As for Jung's suggestion, I think it's a good idea and should be a part of our presentation. As to Oh's comment, we should also address points in 4) and 5), but the other elements are, as far as I'm concerned, a bit out of scope, that is too broad to be dealt with under the topic of "Mutual social relationships"; it would be better discussed under a topic, say, "Max Weber's definition of rights". My suggestion would be, thus, that we talk about "Relationship" itself in the first part of our presentation in which we discuss 'the definition of relationship', 'why mutual or social?', etc, and then move on to "Social Contract" in which we address various theories of social contract.
And finally, detailed table of contents should be left to Jung, who was empowered to do so at our meeting Thursday night.
What do you say, guys?
>In addition, we need research about 'Social contract' of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
>They have, I think, different view on Social Contract.
>
>
>> I saw some examples on Professor's Web site. I'd like to suggest that we need to charge several parts, for example, "1) Who is Max Weber? 2) Why does he try to define Rights on Constutional Law? 3) Isn't it possible to define the Rights by interpreting just the article of Constutional Law itself or by some Rule from common law? 4) Why does he add the word 'Mutual'? (*not 'Single' nor 'One-side'*) 5) Why does he add the word 'Social'? (*not 'Private' nor 'Political'*).
>> By the way, first of all, I think we need to research the front paragraphs or the behind paragraphs.
>>
>>P.S.) I'm afraid that our colleague's Web has no special place to communicate efficiently for this group working.
>
|
|
