1. To the owners of this company;
Seeing as I work in the human resources department of this company, I have your company’s best interest at heart. Hiring employees that have a background in liberal arts disciplines, most importantly philosophy, will ultimately contribute to a higher functioning company as a whole. While science is a fundamentally important part of conducting a successful business, it is not the only component that we should look for when hiring new employees. Science works towards a calculated and determined goal, whereas philosophy and other liberal arts disciplines focus more on abstract concepts that stem from critical thinking.
To have a successful business each employee should be able to demonstrate skills from both science and philosophy. Science requires a quest for knowledge that has not been previously revealed to humanity, while in contrast, philosophy requires deepening our understanding of a piece of knowledge already known. The combination of these two types of learning will result in a competent individual that is able to differentiate when he or she needs to further their knowledge as opposed to when he or she simply needs to deepen their knowledge on a certain subject.
Building a team of individuals that are well versed in the difference between expanding their knowledge and deepening their knowledge will strengthen the success of our business. While the knowledge of science in an individual is very important to an employee of this company, philosophy is also very important because it encourages individuals to ask the bigger questions that don’t typically arise with science.
The science side of the equation provides a practical approach to a problem while the philosophy side of the equation scratches more than just the surface of a problem. Now, we already know that having a background in science is marketable to most jobs, but contrary to popular belief, so is philosophy. The knowledge that is gained through a background of philosophy comes with a number of skills that can be demonstrated. “People with philosophical backgrounds will be able to exhibit expressing their thoughts with clarity and ease, they will be able to read, summarize, and critique a great deal of information easily and quickly, and they will be able to present information well and convincingly (Replies to the 6 Objections· Page 3).” Another factor that philosophers bring to the table is their skill of participating in Socratic Seminars, also known as Normative Intellectual Discussions (NID). While most companies don’t sit around having conversations about the meaning of life, the skills developed from participating in a discussion of this sort can be carried throughout all professions, ours included. Hiring an individual who has participated in many NIDs, the individual will demonstrate a sense of patience and understanding of others. NIDs function solely on focusing on what the opposing force has to say. Focusing on the opposing force and being genuinely interested in what he or she has to contribute to the conversation, provides for an individual who can collaborate well with others in any sort of setting, like our company. So, in conclusion, all of these factors that I just cited will contribute to the most well rounded and competent employees that will ultimately lead to running a successful and efficient company.
2. There are many examples of intellectual discourse, such as interrogation, call-to-action, and lecture, that do not qualify as normative for one reason or another. Interrogation is a process in which an individual is fired many questions, usually very quickly, by another individual who is looking for a specific sort of information that he or she believes the person interrogated has. Call-to-action is just as it sounds, where one person inspires others using words to accomplish a specific goal. Lecture is often when an individual gives long monologues, delivering lots of information. While all of these are perfectly good examples of tactics to use in argumentation, they don’t meet the needs of Normative Intellectual Discourse (NID). The primary goal of NID is always to determine the truth. A thesis is picked at the beginning of the argument by each side of the argument and is argued for the rest of the conversation, each party trying to reveal the ultimate truth. When argument is concerned outside of NID, the truth is often not the biggest concern of either party, and rather the personal gain of each side is the real concern. On the other hand, NID is committed to a position taken by both sides that is being argued so that the other side may be persuaded to the position of the opposing force. In a stereotypical argument between two people, interrogation, call-to-action, and lecture are all perfectly good tactics that could potentially give the upper hand of the argument to one side, because they don’t necessarily follow the truth. However, since these tactics don’t concern themselves with the truth, they are not the primary focus of NID. With this being said, NID focuses less on tactics that will help win an argument, and more on tactics that will help reveal the truth of a thesis or position that the arguer is trying to uphold.
3. The detailed reply to objections 5 and 6 centered around the idea of method. Method comes about because the idea of order and discipline. Order and discipline are both needed to accomplish anything productive in the intellectual field. Depending on one’s field, each method used is different. And without these methods, people of all professions wouldn’t to be able to efficiently do the work they are supposed to. The first to recognize this was Aristotle, who is considered to be the father of method, but it was also taken up by Plato and Socrates. Depending on what a person is studying, method allows individuals to make objective judgements. There is three-fold way to describe the process of method: (a) it describes the formal procedures to be followed (b) the investigation itself and (c) the learning that was obtained. This three-step process is meant for all professions. The Romans also adopted the idea of method, but thought the three ideas were so different that they had two different words for them. One word, modus for (a) and (b), and another world, Scientia, for (c). Method operates both on a subjective and an objective level. The objective level focuses mainly on (a), and (b) is a mixture of both the objective and subjective levels, and the subjective level focuses mainly on (c). Both the Greeks and the Romans required all three components of method to present for a proper utilization of method. Method, when only objectively considered is like a shell without a body. It produces nothing without the use of subjectivity. If only subjectivity was considered, we would not be able to advance in our understanding of what we are trying to investigate. True knowledge is only achieved when both disciplines work together methodically. Different methods can be applied to different situations, it’s all relative on what the situation is. The human mind is capable of grasping intangible ideas, with the use of method. This is when we see that objective research through method is the basic foundation of addressing abstract materials. This means that scientific method is not the proper tool to use when discussing matters outside of science. Philosophy’s method, logic, is regimented and strict. It directs the philosopher’s thoughts and operations. It’s important to remember that when logic isn’t being used, the scientific method should be used. With this being said, there is a good and bad side to each field of intelligence and the good or bad lies in how method was applied. So, in conclusion, all disciplines have the need for a basic method, but the mode in which we use method changes depending on the subject material.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
