 |
Wonder Girl would it be terribly rude of me to go to sleep. I have been up since 8 studying and now my eyes have gotten so heavy that I am starting to fall asleep. Do you think we can keep discussing this tomorrow? If you have time because I think discussing it with you is really helping me. Thank you so much x a billion for your help. I'll talk to you tomorrow hopefully :)
P.S I'll wait till you respond before going to bed.
To be sure! Go to bed! I'm a night owl.
Sleep well, and see you tomorrow.
Thanks so much. See you tomorrow!
Let's begin to pull this together.
"Is it right to force democracy on other countries?"
You have only eight pages. The Intro (and thesis statement, definition of terms) may take up most of the first page. Figure out how you want to lay out the rest of the paper 1) with the "yes" discussion taking up, say, three pages, and the "no" discussion taking up three pages, and then the conclusion at the end on page 8, or 2) you can name your philosophers and the quotes that apply for "yes" and for "no" on four pages, and then throw them all together into a discussion section on pages 6 and 7, then the conclusion on page 8. I personally would go with choice 1) -- sounds more organized and cohesive.
Also, choose your philosophers for each discussion. We've talked about some, but be sure to use those your teacher would approve of. As Athos mentioned, some think Rand was the cat's meow, and others think she was a kook. The Transcendentalists were essayists (and philosophers in a way), but your teacher may spit on them. So be careful whom you choose to be in your paper.
I'd chose three or four philosophers for each side of my discussion, depending on how much value you can get out of each one and how much room you have in your paper.
A) Yes - social determinism, the residents of that country need to give up their old ways and become like "us," must be unified as a whole country, unified in purpose of all for one. Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.
B) No - individualism/self-determinism, the residents of the country are a unique people with their own culture(s) and must be left alone to continue to live as they have always lived (autonomy). Also, changing styles of governing will take generations with probably great resistance and possibly ultimate failure, so is it worth the struggle? Decide on which three or four philosophers fall into this, find quotes that apply, and fit them into the discussion.
Conclusion, restatement of thesis, summing up, etc.
Whaddya think?
I was also thinking of maybe including utilitarianism as part of the reason why they force democracy. How does that sound ?
Okay. I can go with that. Philosophical utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) says that an action is right if it tends to promote "happiness" -- e.g. human rights, social programs to help the least of those among us, etc. The opposite would be egoism, self-motivation, self-interest, individualism, self-determinism.
Do you think that is a good idea? Then I can use that as one of my main arguments for forcing democracy. Would that mean that I could also use the social determinism
Sounds good to me.
I thought social determinism was already part of the paper.
Okay!
Is there any other points on why we should not force democracy on other countries. In terms of a philosophical example.
What reasons do you have so far?Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Hi! Wonder Girl
Well, I am almost done my essay! I just have to write one more paragraph for my last point but sadly I can't think of any. My other points are self determinism and individualism
Do you have a conclusion?
What about the argument that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries?
It's beyond individualism and social-determination. In fact, it's the thing that should be considered first, before the idea of individualism vs. self-determinism kicks in. I think it's a good way to end your discussion of the two points. Or even make it the conclusion.
How would I go about writing that like what kinds of theories would I use to support this idea
Here's one --
Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that presumes that a society's technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values. The term is believed to have been coined by Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), an American sociologist.
Use tech determinism as a third possibility, and then conclude with a summarization and the final comment that democracy isn't necessarily the best thing since sliced bread, that other forms of government can work well for countries. Or something like that.
What do you think?
I like it but I think that I have to research it
Now, I only have to do the conclusion and introduction but I'm not sure how to go about doing them. I wanted to use the example of saying that democracy should not be forced and it is similar to a this scenario imagine someone holding a gun to your head and telling you to learn to like seafood;you can force someone to eat it,but not to like it,and chances are good that they'll stop eating as soon as the gun is taken away.
Definitely! And it's not directly opposed to either of the other two.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Sounds like tribal Afghanistan being forced to become a unified republic and a democracy. As soon as the US leaves, guess what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Haa that's true
The downside to tech determinism is that it focuses on technology and I would not know how to tackle this topic. Do you possibly have any other ideas.
And where do you think Iraq is going with the Sunnis and Shiites "leading" the country? (I won't even mention the Kurds.)
I know I am asking too much but do you think that you can maybe explain to me of how your thinking about tech determinism
Individualism says be tough and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, no matter who you have to trample. Social determinism says be kind like Jesus and help the least among you. Tech determinism says technology, or technological advances, is the central causal element in processes of social change, one that drives forward the government, the economy, the population, production, etc. with ricochet effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
This is off the top of my head (with help from Wikipedia), so maybe it's worth exploring, or maybe you hate it. Maybe there's another "determinism" that can be used.
I am not sure. I am so screwed I am almost done and this last point is getting me frustrated because you have no idea what to write about. And it is taking way too long to think of something to write about. This essay is due on Friday and I was hoping on finishing my introduction,conclusion, and second paragraph today so all I would have to do for tomorrow is edit the essay and put on finishing touches.
Sorry but for "u" I meant me
How about the theory of democratization?
Tell me more (briefly). How would that fit?
I'm "researching." Yeah, that could work as a third possibility for promoting democracy and should be easy to throw in.
Here's an abstract from a paper on the subject --
It has been a venerable proposition among liberals that trade will facilitate the spread of democracy in the world. Despite the long history behind this proposition going back to the 18th century, we are still quite ignorant of the exact mechanism through which trade can foster democracy.
By combining a two-factor two-country model of international trade and a political model of strategic optimization by dictatorial rulers in face of the threat of anti-regime movements from below, this paper proposes a theory of democratization in an era of globalization. To put it succinctly, trade liberalization beyond a certain point will compel the dictatorial rulers to relax political coercion; the resulted political relaxation will expand the room for the development of democratic institutions under authoritarian regimes. This theory is firmly corroborated by empirical data for the period of 1981-2002.
As you edit, be sure to watch out for mixing up self determinism and social determinism.
self determinism = individualism = free choice
Yeah, I think I got the hang of the two theories of self determinism and individualism. But, I am having a bit of hard time trying to understand my third point. See my teacher wants us to do a philosophy paper right the only think is that instead of being a five paragraph essay it is a 6. so it goes like this intro-body#1,Body#2,Body#3, Rebuttal (basically state what the other side says and shoot it down), and conclusion. So I finished body 1 and 2 and rebuttal. My conclusion won't be that difficult it is just the last argument and intro is what is kind of getting me stuck.
Wait a minute! Those two are the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
It's self determinism (individualism, free choice) vs. social determinism.
Self vs. social.
Intro presents your case and includes your thesis statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Body#1? Topic
Body#2? Topic
Body#3? Topic
Rebuttal (what vs. what?)
Conclusion restates the thesis and summarizes your arguments and decides if there is a "winner" (or not).
Mmm Here Is An Idea...
Key Words.
Forcing
Democracy...
They Can't Be Used Together Really. So The Theory Is An Oxymoron.
You Can't Force Democracy. If It Is Forced, It Ceases Being Democracy And Becomes A Dictatorship.
On a side note, I always preferred the '5para essay' format.
Intro
Paragraph 1
2
3
4
Etc as needed.
Conclusion.
I use a web design. A circle with the main theme of the paper in the center, and then branches off the circle with different points you want to make in the paper.
I am having a bit of trouble writing the 1st paragraph I have tried but so far it sounds bad
What's your first sentence of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by sandyforever
Democratization is a process in which a political system becomes a democracy.
I would really appreciate your help because I am so stressed and this point is getting me frustrated.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:45 AM. |