Ermanno Bencivenga offers an interpretation that combines a narrative approach with a concept of necessity. While some of the moves from stage to stage are driven by syntactic necessity, other moves are driven by the meanings of the concepts in play.
A logic that deals only with the forms of logical arguments and not the meanings of the concepts used in those argument forms will do no better in terms of preserving truth than the old joke about computer programs suggests: garbage in, garbage out.
But if you plug in something for those terms that is untrue or meaningless garbage in , then the syntax of formal logic will lead to an untrue or meaningless conclusion garbage out. Against these logics, Hegel wanted to develop a logic that not only preserved truth, but also determined how to construct truthful claims in the first place. A logic that defines concepts semantics as well as their relationships with one another syntax will show, Hegel thought, how concepts can be combined into meaningful forms. Maybee xvii—xx.
In the Phenomenology , for instance, the moves are driven by syntax, semantics, and by phenomenological factors. Sometimes a move from one stage to the next is driven by a syntactic need—the need to stop an endless, back-and-forth process, for instance, or to take a new path after all the current options have been exhausted cf. And sometimes a move is driven by a phenomenological need or necessity—by requirements of consciousness , or by the fact that the Phenomenology is about a consciousness that claims to be aware of or to know something.
The logic of the Phenomenology is thus a phenomeno -logic, or a logic driven by logic—syntax and semantics—and by phenomenological considerations. Still, interpreters such as Quentin Lauer have suggested that, for Hegel,. Lauer 3. Other scholars who also believe there is a logical necessity to the dialectics of the Phenomenology include Hyppolite 78—9 and H. Harris xii.
Darwin and His Theory of Evolution | Pew Research Center
Even in these logics, there can often be more than one path from some premises to the same conclusion, logical operators can be dealt with in different orders, and different sets of operations can be used to reach the same conclusions. We can begin to see why Hegel was motivated to use a dialectical method by examining the project he set for himself, particularly in relation to the work of David Hume and Immanuel Kant see entries on Hume and Kant.
Although we may have to use careful observations and do experiments, our knowledge of the world is basically a mirror or copy of what the world is like. Take the scientific concept of cause, for instance. According to that concept of cause, to say that one event causes another is to say that there is a necessary connection between the first event the cause and the second event the effect , such that, when the first event happens, the second event must also happen. It follows that the necessary, causal connection between the two events must itself be out there in the world.
There is nothing in the world itself that our idea of cause mirrors or copies. Nicholas Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who said that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. We can reestablish a connection between reason and knowledge, however, Kant suggested, if we say—not that knowledge revolves around what the world is like—but that knowledge revolves around what we are like. For the purposes of our knowledge, Kant said, we do not revolve around the world—the world revolves around us.
Because we are rational creatures, we share a cognitive structure with one another that regularizes our experiences of the world. This intersubjectively shared structure of rationality—and not the world itself—grounds our knowledge. While the intersubjectively shared structure of our reason might allow us to have knowledge of the world from our perspective, so to speak, we cannot get outside of our mental, rational structures to see what the world might be like in itself.
How, for Hegel, can we get out of our heads to see the world as it is in itself? Plato argued that we have knowledge of the world only through the Forms. The Forms are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because the world is imperfect, however, Plato exiled the Forms to their own realm. Although things in the world get their definitions by participating in the Forms, those things are, at best, imperfect copies of the universal Forms see, e.
The Forms are therefore not in this world, but in a separate realm of their own. Aristotle argued, however, that the world is knowable not because things in the world are imperfect copies of the Forms, but because the Forms are in things themselves as the defining essences of those things see, e. As Hegel apparently put it in a lecture, the opposition or antithesis between the subjective and objective disappears by saying, as the Ancients did,.
If we were to deprive a dog of its animality we could not say what it is. We can use our reason to have knowledge of the world because the very same reason that is in us, is in the world itself as it own defining principle. The rationality or reason in the world makes reality understandable, and that is why we can have knowledge of, or can understand, reality with our rationality. But why does Hegel come to define reason in terms of dialectics, and hence adopt a dialectical method?
Plato argued that we can have knowledge of the world only by grasping the Forms, which are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because things in the world are so imperfect, however, Plato concluded that the Forms are not in this world, but in a realm of their own. After all, if a human being were perfectly beautiful, for instance, then he or she would never become not-beautiful.
But human beings change, get old, and die, and so can be, at best, imperfect copies of the Form of beauty—though they get whatever beauty they have by participating in that Form. Moreover, for Plato, things in the world are such imperfect copies that we cannot gain knowledge of the Forms by studying things in the world, but only through reason, that is, only by using our rationality to access the separate realm of the Forms as Plato argued in the well-known parable of the cave; Republic , Book 7, —b. First, it rests on the claim that the world is an imperfect and messy place—a claim that is hard to deny.
But it also rests on the assumption that the Forms—the universal, rational concepts or ideas of reason itself—are static and fixed, and so cannot grasp the messiness within the imperfect world. Hegel is able to link reason back to our messy world by changing the definition of reason. Instead of saying that reason consists of static universals, concepts or ideas, Hegel says that the universal concepts or forms are themselves messy. Moreover, because later concepts build on or sublate cancel, but also preserve earlier concepts, the later, more universal concepts grasp the dialectical processes of earlier concepts.
502 Bad Gateway
As a result, higher-level concepts can grasp not only the dialectical nature of earlier concepts or forms, but also the dialectical processes that make the world itself a messy place. The highest definition of the concept of beauty, for instance, would not take beauty to be fixed and static, but would include within it the dialectical nature or finiteness of beauty, the idea that beauty becomes, on its own account, not-beauty. This dialectical understanding of the concept of beauty can then overgrasp the dialectical and finite nature of beauty in the world, and hence the truth that, in the world, beautiful things themselves become not-beautiful, or might be beautiful in one respect and not another.
Dialectics is what drives the development of both reason as well as of things in the world. A dialectical reason can overgrasp a dialectical world. Two further journeys into the history of philosophy will help to show why Hegel chose dialectics as his method of argument. To show that reason is in the world itself, however, Hegel has to show that reason can be what it is without us human beings to help it.
He has to show that reason can develop on its own, and does not need us to do the developing for it at least for those things in the world that are not human-created. As we saw cf. Thus reason, as it were, drives itself, and hence does not need our heads to develop it. Ironically, Hegel derives the basic outlines of his account of self-driving reason from Kant. Kant divided human rationality into two faculties: the faculty of the understanding and the faculty of reason.
The understanding uses concepts to organize and regularize our experiences of the world. Reason coordinates the concepts of the understanding by following out necessary chains of syllogisms to produce concepts that achieve higher and higher levels of conceptual unity. Indeed, this process will lead reason to produce its own transcendental ideas, or concepts that go beyond the world of experience. In the end, Kant thought, reason will follow out such chains of syllogisms until it develops completely comprehensive or unconditioned universals—universals that contain all of the conditions or all of the less-comprehensive concepts that help to define them.
Once reason has generated the unconditioned concept of the whole world, for instance, Kant argued, it can look at the world in two, contradictory ways. In the first antinomy, reason can see the world 1 as the whole totality or as the unconditioned, or 2 as the series of syllogisms that led up to that totality. If reason sees the world as the unconditioned or as a complete whole that is not conditioned by anything else, then it will see the world as having a beginning and end in terms of space and time, and so will conclude the thesis that the world has a beginning and end or limit. But if reason sees the world as the series, in which each member of the series is conditioned by the previous member, then the world will appear to be without a beginning and infinite, and reason will conclude the antithesis that the world does not have a limit in terms of space and time cf.
Reason thus leads to a contradiction: it holds both that the world has a limit and that it does not have a limit at the same time. Kant was right that reason speculatively generates concepts on its own, and that this speculative process is driven by necessity and leads to concepts of increasing universality or comprehensiveness.
Kant was even right to suggest—as he had shown in the discussion of the antinomies—that reason is dialectical, or necessarily produces contradictions on its own. The fact that reason develops those contradictions on its own, without our heads to help it , shows that those contradictions are not just in our heads, but are objective, or in the world itself.
- Essay Example: What is the American Dream?.
- writing interviews in an essay?
- 6th grade common core book reports.
- General overview;
- Creationism vs Evolution.
- Thesis Statement Examples to Get You into the Writing Mood;
SL-dG 35 , or to the nature of concepts themselves. Fichte argued that the task of discovering the foundation of all human knowledge leads to a contradiction or opposition between the self and the not-self it is not important, for our purposes, why Fichte held this view. The kind of reasoning that leads to this contradiction, Fichte said, is the analytical or antithetical method of reasoning, which involves drawing out an opposition between elements in this case, the self and not-self that are being compared to, or equated with, one another.
While the traditional reductio ad absurdum argument would lead us to reject both sides of the contradiction and start from scratch, Fichte argued that the contradiction or opposition between the self and not-self can be resolved.
- Evolution Of Man.
- Developing a thesis statement – The Writing Center – UW–Madison.
- essay on politics in pakistan.
- essay mothers by anna quindlen.
- Thesis statements/Research questions/Problem statements | RRU Library.
- Site Search Navigation.
- Identify a topic.
In particular, the contradiction is resolved by positing a third concept—the concept of divisibility—which unites the two sides The Science of Knowledge , I: —11; Fichte — Indeed, Fichte argued, not only is the move to resolve contradictions with synthetic concepts or judgments possible, it is necessary. As he says of the move from the contradiction between self and not-self to the synthetic concept of divisibility,. The Science of Knowledge , I: ; Fichte Without the synthetic concepts or judgments, we are left, as the classic reductio ad absurdum argument suggests, with nothing at all.
The synthetic concepts or judgments are thus necessary to get beyond contradiction without leaving us with nothing. Fichte suggested that a synthetic concept that unifies the results of a dialectically-generated contradiction does not completely cancel the contradictory sides, but only limits them. Instead of concluding, as a reductio ad absurdum requires, that the two sides of a contradiction must be dismissed altogether, the synthetic concept or judgment retroactively justifies the opposing sides by demonstrating their limit, by showing which part of reality they attach to and which they do not The Science of Knowledge , I: —10; Fichte —9 , or by determining in what respect and to what degree they are each true.
For Hegel, as we saw cf. From the point of view of the later concepts or forms, the earlier ones still have some validity, that is, they have a limited validity or truth defined by the higher-level concept or form. Ultimately, Hegel thought, as we saw cf. In many places, the dialectical process is driven by a syntactic necessity that is really a kind of exhaustion: when the current strategy has been exhausted, the process is forced, necessarily, to employ a new strategy. As we saw section 2 , once the strategy of treating Being and Nothing as separate concepts is exhausted, the dialectical process must, necessarily, adopt a different strategy, namely, one that takes the two concepts together.
The concept of Becoming captures the first way in which Being and Nothing are taken together. In the stages of Quantum through Number, the concepts of One and Many take turns defining all the elements cf. Maybee , xviii—xix :. Since One and Many have been exhausted, the next stage, Ratio, must, necessarily, employ a different strategy to grasp the elements in play.
Maybee , xviii—xix, 95—7. So long as the dialectical process is passing endlessly back and forth between two elements, it is never finished, and the concept or form in play cannot be determined. Spurious infinities must therefore be resolved or stopped, and they are always resolved by a higher-level, more universal concept. In some cases, a new, higher-level concept is introduced that stops the spurious infinity by grasping the whole, back-and-forth process. Being-for-itself cf. However, if the back-and-forth process takes place between a concept and its own content—in which case the concept already embraces the content—then that embracing concept is redefined in a new way that grasps the whole, back-and-forth process.
As a result, it is really defined only in relation to itself. In the logic, Being-for-itself cf. Maybee —6. The genuine concept of animal, for instance, is not only defined by embracing its content namely, all animals from the bottom up, but also has a definition of its own, separate from that content, that leads it to determine, from the top down, what counts as an animal. As we saw section 2 , Hegel regarded Becoming as the first concrete concept in the logic. In spite of—or perhaps because of—the difficulty, there are a surprising number of fresh ideas in his work that have not yet been fully explored in philosophy.
As he puts the argument, then, the scepticism that ends up with the bare abstraction of nothingness or emptiness cannot get any further from there, but must wait to see whether something new comes along and what it is, in order to throw it too into the same empty abyss. Why does Hegel use dialectics? As Hegel suggests in the Phenomenology , such an argument is just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the nothingness of that from which it results.
We can picture the concept of Being-for-itself like this: Figure 1.
Figure 2. Figure 3.
Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Geraets, W. Suchting, and H. Harris, Indianapolis: Hackett, Haldane and Frances H. Simson, New Jersey: Humanities Press, Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Wood and translated by H. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fichte, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Findlay, J. The Philosophical Quarterly — , 16 65 : — Telecommunications plays an increasingly vital role in enabling the participation and development of people in communities and nations disadvantaged by geography, whether in rural areas in the United States or in developing nations in the global society and economy. Telecommunications provides vital infrastructure for national security. From natural disaster recovery, to homeland security, to communication of vital intelligence, to continued military superiority, telecommunications plays a pivotal role.
When the issue is countering an adversary, it is essential not only to preserve telecommunications capability, but also to have a superior capability. There are potential risks associated with a reliance on overseas sources for innovation, technologies, applications, and services. It is difficult to predict the future impact of telecommunications technologies, services, and applications that have not yet been invented.
The telecommunications industry is a major direct contributor to U. The U. Census Bureau estimates that just over 3 percent of the U. At 3 percent, telecommunications thus represented more than a third of the total fraction of GDI spent on information technology IT; 7. In fact, the fraction attributable to telecommunications is probably larger relative to that of IT than these figures suggest, given that much of the GDI from IT hardware particularly semiconductors could apply to any of several industries computing, telecommunications, media, and electronics, for example.
If one assumes IT to be the sum of computers calculating , computers wholesale , computers retail , and software and services, the total GDI for IT is. The telecommunications-related industries are also a major employer—communications services employed 1 million U. Telecommunications is a growth business. Although markedly reduced investment in some parts of the sector following the bubble years of the late s may have given an impression of low growth in the long run, a longer-term view taking into account the need for humans and machines to communicate suggests that telecommunications will continue to grow apace, as evidenced by the ongoing expansion of wireless and broadband access services throughout the world.
Telecommunications is also a key enabler of productivity across the U. In the s the U. GDP grew rapidly, and the U. It is widely believed that the Internet economy played a significant role in this success. For the United States to compete in the global marketplace—across industries—it needs the productivity that comes from enhancements in telecommunications. If the telecommunications infrastructure in the United States were to fall significantly behind that of the rest of the world, the global competitiveness of all other U. Conversely, the growth in U. Telecommunications has been and likely will continue to be an important foundation for innovative new industries arising in the United States that use telecommunications as a primary technological enabler and foundation.
Recent examples of innovative new businesses leveraging telecommunications include Yahoo! GDI estimates for from U. Data for from U. For more on the relationship between information and communications technologies and economic productivity, see, for example, Dale W. Jorgenson and Kevin J.
Finally, telecommunications is an important component of the broader IT industry, which is sometimes viewed as having three technology legs: 7 processing to transform or change information , storage to allow communication of information from one time to another , and communications to transmit information from one place to another. The boundaries between these areas are not very distinct, but this decomposition helps illustrate the breadth of IT and the role that telecommunications plays.
Increasingly IT systems must incorporate all three elements to different degrees, 8 and it is increasingly common for companies in any sector of IT to offer products with a communications component, and often with a communications emphasis. Increasing numbers of businesses compete globally. Every company and every industry must assess the segments and niches in which it operates to remain globally competitive. Both Asian and European nations are continuing to pursue strategies that exploit perceived U.
Leapfrogging the United States in telecommunications has, in the opinion of the committee, been an explicit and stated strategy for a number of Asian in broadband and wireless and European in wireless nations for the past decade, with notable success. These efforts have aimed to stimulate the rapid penetration of physical-layer technologies for residential access broadband access, especially in Asia and wireless and mobile access cellular networks, especially in Europe.
Did Humans First Evolve in Africa?
Telecommunications research is best understood as a seed that germinates, developing into lasting value for the U. Figure 1. The picture is, to be sure, simplified—the interactions between the different elements are more complex than can be reasonably characterized by the diagram— but Figure 1. Shown at the top of Figure 1. Level 1 shows the direct results : Researchers conduct exploratory studies, achieving technical breakthroughs and developing their expertise and their basic understanding of the areas studied.
Talent is thus nurtured that will be expressed in the future in industry and academia. None of these results of research can be characterized as end benefits. Rather, the development of talent and the achievement of breakthroughs build a capability for later revolutionary advances.
At Level 2 the benefits of research begin to become evident. Researchers collaborate, and individual insights and results begin to fit together. The university talent generated in Level 1 develops competence—not simply low-level job skills that can be easily transported anywhere, but rather the next-generation expertise needed to ensure a skilled U.
The United States has access to this skilled workforce first and can thus benefit directly from the talent and knowledge base generated in Level 1 that are fundamental to continuing technological advances and being able to perform in the best future jobs. Also at Level 2 comes the maturing of fundamental breakthroughs and their transition to usable, deployable technology for next-generation telecommunication systems and the development of roadmaps to help guide research investments.
The major benefits to the economy obtained at Level 3 are the coalescence of Level 1 and 2 elements. Skilled workers, a competence to understand the new technology, the availability of the technology, and shared goals are the ingredients required to create a healthy telecommunications industry and, more broadly, a capable telecommunications infrastructure. Interestingly, not all of the research performed affects telecommunications alone.
Because telecommunications touches multiple industries, the technology base it provides also often enables the creation of entirely new industries. The success of the iPod and other portable digital music players, for example, rests in part on earlier telecommunications-inspired work on how to compress audio for efficient transmission over limited-bandwidth channels.
At Level 4, an indirect benefit of research is a telecommunications infrastructure that provides advantages to all industries that use telecommunications. There are also end-user or consumer benefits that accrue to having an outstanding infrastructure, such as enhanced education, entertainment, and personal convenience. Finally, new companies also emerge from these new industries. Level 5 aggregates the key benefits of research in broad areas of national concern.
Concerning economic impact, the strong telecommunications industry, new spin-off industries, and more competitive industries across the board result in a higher GDP for the country, as well as job creation. Technological leadership and economic strength also help ensure strong leadership and capability in national defense and homeland security. The full benefits of the process depicted in Figure 1. Each step takes time: from innovation to mass deployment and impact.
Investments by both government and industry in research by academia and industry lead to both short- and long-term contributions. Over the years, CSTB studies have documented this phenomenon across multiple areas of information technology and telecommunications research. In closing, it is worth noting the perils of losing leadership in telecommunications. Because of the time lag, the nation may continue to exhibit leadership at Levels 4 and 5 and possibly Level 3 even as it is failing to renew capability at Levels 1 and 2.
Since Levels 3 through 5 are most visible to policy makers and the public, there is a potential to perceive the situation as less dire than it really is. If Levels 1 and 2 are left to atrophy, serious problems will occur at Levels 3 through 5. If that happens, then recovery will take a long time—or even prove impossible. The modern telecommunications infrastructure—made possible by research performed over the last several decades—is an essential element of the U. To help understand this challenge, the National Science Foundation asked the NRC to assess the state of telecommunications research in the United States and recommend ways to halt the research decline.
This report provides an examination of telecommunications research support levels, focus, and time horizon in industry, an assessment of university telecommunications research, and the implications of these findings on the health of the sector. Finally, it presents recommendations for enhancing U. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.
Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book. Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.
To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter. Ready to take your reading offline?
Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available. Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released. Renewing U. Get This Book. Visit NAP. Looking for other ways to read this? No thanks. Telecommunications Research.
Page 5 Share Cite.