Jacques Derrida has been accused of writing in a deliberately obtuse and obfuscated manner, so the relationship between his work and that of Plato's might not be immediately discernible. Perhaps the clearest connection between the two can be derived from Derrida's of Grammatology, especially as it compares to Plato's aesthetics and view of reality. In this rather dense treatise, Derrida first outlines the phenomenon of what he calls logocentrism -- the attitude that speech (logos in Greek) is the most basic and essential form of language, while writing is secondary in development and its ability to reflect meaning. Derrida claims that logocentrism has long been a silent and foundational part of Western thought, even from the time of Plato.
Plato believed that truth and meaning existed in a pure state somewhere, with the shadows of meanings existing in our own world. Derrida sees this as a flawed worldview, though not without potential. He uses some of Plato's thinking to deconstruct logocentrism. If speech is merely a representation of thought, and writing just a representation of speech, than writing is a representation of a representation -- the evil mimesis of Plato's aesthetics. Through his method of deconstructing such binary oppositions, Derrida makes it clear (or at least as clear as he ever makes anything) that both speech and writing our subservient to each other, and actually create meaning. This has to do with the deceptively simple concepts of presence and absence -- writing is present for the reader, whereas speech is always-already absent, having passed before the thoughts it contains can be processed. Derrida then claims not hat writing is more important than speech, but that both are equally adept at creating meaning and not merely represnting it; there is no...
Philosophy and Morality INSTRUCTIONS The exam consists essays. Please essays document. Please plagiarize. Be paraphrase verbatim language authors putting quotation marks. You document sources, -text citation ( footnotes) a reference page. Philosophy John Arthur's "Morality, Religion, and Conscience," A concern on the relationship between morality and religion is an ancient argument that continues in philosophy in the present times. The argument is mainly on whether morality emanates from an institution or religious background. Theologians
Knowledge and truth were considered absolute and immutable by these two, though for very different reasons, which is the complete antithesis to the empirical theories of Popper, Peirce, Kuhn, and James. The progression of knowledge in the face of such certainty could only result in pure growth from previously established claims, as no truth could ever be said to exist that was not thoroughly and absolutely proved by careful
philosophy of science as developed by empiricists such as David Hume and completed by the logical positivist group. Why do they think truth can be best found by using the senses, the experimental method, and probability? Explain the verifiability theory and its meaning for such subjects as God, the super-natural, justice, morality, and political science. What are the advantages and the limitations of this philosophical view? The "Verifiability" or "Verificationist
3). The naturalist position is further "bolstered" by a fundamental faith in the veracity of sensory inputs and human cognitive processes, a faith that is woefully misplaced. In fact, the naturalist belief in random evolution undermines any belief in the ability of human senses to derive truth about the workings of the universe (Plantinga 2). Those who believe in a supernatural deity often believe that said deity imbued human beings
E., it removes subjectivity as a vantage point). It is also hard to tell how much unhappiness is created and how to weigh it against the happiness that is created (e.g., how much George would hate his job?, how much suffering will the warmonger go through because he did not get this job?). Further, quantification of happiness or suffering becomes a real issue when trying to determine things on a
Within its strict perspective of humanity, there is no room for free will; actions are automatic responses to prompts from one's surroundings. It goes without saying that behaviorists do not allow for mankind's soul; this does not rest well with most, particularly with theologians and religious leaders. Naturally, such perspectives on humanity are not acceptable to many. What's more, behaviorism is harshly reproached for its inability to generalize behavior.
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now