Amongst them the german-Jewish émigré to the United States, hans Morgenthau, came to have the largest impact on the field. In his magnum opus from 1948, politics Among Nations, morgenthau formulated an account of political realism that dominated the studies of international politics for over two generations. Eventually, the intellectual hegemony of Morgenthaus classical realism was succeeded by the founding father of neorealism, kenneth Waltz. Waltzs attempt to develop a systemic and scientific realism in his 1979 book. Theory of International Politics divided this school of thought into two blocks: classical realism and neorealism. The purpose of this essay is to compare and contrast these two realist traditions by engaging with the works of Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz.
How to Write a reading Response Essay with Sample papers
He devotes the first half of his book to laying out the massive collection of neuroscientific evidence showing that we have absolutely no idea whats going on in our own brains—let alone control. I am embarrassed that I discovered gazzaniga's work only a few weeks ago. But i am also encouraged because his findings help me flesh out my Flatland theory of how the mind functions, particularly some of the things I laid out. Part iii, where i talk about the cognitive origins of bullshit. I am working now on an essay about consciousness, free will, gazzaniga's work and related subjects. I hope to publish it in the near future. In the videos below, bear in mind that gazzaniga's interpretation of his work and my own views about it do not necessarily coincide. Comparing and Contrasting Classical realism and neorealism: a re-examination of Hans Morgenthaus and Kenneth Waltzs Theories of International Relations. Introduction, realists often trace their intellectual roots to Thucydides classic account for of the peloponnesian War in the fifth-century. It would however take nearly 2,500 years before the study of international politics became an institutionalized academic discipline and for the first classical realists in the newly established field to emerge.
I'll skip the Flatland bullshit and" the part that matters. Free will—do we have it or not? Today, in the hot field of neuroscience, the trendy view, michael gazzaniga writes, is the bleak view. Gazzaniga's view is "trendy" only if scientific work counts for exactly nothing, which is the dominant Flatland perspective. Everything we do, think, feel, say, or fail to do is determined by our neural circuitry. The brain reigns supreme, tugging the mind along in its wake. The underlying contention, gazzaniga writes, "is that free will is just happy talk.".
Michael gazzaniga, who heads the sage center for the Study of Mind at the University of California, santa barbara. Gazzaniga is the author of several books, most importantly. Free will and the Science of the Brain, published in 2011. The long and the short of it is that there is no free will and there is no ghost in the machine (Cartesian dualism, the "homunculus" inside your head). Gazzaniga's work with split brain patients reveals the existence of something he calls "The Interpreter which turns out to be the brain's storyteller (bullshitter). It is located in the left hemisphere. You can read about the interpreter here and here. There is a long video (part iii of the gazzaniga's Gifford Lectures) devoted to this subject. For those of you who want the short version, there is a review of gazzaniga's take on free will issue at the.
Reading Literature makes Us Smarter and Nicer
I essay have done that lately out of feelings of overwhelming disgust, a typical human emotion. Destruction of the biosphere? Grotesque income and wealth inequality everywhere? Grinding, hopeless poverty in the "wealthy nations" (United States and Europe)? Davos elites planning our future?
We all know about these ongoing human-caused catastrophes, and, predictably, they are all getting worse in what is now a global economy. Does more need to be said about how disgusting all this is? The only subject now worth my time is trying to explain how the human animal functions. In so doing, one attempts to explain to other "conscious" people why the human condition is basically a crock of shit. The few people who "get" that are the only ones worth talking. Everybody else is part of the problem. Toward that end, i would like to introduce the work of cognitive neuroscientist.
I also realize that not everyone is Catholic and holds the same beliefs that I do, but there are alternative solutions in place of the death penalty. Some crimes and murders are gruesome and the guilty deserve a heavy punishment. Life in prison seems like a bad enough punishment to me, to know that you will die in jail and never get to enjoy the privilege of freedom ever again. A life sentence and rehabilitation are a more rational form of punishment and more practical way of spending money than to waste it on an execution. Solving a problem is a better way to deal with it than just killing the problem. In conclusion I feel that the death penalty is wrong and unjust.
There are alternative solutions for the death penalty. A life sentence is more ideal than to kill a human. It will cost us more money in order to keep performing executions and an easy way out for the person who is being executed. I dont believe that I have the right nor does any person in this world have the right to determine the death of another individual. I've been doing some thinking over the last few weeks, and i've decided a few things—i am exercising whatever free will have. First, i am no longer interested in describing this predictable human atrocity or that one.
The lexile Framework for reading - lexile
Pat Holt, a freshman at quincy the University, stated, if someone kills then they deserve to be killed no matter what. He also said that it would just be easier than spending money on them for rehabilitation. I proposed to pat the fact that in most cases it would cost more to put them to death rather than give the person a life sentence. His reply: The person deserves to die at all costs, and they are to me a waste of space and should die. I can understand slogan where he is coming from yet I still dont buy. As a christian and a student in Catholic schools my whole life i believe in forgiveness no matter how bad the crime may. I would rather spend the money for an execution on helping a person than on killing them.
she fought to keep the young man from sitting on death row. I was thunderstruck, and as I watched I was speechless. This woman was, in my eyes, truly amazing and fully understood how pointless the death penalty really. In the end the killer received life in prison, which to me is a very suitable punishment for the crime. I hope i would do the same if I were in her shoes. The woman obviously thought the death penalty was wrong and ineffective, but why? Why do some people feel that the death penalty is true justice? In order to fully understand why someone would support the death penalty i asked a fellow classmate.
The law states that its wrong to commit murder yet a judge or a jury has the power to put a person to death. If murder is against the law then why do the courts feel its necessary to kill a human being? Im not saying that what Jack ronald Jones did was right and he doesnt deserve any punishment. Im saying that the punishment is quite foolish. I could never buy the concept of The code of Hammurabi: an eye for an eye. The death penalty, much like suicide is just an easy way of dealing with a problem. As I flip the coin and look on the other side i wonder what I would do if someone i knew was murdered in the way stephanie ann Roper business was.
Neil gaiman: Why our future depends on libraries, reading
Death Penalty 9 Essay, research Paper. After reading The death Penalty by william Raspberry several topics surfaced in my mind. The death penalty is unjust and very ridiculous sentence for a human being. Capital punishment is not as effective as most people believe. There are alternative and beneficial solutions in place of the death penalty. Why we have the death penalty is very puzzling question. Personally i believe statement the death penalty is a hypocritical decision.