I just finished reading Paul Mason's utterly incoherent article in which he basically argues that we must embrace the politics of post-work automation and urban youth woke culture, otherwise Labour would be "condemned to irrelevance" in perpetuity.
Mason acknowledges that capitalism now exploits us as much through lending and information as it does through labour, but insists that the "death of labour," since exploitation of it is supposed to be the root of all value according to Marx, would mean the end of capitalism! But his own argument makes it clear that what he really means is that we should embrace a massive Chinese-style state finance and information capitalism in the magical belief that the state would inevitably "wither away" as unneeded by a scientifically planned, automated society.
But, as John Cruddas demonstrates in his book 'The Dignity of Labour,' this post-work account of Marxism (which sounds a lot like Comte's positivist formulation of society) is based on an exaggeration of a short passage in the Grundrisse. Cruddas, on the other hand, is deemed to be on the pro-capitalist "old Labour Right" because he wishes to uphold traditional moral and ethical socialist values, but he is clearly more socialist than Mason.
Mason, to be fair, is correct in that many young people are part of the new proletariat. However, their 'wokeness' is not Marx's concept of class consciousness, nor is it a Polanyian counter-movement, which I would like to see, because they blame their exclusion under capitalism on bigotry vs. made-up 'identities,' etc. when their alienation and poverty... keep reading on reddit ➡
>Ambedkar was influenced by the Marxist mode of analysis. For Ambedkar (as for Marx and Phule) social processes involve contradiction, violence and exploitation. His historical narrative gave centrality to the theme of social conflict. Ambedkar questioned the assumption of European Marxism that class struggle is the sole determinant of history. Ambedkar's theory of social conflict accepted caste-class as the social categories of exploitation and domination. But primarily, he emphasized Indian history as the history of caste struggles.
>Marxists made a distinction between the basic economic structure of any society, constituted by the condition of production, taken as a whole and the superstructure (of laws institution religion and ideas). Their primacy to economic structures of (imagined) class relations of production claimed that the motor for the historical progression is provided by the 'class struggle'. Their emphasis on economic structure created a variety of shades of Marxism some of which offered mechanical interpretation of history. Ambedkar stood against this Marxist variety subscribing to rigid economism. He stated that caste system in India is unique phenomenon. Nowhere in the world is the economic activity consecrated by religion. But in India caste as a system of social and economic relations was based on religion. He wrote: "The Hindus are the only people in the world whose social order --the relation of man to man is consecrated by religion and made sacred eternal and inviolate. The Hindus are the only people in the world whose economic order-the relation of workman to workman ---is consecrated by religion and made sacred eternal and inviolate". Ambedkar identified the key role of the religious sanctions in the sustenance of the caste system. He stated that 'Legal and religious sanctions were both powerful engine to keep caste-system going. The legal penalty for the breach of caste-rules was twofold. It involved excommunication and loss of right to inheritance. And the religious sanction is so primary that caste system has been maintained solely by it.' He asserted that religious sanction was the highest sanction because religious was social and religious was sacred. Here Ambedkar quoted Durkheim in his support. Marxists regarded religion, ideology, consciousness culture as the product of economic reality. Durkheim moved from this position regarding ideas and beliefs as derivative of subsect of social facts, suggesting that symboli... keep reading on reddit ➡
There has been a lot of discussion recently in this sub and in US overall about transwomen in sports. I believe there is an issue that is even more deserving of attention.
In 2017, Trudeau Liberals have overhauled Correctional Service Canada (CSC) policies to represent their more progressive view on gender identity and expression.
>Under a new Correctional Service Canada (CSC) policy, transgender inmates can be placed in an institution of their preference, "regardless of their anatomy (sex) or gender on their identification documents, unless there are overriding health or safety concerns which cannot be resolved."
Full details in this CBC article.
In Canada, maximum security facilities exist only for males. This is because the most dangerous and vile offenders tend to be men. Also evolutionary psychologists have shown that sex plays a role in the gender gap of violent criminal activity. Things such as intrasexual competition, reproductive roles(rape, sexual assault), and impulsiveness have been used to explain that gap. One of the main causes for violent crime tends to be stress/trauma. Yet, studies have repeatedly shown that women tend to exhibit more stress. What is important however, is that men and women respond to stress differently because of neurobiological sex differences. Example 1. Example 2. This in part explains why violent crime is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, and why this will always be the case, regardless of gender roles. However, I do not want to give a wrong impression. It must be pointed out that this does not apply to petty crime. Sociological theories like strain theory, are in my opinion much better at explaining the gender gap in that crime category.
Anyways, the point is that sex is essential in understanding why men tend to commit more rapes, homicides and etc.
Before I go into specific cases and the social and ethical problems they reveal, I want to make two things clear.
What is anti positivism in terms of sociology and how widespread or accepted is the idea. All I’ve heard about it is from a friend who majors in biology claiming that it is “anti science”, is this an accurate statement? What is anti positivism?
could someone sketch out (or guide me to scholarship on) the historical influence of Comte's positivism on the development of logical positivism in the early 20th century? I'm interested in questions like: Was there at all a direct engagement, was it more indirect via other thinkers, or are any similarities between them rooted simply in the larger cultural and scientific context?
Find it hard to write anthropologically and are looking for advice on how to write a term paper in anthropology? Anthropology is a branch of science that studies human groups and cultures as well as early hominids and primates. It’s a very broad field of study that constantly incorporates different new ideas and technologies. Writing a successful term paper in anthropology involves doing an extensive library research, studying a lot of facts and theories to synthesize and critically analyze them. That’s an arduous and time-consuming task and can be challenging for many students.
I need help with a pet theory of mine. I need to know if this is even valid publishable trail or not. If anybody is in academia, can you help ?
There is this theory in physics/math (go with me for a second) called information theory. Long story short, it says that information is a physical property in the universe like energy (it is an expression of energy), and like energy it can transfer form. - I won't get into the math and physics of it all.
Biology is currently having a field day being rewritten in terms of information. (one of many papers rewriting biological concepts: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12064-020-00313-7).
This gets applied to sociology when you consider that even the information between humans are bound by information theory (they have a measurable component). Important to remember: information theory can describe information, but can't predict it's meaning without a 'decoder'. Information theory can describe the sound waves, but can't translate that into words without a brain - it can predict qualia, can't describe what qualia feels like.
So the idea was to rewrite sociology in terms of information. Here's what the theory would state:
The information that is shared among the human species are still subject to the same laws of physics as any other form of information.
The information spread among humans can be copied, changed, created, or destroyed (meaning the information can enter and leave society, ideas can be created but they can also be forgotten).
Humans specific information have specific properties that make them unique compared to other pieces of information: specifically, how ideas interact with humans. They are i) they can create an emotional state in the human; ii) they can encourage the humans to interact physically with the environment; iii) they can logically support or counter act each other - humans generally want things to logically make sense, so if I have a proof that counteracts your ideas, you may or may not change your ideas.
They are competitive with each other, they need humans to exist, and ideas only exist because they out-compete others to fill a human's head. They can even form complex relationships to form communities that work with each other to survive (bureaucracies anybody, social constructs anybody).
(ex: the idea that morality should govern society is entwined with equality is entwined with r... keep reading on reddit ➡
Not only do the criteria precepts and the diagnostic systems fail at implementing falsification, positivism and fact-checking on the diagnosis front, people that work in the psychiatric industry and academia often fail to disclose the lack of replicated research, often pushing narratives without disclosing obvious flaws that violate research norms.
There is no known scientific pathology for claims about mental illness, nor are there any scientific differentials used in clinic settings. Studies on diagnostics frequently show that diagnosticians believe that unbiased diagnostics are not useful, and they believe it is "more scientific" to go into diagnostics trying to force a diagnosis than remain impartial.
Most psychiatric concepts /labels are "diagnosed" with heavily flawed diagnostics that ruin more people's lives than those that are helped by such a system statistically (JAMA, JHM, WHO, NCBI). Studies on outcomes of psychiatric interference constantly show poorer life performance than self-care removed from labels and Government control (JAMA, JHM, WHO, NCBI).
In fact, in Sociology it is accepted that there is more than enough evidence that the a large number of people diagnosed the USA, Canda, the UK and Africa are people that have been falsely accused by dominance-oriented people or narrative-oriented people, and their targets get dragged through the mud until they admit defeat. These ideas were explored at first by philosophers of sociology and science and later research scientists and meta-analysts.
It's a system that uses force and abuse. That's not medicine, that's political. If you cannot prove an issue with the brain using brain oriented science, then there is no soundness to that argument. Statistics point to abuse at home and school which is then made worse by social services and eventually clinics and hospitals.
There are many people that are abused are later (over) diagnosed; many report suffering from the oppression of misrepresentation and drugs. That is more evident that "brain diseases" causing disobedience or moods.
I've done a little bit of reading on Critical Theory, mainly for school. I've read a few essays from critical theorists and people adjacent to Critical Theory or who preceded it (Foucault, Mao, Gramsci, Marx, du Bios, among others, mainly in the contexts of Victorian era literature and IR). I've also read the SEP's article on Critical Theory and a few related articles. I've also been lurking on this sub for a little while. So while I'm still very much a beginner, I'm familiar with some of its basic concepts and terminology.
Basically, I'm not a leftist. I consider myself a solid liberal. While I believe critical theorists have done a lot of good work in exposing injustices and systems of oppression that many liberals may have turned a blind eye to, I disagree with a lot of Critical Theory's core assumptions and methodologies. I wanted to ask this community if 1) my issues with Critical Theory are based on a fair reading thereof, and if not where am I wrong, and 2) if you could point me to essays, books, lectures, etc. from well regarded theorists that address these issues.
I think critical theories tend to rely on an assumption of class solidarity that doesn't always hold true.
I think theories that place too much emphasis on a dialectical struggle between groups, and too little emphasis on individual actors and motivations, provide woefully inadequate explanations of historical processes.
Marx's historical materialism is a classic case of this way of thinking. We think of the transition from what Marx calls "feudalism" (I put it in quotes because it is a discredited term) to capitalism as the bourgeoisie overthrowing the aristocracy. But I don't think this is how this historically happened. Take Britain, the birthplace of the industrial revolution. The most important process in the transition from manorialism to industrial capitalism was enclosure. Pre-industrial English manors were divided into three parts: the freeholds and copyholds, held by peasants either as tenants (in the case of copyholds) in a state of debt bondage or owned outright by freeholders, the lord's land, which tenants worked on to pay off their debt to the lord, and the common pasture, which was, by longstanding custom if not by law, collectively controlled and operated in a sort of proto-mutualistic manner.
Industrial capitalism wasn't able to take hold on a large scale until the cities were able to get a large influx of raw materials and ne... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'll add the disclaimer that I am not a philosopher; I am from a natural sciences background, and, for some unknown reason, we were never taught any philosophy. I apologise, therefore, if the following is a little incoherent.
I am interested to know if it is reasonable to be an ontological realist and an epistemological idealist, whilst also being somewhat of a post-positivist and pragmatist.
As an ontological realist, the universe is objective and mind-independent (to some extent). It has certain properties that exist independently of perception by conscious beings.
An epistemological idealist would accept ontological realism, but would recognise that the representations that we form of the external world would be at least partially determined by the structure of the nervous system that is doing the perceiving and representing. For example, wave-particle duality: an electron is neither a particle nor a wave, but we can represent it as either depending on the situation; we cannot, however, conceive of an electron as both simultaneously, or understand fundamentally what an electron 'is'. Rather, we represent it in ways familiar to us (i.e., as either a particle or a wave).
Some areas of knowledge seem better justified from a post-positivist (positivism with blurry edges) perspective. These would be areas of knowledge more typical to the natural sciences. For example, knowledge regarding the chemical composition of DNA.
Some forms of knowledge seem better justified from a pragmatist perspective. These would be areas of knowledge more typical to sociology and social psychology. For example, explaining the role of cultural capital in social inequality. Sociological systems are big and complex and do not lend themselves easily to the 'traditional scientific approaches'; despite this, knowledge generated from sociological studies may have important and effective practical applications, and as such would perhaps constitute a valid form of knowledge. It seems to me that this position is further reinforced if one is an epistemological idealist: knowledge of the external world is a subjective representation in the human mind, anyway, some of these representations may closely approximate reality (a post-positivist position?), some may be further removed (acceptable to a pragmatist?), but they are fundamentally subjective either way.
I feel like both ontological realism and epistemological idealism are consistent with Kant (transcendental idealism). Kant... keep reading on reddit ➡
So I started the night off with my lady and I took an ecstasy pill while we watched a hunger games movie (yuh she read the books again) anyway after about 2 hours I decided damn I’m really not feeling much so I popped another one. First pill was 8:30 and I smoked some dank with it. Then the second pill at 10:00. Well I still wasn’t impressed but I definitely felt more empathetic and connected with my girl which was nice but I want a proper experience knomasayin? Is this all molly is. It’s kinda wack. Never done it before and didn’t test the pills. Anyways I just popped two more because I was smoking like 10 full bowl snaps out of a bong. Maybe I’ll roll now? Definitely feeling the gas but I don’t know what molly really feels like. I know what meth feels like and this isn’t quite that. Meth is much more self centered and egoistic. I am noticing a compulsion to write like I used to in school. I used to write all kinds of fancy essays about various philosophies just for fun. I once criticized my own sociology professor for not addressing Marx’s concept of anti positivism in which he denies sociology to be an empirical science. Because honestly it’s not, societies are created by beings absurdly and willy nilly given consciousness and just saying fuck it figure it out. We all figure out different shit at different times and sometimes we don’t run into things other people do. Like it’s not my fault I know which store I can shoplift four liters of only dxm cough syrup out of the store and throw the attendant 20$ to delete the cameras and mark it up as mislabeled 😘 we love the working class out here but yuh I once wronged a ten page manifesto on my expansions to the philosophy of vagabondism. Nomadic illegality really is the only way to properly rebel against the state in our technological era. Take advantage of railways and hitchhiking routes. Hell even an suv with one paychecks worth of gear is enough to get you good to roll the nation. The worlds a lot less complicated than it has to be. You just gotta be able to step back and laugh. Laws are imposed by the state yes, but laws have no power without enforcement; root word force. The state has its monopoly on violence but it shows its weak spot in its laws. The things it bans are what harms the system. This system values human life as less valuable than material property so thus as a reaction why is it wrong to devalue their property as a true voice of the people. The state even will threaten your family my g. S... keep reading on reddit ➡
I’ve been reading about scientific realism vs scientific antirealism, and a large part of that debate seems to tie into questions about positivism, falsifiability, the sociology of science, and scientific anarchism.
From what I’ve been reading, scientific anarchism seems to be the dominating view in philosophy of science as the attempt to articulate a demarcation criterion according to experts is thought by many (not all) to have failed. This I’m understanding was spearheaded by philosophers like Feyerabend, Lakatos, McKenna, Cartwright, and Laudan.
The main argument for scientific anarchism I hear is that there is simply too much good science that would be thrown out the window when you adhere to a position like falsifiability as the demarcation criteria, but I’m having trouble understanding why that is. I tried reading Laudan’s “Death of the Demarcation Problem” but I had trouble understanding why he thinks that falsificationism leaves the existence of atoms ambiguous and vindicates flat earthers.
Hi sorry if there are any mistakes. First some background. Before I did A levels I did Catering which I was not suited for. It gave me anxiety and when I am nervous I stutter and mix words up. My teachers knew this the other two were very kind and went above and beyond their job. At the time of the story, exams were close so everyone was nervous. The day was like any other day until halfway through a Sociology lesson. My teacher asked a question based on Positivism and no one wanted to answer. Since it is awkward I put my hand up to answer. When answering I felt anxious so I stuttered and switched words around but overall I was correct. In the middle of this, the teacher being fed up, put they head on the desk ( Other student said this her pretending to sleep). She also made exaggerated sighing noises. This broke me and I was so upset especially when the other students were laughing ( they later said it was nervous laughter). Embarrassed to say I left the room crying. However, I left my stuff in class so when I got I decided that I might as well stay and try to fight back tears. This was when my teacher told me to meet them outside the class. They said they did it to relieve the stress of exams by making the students laugh. She, later on, emailed Mum, that she was concerned that I was upset.... keep reading on reddit ➡
I would argue that it is not capable of doing so. Firstly, social phenomenon evade objectivity. And secondly, social phenomenon cannot be replicated in the manner that natural phenomenon can.
I welcome your views.
everything is white supremacy
woke leftists have had a difficult time the past two years the list of ordinary acts that are called covert white supremacy has been growing exponentially since the trump presidency began and as the widening divide over nfl protests show the racially tinged culture war is just gaining momentum conservative media loves the liberal obsession with declaring innocuous activities as white supremacy because the wild headlines are red meat for talk radio and email newsletters but mainstream right wing commentary on these stories is amazingly shallow republican lawmakers use a standard sound bite comprised of an indignant denial of gop racism plus a preemptive disavow of conservative racists this earns them precisely zero credit with the media and the left conservative pundits lament the loss of common sense american values without offering any explanation for why those values have been in free fall since the sixties the mainstream right seems to regard declarations of white supremacy as isolated incidence and politically foolish acts perpetrated by rage filled progressives the gop is genuinely surprised every time they lose ground in the culture war to such seemingly ridiculous attacks by declaring such attacks madness conservative pundits absolve themselves of the responsibility to analyze and counter these assaults on whiteness the mainstream right is not curious enough to track the progression of allegations of white supremacy however and the left does have a clever method to their apparent madness liberals begin an anti white attack by condemning some distant act of racism so that moderate whites can comfortably agree once whites have shown their willingness to concede a minor point the liberal left rapidly moves the goalposts until those tolerant progressive whites are themselves accused of racism let us use the symbol x to represent any white institution or activity x could be sports higher education hollywood the music industry or local government the lefts attacks will follow the same general pattern no matter what x represents using this alt right guide to white supremacy you will be able to not only understand the leftist tactic being used you will also be able to predict for friends and family the next stage of white supremacy outrage whatever to... keep reading on reddit ➡
Hello people. How would you connect positivist criminology to homophobic hate crime? It looks like biological positivism doesn't play part in making people commit hate crime. However, do you think that psychological and sociological positivism do?
Context: I'm an undergraduate studying philosophy at a great department. I love what I study and I'm planning on applying to PhD programs. As much as I love the subject, however, I have formed a very negative impression of academic philosophy (specifically Anglo-American analytic philosophy), an impression based on interactions with professors, grad students, postdocs, and other undergrads. I don't know if my complaints are particular to philosophy, as they might apply to academia in general, but for what it's worth, it seems to me that:
What philosophers do is totally unimportant. As much fun as it is writing papers about counterfactuals or the supervenience of the moral on the non-moral or whatever, I feel like it would be hard to defend these activities as having real value. Don't get me wrong, I think the truth has value, and some people think philosophy makes progress, but do philosophers ever get tired of studying and caring about things that no one but other academic philosophers (and usually only those academic philosophers in the same subfield!) study and care about? Even if we consider something like Naming and Necessity valuable, very few works in philosophy have that kind of influence. It seems that most of analytic philosophy is relatively unimportant work done by philosophers orbiting around these bright stars (Kripke, Lewis, Quine, etc.) and filling out nitpicky details.
Philosophy as a field is a slave to fashion. I formed this impression after having a long conversation about the history of twentieth century analytic philosophy with one of my professors. Logical positivism took over and now it's out. I hear that modal metaphysics isn't as popular as it once was, but that grounding is all the rage. It seems like no one knows where the field is going next and like it's subject to all kinds of sociological forces in ways we wouldn't want a fundamentally truth-seeking discipline to be.
On a more practical level, a publish-or-perish lifestyle seems hazardous for one's mental health. Also, academic politics seem quite stifling and oppressive.
So tell me about your impressions and experience. Are my impressions misguided? Do I really have nothing to worry about? Is this par for the course? Should I get out while I can and pursue a career in art instead? Thanks!
As I discussed earlier, I have tried to create a substantive reading list for /r/sociology. While it is by no means complete, it is my first draft. I have released it to Google Drive, which I believe grants users the ability to edit to where they see fit.
Have a glance over it, and if you see any conspicuous errors or lack of necessary texts; don't hesitate to add them!
Hopefully, this is one step toward innervating this subreddit. I will be trying to inculcate a weekly discussion thread in the same vein as /r/philosophy. Stay tuned!
Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49ZGDEyLkdpaXBacXdLQmtrVkk/view?usp=sharing
I was reading some texts by Luce Irigaray and I encountered something that I felt was problematic.
She talks about how a "phallic" society is literally derived from the way penises are. Interesting thought but when she goes into this it gets convoluted:
> "women should create a female sexuality. Irigaray contrasted the singularity implied by the male sexual organ with the multiplicity implied by the female sexual organs. In particular, she localized the feminine voice in the labia, "two lips" that reveal woman to be neither one nor two. Woman is not two, because the labia belong to a single woman's body, "which keeps woman in touch with herself, but without any possibility of distinguishing what is touching from what is touched". However, woman is not one, either, because the labia represent a woman's multiple and diffuse (nonphallic) sexuality: "So woman does not have a sex organ? She has at least two of them, but they are not identifiable as ones. Indeed, she has many more. Her sexuality is always at least double, goes even further; it is plural"
And then comes:
> "Irigaray did not simply contrast the plural, circular and aimless vaginal/clitoral libidinal economy of women with the singular, linear and teleological phallic libidinal economy of men. She also argued that the expression of these libidinal economies [...] extends to all forms of human expression, including social structures. Just as the penetration of the penis prevents the lips from touching, so the phallic unity of the Symbolic order repressed the multiplicity of female sexuality. [....] only through lesbian and autoerotic practice [can women unshackle their potentiality]. As women explore the multifaceted terrain of the female body, they can learn to think thoughts, speak words and do deeds powerful enough to displace the phallus.
I have a couple of questions and criticisms which I wish to share and comment:
1. Insider and Outsider Scepticism about Philosophy
Philosophers disagree immensely in significant ways. Our best philosophers disagree over the doctrines, methods, and even the aims of philosophy. Experts in all fields disagree, but disagreement is more pervasive in philosophy than in most other fields. As Thomas Kelly says, ‘Philosophy is notable for the extent to which disagreements with respect to even those most basic questions persist among its most able practitioners, despite the fact that the arguments thought relevant to the disputed questions are typically well-known to all parties to the dispute.
A sceptic might claim that radical dissensus shows that pursuing philosophy is not a good means for discovering true answers for philosophical questions. Dissensus shows that philosophical methods are unreliable instruments of truth. Suppose an uncommitted person comes to philosophy hoping to get true answers to her philosophical questions. She wants to know what that nature of causation is, what justification is, what rightness consists in, what justice is, and so on. She notices that philosophers have extensive disagreement about the answers to these questions and thus concludes that the probability of her getting the true answer by pursuing philosophy is low. So, she becomes a sceptic about the field of philosophy and walks away with her questions unanswered.
Is she making a mistake?
In this essay, I consider scepticism of the sort that holds that there are true answers to philosophical questions, but none of us are in a good position to know these answers. This type of scepticism admits of two sub-types.
An insider sceptic holds that even the best philosophers lack good reasons to hold their views. So, the insider sceptic thinks that philosophers who are not agnostic about philosophical issues should become agnostic.
A person who is merely an outsider sceptic, on the other hand, might accept that many philosophers are justified in holding their views, despite widespread disagreement. The outsider sceptic need not hold that philosophers should change their beliefs or become agnostic. However, the outsider sceptic also holds that people not already committed to one philosophical position or another should stay uncommitted. So, the outsider sceptic holds that even if most philosophers are justified in accepting their different views, a person who lacks philosophical beliefs ought to refrain from using philosophical methodology and
So I have a BA in neuroscience and am currently in a "Master's-pass-through" program in sociology. I feel like I've had to catch up to everyone else who learned the basics in undergrad, but at the same time I feel like I come in with a unique perspective compared to most other students.
I'm taking a course about Neo-Marxist theory, so it's pretty much all Frankfurt School guys, Conflict Theory, and Critical Theory. Is it just me or does critical theory not really care about data unless it happens to coincide with the theory?
We're doing a project where we have to apply Neo-Marxist theory to our topic (most likely our thesis topic) and one student asked, "What do I do if the theory contradicts the data I have collected?" The teacher responded, "That doesn't matter. The theory drives the data, the theory drives your topic. You can apply any theory to your topic, regardless of the data." Coming from a science background, this is very disturbing to me. What happened to positivism? Is this type of thinking prominent in sociology?
Apparently, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) has an entry on the philosophy of anthropology, and wow does it contain a lot of bad. First off, I'm not sure what the distinction is between phil of anthro and just plain anthropological theory is, because almost everything cited here is anthro and not phil. Second, it seems to be almost entirely about cultural anth. I know the four-field thing is a 'Murrican phenomenon, but c'mon, at least try a little.
In any case, let's dig in!
>Anthropology itself began to develop as a separate discipline in the mid-nineteenth century, as Charles Darwin’s (1809-1882) Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (Darwin 1859) became widely accepted among scientists.
This is just completely wrong. Immanuel Kant offered the first course in anthropology in the 1790s, but the first person to hold the title of professor of anthropology was EB Tylor. EB Tylor was certainly influenced by Darwin, but it's way off to say that anthropology began as a discipline because of Darwin. A lot of early anthropologists were not officially anthropologists -- I think this may be bad history in the form of anachronism on the part of disciplinary historians -- but they pre-dated Darwin. The Smithsonian under the direction of Joseph Henry began to collect artifacts and ethnographic information long before Darwin published Origin of Species. Another major figure in both anthropology and sociology is considered to be Herbert Spencer, and he published his great work on evolution, Social Statics, prior to Darwin and maintained Lamarckian ideas throughout his life. The beginning of American archaeology is often traced back to the mound builder controversy and Thomas Jefferson.
>Early anthropologists attempted to apply evolutionary theory within the human species, focusing on physical differences between different human sub-species or racial groups (see Eriksen 2001) and the perceived intellectual differences that followed.
OK this is mostly true, but it conflates cultural evolution and biological evolution. Polygenism was a popular position among proto-anthropologists, but Darwin was a monogenist. If Darwin was the cause of anthropology how were so many anthropologists polygenists??
>This is the positivism, rooted in Empiricism, which argued that knowledge could only be reached through the empirical method and statements were meaningful only if they could be empirically justified, though it s... keep reading on reddit ➡
/u/Zelrak pointed out to me that it would be a smart idea to link my previous posts in the OP. Thanks for that, I'm dumb. Here they are:
[Post 1: Introduction and overview] (https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6r3hlz/international_relations_theory_in_51_posts_15/)
[Post 2: Realism] (https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/6roppn/international_relations_theory_in_51_posts/)
#Post 3: Liberalism#
Liberalism is the second largest school in IR, and the next on the list for
memeification explanation. Liberalism is a school that I expect many here will find appealing, as it's the one that has the greatest focus on individual freedom. Liberalism is a bit harder to summarize as easily as Realism however, as its fundamental assumptions are different because of this. Let us get into why that is.
As I mentioned in both my previous posts (look at this guy repeating himself), Liberalism was the 'first' school in IR to get a chair, the Woodrow Wilson one in particular. I also mentioned in my second post that Wilson's utopian liberalism was the initially dominant form of it, and that it spoke the language of Kant (but this time in a way that mortals could follow) and Locke (and Bentham). In order to get where Liberalism gets its foundations from, this seems like a good place to start.
Locke makes the distinction between the 'Machtsstaat' and the 'Rechtsstaat'. The 'Machtsstaat' is the state as an aggregator of power and a garuantor of security, something that plays heavily in Realist theory. The 'Rechtsstaat' on the other hand is a constitutional entity, an actor that garuantees rule of law and liberty for its citizens.
Bentham expanded this argument to include a term he called international law; the notion that 'Rechtsstaat' states would have a rational reason for obeying international codifications of the rules that also governed them from within.
Kant (<3, even though he was a terrible writer) argued that a world system consisting of 'Rechtsstaat'republics that followed international law in such a way would be a world system of perpetual peace. (Yes, I know that Waltz argued he was a Realist. It's been a long time since I've read Kantian philosophy and just thinking about going through that again gives me a headache, but his argument didn't strike me as convincing. He's commonly placed here anyhow)
The core strand here is that of law, progress and cooperation. Liberals believe that modernization... keep reading on reddit ➡
Criminology is the study of the effect, prevention, control and causes of criminal behaviour on individual people and on society. The study of criminology dates back to the beginning of the 18th century, when people began distinguishing between the act of committing a crime and sin by attempting to explain why crime occurred. It is based on research from many different disciplines including sociology, philosophy and biology. The term Criminologia was first used by Italian law professor Raffaele Garofalo in 1885 and was later used by French anthropologist Paul Topinard as criminologie. It comes from the latin word ‘crimen’ which means accusation and ‘ologia’ which means ‘the study of’. Criminology attempts to explain criminal behaviour by building theories and then testing these theories by observing behaviour and examining statistics. These theories are then used to shape the way society deals with and prevents crime. There are 3 main schools of thought of criminology. The positivist theory says that there may be other factors, rather than just pleasure seeking and pain avoidance that cause deviant behaviour. These factors are biological, social positivism and psychological. One of the earliest proponents of the positivist school is from Lombroso who looked at the physiological features of criminals such as face shape. The Classical theory is based on 4 ideas: people have free will, "punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from crime, as the costs (penalties) outweigh benefits" (Cesare. B. 1764. P.64), people will avoid pain and seek pleasure and the swiftness of punishment is the most important part of crime deterrence. The Chicago School theory suggests that human behaviour is determined by social structure. It considers psychological and environmental causes of deviant behaviour.