SMC103Y1 Lecture Notes - School Of Antioch, Jewish Holidays, Sept

49 views2 pages

pucecod518

5 Oct 2012

School

UTSG

Department

St. Michael's College Courses

Course

SMC103Y1

Professor

G O W A N

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

Document Summary

John chrypostom of antioch: greek speaking theologian, different from both gregory and orgien, mother was a christian the father wasn"t really. Johns father died when john was 7 years of age. Very educated man: was not baptised as an infant, he studied rhetoric; not very interested in philosophy. He practiced asceticism at home and read scriptures and home: theodore and diodore created antiochene school of theology. They read the bible literal and interested in what the text actually says. Through this he tried living an asceticism life, fasting, self discipline, Here he pretty much memorized/ studied the bible. Constantinople: from 386-397 he is very productive; he preaches every sundays and preaches homilies in certain books from the bible. The homilies overtime add up to a lot and he is the person that has the most of all these interpretations. 389 he published 67 homilies on the book of genesis. 390 90 on matthew (very strong book on moral teaching)

Related Questions

There are well over forty different radiometric dat

ing methods, and ________ of

other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

â¢

All of the different dating methods agree

--they agree a great majority of the time

over millions of years of time. Some Christians mak

e it sound like there is a lot of

disagreement, but _________________________.

â¢

The differences actually found in the scientific li

terature are usually close to the

margin of error, usually __________________, not

____________________________.

â¢

Over a __________ papers on radiometric dating were

published in scientifically

recognized journals

in the last year

, and _______________________ of dates

have been published in the last 50 years. Essential

ly all of these strongly favor

an old Earth.

â¢

...it has been close to a hundred years since the ___

________-238 decay rate

was first determined.

â¢

Both long-range and short-range dating methods have

been successfully verified

by dating ________of historically known ages over a

range of several thousand

years.

â¢

The mathematics for determining the ages from the o

bservations is relatively

____________.

page 20

[page 10 of sum. doc.]

Beyond this, scientists have now used a "_____ ____

___" to prove that the half-lives of

radioactive species were the same millions of years

ago. This _____ ________ does

not allow people to actually go back in time, but i

t does allow scientists to observe

ancient events from a long way away. The _____ ____

___ is called the ____________.

Much of the light following a supernova blast is po

wered by newly created

_____________ ___________. So we observe radiometri

c decay in the supernova

light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds

of thousands of years ago are thus

carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agr

ee with the half-lives measured from

decays __________ ________. We must conclude that a

ll evidence points towards

unchanging radioactive half-lives.

Doubters Still Try

Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this m

ight be true--perhaps 1 atom out of

____________________ of a certain isotope has leake

d out of nearly all rocks...

These books detail experiments showing, for a given

dating system, which minerals

_____________________, which minerals work under so

me certain conditions, and

which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give __

______ results. Understanding these

conditions is part of the science of geology. Geolo

gists are careful to use the most

reliable methods whenever possible, and as discusse

d above, to test ____

_____________ between different methods.

While certain particles can cause nuclear changes,

____________________________.

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.

One of the major problems with the economy is too many economists! Or perhaps too many politicians who think they understand economics. When politicians seek to improve the conditions in the economy they come up with what at first blush appears to be a great idea. Look at all the people who will be helped! It is not seen that is the problem it is unseen. Adam Smith's invisible hand. It is called The Law of Unintended Consequences. A politician sets out, for the best of reasons, to help a group---the homeless as an example---but in the process, far more people are harmed than helped. The results really don't matter you see because they tried but it simply didn't work. It was the politician's fault! After all, they tried to do something and that's what counts, not the results. The results do not matter.

One example was the Urban Renewal Program in the 1970s. In the processes of cleaning up and renewing city centers, SROs (Single room occupancies) were destroyed. These were cheap rooms that could be rented at a minimal price. It allowed very low-income people to have a room and shelter from the elements. But where were these people to go after urban renewal? This was one of the main causes of what has become a homeless problem.

Another example of this is my experience while living in Arkansas and teaching at Arkansas State. Interest rates were rising rapidly making it difficult for low-income families to obtain mortgages and other consumer loans. This was a time when if you had a mortgage at 14% you had a good one. Then Gov. Clinton, again for the best of reasons, asked the legislature to cap the interest rates at 10 percent. This is called Usury Law. The term Usury goes back at least as far as Thomas Aquinas and his book, The Summa Theologica which dates back to about 1244 AD. It was believed that charging interest on a loan was unchristian and downright evil. It was on this theory that Gov. Clinton based his thinking.

Once again the unseen took hold. All money flowed out of Arkansas into the neighboring states where it could earn a higher return. This is a natural consequence of a price ceiling, which this is. This is the maximum price that can be charged for a good or service. In economics and finance, there is a concept known as the Purchasing Power Parity Theory. Money (resources) flow to the market where it gets the greatest return. In finance, it is also known as arbitrage which is also the basis for most of the world trade. Investment flows to the areas with the highest return. In any event, the Usury Law was a disaster! No one could get a loan in the state as the money flowed to the neighboring states where it could earn a higher return. The Gov. called a special session of the legislature and the law was repealed.

This is also one of the differences between Keynesian and Austrian economists---of which I count myself. If we take a Keynesian and an Austrian economist to the shore of a small lake and give each of them a large rock to throw in the water, The Keynesian will throw the rock, watch them splash, and maybe see the wake the rock created. The Austrian will throw the rock, see the splash, watch the wake spread out from the point of impact. He will also see the boat moored on the opposite shore with a hole in the hull at the waterline. He will see the water lap in and the boat sink. The Keynesian never even knew the boat was there. When something is proposed, Austrian economists carry the effects out to their logical conclusion. Keynesian's, to the primary and perhaps secondary results but rarely to the tertiary. Again what happens as a result of their actions is no concern of theirs because it was the attempt that mattered.

One embedded question.

What is the benefit of carrying an idea to its logical conclusion? Or is there any benefit?

whiterabbit790

SMC103Y1 Lecture Notes - School Of Antioch, Jewish Holidays, Sept

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

SMC103Y1 Final: SMC 103 EXAM REVIEW NOTES.docx

THEO 206 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Africa (Roman Province), Plotinus, Historical Criticism

RELS 131 Chapter 4: Chapter 4- Christian Traditions.docx

Related Questions