HUM 145 Chapter Notes - Chapter 15: Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Carnap, Computer Engineering

16 views2 pages

maroontermite400

16 Jul 2020

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

The eight branches of philosophy (and its main thinkers) Philosophy may be a complicated discipline, but we can divide it to understand it better. Philosophy is one of the most difficult areas of knowledge to define. This means that, throughout history, many thinkers have set themselves the task of putting words to this very abstract concept. Epistemology focuses on the study of the way in which we human beings generate knowledge from our reflections and from our relationship with the environment. Epistemology has existed for many centuries, since the renaissance, and among its most famous representatives are historical figures such as ren descartes, david hume or john locke: philosophy of logic. Philosophers belonging to this field are dedicated to studying logical systems, their qualities and coherence, as well as the way in which they allow to extract knowledge. Furthermore, it is currently closely related to the fields of computer engineering.

Related Questions

Lampkin Manufacturing Company has two projects. The first, Project A, involves the construction of an addition to the firm's primary manufacturing facility. The plant expansion will add fixed operating costs equal to $200,000 per year and variable costs equal to 20% of sales. Project B, on the other hand, involves outsourcing the added manufacturing to a specialty manufacturing firm in Silicon Valley. Project B has lower fixed costs of only $50,000 per year, and thus lower operating leverage than Project A, while its variable costs are much higher, at 40% of sales. Project A has an initial cost of $3.2 million, while Project B will cost $3.4 million.

When the question arose as to what discount rates the firm should use to evaluate the two projects, Lampkin's CFO, Paul Keown, called his old friend Arthur Laux, who works for Lampkin's investment banker.

Art, we're trying to decide which of two major investments we should understake, and I need your assessment of our firm's capital costs and the debt capacities of both projects. I've asked my assistant to email you descriptions of each. We need to expand the capacity of our manufacturing facility, and these two projects represent very different approaches to accomplishing that task. Project A involves a traditional plant expansion totaling $3.2 million, while Project B relies heavily on outsourcing arrangements and will cost us a little more up front, $3.4 million, but will have much lower fixed operating costs each year. What I want to know is, How much debt can we use to finance each project without putting our credit rating in jeopardy? I realize that this is a very subjective thing, but I also know that you have some very bright analysts who can provide us with valuable insight.

Art replied:

Paul, I've got suggestions for you regarding the debt-carrying capacity of your projects and current capital costs for Lampkin. Our guys think that you've probably got room for about $1,200,000 in new borrowing if you do the traditional plant expansion project (Project A). If you decide on Project B, we estimate that you could borrow up to $2,400,000 without realizing serious pressure from the credit rating angencies. If the credit angencies cooperate as expected, we can place that debt for you with a yeild of 5%. Our analysts also did a study of your firm's cost of equity and estimate that it is about 10% right now. SHOW ALL WORK, ANSWER BOTH A AND B

A) Assuming that Lampkin's investment banker is correct, use book value weights to estimate the project-specific cost of capital for the two projects. (Hint: The only difference in the WACC calculations relates to the debt capacities for the two projects. Also, the firm's tax rate is 35%).

B) How would your analysis of project-specific WACCs be affected if Lamkin's CEO decided that he wanted to delever the firm by using equity to finance the better of the two alternatives (Project A or Project B)?

Cost of equity	10%
Cost of debt	5%
Tax rate	35%

Project A (expand)
Up-front initial investment	$3,200,000
Annual fixed costs	$200,000
Variable costs	20%
Contribution margin	80%
Degree of Operating Leverage	high
Debt capacity	$1,200,000
Debt to value ratio at capacity	?
Project WACC	?

Project B (outsource)
Up-front intitial investment	$3,400,000
Annual fixed costs	$50,000
Variable costs	40%
Contribution margin	60%
Degree of Operating Leverage	low
Debt capacity	$2,400,000
Debt to value ratio at capacity	?
Project WACC	?

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term âfeminist theoryâ is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word âfeminist,â which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically âfeminist.â Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as âwomencenteredâ
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the disciplineâs theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled âfeminist theoryâ consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of âmalestreamâ sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marxâs and Mannheimâs discussions
of ideology, Foucaultâs work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, âmasculinist,â âobjectivist,â and âpositivistâ social science, and
develop a âfeministâ alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a âwomanâs standpoint,â Collinsâ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a âmasculineâ
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed âessentialism,â a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and menâcognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioralânot
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each paragraph!

The Undeserving Rich

By Paul Krugman
Published in the New York Times, Jan. 19, 2014

The reality of rising American inequality is stark. Since the late 1970s, real wages for the bottom half of the workforce have stagnated or fallen, while the incomes of the top 1 percent have nearly quadrupled (and the incomes of the top 0.1 percent have risen even more). While we can and should have a serious debate about what to do about this situation, the simple fact American capitalism as currently constituted is undermining the foundations of middle-class society shouldn't be up for argument.

But it is, of course. Partly this reflects Upton Sinclair's famous dictum: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. But it also, I think, reflects distaste for the implications of the numbers, which seem almost like an open invitation to class warfare or, if you prefer, a demonstration that class warfare is already underway, with the plutocrats on offense.

The result has been a determined campaign of statistical obfuscation. At its cruder end, this campaign comes close to outright falsification; at its more sophisticated end, it involves using fancy footwork to propagate what I think of as the myth of the deserving rich.

For an example of de facto falsification, one need look no further than a
recent column by Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, which first accused President Obama (wrongly) of making a factual error, then proceeded to assert that rising inequality was no big deal because everyone has been making big gains. Why, incomes for the bottom fifth of the U.S. population have risen 186 percent since 1979!

If this sounds wrong to you, it should: that's a nominal number, not corrected for inflation. You can find the inflation-corrected number in the same Census Bureau table; it shows incomes for the bottom fifth actually falling. Oh, and for the record, at the time of writing this elementary error had not been corrected on The Journal's website.

O.K., that's what crude obfuscation looks like. What about the fancier version?

I've noted before that conservatives seem fixated on the notion that poverty is basically the result of character problems among the poor. This may once have had a grain of truth to it, but for the past three decades and more the main obstacle facing the poor has been the lack of jobs paying decent wages. But the myth of the undeserving poor persists, and so does a counterpart myth, that of the deserving rich.

The story goes like this: America's affluent are affluent because they made the right lifestyle choices. They got themselves good educations, they got and stayed married, and so on. Basically, affluence is a reward for adhering to the Victorian virtues.

What's wrong with this story? Even on its own terms, it postulates opportunities that don't exist. For example, how are children of the poor, or even the working class, supposed to get a good education in an era of declining support for and sharply rising tuition at public universities? Even social indicators like family stability are, to an important extent, economic phenomena: nothing takes a toll on family values like lack of employment opportunities.

But the main thing about this myth is that it misidentifies the winners from growing inequality. White-collar professionals, even if married to each other, are only doing O.K. The big winners are a much smaller group. The Occupy movement popularized the concept of the 1 percent, which is a good shorthand for the rising elite, but if anything includes too many people: most of the gains of the top 1 percent have in fact gone to an even tinier elite, the top 0.1 percent.

And who are these lucky few? Mainly they're executives of some kind, especially, although not only, in finance. You can argue about whether these people deserve to be paid so well, but one thing is clear: They didn't get where they are simply by being prudent, clean, and sober.

So how can the myth of the deserving rich be sustained? Mainly through a strategy of distortion by dilution. You rarely see apologists for inequality willing to talk about the 1 percent, let alone the really big winners. Instead, they talk about the top 20 percent, or at best the top 5 percent. These may sound like innocent choices, but they're not, because they involve lumping in married lawyers with the wolves of Wall Street. The DiCaprio movie of that name, by the way, is wildly popular with finance types, who cheer on the title character another clue to the realities of our new Gilded Age.

Again, I know that these realities make some people, not all of them hired guns for the plutocracy, uncomfortable, and they'd prefer to paint a different picture. But even if the facts have a well-known populist bias, they're still the facts and they must be faced.

cerisechimpanzee766

HUM 145 Chapter Notes - Chapter 15: Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Carnap, Computer Engineering

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

HUM 145 Chapter Notes - Chapter 8: Middle Ages, Christian Art, Stained Glass

PHIL 1000 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Special Sciences, Human Enhancement, Applied Ethics

PHIL102 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Axiology, Natural Philosophy, Necessity And Sufficiency

Related Questions