be applied to the reviewing process, either of ones actions or products. Inviting the customers to participate in such would allow them to better assess the merits of a product or service. At the same time, not all of the rhetoric instruments implemented in the books are applicable to marketing. However, the rhetoric used by St. Augustine is excellent and shows signs of traditional schooling, which could be used in marketing and communication.

Work Cited

Augustine, Saint. The Confessions. Clark, 1876.

Basic Knowledge

Burke is notable at supplying the reader with an abundance of information on psychological and sociological topics alike. The most useful of them in terms of philosophy of communication would be occupational psychosis, piety as a system builder, and the pathetic fallacy. Occupational psychosis is concerned with the lens a person perceives the world through; and the nature of that lens is determined by a persons occupation or, more precisely, ways of gaining sustenance (Burke 56). Clearly, this is of major importance to rhetoric, as it is nearly impossible to communicate an idea effectively if unaware of the cultural context that it is going to be received in.

Piety is another major narrative that needs to be taken into account. It is known to be a system builder, and a sense of what properly goes with what, a system of associations that are deeply related to the occupational psychosis  which comprises a persons worldview (Burke 102). The remaining notion, pathetic fallacy, is a persons predisposition to project a reflection of his inner state to the exterior world, thus making the subjective seem objective. All three, are distinguished parts of what a worldview is comprised of  and since understanding the perception of target audience in a communicational process is essential to delivering an effective message, they are of major significance.

Metaphor and Argument

The center aim that Burke poses for the current work is evident. He attempts to show the globality of sociocultural phenomena that is often considered in isolation (Burke 336). Beyond showing the unity of a great variety of these factors, he also attempts to show that Weltanschauung or orientation is self-perpetrating, creating the measures by which it shall be measured (Burke 336). The dominant themes are numerous but the underlying mechanic is twofold  the integrity and self-perpetuating nature of cultural phenomenon and the individual tendencies. The topics presented all delve into much detail, and the author justifiably argues that they are not connected linearly, but form a kind of diagram.

However, his argument on the imperative usage of poetic metaphor in areas of life that are not generally considered to be of any artistic quality, is quite badly supported. He argues that, in essence, the poetic vocabulary fit for every area of life is particularly useful because it evolved through the whole history of human thought (Burke 339). The author seems to be ambitious in establishing this paradigm as the dominant one, dismissing the fact that it is simply yet another worldview. Although, this mode of perception  the poetic one  has the potential of cancelling out the destructive inclinations of modern society, if adopted, it is not enough of an argument to claim the title of a universally correct outlook.

Relevance

Practical knowledge finds a variety of manifestations from the theoretical frameworks described by Burke. They include implementing the knowledge from the concepts such as occupational psychosis as trained incapacity, which can serve especially well in marketing context (Burke 70). Both these concepts are ambivalent and deal with a persons subjectivity of judgement, which can serve as a basis for a certain marketing strategy, especially targeted at a specific audience  since their perception can be learned through this concept.

In the classroom, ideas more directly concerned with communicational aspects are of greater importance. The idea of piety and the fact that it entails a characteristic system that each person builds with their unique associative array; this concept is essential for remembering in the study of rhetoric, as this piety affects the reception of information. Thus, a speaker must take it into account, in order to deliver the message well. Piety can be applied both in order to persuade the audience to take a particular stance and in order to understand the audience better. In speech, it manifests through a set of words that each person possesses; this way, the speaker can tell what person they are dealing with and convey a message in such a way that it would be relatable to the recipient.

Work Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. New Republic Inc, 1935.

The Allegory of the Cave represents the fact that information acquired by the senses is little more than belief and that actual knowledge can only be attained through philosophical deliberation. We are to understand the cave as a metaphor for those who place their faith in the evidence they gather through their senses and experience rather than in truth. Believers in empirical knowledge are like those in the cave, ensnared in a pit of ignorance. Much like the prisoner who was freed, the enlightened person is required to work in trying to rescue others from their false beliefs. The Allegory of the Cave supports the notion that humans can thrive on knowledge and truth rather than false belief. Even if most individuals have spent their entire lives immersed in this illusion, all it takes for them to finally see the truth is a crack in the darkness.

There is great harm in letting the persons in the cave stay there because their limited sensory abilities prevent them from learning about the world outside. People in the cave are oblivious to the truth; thus, they are constantly plagued by emotions like fear, anxiety, regret, rage, hate, and retribution. By staying in the cave, the prisoners lose touch with reality and remain captive, which leads to a strong sense of isolation, stagnation, and void. Enlightened individuals benefit society by assisting others in overcoming the sorrow that ignorance breeds. Ones civic duty as an enlightened person requires one to look out for their fellow citizens. The enlightened one seeks to impart to others the ability to perceive things as they truly are, free from biases, misconceptions, and prejudices.

Indeed, we cannot just trust what we see and feel; instead, we should look deeper and get past mere opinions to find the truth. The Allegory of the Cave encapsulates Platos philosophy and worldview. The realm of the cave and the world of absolute reality can be analogous to ignorance and knowledge.

The Allegory of the Cave can be construed in numerous ways, and we need to be open to diverse thoughts, concepts, and beliefs. Eventually, no matter how one may interpret it, this story portrays awakening from the assumed simplicity and the ignorance and disbelief of those still clueless.

Descartes Rules

1. Accept nothing as true that is not self-evident
2. Divide problems into their simplest parts
3. Solve problems by proceeding from simple to complex
4. Recheck the reasoning

I Think Therefore I am

The famous phrase is attributed to Descartes writings on the nature of self, and reality. Fundamentally, Descartes was a sceptic. This meant that his philosophical approach focused closely on casting doubt, especially on concepts many consider to be solid fact. In particular, the man argued that individuals cannot trust their senses and the human perception of the world (Rules for the direction of the mind, n.d.). In most cases, it is possible to prove that ones eyes, ears, and sense of touch can make errors, which makes the feedback from them subject to scrutiny. Because of their fallibility, the senses cannot be trusted to authenticate ones existence. Alternatively, the process of thinking itself cannot be debated or denied, making it the only absolute truth. For Descartes, thinking was the only possible proof for human existence.

Close Problem

I will apply the four precepts to my personal problem of bread becoming moldy too often. First, I will accept that there can be many reasons for the breads molding, aside from the passage of time. Then, I will break down the problem and consider every reason the bread may be molding quickly (temperature, storage, humidity, bread quality) and address them. Concerns such as storing the bread and choosing the right brands will be first, followed by creating a better environment for the food item. Lastly, I will re-check my reasoning and see if any other improvements can be made.

Public Policy Issue

The Descartess reasoning can be further applied to other issues, such as the climate change. First, the evidence toward global warming, including temperature data from the recent years will be examined to authenticate the process. Then, the need for change will be divided into smaller parts, from changing ones lifestyle habits to installing solar panels and lobbying for societal change toward environmental problems. After which the validity of the solutions in relation to the problem will be accessed. While Descartes was himself a mathematician, his approach to problem-solving can be applicable to a range of socio-political issues, because they, much like equations, consist of large systems and smaller parts.

Reference

Rules for the direction of the mind. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Web.

In the present day, four Hellenistic philosophies are less followed by people due to their changed perceptions of reality and life values. From a personal perspective, cynicism in its understanding by ancient Greek philosophers has less importance for modern individuals in comparison with other teachings. It emphasized the importance of the return to nature and the absence of any social formations, including government, religion, marriage, and property (Philosophical Papers par. 5). Indeed, in the present day, people do not find an idea of rejecting the blessings of civilization and comfort highly attractive. They are not ready to live without housing, clothes, food, and family intentionally. In addition, the brotherhood with animals typical for cynicism is not perceived by a considerable number of people. While some individuals aim to reduce their waste, have a more ecologically safe lifestyle, and delete meat from their diet, others continue to believe in their superiority on the planet.

Skepticism is less popular nowadays as well due to the significant role of science in the contemporary world. In this case, the statement nobody knows, and nobody ever can know becomes less familiar for individuals regardless of their education and experience in life (Philosophical Papers par. 8). At the same time, the following of Epicurean philosophy is controversial  on the one hand, people admit the significance of happiness, on the other hand, its understanding may differ from ancient philosophers perceptions. While they see happiness in knowledge, the rejection of bodily desires, a virtuous life, community ties, friendship, and moderation in everything, modern people frequently see happiness in material things and excessive consumption. Finally, stoicism is less avoided by them nowadays, however, this philosophy is not followed to the fullest extent. For instance, people will not accept the loss of beloved ones as an intended event that should not cause suffering and grief.

Work Cited

Philosophical Papers. The Hellenistic World. Four schools of Philosophy: Cynics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Stoicism, Web.

Learning philosophy helps one critically analyze their life, knowledge, the universe, and everything it holds. The three core branches of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, evoke creative thinking through questioning. Although the approach used within each division is constant, they are distinct in content and objective. The subject of epistemology challenged me to analyze what I hold as knowledge critically. Philosophical thinking tested some of my beliefs as I realized I do not have reasons for my faith. Thus, philosophical thinking is a great skill in helping people move beyond accepting everything and instead seek the truth on their own.

Philosophical Thinking

Philosophy is an old yet misunderstood discipline driven by the love for wisdom.

By definition, Philosophy is a discipline concerned with seeking knowledge in areas where science fails to use reason in establishing the truth (Unit 1 Tutorials). The key instrument that great thinkers rely on is logic. Notably, the concepts that the discipline deals with cannot be measured or assessed using typical research. For example, it is impossible to quantify the concept of law. For instance, to establish if a cultural practice is morally right, it is necessary to give a rationale and rebuttal for a stance. Similarly, philosophers brainstorm and debate over matters to gain knowledge. The three main branches of philosophy include Ethics which explores the question of what is a good life?, epistemology focuses on the concept of knowledge, and metaphysics on the question of reality.

Ethics is one of the core branches of philosophy that is concerned with analyzing and defending concepts of value. Essentially, it is a question of right and wrong, which translates to what is a good life? For example, in a society that uses the Mosaic law famously known as an eye for an eye, a person who steals gets their hands chopped off. One person may justify the rule, while another gives a different opinion. The topic of ethics often covers controversies and dilemmas that people face in life, such as suicide, abortion, and mercy killing. The matter can be debated from different perspectives citing medical, religious, cultural, and personal reasons. A good life is expected to be full of right while avoiding wrongs. For instance, some believe that the ends justify the means and vice versa.

Next, epistemology, as a primary branch of philosophy, explores the question of what is knowledge? and the methods used in its acquisition. It seeks to test the level of certainty that people can claim over what they think they know. Definitively, knowledge is defined as a belief that is justified and true. For example, if a person says that they are citizens of the United States, their statement remains merely an opinion until they can sufficiently give justification. For instance, they could show their identification card to verify. For example, epistemology helps scientists in biology, astrology, and physics to differentiate and understand facts from concepts. For example, they can explore whether Darwins theory of evolution is true. Thus, epistemology corresponds to the question, what is knowledge?

Metaphysics is the widest branch of philosophy that aims to reveal and describe the core nature of reality. Its prefix meta means beyond implying that it explores subjects not sufficiently covered by science (Unit 1 Tutorials). For instance, much as Isaac Newtown came up with the laws of gravity metaphysic to understand what is meant by the law. In addition, metaphysics is concerned with existential questions that explore the reality of god, reason for human existence, afterlife, nature of time, and causation. Thus, metaphysics has a wide application and may inform other branches like ethics. It corresponds to the question, what is reality?

Reflection

I enjoyed scheming through all the major branches of philosophy. Thinking philosophically means contemplatively paying attention to applying knowledge. It is the vulnerability to accept the possibility that any information can be false and start reexamining for truth. Philosopher constantly challenges their belief while using logic. Moreover, in philosophical thinking, rather than simply receiving instructions and opinions and believing them, a person endeavors to think independently.

I chose my reflection based on epistemology focused on the question: What is knowledge? It was the most interesting as it propelled me to question my beliefs and critique what people say. While learning, I started asking and thinking if I could know something with certainty. For example, if my parents tell me I am twenty-five, they must provide proof such as a birth certificate. At one point, I thought there was nothing I could justify, not even my existence.

I thought about the Allegory of the Cave in which, after seeing reality, the lifetime prisoners choose to believe otherwise. I was wondering if it is possible that my life is but a dream, and even my existence may be fake. However, as I was thinking, it dawned on me that I could prove that I am a person because I can think, talk, and walk. Moreover, people verified that they saw me by greeting me or using other signs. Learning about knowledge is essential to everyone who wants to get reasons and understand the truth rather than settling for mere opinions.

Reference

Unit 1 Tutorials: Great Philosophers (2022) Sophia Tutorial.

Introduction

Sovereignty is the ability of states to make laws and shape policies in their territories. Territories must obey the sovereignty in force and fulfill obligations by complying with laws and regulations. Different perspectives on the power of sovereignty determine how public policy operates to legislative and executive powers. The views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke differ in who owns sovereignty and how its desires are translated into legislation.

Discussion

Thomas Hobbes is one of the founders of a strand of political philosophy gradually realized in a theory of state sovereignty. According to Hobbes, sovereignty is the only source of power. The sovereigns power is unlimited, and the state governs all institutions. In particular, Murphy and Stoica-Constantin (2015, p. 222) point out that Hobbes applies this rule even to acts of violence. Violence is permissible as long as state sovereignty governs the use of violence. Consequently, Hobbes concludes that individuals (or even a single person) must have absolute sovereignty and that the rest of the citizens must cede some of their rights (Eribo, 2021). Moreover, ceding all sovereignty to a group of persons allows for the security of citizens.

Hobbes believes that absolute sovereignty must control any government (civil or judicial) because only in this way can the establishment of an actual state be achieved. However, he also states that God is above the state, which does not mean placing sovereignty in the hands of the church (Tarlton, 2002). Hobbes is skeptical that power can be incomplete or that sovereignty expresses a wrong or strategically incorrect view (Çoban Balci, 2020). According to Tarlton (2002, p. 64), Hobbes views rely on lutist and despotical ideas, which provide the basis for defining absolute power. Thus, in Hobbes view, sovereignty is concentrated in one person or a small group of persons with unlimited power, based on their desires, over the states citizens.

John Locke has a somewhat different view of sovereignty, including the absolute type. John Locke, like Hobbes, contributed to the development of political philosophy by focusing on the ideas of liberalism. It is primarily expressed in his ideas about the continuity of consciousness and the possibility of personal transformation through the experience of one experience or another. Consequently, these ideas influenced his vision of sovereignty, its varieties, and government mechanism.

Locke draws on social contract theory when he speaks of the politys power. According to his ideas, sovereignty is a product of the traditional understanding of the state (Gencer, 2010). Through the principle of separation of powers, Locke presents his division of sovereignty: the absolute belongs to God, and the relative is divided into branches. This division of branches can be seen in the idea of the division of state power, which Locke was the first to propose. According to Gencer (2010, p. 334), this division is most noticeable in the etymological and semantic interrelationship of community, common-law and common-wealth. Locke thus distinguishes between the potential and actual nature of sovereignty. The potential is concentrated in the hands of the government, which has the function of executing legislation; the actual one is in the hands of the community, which follows the laws for the common good.

In addition, Locke relies more on the concentration of the absolute in the hands of God. In this idea, he is similar to Hobbes: both philosophers give an essential place to the church. However, while Locke is more respectful of religions influence on the formation of society, Hobbes suggests that the church is in charge. According to Murphy and Stoica-Constantin (2015, p. 222), Hobbes had a conservative position, while Locke& had a more radical, liberal outlook, based on which Locke determined that one person handled the court. In addition, Locke focused entirely on the fact that the supreme power belongs to the people based on a social contract (Eribo, 2021). It is one of the main differences between Locke and Hobbes-they assess the value of the social contract differently. These differences in views of power prompt a study of Locke and Hobbes views of the influence of the social contract.

For Locke, the contract is a way of investing his duties to absolute and relative sovereignty in obtaining property. For Hobbes, on the other hand, the social contract obliges one to give ones rights to sovereignty that has a better idea of morality, good and evil (Sasan, 2021). The difference in views of absolute sovereignty is expressed in the perception of the social contract, the interpretation of the supremacy of power, and those who should constitute the state stronghold.

Conclusion

John Lockes and Thomas Hobbes ideas on the definition and operation of absolute sovereignty differ. The differences are firstly expressed in who has absolute sovereignty: Locke defines it as part of the duties of God, while Hobbes defines it as one or more persons at the head of public policy. Second, Locke says that supreme power belongs to the people and that dividing power into branches is the most rational way for the state to function. At the same time, Hobbes believes that all power must be concentrated in one hand, and the people must give up some of their rights. In addition, Hobbes presents conservative ideas akin to despotism and violence, while Locke relies on liberal beliefs in public policy. Finally, the social contract, for Hobbes, is an instrument of transferring citizens rights to power, while for Locke, it is an opportunity to optimize his benefits.

Reference List

Eribo, N. M. (2021) The Concept of Sovereignty in Political Philosophy, Zamfara Journal of Politics and Development, 2(2). Web.

Gencer, B. (2010) Sovereignty and the separation of powers in John Locke, European Legacy, 15(3), 323-339.

Çoban Balci, A. (2020) A review on freedom and authority in theories of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, Fiscaoeconomia, 4(1), 132-158.

Murphy, A. and Stoica-Constantin, A. (2015) Sovereignty: constitutional and historical aspects, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 8(57), 219-226. Web.

Sasan, J. M. V. (2021) The social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: comparative analysis, International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, 9(1), 34-45.

Tarlton, C. D. (2002) The despotical doctrine of Hobbes, part II: aspects of the textual substructure of tyranny in Leviathan, History of Political Thought, 23(1), 61-89. Web.

The philosophy of education encompasses relevant schools of thought and their responses to the social issues in education. It primarily revolves around the critical concepts of equality, equity, social justice, peace, and other stimulating factors to educate people on moral virtues from a philosophical perspective (Davids and Waghid, 2021). At the same time, the philosophy of education provides a view of the social issues through the lens of established traditions, such as existentialism, perennialism, and essentialism, to demonstrate the significance and gravity of the problems (Barnett, 2021). Nevertheless, the underlying aim of the approach is to identify the existing educational issues and provide beneficial insights for educators and students to resolve them (Davids and Waghid, 2021). There are multiple debates concerning the effectiveness of philosophical traditions, particularly on the problems of curriculum and diversity in education (Pring, 2018; Hilt, Riese and Søreide, 2019). For instance, progressivism heavily emphasizes democratic values and freedom in education, while perennialism focuses on critical thinking (Kooli, Zidi and Jamrah, 2019). Ultimately, it is essential to thoroughly examine contemporary educational issues from a philosophical perspective to determine the most effective and socially-oriented solutions.

Since various philosophical traditions present a unique perspective on learning, educators can extract the most beneficial elements of the models to enhance their teaching processes. It is essential to approach this problem from philosophical and critical thinking viewpoints to form an unbiased opinion on the philosophy of education. For instance, progressivism is a unique approach that emphasizes student freedoms; however, it might encounter backlash in deeply cultural nations, as seen in the example of Japan (Shorb, 2019; Quan et al., 2019). Therefore, the relative usefulness of the philosophical traditions significantly depends on various external factors, including culture and politics. In other words, the effectiveness of progressivism is lower in cultures with established educational traditions and culturally-oriented social systems (Kaya and Kaya, 2017). On the other hand, classical models might lose their relative usefulness in progressive democratic societies that actively demand a more substantial emphasis on equity and diversity (Kooli, Zidi and Jamrah, 2019). Ultimately, this argument is not necessarily a negative issue; however, it is crucial to consider cultural specificities, global trends, and students opinions to establish a practical curriculum based on the chosen philosophical tradition.

The focus of the current assignment is to examine the approach of academic activism and social justice in contemporary educational issues from a philosophical perspective. The preliminary hypothesis is that the chosen model is highly effective in enhancing the quality of education in the aspects of social justice and equality, but it is associated with several cultural and social limitations. Therefore, it is crucial to study the existing literature on the topic and review the current debates concerning the effectiveness of various philosophical approaches and their responses to relevant problems in education.

Research Aims and Research Questions

The primary aim of the research is to critically examine contemporary educational issues from a philosophical perspective, emphasizing the approaches of academic activism and progressivism. The research questions are:

• How can educators utilize the philosophical traditions of academic activism and progressivism to enhance their teaching processes?
• What are the obstacles to the examined approaches, and how can alternative philosophical traditions complement the teaching models?

Methodology

The search strategy includes the literature review, primarily based on accessible academic databases, such as Google Scholar, and relevant publishers, such as Routledge and Springer (Table 1).

Reference List

Barnett, R. (2021) The philosophy of higher education: A critical introduction. Routledge.

Davids, N. and Waghid, Y. (2021) Academic activism in higher education: A living philosophy for social justice. Springer.

Hilt, L. T., Riese, H., & Søreide, G. E. (2019) Narrow identity resources for future students: The 21st century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(3), pp. 384-402.

Kaya, Ç. and Kaya, S. (2017) Prospective teachers educational beliefs and their views about the principles of critical pedagogy, Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), pp. 181-190.

Kooli, C., Zidi, C. and Jamrah, A. (2019) The philosophy of education in the sultanate of Oman: Between perennialism and progressivism, American Journal of Education and Learning, 4(1), pp. 36-49.

Pring, R. (2018) Philosophical debates on curriculum, inequalities and social justice, Oxford Review of Education, 44(1), pp. 6-18.

Quan et al. (2019) Empowerment and transformation: Integrating teacher identity, activism, and criticality across three teacher education programs, Review of Education, 41(4-5), pp. 218-251.

Shorb, P. N. (2019) Educational Progressivism, Cultural Encounters and Reform in Japan, Educational Studies in Japan, 13, pp. 169-171.

Rousseauism

The dream of a better life and the idea that each generation should live better than the previous one has made a decisive contribution to the pursuit of scientific and technological innovation, reform, and continuous progress. However, not all concepts agree that moving forward is tantamount to approaching a utopia. One of those that contradict this idea is the concept of Rousseauism. Hence, for example, these trams! They are always running up and down as though they were looking for the lost simplicity of nature. (Wells, 2018, p. 4). These words reflect Rousseauism, as they portray technology as overly complex and out of touch with nature. With these words, the author seeks to show the insignificance and meaninglessness of constant haste, which is contrary to the concept. The constant haste with which the author connects trams seems incomprehensible and unnecessary against the backdrop of nature, which underlies the values of Rousseauism.

Form of Utopianism that Opposes Rousseauism

The opposing concept is one in which progress, technology, and orderly man-made objects are united with nature. The houses clustered in their collegiate groups over by the high road. There were one or two Utopians cutting and packing the flowery mountain grass in the carefully leveled and irrigated meadows by means of swift, light machines that ran on things like feet and seemed to devour the herbage. (Wells, 2018, p. 6). These words give expression to a form of utopianism that opposes Rousseauism. These words emphasize the system and orderliness which cannot be created by nature. Combining the orderly arrangement of buildings, nature in the form of flowering grass, and technology in the form of light cars highlights the presence of technology and progress, without which such a concept of utopia cannot exist. This concept reflects precisely the orderliness and coherence of the work of man and technology, but not the perfect environment (Sargent, 2005). The combination of all these factors demonstrates that such a concept refers more to the harmony of man, technology, and the environment.

References

Sargent, L. T. (2005). What Is a Utopia? Web.

Wells, H.G. (2018). A modern Utopia. Web.

Introduction

Science has a history characterized by an incommensurate succession of paradigms. Kuhn asserts that a sole paradigms empirical work is of little significance to that of another (Kuhn, 1974). Comparing paradigms on identical grounds, for instance, empirical adequacy, proves inconclusive. Diverse paradigms differ on the meaning of truth or what makes up knowledge. The works of recent philosophers of science, such as Lakatos and Kuhn, nonetheless offer expectations regarding a scientific disciplines history. Comparing both Lakatoss and Kuhns notions offers veridical analysis. Two notable features separate Kuhns scientific accounts from that of Lakatos. First is the fact that Kuhn detached experimental evidence from its central place in earlier accounts, denying the decisive role of empirical evidence in the science of change: in the replacement of one paradigm by another. Second, he argued that claiming a paradigms objective superiority over another is impossible. Lakatos dismissed Kuhns views as an appeal to mob psychology. This paper presents the two philosophers views and shows that science is progressive.

Kuhns Notions

A look at the history of any science will show two unique activity types: revolutionary science and normal science. Normal science entails long periods of calm, during which the scientific community is working to increase and expand a theoretical accounts explanatory scope based on a sole set of fundamental beliefs (Kuhn, 1974). For the vast part, there is no questioning of an idea. Conversely, revolutionary science transpired in transitory, brief, chaotic periods when normal sciences previously supported fundamental beliefs were ditched and replaced. These set of fundamental beliefs were referred to as Paradigms by Kuhn. They entailed exceptional groupings of epistemology, methodology, and ontology.

Kuhn asserts that the beliefs that make up a paradigm are so fundamental that they are immune from empirical testing. The progressive nature of science can be seen in Kuhns notion as he further contends that experimental failure can cause the rejection of particular theories, but the paradigm will persist, directing new theories construction. The paradigm is central to the rational appraisable nature of scientific changes: it determines how scientists logically view the world. Without it, there is nothing based on which they can constrict theories. It is thus a cataclysmic happening when one paradigm is occasionally replaced by another. The old paradigms world is destroyed with it, and with its successor, there is the birth of a new one. This process signifies the most distinctive form of scientific change and is referred to as a scientific revolution. Some examples are the Copernican revolution, which substituted the Aristotelian world with that of Einstein and Newton, and later Newtons world was replaced.

Lakatos Notions

Lakatos replaced the Kuhnian paradigm with an entity referred to as a research program. The research program recognizes the progressive nature of science and its change over time with rational, discernible improvements. It entails a succession of theories connected by a mutual hard core of shared commitments. Sequentially each theory involves a more detailed new articulation of the commitments. The hardcore is protected from instant empirical refutation by a protective belt of dispensable suppositions. Features that are dispensable such as assumption simplification, are altered by the programs successive theories, with core conventions remaining intact. Another research programs imperative characteristic is its capability to stimulate the development of adequate and intricate theories. Lakatos referred to this development capacity as the heuristic and is construed as the programs objective feature.

In the process of maturity of a research program, the most common reason that a theory undergoes replacements is due to experimental failure. According to Lakatos, for a new theory to be acceptable, it must accommodate its predecessors success and bring into question the data that had brought the former theory(Imre, n.d). A good theory should do even more: it should lead to new experimentally verifiable predictions. When a research program comprises successor theories that meet these goals, they are called progressive.

A non-progressive program is referred to as degenerating. This denotes that a program has ceased temporarily to show new epifocal successes or predictions. However, if it is only possible to meet empirical anomalies through ad hoc maneuvers instead of the introduction of new effective theories, or if there are more problems raised by the new theories than they solve, then there may be an exhaustion of the heuristic and the need of a new research program. However, appraising a program as degenerating or progressive is not absolute. A programs recent performance is used to make a judgment. With adequate time an appraisal can become positive or vice versa.

Comparison of Kuhns a Lakatoss Notions

Comparison of the two notions offers a chance to see their variances and similarities. Lakatos characterizes Kuhns scientific revolution notions as the defeat of a research program by another (Imre, n.d). A few historical cases where a key scientific system was abandoned universally in favor of an incompatible rival fit the Kuhns model. However, the model fails to offer a veridical account of most cases of program replacement, and its application can be problematic. A judgments revisability regarding whether a program is degenerating or progressing makes it problematic to offer a final appraisal of any modern science. Comparing Kuhns incommensurability problem to Lakatos, the Lakatos model demonstrates a clear method of research strategies of rivals.

The two philosophers differ on how they view history. Lakatos assumed that the existence of various research programs simultaneously is the norm (Imre, n.d).There might be an exchange of elements among rival programs, and at times degenerative programs can be revived. Though Kuhn did not specify that science can only have a single paradigm at a time, his account resulted in this conclusion among many. From the incommensurability thesis, the implication that it is impossible to have real content continuity from one paradigm to another seems to be drawn. More so, after a paradigm is superseded, it should not recur. Most importantly, and lastly, Kuhn denied the fact that the replacement of one paradigm by another is what makes progress. However, Lakatos believed that empirical, theoretical progress allowed a preference that is reasoned from a research program over rivals in the historical cases that are most significant (Imre, n.d). It is evident that the two philosophers view history divergently.

Conclusion

From the paper it is clear that that science is progressive and the changes is rationally appraisable. From Kuhns view this is evident from his assertions that in the process of maturity of a research program, a theory undergoes replacements. The rationality is evident as he explains the reason that causes the replacement which he says is due to experimental failure. Lakatos, asserts that for a new theory to be acceptable, it must accommodate its predecessors success and bring into question the data that had brought the former theory (Imre, n.d). This shows its progressive nature and the fact that it must question its predecessor exemplifies the rationality in his notion. This assertions by the two philosophers also show the process of the advancement of new scientific beliefs which is logical: this shows a general method for the production of satisfactory results and methodological characteristics shift which is characterized by an irrevocable metamorphosis over time. The irrevocable metamorphosis being the logical process.

References

Imre, l. (n.d.). Science and Pseudoscience.

Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. University of Chicago Press, 1-7.