Transcendental arguments are therefore all but common sense. They are in no respect "realistic" or ontologically dependent. (2) Whoever wants to get familiar with transcendentalism — perhaps just in order to criticize one or several of its representatives — must overcome the threshold of open or covert realism and ordinary experience. One also has to avoid the common misunderstanding that transcendental reconstruction represents a form of idealism. So this kind of philosophy seems to be a fortiori charged to give a good deal of pedagogical help for its own sake.
It is for this very reason that the audience cannot loathe Farfrae, as he is simply obtuse about certain areas of life. The audience do dislike him, but there is not a good enough reason to really detest him. I believe Thomas Hardy has created a complex character that brings out a wide range of responses from different people but I hope I have given substantiation to what opinion of Farfrae I think Hardy was trying to communicate to the audience.
On the topic of “orientalism”, Edward Said is certainly not lacking in opinions. His understanding is that when the Europeans created a division between the western and eastern worlds, the western, civilized nations came to be called the occident, and the eastern, less civilized nations were thus referred to as the orient. Said saw a concern however, when the Europeans began generalizing those attributes which they associated with the orient, and then including them in scientific findings and media which would be seen by and thus influence the ideas of the western world. As a result of his understanding of orientalism and his strong arguments against the Western bias, Said is often seen as either a powerful corrective to this bias or a hindrance to open discussion on the topic. Though I cannot say that I wholly agree with either side, I would argue that Edward Said does more to hinder open discussion than he does to correct the bias, which is both evidenced in his own writings as well as those of his dissenting contemporaries.
Orientalism Orientalism is the "way" or discourse in which the Western imperial subject produces it self as sovereign subject in an act of dissimulation. The topic of Orientalism is rather interesting given that Orientalism is seen as a “mode of thought based upon a particular epistemology and ontology which establishes a profound division between the Orient and the Occident” (Turner, 1994:p96). This division is what Said (2003) states to be, “the basic distinction between the East and West” and one which leads to the “reduction and misrepresentation of the East by the West” (Stanley, 2013). This distinction is primarily due to Orientalism being the preconceived belief held by Occident’s on the types of people (orients) that live in the east and how their lifestyle and cultural beliefs, reflecting on the way they act. However, these ideologies are formed about the Orients by the Occident’s without meeting or visiting the inhabitants (Orients) (Said 2003; Akintunde E Akinade 2010: Jack G Shaheen 2009; Mahdi 1985).Thus, we can understand that Orientalism isn’t something that has been made up by theorist; however it is the discourse on the ways the east is perceived by the west.
Middle East, and the Western culture have for a long time served as implicit justifications for the European and American Imperial ambitions. In light of this, Said denounced the practice of influential Arabs who contributed to the internalization of Arabic culture ideas by US and British orientalists. Thus, his hypothesis that Western scholarship on Muslim was historically flawed and essentially continues to misrepresent the reality of Muslim people. In lieu to this, Said quotes that, “So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Muslims and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Therefore, very few details such as human density, the passion of Arab-Muslim life has entered the awareness of even the people whose profession revolve around reporting of the Arab world.
John Stuart Mill famously criticized Immanuel Kant and his theory of the Categorical Imperative by arguing that, “[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.” If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness.
Cromer was England's representative in Egypt between 1882 and 1907. He believed in European supremacy and called Egyptians, and all other people he considered Oriental, subject races. He justified European occupation in Egypt with this idea of superio... ... middle of paper ... ...e. This idea is shown through Cromer's words as well. Two quotes perfectly show what Said is trying to get across to the reader. Cromer states: I content myself with noting the fact that somehow or another the Oriental generally acts speaks and thinks in a matter exactly opposite to the European.
It should no longer be possible after Auschwicz to seriously consider arguments for relativism and ‘anti-perfectionism’ which depend for their validity on considering genocide as a possible human value. Inheritors of ‘the’ Enlightenment should not use such a Hobbesian concept of rationality against ‘perfectionist’ theories of rationality, of which Marx’s—as an inheritor of both enlightenments—was undoubtedly one.
In the play the Western and Eastern cultures of the world are symbolised by those who reside in them. Caesar for example, personifies the strict and unbending duty of the West. While Cleopatra, in all her pretentious magnificence, embodies the graceful passions of the East. Caesar’s anxieties right through the play are undoubtedly imposing: he means to occupy foreign lands in order to endow them with traditions of his own. But the play opposes siding with this imposing impulse.
He believes that by continuing to emulate European values and culture, Americans are essentially destroying their own chance of possessing a national identity. Emerson viewed self-reliance, which can be understood as finding inspiration, judgment and validation of thoughts and ideas within oneself, as one of the central tenets of the fledgling American national identity. It may seem counterintuitive to think that Emerson, a proponent of radical and unapologetic individualism, desired to create a shared American identity and national unity; however, it is necessary to discern that nonconformity is not tantamount to the repudiation of society. By exalting nonconformity, he does not promote the hedonistic active pursuit of personal desires in spite of social norms, like an anarchist, but rather urges the reader to wholly fulfill their human potential. Consequently, the embracing of the self is not a consequence of free agency, but rather the fulfillment of their innate des... ... middle of paper ... ...ay at home, to put itself in communication with the internal ocean, but it goes abroad to beg a cup of water of the urns of men” (543).