Read also: philosophy topics of the 2016 tray, locate them in their entirety
” I leave the review, I took on the subject desire. Sometimes I made quotations, but I did not quote my sources for fear of being wrong. It could bring me harm?
And my teacher always told me that ES series is minimum expected a double sheet. But I tend to always write too, is that it, too, it might bring me harm? “- LaPetitePrincesse
Ligeia St. John : For quotes, what is important is to analyze and report to the rest of your development. For the length of the copy, we do not find the number of pages but the quality of the argument. A short copy can be a very good copy if it is well organized and raises the problems of the subject. But obviously, if you have written a short introduction, the copy is too light.
“It was pertinent to ask the different types of possible desires? I raised some healthy desires, desires subject to doubt and conscious but hidden desires … “- Jadebrdc
Read also: Bac 2016:” This year’s topics philo were rather well chosen “
Ligeia St. John: as for the topic of ES tray (? Do we always what we want) it was relevant to ask different types of desires. It was the subject. It was particularly important to ask whether the object of our desire was always clearly known to us. Implied that desires are confused by gasoline.
That there have desires “healthy, some conscious or” other “hidden” as you say, will require thought we lead our desires. You seem to be well in the subject
“Could you tell us about the Descartes text (ES series).” – Melk
Ligeia Saint- John: It was a bit short text. So he asked students to genuine working discussion around the foundation of our real judgments and reasons for our mistakes. Descartes in this text asks whether we are responsible for our mistakes, knowing that the “errors” are theoretical mistakes. Those who commit the knowledge of the truth. And if our errors are due to a lack of knowledge (due to ignorance) or a default judgment that engages our will
In Descartes to judge it mobilizes two faculties. The understanding and the will. One who can design and one that can give assent. The “error” then not come from our ability to design but in our rush in our judgments, which is the cause of our misconceptions.
“I got the explanation text of an extract from the” Prince “of Machiavelli. In my copy, I have made no connection with respect to power over the people, invasions, etc., as I have seen in a correction. Am I completely off topic? A knowledge of the author’s doctrine is not requested, I might have had to drill this subtlety that finally made throughout the text. “- Bjr
Ligeia St. John: For Machiavelli’s text, it was an extract on free will and on our relationship with the unpredictable order things. The knowledge of the author is not required, we could do more reading “moral” text “political” . But the title of the work could tell you that this was a text on the art of governing or “to” govern.
The Action that we can have on the unpredictable course of events implies some virtue ( virtu ), which is rather a form of courage. This allows to impose its will and adapt to circumstances. The challenge is either ethical or political (for the sovereign or prince what is important is to achieve at all costs to maintain political order).
“I L and I took Arendt text explanation on history. I found two great parts and I wanted to know whether my issue was good: I distinguish between factual history and the history of the long time. The latter could be a solution to the problem of objectivity posed by history, because it requires an analysis of the basic causes of the facts, there is no room for interpretation. “Emma89
Ligeia St. John: Yes, it was a text on the interpretation that is made of the facts of history, with a critic a still very subjective and partial reading that we can have the sequence of events. But if historians do have a requirement of objectivity, their reading of history involves a work of interpretation. In this text he had to give back to the notion of interpretation another sense than that meant pejoratively (= subjective interpretation discourse).
There was a question in the text of danger concerning the manipulation of facts that happened, and we can not deny. Unless a fact of history is always meaningful, and is not a fact in the sense of a simple physical and natural phenomenon. If we explain a physical phenomenon, it includes a historical event
“I took about work, I said in problematic. He is a work curb our freedom and our life expectancy? Work is negative according to the common opinion: I said that the work was initially negative based on its origin: tripalium (former object of torture), I talked about the natural and social constraints. And II. The work helps to remove these constraints + I talked about Marx with industrial work (industrial revolution after the 2nd GM) + intellectual work, knowledge = expertise with manual labor! Does it seem to? “- Lyonphilo
Ligeia St. John: Your essay seems serious, and your plan Announces constructed argument. However, it was important to analyze the relationship here is induced between “less” and “better.” “Better Life” was more related to happiness as liberty, but talk of freedom was not irrelevant.
“Unfinished duty (no time to copy a conclusion) is sternly punished? (S series) “- paul3826
Ligeia St. John: If it’s just your conclusion that you do not have time to copy, it’s not serious. It evaluates all of the copy, there is no schedule assigned to each point of the essay. If you took the time to write your last game, we do hold it against
“Could you speak about the history ES.” Why avons- we interest to study history? “Was it wise to define what that means to study history with slight differences with objectivity in the first part. Then discuss the need to study the history and finally talk about need for man to build it and to live in society? – A. Milman
Ligeia St. John: It is interesting that you advertise. Especially since the formulation of the subject could lead students to make a list. Now it is the source of the interest he had to analyze here: a scholarly interest, political interest, for example, to understand the motivation that may have an interest in the past.
“I am in S and I treated the subject 2 (must demonstrate to know?), and I did a two-part plan, with I) the demonstration -it necessary knowledge and II) Is it sufficient.
Does it enable me to reach the average? “- Clement
Read also: philo Issues 2016 tray, locate them in their entirety
Ligeia St. John: I do not know if you would. However, your plan seems to announce the relevant points. “Must demonstrate to know? “, ” need? “ is referring to ” Is it enough? “ Or, on the ” should we? “
In one case, one might wonder if only the demonstration allows for true knowledge, or if there are other ways. In the other case, the question referred to a requirement of a certain type of knowledge that was set here. Everything about it can be demonstrated, firstly? And secondly, if we require a knowledge based in truth only (there are different types of knowledge), so maybe that only allows access to demonstration:
“Hello, could you talk about the subject on moral convictions related experience in tank L? “- Ariane
Ligeia St. John: I do not know if this topic has been chosen much. You are few to address. It was an interesting subject on the basis of our moral beliefs and whether they we are always transmitted by experience, education. And how?
Speaking of conviction involves each and thus a certain freedom of existential choices. Morality refers to our actions, their assessment and their consequences. Here, convictions are not only theoretical but practical in relation to decisions that affect our lives. Everyone is master of his life and choices. If we decide that we leave influenced by the experience of others or by traditions which we bend blindly or conformism, then it is no longer true beliefs.
Read also: Bac 2016: the corrected topics of philosophy videos
No comments:
Post a Comment