Check out this amazing and descriptive lecture on postcolonalism, Race and Ethnicity in cultural studies in hindi , covering important topics like History of race and ethnicity , Critical Race Theory (CRT) ,Edward Said’s Orientalism , Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s Can the subaltern speak?,Homi K. Bhabha’s Hybridity: , Stuart Hall’s "New Ethnicities": ,Ethnic Representation in Media: and other important concepts and theories ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-H-xC7SXLwgM.htmlsi=FznFBkIZDg08gTXg 💕✨
This is exactly what went on during the plandemic . But sheep was ok with it. Mainly the Democratic Party is ok with totalitarianism that’s why they cozy up to China . China has a huge influence in America buying up politicians in America. The media is all on board with it. Because United States media is owned by 6 corporations.
A bit like Ukraine at the moment. Taking away all opposition parties, and stopping all media opposing the government. Stop this election from going ahead. And actually Zelensky's term finished May. So he's unelected at the moment.
Thematic Occasionalism By Hasker, William DOI10.4324/9780415249126-K057-1 Versions 1. Medieval occasionalism The first thinker clearly to articulate an occasionalist position was the Muslim theologian al-Ghazali. He wrote in defence of orthodox Islam against the philosophers al-Farabi (§2) and Ibn Sina (§5), both of whom propounded emanationist systems based on a combination of Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism (see Creation and conservation, religious doctrine of §3; Aristotelianism in Islamic philosophy §2; Neoplatonism in Islamic philosophy §§2-3). One of al-Ghazali’s fundamental objections to the emanationist scheme was that it was necessitarian and denied God the freedom due to him as creator and as the author of miracles. (For al-Ghazali, as for other orthodox Sunnis, human freedom was not a major concern.) Over against this, he affirmed the teachings of orthodox Ash‘arite theology, according to which all natural beings are completely inert and the true and sole agent in nature is God (see Ash‘ariyya and Mu‘tazila). Thus, there is no necessity in nature itself which could constrain or limit God’s omnipotent will. Unlike the Ash‘arites, however, al-Ghazali presents a philosophical argument for this position. The only form of necessity he recognizes is logical necessity, and he has little difficulty in showing that causes do not logically necessitate their effects. The relation between what we take to be causes and effects is merely one of correlation and is purely contingent; the one real, productive cause of all things is God. In addition to this philosophical argument based on a critique of causality, al-Ghazali appeals directly to the theological dogma of God’s absolute omnipotence. Indeed, al-Ghazali’s vision of God is such that God is virtually the only true existent: ‘There is no other being with Him, for Him to be greater than it…. [N]one has being save through His Face - so that His Face alone is’ (quoted in Fakhry 1958: 72). Al-Ghazali’s rejection of philosophy was disputed by Ibn Rushd, but his views became widely accepted throughout Sunni Islam. His occasionalism was sharply criticized and rejected by both Maimonides (§4) and Aquinas, and never enjoyed wide support during the Christian Middle Ages. It was, however, embraced by the late medieval Ockhamist philosophers Pierre d’Ailly and Gabriel Biel. Reply @dr.tanveerahmedph.d4176 Occasionalism is a theory of causation in which it is argued that God is the only causal agent and the cause-effect relations perceived in nature are actually occasional causes or customary conjunctions determined by divine volition (Muhtaroğlu, 2017a, p. ix). Leibniz became familiar with occasionalism through Malebranche's elaboration. He found the occasionalist thesis problematic because created substances lack causal powers in the occasionalist theory, which according to him meant therefore that the theory is bound to turn into monism. For Leibniz, if substances lack an intrinsic force to act, then their substantiality cannot be accounted for (Leibniz, 1989, p. 159-60). This makes "God the very nature of things, while created things disappear into mere modifications of the one divine substance" (Leibniz, 1989, p. 165). To what extent does this criticism undermine occasionalism? Is it possible to argue for substances while rejecting any forces intrinsic to the natures of things? In this thesis, I will answer these questions by using the arguments and metaphysical frameworks of two occasionalists from two distinct traditions; al-Ghazālī from the Ashʿarite school and Malebranche from the Cartesian occasionalists. After elaborating Leibniz's criticism, I expound on the motivations and the arguments for occasionalism and the ontological frameworks of the thinkers respectively. My thesis shows that the respective frameworks of al-Ghazālī and Malebranche give them sufficient tools to argue against natures or forces intrinsic to creatures while arguing for the existence of created substances and hence, Leibniz's criticism is shown to be begging the question.
social constructionism disavows knowledge and claims everything to be a social construct. So social constructionism is saying the truth is there is no truth, that we're all a holographic mind interpreting a holographic universe? So social constructionism is just the new word for OG "old French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre" postmodernism? Why not just say postmodernism instead of creating new words for the same thing? We're here to learn real things, not invented words.
What does dialectic have to do with slavery or Marxism? You could literally make arguing anything a dialectic. Your choose to use divisive examples that are charged with political theme. Shame on you
Hegemony: Lower class morphing into the standards of the upper class because of sneaky mental oppression by the upper class Ex- Kid acts up in class, their teacher sends them to ISS as a punishment. When the kid comes back they will now conform to the teachers standards because they don’t want to go back to ISS. Now the teacher can control how the kid acts and doesn’t act because their scared of ISS.
If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. MA 🙂
