Foucault and kant Essay Example for Free

Foucault and kant Essay Both Kant and Foucault present a question of what is enlightenment? According to Immanuel Kant enlightenment was mans freedom from his â€Å"self-incurred immaturity†. Kant believes that all that is needed to reach enlightenment is freedom. Enlightenment could not be achieved by any one person, we have to do so as a community. Kant said that we should have the freedom to make public use of our reason in all situations. He also believed that revolution is a great way to remove oppressive government heads but it would not teach the community to think in a different way. Kant says that the matters of religion is the focal point of enlightenment. Thinking and acting freely is mans enlightenment and emerges us from our immaturity. Foucaults text is a reflection upon Kants views on â€Å"What is enlightenment? †. Foucault addresses many of the issues with Kants essay on â€Å"What is Enlightenment? † and says that is written in a world era to which no one belongs to. He says that enlightenment is an â€Å"exit† or a â€Å"way out†. Focault says that we have not yet reached enlightenment and that once we achieve this enlightenment there will be nowhere else to progress to and we will achieve our limit. I agree with Foucault over Kants view on enlightenment. I think as a whole we have not reached our enlightenment and I don’t think we will for a very long time. Although Kant said in order to reach enlightenment we have to do so as a community. We cannot do this because this is something that exceeds our limits as human beings.

Aztec Economy and Beliefs :: essays research papers

Aztec economy flourished so well mainly because of their intricate religious beliefs. Their belief in many different gods, complex rituals, and an odd brand of warfare, all lead up to an flourishing economy because they all required so many different artisans and materials. In Aztec society, a merchant was a man above everyone else. By the 1500’s they rivaled the wealth of nobility. The Aztecs believed that in order to keep the gods happy, they had to build great pyramids, do many rituals, and sacrifice people to appease the gods. The building of these enormous pyramids took thousands of thousands of men and supplies. Those supplies had to be dug up and bought from every person possible. The building of such pyramids also employed skilled artisans to carve the temples into shape, and to carve words and symbols inside the pyramid. The temples also required skilled painters and recorders to paint and inscribe inside the temple. The employment of these artisans ensured that they would have work to do and money in their pocket. Aztec merchants were called pochtecas. They served not only as merchants, but as spies for the priests and king. This required them to go very far to spy on other tribes. When they came back they could come with things and idea’s the people had never imagined. This brought the edges of the world that much closer to the Aztecs simply because believed that their merchants should spy on other tribes to see what kinds of gods they are worshiping. The Aztecs religiously used a great amount of obsidian, a volcanic rock that looked like dark glass, for all walks of life. They used it in warfare to weaken the opponents rather then kill them, so their opponent could then be offered to the gods. They used it for priests as religious necklaces. Finally the used it for knives to cut open their sacrificial victims to offer their hearts to the gods. Obsidian was considered very rare at first but the mass usage of it gave hundreds of skilled artisans the jobs to make things out of it. Aztec Economy and Beliefs :: essays research papers Aztec economy flourished so well mainly because of their intricate religious beliefs. Their belief in many different gods, complex rituals, and an odd brand of warfare, all lead up to an flourishing economy because they all required so many different artisans and materials. In Aztec society, a merchant was a man above everyone else. By the 1500’s they rivaled the wealth of nobility. The Aztecs believed that in order to keep the gods happy, they had to build great pyramids, do many rituals, and sacrifice people to appease the gods. The building of these enormous pyramids took thousands of thousands of men and supplies. Those supplies had to be dug up and bought from every person possible. The building of such pyramids also employed skilled artisans to carve the temples into shape, and to carve words and symbols inside the pyramid. The temples also required skilled painters and recorders to paint and inscribe inside the temple. The employment of these artisans ensured that they would have work to do and money in their pocket. Aztec merchants were called pochtecas. They served not only as merchants, but as spies for the priests and king. This required them to go very far to spy on other tribes. When they came back they could come with things and idea’s the people had never imagined. This brought the edges of the world that much closer to the Aztecs simply because believed that their merchants should spy on other tribes to see what kinds of gods they are worshiping. The Aztecs religiously used a great amount of obsidian, a volcanic rock that looked like dark glass, for all walks of life. They used it in warfare to weaken the opponents rather then kill them, so their opponent could then be offered to the gods. They used it for priests as religious necklaces. Finally the used it for knives to cut open their sacrificial victims to offer their hearts to the gods. Obsidian was considered very rare at first but the mass usage of it gave hundreds of skilled artisans the jobs to make things out of it.

In the era after the Cold War, liberalism has replaced realism as the dominant explanation for the international system” Do you agree with this assertion?

Introduction This essay examines the proposition that, in the era after the Cold War, liberalism has replaced realism as the dominant explanation for the international system, arguing that such is not the case; that realism continues to be relevant and, indeed, perhaps offers better explanations for current global politics that liberalism. In particular, this essay focuses on the Waltzian notion of global anarchy and asymmetrical global power distributions as being primary driving agencies in international affairs. Hence this essay espouses the precepts of neorealism, emphasising the importance of power, dominance, and interest as underlying political behaviour. While this essay acknowledges the ideological primacy of liberalism, and the likelihood that this will increase, it draws a distinction between avowed intellectual affinities and observable political realities. That is, the central idealism of the liberal ethos is dissected and found to be unsatisfactory in accounting the for post-Cold Wa r global order. While the importance of liberalism is not refuted, the current study sees its ascendency as resulting more from a lack of viable alternatives than its fundamental superiority as a political system or as a set of ideas. Realism, Liberalism, and the Centrality of Power and Interest in International Relations In the wake of the Cold War, certain critical voices within the field of International Relations assert the demise of realism as the dominant explanation for the international system. Certainly, scholars suggest that liberalism is â€Å"main alternative to realism in the public discourse, as it has been for two centuries, albeit challenged by socialism for a time† (Richardson, 2001: 71). This supposition is founded on the belief that the primary tenets of realism – like global anarchy, the centrality of the state, and corollary importance of power and self-interest – while previously useful in explaining global politics, have been superseded by alternate theories. Hence scholars hold that â€Å"although realism’s concepts of anarchy, self-help, and power balancing may have been appropriate to a bygone era, they have been displaced by changed conditions and eclipsed by better ideas† (Little & Smith, 2006: 90). The realist paradigm as formulated by Ma chiavelli and codified by Hobbes, it could be argued, was grounded in paranoiac conceptualisations of the human condition; it reflected an â€Å"anti-teleological principle†, where the Aristotelian idea of ultimate â€Å"good† as humanity’s guiding light is rejected in favour of a motive formed in the philosophical negative (Strauss, 1988: 52): where humans ultimately acted to avoid certain ends rather than precipitate them. For Hobbes, one of the intellectual fathers of the modern nation state, man’s endeavour was consequently geared, in sum, against what he called the â€Å"summum malum†, that is, death (Sreedhar, 2010: 33). Modern political science tends to ascribe somewhat less pessimistic intentions and driving agencies to international relations. While this has somewhat to do with the inevitable critical realignment that obtained as a result of global political rearrangement after the fall of the Soviet bloc, the irrelevance of realism is by no means a given. As the neorealist Kenneth Waltz avers: â€Å"Changes in the structure of the system are distinct from changes at the unit level† (2000: 5). After all, it would entail a radical change in world politics to negate entirely a prevalent mode of critical analysis; for realism all of a sudden to become irrelevant. This would, it seems clear, be to say that the events of the past were so vastly different in character from those of the present as to bear negligible if any consequence for (or insights on) events of the future. But what manner of change in the international system could utterly alter the critical apparatuses by which s uch systems are scrutinisedWhat we are concerned with in this instance, after all, is a wholly new type of system; in effect, a new type of politics: wherein the posited spread of liberalism, increasing globalisation, interdependence, the rise of democracy and the consolidation of diplomatic relations is such as to redefine the very nature of state-to-state interaction – a very dramatic alteration indeed. In sum, is the new face of global order really reflective of an equally new modus operandi at work beneathIs liberalism the new residing paradigm? Since the end of the Cold War, scholars have proposed that a â€Å"new world† is upon us, one which requires new approaches to political analysis. As a consequence, the field of political studies has witnessed a wealth of competing so-called â€Å"new world† theories: Francis Fukuyama’s proposed End of History and Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations theory being foremost among them. A common thread in said theories relates to the potent ideological significance of communism being abjured by a huge portion of the globe and the consequent spread of liberal democracy and its bedfellow capitalism. In either instance, the charge of Western triumphalism could be brought to bear and, indeed, raises some pertinent questions: is it that Western liberalism is a superior system or is it that Eastern style communism was integrally flawedSome scholars certainly contend the latter: communist political systems â€Å"collapsed in Central and Eastern Europe at t he end of the 1980s primarily because of long-standing internal weaknesses that denied them the popular legitimacy needed for long term survival† (Goldman, 1997: 3). From a liberal perspective, this can be understood as reflective of the supposed fundamental human desire for freedom: a desire which proponents are keen to imply that liberalism provides. That is, there is for some liberal critics a belief that â€Å"the desire for liberal democracy† is â€Å"universal† because it denotes the innate human desire for freedom (Hughes, 2012: 109). However, the categorical and reductive overtones of such thinking are perhaps too flattering to the Occidental political position (from which liberal critics tend to hail). At any rate, it is clear that liberal politics have become increasingly preponderate in the wake of the Cold War. Whether this is down to the universality of liberal principles is highly debatable. More convincing are arguments that stress the lack of viable alternatives to communism since the fall of the Soviet bloc. Hence one critic observes that following the Cold War, liberal democracy found itself â€Å"without enemies or viable alternatives† (Haynes et al., 2013: 36). Concurrently, the United States (certainly the most prevalent liberal polity on the world stage), increasingly pursued policies that were indicative of â€Å"ideological universalism in values and practices† (MacGinty & Richmond, 2013: 22). Such universalism works somewhat to blur the lines between liberal principles and US principles: simply put, the one comes metonymically to do duty for the other. As a result, scholars posit that â€Å"American power has become the executor of the liberal idea an d, invisibly, the liberal ideal has become the occasion for asserting American might† (MacDonald, 2014: 161). In other words, the diminishment in viable alternatives to communism, in addition to the rise of US proclamations in the service of liberalism, both amount to a powerful catalyst for political liberalism overall. What is clear, then, is that there has been a substantial paradigm shift in the global order; and, indeed, the proclamations of a supposed new word do seem justified, at least in terms of the overt ideological dynamic at play in international relations. What liberal scholars trumpet as the ascendency of liberalism must be understood as an ideological victory before anything else. Deeper rooted structural and socio-cultural influences may yet obtain. As a result, while classical realism may be unsuited to account for the ideological makeup of contemporary politics, neorealism and structural realism can perhaps offer an adapted understanding of fundamental driving agencies behind ideological ambitions. Such critical perspectives relate to the underlying mechanics of global politics. Kenneth Waltz for instance maintains the validity of realism inasmuch as it serves to explain states of relative peace and conflict as being the result of asymmetrical power distribution among states and th e prevalence of global anarchy. For Waltz, this mode of anarchy is connected with permissiveness: where the lack of any top-down international ruling body or sovereign effectively removes deterring agencies (for states to wage war). Hence Waltz identifies what he calls â€Å"permissive† causes of conflict: that allow wars to occur â€Å"because there is nothing to prevent them† (1959: 232). Of course, there has been a significant decline in interstate war since the fall of communism, but this does not mean that global anarchy in no longer relevant. Rather, the realist paradigm may still be said to hold true: the only difference is the vastly changed power structures at work. The world order is, for the present, unipolar, with the United States representing the global hegemon. During the Cold War, international relations were bipolar, because the Soviet bloc represented a significant balance to the capitalist West. This led to a situation where, although individual factions often sought â€Å"to dominate, superiority [was] almost impossible to achieve† because states countered â€Å"each other’s attempts to dominate† (D’Anieri, 2011: 69). In lieu of this bipolar balance, no single state commands the resources or capability to challenge the US, thus what is known as hegemonic stability obtains. While this hegemonic stability maintains a peacefu l status quo under the banner of liberal democracy, there are nonetheless indications that other factors are at work beneath the overt appearance. Indeed, the unipolar world has allowed for a degree of unilateralism that seems distinctly at odds with the dictates of freedom and equality so associated with the liberal ideal. One commentator notes, for example, that â€Å"the excessive unilateralist behaviour of the Bush administration† in addition to the frequent â€Å"disregard for international law† which â€Å"previous administrations had helped to create† ended up being â€Å"corrosive† on the credibility of Washington (Heinbecker, 2011: 171). The point is that the US is simultaneously putting itself forward as the vocal exemplar of liberalism yet repeatedly acting in its own self-interest and flexing its muscle in order to do so. Thus while on the one hand the US explicitly champions liberal ideology, its political behaviour is more readily explicable with reference to realist ideas. There is an evident paradox at work here, and it is evocative of Mark twain’s famed aphorism: â€Å"If you have a reputation as an early riser, you can sleep ‘til noon† (Rumsey, 2012: 137). Hence we come to a crucial distinction in the current debate. Liberalism is at base an idealistic mould for political action, thus difficult to achieve. Realism, contrarily, assumes a degree of pragmatism, partiality, and, indeed, disparity in political action that is far more readily obtained. This central paradox echoes one of the primary problems with the liberal ethos as a practicable set of ideas: it tends not to work very well. He nce scholars like Michael Howard go so far as to equate liberalism with the â€Å"story of the efforts of good men to abolish war but only succeeding thereby in making it more terrible† (Howard, 1978: 130). Taking this point of view, it becomes less convincing that liberalism has rendered realism obsolete. Indeed, the actions of the US after the Cold War have, it can be argued, been highly self-interested. Moreover, after the tragedy of September 11th, Washington’s neoconservative quest to spread democracy was anything but peaceful. In either instance, self-preservation and national interest seem more reasonable explanations for Washington’s actions than any supposed idealistic liberalising agenda (except where such an agenda consolidated US power). Thus we can once more defer to realist thinking. In this respect scholars point to â€Å"the central role† of â€Å"power† in â€Å"politics and the dominance of the nation-state in the contemporary international system† – a realist conception if ever there was one (Keohane, 1984: 9). Even though the power divisions that prevailed during the Cold War are now gone, this does not mean the fundamental concepts of power and dominance no longer play an important role. Here we come to a very important poi nt: the ideas of realism relate to fundamental driving agencies, which effectively transcend the cosmetic prescriptions of particular ideological systems. This is why, critics argue, realism offers a good explanation for political activity: because it tries to locate root causes. This latter point is realism’s overriding strength. Because realism is concerned with human nature and fundamental agency, it potentially represents a more universal system of thought than does liberalism. For this reason, realism cannot be said to have been rendered obsolete by the rise of liberalism; this is because, in a certain sense, the realist view is ahistorical and thus cannot be made obsolete. Realism after all is focused on the â€Å"constraints on politics imposed by human nature† (Donnelly, 2000: 9). Human nature has no time limit. Accordingly this is to suppose that power, dominance and self-interest are integral elements of the human condition; that political events thus reflect human nature writ large. While it may be upheld that the human condition is not as bleak as Hobbes contended – â€Å"solitary, poor, brutish, nasty and short† – it can certainly be argued humanity continuously acts in selfish and illiberal ways (cited in Graham, 2002: 9). Furthermore, it seems idealism in the extreme to propose that humanity is remotely close to a state in which the pejorative dimensions of human nature will be extinguished. Rather, it is far more plausible that human nature will perpetually pose restraints on political ideals. Liberalism as an idealistic perspective therefore remains subject to the restrictions posited by realism. Further, this does not look set to end any time soon. Conclusion While it is clear that a new world has emerged from the ideological rubble of the Cold War, a world defined by the liberal ideal, it is certainly not proven that realism has no more use to political science. On the contrary, realism is a pervasive system for explaining international relations: prior to and succeeding the end of the Cold War. Realism may relate to some very old political ideas; but this does not mean such ideas are ipso facto out of date. Fundamental elements of human nature, on the contrary, must be understood as timeless. In consequence, we may posit that the basic motivations that dictate human political activity today are of a similar nature to those during the Cold War or even those which obtained in centuries prior. That is to say, assuming the truth of the basic tents of realism about human nature, such insights must be taken to be as valid today as they were in the past. Following this logic, realist ideas will likely persist in relevance through the years to come. The conflict-based character of international relations will therefore continue to be a pressing concern for political science, even if liberalism continues its likely trend of preponderance. But this must be understood as an ideological manifestation, a cosmetic facet of political ideals; and such ideals are wont to change dramatically over time. Even a cursory review of the previous century demonstrates dramatic changes in political ideas. The overall political sensibility of contemporary polities is starkly different from that which obtained at the dawn of the twentieth century. Based on this observation, it seems reasonable to suppose a similar level of difference between now and one hundred years hence; yet, even so, the underlying characteristics of human nature will be continuous. For this reason, realism remains and will continue to be relevant. References D’Anieri, P., 2005. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldman, M. F. (1997) Revolution and Change in Eastern Europe. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Graham, G., 2002. The Case Against the Democratic State: An Essay in Cultural Criticism. Thorverton: Imprint Academic. Haynes, J., Hough, P., Malik, S., & Pettiford, L., 2013. World Politics: International Relations and Globalisation in the 21st Century. Oxon: Routledge. Howard, M., 1978. War and the Liberal Conscience 2nd ed. London: Hurst. Hughes, C., 2012. Liberal Democracy as the End of History: Fukuyama and Postmodern Challenges. Oxon: Routledge. Keohane, R. O., 1989. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press Little, R. & Smith, M., 2006. Perspectives on World Politics. London: Routledge. MacDonald, M., 2014. Overreach: Delusions of Regime Change in Iraq. Harvard: Harvard University Press. MacGinty, R. & Richmond, O., 2013. The Liberal Peace and Post-War Reco: Myth or RealityOxon: Routledge. Richardson, J. L., 2001. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder: Rienner Publishers. Rumsey, M. G., 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sreedhar, S., 2010. Hobbes on Resistance: Defying the Leviathan. New York: Cambridge University Press. Waltz, K., 2000. â€Å"Structural Realism after the Cold War†. International Security, 25.1, pp. 5-41. Waltz, K., 1959. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press.

Charismatic Gifts Debate - 2610 Words

Joshua Gaskin The Charismatic Gifts Debate Theo 350-D10 The issue of the whether or not the charismatic spiritual gifts are for today has caused much debate and division in the body of Christ. There are groups that say that if you do speak in tongues, then you are under demonic control and are not saved. On the other hand, some say that if you do not speak in tongues then you are not saved. What s more, both extremes use scripture to support their positions. Fortunately for the Christian church, whether or not the spiritual gifts are for today is not a salvation issue. Therefore, we need to be gracious. Romans 14:5 say, One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his†¦show more content†¦1:9) through the Holy Spirit s indwelling. We don t know in a full sense right now, even though we have the Bible, because we are still corrupted by our sin nature. In our fallen state we can only see Christ through sin-clouded eyes. We see a reflection of Christ in the Word. When Jes us returns the reflection of the truth will pass to clear understanding (the way childish thoughts give way to mature ones) when we receive our resurrected bodies, no longer have to battle sinful flesh, and can see Him face to face because we shall be like Him (1 John 3:2) and then, ...we shall know fully. The context of 1 Cor. 13:8-13 seems to show that the spiritual gifts will cease when Jesus returns. Interestingly, 1 Cor. 1:7 may be consulted here as well. It says, so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our lord Jesus Christ. The Greek word here for revealed is apokalupsis (Furnish 2006). It means the apocalypse, the return of Jesus. In both this verse and 1 Cor. 13:8-13 the gifts, which aren t differentiated as to kind, are connected to the return of Christ, not the completion of the Bible. In addition, the word gift in the Greek is charisma (Furnish 2006). This is where we get the word charismatic. The second argument are as follows; present day tongues are further revelation and must then be equal to Scripture and should be included in the Bible. However since the Bible is not to have anything added to it, the gift of tongues (andShow MoreRelatedCharismatic Gifts Debate Essay2769 Words   |  12 PagesCharismatic Gifts Debate By Mark Jones Theo 350-B05 September 26, 2010 1 The Charismatic Gifts Debate For my research paper I choose the charismatic gifts debate because coming from a Pentecostal/Charismatic background growing up in church, I know a little about the gift. With growing up in a Charismatic church, I saw the gifts in action. There is a lot of debate on whether the gift is relevant for today or have they ceased from the church. One side says that the gifts are in theRead MoreThe Charismatic Gifts Debate : A Research Proposal2252 Words   |  10 PagesUNIVERSITY THE CHARISMATIC GIFTS DEBATE A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. MARSHALL WICKS IN COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THEO350 B02 BY BARBARA TODD SCHOOL’S LOCATION: LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 15, 2015 â€Æ' Introduction The charismatic gifts debate is an important topic today developed over time in three phases. The first phase began with the Pentecostalism in the first century. The second phase began in the 1960s with the charismatic movement. The thirdRead MoreThe Powerful Gifts Of The Holy Spirit1489 Words   |  6 Pagesadversary causes plenty of division within the church over many issues. One debate in particular is the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit. Fortunately, it’s not the argument of whether or not the charismatic spiritual gifts were part of the first century. However, the major issue at hand is whether or not the charismatic spiritual gifts are still used in today’s church, or not? There are many beliefs of charismatic gifts, based off denominational sectors, church affiliations, personal experiencesRead MoreThe Spiritual Gift Of Apostles And Prophets1087 Words   |  5 Pagesapostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone† (Eph. 2:20). Nevertheless, the debate is still on going if the office of the apostles and prophets ceased during the â€Å"Apostolic Age† or if it has continued on to the present day. This research paper will offer the Charismatic Movement opinion that advocates the interpretation of modern day apostles and prophets. A history of Charismatic theology will be provided. A survey of modern-day apostles and prophets will be examined. An assessmentRead MoreCharismatic Theology Essay3541 Words   |  15 PagesResearch Paper Of â€Å"A Select Issue in Contemporary Theology: Charismatic Theology. THEO 510-C03 LUO (Fall 2012) Survey of Christian Doctrine Dr. Eunice Abogunrin, Professor Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Carol H. Montgomery (ID# 24993689) November 11, 2012 CONTENTS COVER PAGE 1 CONTENTS 2 THESIS 3 INTRODUCTION 3 CHARSMATIC GIFTS DEBATE 3-12 CONCLUSION 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY 13 INTRODUCTION This research paper will show that biblical referred to asRead MoreCharisma and Political Communication Essay1544 Words   |  7 Pagesthese people mentioned have this super ability to move masses wherever they have been thanks to their charisma. Actually there was no concrete agreed on by all definition of charisma. These term has a Greek origin...... Which means grace and special gifts. In ancient Greece, the charits where goddess who had charm, beauty, loveliness and could easily captivate the attention of any given group. These term was used for the first time by Rudolph Sohm, a specialist regarding igloos just take Laure toRead MoreThe Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements and Speaking in Tongues3214 Words   |  13 PagesPentecostal and Charismatic Movements and Speaking in Tongues Submitted to Dr. Timothy McAlhaney in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of the course CHHI 525-D08 Spring 2015 LUO History of Christianity II By Fred Martin May 13, 2015 Contents I. Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.................................1 II. The History and Theologies of Pentecostals and Charismatics†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦2 a. Brief History of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Read MoreEssay on The Charismatic Gifts3471 Words   |  14 Pagesï » ¿ THE CHARISMATIC GIFTS: THEIR USE, FUNCTION,AND CONTINUITY Joseph Oliveri Bible 364 - Acts August 16, 2013 Introduction Their is much debate surrounding the use of the charismatic gifts in Acts. Many questions arise about how to use such gifts, and whether or not they can be used today in the first place. The debate regarding the continuation and the cessation of the spiritual gifts, the meaning of which we will clarify in a moment, is a relativelyRead MoreThe Social Theory Of Sociology1525 Words   |  7 Pagesattain progress within it. This means that sociology helps improve peoples’ comprehension of society as a whole, therefore increasing the power of social action. However, social action is a very controversial method in sociology due to its growing debates about conflicts found in the social system that are used to grasp the objective of social justice and empowerment. Classical sociology involves theories formed between the early 1800s and 1900s that embrace the cultural roots of that time periodRead MoreCharismatic Leadership And Transformational Leadership2011 Words   |  9 PagesCharisma theory is described as a â€Å"gift†, or a unique superiority of an individual character. This is set by an advantage of which the individual is set apart from the common man and treated as a gem with supremacies (Charismatic vs. Transformational, 2011). Whereas the transformational theory is defined as leaders who enthuse followers to use their own egocentricities to benefit the organization (Charismatic vs. Transformational, 2011). These leaders also possess a gift of having a great impact on their