What is a Research Paper?
`` Research paper. '' What image comes into head as you hear those words: working with tonss of articles and books, runing the `` hoarded wealth '' of others ' ideas? Whatever image you create, it 's a certain stake that you 're visualizing beginnings of information -- articles, books, people, graphicss. Yet a research paper is more than the amount of your beginnings, more than a aggregation of different pieces of information about a subject, and more than a reappraisal of the literature in a field. A research paper analyzes a position or argues a point. Regardless of the type of research paper you are composing, your finished research paper should show your ain thought backed up by others ' thoughts and information. To pull a analogue, a attorney researches and reads about many instances and uses them to back up their ain instance. A scientist reads many instance surveies to back up an thought about a scientific rule. In the same manner, a history pupil composing about the Vietnam War might read newspaper articles and books and interview veterans to develop and/or confirm a point of view and support it with grounds. A research paper is an expanded essay that presents your ain reading or rating or statement. When you write an essay, you use everything that you personally know and have thought about a topic. When you write a research paper you build upon what you know about the topic and do a deliberate effort to happen out what experts know. A research paper involves appraising a field of cognition in order to happen the best possible information in that field. And that study can be orderly and focussed, if you know how to near it. Do n't worry -- you wo n't acquire lost in a sea of beginnings. In fact, this usher is designed to assist you voyage the research ocean trip, through developing a research inquiry and thesis, making the research, composing the paper, and right documenting your beginnings.
Start at the Heart
Whether you want to name it an illustration, an anecdote or a narrative, opening with a narrative about your topic is a first-class manner to catch your reader 's attending. Choose a narrative that illustrates the qualities you plan to analyze about the person, qualities in agreement with your thesis, or possibly those that you plan to turn out are normally misunderstood. For illustration, if you 're composing about an jock who has been accused of utilizing performance-enhancing drugs, you might desire to demo how he has reacted hostilely to harsh media coverage. Possibly you plan to demo that his actions have been justified. Regardless, do n't blow clip explicating the state of affairs. Get down the narrative right at the Southern Cross, so the reader is immersed in the narrative.
Passage Toward Purpose
As you wrap up your narrative, you can so notice on how the narrative relates to your attitude toward your topic. Here, for illustration, you can advert how the actions in the narrative have been interpreted, and the possible effects of those readings. Here you are set uping the bets of your paper as they relate to your topic. This is an entreaty to pathos, or the emotions of your reader, because you want your reader to care about your capable one manner or another. Steering the reader in this manner sets you up to province your thesis, which will try to capitalize on that emotional investing.
State Your Thesis
As with any manner of academic authorship, the debut culminates in a thesis statement. You 've placed your reader in the universe of your topic, and skilfully guided her toward a specific attitude sing this person 's state of affairs. Now, you explicitly province your place and how you intend to turn out it. For illustration, if you are suggesting that this jock is an guiltless adult male who has been responding justifiably to a media onslaught, you must state that, and so name the ways in which you plan to turn out it. Ideally, you should restrict your thesis statement to a individual sentence, but a 2nd sentence is allowable if you need the excess words to explicate your methods.
Writing a Research Paper about a Famous Person
Now comes the chief organic structure paragraph of your research paper about a celebrated person. This is where you will depict the journey of your chosen personality. You will show in item how he/she achieved on his/her enterprises. It will affect your tester if you research on the up-bringing of your personality and measure its part towards their ulterior successes. This is best achieved if you focus on at least 10 most of import day of the months about your chosen personality. The organic structure paragraph critically analyzes the features and traits that made the topic a celebrated person and how and why and what has he or she done that differentiates them from other people in their field. You should explicate how they view the universe and have impacted or determine the modern-day universe. You could include the sentiments and comments by other celebrated public figures about your selected person.
Writing a Research Paper
There will come a clip in most pupils ' callings when they are assigned a research paper. Such an assignment frequently creates a great trade of unnecessary anxiousness in the pupil, which may ensue in cunctation and a feeling of confusion and insufficiency. This anxiousness often stems from the fact that many pupils are unfamiliar and inexperient with this genre of composing. Never fear—inexperience and strangeness are state of affairss you can alter through pattern! Writing a research paper is an indispensable facet of faculty members and should non be avoided on history of one 's anxiousness. In fact, the procedure of composing a research paper can be one of the more rewarding experiences one may meet in faculty members. What is more, many pupils will go on to make research throughout their callings, which is one of the grounds this subject is so of import.
Genre and the Research Paper
A research paper is the apogee and concluding merchandise of an involved procedure of research, critical thought, beginning rating, organisation, and composing. It is, possibly, helpful to believe of the research paper as a living thing, which grows and alterations as the pupil explores, interprets, and evaluates beginnings related to a specific subject. Primary and secondary beginnings are the bosom of a research paper, and supply its nutriment ; without the support of and interaction with these beginnings, the research paper would morph into a different genre of authorship ( e.g. , an encyclopaedic article ) . The research paper serves non merely to foster the field in which it is written, but besides to supply the pupil with an exceeding chance to increase her cognition in that field. It is besides possible to place a research paper by what it is non.
A research paper is non merely an informed sum-up of a subject by agencies of primary and secondary beginnings. It is neither a book study nor an sentiment piece nor an expositive essay dwelling entirely of one 's reading of a text nor an overview of a peculiar subject. Alternatively, it is a genre that requires one to pass clip investigation and measuring beginnings with the purpose to offer readings of the texts, and non unconscious regurgitations of those beginnings. The end of a research paper is non to inform the reader what others have to state about a subject, but to pull on what others have to state about a subject and prosecute the beginnings in order to thoughtfully offer a alone position on the issue at manus. This is accomplished through two major types of research documents.
Choosing a Subject
However, the pupil may besides happen the subjects that have been provided to be restricting ; furthermore, it is non uncommon for the pupil to hold a subject in head that does non suit with any of those provided. If this is the instance, it is ever good to near the teacher with one 's thoughts. Be respectful, and inquire the teacher if the subject you have in head would be a possible research option for the assignment. Remember, as a first-time research worker, your cognition of the procedure is rather limited ; the teacher is experienced, and may hold really precise grounds for taking the subjects she has offered to the category. Trust that she has the best involvements of the category in head. If she likes the subject, great! If non, do non take it personally and take the subject from the list that seems most interesting to you.
The 2nd state of affairs occurs when the teacher merely hands out an assignment sheet that covers the logistics of the research paper, but leaves the pick of subject up to the pupil. Typically, assignments in which pupils are given the chance to take the subject require the subject to be relevant to some facet of the class ; so, maintain this in head as you begin a class in which you know there will be a research paper near the terminal. That manner, you can be on the sentinel for a subject that may involvement you. Make non be dying on history of a sensed deficiency of authorization or knowledge about the subject chosen. Alternatively, realize that it takes pattern to go an experient research worker in any field.
Thinking early leads to get downing early. If the pupil begins believing about possible subjects when the assignment is given, she has already begun the backbreaking, yet honoring, undertaking of planning and organisation. Once she has made the assignment a precedence in her head, she may get down to hold thoughts throughout the twenty-four hours. Brainstorming is frequently a successful manner for pupils to acquire some of these thoughts down on paper. Sing one 's thoughts in authorship is frequently an drift for the authorship procedure. Though brainstorming is peculiarly effectual when a subject has been chosen, it can besides profit the pupil who is unable to contract a subject. It consists of a timed authorship session during which the pupil jots down—often in list or bulleted form—any thoughts that come to his head. At the terminal of the timed period, the pupil will peruse his list for forms of consistence. If it appears that something seems to be standing out in his head more than others, it may be wise to prosecute this as a subject possibility.
Identifying an Audience
For illustration: if the pupil is composing a 12 page research paper about ethyl alcohol and its importance as an energy beginning of the hereafter, would she compose with an audience of simple pupils in head? This would be improbable. Alternatively, she would orient her authorship to be accessible to an audience of fellow applied scientists and possibly to the scientific community in general. What is more, she would presume the audience to be at a certain educational degree ; hence, she would non pass clip in such a short research paper specifying footings and constructs already familiar to those in the field. However, she should besides avoid the type of esoteric treatment that condescends to her audience. Again, the pupil must joint a middle-ground.
Where do I get down?
Drafting is one of the last phases in the procedure of composing a research paper. No drafting should take topographic point without a research inquiry or thesis statement ; otherwise, the pupil will happen himself composing without a intent or way. Think of the research inquiry or thesis statement as a compass. The research the pupil has completed is a huge sea of information through which he must voyage ; without a compass, the pupil will be tossed aimlessly about by the moving ridges of beginnings. In the terminal, he might detect the Americas ( though the journey will be much longer than needed ) , or—and what is more likely—he will drop.
What is a person?
What is a person? The English term, `` person, '' is equivocal. We frequently use it as a equivalent word for `` human being. '' But certainly that is non what we intend here. It is possible that there are foreigners populating on other planets that have the same cognitive abilities that we do ( e.g. E.T: The Extraterrestrial or the celebrated `` saloon scene '' from Star Wars ) . Imagine aliens that talk a linguistic communication, do moral judgements, create literature and plants of art, etc. Surely aliens with these belongingss would be `` individuals '' -- which is to state that it would be morally incorrect to purchase or sell them as belongings the manner we do with Canis familiariss and cats or to otherwise utilize them for our ain involvements without taking into history the fact that they are moral agents with involvements that deserve the same regard and protection that ours do.
Therefore, one of our primary involvements is to separate individuals from pets and from belongings. A person is the sort of entity that has the moral right to do its ain life-choices, to populate its life without ( motiveless ) intervention from others. Property is the sort of thing that can be bought and sold, something I can `` utilize '' for my ain involvements. Of class, when it comes to animate beings there are serious moral restraints on how we may handle them. But we do non, in fact, give animate beings the same sort of liberty that we accord individuals. We buy and sell Canis familiariss and cats. And if we live in the metropolis, we keep our pets `` locked up '' in the house, something that we would hold no right to make to a person.
This raises the philosophical inquiry: What belongingss must an entity possess to be a `` person '' ? At the Mind Project, we are convinced that one of the best ways to larn about heads and individuals is to try to construct an unreal person, to construct a machine that has a head and that deserves the moral position of personhood. This is non to state that we believe that it will be possible anytime shortly for undergraduates ( or even experts in the field ) to construct a person. In fact, there is great dissension among Mind Project research workers about whether it is possible, even in rule, to construct a person -- or even a head -- out of machine parts and computing machine plans. But that does n't count. Everyone at the Mind Project is convinced that it is a valuable educational endeavor to make our best to imitate heads and individuals. In the really attempt, we learn more about the nature of the head and about ourselves. At the really least, it forces us to examine our ain construct of personhood. What are the belongingss necessary for being a person?
Star Trek: Is Commander Data a Person?
To get down our geographic expedition of this inquiry, we shall see an interesting thesis, advanced in an episode of Star Trek: The Following Generation ( `` The Measure of a Man '' ) . In that episode one of the chief characters, an humanoid called `` Commander Data, '' is about to be removed from the Starship Enterprise to be dismantled and experimented upon. Data refuses to travel, claiming to be a person with `` rights '' ( presumptively, this includes what we are naming the moral right of self-determination ) . He believes that it is immoral to experiment on him without his consent. His opposition, Commander Maddox, insists that Data is belongings, that he has no rights. A hearing is convened to settle the affair. During the test, the lawyers consider the really same inquiries that concern us here:
What is intelligence?
Before turning to the specific statements raised in the Star Trek episode, it will turn out helpful to hesitate for a minute to see the first belongings on the list, `` intelligence. '' Could a computing machine be intelligent? Why or why non? A careful consideration of these inquiries requires a really close expression both at computing machines and intelligence. And so we suggest that you foremost analyze a few absorbing computing machine plans and believe earnestly about the inquiries, What is intelligence? and Is it possible for a machine to be intelligent? To assist you reflect on these inquiries we recommend that you visit one of our faculties on unreal intelligence.
What is Self-Awareness?
The standard thought is likely that the ego, though capable of being cognizant of things external to it, is besides capable of being cognizant of its ain provinces. Some have described this as a sort of experience. I might be said to hold an `` interior experience '' of my ain mental activity, being straight cognizant, say, of the ideas that I am soon believing and the attitudes ( `` I hope the White Sox win '' ) that I soon hold. But even if we grant that we have such `` interior experiences, '' they do non, by themselves, provide everything that we intend to capture by the term, `` self-awareness. '' When I say that I am cognizant of my ain mental activity ( my ideas, dreams, hopes, etc. ) I do non intend simply that I have some interior hint to the content of that mental activity, I besides mean that the character of that consciousness is such that it gives me certain abilities to critically reflect upon my mental provinces and to do judgements about those provinces. If I am cognizant of my ain behaviour and mental activity in the right manner, so it may be possible for me to make up one's mind that my behaviour should be changed, that an attitude is morally obnoxious or that I made a error in my logical thinking and that a belief that I hold is undue and should be abandoned.
See the mental life of a Canis familiaris, for illustration. Presumably, Canis familiariss have a rich array of experiences ( they feel pain and pleasance, the tree has a peculiar `` expression '' to it ) and they may even hold beliefs about the universe ( Fido believes that his supper dish is empty ) . Who knows, they may even hold particular `` interior experiences '' that accompany those beliefs. However, if we assume that Canis familiariss are non self-conscious in the stronger sense, so they will miss the ability to critically reflect upon their beliefs and experiences and therefore will be unable to hold other beliefs about their pleasance or their supper-dish-belief ( what philosophers call `` second-order beliefs '' or `` meta-beliefs '' ) . That is to state, they may miss the ability to judge that pleasance may be an unworthy aim in a certain state of affairs or to judge that their belief that the supper dish is empty is undue.
But if that is acquiring any closer to the truth about the nature of self-awareness ( and I 'm non needfully convinced that it is ) , so it becomes an unfastened inquiry whether being `` self-aware '' demand be a sort of experience at all. It might be that a machine ( a automaton for illustration ) could be `` self-conscious '' in this sense even if we admit that it has no subjective experiences whatsoever. It might be self-conscious even if we deny that `` there is something that it is like to be that machine '' ( to modify somewhat Thomas Nagel 's celebrated dictum ) . Douglas Hofstadter offers a suggestion that will assist us to see this possibility. Now, allow us turn to the Star Trek duologue and see what they have to state about self-awareness.
We might good conceive of that Commander Maddox is believing about subjective experiences when he speaks of being `` witting '' of one 's being and actions. However, Picard 's response is equivocal. The lone grounds that Picard gives of Data being self-aware is that he is capable of utilizing peculiar words in a linguistic communication ( words like 'my rights ' and 'my life '' ) . Is it merely necessary that Data have information about his ain beliefs to be self-conscious or must that information be accompanied by an interior feeling or experience of some sort? Douglas Hofstadter has some interesting ideas on the affair.
Douglas Hofstadter on `` Anti-sphexishness ''
The meat of his thought is that to be uncreative is to be caught in an unproductive rhythm ( `` a rut '' ) which one automatically repeats over and over in malice of its futility. On this history, so, creativeness comes in grades and consists in the ability to supervise one 's lower degree activities so that when a behaviour becomes unproductive, one does non continually reiterate it, but `` recognizes '' its futility and attempts something new, something `` originative '' . Hofstadter makes up a name for this repetitive, uncreative sort of behaviour -- he calls it sphexishness, pulling inspiration for the name from the behaviour of certain sort of wasp named, Sphex. In his treatment, Hofstadter quotes from Dean Wooldridge who describes the Sphex as follows:
When the clip comes for egg laying, the WASP Sphex builds a tunnel for the intent and seeks out a cricket which she stings in such a manner as to paralyse but non kill it. She drags the cricket into the tunnel, lays her eggs alongside, closes the tunnel, so flies off, ne'er to return. In due class, the eggs hatch and the WASP grubs feed off the paralytic cricket, which has non decayed, holding been kept in the wasp equivalent of a deep-freeze. To the human head, such an intricately organized and apparently purposeful everyday conveys a convincing spirit of logic and contemplation -- until more inside informations are examined. For illustration, the WASP 's modus operandi is to convey the paralytic cricket to the tunnel, leave it on the threshold, travel indoors to see that all is good, emerge, and so drag the cricket in. If the cricket is moved a few inches off while the WASP is inside doing her preliminary review, the WASP, on emerging from the tunnel, will convey the cricket back to the threshold, but non indoors, and will so reiterate the preparative process of come ining the tunnel to see that everything is all right. If once more the cricket is removed a few inches while the WASP is indoors, one time once more she will travel the cricket up to the threshold and reenter the tunnel for a concluding cheque. The WASP ne'er thinks of drawing the cricket straight in. On one juncture this process was repeated 40 times, with the same consequence.
Initially, the sphex 's behaviour seemed intelligent, purposeful. It sagely entered the tunnel to seek for marauders. But if it truly `` understood '' what it was making, so it would n't reiterate the activity 40 times in a row! ! That is stupid! ! It is sensible to presume, hence, that it does n't truly understand what it is making at all. It is merely executing a rote, mechanical behaviour -- and it seems blissfully nescient of its state of affairs. We might state that it is `` incognizant '' of the redundancy of its activity. To be `` originative '' , Hofstadter so says, is to be antisphexish -- to act, that is, unlike the sphex.
If you want to make a machine that is antisphexish, so you must give it the ability to supervise its ain behaviour so that it will non acquire stuck in ruts similar to the Sphex 's. See a automaton that has a primary set of computing machine plans that govern its behaviour ( name these first-order plans ) . One manner to do the automaton more antisphexish would be to compose particular second-order ( or meta-level ) plans whose primary occupation was non to bring forth robot-behavior but instead to maintain path of those first-order plans that do bring forth the robot-behavior to do certain that those plans did non acquire stuck in any `` stupid '' ruts. ( A familiar illustration of a machine caught in a rut is the scene from several old scientific discipline fiction movies in which a automaton misses the door and knocks into the wall over and over once more, incapable of deciding its quandary -- `` incognizant '' of its quandary. )
A job arises, nevertheless, even if it were possible to make these plans that `` ticker '' other plans. Can you believe what it is? What if the second-order plan, the `` watching '' plan gets stuck in a rut? Then you need another plan ( a third-order plan ) whose occupation is to watch the `` observation '' -program. But now we have a quandary ( what philosophers call an `` infinite reasoning backward '' ) . We can hold plans watching plans watching plans -- bring forthing far more plans than we would desire to mess with -- and yet still leave the cardinal job unresolved: There would ever stay one plan that was un-monitored. What you would desire for efficiency interest, if it were possible, is what Hofstadter calls a `` self-watching '' plan, a plan that watches other plans but besides keeps a critical oculus pealed to its ain potentially sphexish behaviour. Yet Hoftstadter insists that no affair what you do, you could ne'er make a machine that was absolutely antisphexish. But so he besides gives grounds why human existences are non absolutely antisphexish -- and why we should n't even desire to be.
What is Consciousness?
Thomas Nagel discusses the significance of the `` subjective character of experience '' in his article, `` What Is It Like to Be a Bat? '' Note that Nagel is non concerned here with the issue of personhood. ( He most decidedly is non proposing that chiropterans are individuals. ) Rather he is interested to deny the claim that a strictly physical history of an being ( of its encephalon provinces, etc. ) could, even in rule, be capable of capturing the subjective character of that being 's experiences. Nagel 's chief concern is to dispute the claim, made by many modern-day scientists, that the aim, physical or functional belongingss of an being tell us everything there is to cognize about that being. Nagel says, `` No. '' Any nonsubjective description of a person 's encephalon provinces will necessarily go forth out facts about that person 's subjective experience -- and therefore will be unable to supply us with certain facts about that person that are echt facts about the universe.
If an humanoid is to be a person, must it hold subjective experiences? If so, why? Further, even if we decide that individuals must hold such experiences, how are we to state whether or non any given humanoid has such experiences? See the undermentioned illustration. Assume that the calculating centre of an android utilizations two different `` assessment plans '' to find whether or non to execute a peculiar act. In most instances the two plans agree. However, in this peculiar instance, allow 's presume, the two plans give conflicting consequences. Further, allow us presume that there is a really complex process that the humanoid must travel through to decide this struggle, a process taking several proceedingss to execute. During the clip it takes to decide the struggle, is it appropriate to state that the Android feels `` baffled '' or `` unsure '' about whether to execute A? If we deny that the humanoid 's present province is one of `` experiencing unsure, '' on what evidences would we make so?
Colin McGinn considers this inquiry when he asks: `` Could a Machine be Conscious? '' Could at that place be something that it is like to be that machine? Very briefly, his reply is: Yes, a machine could be witting. In rule it is possible that an artefact like an humanoid might be witting, and it could be so even if it were non alive, harmonizing to McGinn. But, he argues, we have no thought what belongings it is that makes US witting existences, and therefore we have no thought what belongings must be built into a machine to do it witting. He argues that a computing machine can non be said to be witting simply by virtuousness of the fact that it has computational belongingss, simply because it is able to pull strings lingual symbols at the syntactic degree. Calculations of that sort are surely possible without consciousness. He suggests, farther, that the sentences uttered by an humanoid might really Mean something ( i.e. , they might Mention to objects in the universe, and therefore they might really possess SEMANTIC belongingss ) and yet still the humanoid might non be CONSCIOUS. That is, the humanoid might still miss subjective experiences, there might still be nil that it is like to be that humanoid. McGinn 's decision so? It is possible that a machine might be witting, but at this point, given that we have no hint what it is about HUMANS that makes us witting, we have no thought what we would hold to construct into an humanoid to do IT witting.
Hilary Putnam offers an interesting statement on this subject. If there existed a sophisticated adequate humanoid, Putnam argues that there would merely be no grounds one manner or another to settle the inquiry whether it had subjective experiences or non. In that event, nevertheless, he argues that we OUGHT to handle such an humanoid as a `` witting '' being, for moral grounds. His statement goes like this. One of the chief grounds that you and I assume that other human existences have `` subjective experiences '' similar to our ain is that they talk about their experiences in the same manner that we talk about ours. Imagine that we are both looking at a white tabular array and so I put on a brace of rose-colored spectacless. I say `` Now the tabular array LOOKS red. '' This introduces the differentiation between visual aspect and world, cardinal to the subject of epistemology. In such a context, I am cognizant that the subjective character of my experience ( `` the tabular array APPEARS red '' ) does non accurately reflect the world of the state of affairs ( `` the tabular array is REALLY white '' ) . Therefore, we might state that when I speak of the `` ruddy tabular array '' I am stating something about the subjective character of my experience and non about nonsubjective world. One analysis of the state of affairs is to state that when I say that the tabular array appears ruddy, I am stating something like: `` I am holding the same sort of subjective experience that I typically have when I see something that is REALLY ruddy. ''
The interesting claim that Putnam makes is that it is inevitable that humanoids will besides pull a differentiation between `` how things APPEAR '' and `` how things REALLY are '' . Putnam asks us to conceive of a community of humanoids who speak English merely like we do. Of class, these humanoids must hold centripetal equipment that gives them information about the external universe. They will be capable of acknowledging familiar forms, like the form of a tabular array, and they will hold particular light-sensors that measure the frequence of visible radiation reflected off of objects so that they will be able to acknowledge familiar colourss. If an humanoid is placed in forepart of a white tabular array, it will be able to state: `` I see a white tabular array. '' Further, if the android topographic points rosy spectacless over its `` eyes '' ( i.e. , its centripetal setup ) , it will register that the frequence of visible radiation is in the ruddy spectrum and it will state `` Now the tabular array LOOKS ruddy '' or it might state `` I am holding a red-table esthesis even though I know that the tabular array is truly white. ''
So what is the point of this illustration? Well, Putnam has shown that there is a constitutional Logic when it comes to speak about the external universe, given that the talker 's cognition of the universe comes through centripetal setup ( like the eyes and ears of human existences or the ocular and audio receptors of a automaton ) . A sophisticated adequate humanoid will necessarily pull a differentiation between visual aspect and world and, therefore, it will separate between its alleged `` esthesiss '' ( i.e. , whatever its centripetal setup reveals to it ) and nonsubjective world. Now of class, this may merely demo that humanoids of this sort would be capable of speech production AS IF they had subjective experiences, AS IF they were truly witting -- even though they might non really be so. Putnam admits this. He says we have no ground to believe they are witting, but we besides have no ground to believe they are non. Their discourse would be absolutely consistent with their holding subjective experiences, and Putnam thinks that it would be something near to favoritism to deny that an humanoid was witting merely because it was made of metal alternatively of life cells. In consequence he is stating that humanoids should be given the benefit of the uncertainty. He says:
Since Putnam thinks that there is no grounds one manner or the other to settle the inquiry, he says that we must merely make up one's mind whether we are traveling to allow androids the position of witting existences. He says that we ought to be generous and do so. Not everyone would hold with Putnam on this mark. Kurt Baier, for illustration, disagrees with Putnam, reasoning that there would be good ground for thought that the humanoid in inquiry was non witting. Putnam considers two of Baier 's expostulations and attempts to talk to them. We do non hold the infinite to see their argument here. It is non a argument easy settled. It is interesting to observe, nevertheless, that Putnam seems to hold one interesting `` philosopher '' on his side: CAPTAIN PICARD from our Star Trek episode.
early 13c. , from Old French persone `` human being, anyone, person '' ( 12c. , Modern French personne ) and straight from Latin character `` human being, person, personage ; a portion in a play, false character, '' originally `` mask, false face, '' such as those of wood or clay worn by the histrions in ulterior Roman theatre. OED offers the general 19c. account of character as `` related to '' Latin personare `` to sound through '' ( i.e. the mask as something spoken through and possibly magnifying the voice ) , `` but the long o makes a difficulty.. '' Klein and Barnhart say it is perchance borrowed from Etruscan phersu `` mask. '' Klein goes on to state this is finally of Greek beginning and compares Persephone. Of corporate entities from mid-15c. The usage of -person to replace -man in compounds and avoid alleged male chauvinist intensions is foremost recorded 1971 ( in president ) . In person `` by bodily presence '' is from 1560s. Person-to-person foremost recorded 1919, originally of telephone calls.
See other subjects:
steroids in sports,
family planning in philippines,
violent video games,
evolution vs creation,
teenage pregnancy in philippines,
teenage pregnancy pdf,
how to prevent office romance at workplaces,
bullying and suicide,
violence in video games,