Showing posts with label inglés. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inglés. Show all posts

Saturday, March 11, 2023

History YL (1)

History’s Best Leaders.

Las palabras que no sepas las puedes encontrar en Wordreference.com. 


Throughout history, great leaders emerged organically or otherwise, leaving their marks in time through a combination of leadership skills and charisma.

Although history’s greatest leaders all possessed unique leadership skill combinations that worked as well as they did in their specific chronologic and geographical frames, some common themes emerge.

Every one of these leaders had something we call “well-timed unreasonableness.” In their specific ways, they all insisted on adapting the world to an ideal they held instead of choosing the reasonable path of adapting themselves to the world.

History has been generously delivering world-changing leaders since the dawn of time. From the perspective of leadership coaching and intelligent leadership, however, some of these leaders carry more significance than others.

1. Mahatma Gandhi

Mahatma Gandhi embodied a complex leadership style, espousing many of the principles of intelligent leadership. Gandhi led through persuasion and emotional intelligence, becoming the supreme example through word and deed. He also:

Valued lifelong learning
Treated others well
Modeled discipline to followers
Had a strategy
Modeled the change he wanted to effect in the world 

Gandhi connected with his followers through a peaceful mindset built upon simplicity. He is relatable, inspiring, and triumphant over the ego.

2. Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. embodies intelligent leadership in many ways. Empathy is one of the core traits of intelligent leaders, and it was one of MLK’s leadership strengths in addition to outstanding communication.

MLK inspired followers everywhere through his:

Intelligence
Respect
Creativity
Focus
Determination
Willingness to learn

3. Abraham Lincoln

The 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln turned out to be more than just a president. His short tenure, spanning from 1861 until his assassination in 1865, saw him:

Honest Abe was the quintessential intelligent leader of his era, mastering skills like:

Empathy
Good communication
Outstanding social skills
The ability to persuade gently using emotional intelligence
Stirring emotion
Showing vulnerability by taking responsibility for mistakes

4. Nelson Mandela

What leadership skills made Mandela the larger-than-life leader he was?

Passion. Mandela understood the possible consequences of his fight, but he never wavered.
Humility. Mandela was never a flashy leader, but he won over the masses worldwide regardless.
Empathy
The willingness to learn
Excellent communication skills
Patience
Endurance
Courage

5. Winston Churchill

Arguably the most successful wartime leader in history, Winston Churchill was a master communicator and motivator. Hailing from a humble background, he set his sights high and accomplished his goals through grit, determination, and courage. Few leaders in history could communicate their thoughts and goals to their followers as concisely as Churchill could. His leadership strengths included:

Passion
Courage
The ability and willingness to learn from his mistakes
Perseverance
A staunch belief in his followers
Humor

Interestingly, Winston Churchill was not a natural speaker. He developed his communication skills with determination and intent, earning his place in history as someone who continues to inspire people facing adversity to this day.

In addition to their unwillingness to compromise and adapt to the world, these leaders share other essential skills. They were all master communicators, they genuinely cared about their followers, and they didn’t shy away from showing vulnerability. They were among the most intelligent leaders of their times.

Source: https://johnmattone.com/blog/historys-5-best-leaders/     





Environment (1)

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
Published Jul 14, 2009 Updated Jan 21, 2021


Humans cause climate change. How do we know?

Scientists agree that global warming is caused mainly by human activity. Specifically, the evidence shows that certain heat-trapping gases, such as carbon dioxide, are warming the world—and that we release those gases when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.

As scientific models and methods grow more sophisticated, and as we collect more data, our confidence in human-caused climate change only grows higher. Here’s what we know.

Climate science 101

Climate science encompasses a range of disciplines, from oceanography and meteorology, to chemistry, physics, biology and computer science.

Generally speaking, scientists working on climate change compare the climate patterns they observe with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's systems (such as the atmosphere and ocean). By comparing the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can positively identify "human fingerprints” and attribute a proportion of observed warming to human activities.

These fingerprints are found in a diverse range of records from the atmosphere, the ocean, and Earth’s surface. They include rising levels of carbon dioxide, unprecedented warming, and a distinct atomic signature left behind in the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned.

Rising carbon dioxide levels

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the heat-trapping gas in our atmosphere responsible for most of the warming measured over the past several decades. It’s released during cement manufacturing and when coal, gas, and oil are burned—something humans started doing a great deal of during the Industrial Revolution through to today.

The concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased dramatically over the last 150 years, from a pre-industrial era concentration of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to more than 410 ppm currently. CO2 concentration levels are unlikely to dip below these annual averages for hundreds of years.

In fact, measurements from ancient ice cores show that CO2 is now at its highest levels in over 800,000 years.

Unprecedented warming

As the concentration of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere rises, the Earth warms up. In fact, Earth has recently undergone unprecedented warming, particularly since the 1950s.

Every single year since 1977 has been warmer than the 20th century average. Nineteen of the 20 warmest years have occurred since 2001. The period of 2015 to 2019 included the top five hottest years on record.

Analysis of these trends strongly suggests that without the emissions from burning coal and oil, it is very unlikely that 13 out of the 15 warmest years on record would have occurred either on their own or in such quick succession. This also makes sense from the known causes.


It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
2018 US National Climate Assessment


Fossil fuel fingerprinting

We know that CO2 warms the world, that CO2 concentrations are at record-breaking levels, and that global temperatures are rising. But how do we know for certain that humans are the cause?

The answer is in the science. The CO2 produced from fossil fuels carries a unique signature that differentiates it from CO2 produced from other sources. In brief, it carries a specific ratio of carbon isotopes that is only found in the atmosphere when coal, oil, or gas is burned.

Scientists call this δ13C (pronounced "delta C thirteen"), and it’s a smoking gun. Since the 1880s, δ13C has changed in a way that could only happen if CO2 was increasingly coming from fossil fuel sources.

This information tells scientists that human-caused fossil fuel emissions have been the main contributor to the rise in CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial era.

The scientific consensus

Within the scientific community, there is essentially no disagreement on the causes of climate change. Multiple studies have shown that at least 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

Major scientific assessments also agree. The 2018 US National Climate Assessment—whose authors include 300 leading scientists and thirteen federal government agencies—concludes that “it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

Similarly, an authoritative 2014 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, written and reviewed by hundreds of climate experts and scientists from countries around the world, states unambiguously: “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gases are the highest in history. […] Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

Natural factors

We know that warming and cooling have happened in the past, long before humans were around. Natural “climate drivers” include the energy from the sun; aerosols from periodic volcanic eruptions, dust, and salt spray; natural ecological phenomena like methane-emitting termite mounds and CO2 uptake by plants; and variations in snow and ice cover that change how much the Earth’s surface reflects the sun’s energy back into space (referred to as albedo).

All of these factors have profoundly shaped the Earth’s climate. However, none of them sufficiently explain the recent, dramatic increase in global temperatures. For that, scientists need to include human influences.

Natural drivers + human drivers best match reality

When natural and human-induced climate drivers are compared to one another, the human influences are so large that they crowd out other climate drivers over the past half century, producing the warming that we’re all experiencing. Put another way, when climate scientists focus only on natural climate drivers, their models cannot accurately reproduce the observed warming of the past half century. But when the models also include human-induced climate drivers, they accurately capture recent temperature increases in the atmosphere and in the oceans.

In fact, studies show that human activity is responsible for more than half of the warming observed since 1951.

This evidence has led organizations like the IPCC to conclude that the effects of heat-trapping gases and other human activities are both detectable throughout the climate system and “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

Are humans contributing to more extreme weather?

In recent years, the field of attribution science has become more sophisticated, and scientists are now able to quantify how much more likely an extreme event—such as a heat wave or a massive downpour—was as a result of human-caused climate change.

For example, in a landmark 2004 paper, researchers determined that climate change had at least doubled the risk of occurrence of the record-breaking 2003 European summer heat wave, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. A 2016 study of the same heat wave concluded that human-caused climate change had increased the risk of heat-related mortality during the event by about 70 percent in central Paris and about 20 percent in London.

Similarly, researchers found that the record-breaking precipitation Texas experienced in 2017 during Hurricane Harvey was made three times more likely and 15 percent more intense by climate change.

More recently, scientists have found that fingerprinting of climate change can be detected in global daily weather patterns since 2012 and yearly patterns since 1999.

While some types of events are more readily attributable to global warming than others, attribution science is becoming increasingly robust. Several authoritative scientific institutions and government agencies have confirmed both the rigor and the validity of attributing individual extreme events to human-caused climate change.

We are the cause, and we are the solution

Knowing that human activities are the main driver of global warming helps us understand how and why our climate is changing, and it clearly defines the problem as one that is within our power to address.

We cannot avoid some level of warming caused by the heat-trapping gases already present in the atmosphere. Some of the gases (such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) will last for more than a century. But with aggressive measures to reduce future emissions and adapt to those climate impacts we cannot avoid, we have a small window to avoid the worst climate change harms and build a better world.

What does that mean? It means investing in a clean energy economy and healthier and more livable and resilient communities. It means transforming transportation, reorienting our food system, and shifting to lower-carbon lifestyles. It means battling the disinformation spread by fossil fuel companies and other wealthy interests. And it means fighting for equity and environmental justice for all.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 called on nations to keep global warming under the dangerous threshold of 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C. In recent years, the global climate movement—and young people in particular—have been demanding we do even better. With the right policies, practices, vision and cooperation, acting boldly now will give us the best chance of creating the safe and promising future the youth of the world deserve.

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming 




Sunday, March 5, 2023

Business (1)

What Does the Word ‘Entrepreneur’ Mean to You?

This is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word “entrepreneur.” But it’s so much more than that, isn’t it? It’s about passion. It’s about recognizing opportunities and generating innovative, creative ideas. It’s about laser focus. It’s about letting go of fear—especially when it comes to failure.

But don’t take our word for it. We reached out to entrepreneurs from a variety of backgrounds and industries—from our very own Whitman School faculty to a kid prodigy who has appeared on Shark Tank—and asked them to define what it means. Here are their answers:

Alex McKelvie

Department of Entrepreneurship and Emerging Enterprises, Whitman School

“Someone can be an entrepreneur regardless of the type of business (startup, family business, corporate, government) or motive (for profit, not for profit, lifestyle, small business, growth-oriented business). Entrepreneurship focuses on action (entrepreneurs are doers as they pursue opportunities) and a willingness to venture into the unknown (one never knows if an opportunity is going to be lucrative or not).”

Scott Kleckner, MBA@Syracuse Inaugural Cohort

Dinosaur Bar-B-Q Restaurants

“Being in the hospitality field, I have always viewed myself as both a restaurateur and an entrepreneur. Although I’ve worked for large corporations for much of my career (aka corporate entrepreneurship), I’ve always viewed the food service industry as being composed of corporate entrepreneurs and independent entrepreneurs. I’m excited to join the inaugural cohort of MBA@Syracuse and will be including the Entrepreneurship specialization as a part of my studies.

Although I haven’t given much thought to my definition of being an entrepreneur, I realized that there is something that I say often that may fit the bill … I grew up in a family business; my mom owned a small deli that I worked in throughout my youth. We regularly celebrated days in which our sales exceeded $350. Years later, I was overseeing businesses that exceeded $1,000,000 in daily sales. When working for others, I have always spent money like it was my own. As an entrepreneur, all of the money you spend truly is your own. I’ve always treated any business that I’ve managed as if it were my own venture, as if driving sales and reducing costs were going to make or break me. As an entrepreneur, I’ve realized my successes and failures on a more personal level than when working for others, as the sales you drive and money you spend are truly your own.”

Carly Heitlinger

The College Prepster

“Being an entrepreneur is about turning a passion into a business.”

Moziah Bridges

Mo’s Bows

“To be an entrepreneur, you must be passionate about your business and be a people person with a selling spirit.”

Seun Olubodun

Duke & Winston

“To me, entrepreneurship means being prepared to give up a regular life—relationships, downtime, fun, weekends—and throwing yourself fully into your venture. Entrepreneurship, especially for a beginner, requires a laser focus and the ability to let go of all the distractions—some of which I listed above, which will come at you from every angle.”

Tim Nicholson

CoolSocksBruh

“I do not believe there is one absolute answer, however, I would say being an entrepreneur is not being afraid to do or create things you would like to see. We all have talents and ideas that we use, so we have to figure out how to utilize those talents and ideas within a given amount of time. Also, learning from your mistakes—not giving up—and leveling up from that is key.”

Olivia White

41 Winks

“Being an entrepreneur means being fearless. As an entrepreneur, I can’t be discouraged by the task at hand or worry how unqualified I am for the job. I need to, instead, surround myself with people who inspire, help, and challenge me to conquer what needs to get done. I somewhat stumbled into this entrepreneur lifestyle, but I wasn’t afraid to take the challenge, and through this experience I have discovered many other strengths, such as being creative, courageous, and personable. I originally thought being an entrepreneur meant faking it until I made it, but I realize it’s rather doing, doing, doing until something gets made. I have to keep working hard, believe in what I’m doing, and not be afraid to ask for help. It’s an exhausting journey, but all the while incredibly exciting and life changing.”

Lauren Berger

Intern Queen

“Being an entrepreneur means you are the boss—in good times and in bad times. The decisions start and end with you. The best part is that I make the rules, and every morning I get to wake up and do what I want to do.”

Jason Feirman

Spice to Meet You; NYC Pizza Run

“When discussing entrepreneurship, I think it’s important to differentiate between entrepreneurial skills and actually being an entrepreneur. There are many people out there who are able to address the problems and challenges they face with original and innovative solutions. These people tend to thrive in dynamic, fast-paced work environments and are coveted by top companies.

But an entrepreneur is someone who, while possessing those skills, also has the willingness to assume a certain amount of risk that is involved with a particular venture or goal. The extent of this risk-taking certainly varies, but I don’t think you’ll ever meet an entrepreneur who tells you that he or she never took a risk. There is a popular book about building a business titled Heart, Smarts, Guts, and Luck. In addition to taking a risk (the guts!), I believe that every entrepreneur exhibits some combination of heart and smarts. A little bit of luck never hurts either.”

Heidi Ganahl

Camp Bow Wow

“Being an entrepreneur means finding something you are passionate about to start a business around. Firmly believing in your idea and pouring your heart and soul into it. Embracing failure instead of fearing it—failure is just a step toward greatness. Not being afraid to give up on what you think is holding you back and seeing that you have all the tools and all the passion you need to be successful. As an entrepreneur, you have to think big and dream big—don’t limit yourself.”

Source: https://onlinegrad.syracuse.edu/blog/word-entrepreneur-mean/#:~:text=Entrepreneur%3A%20%E2%80%9CA%20person%20who%20starts,and%20generating%20innovative%2C%20creative%20ideas.





Saturday, February 25, 2023

Campus Activities (1)

Young People's Time Perspectives: From Youth to Adulthood.

The article examines three bodies of theory: individualization, the lifecourse, and concepts of time. It interrogates these theories with respect to the following questions: how young people speak about the future; and the bearing of young people's situations and time perspectives upon the way they envisage the transition to adulthood. It draws upon empirical research from a five-country European study, in particular material from focus group discussions conducted with young people in two west-European countries, Britain and Norway. It analyses variations in young peoples' ways of thinking about their future lives, and proposes, as a basis for further research, three ideal typical models.

Individualization has become a key concept in theories of social change inWestern societies. Closely associated with this is the idea that the lifecourseis undergoing fundamental changes, involving destandardization and de-sequencing; the standard biography is thought to be replaced by ‘choice bio-graphy’. These theorizations invite debate about the concept of time since theyoccur over time and within time. They also require an orientation to time. Inthis article we examine theories of lifecourse process and change and conceptsof time with reference to the research questions: how do young people thinkand speak about the future; and what bearing do young people’s situations andtime perspectives have upon the way they envisage the future and the transitionto adulthood? We draw upon empirical material from focus groups conductedwith young people in two West European countries, Britain and Norway.1 Our main purpose in this article is to develop a theoretical discussion aboutyoung people’s time orientations as they emerge in group discussions, and topresent our tentative attempts to apply theory to empirical data. We explorevariations in young people’s ways of thinking about their future lives, on thebasis of which we propose three ideal typical models. The models suggest agreater variety in ways of thinking and planning for the future than the individualization thesis and its emphasis on ‘choice biography’ imply.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249825684_Young_People's_Time_Perspectives_From_Youth_to_Adulthood 





Friday, February 17, 2023

Campus (1)

The student life vs the job life: the grass is always greener.

Ask any student nearing the end of the their degree and it won’t take them long to rattle off the reasons why they would like nothing more than to be done with essays, assignments and deadlines. Instead, they're looking forward to taking a seat at the adult table of careers, income and flashy new clothes. Student life can be intolerable and even with the end in sight, it's easy to become disillusioned when you have an idea of what you’d like to do come graduation.

But speak to any fresh full-timer, newly minted with their expensive graduation parchment and academic gown bill. They will speak of the joyous undergraduate bliss they pine for as they rise at ungodly hours to travel to an arbitrary place an hour commute from their home to perform tasks for a manager they don’t like for a company whose name they forgot.

It seems like the youth of today can’t win. But the point still stands. Whether it is the student life or the job life, the grass is always greener. The three classic scenarios where this struggle rings true are time, energy and money – read on to prepare yourself for the time when you have to pack up your pencils and books and embrace death and taxes.

Time At university, your timetable is set, but your free time is not. You have the liberty to construct a daily routine at will, allowing for unforeseeable breaks in play for when you want to organise a coffee catch up or devote time and energy into your studies.

At work, the best you can hope for is 30 minutes or an hour in the middle of the day to throw down as much food and coffee as needed for you to get through the remaining five to eight hours of the day. After this, its back to the desk/workbench for what can only be described as an afternoon of hating yourself, both for your overly full stomach and for your life choices.

Also note that the days of scheduling any sort of appointment in the middle of the day are all but gone. You’ll instead have to tussle with your boss for an extra hour off to organise a visit to the doctor, dentist, hairdresser, bank, or real estate agent, and even then you’ll be pushing it. All is not what it seems folks.

Energy It’s a well known fact that at uni, your optimum wake up time is around 9-11am, which allows you to maximise sleep and cut your meals down to two-a-day brunch/dinner combo. Depending on your mood and recent activities, you can tailor-make a daily schedule where you can recharge your batteries and iron out all the creases from the week’s activities.

Having a job requires your undivided attention for the vast majority of your day. Sure, you may finish work at 5pm and have the whole night for fun and activities and hobbies, but the reality is that the best of your daily energy has been poured into this job between the hours of 10am and 3pm. The rest of the day is spent catching up, with your body’s circadian rhythms hating on you for disturbing them before the sun even bothered to shine.

Money Student life is a poor life, and it is often the students’ lament that there is never enough money coming through the door to do anything. We are stymied by our education, forced into classrooms that seem ambiguous and unnecessary for our future earning potential. It’s a frustrating few years of somewhere between unemployment and purgatory.

So surely the biggest perk of full time employment is the reality of a regular paycheck. Money in the sky rocket to fulfil all your needs on a month to month basis, as well as the life-defining ability to afford what you want, is one of the areas students look forlornly to the working world and itch their feet to join.

But don’t be fooled by the glitz and glamour; money in the bank means money out the bank in the form of rent, bills, car repayments, petrol, food; all the things you probably had to pay for at uni, but on a larger scale. What’s worse, you spend a week working hard only to let loose on the weekend to forgot all your woes, which can put a huge dent in your wallet if you’re not careful.

So the terrible triad of time, energy, and money will come to haunt you when you start work. Freedom from uni in the form of full-time work is the end game; its going to happen anyway, and for a long time. So without being melodramatic, your time at uni is finite and should be enjoyed to the limit.

Rory Marples

Rory is studying a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery at the University of Notre Dame.


Source: https://junkee.com/the-student-life-vs-the-job-life-the-grass-is-always-greener/129114 





Monday, February 13, 2023

Classes (1)

7 Reasons Why Continuous Learning is Important

By Amit Nagpal -Wholistic Leadership® Enabler Leadership Facilitator | Coach | Author | Speaker | Former Training Head- Infosys BPM| Cognizant BPS | Wipro BPO| GECIS-Genpact | NIS | GSK


Learning is essential to our existence. Just like food nourishes our bodies, information and continued learning nourishes our minds. Lifelong learning is an indispensable tool for every career and organisation.

Today, continuous learning forms a necessary part in acquiring critical thinking skills and discovering new ways of relating to people from different cultures. To live a life without continuous learning is unthinkable.


“The only thing that is constant is change”, Heraclitus.

Change in your career, change in your personal life, change in your community and organisations. One of the most effective ways of dealing with change is with lifelong learning.

What is continuous learning?

Continues learning is your self-motivated persistence in acquiring knowledge and competencies in order to expand your skill set and develop future opportunities. It forms part of your personal and professional development in an effort to avoid stagnation and reach your full potential.

7 ways lifelong learning will benefit you

Knowledge is now at everyone’s fingertips. Those not making use of this opportunity will remain where they are, their capabilities diminishing in its importance. These seven benefits should be reason enough never to stop learning.

1. Remain relevant

Don’t be left behind. Ensure you remain relevant to your industry by keeping up to date with trends and adapting your skill set. To function effectively amongst this rapidly changing world of technology, you need to learn new things to remain valuable.

2. Prepare for the unexpected

Lifelong learning will help you adapt to unexpected changes, for example, losing your job and having to depend on new skills to find work. By continuing to learn, you’ll more easily step out of your comfort zone and take on new job opportunities.

3. Boost your profile

When you’re always learning, you’ll keep improving and grow in your career and start to receive recommendations from colleagues and managers. The chances are that you’ll switch jobs multiple times throughout your life and you need to learn new skills to adapt accordingly.

4. Competence leads to confidence

Learning new things gives us a feeling of accomplishment, which in turn boosts our confidence in our own capabilities. Also, you’ll feel more ready to take on challenges and explore new business ventures.

5. Sparks new ideas

Acquiring new skills will unveil new opportunities and help you find innovative solutions to problems. This could earn you more money.

6. Change your perspective

Continuous learning opens your mind and changes your attitude by building on what you already know. The more you learn, the better you’ll get at seeing more sides of the same situation, helping you understand more deeply.

7. Pay it forward Continuous learning isn’t just about you. Lifelong learning helps develop your leadership skills which then translates into fostering lifelong learning in other individuals, by encouraging them to pursue further education.

Find a learning style that works for you

Learning can take whatever shape or form works best for you. Different people have different styles of learning.

Visual: This style of learning associates information with images. Visual learners learn best when reading or seeing demonstrations, graphs, flow charts and brain maps.

Auditory: Auditory learners are people that learn best when information is reinforced through sound. They enjoy lectures and seminars, listening to music while studying and will frequently create songs about information to help them remember.

Kinaesthetic: This is the tactile style of learning in which people remember information easier when performing the activity, for example doing laboratory experiments or role playing.

How can managers create a culture of continued learning?

Managers need to walk the talk by providing access to learning opportunities and encouraging continued learning. You can do this by voicing your recognition of others improvements and efforts in learning new skills and provide words of motivation.

You could go a step further and implement dedicated times for actively learning new skills, for example on ‘Learning Friday’ employees could have an extra free hour to read business books, listen to webinars or practice new skills. You should also consider inviting speakers from within and outside your organisations to share their knowledge and expertise.

How to learn something new every day:

· Get into the habit of reading by scheduling your time.

· Build a network of go-to experts and ask questions.

· Become a member of an association related to your work and initiate networking.

· Learn by teaching someone else.

· Conduct your own research and investigations.

· Go to the library and explore the shelves.

· Observe what’s happening around you.

· Evaluate and reflect on what you’ve learned.

· Apply what you’ve learned.

Resources for continued learning:

· Read magazines and online articles.

· Analyse and critique case studies.

· Subscribe to publications specific to your areas of interest.

· Make time to connect with a global network of people using Skype, Social Media and Email.

· Attend training courses and events. 

· Listen to podcasts and watch TED videos.

Conclusion

Always have a curious mind. Explore different topics and don’t be afraid to ask for clarity. Be inquisitive, and if your intent is sincere, there will be people who will help and support you in your journey.

Experiment, try out new things. Keep the momentum going. Keep learning and keep reflecting.

“Intellectual growth should commence at birth and only cease at death”, Albert Einstein. What techniques are you using to become a lifelong learner?

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-reasons-why-continuous-learning-important-amit-nagpal/ 




Sunday, February 5, 2023

Anthropology (1)

Communication.

Communication is a core skill for successful leaders. Effective communication includes speaking, writing, listening, and matching words and actions. Leaders speak many times a day, so achieving outcomes is important (e.g., educate, motivate, persuade). Such communications entail (1) technology such as emails, presentations, and text messages, used judiciously to augment personal communications; (2) active listening skills (the most important leadership skill), verbal and nonverbal responses, and understanding; (3) employee feedback, gathered via surveys and focus groups; and (4) body language, which can be misinterpreted if verbal and nonverbal messages are mixed or unique speaker signals are unclear.

What Are You Trying to Communicate?

To craft a message, distill it down to one or two sentences and then develop a clear, consistent, and accurate message. Useful tools include talking points, consistent scripts, and frequently asked questions

(FAQs) and answers. This approach applies to sharing good news. For bad news, the organizational leader might need to respond to media questions and thus should prepare talking points and FAQs in advance, possibly send them to the media, and consider seeking media training. Because good news does not travel as quickly as bad news, the leader should reach out to internal and external media contacts.

Who Is Your Audience?

Understanding the audience is key to tailoring more effective communications, which require not only conveying information but also developing relationships and building trust. Research shows that audiences would rather hear from people in their own group (or someone who understands their concerns) and can mistrust people from other groups, especially if workplace stability is threatened; audiences also react negatively to a communicator who is defensive or manipulative. For oral presentations, a leader should not read the speech and should maintain eye contact and be prepared to answer questions—and thus should invest considerable time and effort in preparation and practice. Written communications require comparable attention to clarity of content, tailored messages, and audience concerns.

How Does Your Audience Receive Information?

The right format is important for a message to reach the intended audience. Facilities leaders work with diverse constituencies, many generations, and varying familiarity with digital communication, so leaders must use a range of tools (e.g., email blasts, brown bags, training, onsite help, mentors). Leaders can send messages via tools such as social networking (e.g., Facebook and Twitter); websites (first source for many users), which must be maintained and updated; written communications (most common), using multiple departmental channels, soliciting employee feedback, and widely distributing reports; community outreach (to foster town-gown trust), such as town halls to discuss future plans; and oral communications, such as regular meetings (because more than half of an intended message is conveyed nonverbally).

When Should You Contact Your Audience

The political work environment drives the timing of message delivery. Leaders must be decisive but also encourage a natural dialogue process within the organization so that others can reach conclusions, own results, and grow as employees. For department news, supervisors should be notified before information is publicized. Each organization has a unique communication hierarchy that must be observed to identify decision-makers and to manage and meet expectations. When dealing with the media on issues when timing can be controlled, leaders should assess whether and when to release information. For university news, electronic and social media can distribute messages quickly, especially for sensitive issues.

Kinds of Communications

Leaders hold a variety of conversations, including (1) caring conversations (and advance preparation) for timely and empathetic delivery of stressful information such as critical feedback, discipline, demotion, or reduction in force; (2) crucial conversations about sensitive topics when a lot is at stake, opinions vary, or emotions run high); (3) customer conversations, which require sincere interest, active listening in face-to-face interactions (e.g., focus groups), knowledge of underlying issues, appropriate responses, and follow-up (and updates) through closure; (4) contractor and vendor conversations, such as managing vendors that want to market to the facilities department, depending on type of contract; and (5) executive conversations, such as PowerPoint presentations to high-level executives to update them or secure approval for projects.

Transparency and Confidentiality

Transparency is a key attribute of an ethical organization, which has clear roles, defines responsibilities, makes sure that rules are understood, fosters trust, and openly discusses situations and processes. It encourages dissenting employee views, and full transparency is expected, required, and practiced in handling employee issues. A reputation for credible leadership depends on building transparent cultures where bad news is safe to discuss. However, in some cases, transparency must be balanced with confidentiality while ensuring that rumors do not undermine employee trust. In a tough situation, always deliver the news in person; be transparent and deliver as much information as possible; allow the audience to ask questions and provide input; and deliver bad news as soon as possible. 

Source: https://www.appa.org/bok/abstract-communication/ 



 (video 1)

 (video 2)

Friday, January 20, 2023

Biology (1)

The future evolution of humanity is a huge topic. There are a number of factors that will influence the future evolution of humanity, including how people view and deal with change in general; different models of the processes of evolution and change transforming our world, and different substantive stages of evolution - in physical, biological, cultural, technological, and consciousness areas - which it is argued all work through us as human beings and will influence our ongoing evolution. For more on the process and substance of evolution in different areas, see Groff (2005a), which is a good companion piece to this article.

Additional nearer and middle term factors influencing future human evolution include: negative trends and dangers (including global megacrisis issues and dangers of nuclear and other types of warfare), positive breakthroughs and opportunities (including breakthroughs in many areas of technology-all with important societal implications, and social innovations), unexpected events or "wild cards;" the emergence of increasingly diverse and complex system levels over time, the movement of humanity out into space (to explore, industrialize, and settle in space), military interests in space, the extinction of species and dangers to ecological systems on earth, interspecies interactions and eventual offspring from humans and "alien" species (if other intelligent species exist in the universe), the evolution of humanity remaining on earth; and the evolution of consciousness-on earth and in space.

Farther-term and far, far future factors that can or will influence future human evolution (if descendents of humans still exist-in whatever form-at that time) include: the evolution of our solar system; the evolution and fate of the universe itself; and the possible evolution of consciousness to other dimensions of reality. 

Source: https://jfsdigital.org/articles-and-essays/2007-2/vol-12-no-1-august/articles/future-evolution-of-humanity/ 




Friday, January 13, 2023

History (1)

3 important people in my life. There are several people in my life that have served as a source of influence. However, there are three people who have not only impacted a decision or two, but have drastically altered my way of life. These people have completely transformed my life in a positive way. Without these people, my life would not have the same meaning and purpose. These three important individuals are my mom, my dad, and my wife. First and foremost, there is my mother. She has served her role as my mother dutifully and out of love. That would explain any mother in this world.

However, she has gone beyond that and has provided a very nurturing childhood while growing up. Growing up in India, there was a large emphasis on academic success. For some of my friends, that meant doing well and succeeding called for praise while failure was simply looked at with disgust. My mother never judged me for my successes or failures. She acknowledged my successes, but also taught me how to learn with my failures. This applied not only to school, but also to sports. Perhaps, this is why I excelled in both. I received the encouragement and proper guidance I needed.

Furthermore, my mom always had a calm attitude. She never worked with a hot temper. I learned how to be patient and how to deal with problems that came my way. Thus, my mom did not only provide me with an exemplary childhood, she role modeled and taught me positive life skills. I always refer back to a problem in terms of what my own mother would do. The second most significant person in my life is my father. Growing up, he was very present in my life even in a patriarchal society. He encouraged me to succeed and excel in everything I do.

Not only that, but he also taught me some of the tougher life lessons. I remember that as a child, whenever I wanted something new, I had to wait it out until it was practical to replace whatever I wanted to replace. If I whined or cried, it would be completely out of the question. Thus, my dad in a way taught me how to appreciate the things in life as the way they are instead of always hoping for a change. He also taught me to be strong and patient with goals because crying and whining only leads to time wasted. It is a weakness that only sets you back instead of moving you forward.

Another aspect my dad has influenced me greatly is to look at every individual with equality. Growing up, I was raised to not judge a person based on who they were or how much money they made. My dad instilled these values into me and hoped that I carried them forward. He wanted me to understand that people may differ from the surface, but they should all be taken equally. Without my father, my social interactions and way of setting goals and achieving them would not have been the same. Finally, the final person of significance in my life is my wife of 4 years.

Right after I moved to Houston, I did not know many people and my life was very simple and bland. I would go to school, focus on my studies, interact with my family, and repeat the same routine every single day. My life was missing an important social sector. I had no one else to talk to. However, I met a girl from Houston and she was very friendly and kind. She did not judge me like others did. She did not concern herself with my style or who I was. She took me like any other person. Perhaps this mindset was what I was looking for in another person.

She not only was there when I needed her the most, but she became another reason and another motivation to keep my life moving strong. Thus, she has inspired me that there is always hope even in difficult times. However, the key is to maintain hope and a positive attitude. One of the most important things she has taught me is to always smile and life. Life is too short to carry a frown on your face and to not enjoy every single moment of it. As a result, these three people have served as great source of positive influence. Without them, my life would be incomplete.

Source: https://phdessay.com/3-important-people-in-my-life/





Monday, October 25, 2021

Profesora Victoria Sheffield. Estados Unidos.

Profesora de inglés los Estados Unidos. Con estudios en psicología en la Universidad de Georgetown, Washington DC., La profesora Sheffield cuenta con la certificación TEFL y tiene años de experiencia en la enseñanza del idioma inglés como lengua extranjera.

Friday, May 14, 2021

Ana Suárez. Profesora de Inglés.

Ana Suárez Rodríguez. Directora de la Academia Anglo-Saxon & 259 Borgoño Street. Profesora de Inglés titulada de la Universidad de Chile sede Arica. Jefe de Unidad Técnico Pedagógica y Administradora Educacional. Con experiencia en el Beet Institute de Inglaterra, la señora Suárez se encuentra certificada por los exámenes internacionales de inglés:

1. Cambridge English. Teaching Knowledge Test, TKT. Module 1. Language and background to language learning and teaching.

2. Cambridge English. Teaching Knowledge Test, TKT. Module 2. Lesson planning and use of resources for language teaching.

3. Cambridge English. Teaching Knowledge Test, TKT. Module 3. Managing the teaching and learning process, including classroom management.

4. Trinity College ESOL Test.

Danitza Lazcano. Profesora de Inglés.

Danitza Lazcano. Profesora de Inglés titulada de la Universidad de Tarapacá. Directora del Programa YOUNG LEARNERS y encargada de la preparación para los exámenes internacionales Michigan MYLE, Michigan MET Go! y TOEFL Junior, para niños y Adolescentes. La profesora Lazcano es Licenciada en Educación, Magíster en Educación (e) y Orientadora Educacional. Además, está certificada por la Universidad de Dayton, USA en la Enseñanza de Adolescentes. Finalmente, ha sido Expositora en Congresos Internacionales de Profesores de Inglés y se encuentra certificada por los exámenes internacionales:

1. Test of English as a Foreign Language, TOEFL ITP (2020, 2022).

2. Examination for the Certificate of Competency in English, Michigan ECCE.

3. Michigan English Test, MET.

Thursday, November 19, 2020

Charla Informativa Exámenes Michigan MYLE, MET Go! e ECCE. Sábado 28 de noviembre a las 18.00 hrs.

Sábado 28 de noviembre a las 18.00 hrs. El señor Sandro Molina, Director de Education USA en el Centro Cultural Norteamericano de Arequipa, realizará una charla informativa sobre los exámenes internacionales de la Universidad de Michigan MYLE, MET Go! e ECCE, para niños y adolescentes. Estos exámenes cuentan con la doble certificación de las Universidades de Michigan y Cambridge. Mayor información al teléfono 582431617 o al E-mail instituto.anglosaxon@gmail.com . Academia Anglo-Saxon, Centro Oficial de Preparación para los Exámenes Internacionales de la Universidad de Michigan.

Sunday, November 1, 2020

Dialectic

Ragtime: Thank you for participating in this our eighteenth presentation in the effort to resuscitate The Chicago Experiment.

Ragtime: We are discussing each of the 102 Great Ideas from "The Syntopicon."

Ragtime: Every library in existence has a set of the Great Books of the Western World.

Ragtime: This is a 54 volume set. (443 works by 74 authors) Volumes 2 and 3 are titled

Ragtime: "The Syntopicon."

Ragtime: The topic covered in this presentation will be "Dialectic"

Ragtime: The presentation will be in four parts.

Ragtime: In PART I we will consider some of the derogatory connotations behind dialectic. We will discuss the distinction that Descartes made between philosophy and rhetoric, and we will consider the trivium of the liberal arts.

Ragtime: In PART II we will talk about the distinction that Plato made between a philosopher and a sophist. We will consider how Aristotle differed from Plato on that topic, and we will show how Aristotle portrays dialectic as being an intermediate between science and rhetoric.

Ragtime: In PART III we cover four major expositions of dialectic. Kantąs exposition resembles Aristotleąs and Hegeląs exposition resembles Platoąs. We will cover Hegeląs concept of thesis and antithesis. We will cover the concept of dialectical opposition.

Ragtime: In PART IV we will discuss how Karl Marx made use of Hegeląs dialectic. We will also discuss the distaste that some philosophers had for Hegeląs dialectic.

Ragtime: The words "dialectical" and "dialectician" are currently used more often in a derogatory than in a descriptive sense.

Ragtime: The person who criticizes an argument by saying, "It is just a matter of definition" is also apt to say, "That may be true dialectically, but . . . " or "Youąre just being dialectical."

Ragtime: Implied in such remarks is dispraise of reasoning which, however excellent or skillful it may be as reasoning, stands condemned for being out of touch with fact or experience.

Ragtime: Still other complaints against dialectic are that it plays with words, begs the question, makes sport of contradictions.

Ragtime: When the theologian Hippothadeus almost convinces Panurge that he "should rather choose to marry once, than to burn still in the fires of concupiscence," Rabelais has Panurge raise one last doubt against the proposal.

Ragtime: "Shall I be a cuckold father," he asks, "yea or no?"

Ragtime: Hippothadeus answers: "By no means . . . will you be a cuckold, if it please God."

Ragtime: On receiving this reply Panurge cries out, "O the Lord help us now whither are we driven to, good folks? To the conditionals, which, according to the rules and precepts of the dialectic faculty, admit of all contradictions and impossibilities."

Ragtime: "If my Transalpine mule had wings, my Transalpine mule would fly."

Ragtime: "If if please God, I shall not be a cuckold, but I shall be a cuckold if it please him."

Ragtime: AS a term of disapproval, "dialectical" has been used by scientists against philosophers, and by philosophers against theologians and, with invective, by religious men against those who resort to argument concerning matters of faith.

Ragtime: The early Middle Ages witnessed a conflict between the mystical and the rational approaches to the truths of religion.

Ragtime: Those for whom religious experience and revelation were the only avenue to God condemned the dialecticians‹the philosophers or theologians who tried to use reason discursively rather than proceed by intuition and vision.

Ragtime: With the Reformation and with the Renaissance, men like Martin Luther and Francis Bacon regarded dialectic as the bane of mediaeval learning.

Ragtime: Because of its dialectical character, Luther dismissed all theological speculation as sophistry.

Ragtime: Bacon, for the same reason, stigmatized scholastic philosophy as consisting in "no great quantity of matter and infinite agitation of wit."

Ragtime: On grounds which were common as well as opposite, both mystics and experimentalists attacked dialectic as a futile, if not vicious, use of the mind‹as "hair- splitting" and "logic-chopping."

Ragtime: Even when they admitted that it might have some virtue, they approved of it as a method of argument or proof, proper enough perhaps in forensic oratory or political debate, but entirely out of place in the pursuit of truth or in approaching reality.

Ragtime: A certain conception of dialectic is implicit in all such criticisms.

Ragtime: The dialectician is a man who argues rather than observes, who appeals to reason rather than experience, who draws implications from whatever is said or can be siad, pushing a premise to its logical conclusion or reducing it to absurdity.

Ragtime: This aspect of dialectic appears to be the object of Rabelaisą satire in the famous dispute between Panurge and Thaumast, which is carried on "by signs only, without speaking, for the matters are so abtruse, hard, and arduous, that words proceeding from the mouth of man will never be sufficient for the unfolding of them."

Ragtime: In view of those who think that truth can be learned only by observation, by induction from particulars, or generalization from experience, the technique of dialectic, far from being method of inquiry, seems to have virtue only for the purpose of disputation or criticism.

Ragtime: "The human faculties," writes Gibbon, "are fortified by the art and practice of dialectics."

Ragtime: It is "the keenest weapon of dispute," he adds, but "more effectual for the detection of error than for the investigation of truth."

Ragtime: Mill describes "the Socratic dialectics, so magnificently exemplified in the dialogues of Plato," as a "contrivance for making the difficulties of the question . . . present to the learnerąs consciousness . . . They were essentially a negative discussion of the great questions of philosophy and life," he continues, "directed with consummate skill to the

Ragtime: purpose of convincing anyone who has merely adopted the commonplaces of received opinion that he did not understand the subject . . . The school disputations of the Middle Ages had a somewhat similar object."

Ragtime: In Milląs opinion, "as a discipline to the mind, they were in every respect inferior to the powerful dialectics which formed the intellects of the ŚSocratic virią; but the modern mind," he says, "owes far more to both than it is generally willing to admit, and the present modes of education contain nothing which in the smallest degree supplies the place either of the one or of the other."

Ragtime: Disparaging comment on dialectic comes not only from those who contrast it unfavorably with the methods of experiment or empirical research.

Ragtime: It is made also by writers who trust reasonąs power to grasp truths intuitively and to develop their consequences deductively.

Ragtime: Sensitive to what may seem to be a paradox here, Descartes writes in his Rules for the Direction of the Mind: "It may perhaps strike some with surprise that here, where we are discussing how to improve out power of deducing one truth from another, we have omitted all the precepts of the dialecticians."

Ragtime: The dialectician can proceed only after he has been given premises to work from.

Ragtime: Since, in Descartesą view, dialectic provides no method for establishing premises or for discovering first principles, it can "contribute nothing at all to the discovery of the truth . . . Its only possible use is to serve to explain at times more easily to others the truths we have already ascertained; hence it should be transferred from Philosophy to Rhetoric."

Ragtime: The connection of dialectic with disputation and rhetoric has some foundation in the historical fact that many of the techniques of dialectic originated with the Greek sophists who had primarily a rhetorical or forensic aim.

Ragtime: Comparable to the Roman rhetoricians and to the law teachers of a later age, the sophists taught young men how to plead a case, how to defend themselves against attack, how to persuade an audience.

Ragtime: Skill in argument had for them a practical, not a theoretical, purpose; not truth or knowledge, but success in litigation or in political controversy.

Ragtime: The familiar charge that the method they taught enabled men "to make the worse appear the better reason," probably exaggerates, but none the less reflects, the difference between the standards of probability in disputation and the standards of truth in scientific inquiry.

Ragtime: This has some bearing on the disrepute of sophistry and the derogatory light cast on the dialectical when it is identified with the sophistical.

Ragtime: But there is another historical fact which places dialectic in a different light.

Ragtime: In the tradidion of the liberal arts, especially in their Roman and mediaeval development, "dialectic" and "logic" are interchangeable names for the discipline which, together with grammar and rhetoric, comprises the three liberal arts knows as the "trivium."

Ragtime: In his treatise On Christian Doctrine Augustine uses the word "dialectic" in this way.

Ragtime: Whatever else it means, the identification of dialectic with logic implies its distinction from rhetoric, and certainly from sophistry.

Ragtime: Yet Augustine does not fail to observe the misuse of dialectic which debases it to the level of sophistry.

Ragtime: "In the use of it," he declares, "we must guard against the love of wrangling, and the childish vanity of entrapping an adversary."

Ragtime: "For there are many of what are call sophisms," he continues, "inferences in reasoning that are false and yet so close an imitation of the true, as to deceive not only dull people, but clever men too, when they are not on their guard."

Ragtime: He gives as an example the case of one man saying to another, "What I am, you are not."

Ragtime: The other man may assent to this, thinking, as Augustine points out, that "the proposition is in part true, the one man being cunning, the other simple."

Ragtime: But when "the first speaker adds: ŚI am a maną" and "the other has given his assent to this also, the first draws his conclusion: ŚThen you are not a man.ą "

Ragtime: According to Augustine, "this sort of ensnaring argument" should not be called the dialectical, but sophistical.

Ragtime: He makes the same sort of observation about the abuse of rhetoric in speech which "only aims at verbal ornamentation more than is consistent with seriousness of purpose."

Ragtime: That, too, he thinks, should be "called sophistical" in order to avoid attaching the name of rhetoric to misapplications of the art.

Ragtime: Dialectic for Augustine is the art which "deals with inferences, and definitions, and divisions" and "is of the greatest assistance in the discovery of meaning."

Ragtime: Rhetoric, on the other hand, "is not to be used so much for ascertaining the meaning as for setting forth the meaning when it is ascertained."

Ragtime: Dialectic, in other words, is divorced from the practical purpose of stating and winning an argument, and given theoretical status as a method of inquiry.

Ragtime: In PART II we will talk about the distinction that Plato made between a philosopher and a sophist. We will consider how Aristotle differed from Plato on that topic, and we will show how Aristotle portrays dialectic as being an intermediate between science and rhetoric.

Ragtime: This conception of dialectic originates in the dialogues of Plato.

Ragtime: Not himself a sophist, either by profession or in aim, Socrates found other uses for the analytical and argumentative devices invented by the sophists.

Ragtime: The same skills of mind which were practically useful in the public assembly and in the law courts could be used or adapted for clarification and precision in speculative discussions.

Ragtime: They could also be used to find the truth implicit in the commonly expressed convictions of man and to lay bare errors caused by lack of definition in discourse or lack of rigor in reasoning.

Ragtime: In the Sophist Plato separates the philosopher from the sophist, not by any distinction in method, but by the difference in the use each makes of the same technique.

Ragtime: And in the Republic, one of the reasons Socrates gives for postponing the study of dialectic until the age of thirty is that youngsters, "when they first get the taste in their mouths, argue for amusement" and "like puppy-dogs, they rejoice in pulling and tearing at all who come near them."

Ragtime: As a result of being vainly disputatious, they "get into the way of not believing anything which they believed before, and hence, not only they, but philosophy and that relates to it is apt to have a bad name with the rest of the world . . . But when a man begins to get older, he will no longer be guilt of such insanity; he will imitate the dialectician who is seeking for truth, and not the sophist, who is contradicting for the sake of amusement

Ragtime: In the hands of the philosopher dialectic is an instrument of science.

Ragtime: "There is," according to Socrates, "no other method of comprehending by any regular process all true existence or of ascertaining what each thing is in its own nature."

Ragtime: It passes beyond the arts at the lowest level, "which are concerned with the desires or opinions of men, or are cultivated with a view to production and constructions."

Ragtime: It likewise transcends the mathematical sciences, which while they "have some apprehension of true being . . . leave the hypotheses which they use unexamined, and are unable to give an account of them."

Ragtime: Using these as "handmaids and helpers," dialectic "goes directly to the first principle and is the only science which does away with hypotheses in order to make her ground secure."

Ragtime: The dialectic of Plato has an upward and a downward path which somewhat resemble the inductive process of the mind from facts to principles, and the deductive process from principles to the conclusions they validate.

Ragtime: Dialectic, says Socrates, ascends by using hypotheses "as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle of the whole . . . By successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensible object, from ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends.

Ragtime: As the disciplined search for truth, dialectic includes all of logic.

Ragtime: It is concerned with every phase of thought: with the establishment of the light of their presuppositions or consequences; the formulation of inferences and proofs; the resolution of dilemmas arising from opposition in thought.

Ragtime: Whereas for Plato diaclectic is more than the whole of logic, for Aristotle it is less.

Ragtime: Dialectic is more than the process by which the mind goes from myth and fantasy, perception and opinion, to the highest truth.

Ragtime: For Plato it is the ultimate fruit of intellectual labor‹knowledge itself, and in its supreme form as a vision of being and unity.

Ragtime: That is why Socrates makes it the ultimate study in the curriculum proposed for training the guardians to become philosopher kings.

Ragtime: "Dialectic," he says, "is the coping-stone of the sciences, and is set over them; no other science can be placed higher‹the nature of knowledge can go no further."

Ragtime: For Aristotle, dialectic, far from being at the summit of science and philosophy, lies at their base, and must be carefully distinguished from sophistry, which it resembles in method.

Ragtime: "Dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher," Aristotle writes, "for sophistic is wisdom which exists only in semblance, and dialecticians embrace all things in their dialectic, and being is common to all things; but evidently their dialectic embraces these subjects because these are proper to philosophy."

Ragtime: "Sophistic and dialectic," he continues, "turn on the same class of things as philosophy, but philosophy differs from dialectic in the nature of the faculty required and from sophistic in respect of the purpose of the philosophic life."

Ragtime: "Dialectic is merely critical where philosophy claims to know, and sophistic is what appears to be philosophy but is not."

Ragtime: According to Aristotle, dialectic is neither itself a science nor the method of science.

Ragtime: It is that part of logic or method which he treats in the Topics, and it differs from the scientific method expounded in the Posterior Analytics as argument in the sphere of opinion and probabilities differs from scientific demonstration.

Ragtime: Unlike the conclusions of science, the conclusions of dialectical reasoning are only probable, because they are based on assumptions rather than self-evident truths.

Ragtime: Since other and opposite assumptions cannot be excluded, one dialectical conclusion is usually opposed by another in an issue of competing probabilities.

Ragtime: Intermediate between science and rhetoric, dialectic can serve both.

Ragtime: In addition to its practical employment in forensics, it is useful in the philosophical sciences because it develops skill in making and criticizing definitions, and in asking or answering questions.

Ragtime: "The ability to raise searching difficulties on both sides of a subject," Aristotle says, "will make us detect more easily the truth and error about the several points that arise."

Ragtime: Though it is primarily a method of arguing from assumptions and of dealing with disputes arising from contrary assumptions, dialectic is also concerned with the starting points of argument.

Ragtime: The Topics considers how assumptions are chosen, what makes them acceptable, what determines their probability.

Ragtime: Here again Aristotle shows how the philosopher can make use of dialectic‹as that "process of criticism wherein lies the path to the principles of all inquiries.

Ragtime: In PART III we cover four major expositions of dialectic. Kantąs exposition resembles Aristotleąs and Hegeląs exposition resembles Platoąs. We will cover Hegeląs concept of thesis and antithesis. We will cover the concept of dialectical opposition.

Ragtime: Like the division between the Posterior Analytics and the Topics in Aristotleąs Organon, the transcendental logic of Kantąs Critique of Pure Reason falls into two parts‹the analytic and the dialectic.

Ragtime: The distinction between his transcendental logic and what Kant calls "general logic" is duscussed in the presentation on Logic, but here it must be observed that for Kant "general logic, considered as an organon, must always be a logic of illusion, that is, be dialectical."

Ragtime: He thinks that the ancients used the word "dialectic" in this sense, to signify "a sophistical art for giving ignorance, nay even intentional sophistries, the coloring of truth,

Ragtime: in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated."

Ragtime: For his own purposes, however, he wishes "dialectic" to be understood "in the sense of a critique of dialectical illusion."

Ragtime: When he comes to his own transcendental logic, therefore, he divides it into two parts.

Ragtime: The first part deals with "the elements of pure cognition of the understanding, and the principles without which no object at all can be thought."

Ragtime: This is the "Transcendental Analytic, and at the same time a logic of truth"‹a logic of science.

Ragtime: Since in his view, "it ought properly to be only a canon for judging of the empirical use of the understanding, this kind of logic is misused when we seek to employ it as an organon of the universal and unlimited exercise of the understanding."

Ragtime: When it is thus misused, "the exercise of the pure understanding becomes dialectical."

Ragtime: "The second part of our transcendental logic," Kant writes, "must therefore be a critique of dialectical illusion, and this critique we shall term Transcendental Dialectic‹not meaning it as an art of producing dogmatically such illusion (an art which is unfortunately too current among the practitioners of metaphysical juggling), but as a critique of understanding and reason in regard to their hyperphysical use."

Ragtime: Kant goes further than Aristotle in separating dialectic from science.

Ragtime: With regard to the sensible or phenomenal world of experience, science is possible; with regard to the mindąs own structure, the supreme sort of science is possible.

Ragtime: But when reason tries to use its ideas for other objects, and then regards them "as conceptions of actual things, their mode of application is transcendent and delusive."

Ragtime: Kant explains that "an idea is employed transcendentally, when it is applied to an object falsely believed . . . to correspond to it; immanently, when it is applied solely to the employment of the understanding in the sphere of experience";

Ragtime: And he maintains that when ideas are used transcendentally, they do not give rise to science, but "assume a fallacious and dialectical character."

Ragtime: A conclusion of dialectical reasoning, according to Kant, is either opposed by a conclusion equally acceptable to reason‹"a perfectly natural antithetic"‹as in the antimonies of pure reason; or, as in the paralogisms, the reasoning has specious cogency which can be shown to "conclude falsely, while the form is correct and unexceptionable."

Ragtime: In this balance of reason against itself lies the illusory character of the transcendental dialectic.

Ragtime: Where Aristotle recognizes that reason can be employed on both sides of a question because it involves competing probabilities, Kant in calling dialectic "a logic of appearance" explicitly remarks that "this does not signify a doctrine of probability."

Ragtime: He further distinguishes what he calls "transcendental illusory appearance" from "empirical illusory appearance" and ordinary "logical illusion."

Ragtime: The latter two can be corrected and totally removed.

Ragtime: But "transcendental illusion, on the contrary," he writes, "does not cease to exist even after it has been exposed and its nothingness has been clearly perceived by means of transcendental criticism."

Ragtime: The reason for this, Kant explains, is that "here we have to do with a natural and unavoidable illusion, which rests upon subjective principles, and imposes these upon us as objective."

Ragtime: " . . . There is, therefore," he continues, " natural and unavoidable dialectic of pure reason" which arises because the mind seeks to answer questions "well nigh impossible to answer," such as "how objects exist as things in themselves" or "how the nature of things is to be subordinated to principles."

Ragtime: In its effort to transcend experience‹"in disregard of all the warnings of criticism"‹the mind cannot escape the frustration, the dialectical illusion, "which is an inseparable adjunct of human reason."

Ragtime: It is not, Kant repeatedly insists, that "the ideas of pure reason" are "in their own nature dialectical; it is from their misemployment alone that fallacies and illusions arise."

Ragtime: For Hegel as for Plato dialectic moves in the realm of truth and ideas, not probabilities and illusions.

Ragtime: But for Hegel dialectic is always the process of mind, or of the Idea, in interminable motion toward absolute truth‹never resting in the intuition of that truth.

Ragtime: The Idea, he writes, "is self-determined, it assumes successive forms which it successively transcends; and by this very process of transcending its earlier stages, gains an affirmative, and in fact, a richer and more concrete shape."

Ragtime: The dialectical process is a motion in which contrary and defective truths are harmonized.

Ragtime: The synthesis of thesis and antithesis results in a more complete truth.

Ragtime: To illustrate his meaning, Hegel uses the example of building a house.

Ragtime: For such a purpose, we must have "in the first instance, a subjective aim and design" and as means, "the several substances required for the work‹iron, wood, stones."

Ragtime: In rendering these materials suitable for our purpose, we make use of the elements: "fire to melt the iron, wind to blow the fire, water to set the wheels in motion, in order to cut the wood, etc."

Ragtime: Yet the house that we build is, according to Hegel, an opposite or antithesis of these elements.

Ragtime: "The wind, which has helped to build the house, is shut out by the house; so also are the violence of rains and floods, and the destructive powers of fire, so far as the house is made fire-proof.

Ragtime: The stones and beams obey the law of gravity‹press downward‹and so high walls are carried up."

Ragtime: The result is that "the elements are made use of in accordance with their nature, and yet to cooperate for a product, by which their operation is limited."

Ragtime: The initial opposition between the idea of a house and the elements is reconciled in the higher synthesis, which is the house itself.

Ragtime: While it shows the opposing theses and the resulting synthesis, this example does not fully exhibit the dynamic character of the Hegelian dialectic.

Ragtime: If the resulting synthesis is not the whole truth, it too must be defective and require supplementation by a contrary which is defective in an opposite way.

Ragtime: These two together then become the material for a higher synthesis, another step in that continuing dialectical process which is the life of mind‹both the subjective dialectic of the human mind and the objective dialectic of the Absolute Mind or the Idea.

Ragtime: The thread of common meaning which runs through these four conceptions of dialectic is to be found in the principle of opposition.

Ragtime: In each of them dialectic either begins or ends with some sort of intellectual conflict, or develops and then resolves such oppositions.

Ragtime: For Kant dialectical opposition takes the extreme form of irreducible contradictions from which the mind cannot escape.

Ragtime: "It is a melancholy reflection," he declares, "that reason in its highest exercise, falls into an antithetic."

Ragtime: This comes about because "all statements enunciated by pure reason transcend the conditions of possible experience, beyond the sphere of which we can discover no criterion of truth, while they are at the same time framed in accordance with the laws of

Ragtime: the understanding, which are applicable only to experience; and thus it is the fate of all such speculative discussions, that while the one party attacks the weaker side of his opponent, he infallibly lays open his own weaknesses."

Ragtime: For Hegel the opposition takes the milder form of contrary theses and antitheses.

Ragtime: They can be dialectically overcome by a synthesis which remedies the incompleteness of each half truth.

Ragtime: "It is one of the most important discoveries of logic," Hegel says, "that a specific moment which, by standing in an opposition, has the position of an extreme, ceases to be such and is a moment in an organic whole by being at the same time a mean."

Ragtime: The Hegelian opposition is thus also "mediation."

Ragtime: Dialectical opposition for Aristotle originates in the disagreements which occur in ordinary human discourse.

Ragtime: But just as disagreement is reasonable only if there are two sides to the question in dispute, so reason can operate dialectically only with regard to genuinely arguable matters.

Ragtime: The familiar topics concerning which men disagree represent the commonplace issues of dialectic, since for the most part they are formed from debatable propositions or questions.

Ragtime: "Nobody in his senses," Aristotle believes, "would make a proposition of what no one holds; nor would he make a problem of what is obvious to everybody or to most people."

Ragtime: Each of the conflicting opinions will therefore have some claim to probability.

Ragtime: Here the dialectical process ends neither in a synthesis of incomplete opposites nor in a rejection of both as illusory; but, having "an eye to general opinion," it seeks to ascertain the more reasonable view‹the more tenable or probable of the two.

Ragtime: In the Platonic theory of dialectic, the element of opposition appears in the tension between being and becoming, the one and many, or the intelligible and the sensible, which is found present in every stage of the mindąs dialectical ascent to the contemplation of ideas.

Ragtime: So fundamental is this tension that Socrates uses it to define the dialectican as one who is "able to see Śa One and Manyą in Nature"‹by comprehending "scattered particulars in one idea" and dividing it "into species according to their natural formation."

Ragtime: Here as in the Hegelian theory the oppositions‹apparent contradictions in discourse‹can be resolved by dialectic, and through their resolution the mind then rises to a higher level.

Ragtime: In PART IV we will discuss how Karl Marx made use of Hegeląs dialectic. We will also discuss the distaste that some philosophers had for Hegeląs dialectic.

Ragtime: It is only in the writings of Hegel or his followers that the meaning of dialectic is not limited to the activity of human thought.

Ragtime: Hegel expressly warms that "the loftier dialectic . . . is not an activity lf subjective thinking applied to some matter externally, but is rather the matterąs very soul putting forth its branches and fruit organically."

Ragtime: It is the "development of the Idea," which is "the proper activity of its rationality."

Ragtime: If the whole world in its existence and development is the thought and thinking of an Absolute Mind, or Idea, then the events of nature and of history are moments in a dialectical process of cosmic proportions.

Ragtime: The principles of dialectic become the principles of change, and change itself is conceived as a progress or evolution from lower to higher, from part to whole, from the inndeterminate to the determinate.

Ragtime: The dialectical pattern of history, conceived by Hegel as the progressive objectification of spirit, is reconstructed by Karl Marx in terms of the conflict of material forces.

Ragtime: Marx himself explicitly contrasts his dialectic with that of Hegel.

Ragtime: "My dialectic method," he writes, "is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite."

Ragtime: Hegel, he claims, thinks that "the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of Śthe Idea,ą " whereas his own view is that "the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

Ragtime: Nevertheless, with respect to dialectic, Marx praises Hegel for being "the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner."

Ragtime: The only trouble is that with Hegel, dialectic "is standing on its head."

Ragtime: It must therefore "be turned right side up again," a revolution which Marx thinks he accomplishes in his dialectical materialism.

Ragtime: Having put dialectic on its proper basis, Marx constructs the whole of history in terms of a conflict of material forces, or of social classes in economic strife, according to a dialectical pattern which provides "recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up."

Ragtime: History is thus viewed dialectically "as in fluid movement," yet it is also conceived as working towards a definite end‹the revolution which has as its result the peace of the classless society.

Ragtime: Bourgeois industry, by bringing about the concentration and association of the proletariat, produces "its own grave diggers; its fall and the victory of the proletariat" are "equally inevitable."

Ragtime: In Marxąs vocabulary the phrases "historical materialism" and "dialectical materialism" are strictly synonymous.

Ragtime: But Marxąs protest to the contrary notwithstanding, a comparison of Marx and Hegel seems to show that a dialectic of history is equally capable of being conceived in terms of spirit or of matter.

Ragtime: The question whether there is a dialectic of nature as well as dialectic of history remains a point of controversy in Marxist thought, despite the bearing which Hegeląs Science of Logic and Phenomenology of Mind might have upon the question.

Ragtime: Engels tries in his Dialectics of Nature to give a fuller rendering of the Hegelian dialectic in strictly materialistic terms.

Ragtime: Its universal scope, including all of nature as well as all of history, is also reflected in certain post-Darwinian doctrines of cosmic evolution.

Ragtime: Considerations relevant to the Hegelian or Marxist dialectic will be found in the presentations on History and Progress.

Ragtime: Without judging the issues which Hegel and Marx have reaisd in the thought of the last century, it may be permissible to report the almost violent intellectual aversion they have produced in certain quarters.

Ragtime: Freud, for example, is as unsympathetic in his criticism of Marx and as uncompromising in his rejection of dialectical materialism, as James before hin is extreme in the expression of his distaste for Hegel.

Ragtime: Mocking "the Hegelizers" who think that "the glory and beauty of the psychic life is that in it all contradictions find their reconciliation," James declares: "With this intellectual temper I confess I cannot contend."

Ragtime: The Hegelian dialectic and what James calls "the pantomime-state of mind" are, in his opinion, "emotionally considered, one and the same thing."

Ragtime: In the pantomime all common things are represented to happen in impossible ways, people jump down each otherąs throats, houses turn inside out, old women become young men, everything Śpasses into its oppositeą with inconceivable celerity and skill . . . And so

Ragtime: in the Hegelian logic," James continues, "relations elsewhere recognized under the insipid name of distinctions (such as that between knower and object, many and one) must first be translated into impossiblilties and contradictions, then Śtranscendedą and identified by miracle, ere the proper temper is induced for thoroughly enjoying the spectacle they show."

Source: Philosophy-irc.com