Schoolwork and essays from secondary school
Search schoolwork

Kill are human approach

Topic: Society
| More

The approach modern man today is a mixture of many ages and I can not completely identify myself with any of epochs. However, there are many thoughts, mostly in the Enlightenment, which I can recognize myself in. When did man a break from his childhood and took courage to use their own common sense rather than just rely on any congenital or old authorities, as the church or Aristoteles.5 It's great that you use a's Notes, but it feels a little weird to start with number five ...
"Dare to know! Show courage to use your own understanding "called Kant their läsare1. Locke developed the ideas further and saw that all human knowledge is based on experience, which is called empiricism. Bacon had during the Renaissance given the research a method.1 to think for yourself I think this is one of the most important. It's what makes us human. Already during the Renaissance pronounced Descartes' famous theorem; "I think, therefore I am." 4 By his way of gaining knowledge existed he was in the borderland between the Enlightenment and Renaissance. He turns namely against the traditional way of acquiring knowledge and thought that you can not gain knowledge if one does not begin with a radically tvivel.6 This was something that Newton did when he came upon the law of gravity and thus could explain something previously completely incomprehensible, so that ebb and flow, gravity on the moon and bodies acceleration in a closed system.
Enlightenment thinkers believed that all people by nature have received some basic rights such as the right to life, liberty and egendom2. It seems pretty obvious to me that 2000's of humans with natural law, but earlier it was very common with slavery, life-feature (to be serfs?) And barbaric punishment. The US was the first country who signed a convention built on these ideas of natural law 4. Paradoxically, it is one of the few developed countries today that retain the death penalty. The notion that all people have equal value brought demands for consistent similarity. The injustice class privileges began to be considered unreasonable for samhällsordningen.1 This complete analogy with my own thoughts when I believe that all people are equal irrespective of which ethnic group they belong to and how well off they are.
During the Enlightenment, it was Rousseau who went furthest in this public debate. He believed that private ownership had helped to create klasskillnaderna.1 He also felt a sooner Oman oriented way that humans did not live a happier life thanks to modern civilization. "Let us return to nature!" Is one of his winged uttryck.1 Although neither the industrial revolution had not taken place when Rousseau said this, or that I in no way is a reactionary when it comes to technology, I still think there are very thoughtful in his reasoning. Perhaps today we would be happier if our materialistic approach is not continued its development. Or else we had as one of Voltares protagonists Candide when he got tired of Eldorado 5, the best of worlds, known boredom and again started Strive for what we do not have.
Rousseau thought books only get people to talk about what they do not know till.2 This I disagree about when I think that the best knowledge is obtained by a combination of both practice and theory. Rousseau believes that children should only be read Defoe's Robinson Crusoe, which was a tidtypisk novel about a man who gets stuck on an island. The book is not only an exciting adventure, but also a moral and instructive story. In the story, one can follow how Robinson only through its sense living through all of human cultural history, from a primitive stage to a fully developed. In puritanical spirit appreciates Robinson's work highly and it is only the laborious who achieve wealth and thus lycka.6 Self I do not think money is happiness, but of course you have to work hard to achieve their dreams. Something else I denounce in the typical Enlightenment novel is that it is largely morally blind. An example is when Robinson escaping from pirates off the coast of Africa and sells a young Arab boy to them in order to get freedom. The agreement includes that the boy should be set free after ten years, if he then transferred to Christianity. In other words; freedom from slavery and religion is something that just comes to white Christians människor.3
I do not believe in a kingdom by the Grace of God by Louis XIV as a model. Something closer to my mind, is where some of the philosophers of the Enlightenment ideas about how a country should be governed. Locke believed that the king through a community lecture would have the right to rule, but the law is removed if he abuses his trust. Montesquieu believed that power should be divided between three to autonomously bodies; an executive (king / president), a legislature (people's representatives) and a judiciary (courts) power. 1 The US is still applying this type of separation of powers and we could its shortcomings in the last presidential election. Should a court to determine who becomes president in one of the world's most powerful countries? Should we not had an election instead?
Another Enlightenment philosopher who had thoughts of separation of powers was Voltaire. He feared that if the uneducated masses would rule it would go blighted. He thought instead that a so-called enlightened despots would rule and implement reforms for the people. This approach seems very strange to me when Voltaire wanted a dictatorship in the style of Frederick II's Preussen.1 Of Enlightenment philosophers feels Rousseau's vision of governance most right for me when he felt the determining power would lie with the people and that the general will would råda1. However, I think it would be practically difficult to implement Rousseau's thoughts to the people as a whole to decide. Any type of representative parliamentary system is more convenient. Perhaps it is you'd see today in Switzerland with many referendums, entirely in the spirit of Rousseau, the most ideal.
There were many during the Enlightenment who, like Voltare feared the uneducated masses. The actual enlightenment in itself was no mass movement, but a movement of the urban middle class who fought for their position in society. Like Robinson would stares through hard work and studies show that they also died in the fine salons. They simply did not want to farmers, maids and workers, ie the broad public warehouse, would learn to think freely. They would still be in the hands of överheten.5 This is something totally contrary to my belief that everyone, despite different circumstances, shall have the same rights.
There was also another group in society that were not subject to disclosure tanks. It was all women. For a long time it was considered that woman's place was in the kitchen and to bear children. Even the medical expertise was considered that the woman's uterus shriveled away to läsa.3 In Rousseau's book Émile author recommends knowledge gained through experience and reflection. The recommendation is only meant for boys. This is evident when Emile meets Sophie. She's got a very different upbringing and according to Rousseau is not the same need for freedom and stimulation that his future make.2 Anna-Maria Lenngren, who was a very accomplished Swedish writer, kept strictly to their anonymity. She wished to seem like a good housewife 3. This fundamental idea of ​​the Enlightenment where the woman is the man's smooth like and thus can not take part of the basic ideas, makes me as a woman can not be a human enlightenment.

based on 2 ratings Murders are human approach 2.8 out of 5 based on 2 ratings
| More
Rate murders are the human approach

Related schoolwork
The following are school projects dealing with the murders are the man's approach or in any way related with the murders are the man's approach.

Comment Kill are human approach

« | »