Professionally written papers on this topic:

Rebuttal / Charges Against Behaviorism
A 10 page paper that argues against four specific charges levied against behaviorism and behavior change techniques used in the classroom. Despite the amou...
A Rebuttal to "Smash Thy Neighbor"
This 5 page paper takes the form of a letter to the editor in which a football coach takes exception to the remarks of ex-player John McMurtry in his artic...
The 1930s: A Decade of Revolt and Violence in the Middle East
This 5 page paper considers the question of the impact of economic and social changes in the Middle East during the first half of the 20th century as it re...
Medical Malpractice: Criminal Not Civil
A 5 page paper which examines how and why medical malpractice should be treated as a criminal issue, not a civil one. Bibliography lists 2 sources. ...
Marx Got It Wrong - Criticism and Rebuttal
A 5 page research paper/essay that, first of all, summarizes an article that is designed as an argument against Marxism. Then the writer discusses what exi...
Click here to view more papers...

a civil rebuttal not revolt

A Civil Rebuttal (not revolt) Philosophy -- a:pursuit of wisdom. b:a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means. Through this most specific definition given to us respectively by Sir Webster's dictionary, I choose in my best interest to refrain to you just what the meaning of philosophy is. I implore you to try and comprehend this matter in what exactly this word brought abrupt to us is about. The word philosophy has two definitive definitions. The first simply means to pursue, or strive for, wisdom. I beg to differ in the understanding of the fault I make in trying to gain this unprecedented 'knowledge.' The knowledge that we as a unity try to strive for have made us, again as a unity, divides. I asked myself exactly how we have achieved 'civilized chaos' in the search for our solutions and resolutions of the very 'virus' it seems we have caused. I would not of course go so far as to say a civil war between the generations within this house, but moreover to express that simply by me using philosophy, it becomes not only my benefit, but a mutualism between us. Please feel more than obliged to correct me if I am incorrect (morally or politically) but are we not all philosophers ourselves? As a baker's vocation is to bake, a philosopher's vocation is to think. Is it not that we all think? I was deeply saddened at your comments in the oppression and restriction to what I may or may not strive to think. As a pacifist and non-sadist, I call what you believe in as 'ingraining or indoctrination', whereas our own society may call it 'brainwashing'. Our human nature gives us freedom, as does the Constitution. It guarantees us the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Within the refines of this home, I find it a task to see those liberties granted. Here is a few of the world's greatest oppressors: Jim Jones, Adolph Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, David Koresh, and Anton Szandor LaVey. I know, as well as you, that these notorious six are among the world's most hated. However here are a few oppressors from another standpoint: Sigmund Freud, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi, and Siddharta Guatama the Buddha. These are the exact opposite of the previously mentioned, who put an oppression into a good morality. It's not about who uses the gift, it's the entirety of the user's ethics. The second definition of the word philosophy aptly states that it is the desire to learn more through speculation rather than observation. Without speculation, we as a planet would be at loss. There would never have been discoveries of planets, medicinal uses, genetic finds, and behavioral studies. Lets face it, without philosophy, we would still get leeched at the doctors for the common cold. These fine discoveries were all made by philosophers. Now these philosophers were brave enough to challenge science, the government, and even the Church. Now, I am not one to stand here and say that I will believe in unholy blasphemy, but rather I feel I should receive the liberty to speak freely as long as I hold myself in a civil and adult manner. In conclusion to this essay, I must tell you that this in itself is my philosophy. I believe it was the great reformist Voltaire who says, "I do not agree with a single word you say, but will fight to the death your right to say it." In some respects, I feel non-indifferent to his theory. So I beseech you to help yourselves as well as others in this house to let me speak freely of my philosophy, for the word is simply a synonym to the word think. The famous quote, "I think, therefore I am." supports my belief and should support yours. Furthermore, if we do not philosophize, we do not think. Scholars have made it known that the only relics of others are within their philosophy. For instance, GOD, Elshadai, or Adanai, is known exclusively through his philosophies. The Bible refers to creation as, ". . . and GOD saw it was good. . ." GOD philosophized that things were good. I know you cannot disagree with me on this reasoning, for you would be one to doubt GOD. I am trying my best to not make this about theology, but to simply keep it within one field. In short: the only people that choose to who speaks of philosophy are the speaker themselves.
766 wds  

Just Free Papers © 2018 Intuitive Products International, all rights reserved.     Disclaimer