Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Philosophical Argument (philosophical + argument)
Selected AbstractsPhilosophical Arguments, Historical Contexts, and Theory of Education1EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY, Issue 1 2007Daniel Tröhler Abstract This paper argues that many philosophical arguments within the education discourse are too little embedded in their own historical contexts. Starting out from the obvious fact that philosophers of education use sources from the past, the paper asks how we can deal with the arguments that these sources contain. The general attitude within philosophy of education, which views arguments as timeless, is being challenged by the insight that arguments always depend upon their own contexts. For this reason, citing past authors, heroes, or enemies without respecting the context says more about our interest at the present time than it does about the times of the authors examined. Conversely, the contextual approach helps us to avoid believing that ,timeless truths' are to be found in different texts of different ages. However, the present contribution in no way advocates a total relativization of statements. Quite the contrary; it claims that the contextual approach helps us to understand the traditions and contexts within which we ourselves, as researchers, are positioned. And this self-awareness is believed to be the proper starting position for theoretical statements about education. [source] Epistemological and theoretical challenges for studying power and politics in information systemsINFORMATION SYSTEMS JOURNAL, Issue 2 2007Leiser Silva Abstract., The study of the role of power in managing information systems (IS) still offers a major epistemological challenge to researchers in the field. Although significant work has been done, there is yet to emerge a research approach that permits a penetrating study of the phenomenon of power by virtue of adopting a Machiavellian stance. This paper proposes such an approach in the form of an interpretivist position combined with a theoretical framework whose origin lies in political science and the sociology of technology. In developing its philosophical argument, the paper compares three meta-theories that have been applied to study IS: Phenomenology, Critical Theory and Structuration Theory. All three are compared in terms of their epistemological position regarding the relationship between power and IS. We argue that, although enlightening, those meta-theories fail to unravel the hidden and strategic nature of power. The paper concludes by proposing a particular theoretical formulation that, rather than censoring power and politics, will provide the epistemological means for unravelling them. [source] WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?RATIO, Issue 4 2006THE NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THEISTIC BELIEF Theism is often supposed to be distinguished from atheism by the heavy weight of metaphysical belief that it carries. This paper argues that this is not as illuminating a way of distinguishing the theist's from the atheist's outlook as is often supposed. The key divergence consists not so much in matters of theoretical belief or philosophical argument as in practical differences in affective response and in the adoption of certain models for living. Two characteristically religious virtues, humility and hope, and two distinctively religious responses, awe and thanksgiving, are discussed in order to illustrate this. The paper's conclusion, while not denying a cognitive core to theism, argues that warranted assent to the metaphysical truth of God's existence cannot be a precondition for theistic hermeneusis and praxis.1 [source] Philosophical Arguments, Historical Contexts, and Theory of Education1EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY, Issue 1 2007Daniel Tröhler Abstract This paper argues that many philosophical arguments within the education discourse are too little embedded in their own historical contexts. Starting out from the obvious fact that philosophers of education use sources from the past, the paper asks how we can deal with the arguments that these sources contain. The general attitude within philosophy of education, which views arguments as timeless, is being challenged by the insight that arguments always depend upon their own contexts. For this reason, citing past authors, heroes, or enemies without respecting the context says more about our interest at the present time than it does about the times of the authors examined. Conversely, the contextual approach helps us to avoid believing that ,timeless truths' are to be found in different texts of different ages. However, the present contribution in no way advocates a total relativization of statements. Quite the contrary; it claims that the contextual approach helps us to understand the traditions and contexts within which we ourselves, as researchers, are positioned. And this self-awareness is believed to be the proper starting position for theoretical statements about education. [source] High Stakes Testing and the Structure of the Mind: A Reply to Randall CurrenJOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION, Issue 1 2006ANDREW DAVIS ,High stakes testing' is to be understood as testing with serious consequences for students, their teachers and their educational institutions. It plays a central role in holding teachers and educational institutions to account. In a recent article Randall Curren seeks to refute a number of philosophical arguments developed in my The Limits of Educational Assessment against the legitimacy of high stakes testing. In this reply I contend that some of the arguments he identifies are not mine, and that others survive his critique. [source] | ||||||||||