Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

Post Closed as "Opinion-based" by Brian Z, E..., Jishin Noben, curiousdannii, virmaior
Improved title and readability
Source Link
edit approved Mar 30, 2019 at 0:20
Joachim
edit approved Mar 30, 2019 at 0:20
Joachim
  • 214
  • 2
  • 10

When writing commetarycommentary on well-known Philosophersphilosophers, which method is more effective, Comparative: comparative analysis or straightforward interpretation?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent:

1- Comparative analysis- where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents such as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic'. Or, 'this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics'.

  1. Comparative analysis; where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents such as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic' or 'this work appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics'.

  2. Straightforward interpretation; where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others, or footnoting, and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning.

2-Straightforward interpretation- where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. WhichWhich of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration, and Whywhy?

When writing commetary on well-known Philosophers which method is more effective, Comparative analysis or straightforward interpretation?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent:

1- Comparative analysis- where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents such as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic'. Or, 'this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics'.

2-Straightforward interpretation- where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration and Why?

When writing commentary on well-known philosophers, which method is more effective: comparative analysis or straightforward interpretation?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent:

  1. Comparative analysis; where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents such as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic' or 'this work appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics'.

  2. Straightforward interpretation; where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others, or footnoting, and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning.

Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration, and why?

Typo corrected
Source Link
Geoffrey Thomas ♦
Geoffrey Thomas ♦
  • 36.1k
  • 4
  • 46
  • 148

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of Historicalhistorical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent: 1

1- Comparative analysis- Wherewhere the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents like; thissuch as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian LogicLogic'. Or, this'this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the ScholasticsScholastics'. 2

2-Straightforward interpretation- Wherewhere the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration and Why?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of Historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent: 1- Comparative analysis- Where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents like; this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic. Or, this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics. 2-Straightforward interpretation- Where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration and Why?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent:

1- Comparative analysis- where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents such as 'this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic'. Or, 'this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics'.

2-Straightforward interpretation- where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration and Why?

Source Link
user37981
user37981

When writing commetary on well-known Philosophers which method is more effective, Comparative analysis or straightforward interpretation?

Although there are numerous methods for eliciting accurate transliteration of Historical philosophers' intended meaning, two appear to be most prominent: 1- Comparative analysis- Where the author intersperses commentary on the philosopher's intended meaning with references to historical precedents like; this hypothesis seems to contain echoes from Aristotelian Logic. Or, this works appears to be a response to concerns over the methodology of the Scholastics. 2-Straightforward interpretation- Where the author uses little or no referencing, allusions to others or footnoting and focuses almost exclusively on transliteration of the philosopher's intended meaning. Which of these two methods is more effective and accurately representative of the work under consideration and Why?