The concept of Orientalism is a European created mirror reflecting itself. The Orientalist described himself by defining the Oriental and this helped him be superior. The representation of the Orient through arts and literature empower the thought of Orientalism, and whereas people at large will write their own history, i feel this distorts the facts and results in misconceptions about the Orient.
He tries to prove his concepts through the words of statesmen, including Britain's Evelyn Baring Cromer. Cromer's words reflect the concepts introduced by Said. According to Said, one definition of Orientalism is that it is a "style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between 'the Orient' and the 'Occident'." This is connected to the idea that Western society, or Europe in this case, is superior in comparison to cultures that are non-European, or the Orient. This means that Orientalism is a kind of racism held toward anyone not European.
His counterclaims to some theories are rather redundant and weak. He clearly disagrees with Nietzsche’s take on truth, but did not provide convincing backup claims to defend his position of why the question “What is truth?” is unnecessary. In addition, Lynch’s argument towards the redundancy theory is also not clear and satisfactory enough because simply dismissing objections as blind generalizations gives a sense that he has nothing better to say to defend his position. One of the theories mentioned believes that power is the source of motivation behind truth to which I have to disagree. There are many factors, like self-interest, morality, and knowledge, that motivate the will to truth and power is only one of the many and cannot be used as the overarching factor.
It is not just the case that we can have all kinds of good reasons for what we believe, though those reasons do not quite measure up to the standards required by genuine knowledge. The radical sceptic questions whether we ever have the slightest reason for believing one thing rather than another, so we can never even get to the point of justified belief, never mind whether our justifications are sufficient for knowledge, in some more restricted sense. The second crucial feature of philosophical scepticism concerns its scope. The philosophical sceptic's negative verdict on human knowledge is highly general. This generality explains why philosophical scepticism formulates its challenge in terms of the possibility of knowledge.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
Rachels asks that "from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter?" His answer is that "no," and that the answer one could derive is that one of those beliefs is altogether incorrect and wrong. Here Rachels' statement seems to negate that which he wants to negate but it is through manipulation of the parties involved and the adding of "facts' that aren't there. These two cultures in his example to not disagree about anything, there are simply two different ways they deal with death. Because they are different, doesn't necessarily imply there is any disagreement.
He believed that the Europeans designed the new modern society but the Americans really c... ... middle of paper ... ...that the Americans did in fact influence the Enlightenment movement because the Enlightenment ideas and beliefs were tried out for real in the government of the United States. Commager’s view is so unique because most historians just see this as a result of the Old Worlds actions. They still believe that the main credit should go to the Old World for the men that created the Enlightened ways. Within cultural history, historians also studied regionalism to analyze what occurred within a society as a result of the Enlightenment. Dena Goodman illustrated the regionalism from the Enlightenment in her Republic of Letters.
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.
The Orient became the subject, the seen, the observed, the studied; Orientalist philosophers were the apprentices, the overseers, the observers. The Orient was quiescent; the West was dynamic. This is a rather unfortunate position both for the West and the 'Orient'. The students used their position of perceived understanding to further compel 'Oriental' people into subservience while simultaneously justifying their actions. They protected their conscience by convincing themselves that the 'Orient' was incapable of running itself, thus their territory must be administered for them.
Orientalism as Edward Said wrote about in his book is still seen happening today. Orientalism has shaped who we are as a western culture and who the Orient is as the Eastern cultures, there are many debates between wheatear or not Edward Said was correct in his book, however at this point in history I believe it is more important to start looking at how the East can speak up for themselves and start to define who they really are.