The relationship between problem-solving theory and neo-realism is that they share the flawed notion of assuming that theory can be universally valid. His stance on the outgrown position neo-realism has within IR shows through his dismissiveness towards problem-solving theory and his likeness towards critical theory. Cox gives pros and cons of both problem-solving and critical theory, describing the relationship between them as “the strength of one is the weakness of the other” (Cox, 1981: 129). However, when disproving the value-free status of theory, he focuses mainly on problem-solving, concluding that its strength of assuming a fixed point of reference is actually an ideological bias (Cox, 1981: 129). He comes to this conclusion by labelling problem-solving theory as conservative and value bound to the prevailing order.
This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill. Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems.
In this paper I will be sketching a brief survey of the phenomenology of Husserl and Heidegger. Husserl's Transcendental Phenomenology Edmund Husserl is considered to be the modern founder of phenomenology. Though later phenomenology abandoned many of his assumptions and aims, it did so by working through them, criticizing and revising them, so that many of his key concepts are preserved even if in a different form. Even Husserl's own self-critique has led him to abandon his early idealism -- his quest for indubitable, universal structures of knowledge in the cogito -- to see meaning in the "lived world" (Lebenswelt) -- a notion which places consciousness in the body, history, and the social world where existential phenomenology begins. Similarly self-transformative, Husserl's analysis of what he calls "intentionality" lead to theories of knowledge and interpretation that question his original goal of developing a "presuppositionless philosophy" that was purely descriptive in its methods.
This is because in reconstructing his body of knowledge, Descartes made use of many assumptions that he had not shown to have escaped the fires of the Method of Doubt. 'It uses all sorts of scholastic maxims... No reason is given for acc... ... middle of paper ... ...ding Kant and Husserl. However, by uncritically holding the causal model of perception as true, Descartes did not apply his Method of Doubt as fully as he could have done. By accepting the causal model of perception, Descartes held on to an unhelpful presupposition of what is meant by the external and internal worlds. This presupposition leads, through the malicious demon argument, to solipsism.
Are Spinozistic Ideas Cartesian Judgements? Abstract Some commentators of Spinoza maintain that Spinozistic ideas are judgements. I shall call this view the common interpretation, since it is popular to interpret Spinoza as reacting against Descartes’s theory of ideas and accordingly consider Spinozistic ideas not as Cartesian ideas, but as Cartesian judgements. The clearest difference between Descartes and Spinoza here is that whereas Descartes thought that ideas are passive, Spinoza thought the opposite. The concept of activity plays accordingly an important role in interpreting Spinoza’s theory of ideas.
2011. 621). Unlike Smith, Bentham believed that this was actually wrong, then then he proposed the idea to embrace an organizing principle called utilitarianism. To define ... ... middle of paper ... ...hought of changing it, it was because society was asking for and criticizing some of the things that needed change. I see Mills work as more development and refining of the work of Bentham rather than a combating idea.
These include Strawson’s objection to the attributive use. Also, the problems of ignorance and error raised by Kripke tarnish the description theory’s attractiveness. The Twin-Earth thought experiment is decisively refutes the theory. The Description Theory of Meaning The description theory of meaning replaced the overly simplified reference theory, which posited that meaning was derived from a word-world relationship. There were however, many faults with the reference theory.
Bennett believes that all these techniques are in some sense flawed. My contention is that Bennett offers good criticism against 'reflecting on determinism'-technique but that his criticism against 'separating and joining'-technique as well as against 'turning passions into actions'-technique is not well-founded. The paper devotes most space to the 'turning passions into actions'-technique. However, before considering Bennett's view of Spinoza's psychotherapy, I will give an overview of Spinoza's theory of activity and passivity. II.
Critical theory appears unpopular probably because of its ideological bias as claimed by Pease, Form and Rytina (1970). Liebert and Imershein (1977) similarly assert that a common theoretical tendency in community research is a distinctly “political theme that tends to find the greatest efficacy and power, and indeed the most universal structure of power, to lie in a certain organized diversity, a pluralist state of subsystems within an integrated system of elites” (pp. 191-192). The primary aim of critical theory, as James Bohman (2005) notes, is to thwart oppression. This theory was not only used by incorporating the best tools but more importantly, to critique what is happening within the research context.
By attacking his principle of Casual Individuation of Kinds I will show that Kim has failed to find the correct conclusion. Furthermore, I will consider a possible objection that Kim might have to my stance and give a short rebuttle. I will conclude by explicating Jerry Fodor’s account of what is Kim’s essential problem is. By showing that Kim’s conclusion fails it will entail that Fodor’s conclusion is more viable in reality. Jaegwon Kim thinks that multiple realizability of mental properties would bring about the conclusion that psychology is most likely not a science.