A Counterargument to David Brook's The Prison Problem

 

David Brooks, in his The Prison Problem considers the way that the criminal justice reform is discussed. He essentially criticizes the way that this issue is addressed and he does so in a manner that while well intentioned, is not based on a realistic perspective of the problem. He makes the argument that individuals in society will often be too quick to blame the war on drugs as well as mandatory minimum sentences are the main reason behind mass incarceration. He notes that social problems are more complex than they might seem and that the obvious explanation for these problems tend to be wrong (Brooks). The latter stance is one that can be agreed upon, but despite the pertinence of his point, Brooks is an individual that does not follow his own advice. The arguments made by Brooks are not well considered because he misunderstands the diverse relationships between policy and practice.

One of the arguments that can be made against Brooks’ stance is that harsh laws are what give prosecutors the power to bring about the imprisonment of individuals in society. Brooks makes the conclusion that mass incarceration is not driven by the harsh laws in place. He bases his argument on the work of the Fordham scholar John Pfaff, who has written considerably about the way that prosecutors are the main drivers of mass incarcerations. Pfaff makes the argument that the increase in the filings of felonies per arrest, which is left to the discretion of the prosecutor involved, has been the major driver of the overall population in prison as well as new admissions to these institutions for over two decades. This is the study that Brooks bases his arguments on an suggests that rather than harsh laws being the cause of mass incarceration, it is the fault of prosecutors, who make the decision of whether or not to file any cases.

The arguments made by Pfaff in his research are importance and it is one that can be agreed upon. However, the point of disagreement is with Brooks, who draws conclusions from Pfaff’s findings that are completely wrong. This is because despite the assumption that Brooks makes, prosecutors do not exist or conduct their work in a vacuum, but are rather a part of the wider justice system. Their role in driving mass incarceration can therefore be considered to be based on the manner through which they implement the harsh laws that have been passed by state legislatures. These harsh laws tend to be aimed at not only sending individuals to prison, but also making sure that they remain there for longer periods. The mandatory minimums that are contained within these laws are the driving force behind mass incarceration because they provide prosecutors with the ability to ensure that they secure long sentences. Therefore, the removal of these tough laws and it is most likely that the charging practices of prosecutors will also be changed.

Another argument that Brooks makes is that the reduction in the number of individuals in prison for drugs crimes shows that the war on drugs did not make a contribution to the incarceration rates (Brooks). This is an argument that is quite wrong because when it comes to the problem of mass incarceration, there is the need to ensure that drug reforms are implemented. Brooks argues that drug reforms alone will not lead to a solution to the mass incarceration problem and that this problem can only be undertaken through a process involving a more diversified reform of the justice system. The stance taken by Brooks is one that fails to consider the way that the war on drugs has for the most part brought about a scenario where mass incarceration has become the norm, and that the reality of the situation is that it is far more complex. Therefore the reform of this area has the potential of bringing about real change to the mass incarceration issue.

The reality of the mass incarceration through rolling back the war on drugs would be an extremely difficult task. This is especially the case when one considers the more than four decades of practices and policies that have resulted in the mass incarceration of individuals. Rolling back these policies requires that there is a diverse range of reforms that target all types of offenses. Moreover, the impact of any reforms to drug policies will depend on the state where a prosecution is conducted. The case of the manner through which states have essentially undertaken to pass laws that are tough on sentencing has created an environment within which prosecutors leverage them in making charging decisions. Some of the states that have been rolling back the harsh laws have seen a decline in the number of new admissions in drug offenses; showing the Brooks is wrong concerning the lack of importance of the war on drugs on the problem of mass incarceration.

The impact of reforms on the war on drugs would be positive in relation to ending the problem of mass incarceration. This is especially the case when it comes to the manner through which some states, which have a prevalence of mass incarceration, could end up halving their prison populations. However, while this case is still being debated, it is important to note that a significant number of individuals would still remain in prison. In states such as New York, drug reforms would lead to only about one percent of the prison population being reduced. It is therefore important to make sure that there is the promotion of an environment within which reforms to the justice system, especially in those areas related to the war on drugs, are undertaken in order to ensure that there is the advancement of their interests of all the communities in the United States. Brooks is therefore wrong in his stance that the war on drugs has had little impact on mass incarceration. He fails to consider the way that the drug war has exacerbated the problem and led to the incarceration of individuals for felonies that would otherwise not have happened.

It is therefore critical to ensure that there is an understanding of the issue of mass incarceration from a local and state level rather than the federal one. This is because the national data that Brooks uses to make his argument are obscure at best and should be discarded. A state by state issue would greatly enhance the understanding of mass incarceration and the manner through which it has taken a toll in some communities.

The Great Recession and Government Failure

 

The article “The Great Recession and Government Failure” by Gary Becker is one that seeks to show the reasons behind market failure. It promotes the idea that market failures tend to take place not because of the actions of individuals in the private sector, but rather those of government. Market failures are considered to be a result of the irresponsible actions of government which promote a situation where there is a failure to ensure that there is the advancement of the adoption of efficient policies aimed at making sure that there is the prevention of market failures in the first place. Becker analyses the Great Recession and the government response to it which made the situation worse (Becker, 2011). The increase in government spending with the aim of stimulating the economy proved to be a massive policy failure because the process had never been tested and proven to work before. Becker proposes that it is necessary for government to undertake measures aimed at cutting spending and reducing the national debt in order to promote stable economic growth and reduce the risk of market failures in future.

The individuals that are often the most affected by market failures are the taxpayers, in addition to those who have a stake in the economy. A result of this situation is that there are not only massive losses in the economy, but there are also instances where the government ends up taking measures aimed at controlling the situation. However, most government actions tend to be undertaken based on considerable pressure to ensure that there are greater regulations over the economy. However, there is a failure to consider that it is necessary to promote the advancement of the market where there is little interference from the government while at the same time ensuring that there is maximal competition between the diverse players in the industry.

Market failures come about because of the policies that have been put in place by government. This creates an environment where players in the private industry undertake actions based on the strength of regulations that have been put in place. Under such circumstances, whenever market failures occur, Becker suggests that it is the fault of government because it is this entity which has the power to facilitate the development of strong markets through a reduction of interference in the markets. Furthermore, policies such as the promotion of the achievement of home ownership through the provision of unsafe mortgages, as seen in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government institutions, prior to the Great Recession may have been responsible for the events that led to the financial crisis (Becker, 2011).

The considerable increase in government expenditure and debt and the lack of any significant actions to curtail it has the potential of harming the economy in the near future. The massive increase that has been seen in government debt and the failure to reduce spending will end up causing market failure because the government is currently spending more than it has. It is necessary to make sure that within the next five to ten years, actions are taken to reduce government expenditure, especially in those programs that promote entitlement, and cost the government billions to fund every year. Without such initiatives, it is likely that there will be another recession within a decade, which will be extremely difficult to get out of.

Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the Great Migration to the Great Depression

 

Douglas Monroy’s Rebirth: Mexican Los Angeles from the Great Migration to the Great Depression is an extremely important book when it comes to study of the history of Los Angeles, especially concerning Mexicans in the area. It provides a clearer understanding of the experiences that Mexicans had in the twentieth century in rich and diverse ways that humanizes the experiences that these individuals had in the city of Los Angeles. It provides a means through which to show the reader the diversity of opinions concerning the various issues and day to day life that Mexicans had to experience in an environment where they were both at home while at the same time not being fully accepted as part of society. Under such circumstances, it becomes possible to draw a clearer picture of the different experiences that Mexicans had based on the cultural, political, and economic contexts of the time to show that the Mexican experience in Los Angeles is an essential aspect of the story that forms the identity of the United States today.

One of the most important aspects of this book is that it examines the way that Mexicans were essentially marginalized labor in the city. It shows that there were attempts aimed at making sure that there was the Americanization of Mexicans in the city through the development of programs that sought to bring about greater control over them. The various industries in which Mexican laborers worked sought to exert control over these individuals to ensure that they were not only forced to give up their own cultural identity, but also conform to the type of labor provision roles that American workers had conformed to. Monroy also shows that the process of coming to America and settling down in Los Angeles significantly changed the culture of Mexicans because they ended up forming a synthetic culture that essentially made these individuals practice a synthesis of Mexican and American culture. Furthermore, he shows the way that the children of Mexicans tended to become different from their parents through their delving into American popular culture.

The significant marginalization that Mexicans faced outside their homes made their homes a refuge. This is because it was a place where they felt safe in the presence of their families. However, Monroy discusses the way that the home could be a place of generational conflict, with Mexican parents often believing that their children had changed and become so different from them. This new generation of Mexican Americans sought to adapt to the best of both sides of their heritage in such a way that promoted their new identity. Furthermore, Monroy discusses the way that Mexicans in Los Angeles fought against their marginalization through their mobilization as workers. Furthermore, they sought to ensure that they created their own spaces that created a sense of home, or el Mexico de Afuera. Thus, while these individuals may have lived in Los Angeles, their continued marginalization ensured that they ended up reaffirming their nationalist ties to Mexico.

In the writing of this book, Monroy uses a blend of cultural studies and historical methodology. A consequence of this situation is that there is the use of a diversity of sources in order to develop an understanding of the Mexican experience in Los Angeles. In some chapters of the book, Monroy writes in a way that remains very close to his sources so that he is able to develop his narrative from the bottom to the top. The use of this method is critically important because it ensures that future scholars on the same subject can make use of the foundations created to further their own studies. This method can be seen in discussions concerning the position that Mexicans occupied in the secondary labor market, the generational conflicts, as well as the responses that they had towards efforts towards their Americanization.

Moreover, Monroy is able to ensure that there is the advancement of a situation where he promotes his credentials as a cultural historian. This is seen through the way that he juxtaposes different events with one another in order to enhance the arguments that he is making. An example of such a situation is where there was the promotion of the idea that the city of Los Angeles was one where individuals within ended up burning their cultural roots. This new image often failed to consider the often discriminatory and brutal past of California, such as the genocide of Native Americans in the area as well as the wrong impression that Mexicans were only recent arrivals in the United States. This significant failure on the part of the elite of the city is addressed by Monroy in such a way that enhances the need for a more critical study of the history of Los Angeles and the state of California as a whole.

Monroy’s use of juxtaposition can be seen through his analysis of two events, The Railroad Worker’s strike, and Fiesta Days. He shows that the Fiesta Days were used in order to promote a romanticized version of the history of Los Angeles through the use of parades, and decorations. However, before this event, the railroad construction workers went on strike because they demanded to have a living wage, which their employers denied them. The responses to these demands showed the manner through which Mexicans were disenfranchised. The juxtaposition that is used by Monroy shows the manner through which ethnicity or ethnic identity could play an extremely central role in the projection of the image of Los Angeles while at the same time being used as a means of relegating ethnic communities to the periphery.

In his discussion of the diverse processes of ethnic formation, Monroy seeks to show the way that Mexicans ended up becoming Mexican American. This was a process that involved coming to terms with what it meant to be Mexican. Prior to coming to the United States, Mexicans tended to identify with their respective regions in Mexico. However, once they had immigrated, all this changed because in the United States, it did not matter what region one came from. Instead, these individuals had to learn to transcend their regional identity and adopt a national one. This is exemplified in sport, where Mexican-Americans tended to identify with Mexican boxers, and this enabled them to ensure that they developed a national identity that transcended their regional ones (Monroy, 1999, p. 59). Therefore, the formation of national identity started at such every day levels as sports, where Mexicans only played in teams that emphasized their national identity as Mexicans rather than the regions in Mexico from which they originated.

In the process of painting a picture concerning Mexican Los Angeles, Monroy is able to put together the use of historical analysis and cultural theory. An example of this situation is in the instances where he seeks to discuss the generational conflicts that occurred because of acculturation. He shows that a considerable number of migrant families had to cope with a diversity of changes in their lives, including their marginalization in the workplace. Furthermore, he seeks to show the way that immigrant Mexican families ended up being weakened through the emphasis of individualized labor, which would replace family labor. The disconnection between family and labor in the new environment essentially delegitimized patriarchal authority in such a way that the younger generation felt free to be able to make its own decisions. Therefore, Monroy seeks to make sure that there is the advancement of an understanding of the manner through which Mexican families ended up changing in such a way that there was generational conflict through an analysis of the extensive documentation concerning the experiences of younger Mexicans in Los Angeles.

Monroy uses a unique approach in making sure that there is the development of the various subjects that he discusses in the book. His approach is one that ensures that there is the provision for a diversity of historical interpretations concerning the history of Los Angeles and the Mexican role in it. It further ensures that there is a rich narrative that makes it possible for new directions for scholars to understand and enhance their understanding of the early twentieth century and the manner through which Los Angeles was made richer because of its Mexican history.

What Makes Life Good by Martha Nussbaum

 

The issue of gender and social inequality is one that remains prevalent in contemporary society. This is an opinion that is expressed by Martha Nussbaum in her article “What Makes Life Good” which seeks to show that women in developing countries tend to bear the brunt of negative social attitudes. She makes an analysis of the situation in the rural areas of Gujarat in India, and follows the story of Vasanti, who has been a victim of poverty, domestic violence, and the lack of an education, which have prevented her from achieving the means through which she can be able to effectively advance socially. She comes from a poor family and because of this; she has been denied an education in favor of her brothers. Furthermore, she has been a victim of domestic violence, especially following her husband’s squandering all their little wealth and undergoing a vasectomy, which has denied Vasanti the right to have children. Nussbaum seeks to show that the lot of women in developing countries that are steeped in tradition tends to be quite difficult and that they are often victims of gender discrimination. She appeals to the reader to have an understanding of the situation that these women find themselves in, and to consider it in the context of inequality, both social and economic.

Throughout her piece, Nussbaum seeks to show that women in rural India are often victims of gender discrimination. In order to enforce her opinions, she makes use of a diversity of sources and statistics that are aimed at showing the reader the contrasts of the lives of women in two states within the same nation. She makes a comparison of the states of Gujarat, on one hand, and Kerala, on the other with the aim of showing the differences between women in these states. She makes use of such sources as, “the Human Development Reports of the United Nations Development Programme by Mahbub ul Haq”, “the Indian Constitution”, and the “2001 census” to show that women are still being left behind in some areas of the world while in others, they are advancing swiftly (Nussbaum, 2011). She compares the state of Gujarat unfavorably to that of Kerala because while the former is shown to be lagging behind when it comes to the literacy rates of women, in the latter, the literacy rates of women are at par with those of men. The same situation applies to access to healthcare, which shows that despite Gujarat having a higher rate of economic growth, it does not translate to the improvement of the lives of its population, especially women. Nussbaum uses these sources as a credible means to enforce her argument that women are still victims of gender discrimination in some parts of India based on the traditional structure of society which have developed in such a way that promotes the privilege of men over them whenever it comes to gaining access to opportunities for advancement.

Nussbaum continues with a diversity of facts and statistics concerning the discrimination of women in Gujarat in a bid to appeal to the logos. She points out that while in a state such as Kerala, girls are at par with boys when it comes to education, the same is not the case with Gujarat and the rest of India. She further makes use of statistics stating that in the state of Kerala, the literacy rates among adolescents, according to the 2001 census, is close to 100% for both boys and girls. However, in the whole of India, the literacy rates between boys and girls is 75.3% and 53.7% respectively (Nussbaum, 2011). These circumstances are extremely critical when it comes to consider the sources of educational inequalities in the country because women are thought to have lesser options than their male counterparts. These statistics support Nussbaum’s claims that despite progress being made in some states, girls in India are still behind their male counterparts when it comes to education; contributing significantly to their lack of substantial progress. 

Nussbaum also seeks to appeal to pathos, as seen through the way that in the beginning of the piece, she uses many emotionally charged words. These are aimed at creating a sympathetic image that makes the readers more engaged. Furthermore, she evokes the challenges that are associated with being a woman in India, especially one from a poor background. These words ensure that there is the creation of sympathy for these women as well as a sense of injustice concerning what they are undergoing.

In conclusion, Nussbaum begins her piece by persuading her readers that there is a problem in society that is exemplified through the discrimination of women. Her stance shows the readers that there is indeed a problem and her use of statistics drives this point home. However, she would have been more effective in her analysis if she had enforced her points based on the local Indian context, in which her subject lives, rather than looking at the situation in a Western context, which is extremely different.

Harman’s argument that logic has no special normative role in reasoning

 

The belief that logic should have a normative role is one that has received considerable challenges from a number of influential individuals. Among the most prominent of these is Gilbert Harman, who suggests that the idea that logic has a normative role is one that is essentially based on confusion. This is especially the case considering that the challenge that Harman makes is one that is rooted on the belief that individuals are capable of advancing situations where they are unable to effectively determine their stance and believe that they are correct despite the fact that they might actually have come to the wrong conclusions. Harman proposes that there is a need to consider that individuals tend to operate in a way that when it comes to considering the normative role of logic, they essentially bring together two very different aspects. These aspects tend to be quite apart and this promotes a situation where there is need to make sure that there is the development of a scenario that promotes the expansion of knowledge concerning logic. The two aspects that Harman concentrates on, namely logic and its connection to the theory of reasoning, are based on the formulation of the theory of deductive logic, and that of the theory of reasoning, both of which will be discussed in this paper.

One of the most significant arguments that can be made concerning Harman’s stance is that he essentially professes the idea that there is a difference between the logical notion of implication and the way that it can be inferred methodically. This is to such an extent that when implication and inference are viewed as separate notions, it brings about a situation where there is need to consider the naivety of these notions (Harman, 1984). This is especially considering that there are instances where individuals, rather than considering the differences between these aspects of logic, end up in situations where there is little that can be done to bring about an accurate an understanding of ideas. There are instances where inferences tend to be promoted as logic and this creates a scenario where logic ends up being looked at in a confused manner. If valid implications are not the primary norms that can be sued in the case of inference, it leads to a failure in the provision of rational norms that can be used for the development of inferences. Instead, there is an attempt to make sure that there is the revision of those canons that make up logic. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure that there are attempts aimed at bringing about the advancement of means through which there can be the separation of logical notions such as implication and inferences.

The values of this separation cannot be underestimated and it has to be conducted in a way that puts into consideration the need to show the considerable aspects such as the nature of logic or the role that it can play when it is considered normatively. Harman essentially advances the idea that it is necessary for individuals to explain the various aspects of logic, because merely stating something as being logical does not necessarily means that it should be believed (Harman, 2009). Moreover, there is need to consider that just because an idea is logical does not mean that logic is an essential aspect of reasoning and that there are instances where reasoning can take place without the need for reason. There is the advancement of the need to ensure the idea that reasoning is a more important aspect of human interaction than logic because it is through the former that the latter comes about. Thus, logic is not as relevant to reasoning as is usually assumed because under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to make sure that there is the promotion of the idea that logic is an essential aspect of the reasoning process. However, because reasoning is an entirely independent process, logic can be considered to be a means through which individuals seek to make sense of the world around them.

Additionally, a theory of reasoning is one that can be seen as a normative narrative concerning the way that individuals often undertake to make sure that there is the formulation, revision, and maintenance of their beliefs. This is especially the case when it comes to the development of an understanding of the way that individuals end up deciding which of their actions are right or wrong. Furthermore, the aim of this theory is to make sure that there is the formulation of general guidelines concerning the mental actions that they need to perform in order to bring about the best results under certain circumstances, and which beliefs that they can be able to adopt or leave behind, depending of the situation in which they find themselves. This theory is therefore one that essentially promotes the development of an understanding of the dynamic events and processes, which can be considered to be able to constitute reason from a psychological level. Harman contrasts this situation with one where the individual is faced with the idea that logic has to do with those non-psychological aspects which have an impact on the way that they make decisions concerning what to believe. A consequence of this situation is that logical rules might not be influential in the way that beliefs or any other form of reasoning come about. Instead, reasoning comes about on its own accord, meaning that individuals have to make sure that there is the advancement of the disassociation between logic and reasoning. The establishment of this way of thinking can help in bringing about a greater understanding of the workings of the mind because there will be a proper separation between the aspects of logic and reasoning that end up leading to a lot of confusion. The confusion comes about because logic and reasoning are often interchanged despite these aspects of the mind being completely different from one another.

Once this confusion has been removed from the way that individuals think, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the recognition of the inability of the distance between logic and reasoning to be bridged (MacFarlane, 2004). This way of Harman’s reasoning might be challenged through the way that he sets up the case that he makes use of to justify his proposal. An argument can be made that there is actually no confusion between the theory of reasoning and the identification of deductive logic. Instead, logic essentially has an important normative role to play when it comes to reasoning, and any consideration of confusion between these aspects is essentially quite narrow. A result is that the proponents of the manner through which belief revision take place may feel that Harman’s argument is based on a failure to consider that there are actually more sophisticated logical tools that can be used to bring about a connection between logic and reasoning. These logical tools can actually put into consideration the fact that individuals tend to have beliefs which are essential to their way of thinking. The different mental states of individuals shows that logic has a powerful normative role in reasoning and this is because individuals tend to have different ways of thinking. Thus, what one individual might consider to be logical might not be the case with another. However, despite these differences, logic still remains a prominent aspect of reasoning because it ensures that there is the advancement of ideas that individuals make use of to better understand the world around them and adapt to it. Harman’s argument is one that promotes a situation where logic and reasoning are not connected, but this fails to consider that logic plays a very important role in the mental states of individuals. Thus, when individuals operate within a scenario where they go out of the norm, they are considered to be reasoning illogically, and there are questions concerning their mental state.

There are also instances where there is an attempt to capture the various characters of reasoning where beliefs are not only accumulated, but are also susceptible to revision. Harman’s stance under such a circumstance is that these formalisms essentially rely heavily on assumptions that are mistaken concerning the normative role that logic has to play (Steinberger, 2017). In addition, he promotes the idea that there are instances where their assumptions might fall short in other ways; a sign that he considers logic and reason not to belong together, but are rather separate entities which have to be treated as such because they cannot be bridged. Thus, even when one does not agree with Harman, he raises a very pertinent point because the formal models that are made use of in the formation and revision of beliefs tend to forestall the need to ensure that there is a consideration of the normativity of logic through its being provided a philosophical account. The enforcement of the normative role of logic tends to rely too heavily on assumptions that are not grounded on solid reasoning. Instead, these assumptions end up leading to a situation where there is a reduction in the capability of individuals to come to terms with the differences between logic and the role that it plays in reasoning. The normative role of logic is one that can be better understood under circumstances where there is the reduction of assumptions concerning it, but rather the development of a situation where there is the creation of a situation where it becomes possible to look at it without the veneer of presuppositions that have come to surround it. The achievement of this goal could go a long way towards proving Harman’s stance that the normative role of logic is based on assumptions that cannot be verified and have to be considered to be a part from reasoning.

It is essential to note that in some other aspects, some philosophers can end up questioning the manner through which Harman develops his concept of the theory of reasoning. This is because Harman is of the belief that the goal of epistemology is to ensure that it has a close relationship with his concept of the theory of logical thinking            . Under such circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure that there si the creation of a situation where there is a view of justification that is viewed from the first person point of view. The general conservatism, in this case, is one that offers a principle that can be made use of to ensure that a person is given advice that he can accept. This assumption promotes the idea that there is the need to put into consideration the needs of the individual, and the way that they think in order to come up with an idea concerning their use of logic. It is a direct challenge to Harman’s way of thinking because he works on the assumption that logic and reasoning are not connected and have to be viewed differently. Individuals think very differently from one another and because of this, they make use of a diversity of logics which can be considered essential in the advancement of their reasoning capacity. That Harman promotes the idea of general conservatism in his argument for the theory of reasoning can be challenged because it involves a failure to consider the connection between independent and interrelated thoughts that individuals tend to have. Individuals are not only influenced by the way that they reason at a personal level, they are also influenced by their own societies, and this in such a way that they end up displaying a capacity of thought and the use of logic that is independent of the assumptions that Harman suggests.

The approach made by Harman is one that, despite the epistemic advice, is primarily aimed at making sure that there is a highlighting of the necessary and sufficient conditions that can help in providing a level of epistemic justification. Harman’s skepticism is essentially based on some concepts of logic and the methodology that is used using the epistemological approach, which can be put to question. A result of this situation is that Harman ends up creating arguments concerning the manner through which the concept of logic can be applied from the epistemological point of view. He makes an analysis of the way that individuals in society tend to develop very different understandings concerning the way that logic works. He is a proponent of the concept of intentionalism, and this is based on his belief that there is not phenomenal difference between experiential states without there being a difference that is intentional. Because of these circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure that Harman’s concept is understood individually and this is in such a way that they are viewed through their representational or intentional character. The perceptual experience is one that should not be considered to be individuated through its qualitative character, but should be considered through the way that it is sustained through the experience that has occurred. It therefore becomes necessary to make sure that there is the advancement of the idea that the experiential state is one that is representational in character and this is in such a way that ensures that there is a better understanding of the way that the experiences of individuals end up affecting the way that they think. The transparency of the experience is what brings about its perceptual character because the latter is not individuated. The result is that meditation does not seem to show the true nature of experiences, and only shows their external characteristics.

Harman’s assumptions concerning the nature of deductive logic and epistemology can be supported through its further development. This process is one that seeks to promote a situation where there is an attempt to show the manner through which there is a regulatory relationship between these two concepts. The conclusion made by Harman that the theories of logic and deductive reasoning are different means that there is a regulatory link between them and this is in such a way that promotes a connection between them. Therefore, it is essential to promote the idea that theoretical reasoning is aimed at making sure that there is the an accurate description of the world. This is because there is the development of an accurate representation of the world in a manner that makes use of as much knowledge as possible. There is also a conscious attempt to make sure that there is an avoidance of the use of falsehoods in reasoning out the world. These circumstances make it essential to make sure that there is the creation of a logical connection between the various states that make up the theory of reasoning.

The knowledge of the logical relationships between these states ensures that there is the promotion of theoretical thinking. This is especially the case when it comes to the logical concepts of coherence, which ends up seeming to be relevant. If an individual really believes in something, the truth of that faith ends up changing to its logical consequences. If that faith is not true, there the logical conclusion of such a situation is that it cannot be true. Moreover, in a situation where the set of proposals that an individual believes in are contradictory, these proposals end up not presenting an accurate explanation of the world, because at least one of those beliefs has to be wrong. Harman’s skepticism is one that questions the role that logic can play in in argumentation. It shows that the principles of logic tend to be related to a manner of thought that does not follow the same principles as that of other sciences.

In conclusion, since Harman makes an identification of the diverse problems that occur in the naïve view of the world according to the classic logic which provides an infallible norm for reasoning. The connection that has been made traditionally between logic and reason is quite pertinent because it ensures that there is a better understanding between the assumptions that have been made and their realities. Under such circumstances, any attempt to make a formulation of a principle that connects the logical principles with the rules that govern reasoning ends up being considered pointless because it becomes necessary to create solutions to problems as preventing inconsistencies. Therefore, the pertinence of Harman’s argument that logic has no special normative role in reasoning is one that has to be considered essential for the advancement of a better understanding of the concept of logic.