Designing a Team Strategy. Teaming Up for a Worthy Project Essay

Designing a Team Strategy. Teaming Up for a Worthy Project - Essay Example For instance, if the personality of A is extroverted and B is introverted, A should be able to use that engaging personality to draw B out of her shell, while keeping it tamer so that B will not be overwhelmed. On the other hand, B will just have to reach out a little more just so she gets to connect with A as a compromise. That is usually the dynamics of working to get along with others. In doing so, more productive relationships ensue and there is more likelihood of common goals being achieved. This paper will discuss how teams can work more effectively according to some theories and considering members’ personality profiles as analyzed from the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. The team project to be discussed is the organization of a proposal to be presented for bidding for a special event. The team is composed of five individuals with varying backgrounds and skills. The members are tasked to work on organizing a seminar-workshop on Work-Life Balance for middle manag ement. The designated leader of the group has worked with various companies and has developed his network of credible resource people that he can invite as speakers for the seminar. Aside from the leader, the team is composed of an accountant, a mother, an artist and a researcher. The team members all work for an events management company. Working in Groups Collaborative work can bring about group process gains as well as group process losses (Thatcher and de la Cour, 2003). Group process gains are positive outcomes derived from working with other members. One such gain is the provision of synergy or a group member being creatively stimulated by the other members. Other benefits of working in groups are the efficient exchange of ideas and information, exposure to different views, collection of objective feedback and a host of other learning effects. However, groups may not always be as effective as expected, and group process losses negate the positive outcomes of group process gain s. Dominance is one such group process’ downside (Hiltz et al, 1986). This is because in groups discussions, only one person can talk at a time and this may block out, forget, neglect or not give enough time other members’ ideas if the speaker is dominant. Diehle and Stoebe (1991) also identify evaluation apprehension, which is the fear of members to be negatively evaluated by other members when they become more active and visible in the group participation. Social loafing may then be the result. This happens when an individual member feels less inclined to participate in the expectation that his efforts may not hold water with the group. Finally, free-riding is another group process loss. This happens when a group participant feels that his contribution may be dispensable (Barry & Stewart, 1997). Hence, he reduces his participation to just going along with the majority and exert less effort in contributing his share. Thatcher & de la Cour (2003) identify more group pr ocess losses that groups should be wary of in order to be more effective. These are cognitive inertia or getting stuck in usual patterns of thought and routine; information overload or coming up with too many ideas that focus on the main objective may be lost; and excessive socializing, that little time is left for actual

David Bowie and Performativity Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

David Bowie and Performativity - Research Paper Example This paper aims to analyze a song by David Bowie using Butler’s theory of gender performance. The essay aims at developing an argument referring to David Bowie’s song titled â€Å"Rebel, Rebel† from his album Diamond Dogs. The argument is going to be based on how the song represents gender, sexuality and identity. It is also going to analyze how Bowie challenges narratives of authentic identity. Bowie’s ways of troubling gender and sexuality as stable, readable, and expressive categories are also going to be addressed. According to Butler, gender is not based on a stable identity but an identity that is constitutively created through time and molded through repetition (Leonard 134). This repetition of deeds has a set of meanings that are already established in society. Gender reality is a product of performativity, which means that its degree of realness is measured by the extent of the performance. In this context, some acts are interpreted as an expression of gender identity. These acts can either conform to the expected cultural norms or contradict these norms. The song â€Å"Rebel, Rebel† by David Bowie is about a boy who went against his parent’s wishes and started wearing girl’s clothes and make up. Additionally, in the same album, there is a song titled â€Å"Walk on the Wild Side† about a transvestite. ... In all the live stage performances of this song, Bowie is dressed in outrageous feminine clothes. This aspect of staging artistic shows where the established distinction between genders was overlooked led to the emergence of Glam. Glam is a controversial stage performance and presentation of artistry that incorporates gender-bending techniques (Leonard 150). It also included the depiction of drag queens and personalities in different levels of conveying the underlying undertones in their performances. Bowie appearing in drag as Ziggy Stardust portrays this in the song. The song â€Å"Rebel, Rebel† conveys the notion that gender is not a static phenomenon as exhibited by the glam and drag modes of staging live artistic shows. The song tries to establish the fact that gender is a state that is achieved through change in behavioral mannerisms rather than a static set inbuilt qualities. According to Judith Butler, gender is an achievable state that is acquired through practice and repetition. Unlike common belief that a person is born into a specified and predetermined gender dictated by their biological sex, gender is perceived as a cultural dictate. This means that at one point in time, the human society decided to assign status to people. There was no other better way to do this than create a distinction between male and female roles. This spawned what is today referred to as gender. The society then designed roles that were assigned specific acts or behavior patterns that acted as a measure of gender. The song by Bowie seeks to depict gender as something that is not tangible but an idea that is held by people. Through repetition, as described by Butler, the notion of gender is realised through performativity. This is in the

THE LAW OF HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

THE LAW OF HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK - Essay Example According to the provisions of the common law, employers are required to safeguard the physical and psychological health of their employees. They are also required to provide a safe system of work, safe means of access, plant and equipment, and fellow employees. Furthermore, employees have to be protected from unnecessary risk of injury (Mcilroy, 2000). This duty of care is an implied obligation in a contract of employment. It had been the extant practice to permit employees to claim compensation from their employers if they were injured at the workplace, due to the negligence of the latter. The courts have commenced to grant compensation for psychological injuries caused by employers. In order to succeed in a claim for psychiatric injury, the applicant has to establish genuine psychological damage; presence of a causal link between the psychiatric injury and his employment; and that the psychiatric injury had been foreseeable by the employer (Mcilroy, 2000). Moreover, the applicant must submit expert opinion to establish psychiatric illness, in order to claim compensation. Stress in employment, gradually erodes the health of employees, and reduces self-esteem, confidence, and other abilities. Such employees are less likely to claim compensation from their employers (Mcilroy, 2000). ... The Employment Protection Act 1975 (Employment Protection Act (c. 71), 1975) provides rights related to time off, and these have been included in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Employment Rights Act (c. 18), 1996). A few of these rights provide employees with paid time off and the other rights allow employees to avail themselves of unpaid time off. Specifically, section 50(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, requires the duration of time off and pertinent factors to be of a reasonable nature. This was clearly discernible in the Employment Appellate Tribunal’s decision in Borders Regional Council v Maule, wherein the former stressed that there was to be a balance between the needs of the employer and the rights of the employee (Borders Regional Council v Maule, 1993). Health and Safety at Work It is to be examined, whether the corporate law firm, is in breach of the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act of 1974. In instances involving work related stress an em ployee can initiate legal action against his employer in the County Court or High Court, or apply to an Employment Tribunal. The first ruling regarding negligence arose in Walker v Northumberland County Council. In this case, it was held that it was reasonable to foresee risk of psychiatric injury, if the concerned employee had already undergone a nervous breakdown. All the same, this was not to be construed to imply that an employer could continue to subject an employee to excessive stress, until the latter suffered a stress related injury. In Garratt v London Borough of Camden, the Court of Appeal opined that a significant proportion of the population underwent nervous breakdowns and depression, and that quite a few of these individuals were

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro Article Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro - Article Example The subject that the author deals through his prime character Kathy is new, the narrations beautiful and therefore, this book turns out to be a rare creation. Kathy narrates this poignant story, without losing the ground and reality in any stage. She is always aware that she is the product of science. â€Å"H† after her name is like the badge of subservient status to humankind. The sum and substance of the book are about human cloning. A cluster of cloned children are brought up in an English boarding school, and the reality about their biology is the cause of their intense suffering and leads to some extraordinary happenings. Point of view of Kathy in relation to Tommy and Ruth Kathy’s status is like that of a senior student in a school. She possesses a keen sense of observation and takes careful note of the happenings around her, particularly the ones related to Tommy and Ruth. To that extent she is the product of advanced scientific research, like computers, are iden tified by generation. Being naive and innocent, Tommy is not in a position to tell the story, as he lacks the power of imagination and the sense of anticipation, the essential qualities that are needed in a storyteller. Kathy has a keen sense of observation. Ruth’s problems are different. She plays to the gallery, pretends and tries to please all and sundry and the final result is, everyone understands her game, and begins to distrust her. Ruth is, therefore, an unreliable narrator. Kathy seems to carry the scale of justice with her always, possesses the right frame of mind and her emotions, unique observations and opinions are evenly balanced. She is a near-human being. Point of view-Kathy by temperament One point incidentally. Howsoever intelligently one may try to be impartial, the first person narrations have an inherent drawback. The narrator can read the mind of the characters and provide a fair representation of the goings on there, but it is impossible to read oneâ₠¬â„¢s heart. The narrator also will not be able to sweep under the carpet his own feelings and the impact of his own thoughts and as such he cannot render one hundred percent justice to the nature of the characters. The reader has to accept the interpretations of Kathy. Temperamentally Kathy is calm and seems to follow the principle, ‘temper is very valuable, do not lose it.’ Her reactions are measured and she takes her own time to make decisions as she analyzes the pros and cons of the issue before her. She reveals some aspects of her personality and how she has matured with her working experience of 12 years as the carer. Ishiguro chisels the character of Kathy thus: â€Å"I have developed a kind of instinct around donors. I know when to hang around and confront them, when to leave them to themselves; when to listen to everything they have to say, and when just to shrug and tell them to snap out of it.†(3) She is the conductor of the story. Her measured respons es have something to do with her personal life. She lives a solitary life. With compulsions to move to different places, her attachments are not fixed and the relationships continue to be transient.

Critical thinking Essay Example for Free

Critical thinking Essay 1. State the four logically possible ways in which evidentialism could go about justifying its beliefs? Briefly evaluate each of the options. [20] Evidentialism holds four logical possibilities in an attempt to justify their beliefs. There is historical evidence, negative apologetics, minimal evidence, and the Holy Spirit. The first step is Historical Evidence. Evidentialists tend to resort to historical evidence as a very important method (i. e. the resurrection). The reason historical evidences are so important is because, as long as minimal facts (those agreed upon by all) are used, the audience cannot deny the conclusion of the premise. Historical evidence allows for a one-step process for converting one to Christianity. Historical evidences have a lot of credibility. A second step is negative apologetics. This form attempts to debunk those arguments said against Christianity. Negative apologetics defends the faith against outsider claims to Christianities fallacies. A third step is minimal evidences. This is used primarily in reference to the resurrection. In an attempt to prove the legitimacy of the resurrection, an evidentialist would use facts and concepts which all people agree on (i. e. the tomb was empty, eye-witnesses, etc. ) and lead the individual into the conclusion that the resurrection took place. If one accepts these minimal evidences, then the conclusion of the resurrection has to follow. It is important for evidentialists to find common ground with the people whom they are speaking with to prove their point. A fourth step is the recognition of the power of the Holy Spirit. The bible is absolutely clear that it is only through Him that one can be regenerated; it is not by the will of the flesh. Due to this concept, evidentialists understand the importance and reliability they have on the Holy Spirit. It is only Him who can use to evidences to illuminate the heart. These are the four steps of an evidentialist. 2. What is foundationalism? What makes foundationalism in general something which Plantinga calls â€Å"classic foundationalism†? How would Plantinga critique such a view? [25] Foundationalism is a belief which is based on another belief. It is the concept that one belief always has to have a reason to be believed; for it is based off of a previous belief. Evidentialists hold to this method of reasoning, asserting the great importance of always having a defense for one’s beliefs. Plantinga explains this method of reasoning starting from the Enlightenment, and was promoted by Plato, Aristotle, etc. It is referenced as classical because it is old and has been the method of reasoning for a very long time. Plantinga separates himself from this view, believing it to be fallible. While it is important for certain beliefs to be based on rational thought, Plantinga does not agree that all should be. He would claim that there has to be at least one thought or one set of beliefs which are basic. Plantinga explains basic beliefs as those which are not based on a previous belief, but rather accepted through experience or memory (i. e. eating breakfast). Plantinga critics Foundationalism by stating that there has to be at least a certain amount of beliefs which are basic (not based on a previous belief) because all people need a starting place for rationalization. Despite those who hold to Foundationalism, it is important for all to understand that there are always certain beliefs which we take for granted; simply because somebody told us so. We will not have a reason for every belief. 3. Explain Frame’s concept of rationality (the linear progression, narrow versus broad circularity). Explain each concept fully. [10] Frame’s concept of rationality is interesting. The circular explanations of his thoughts are explained as following: My faith is based on my rationality, and my rationality is based on the rationality of God. The reason this is circular is because, if our faith were based on our rationality, and our rationality was based on the rationality of God, one could connect the dots and say that God’s rationality enables our faith. This is the circular reasoning which Frame explains. The linear progression states that, due to God’s rationality, we have faith. As our faith is based on God’s rationality, our rationality is based on our Faith. Hence, our rationality is based on the rationality of God. This linear progression was stated in Frame’s chapter as following: God’s rationality Our Faith our rationality. This is the linear explanation of Frame. 4. How does Bahnsen evaluate Stein’s epistemological criterion – â€Å"one can justify a belief only by the use of logic or reason†? [10] As Stein claims that one needs logic or reason to have a justified belief, Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing this concept from the Christian world-view. Before engaging on the grounds of logic and argument, Bahnsen clearly states that the atheistic worldview cannot be based on reason for there is no room for that within the theory of evolution. Due to the fact that one accepts that world view, they cannot begin justifying it based on logic and reason which are fundamentals within the Christian world-view. Bahnsen accuses Stein of borrowing from the Christian world view, making him epistemologically self-aware of his paradox. 5. State three differences between compatibilist and libertarian views of freedom; explain each of the differences. [15] 6. State four reasons why we accept genetic information as being structured or specified. Briefly explain each reason. [20] Genetic information is stated as being structured due to the process of elimination. The first question would be to discover whether it was formed by Law. Due to the fact that it is not contingent, the question of design would fall to the next level which is that of chance. When one questions whether it was done by chance, the immense complexity within the cell eliminates this possibility and brings it to the concept of design. When looking at DNA (A=T, C=D) or proteins (amino acids), and seeing what is required for human life, the immense complexity within the cell would eliminate the possibility of law or chance. It must be structured. Also, the concept of time and fossils do not allow for the immense amount of time demanded by evolutionists for the process of life to have evolved. The more complex we understand the cell to be; the less likely it is that it wasn’t structured or specified.

Language Is Rule-Governed

Language Is Rule-Governed Wittgenstein stated that his aim in philosophy was to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle that is, to lead us out of the web of misconceptions and confusions that cloud our understanding. He argued that our confusion lay in our misunderstanding of language and the rules that govern its use. This misunderstanding resulted from the assumptions of traditional Western Philosophy which are based on a Cartesian theory of mind, a Platonist conception of reality and an Augustinian view of language. These assumptions led to the belief that the private mental realm was the primary source of language, the essential function of language was to name objects, and the rules of language were set in a fixed pattern of application respectively. As this account of rules relies on their having a fixed content, the only way to follow these rules is to discern their meaning by finding an appropriate mediating interpretation. Once the rules have been interpreted correctly, they would then disclose h ow they should be applied. Wittgenstein argued that these assumptions cloud the true nature of rule-following and meaning, leaving them vulnerable to scepticism as we lay down rules, a technique for playing a game, and that then, when we follow the rules, things dont turn out as we had assumed. So that we are, as it were, entangled in our own rules.  [2]  The issue that Wittgenstein raises is if we can argue that any action can be interpreted as acting in accordance with a rule, how can we ever know if we are following a rule correctly and therefore, how can we justify that our use of language holds any meaning? This reveals the flaws in the traditional belief that it is the rules themselves that act as the normative standards by which we discern whether or not our use of language is correct. Therefore, we must look for another source of normativity in order to preserve the notion of meaning. In light of Wittgensteins view that following a rule is a practice  [3]  which is analogous to obeying an order  [4]  , I believe that his account of language establishes it as rule-governed by situating the requisite justification and normativity in the linguistic community. These requisites are met in Wittgensteins account as when we are taught a rule we are also trained to follow it in a particular way determined by the linguistic community of which we are a member. I will expound this view by firstly looking at the rule-following considerations as found in 185 and 201 to explicate Wittgensteins view that we cannot establish how to follow a rule correctly by looking at the rule itself, but rather we must examine at how the rule is applied as part of a communal practice. I will then use Meredith Williams critique of Saul Kripkes sceptical solution to the paradox and her argument for a communitarian view of Wittgensteins account of rule-following to discuss what a socially e mbedded justification and standard of normativity might entail. Following from this I will go on to examine John McDowells critique of Crispin Wrights anti-realism in order to discuss how a social normative standard can be established through the shared understandings held by a linguistic community. When describing the purpose of the rule-following considerations, Wittgenstein stated that what we are destroying is nothing but houses of cards and we are clearing up the ground of language on which they stand  [5]  by which he means that through a re-evaluation the nature of language we may dissolve the empty questions that traditional philosophy had been concerned with, including the question of what constitutes meaning. Wittgenstein aimed to achieve this by reminding the reader that rule-following cannot be a mental process by which we discern the meaning of the rule and then establish a set pattern of application. Perhaps the most important issue with the traditional view of rule-following that Wittgensteins attack brings to light is the regress of interpretation. Wittgenstein highlights this flaw in the belief that interpretation necessarily clarifies the content of a rule and provides a method of application. He does so by stating that there is no reason why an interpretat ion may not be just as ambiguous as the rule itself and therefore may also be subject to the same interpretative process as the rule. No one interpretation is going to be unambiguous in every situation to every individual. Therefore, the move to symbolic language does not clarify the rules contents, it simply leads to a regress as in this chain of reasoning we place one interpretation behind another as if each one contented us at least for a moment, until we thought of yet another lying behind it.  [6]  This regress means firstly that there is no ultimate justification to be found through interpretation, and secondly that the countless interpretations that a rule may be subject to renders the rule meaningless. From this Wittgenstein concludes that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation  [7]  , meaning that understanding is not always aligned with the act of interpretation and rule-following does not necessarily involve a mediating interpretation bet ween the rule and its application. A second challenge uses the discrepancy between the infinite applications of a rule and the finite amount of times we can observe this application. This discrepancy shows that we cannot regard our understanding of a rule as the grasping of a set pattern of application that we must replicate in every future circumstance. Wittgenstein explicates this challenge in his deviant learner example in paragraph 185, in which a student seems to be following a numerical series +2 correctly up until he reaches 1,000 where he then changes to the series of +4. If the teacher had made the student stop following the series before 1,000 he would have never known that the student misunderstood the rule that he had been taught. The deviant learner also brings forth the issue that for any rule applied, for example, a 100 times, we can imagine other rules that give the same results but then diverges on its 101st application. This means that we cannot conceive of the meaning of rules as an infinite set of their application and therefore it is implausible to argue that when we explain a rule that we have an infinite set in mind. Just like the teacher in the deviant learner example, we may believe that someone has mastered the application of a rule, up until the point where they begin to get it wrong. This may happen at any point through a sequence and thus there is no way of knowing for certain if the person has understood the rule. Therefore, if we represent rules as infinite sets of applications but we only deal with finite numbers of these applications we can never be sure that we have successfully taught the rule, or are following it correctly ourselves. This means that if we wish to examine rules through how we follow them rather than their content, we cannot regard rule-following as being guided by rails invisibly laid out to infinity  [8]  if we wish to develop any semblance of normativity. Regarding his own view of the relation between a rule, our understanding of it and our method of application, Wittgenstein uses the analogy of playing chess, stating where is the connection effected between the sense of the words lets play a game of chess and all the rules of the game? Well, in the list of rules of the game, in the teaching of it, in the everyday practice of playing  [9]  . This means that our understanding of a rule results in how we are taught to understand it and this socially constructed comprehension manifests in the action of following of the rule as part of a custom. For example, when we encounter a signpost pointing right, we react to this by turning right because there is an established custom of doing so which we are initiated into through training. As there is clearly nothing inherent in the arrow that tells us how to react to it, this custom can only have been established by the community of which we are a member. Although Wittgenstein makes it clear that he believes that how we follow a rule is how we participate in a communal custom, he recognises the problem concerning the sustainment of normativity that this view must address. If our understanding is moulded by how we are trained, what happens when two people react to their training differently and how do we know which reaction is the correct one?  [10]  As it is the community that establishes how we follow a rule, and we can make no valid reference to the rule itself, it must then be the community that decides whether an individual follows a rule correctly. However, is there any way to prove that the community can provide the normative standard required to know whether or not we are following a rule correctly? I will now address this issue, beginning with an examination of Kripkes sceptical account of rule following. Saul Kripkes discussion of Wittgensteins account of language (which he stressed was not an interpretation, but a line of thought inspired by his reading of Wittgenstein) rests on the sceptical belief that there is no mental fact that can provide an ultimate justification for our belief that we are following the same rule in the same way as we have in the past, and therefore no objective notion of meaning. Although Kripkes account has not been popular, its influence is undeniable as it is used as the point of departure for the standard approach to rule-following  [11]  . Kripke founded his sceptical version of Wittgensteins account of rules on the first challenge to the classical account that I previously discussed which he named the sceptical paradox. This was our paradox; no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be brought into accord with the rule. The answer was: if every course of action can be brought into accord with the rule, then it can be also brought into conflict with it. And so there would be neither accord nor conflict here.  [12]   Kripke saw this issue to be, the most radical sceptical problem that philosophy has seen to date  [13]  he stated that the problem lies in that we cannot discern a fact about the mental state of an individual that can justify their belief that they are following a particular rule in the correct way. Thus, the notion of rule-following becomes meaningless. In order to explicate the problem Kripke used the quaddition example in which he asked the reader to imagine in the method of calculation quaddition where, x quus y = x + y if x, y This would mean that quus would give the same results as plus for numerous calculations, up until y In order provide a solution to the sceptical paradox, Kripke argues that Wittgenstein must look for an exterior source for justification and normativity. Kripkes Wittgenstein finds this justification by first accepting the sceptical problem and acknowledging that there can be no ultimate justification therefore the solution must be sceptical itself. From this starting point he then reduces the severity of the problem by arguing that what is required to solve the sceptical problem are not truth conditions (the facts that meanings must obtain to in order to be true), but justification conditions. These justification conditions rest on our answers to the question what is the role, and the utility in our lives of the practice of asserting (or denying) the form of words under these conditions?  [14]  In other words, we must justify our understanding of a rule by showing how we use it within our everyday lives. Our application of the rule is then evaluated by the community as to whethe r it conforms to the usual application of the rule and is therefore correct. Kripkes sceptical account of rule-following does succeed in providing a comprehensive and plausible account for how we invest meaning into the notion of rule- following through community based justification and evaluation. However, it seems that by accepting the scepticism brought to light by the by the paradox Kripke is guilty of the very misunderstanding that Wittgenstein was trying to correct. Wittgensteins rejection of the sceptical problem appears to be shown in the second paragraph of 201 in which Wittgenstein states that we thereby show that there is a way of grasping a rule which is not an interpretation, but which, from case to case application is exhibited in what we call following the rule and going against it  [15]  . From this it appears that Wittgenstein believed it was possible to reject the view that understanding is reliant on interpretation without having to accept on a sceptical theory of meaning. Meredith Williams highlights Kripkes misunderstanding, arguing t hat his belief that the apparent lack of epistemic guidance and justification for the correct application of a rule presents a genuine problem reflects a continued allegiance to the ideal expressed in the classical view  [16]  . She argues that this allegiance distorts Wittgensteins view by searching for an epistemic solution, leading Kripke to replace truth conditions with justification conditions and subjective verification with communal verification. Although Williams shares Kripkes community view of rule-following, she holds that this is not simply a sceptical solution but a genuine source of justification, stating that Wittgensteins answer to the paradox is not a sceptical throwing up of the hands with But this is what I or we do, but an appeal to the social embeddedness of rules  [17]  . She also criticizes Kripke for misunderstanding the community view by denying the authority of those who have mastered the language and forms of life that they are involved with, thus making the authority of the community arbitrary. Williams argues that Wittgenstein held an overtly communitarian view of rules, she evens goes as far as to argue that only the communitarian view can provide rules with the power to constrain the behaviour of the individual and space needed for the basic normative distinction between correct and incorrect. Williams describes the activity of rule-following as a matter of establishing a second nature  [18]  . Rules gain their power from appearing natural and inevitable, meaning that we develop an instantaneous and blind obedience to them. Blind obedience is cultivated through the training of a novice by a master wherein the novice is taught the technique of application that lies in the background and gives content to the formula as rule  [19]  . These techniques then become bedrock practices which need no epistemic justification as they are legitimised by their conformity. Williams argues that it is the blind obedience in the application of bedrock judgements and actions that create space for the rule rather than vice versa, which she calls the primacy of action. Williams argues that both the novice and the master act blindly, they are alternative blind as they are unaware of alternative actions and judgements. The Novice is blind as they unquestioningly follow the example and in struction of the master as they are aware of no other alternatives. Masters act blindly as once they have mastered the language they are blind (or no longer subject to) the verification of the community. From this Williams then argues that it is these two kinds of blindness than can give weight to the constraints that rules place upon an individual by providing the necessary foundational level needed to stop the regress of interpretation. In regards to the issue of normativity, Williams argues that the necessity of following a rule in a particular way is established through a communal regularity which constitutes the form of life against which error and mistake, truth and falsity can be discerned.  [20]  This means that the community does not provide a normative standard through its assent. Rather, it is the structure of the community or in other words, a certain history and a certain setting  [21]  which sustains the regularity of practices over time therefore acting in accordance with this regularity that constitutes following a rule correctly. This means that when we engage in blind actions and judgements, we comply with rules in a way that has been developed in the community of which we are a member, therefore, it is only in relation to the structured practice of the community that the individual can engage in normative activity  [22]  . Williams theory of blind obedience as the source of the necessity of rules and normativity of rules as socially constructed appears to be a valid interpretation of Wittgensteins account of rule-following. However, the notion of socially embedded normativity appears to be in need of further examination. Even if Williams account does not rely on the overtly arbitrary assent of the community, how can an individual compare their understanding of the meaning of an expression with the one provided by the structured practice of the community and furthermore, how may the community ascertain an individuals understanding of a rule in a comprehensively in order to subject it to verification? In light of these queries, I believe that a more substantial account of social normativity is needed, one that I will explore in John McDowells critique of Crispin Wrights anti-realist theory of meaning. Crispin Wright held a community view of Wittgensteins account of rule-following however, he saw this as necessarily aligned with an anti-realist stance due to the scepticism against investigation-independent truth values that he took to be inherent in Wittgensteins rule-following considerations. According to Wright, there can be no such thing as an objective or investigation-independent fact and so the only source of normativity available to a language speaker is the verdict of the linguistic community. However, due to the lack of investigation-independence this verdict is arbitrary. Wright challenges the existence of investigation-independence by refuting the hypothetico-deductive picture of understanding which he believes to be a foundational aspect. In the case of learning a language, this theory assumes that the trainee is able to form a hypothesis of what they believe their trainer is attempting to convey. Wright argues that this would suggest that we all have some innate grasp of an idiolectic pattern of application. If this is the case, we can then assume that this insight is shared communally. Wright rejects this view of understanding as psychologically artificial  [23]  as it rests on the assumption that we have such access to understanding that allows us to make verifiable assertions about the meaning of expressions. He argues along similar lines to Kripke, that there is no way that a trainee may prove that her hypothesis correctly mirrors that of the apparent investigation-independent fact in every case of application. This then means that it is not possible to have a direct and privileged insight regarding the requisites of understanding an expression irrespective of whether this insight is shared. If we wish to claim that investigation-independent facts pertaining to language exist, they must be recognisable; otherwise the correct use of language would have to be regarded as a radical transcendence of human consciousness  [24]  . However, Wrights examination of the hypothetico-deductive picture shows that an individual cannot attribute themselves with the abil ity to recognise whether they are using an expression in accordance with the prescribed pattern of the fact, let alone persuade anyone else that they have this ability. From this Wright concludes that there is truth in the idea that it is community of assent which supplies the essential background against which alone it makes sense to think of individuals responses as correct or incorrect  [25]  . However, if we suppose that this means that the community has the capability that the individual lacks to recognise whether they are conforming to a determined pattern, we are then faced with the same dilemma as the individual as there is no way of knowing whether consensus aligns with correctness. Wright argues that communal consent can be the only authority regarding the correct employment of language (or in other words the application of the rules of language) but for the community itself there is no authority, so no standard to meet  [26]  meaning a community does not go right or wrong in accepting a particular verdict on a particular decidable question, rather, it just goes.  [27]   In accordance with Wrights belief that meaning cannot be constituted by investigation-independent facts he states that, the only notion of objectivity which the anti-realist can allow himself is the ordinary contrast between areas where disagreement is taken to betoken error or misunderstanding  [28]  . He argues that this is an acceptable view of meaning as our assertions can be given substance through reflecting on our epistemic practices from which they arise. However, this does not seem to be satisfactory, or even in alignment with Wittgensteins intentions due to such statements such as the agreement of ratifications is the pre-condition of our language-game, it is not affirmed in it  [29]  . It appears Wittgenstein believed not only that language games and the rules that govern them are not wholly determined by ratification, but they needed a stronger validation than such ratifications can provide. Although it is clear that Wittgenstein would not regard our grasping of m eaning as the grasping of a private idiolectic pattern, the way in which Wright approaches this seems to threaten normativity in an unnecessary way by associating the invalidity of the hypothetico-deductive picture with an inability of a community to recognise whether or not the individual is able to follow rules correctly. McDowell takes this view in his article Following a Rule in which he argues that Wrights anti-realist theory of meaning and understanding is not recognizable as such and furthermore cannot be regarded as Wittgensteins view. He states that Wrights rejection of investigation-independence yields a picture of the relation between the communal language and the world in which norms are obliterated  [30]  . In light of this it is difficult to see how the susceptibility of the individual to be corrected by the community can be regarded as a form of normativity as there are no norms that may constrain the judgement of the community. McDowell states that this revelation turns Wrights argument on its head  [31]  as it is then becomes necessary to reject anti-realism in order to discern an applicable notion of meaning. According to McDowell, the crux of Wrights misunderstanding, shared with Kripke lies in their overlooking of Wittgensteins intention to refute the convergence of understanding with interpretation which reflects his desire to preserve the sanctity of normativity and meaning. In fact, McDowell sees Wittgensteins goal as finding a middle path between two horns of a dilemma, one which he takes to be Kripkes view that understanding is necessarily interpretative leading to the sceptical paradox, and Wrights view in which expressions are behavioural reactions cultivated by the community making any notion of normativity an illusion. McDowell argues that the way in which we may follow a rule blindly avoiding the need for interpretation while retaining normativity is to situate the questions regarding rules, meaning and understanding within a framework of communal practices  [32]  and furthermore, to redefine what it means to be a member of a linguistic community. According to McDowell, a linguistic community is bound together, not by a match of mere externals (facts accessible to just anyone) but by a capacity for meeting of minds  [33]  . It is as a result of the capacity of members within a linguistic community to access aspects of other members understanding of expressions, that they are able to ascertain a shared meaning. McDowell concedes that Wright is correct to reject the idea that understanding an expression is to formulate a hypothesis concerning something concealed by the speakers linguistic behaviour. However, the anti-realist conclusion from this rejection is misguided in that it fails to also reject the idea that there is such a thing as surface linguistic behaviour. The linguistic behaviour of a speaker that is apparent to others must be characterised in terms of the contents of utterances  [34]  . A command of the language spoken by the speaker allows direct cognitive contact  [35]  with the meaning of this content and thus establishes true meeting of the minds. By this McDowell is suggesting that what we mean by our utterances is not hidden, it is in fact clearly discernible to those who speak the same language. By taking this view McDowell highlights Wittgensteins call for us to stop trying to look beneath the bedrock for reasons as to why we follow rules in a certain way. It is possible to ask further questions concerning the nature of rule-following and meaning but to do so blocks off the obvious and surely correct reading: that hearing a word in one sense rather than another is hearing it in one position rather than another in the network of possible patterns of making sense that we learn to find ourselves in when we acquire mastery of a language  [36]  . When we learn a language we also learn the ways in which this language should be used; there need not be a gap between the expression of a rule given in trainingà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦and an action in conformity with it  [37]  . Therefore, when we understand an expression we use it in accordance with the communal use and our meaning is clear to those who share our language and customs. If we do not understand, our incomprehension is also clear and we may then be corrected. This appears to coincide with Wittgensteins belief that what is true or false is what human beings say; and it is in their language that human beings agree. This agreement not in opinion, but rather in form of life.  [38]   In this essay I have addressed the question of does Wittgenstein establish that language is rule-governed by discussing the issue of whether his account of rule-following can provide the justifications and normative standards that following a rule require. My exposition of the rule-following paradox and the deviant learner example revealed how Wittgenstein proved that we cannot provide a comprehensive account of rule-following by referring to the content of rules. However, even if this is the case, it does not necessarily mean that we must be sceptics regarding meaning as Kripke suggests. To believe that normativity and justification must be epistemic in nature is to misunderstand what it is to follow a rule. Williams account of how training situated within a particular social structure leads individuals to follow rules blindly effectively encapsulates how the only justification we require for the way we follow rules is that we have been trained to do so. I do believe Wright raises a valid point in asking how we may recognise that our understanding of certain rules is shared by others. However, through my examination of McDowells view that by sharing a language we are able to gain significant insight

Human Development Late Adulthood and End of Life

Human Development Late Adulthood and End of Life Right from conception to the day of death, a humans life is constantly developing and changing. However, most of these changes and developments are solely caused by the diverse stages we go through as human beings. The development stages are purely determined by biological and sociological heritage encountered by human beings. There are various developmental stages in the life of a human being which need to be addressed with great care so as to mitigate the negative effects associated with aging. As we age, there are various advancements that occur in us. For instance, we are able to properly use our bodies, develop relationships, communicate and work as well as experience love. The importance of possessing adequate knowledge on ageism and stereotypes associated with it cannot be overemphasized. This is due to the fact that the unfolding of human development lifespan is the base of our problems in life. There have been widespread views on death of human beings during various points o f development. As such, religious and cultural perspectives have had different views about human development and death. Nevertheless, human life can be likened to journey where one moves from one point to another, facing various challenges and moments of joy distinct from others. Promoting health and wellness in old age Promoting health and wellness during late adulthood can be very helpful in the mitigation against negative impacts of aging. It is considered that late adulthood starts at the age of 65 years. According to experts, this stage of life can be made a lively one if individuals obtain satisfaction and meaning in life rather than disillusionment and bitterness (Miller, 2008). Similarly, people within this age bracket are advised to develop a resolution between integrity versus despair which is always in conflicts throughout ones life. Statistics has shown that about 20% of the American population is composed of people aged 65 years and above. Moreover, further studies have demonstrated that with the improved modern medical technology, there is likelihood that longer lives can be attained artificially. Furthermore, it has been proved that longevity of life is not always associated with physical and mental deterioration. Psychologists have developed various ways through which individuals can eliminate the negative consequences of aging. For example, there are two theories that have been associated with successful aging: activity theory and disengagement theory. The former relates to the fact that as people age, their involvement in the normal societal activities is advisable due to the relief from difficult responsibilities. Consequently, opportunities are opened up for the younger people leading to better benefits to the society (Miller, 2008). The latter theory contradicts the former. It emphasizes that for better adjustment to aging, earlier activities of life should be maintained. Moreover, the proponents of the theory argue that being active ensures maintenance of the normal quality of life. In addition, maintenance of activity of a complete whole: physical, mental and social, prevents negative impacts of aging. Ageism and old age stereotypes Ageism is discrimination based on age. This form of discrimination is apparent in all ages but mostly applies towards the older people. Due to this kind of prejudice, older people are compelled to retire even though they still feel fit to continue working. Ageism is associated with various stereotypes about older people. There is no particular truth associated with stereotypes and ageism. For instance, when a person makes a remark such as, He drives like a little old lady, they are making a stereotype that may not have reasonable truth. While it may be true for an elderly lady to do most of her things slowly, there are others that do not have issues with speed. In fact, they may be faster than most of people several years younger (Nelson, 2004). Scientists have proved that the peak of ones physical strength as well as endurance is attained during the twenties. Thereafter, a decline ensues though at different rates depending on individuals. When one attains the late adulthood age, diverse physiological alterations may occur. Additionally, some level of brain atrophy may occur coupled with decreased neural process rates. Other numerous body changes such as decreased efficiency of the circulatory and respiratory rates and change of the gastrointestinal system occur during old age and they have profound impacts. Similarly, diminish of the bone mass particularly on women may lead to complications like osteoporosis. Other myths and stereotypes on aging include the believe that older people are senile, that the five senses are repressed during old age, that older people have no capacity and interest in sex, that most older people have a feeling of misery most often, that about 10% of aged live in long-stay institutions, that there is tendency towards being religious during old age, that old people are poor learners and during old age illnesses are bound to increase. The number of myths and stereotypes is somewhat inexhaustible. However, the fact is that these myths do not apply on all old people (Nelson, 2004). The concept of death dying Death and dying during different levels of human development have diverse views. Immense interest has always been associated with death and dying (Corr Nabe, 2005). Innumerable views have been given by different people on the concept of death and dying. However, the society has played a central role in shaping the perceptions of the people towards death and dying during different stages of human development. From time to time, there have been changing attitudes about death. Besides the usual attitude of fear concerning death, other attitudes have emerged in the recent times. During the process of human development, changes occur on the view of death and dying. For instance, during birth, one does not have an idea of what death is. However, this changes as one advance in age. Similarly, views concerning death are varied during different stages of human development. For instance, death of a child may be regarded very inappropriate due to the loss of an unexploited human being (Corr N abe, 2005). Similarly, if one dies during the Middle Ages, it may be regarded as an intense loss due to the resources used on the person who does not benefit the society. Finally, when a person dies during old age, it may not be regarded as intense as the society has derived some benefits from them. Different cultures have varied views about death and dying. According to philosophers, understanding the reality of death and the impacts on mans life; comprehension of the fears associated with death, enables people to live their lives fully. However, the American society does not believe in the reality of death; leading to confusion among people on issues of death. During the medieval days, people are said to have had a natural approach on death. This is contrary to the todays technology age where the western people have been separated from the reality of their biology. Consequently, there has been an obscurity of death realities. Different cultural perspectives about death and dying relate to care accorded to the dead, the life after and body disposal (Corr Nabe, 2005). There are rituals performed during these times depending on culture such as cremation as in Hindu, sky burial as in Tibet and mummification in other cultures. Conclusion Humans go through various stages during their lifetime. Various developments are attained before old age. Old age can be made more interesting though maintenance of proper focus on health and wellness. Myths and stereotypes about old age lead to prejudice on the old. Cultural variability has led to diversity on concepts of death and dying.