Explain how to do something or how something happens. Does any portion of the essay include concrete directions about a certain process? Does it evaluate or analyze two or more people, places, processes, events, or things?
That reputation, however, does him little good. It is as though, quite apart from the man, there exists a figure called Alasdair MacIntyre whose position you know whether or not you have read him—and whose name has become a specter that haunts all attempts to provide constructive moral and political responses to the challenge of modernity.
And though he is certainly critical of some of the developments associated with modernity, Alasdair MacIntyre is also a constructive thinker who has sought to help us repair our lives by locating those forms of life that make possible moral excellence. He came to the United States in to teach at Brandeis University, and he has held in the years since a large number of academic appointments, including stints at Boston University, Wellesley, Vanderbilt, Yale, Duke, and Notre Dame.
His books began with Marxism: An Interpretation in and have continued in a steady flow, including The Unconscious: We are also fortunate to have two recent volumes of his selected articles published by Cambridge University Press: The Tasks of Philosophy and Ethics and Politics.
Arguments and observations he makes in his books were often first developed in articles, and defended later in other articles, not widely available.
A philosopher, he insists, should try to express the concepts embedded in the practices of our lives in order to help us live morally worthy lives. The professionalization of philosophy into a technical field—what might be called the academic captivity of philosophy—reflects and serves to legitimate the compartmentalization of the advanced capitalistic social orders that produce our culture of experts, those strange creatures of authority in modernity.
General dismissals of MacIntyre too often rest on a fundamental failure to understand the interconnected character of his work.
His criticisms of modernity are often thought to reflect a nostalgic and unjustified preference for the Middle Ages.
A focus on his accounts of action and practical reason reveals that his fundamental perspective has been remarkably consistent. I am not a disinterested spectator when it comes to disputes surrounding Alasdair MacIntyre, for I have been deeply influenced by him. But far more important for me is his work on the philosophy of action.
I was fortunate to stumble on his early work on the philosophy of social science when I was writing my dissertation subsequently published as Character and the Christian Life.
To understand MacIntyre takes work. Indeed, he intends for it to be a daunting and challenging task to understand him. I suspect he assumes most of his readers, possessed as they must be by the reading habits of modernity, cannot help but refuse to do the work necessary to understand him.
Which is but another way to say, as he makes explicit in the last chapter of Whose Justice? He is able not only to write in a scholarly and intelligent manner about Aristotle, Abelard, and Aquinas, but he is equally adept when he treats Freud, Lukacs, Weber, and Wittgenstein.
I sometimes have the impression he has never forgotten anything he has read. Few know what MacIntyre knows, but to understand MacIntyre it is often necessary to have read what he has read. He seldom discusses a figure for no reason, but each philosopher, artist, and historical figure he examines becomes integral to the argument he is making.
He is equally at home in the technical philosophy of brain and mind as he is in political and social theory. That he is so adept is not just an indication of his mental power but is integral to his understanding of philosophy, which he attributes to the influence of R.
Nowhere is his moral project more apparent than in a short essay in Against the Self-Images of the Age, originally published in There he identifies two groups of questions requiring further investigation after his analysis of the inadequacies of Marxism.
The first involves the nature of moral judgment and the meaning of such key evaluative words as good, right, virtue, justice, duty, and happiness. He notes that Marxists share with conservative philosophers a disdain for concerns about the meaning of language, but he observes that it is exactly at the level of language that the moral inadequacies and corruptions of our age are evident.
The second group of questions he raises in the essay concerns the explanation of human action: In the recent Aristotelian Philosophy: He pursues that investigation by analysis of philosophical alternatives, because, as he says in After Virtuekey episodes in the history of philosophy were what fragmented and largely transformed morality.
Their attempt to develop accounts of morality in the name of some impersonal standard was an understandable response to the loss of shared practices necessary for the discovery of goods in common.
Such a project was doomed to failure, however, exactly because no such standards can be sustained when they are abstracted from the practices and descriptions that render our lives intelligible.
Modern moral philosophy becomes part of the problem, for its stress on autonomy, like its corresponding attempt to free ethics from history, produces people incapable of living lives that have narrative coherence.
But the After Virtue was the book in which his mature position received its most compelling presentation.The form of the analysis is determined by the specific qualitative approach taken (field study, ethnography content analysis, oral history, biography, unobtrusive research) and the form of the data (field notes, documents, audiotape, videotape).
Rhetorical analysis is a form of criticism (or close reading) that employs the principles of rhetoric to examine the interactions between a text, an author, and an audience. Also called rhetorical criticism or pragmatic criticism. However, a rhetorical analysis reserves judgment on whether they agree/disagree with the topic presented.
A review, of course, invites the reviewer to critique how "good" or "bad" the content of the text is.
The PROCESS of completing a rhetorical analysis requires the use of different rhetorical strategies. These strategies are: critical reading, strategies for effective communication, persuasive appeals, .
Our principles of persuasion will apply to most forms of written communication, and will complement most other sections in this chapter on creating community interest in an issue. Those other sections will also introduce additional principles unique to the topics covered within them.
Because Impression, Sunrise is regarded as the painting that gave birth to the Impressionist Movement, we can clearly observe specific details in this work of art that allude to its Impressionist style. An important characteristic of Impressionist painting is the type of brushstrokes utilized.
Organize the information so as to present the more general aspects of the topic early in the introduction, then narrow your analysis to more specific topical information that provides context, finally arriving at your research problem and the rationale for studying it [often written as a series of key questions] and, whenever possible, a description of the .