Organizational Culture Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Organizational Culture - Assignment Example Center of discussion in this paper is organizational culture as a â€Å"set of shared beliefs and experiences that essentially defines the identity of an organization and ultimately guides its behavior†. Today, most organizations are reconsidering and reconstructing their organizational culture for it is perceived as one of the important determinants of success in terms of influencing individual behavior. Furthermore, the culture’s role in the organization is indispensable because it is a lifetime result of weaknesses, strengths, failures, and experiences of people. In fact, it is frequently cited in the different versions of cultural studies that if an organization is planning to implement a change process, it must first understand its organizational culture because failure to do so will make the process unsuccessful. This idea was seconded by the study of Kotter and Heskett when they presented that organizational culture is one of the barriers in implementing a succes sful organizational change effort because culture or experiences are learnt over many years. In addition, a company’s invention or development of systems or procedures will too often fail because â€Å"cultures do not support the newly learned concepts, values, or assumptions†. â€Å"Generally, culture studies are conducted at different levels of analyses (for instance, organizational versus societal) using different methodological approaches (conceptual, quantitative, and qualitative) and a variety of associated constructs†.... Moreover, the positive relationship between culture and performance is supported by several research studies (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Denison, 1996; Marcoulides & Heck, 1993). Culture is also considered as a strong competitive advantage; thus, beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors of people in an organization are highly regarded (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008, p.3). For example, if business practices are not aligned with the corporate culture, profits will fall, wider range of facilities will not be fully utilized, and there will be no unity and cooperation in the organization. Theories and Conceptual Models in Defining the Style of Management Organizations are expected to be proactive with their actions or strategies and update them based on current market trends. However, changing an organizational culture is a complicated process because of the concept’s nature wherein â€Å"the stronger the culture, the more resistant it is to any form of change† (Kaliprasad, 20 06, p.29; Thompson & Luthans, 1990). Therefore, the organization’s greatest challenge is to create a strong and powerful culture, which is at the same time susceptible to environmental disturbances (Schein, 1992). Thus, several culture theories and models are proposed to have a good or in-depth understanding of the increasing perception that organizational culture and success/effectiveness have a positive linkage. These associated models and cultures are also created to determine the different aspects of culture in different analyses, approaches, forms, and dimensions, particularly in organizational behaviors. Edgar Schein’s Model of Organizational Culture and Leadership (1980s). Having a powerful and flexible organizational culture is considered

The broad thematic perspective Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The broad thematic perspective - Movie Review Example The overall cost of the movie was around  £900,000 which is equivalent to  £11.4 million today. It was first broadcasted on ITV in 1973. The documentary interviewed significant members of Axis and Allied campaigns, comprising eyewitness accounts by enlisted men, civilians, politicians, and officers among others. Major historians were Stephen Ambrose and Adolf Galland (Ambruster 17). The series â€Å"The World at War,† entails a DVD set by Jeremy Isaac explaining the priorities given to examinations and interviews with surviving assistants and aides other than recognized figures. Karl Wolff who was Heinrich Himmler’s adjutant was the most difficult interviewee to persuade and locate. During the examination, he accepted to be among the significant witnesses in mass genocide, in Himmler’s presence. In the later part of the series, Isaacs showed satisfaction with the entails of the series. He also added that the content entailed unclassified information in reference to British code-breaking. The documentary is listed among the top programmes in British television under the compilation of British Film Institute in 2000 (Ambruster 5). This is a situation whereby nations look for alternative means of solving conflicts. This is a crucial theme that prevails in all of the four clips. Violence was as a result of conflict of ideas and ways of doing things. But in this case, violence evolves as a result of conflict of interest. The subjects were made to do things they were not willing by their masters. Peace prevailed after the submission of the Nazi forces who were Germans. Massive killings such as those illustrated in â€Å"Whirlwind: Bombing Germany† which is the twelve episode are some of the activities that came to a stop leading to prevalence of peace. The episode emphasizes on massive bombings by the British and American army in Germany. Interviews from witnesses such as Albert Speer, William Reid and James Stewart explain how innocent lives were taken

Budgeting Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Budgeting - Essay Example man resource management which include employees’ development, compensation, rewards, and work benefits, job definition and design, and development of organizational culture. From a scientific perspective, performance management is a continuous process, which starts from the time an employee start working in an organization until the time when the employee exits the organization. Performance management is one of the things that H2O should consider placing great emphasis on as it prepares to expand its operations to the US. This is because performance management would help the company to align its HR initiatives with the US practices. That is, satisfying the needs of its human resources while ensuring that the abilities of the employees are directed towards achievement of the company’s objectives. Levensaler explains (20008) that â€Å"this is possible because performance management enables an organization to analyze how well its employees are performing on an individual basis† (p. 11). This entails analyzing how well an employee is performing in his/her current responsibilities based on the achieved results. Performance management also allows an organization to develop improvement plan. An improvement plan enables an employee to improve his/her performance, as well as prepare for future responsibilities. Furthermore, performance management would help H2O to promote cohesion between subordinates and their supervisors. Good subordinates-supervisors relationships have a positive impact not only on employees’ performance, but also in employees’ morale. In addition, performance management helps organizations to determine employees’ performance rewards which are rewarding employees depending on their abilities and achievements. Therefore, for H2O to be able to align its HR initiatives with the US practices, it should ensure that its performance management initiatives achieve the aforementioned objectives. Moreover, performance management is based on a

Trademark Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Trademark - Assignment Example A trademark is a mark that represents the distinction of certain goods in terms of the brand name, logo, label and many more. This mark helps in differentiating a trader’s commodities and services from those of others in a place. The right of this trademark is granted in terms of its logo, smell and taste among others. This mark is what any trader requires to own exclusive rights in commercially making use of goods and services that are under it. This also licenses the traders to engage in the various sectors of business that are involved in the mark. Without this, anyone carrying out business activities in the nation is considered a criminal and can be detained. To prove their business legal therefore, one may require this trademark from the government. This familiarizes the government with the business activities taking place within the country and helps to control illegal businesses that are not healthy in terms of the welfare of the citizens in the nation. Application for this trademark takes place in government offices. A registration fee is charged during application, and in some cases is renewed monthly. This way, apart from controlling business activities in the nation, the government also earns some revenue that later helps in running of the development projects that need to be fulfilled in building the nation. During the application process therefore, it is wise for a businessman to consider some issues before applying. It is wise to find out whether the application is really needed in one’s case, whether their brand appropriately needs the mark, the right time for application and the process involved during the application. This is done to avoid poor decisions, which later may cause downfall (Isobel, 2015). Trademarks help the owners of the goods and services to protect their commodities from claims by the

Raghunath Prasad CASE Essay Example for Free

Raghunath Prasad CASE Essay Father and son equal owners of a vast joint family property – both quarrelled over it – Father instituted criminal proceedings against the son – In order to defend himself, the son borrowed money from the plaintiff at 24% compound interest and mortgaged his properties – In eleven years, the amount payable magnified more than eleven fold – Defendant contended that plaintiff/lender taking unconscionable advantage of his mental distress and exercised undue influence defendant failed to prove that the lender was in a position to dominate his will – Borrower got no relief. However, no presumption of undue influence in following cases and burden of proof lies on the party claiming as such 1. Landlord and tenant 2. Creditor and debtor 3. Husband and wife 1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated November 9, 1920, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which varied a decree, dated September 25, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah. 2. The suit is for recovery of the amount of principal and interest due by the appellant to the respondents (the plaintiffs) under a mortgage of late May 27, 1910. The Subordinate Judge gave decree in the mortgage suit but only allowed simple interest. The High Court allowed compound interest. 3. The substantial question raised on the appeal is whether the appellant, in the circumstances proved in the case, fell within the protective provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Contract (Amendment) Act, 1899. It may be convenient to set that section out in full: 2. Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is hereby repealed, and the following is substituted therefor, namely: 16.(1) A contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another: (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age,  illness, or mental or bodily distress. (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of Section 111 of the of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 4. It is in the view of the Board by that section that the question arising between th ese parties falls to be settled, and not by reference to the legislation of other countries, e. g., the English Moneylenders Act. The statute to be here construed is the Indian Contract Act as amended. It is accompanied with danger to invoke as authority in an Indian case expressions which merely connote the principles which underlie a particular English statute, and form a guide to its interpretation. As will be seen this general observation is required by reason of the citation of certain authorities alluded to in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and referred to in the argument before their Lordships Board. 5. The appellant is a member of a joint undivided family owning a property of considerable value, including inter alia, 186 villages, assessed to revenue for about Rs. 17,000 annum. 6. The mortgage is dated May 27, 1910. It is for the sum of Rs. 9,999 borrowed from the plaintiffs. The rate of interest is covered by the following provision: I, the declarant, do promise that I shall pay interest on the said debt at the rate of 2 per cent, per mensem on the 30th Jeth of each year. In case of non-payment of the annual interest, the interest will be taken as principal and interest will run thereon at the rate of 2 per cent, par mensem, that is, interest will be calculated on the principle of compound interest. 7. There can be no question that these terms were high: if payment was not made the sum due on the mortgage would speedily mount up. By the decree of the High Court which was pronounced on November 9, 1920, it is seen that the original debt of Rs. 10,000 had reached, with interest and costs calculated up to May 8, 1921, more than a lac of rupees, viz., Rs. 1,12,885. In eleven years the stipulation for interest at 24 per cent, compound had magnified the sum covered by the mortgage more than elevenfold. It is upon these facts, coupled with one other about to be mentioned, that the appellant takes his stand. 8. The statement in the defence admits that at the time of  the execution of the mortgage the defendant was owner of one half of a valuable joint famil y property. The owner of the other half was his father. Father and son had quarrelled. Serious allegations are made by the son against the father; whereas it appears that the father had instituted criminal proceedings against the son. Shortly before the date of the mortgage the defendant had borrowed Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiffs so as to enable him to defend himself in these criminal proceedings. It is alleged that they caused him great mental distress, and that he required more money to conduct his litigations. That is the story. 9. Evidence was taken in the case. It is sufficient to say that the defendants gave no evidence at all. It is quite plain that no Court can accept a story thus unproved by its author as establishing a case either of mental distress or of undue influence under the Indian Contract Act. The only case which the appellant has is the case derived from the contents of the mortgage itself. 10. It is argued with force that these are unconscionable, and that it is the duty of the Court in India to step in either to rescind the contract or to rectify the bargain. It was the latter course which was argued for in the present case. In support of this argument much reliance was placed upon the judgment pronounced by Lord Davey in Dhanipal Das v. Raja Maneshar Bakhsh Singh. (1906) L.R. 33 I.A. 118, s.c. 9 Bom. L.R. 304, 306. 11. Before, however, addressing themselves to the authorities cited their Lordships think it desirable to make clear their views upon, in particular, Sub-section 3 of Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act as amended. By this sub-section three matters are dealt with. In the first place the relations between the parties to each other must he such that one is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Once that position is substantiated the second stage has been reached, viz., the issue whether the contract has been induced by undue influence. Upon the determination of this issue a third point emerges, which is that of the onus probandi. The burden of proving that the contract was not induced by undue influence is to lie upon the person who was in a position to dominate the will of the other. 12. Error is almost sure to arise if the order of these propositions be changed. The unconscionableness of the bargain is not the first thing to be considered. The first thing to be considered is the relations of these parties. Were they such as to put one in a position to dominate the will of the other? Having this distinction  and order in view the authorities appear to their Lordships to be easily properly interpreted. 13. In the judgment of this Board in Dhanipal Das v. Raja Maneshar Bakhsh Singh, (1906) L.R. 33 I.A. 118. the outstanding effect was that the borrower who mortgaged the estate was actually, at the date of the transaction, under the control of the Court of Wards. He was treated, to use the language of Lord Davey, as under a peculiar disability and placed in a position of helplessness, and the lender was proved to have been aware of that and, therefore, in a position to dominate the borrowers will. Lord Davey thus expressed the Boards view (p. 126): Their Lordships are of opinion that although the respondent was left free to contract debt, yet he was under a peculiar disability and placed in a position of helplessness by the fact of his estate being under the control of the Court of Wards, and they must assume that Auseri Lal, who had known the respondent for some fifty years, was aware of it. They are therefore of opinion that the position of the parties was such that Auseri Lal was in a position to dominate the will of the respondent within the meaning of the amended Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. It remains to be seen whether Auseri Lal used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the respondent. 14. This case was followed in terms in the case of Maneshar Bakhsh Singh v. Shadi Lal (1909) L.R. 36 I.A. 96; in which the bond in suit was given by a talukdar in Oudh without the knowledge and consent of the Court of Wards after his estate had been placed under it. In these circumstances the former case was followed, and Lord Collins expressed the opinion of the Board to be that they are satisfied that in this case also the borrower was placed in such a condition of helplessness that the lender was in a position to dominate his will, and that he used that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the appelant. 15. It is sufficient to say that the borrower in the present case was sui juris, had the full power of bargaining and of burdening his estate, that his estate was not under the Court of Wards and that he lay under no disability. With regard to his helplessness nothing whatsoever is proved in the case except the bare fact that he being a man of wealth as owner of one-half of certain joint family property wished to obtain and did obtain certain monies on loan. The only relation between the parties that was proved was simply that they were  lender and borrower. 16. It is an entire mistake to represent the decisions of this Board as being wanting in light upon the last mentioned case. For in Sundar Koer v. Sham Krishen (1906) L.R. 34 I. A, 9, 16, the exact point was referred to by Lord Davey in the course of the judgment read by him (p. 16): There is no evidence of any actual exercise of undue influence by the mortgagees or of any special circumstances from which an inference of undue influence could be legitimately drawn, except that the mortgagor was in urgent need of money. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the mortgagees wore thereby placed in a position to dominate the will of the mortgagor, and cited a recent decision of this BoardDhanipal Das v. Raja Maneshar Bakhsh Singh. In that case, however, the borrower was a disqualified proprietor under the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1870, and his estate was under the management of the Court of Wards, and it was on that ground that their Lordships held that the borrower was under a peculiar disability, and the position of the parties was such that the lender was in a position to dominate his will. There is nothing of that kind in the present case, and their Lordships are not prepared to hold that urgent need of money on the part of the boriower will of itself place the parties in that position. 17. This precisely fits the situation of these parties. It has not been proved,it might be said that it has not even been attempted to be proved,that the lender was in a position to dominate the will of the borrower. 18. In these circumstances, even though the bargain had been unconscionable (and it has the appearance of being so) a remedy under the Indian Contract Act does not come into view until the initial fact of a position to dominate the will has been established. Once that fact is established, then the unconscionable nature of the bargain and the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence come into operation. In the present case, for the reasons stated, these stages are not reached. 19. Their Lordships think it right to observe that the judgment now pronounced is not in accord with the principles laid down by the Appellate Civil Court of Calcutta in Abdul Majeed v. Khirode Chandra Pal (1914) I.L.R. 42 Cal. 690. that where there is ample security, the exaction of excessiv e and usurious interest, in itself raises a presumption of undue influence which it  requires very little evidence to substantiate. Their Lordships think this decision to be wrong. There is no such presumption until the question has first been settled as to the lender being in a position to dominate the borrowers will. Their Lordships are further of opinion with reference to the citation of Smuel v. Newbold [1906] A.C. 461., that that case does not form any authority in the construction of the Indian Contract Act. The case was determined under the Moneylenders Act, 1900, as it expressly bears. The issue was thus stated by Lord Macnaghten (p. 468): It seems to me that the construction of the Moneylenders Act, 1900, is plain enough, and that the evidence before your Lordships is more than sufficient to show that this case is within the mischief which the Act was designed to remedy. 20. In the view of the Board cases of that character form no precedent for a decision of the present appeal which is rested on another and very differently worded statute. 21. Their Lordships are of opinion that the decree of the High Court should be varied by allowing compound interest on the principal at the rate of two per cent, per mensem from the date of the execution of the bond until September 25, 1917, and thereafter simple interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum up to the date of realization, and that in other respects the decree of the High Court should be affirmed, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly. 22. The appellants will pay the costs of the appeal.

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Example for Free

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Explain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his Metaphysical Exposition of Space (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian concept) or any independent relation among real things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In other words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian? In his Metaphysical Exposition of Space, Kant attempts to show that the experience of space is just a form of intuition. Kant defines space as that of which we sense out side of us, in comparison to our mind, which is our inner sense. This outer sense of space, he claims, is known only to us because we have a intuitive sense of there being space in the first place. Kant asserts this argument in direct response to two other claims about the nature of space. The Newtonian concept of space holds that space is an entity existing in its own right, with objects merely being in it. The Leibnizian concept of space however holds the opposite, space doesnt really exist and is just a relation created between existing objects. Kant believes both concepts are wrong and claims that to first know about objects in space, we must have some deeper knowledge of space to put them in space. He further tries to claim that space is only a form of intuition and not just the foundation to support either of the other two concepts. Kant presents some strong points showing the faults in the other concepts and provides a reason alternative to what makes the nature of space. However his concept too, that space is known only through intuition, also isnt as strong as it should be. It appears that space may be known through intuition from an individual perspective, but on closer investigation, taking in all forms of life and evolution, where did this pre wired intuition of space have its start? Kants concept of space seems to be well grounded in some areas and not in others. Kants definition of space helps him prove that the concept of space is a form of intuition. Space, he holds, is everything that is sensed outside of us. The mind is the inner sense and everything else is in space. We then represent objects in that space, where they are interpreted as having shape, magnitude and relationships to other objects in space. But then what is this space, Kant questions? Not satisfied with the current theories of the nature of time, Kant moves to show their faults through a set of arguments. The Newtonian concept of space claims that space exists as an entity in its own right. This concept is the most user friendly, and it is similar to the common sense view that most people grow up with. That is, we experience objects around us as exist in a void of space, where that void itself can exist on its own. Objects exist in this space, which is an infinite entity. The theory claims that through our sense, sight, touch extra, we learn about the world. We learn from our senses about space and how it works. We start of in the world with no idea of space and through a trial and area type system of learning, we being to understand the nature of space and of objects in it. Space exists and we lean of its existence though life experience. Kant cannot accept the Newtonian concept of space. In his first argument, Kant claims that space is not a concept that has been drawn from our experiences. His reasoning behind this is; how can we know to put the data that we gain from our senses into a world of space if we dont know of space to begin with? That is, to know to put this sensory data into a thing called space, we must first have some idea of space. Kant does not think that it is possible to stumble across the idea of space just through trial and error. Space, he claims, must be an intuitive idea that we are born with, so we know to put the data we gain into some logical order. We cant experience space without first having some idea of it being there. We must know what we are looking for, before we can find it. Kant seems to be onto something with this argument. It does seem plausible to think that the idea of space is already programmed into our brain. For we are objects ourselves that did develop in this world. But then isnt that learning about space through experience just over a few generations. So on a longer time scale we gradually learnt how to interact with space. The intuition of space is just another characteristic that we gain from our ancestors. The species, or life, learnt about space. But this is not what Kant is trying to claim. He is claiming that it is intuition that we have always had, the entire human existence has always had. This on the biological level seems rather odd. Is it just humans that have this intuition? It doesnt seem grounded to answer this question with a yes. But then back in early beings of life, do single cell organisms also have this intuition, do they even know they exist? So Kant must mean fully developed humans, or at least fairly intelligent animals. But this still suggests that having the intuition of space is something that is developed over evolution. So in turn is something that is gain from the species evolutionary experience. It is an odd claim to say that just one day a higher level animal just suddenly experience space. Perhaps now we have some basic animal instinct of how space works, Kant does not justify how this come about. The intuition of space my have evolved, which is a from of long term experience. The Leibnizian concept claims that space is just the relationship between objects and cannot exist on its own. Unlike the Newtonian concept of space, this theory claims that space does not and could not exist without the presents of objects. Space is just an attribute of objects, without them space is not present. If there was no objects there would be no need for space and it would not be present. We see objects all around us, and in order to understand the raw data presented by our senses we dream up relationships among them which we call space. Space is not an entity in its own right, it is simple the relation between existing objects. Kant can also not accept the Leibnizian concept of space. In his second argument, Kant claims that it is possible to have space without the presents of objects. Using a thought experiment Kant tries to show that we can image an empty space, a space without objects in it. He uses the experiment as a direct attack on the Leibnizian concept that space is just an attribute of objects. Kant believes that it is possible to image empty space, free of any objects. He claims that since this is possible space must be more then just an attribute of existing objects. Kants argument here doesnt seem as strong. He just seems to state that we can imagine empty, boundless space. It seems slightly more difficult to achieve then what he makes out. At first it seems sure, we can think of empty space, but is it really empty space that we are imagining here? Maybe we can think of a void, but isnt that just the space between objects? The depths of space, are just long distances from existing objects, not empty space. It seems every time we try to think of space it is in relation to objects or boundaries. Kant tries to make the thought experiment seem simple, but on closer inspection, imagining space total separate to objects is very difficult. Space might be its own existing thing, but it is not shown through this method of reasoning. It still seems plausible that space in known by our intuition, however that intuition is just knowing to see that existing objects have the attribute, and relation to other objects, space. Kant does not strongly prove that space can exist on its own. Kant claims that space is an existing thing that we are born being aware of and nothing more. It can only be this and not a combination of intuition and the Newtonian and Leibnizian concepts of space. It cant be, for example, that space is an intuition of a simple relationship between objects, or that we intuitively need to learn of its existence through experience. Kant uses further arguments to show this. In his third argument Kant further shows that to understand space we must first have the framework set out to understand that space must exist. That is it must be known by pure intuition alone. For the Leibnizian concept to be correct, it would seem possible to think of separate spaces. That is, according to the theory, space only exists with resect to objects, or every object has its own space. It seems the concept is suggesting that there is lots of little spaces everywhere, that connect, or not connect, regarding if the objects are close or near. Kant believes that is not a very reasonable way of seeing how the world or space works. Intuitively we seem to know that there is one infinite space, that maybe divided up by objects, but is still known to be part of the one big whole of space. Kant even seems to suggest that it is impossible for our minds to imagine no space at all. Our intuition of space is so strong, our minds cannot interpret the world without it. Space cannot be intuitive and a relation between objects, Kant believes it must only be known intuitively The mind experiment Kant uses here seems much more agreeable. I does seem that we see space as one big infinite entity, in which all objects exists. The Leibnizian theory does seem to infer that there are lots of little independent spaces following the object they belong to. This seems to be a very strange way of seeing the world indeed, and one very hard to imagine. Kants argument against the Leibnizian concept is strong here, but does it prove that both space is an intuition and not at all an aspect of an object? It appears we can agree with Kant that space is not just a relation between objects, that it exists in its own right. But what is not strong is that intuition is the way we can experience and not through learning from our senses. In his forth and finally argument on the nature of space, Kant tries to show that it is not something we intuitively know to look for, but that we are already born knowing of its existence. Kant believes that it is not possible to interpret the raw data given to us by our senses into any order without first knowing to put it into space. The data would simple not make any sense. And why would just having this data spore the idea of putting into an order of space. How do we know to link that sound with that vision? Yes we learn other things about the world from experience, but this only possible by having the framework of knowing how space works in our heads to being with. All other knowledge is built on the bedrock of us knowing that things outside of us work in space. Kant claims that knowing space is through intuition alone, and through a combination of intuition and learning. Kants argument here is partly agreeable. He makes a strong point that linking to very different experience, like sight and sound, into one event, would be very difficult achieve, if at all, if they werent put into space. From a person to person basis his concept of space is quiet agreeable. If each person was to learn in their life time about how space worked, wouldnt there, by numbers, be some people they never stumble across its working, or even people taking different amounts of time to achieve this knowledge. It would seem that these people would behave very strange in the world. Babies seem to develop an idea of how space works in all about the same way and time frame. If it was up to each individual to learn, or to stumble across the truth, the world would probably be a very different place. So yes, Kant seems to be on the right track that each person is pre wire to expect a world with space, this does not however explain how and when and for what level of life this pre wiring occurred. Kants theory of intuitive space needs to be more developed. Kant finally concludes that space cant be known through trial and error, it cant be an attribute of objects, and must be known through the intuition alone. The raw data that our eyes and ears gather would be useless if our mind didnt have space to make sense of it all. But would space still exist even if it wasnt an intuition? Kant would seem to answer yes to this. So is the need to have the intuition of space to understand it just a human condition? Kants reply to this one does not seem as clear. Surely before humans there were living beings interacting in space. Did these living things need an intuition of space to survive? For humans it seems necessary that we understand the nature of space, otherwise I dont think we would be able to survive. But then if we didnt understand what our senses where telling us by putting them into the concept of space, why would we evolve senses at all? Surely we wouldnt have eyes and ears ect. If we evolved not needing or using them. So does every animal that has the same sensors as us have the same intuition of space as we do? This idea seems to be begging the question ? what came first the intuition of space, or the senses and the ability to perceive it? For one seems to be seems to be surely useless with out the other. Kants concept seems to work if we just look at a snap shot of the world functioning today, however it does not satisfy how the world got to be the way it is. Perhaps this is not goal he was wanting to achieve, but for his concept to hold these questions of evolution need to be answered. Kants claims show the faults in past concepts, however his concepts is not total solid yet either. Kant resolves some issues, but then raises some more. It seems now that we cant take for granted what we all assume that we learn about space through experience, and it seems too that space exists in its own right. Kant seems to make this clear, he does not however clearly prove that space is known by intuition alone.

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Example for Free

Kant Metaphysical Exposition of Space Essay Explain and asses what you think to be the best argument Kant gives as his Metaphysical Exposition of Space (B37-40) that space cannot be either and actual entity (Newtonian concept) or any independent relation among real things (Leibnizian concepti be on). In other words, is he successful in arguing that space must be (at least) a form of intuition? Do any of his arguments further show that space must be ONLY a form of intuition and not ALSO something Newtonian or Leibnizian? In his Metaphysical Exposition of Space, Kant attempts to show that the experience of space is just a form of intuition. Kant defines space as that of which we sense out side of us, in comparison to our mind, which is our inner sense. This outer sense of space, he claims, is known only to us because we have a intuitive sense of there being space in the first place. Kant asserts this argument in direct response to two other claims about the nature of space. The Newtonian concept of space holds that space is an entity existing in its own right, with objects merely being in it. The Leibnizian concept of space however holds the opposite, space doesnt really exist and is just a relation created between existing objects. Kant believes both concepts are wrong and claims that to first know about objects in space, we must have some deeper knowledge of space to put them in space. He further tries to claim that space is only a form of intuition and not just the foundation to support either of the other two concepts. Kant presents some strong points showing the faults in the other concepts and provides a reason alternative to what makes the nature of space. However his concept too, that space is known only through intuition, also isnt as strong as it should be. It appears that space may be known through intuition from an individual perspective, but on closer investigation, taking in all forms of life and evolution, where did this pre wired intuition of space have its start? Kants concept of space seems to be well grounded in some areas and not in others. Kants definition of space helps him prove that the concept of space is a form of intuition. Space, he holds, is everything that is sensed outside of us. The mind is the inner sense and everything else is in space. We then represent objects in that space, where they are interpreted as having shape, magnitude and relationships to other objects in space. But then what is this space, Kant questions? Not satisfied with the current theories of the nature of time, Kant moves to show their faults through a set of arguments. The Newtonian concept of space claims that space exists as an entity in its own right. This concept is the most user friendly, and it is similar to the common sense view that most people grow up with. That is, we experience objects around us as exist in a void of space, where that void itself can exist on its own. Objects exist in this space, which is an infinite entity. The theory claims that through our sense, sight, touch extra, we learn about the world. We learn from our senses about space and how it works. We start of in the world with no idea of space and through a trial and area type system of learning, we being to understand the nature of space and of objects in it. Space exists and we lean of its existence though life experience. Kant cannot accept the Newtonian concept of space. In his first argument, Kant claims that space is not a concept that has been drawn from our experiences. His reasoning behind this is; how can we know to put the data that we gain from our senses into a world of space if we dont know of space to begin with? That is, to know to put this sensory data into a thing called space, we must first have some idea of space. Kant does not think that it is possible to stumble across the idea of space just through trial and error. Space, he claims, must be an intuitive idea that we are born with, so we know to put the data we gain into some logical order. We cant experience space without first having some idea of it being there. We must know what we are looking for, before we can find it. Kant seems to be onto something with this argument. It does seem plausible to think that the idea of space is already programmed into our brain. For we are objects ourselves that did develop in this world. But then isnt that learning about space through experience just over a few generations. So on a longer time scale we gradually learnt how to interact with space. The intuition of space is just another characteristic that we gain from our ancestors. The species, or life, learnt about space. But this is not what Kant is trying to claim. He is claiming that it is intuition that we have always had, the entire human existence has always had. This on the biological level seems rather odd. Is it just humans that have this intuition? It doesnt seem grounded to answer this question with a yes. But then back in early beings of life, do single cell organisms also have this intuition, do they even know they exist? So Kant must mean fully developed humans, or at least fairly intelligent animals. But this still suggests that having the intuition of space is something that is developed over evolution. So in turn is something that is gain from the species evolutionary experience. It is an odd claim to say that just one day a higher level animal just suddenly experience space. Perhaps now we have some basic animal instinct of how space works, Kant does not justify how this come about. The intuition of space my have evolved, which is a from of long term experience. The Leibnizian concept claims that space is just the relationship between objects and cannot exist on its own. Unlike the Newtonian concept of space, this theory claims that space does not and could not exist without the presents of objects. Space is just an attribute of objects, without them space is not present. If there was no objects there would be no need for space and it would not be present. We see objects all around us, and in order to understand the raw data presented by our senses we dream up relationships among them which we call space. Space is not an entity in its own right, it is simple the relation between existing objects. Kant can also not accept the Leibnizian concept of space. In his second argument, Kant claims that it is possible to have space without the presents of objects. Using a thought experiment Kant tries to show that we can image an empty space, a space without objects in it. He uses the experiment as a direct attack on the Leibnizian concept that space is just an attribute of objects. Kant believes that it is possible to image empty space, free of any objects. He claims that since this is possible space must be more then just an attribute of existing objects. Kants argument here doesnt seem as strong. He just seems to state that we can imagine empty, boundless space. It seems slightly more difficult to achieve then what he makes out. At first it seems sure, we can think of empty space, but is it really empty space that we are imagining here? Maybe we can think of a void, but isnt that just the space between objects? The depths of space, are just long distances from existing objects, not empty space. It seems every time we try to think of space it is in relation to objects or boundaries. Kant tries to make the thought experiment seem simple, but on closer inspection, imagining space total separate to objects is very difficult. Space might be its own existing thing, but it is not shown through this method of reasoning. It still seems plausible that space in known by our intuition, however that intuition is just knowing to see that existing objects have the attribute, and relation to other objects, space. Kant does not strongly prove that space can exist on its own. Kant claims that space is an existing thing that we are born being aware of and nothing more. It can only be this and not a combination of intuition and the Newtonian and Leibnizian concepts of space. It cant be, for example, that space is an intuition of a simple relationship between objects, or that we intuitively need to learn of its existence through experience. Kant uses further arguments to show this. In his third argument Kant further shows that to understand space we must first have the framework set out to understand that space must exist. That is it must be known by pure intuition alone. For the Leibnizian concept to be correct, it would seem possible to think of separate spaces. That is, according to the theory, space only exists with resect to objects, or every object has its own space. It seems the concept is suggesting that there is lots of little spaces everywhere, that connect, or not connect, regarding if the objects are close or near. Kant believes that is not a very reasonable way of seeing how the world or space works. Intuitively we seem to know that there is one infinite space, that maybe divided up by objects, but is still known to be part of the one big whole of space. Kant even seems to suggest that it is impossible for our minds to imagine no space at all. Our intuition of space is so strong, our minds cannot interpret the world without it. Space cannot be intuitive and a relation between objects, Kant believes it must only be known intuitively The mind experiment Kant uses here seems much more agreeable. I does seem that we see space as one big infinite entity, in which all objects exists. The Leibnizian theory does seem to infer that there are lots of little independent spaces following the object they belong to. This seems to be a very strange way of seeing the world indeed, and one very hard to imagine. Kants argument against the Leibnizian concept is strong here, but does it prove that both space is an intuition and not at all an aspect of an object? It appears we can agree with Kant that space is not just a relation between objects, that it exists in its own right. But what is not strong is that intuition is the way we can experience and not through learning from our senses. In his forth and finally argument on the nature of space, Kant tries to show that it is not something we intuitively know to look for, but that we are already born knowing of its existence. Kant believes that it is not possible to interpret the raw data given to us by our senses into any order without first knowing to put it into space. The data would simple not make any sense. And why would just having this data spore the idea of putting into an order of space. How do we know to link that sound with that vision? Yes we learn other things about the world from experience, but this only possible by having the framework of knowing how space works in our heads to being with. All other knowledge is built on the bedrock of us knowing that things outside of us work in space. Kant claims that knowing space is through intuition alone, and through a combination of intuition and learning. Kants argument here is partly agreeable. He makes a strong point that linking to very different experience, like sight and sound, into one event, would be very difficult achieve, if at all, if they werent put into space. From a person to person basis his concept of space is quiet agreeable. If each person was to learn in their life time about how space worked, wouldnt there, by numbers, be some people they never stumble across its working, or even people taking different amounts of time to achieve this knowledge. It would seem that these people would behave very strange in the world. Babies seem to develop an idea of how space works in all about the same way and time frame. If it was up to each individual to learn, or to stumble across the truth, the world would probably be a very different place. So yes, Kant seems to be on the right track that each person is pre wire to expect a world with space, this does not however explain how and when and for what level of life this pre wiring occurred. Kants theory of intuitive space needs to be more developed. Kant finally concludes that space cant be known through trial and error, it cant be an attribute of objects, and must be known through the intuition alone. The raw data that our eyes and ears gather would be useless if our mind didnt have space to make sense of it all. But would space still exist even if it wasnt an intuition? Kant would seem to answer yes to this. So is the need to have the intuition of space to understand it just a human condition? Kants reply to this one does not seem as clear. Surely before humans there were living beings interacting in space. Did these living things need an intuition of space to survive? For humans it seems necessary that we understand the nature of space, otherwise I dont think we would be able to survive. But then if we didnt understand what our senses where telling us by putting them into the concept of space, why would we evolve senses at all? Surely we wouldnt have eyes and ears ect. If we evolved not needing or using them. So does every animal that has the same sensors as us have the same intuition of space as we do? This idea seems to be begging the question ? what came first the intuition of space, or the senses and the ability to perceive it? For one seems to be seems to be surely useless with out the other. Kants concept seems to work if we just look at a snap shot of the world functioning today, however it does not satisfy how the world got to be the way it is. Perhaps this is not goal he was wanting to achieve, but for his concept to hold these questions of evolution need to be answered. Kants claims show the faults in past concepts, however his concepts is not total solid yet either. Kant resolves some issues, but then raises some more. It seems now that we cant take for granted what we all assume that we learn about space through experience, and it seems too that space exists in its own right. Kant seems to make this clear, he does not however clearly prove that space is known by intuition alone.