Conversation between two philosophers.

 

 

1.) A parrot and a 4-year-old boy are overhearing a conversation between two philosophers. One philosopher is heard asserting that he really likes Aristotle. After a few days both the parrot and the 4-year-old start using the term “Aristotle”. The parrot seems to amuse himself uttering “Aristotle” numerous times, while the willful 4-year-old boy insists that he definitely does not like Aristotle. (Assume that it is the son of a philosopher. Also take it for granted that 4-year olds are linguistically competent, at least in a minimal sense.)

Ordinarily we are inclined to say that the parrot’s use of “Aristotle” does not refer to anything, whereas we would attribute ordinary reference to the use of the same term by the 4-year-old. (If this is not your intuition, explain why not, i.e. why does age make a difference?) Explain how Kripke and Frege would account for the case of the parrot. (Why should Kripke actually deny that the parrot’s use is not referring, since the parrot and the 4-year-old stand in the same causal relation to Aristotle?) Would they agree insofar the 4-year-old is concerned? Even though Kripke might handle the case of the 4 year-old better is his theory sufficiently precise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Solution

leaders transform the self-concepts of their followers. These leaders bridge the social and personal identification of the followers with the goals of the organisation, this way enhancing followers’ feelings of involvement, cohesiveness, commitment, potency, and performance (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).
Transactional leadership
Before the conceptualisation of the transformational leadership, transactional contingent reinforcement was considered the main component of effective leadership. This approach is characterised by a clear set of expectations whose achievement offers recognition. In this situation, followers agree with or accept the leader either in exchange of a praise or in order to avoid disciplinary action that could be taken against them (Bass B. M., 1985). When in its more corrective form, this approach is labelled as active management by exception; in this scenario, the leader is specifying not only what is considered effective performance but also what is considered ineffective performance and is monitoring for deviances or errors, correcting them if they happen (Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003).
Leader-Member Exchange
The leader-member exchange theory was developed in several phases, firstly relying on the notion of role making, then on those of social exchange, reciprocity, and equity (Deluga, 1994). This theory entails that leaders cast role expectations on their followers and provide tangible and intangible rewards if these expectations are met. Similarly, followers also hold expectations from their leaders regarding their treatment and the rewards given if leaders’ expectations are met (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Therefore, followers are not considered passive role holders but they accept or reject and renegotiate the role that the leaders prescribed. In other words, there is a reciprocal process, a dyadic exchange, in which each of the parties brings different resources to be exchanged. Over time, the quality of a dyadic exchange changes, calling for role negotiations (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.