Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Connolly, Hall and Philosophical Differences. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 14 page essay that summarizes the major point from The Trouble with Passion: Political Theory Beyond the Reign of Reason by Cheryl Hall and Pluralism by William Connolly. Tutorial language is used to offer suggestions to the student on completing this project. No additional sources cited.
Page Count:
14 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhalcon.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
intertwined than contemporary political liberalism acknowledges. William E. Connolly, in his book Pluralism, basically argues in favor of politically liberal ideology, and its associated values of tolerance and acceptance of
ambiguity. While not precisely addressing the same topic, there are both areas of commonality and areas of difference between these two intriguing text on political philosophy. In other to discuss
similarities and differences, the following paper, first of all, will discuss the orientation and main points of each author. Connolly Interestingly, each author begins by referring to the terrorists
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Connolly makes the comment that "Evil surprises" us and, in so doing, has the power to liquidate engrained habits that involve both moral
trust and how the public perceives "ordained violence," which he maintains creates a "fervent desire" in the public mindset to restore the nature of the disrupted world.i He discusses this
knee jerk reaction of the public to the perception of external threats in terms of what occurred during the McCarthy era and its famous intolerance and abandonment of constitutional freedoms
in favor of the illusion of security. Connolly states that people who support pluralism "expose and resist such dark resonance machine."ii Within the course of these comments, Connolly also
asks whether pluralism "is a philosophy for wimps," that is, "for those whose beliefs are too saturated with uncertain and ambivalence to take definitive action."iii His answer to this question
is a definitive "no," as the goal of his text is to defend his overall stance toward pluralism from its critics. The focus of his first several chapters is
Connollys supposition that when the "McCarthyism of our day" arrives, it will "connect internal state security to an exclusionary version of the Judeo-Christian tradition."iv In reaction to this idea, Connolly
...