1. Differentiate between Probability and Possibility ?
Probability :
* Probability refers to the concepts of chance and likeliness.
*A probable future is a future that is more likely than some other future.
Possibility :
*Possibility refers to a claim of reality , whether some future either can be or cannot be .
*Possibility thinking is considering the like hood of something happening in the certain future .
2. Explain the types of Fallacies ?
A fallacy can be defined as a flaw or error in reasoning . At its most basic , a logical fallacy refers to a defect in the reasoning of an argument that causes the conclusion to be invalid , unsound or weak . The existence of a fallacy in a deductive argument makes the entire argument . Logical fallacies are flawed , deceptive or false argument that can be proven wrong with reasoning . There are two main types of fallacies they are, Formal fallacy and Informal fallacy. In this Formal fallacy defines that Formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny . An Informal fallacy is an error in the form , content or context of the argument .
Types of Fallacies :
*Ad Hominem
*Ad Ignorantiam
*Ad Populum
*Straw Man
Explanation :
STRAW MAN :
A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed - often a more extreme version of the counter argument . The purpose of this this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is .
" I think that we should give better study guide to students " , a person using a straw man might reply by saying "I think that your idea is bad , because we shouldn't just give out easy to everyone ".
AD HOMINEM :
An Ad Hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic . This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics , ethnic background, physical appearance or other non relevant traits of the person who holds it .
Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics , where they are often called " mudslinging"
AD IGNORANTIAM :
An appeal to ignorance it can be also called as an ''argument from ignorance'' argues that a proposition mist be true because it have been not proven false or there is no evidence against it .
The argument can be used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once, such as the following two claims :
''No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials exists , so they must not be real ''
'' No one has ever been able to prove that the extraterrestrial do not exist , so they must be real ''
An appeal to ignorance doesn't prove anything . Instead , it shifts the need for the proof away from the person making a claim.
AD POPULUM :
The argument supports a position by appealing to the shared opinion of a large group of people , e.g. the majority , the general public etc. The presumed authority comes solely from the size , not the credentials , of the group cited .
The Ad Populum fallacy exploits the public nature of reasoning . However , the fallacy confuses the distinction between a public scrutiny of reasons and a popular acceptance of particular beliefs without scrutiny . Sometimes the fallacy is even used to draw conclusions about matters that really are just private matters of personal taste .
3.Benedict Andersons Concept of Nation :
Before addressing the questions raised above, it seems advisable to consider briefly the concept of 'nation' and offer a workable definition. Theorists of nationalism have often been perplexed, not to say irritated, by these three paradoxes.
(1) The objective modernity of nations to the historians' eye vs. their subjective antiquity in the eyes of nationalists.
(2) The formal universality of nationality as a socio-cultural concept - in the modern world everyone can, should, will 'have' a nationality, as he or she 'has' a gender - vs. the irremediable particularity of its concrete manifestations, such that, by definition, 'Greek' nationality is sui generis.
(3) The 'political' power of nationalisms vs. their philosophical poverty and even incoherence. In other words, unlike most other isms, nationalism has never produced its own grand thinkers: no Hobbes's, Tocqueville, Mares, or Weber. This 'emptiness' easily gives rise, among cosmopolitan and polylingual intellectuals, to a certain condescension. Like Gertrude Stein in the face of Oakland, one can rather quickly conclude that there is 'no there there'. It is characteristic that even so sympathetic a student of nationalism as Tom Nain can nonetheless write that: '''Nationalism'' is the pathology of modern developmental history, as inescapable as "neurosis" in the individual, with much the same essential ambiguity attaching to it, a similar built-in capacity for descent into dementia, rooted in the dilemmas of helplessness thrust upon most of the world (the equivalent of infantilism for societies) and largely incurable.
If the development of print-as-commodity is the key to the generation of wholly new ideas of simultaneity, still, we are simply at the point where communities of the type 'horizontal-secular, transverse-time' become possible. Why, within that type, did the nation become so popular? The factors involved are obviously complex and various. But a strong case can be made for the primacy of capitalis1500,8 signaling the onset of Benjamin's 'age of mechanical reproduction'. If manuscript knowledge was scarce and arcane lore, print knowledge lived by reproducibility and dissemination.9 If, as Fever and Martin believe, possibly as many as 200,000,000 volumes had been manufactured by 1600, it is no wonder that Francis Bacon believed that print had changed 'the appearance and state of the worlds.
4. Brief note on Hegemony :
The three concepts discussed herein constitute perhaps the most important components of Gramsci’s “philosophy of praxis.” Moreover, by defining the nature of class power in capitalist society through an elaboration of the dialectical relationship between the base and the superstructure, and, specifically, by outlining the essentials of sound revolutionary strategy which address the complex nature of class power and hegemony, these concepts meet the first criteria of “praxis,” namely, the proper understanding of class rule and class power from which sound revolutionary practice can evolve. That is, practice that can successfully challenge and shake the foundations of capitalist class rule and capitalist society. Needless to say, the understanding of these concepts is the most important step in the study of Gramsci’s Marxism.
The concept of hegemony first appeared in Gramsci’s Notes on the Southern Question (1926), where it was defined as a system of class alliance in which a “hegemonic class” exercised political leadership over “subaltern classes” by “winning them over.” The concept made allusion to the proletariat in Italy in terms of such a “winning over”: the proletariat had to free itself of its class corporatism so as to embrace other classes, notably the peasants, in a system of alliances within which it could then genuinely become the leading element in the society.
The concept was introduced in the following way:
The Turin communists posed concretely the question of the ’hegemony of the proletariat’ i.e. of the social basis of the proletarian dictatorship and the workers’ State. The proletariat can become the leading and the dominant class to the extent that it succeeds in creating a system of alliances which allows it to mobilize the majority of the working population against capitalism and the bourgeois State. In Italy, in the real class relations which exists there, this means to the extent that it succeeds in gaining the consent of the broad peasant masses. Gramsci's concept of power is based simply on the two moments of power relations–Domino (or coercion) and Direzione (or consensus). These two moments are essential elements, indeed the constitutive elements of a state of balance, a state of equilibrium between social forces identified as the leaders and the led. This state of balance consists of a coalition of classes constituting an organic totality within which the use of force is risky unless there emerges an organic crisis which threatens the hegemonic position and the ruling position of the leading class in the hegemonic system. Clearly, political or state rule by a hegemonic class so defined would be rule in which consensus predominates over coercion. According to Gramsci, consensus rests at the level of civil society and hence must be won there. On the other hand, coercion rests at the level of the state, more specifically at the level of “political society.” Accordingly, hegemonic rule, characterized by the predominance of consensus over coercion, represents in broad terms a balance, an equilibrium between “political society” and “civil society.”
Comments
Post a Comment