Law School Discussion

LR question

frankm007

LR question
« on: September 23, 2005, 09:33:14 AM »
Conservative: Socialist  begin their arguments with an analysis of history, from which they calin to derive certain trends leading inveitably to a socialist future. But in day-to-day progress of history there are never such discernible trends. Only in retrospect does inevitability appear, for history occurs through accident, contingency, and individual struggle.

Socialist: If we thought the outcome of history were inevitable, we would not work so hard to transform the institutions of capitalist society. But to transform them we must first understand them, and we can only understand them by an analysis     of their history. This is why historical analysis is important in socialist argument.

The socialist's statements imply a conflict with the conservative's view of history if the conversative also holds that

A) it would have been impossible for anyone to predic a significant period beforehand that the instritutions of capitalist society would take the form that they actually took

B) the apparent inevitablity of historical change is deceptiv; all historical events could have occurred otherwise than they actually did

C) in the past, radical changes in social structures have mostly resulted in a deterioration of social conditions

D) since socialism cannot arise by accident or contingency, it can only arise as a result of individual struggle

E) because historical changes are mostly accidental, it is impossble for people to direct their efforts sensibly towards achieving large-scale changes in social conditions


explain? =/

Atlas429

Re: LR question
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2005, 09:50:37 AM »
E............?

frankm007

Re: LR question
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2005, 09:57:25 AM »
yes, E, but explaiN! heh

allyreese

Re: LR question
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2005, 09:59:51 AM »
E

allyreese

Re: LR question
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2005, 10:01:24 AM »
Conservative - history is accidental

Socialist - history is not inevitable AND if we work we can change it

E - makes the connection for the conservative between the accidental nature of history and it's impact on working - which would be the point at issue between the two

I looked at A for a second, but neither really says anything about predicting capitalism, moreover they don't address the time period it takes for any predictions, so "significant period beforehand" also makes it wrong

River

  • ****
  • 359
    • View Profile
Re: LR question
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2005, 05:11:26 PM »
Conservative: Socialist  begin their arguments with an analysis of history, from which they calin to derive certain trends leading inveitably to a socialist future.
= an analysis of history--- trends leading inevitably to a socialist future(premise1)
.:


But in day-to-day progress of history there are never such discernible trends.
=daily progress--------~ discernible trends.
:Contra: discernible trends----~ daily progress.(premise2)


P1+P2=inference(1)
analysis of history--~ daily progress
contra: daily progress----~ analysis of history
=Since history progresses daily, it is not necessary to analyze history to find certain trend leading inevitably to a socialist future

(However), Only in retrospect does inevitability appear, for history occurs through accident, contingency, and individual struggle.
=accident, contingency, and individual struggle(=daily progress)------ inevitability does appear only in past events: (Premise 3)

Inference(1)+ premise 3: (Justify)
=~ analysis of history---inevitability only in past event

Contra: if inevitability does appear not only in past event (=inevitability is not limited to only the past event but also to the present), it is necessary to begin with analysis of history to find discernible trend inevitably to the socialist future.


Socialist: If we thought the out come of history were inevitable, we would not work so hard to transform the institutions of capitalist society.
= the inevitable outcome of history in the past ----transform(premise 1)

But to transform them we must first understand them, and we can only understand them by an analysis  of their history.
=transform------understand them and;
 analysis  of their history--- understand them

:Justify(1): transform ----analysis  of their history

Justification(1)+Premise1: (Inference)
= the inevitable outcome of history in past----- analysis  of history
=To obtain the inevitable outcome of history in past, the analysis of the past history is necessary.

This is why historical analysis is important in socialist argument.


The socialist's statements imply a conflict with the conservative's view of history if the conversative also holds that

E) because historical changes are mostly accidental(~ inevitable in present event), it is impossble for people to direct their efforts sensibly towards achieving large-scale changes in social conditions):
=~inevitable----~transform
Contra: transform----- inevitable= in conflict with Premise 1 of socialistís argument: mistaking sufficient for necessary
.

 

A) it would have been impossible for anyone to predict a significant period beforehand that the instritutions of capitalist society would take the form that they actually took
= ďpredict/ capitalistĒ ---out of scope/irrelevant to issue

B) the apparent inevitablity of historical change is deceptive; all historical events could have occurred otherwise than they actually did
= ,,,deceptive/ all historical events,,,: not warranted

C) in the past, radical changes in social structures have mostly resulted in a deterioration of social conditions:
=could be true or not: yet not relevant

D) since socialism cannot arise by accident or contingency, it can only arise as a result of individual struggle
=~ accident or contingency--- individual struggle
This could be assumed from socialistís argument(consistent with socialistís view)