Meaning, Understanding, and the Politics of Interpretation

(14) For an argument that no contractual agreement on the two principles of justice occurs in the original position and that therefore the two principles are not justified by a contract, see Jean Hampton, "Contracts and Choices: Does Rawls Have a Social Contract Theory?" The Journal of Philosophy 77, 6 (June 1980): 315-38. (15) As Jeremy Waldron maintains, "When we move from asking what people actually accept to asking what they would accept under certain conditions, we shift our emphasis away from the will and focus on the reasons that people might have for exercising their will in one way rather than another." Waldron, p. 55. (16) This objection is due to Bruce Landesman.

Wittgenstein's 1913 Objections To Russell's Theory of Belief: A Dialectical Reading ABSTRACT: In what follows, I give (following Burton Dreben) a dialectical reading of his dismissal of metaphysics and of Wittgenstein's objections to Russell in 1913. I argue that Wittgenstein must be read as advocating no particular theory or doctrine — that is, philosophy is an activity and not a body of truths. Furthermore, this insistence is thoroughgoing. Put differently, a dialectical reading must be applied to one's own thought and talk. Characteristically, this sort of dialectical philosophy begins with the question, Is there any definiteness to what I am doing in my own thinking and speaking?

This paper critically examines Hume’s argument against the knowledge/existence of substantival mind. This denial is rooted in his epistemology which includes a theory of how complex ideas which lack corresponding impressions are manufactured by the imagination, in conjunction with the memory, on the basis of three relations among impressions: resemblance, continuity and constant conjunction. The crux of my critique consists in pointing out that these relations are such that only an enduring, unified agent could interact with them in the way Hume describes. I note that Hume attempts to provide such an agent by invoking the activities of imagination and memory, but that it is unclear where these belong in his system. After discussing the relevant possibilities, I conclude that there is no category within the limits of his system that can accommodate the faculties and allow them to do the work Hume assigned to them.

While cosmopolitanism allows for some state autonomy, the moral standard would mean that some ... ... middle of paper ... ...t state autonomy cannot be restricted by anything but the community (state) itself. As one might assume, it follows from these differing standpoints that the way each theory view intervention, etc., will be in opposition. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A) (Chris Brown, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 480A) (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A) Cosmopolitanism and communitarianism differ vastly in the way they, as intellectual concepts, deal with international relations. Cosmopolitanism holds the view that the rights of humanity and the individual should override those of the state (or political community), whereas communitarianism is the opposite. It states that the rights of the community are more important than those of the state.

Having the free will to write an essay on the “implications of determinism for our understanding of free will” clearly shows that we have the free will to write the essay and the implication for failure of not writing is our decision. Upon reading this essay the free will to decide to write the essay was decided upon by the writer. It was already determined before embarking on this course that an essay would need to be written. Therefore, as logic would have it, it would be irrational to say that determinism and free will are not compatible. What needs to be illustrated is that an individual interpretation of this long standing philosophical argument is that there are many implications of determinism.

Determinism according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "A philosophical doctrine holding that every event, mental as well as physical, has a cause, and that, the cause being given, the event follows invariably. This theory denies the element of chance or contingency." Also like to other definition for free will this is confusing and incomplete to the reader. I think that determinism is a theory that every event has a cause and effect and that once a cause is stated than the event will follow. Now that we have a clear picture of the issues being discussed we need to talk about the philosophers.

As a result, linear definitions do not and cannot apply. This may be why Michel Foucault rejected the sole title of a “poststructuralist” although he largely lays the groundwork for poststructuralism, insisting on its circular nature in which knowledge reinforces “truth”, which assumes power. Foucault finds that truth games are grabs for power in which individuals convey a truth through use of historical resources and specificity to express its legitimacy, which encapsulates modern society and its practices in discourse. What Foucault examines and critiques is society’s oft unhealthy yet habitual dalliance ... ... middle of paper ... ...We have simulated and innovated a “better” world--an ideal type in which our physical reality does not measure up. Since we are subjective beings, we have a need for meaning.

This essay discussed John Locke’s view about the Will’s being Free and how he concluded that the Will was not free. This is an outcome that he discovered while writing On Power on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I have offered reasons for why this is an argument that seems to contradict itself, which makes it inconsistent and unstable.

So where does this leave the political theorist? There appear to be two options. The first of these options is to abandon all hope of ever having a foundational theory of legitimate government. It is better to throw in the towel than to give in to speculation. This suggests that the political theorist can only make use of existing governments, constitutions, decrees, actions, and the such to investigate legitimate government.

It has become natural to see the signifier of the physical writing on the page, to produce a signified Author that has written the words. Yet, Barthes argues that this natural inclination is based on a myth that has been created, that tells the reader that writing must have a ‘stop clause’. In an act similar to the transvestite, Barthes destroys the idea that the myths of society are naturally occurring, and attempts to convince the reader that to find meaning from the author is not what we should do, but what we have been conditioned to