Hausarbeit ohne Sekundärliteratur?
Ich schreibe eine Hausarbeit über 3 Werke desselben Philosophen. Mir ist beim Schreiben aufgefallen, dass ich die Fragestellung nur anhand der Aussagen des Philosophen selbst durch seine drei Werke beantworten kann. Deshalb habe ich auch nur diese 3 Werke als Quellen verwendet. Bin ich nun gezwungen, noch irgendwelche Sekundärliteratur hinzuzuziehen, also wird das als Mangel aufgefasst, wenn man sich nur auf die Hauptwerke selbst bezieht. Denn es braucht wirklich nicht mehr als das.
(1 votes)
Loading...
“that I have the question only can answer the statements of the philosopher himself through his three works”
No, you could probably find a text from someone who treated the same question, but the philosopher knew far better than you.
What you wanted to say was “that I asked the question alone based on statements …” But you’ll only be able to yours Answer, and if this answer brings something new, you only know when you check what has already been found before you.
If you find out your answer, you learned something about the philosopher. When you check what others found out in front of you, you’ve found out how to find out if you made a contribution to science. To do this, we need to use scientific methods.
The task has been put to learn scientific work. Your result is interested in the one who has placed the task, only insofar as it helps him assess your work. Because he probably already knows a correct answer.
The task is to disclose the argumentation structure of these works. There is no need for secondary literature for this, because the argumentation structure, which is to be disclosed, is found in the primary literature. Certainly someone has done this, perhaps even many and described it differently. But the structure remains the same. There is nothing to interpret
Of course you know better what it is about; but if you ask, I will answer from my experience.
At the beginning of Wikipedia you worked there without references. The Wikia software did not yet contain any possibility for comments. I found this right at the time, because the threshold for cooperation was kept as low as possible. But high demands on information can only be met if you include the most important information already available.
If it’s not about it, it’s just about an exercise to show argumentation structure, it’s of course unnecessary. But I couldn’t know that on your question.
A high percentage of the questions here could be better answered by those who have asked the task. Only because many do not ask their question there and because many do not adequately explain their task is so much operation here.
But, of course, the threshold should be kept as low as possible on the question.
It would be good if you could confirm your opinion by others. Wouldn’t let that happen, that’s not a scientific work, but rather a criticism of the work or a review.
Thank you. I don’t think that’s going to happen. But I could create a discussion section where I present my opinion and compare it with other commentators. That would be a way
But if you say, “in Red Riding Hood the wolf eats the heroine and in the wolf and the seven hostages the wolf eats the 6 hostages. In both fairy tales the wolf is presented as evil. “That would have been a lack of knowledge and understanding, and it would be better to have another source, which also says that the wolf is misunderstood, you are not the first to come up with that he is evil.