Instead, Bussigny’s minaret is attached to the warehouse of a shoe store called Pomp It Up, which is part of a Swiss chain. And it’s not the work of a local Muslim outraged by Switzerland’s controversial vote to ban the structures, which often are used to launch the call to prayer.
A week or so later, in an apparent act of defiance, a new minaret unexpectedly sprang up here.īut the new minaret is not attached to a mosque this small town near Geneva doesn’t even have one. In November, Switzerland voted to ban the construction of new minarets, the towerlike structures that adorn mosques. I thought about the issue again more recently when reading this discussion by Dennis Mangan (I found his site via a link from Seth’s blog) of the fascinating story of a businessman who built a minaret next to his shoe warehouse in Bussigny, Switzerland. Bennett notwithstanding), but the correlation is surely weak if there at all, and it doesn’t stop all four of the above positions from making internal sense. On aggregate, I suspect there’s a slight correlation between being a liberal or Democrat and supporting gambling (it’s a traditional morals issue, after all, William F. And I recall reading passionate arguments from various of these perspectives. Some commentators were iberal and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without fundamentalist bible thumpers telling them what to do), some were conservative and pro-gambling (people should be allowed to gamble if they want, without do-gooder liberals telling them what to do), and similarly on the other side. I remember thinking about this several years ago regarding positions on legalized gambling (casinos, state lotteries, and the like). The logic of ideology is not fully determined by what goes into it. To put it another way, one person might strongly believe in A & B, while somebody else equally strongly feels that A & not-B go together. Different people have all sorts of different ideologies thus, there is external incoherence. An ideology typically makes complete sense to the person holding the ideology–that is, it is internally coherent.Ģ. See how brilliantly Russell has connected the ideas of philosophy and politics, by moving from a general to a specific topic, with sentences connecting one to another, creating coherence.One of the most fascinating things about political ideology is the following juxtaposition:ġ. Philosophy, as pursued in the universities of the Western democratic world, is, at least in intention, part of the pursuit of knowledge, aiming at the same kind of detachment as is sought in science …” Like the word “religion,” it has one sense when used to describe certain features of historical cultures, and another when used to denote a study or an attitude of mind which is considered desirable in the present day. “The word “philosophy” is one of which the meaning is by no means fixed.
Example #4: Unpopular Essays (by Bertrand Russell) The entire paragraph is an example of coherent speech.
EXTERNAL COHERENCE MEANING HOW TO
Through the speech of the Old Major, Orwell starts the passage about the miserable nature of the life of animals on the animal farm, and then he inspires them to think about how to safeguard their interests on the farm. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.” “No animal in England knows the meaning of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. We are born, we are given just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength … “ Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it: our lives are miserable, laborious, and short.
0 kommentar(er)
