Post Scriptum No. 20: IIRPS - 20., 2012 PRAISE political scientists
Dear reader that this work unmixed with Pagiriamuoju word folly, "I warn you that all the matches are statistically insignificant and random. Moreover, unlike the dr. E. Rotterdam work, it was not a playful boredom, but a conscious struggle for a decent place under the Political Academy of the sun. It all started when the ERASMUS studies met quite a pleasant creature - Morya. Initially, it appeared to me how disgusting narcissistic engaged in different words: naught and banal. Tuštutė tuštutė. However, in the long run it stood before me as an interesting and attractive interlocutor (thanks the chef to Erasmus, I have learned to understand the other!). For this, I should be grateful to one dispute in which she openly derided political scientists arguing that they are boring people who do not generate any added value. Her speech was quite convincing, and that time did not have anything (with the įsisiūbavusio party, I could not) answer all stupidly say anything, so creating an Maslo and intelligent interviewer's the chef image. Only apsiblaivęs I understand that you may be able to answer. So to tap her e-mail, which will be useful to all my colleagues when trying to explain how important and irreplaceable human beings are political scientists. Finally, I just behave according to well-known proverb, "As nepasigirsi if nothing else you nepagiria?
Do you remember (I hope), yesterday the chef apturėjome little dispute about the political scientists (not) needed. Be honest - it struck me as a launch politologiuką, offended. the chef Nepamanyk, you really do not see anger. Rather mad at myself, that so late I understand the chef what you answered. I think, at this late attempt to reassure me much, so I ask to see my letter as a little penance before me and all the political scientists of honor that time I could not defend.
I will not curtsy from diplomatic to say that you were partially right. Most have mentioned that the alleged "diplomacy" bothers the chef you - you want to talk to someone, but not with the trivial case. I see that even now the lip of yourself smiling because, let me remind you again, the diplomatic practice of political science the chef is not like that speaking is not philology. Thus avoiding the chef fatigue you chatter about politics (after all, they too deserve your mockery, but again, whether the chef there should, nothing to talk about, to laugh in whose lives take an interest and what to blame everything on, if politicians would not?) Turn to self, the political scientist.
I remember that you said that political the chef science is not. Understand political theory only (sub) worst strain of philosophy, international relations - a story that does not remember dates and events the chef and guided only by the imagination and užliūliuoja all empty chatter; na political science in and of itself - a parasite the chef on the pseudo science of the body. But is not it all around? Regardless of the apparent philosopher. Say, a lover of wisdom, or to be of any significance if you went to look around the cave, having escaped the restrictive vocabulary, elevated above the defining structures crossed the simulations and the hyper world, is not returned to his tribesmen and attempt to clear the pripasakoti and not things. Empty to his speech the chef without paying please garbiesiems citizens without public fashion and public relations knowledge. Therefore, the political the chef philosophy - the first between the philosophies.
And the historian? Is he not just a time-lagging political scientist who is afraid to talk about the present? Oh and speaking, and it is not just the mass of political fashions and prejudices or ideological mode projection of the past. It's not a secret that in the past but which then lived a chef can tell you much more than our greatest historian and the passage will certainly be fairer. What general historian should tell you about the political past, if it neplušėtų diligent political scientist and political commentator, or at least a politician who wants to wants, evaluate and analyze the political reality the chef and act it does not deteriorate over D. Easton. Or even as I ask: what is above, the present, the chef which is whether the chef or not the past, which have not, and it exists only as a memory of the previous life? How the past can not be present without the former, as the historian can not be ruled out in such a political scientist priority against himself. And even more - I doubt whether science could ever be, if not political science. After all, just as it is the main antipode, the eternal Other, looking to utilize a new approach or paradigm for access to all other sciences shows its limits the chef and possibilities.
Still, I remember you said that political scientists can always reach different conclusions - one says one thing, another otherwise. Not to mention the fact that even in the same things they are called differently. Absolutely right. But is not this the biggest political scientists happiness? After all, everyone is very individual and the individual the chef may be in this many answers to find the best, most beautiful answer, which he liked, and others, not political scientists could
Dear reader that this work unmixed with Pagiriamuoju word folly, "I warn you that all the matches are statistically insignificant and random. Moreover, unlike the dr. E. Rotterdam work, it was not a playful boredom, but a conscious struggle for a decent place under the Political Academy of the sun. It all started when the ERASMUS studies met quite a pleasant creature - Morya. Initially, it appeared to me how disgusting narcissistic engaged in different words: naught and banal. Tuštutė tuštutė. However, in the long run it stood before me as an interesting and attractive interlocutor (thanks the chef to Erasmus, I have learned to understand the other!). For this, I should be grateful to one dispute in which she openly derided political scientists arguing that they are boring people who do not generate any added value. Her speech was quite convincing, and that time did not have anything (with the įsisiūbavusio party, I could not) answer all stupidly say anything, so creating an Maslo and intelligent interviewer's the chef image. Only apsiblaivęs I understand that you may be able to answer. So to tap her e-mail, which will be useful to all my colleagues when trying to explain how important and irreplaceable human beings are political scientists. Finally, I just behave according to well-known proverb, "As nepasigirsi if nothing else you nepagiria?
Do you remember (I hope), yesterday the chef apturėjome little dispute about the political scientists (not) needed. Be honest - it struck me as a launch politologiuką, offended. the chef Nepamanyk, you really do not see anger. Rather mad at myself, that so late I understand the chef what you answered. I think, at this late attempt to reassure me much, so I ask to see my letter as a little penance before me and all the political scientists of honor that time I could not defend.
I will not curtsy from diplomatic to say that you were partially right. Most have mentioned that the alleged "diplomacy" bothers the chef you - you want to talk to someone, but not with the trivial case. I see that even now the lip of yourself smiling because, let me remind you again, the diplomatic practice of political science the chef is not like that speaking is not philology. Thus avoiding the chef fatigue you chatter about politics (after all, they too deserve your mockery, but again, whether the chef there should, nothing to talk about, to laugh in whose lives take an interest and what to blame everything on, if politicians would not?) Turn to self, the political scientist.
I remember that you said that political the chef science is not. Understand political theory only (sub) worst strain of philosophy, international relations - a story that does not remember dates and events the chef and guided only by the imagination and užliūliuoja all empty chatter; na political science in and of itself - a parasite the chef on the pseudo science of the body. But is not it all around? Regardless of the apparent philosopher. Say, a lover of wisdom, or to be of any significance if you went to look around the cave, having escaped the restrictive vocabulary, elevated above the defining structures crossed the simulations and the hyper world, is not returned to his tribesmen and attempt to clear the pripasakoti and not things. Empty to his speech the chef without paying please garbiesiems citizens without public fashion and public relations knowledge. Therefore, the political the chef philosophy - the first between the philosophies.
And the historian? Is he not just a time-lagging political scientist who is afraid to talk about the present? Oh and speaking, and it is not just the mass of political fashions and prejudices or ideological mode projection of the past. It's not a secret that in the past but which then lived a chef can tell you much more than our greatest historian and the passage will certainly be fairer. What general historian should tell you about the political past, if it neplušėtų diligent political scientist and political commentator, or at least a politician who wants to wants, evaluate and analyze the political reality the chef and act it does not deteriorate over D. Easton. Or even as I ask: what is above, the present, the chef which is whether the chef or not the past, which have not, and it exists only as a memory of the previous life? How the past can not be present without the former, as the historian can not be ruled out in such a political scientist priority against himself. And even more - I doubt whether science could ever be, if not political science. After all, just as it is the main antipode, the eternal Other, looking to utilize a new approach or paradigm for access to all other sciences shows its limits the chef and possibilities.
Still, I remember you said that political scientists can always reach different conclusions - one says one thing, another otherwise. Not to mention the fact that even in the same things they are called differently. Absolutely right. But is not this the biggest political scientists happiness? After all, everyone is very individual and the individual the chef may be in this many answers to find the best, most beautiful answer, which he liked, and others, not political scientists could
No comments:
Post a Comment