AIOU Old Papers Code 4670 Course Social Theory II 2021

0
55
AIOU Teacher Education In Pakistan 829 Solved Past Papers
AIOU Teacher Education In Pakistan 829 Solved Past Papers

AIOU Old Papers Code 4670 Course Social Theory II 2021

Question:1

Why had Mill thought that freedom was no less at risk from a newly empowered many than from an absolute monarch? Elaborate this statement by focusing on Mill’s views about freedom of thought and speech.

Solution:

AIOU Old Papers Code 4670 Course Social Theory II 2021 Nineteenth-century philosopher John Stuart Mill thought that this was a very important question. In his famous book On Liberty, written more than a hundred years ago, Mill predicted that such a question “could lead to the question of the future.” (On Liberty, John Stuart Mill) In view of the many dictatorships of the 20th century and the imminent threat of freedom, Mill’s prediction seems to have come true.

Mill’s views on freedom of thoughts and speech:

Mill recognized the threat posed by governments, but he also said that there was a hidden, unknown social order that was undermining human freedom. All societies come to accept the traditions, beliefs, ideas, and attitudes that are accepted by the majority as the ‘right’ way of thinking and living. People who show signs of deviation from the ‘right’ way of life are shunned and ostracized by the majority and are therefore pressured to adapt and adopt socially and socially acceptable ways of life.

Mill called the social movement ‘a dictatorship of the majority, and he said it was a major producer of consensus.

As he wrote:

Where the society itself is dictatorial – society collectively over the diverse people that make up it – its forms of intimidation are not limited to actions that could be committed at the hands of political workers. The public knows and exercises its authority; and if it removes the wrong authority instead of the right, any law in which it should not interfere, it uses social tyranny far more terrifying than many forms of political oppression, because, although it is often excessively punished, it leaves few ways to escape, penetrates deeper into life details, and enslaves the soul itself.

Mill believed that because freedom was “one of the great necessities of life” that people should take decisive action to ensure that their freedom was not violated. It should be noted, however, that. This point aside, Mill did not think that people should be completely free to do what they want without being restricted. As for the actions of individuals, he thought that society had a right to exercise power over people within a limited range.

Society’s power over people: 

Explaining where he thought society should exercise power over people and where it did not exist, Mill distinguished between two types of action: one in relation to action and one in relation to the action. Self-control in relation to action means actions that directly affect the person performing the action. Taking personal responsibility for illegal activities is tantamount to taking part in so-called illegal activities, such as drug abuse. Regarding such acts Mill believes that the public has no right to intervene:

This person is not accountable to the public for his or her actions as this affects not only the person but himself.” (Released, John Stuart Mill)

While advocating that society has the right to exercise power over a person if his actions harm others, Mill argued that the freedom to hold and express one’s beliefs and views should not be completely curtailed:

“If all human beings without a single mind had one mind, humanity would have no reason to silence that person more than him. If he had the power, he should not have silenced humanity.” (Released, John Stuart Mill)

Mill argued that the freedom to enjoy the diversity of ideas and to express those ideas without fear of retribution was important not only for the healthy development of the people but also for society as a whole. He cited two main reasons why society benefits when ideas can be suppressed but allowed to speak freely. In addition, Mill stressed that while the individual or community as a whole wishes an opinion that they are convinced is still valid, it is still beneficial to suppress all opposing views. Because even if someone has come into the truth it is necessary.

Question:2

John Stuart mill was familiar with the works of Aristotle, Hobbles, Plato, Jerry Bentham, Ricardo, and Adam Smith. How was Stuart inspired by their teachings? Give the analysis in the light of his philosophy.

Mill and Aristotle:

AIOU Old Papers Code 4670 Course Social Theory II 2021 The Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics have very different ideas about what human happiness is. John Stuart Mill believes that happiness and freedom from pain are the keys to happiness. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that happiness depended on beauty. Happiness is a topic that has been widely discussed, and both John Stuart Mill and Aristotle have very different ideas about what true happiness is.

John Stuart Mill has very different ideas from Aristotle’s. They are much better at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Aristotle’s beliefs. John Stuart Mill says that people are happier when they do what they want, but this is not good for everyone. Instead, John Stuart Mill believes that everyone can do as they please, as long as it has a positive effect on everyone.

John Stuart Mill And Hobble:

John Mill introduced the concept of free will. Mill strongly believed in the monarchy and argued that the people had legitimate people. In today’s world of leadership, men have advanced to the point where they have achieved the kind of ambitions they have in legitimate societies. However, a few have used violence in the pursuit of freedom and that is why so few men have turned freedom into oppression. According to Daniel (2), freedom is a measure of the power exercised by humans in society. Liberty is a perfect example of the royal opposition promoted by such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes. However, John Stuart Mill argues that democracy in the present world brings freedom to govern. This paper analyzes the concept of freedom as suggested by John Stuart Mill and links this to the current form of leadership as used by leaders.

Views of Mill and Plato:

John Stuart Mill and Plato, two prominent philosophers of their time, formed conflicting ideas on how to build a prosperous society. Although their views differ, Mill and Plato both focus on the role of people in society. Mill strongly believes that people should act in ways that promote self-interest while avoiding harming another person (2002, p. 8). To find out what Mill’s best teaching method is and whether his studies can contain more facts than lies, one has to look at how Mill will respond to Plato’s teaching model. Mill’s cornerstone is based on “freedom of conscience” which he described as “[complete] freedom of thought and emotion in all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or religious.

Mill and Bentham:

Bentham is only concerned with the amount of happiness, but Mill is looking at both quantity and quality of happiness. Bentham’s use was criticized for being an “only pig-appropriate” philosophy. This is because he did not distinguish between the pleasures of animals and those of humans. “A lot of fun is equal; pushpin is like poetry”. Mill has acknowledged this, and to avoid criticism, look at the size and quantity of quality. Mill distinguishes between high-level entertainment (that requires mental energy that can only be acquired by educated people) and low-level pleasures (physical pleasures that can be found in animals and humans). For the Mill, high pleasures are more important than low pleasures, because of their “inner height”. Although Mill’s theory speaks volumes about human nature, it makes happiness difficult to quantify as we now have to consider the immeasurable quality of pleasure, as well as its quantity.

Mill and Ricardo:

From the very beginning, James Mill established a relationship with Ricardo on economic questions that had not been in his relationship with Bentham. Bentham’s economic writings were completed (though very few of them were published) before the start of the Mill partnership; At the same time, Mill’s views on economic matters were well-founded and well-publicized. Variation of their opinions can be seen briefly in the positions which they adopted with respect to the corn trade during the period of grain scarcity at the turn of the century.

Philosophy Of Mill And Adam Smith:

Mill had a different approach from Adam Smith. His ultimate goal was to build the Political Economy as a separate, but not a completely independent branch of social science. Mill explained that although social contexts are complex and are made up of “mixing causes”, all categories of people’s stories depend on their specific causes. To support his argument, he compared all “types of causes”, such as psychological, cultural, or economic, and the factors that create the effects of power. Social cohesion decomposes only by being removed because “different kinds of social facts are more important and more dependent on the immediate and early diversity of causes.

Question:3

Discuss Hegel’s view of logic presented in the ‘science of logic’. Elaborate the criticism leveled against Hegel’s view on logic.

According to Hegel, logic is a form adopted by the science of general thought. He thought that, as has been done so far, this science seeks a complete and completely “radical change.” At the end of the preface, he wrote “Logic thinking of God.” His goal with The Science of Logic was to overcome what he saw as a common flaw in all other previous psychological systems, namely that they all brought out the complete distinction between the content of the mind, incapable of being humble, unrestrained, and completely dependent on the world of things to be thought of as any realistic approach). This inescapable gap that existed within the science of reasoning, in his view, was an ever-present source of enlightenment, an astonishing, uncanny knowledge.

The task of resolving this conflict within understanding Hegel believed he had already accomplished in his book Phänomenologie des Geistes (1807) on the final discovery of the Absolute Knowing: it is now equated with the certainty of certainty and certainty. ” Once freed from bondage, the science of thought no longer needs an object or matter without it in order to act as a touchstone but instead takes the form of self-expression and self-development. “It can therefore be said,” said Hegel, “that this content is revealed by God as being in his eternal nature before the creation of nature and a perfect mind.”  The German word Hegel used to describe this post-dualist consciousness was Beg riff.

CRITICISM OF HEGEL’S CONCEPT:

Criticism By Schelling:

The claim that Hegel’s criticism was largely applied to subsequent generations of philosophy is undeniably true that Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, and Engels all heard telephone conversations in the years following Hegel’s death in 1831. And they were accepting his critic for the Hegelian system. in addition, the leading 20 continental philosophers including Heidegger and Habermas studied Schelling closely and took positions with Hegel who is a well-known Schellingian and influenced by other philosophers and therefore not only a local descendant of German students’ ideas but of interest to all students of continental philosophy and philosophy. that his critic is one of the most important sources of that tradition.

Criticism By Markovic:

Although Marković described his analysis of Hegel’s »logic in section six, which is the subject of this article, a statement of this analysis is already available in section five of the introduction. Here, Marković asks the question of what »the correct logic method«, as he puts it, at the same time gives the answer and says it is »going in the middle, between a pure and completely pure idea (or purpose)«.4 In the fifth phase, Marković, therefore, strives to keep this »in the middle of the guide. , or a method, within the absolute legal order, which does not conform to any of these extremes. 5 Marković, however, endeavored to show “such a logical understanding, attempting perhaps to exaggerate the utterly absurd nature of Hegel’s method and his general theory, as this» the most powerful German philosopher who transforms science into mere myth, saying that ideas are the real creatures of the world. In announcing «Hegel ‘analysis, Marković speaks openly about Adolf Trendelenburg’s famous work Logische Untersuchungen, 6 of which he relies heavily on upon.

Leave a Reply