How is a text commentary for La primera pregunta y la segunda son las siguientes : “Explique el sentido del texto" y "analice los términos subrayados.” Explicar el sentido del texto es, en primer lugar, indicar el problema que se aborda en el mismo, y en segundo lugar, dar cuenta de por qué ese filósofo se poses the problem, and what role this problem or that idea in his philosophy. In a word: it is to contextualize the text
.
For this, we propose four distinct steps, in which we will move in concentric circles from the most abstract to more concrete:
1.
detect the problem in question. 2.
Summarize the importance of the author and the fundamental concerns of his thought .
3. Framing
work within these concerns and interests, noting its significance in the philosophy of the author 4. Lastly
position the text within the work. This would mean we had, broadly speaking, to explain the meaning of the text, we could begin to "analyze the underlined terms." This is not only to define these terms, it means being able to shape the content well and can comment even on an occasional basis, if a term can have several meanings. Not necessarily long dissertation on each end, but not enough to a brief definition, which often fails to adequately express why the author uses precisely these concepts and not others.
The third question , tries to outline a topic related to the proposed text for comment. Here you can give a few tips. Anyway, this is not the authors learned by heart, but to understand them. So, it is always useful to stop a few minutes before starting to write, and do a little dirty scheme 7, 8 or 10 most important ideas you want to convey. Once you set these ideas is also appropriate to look for relationships between them, so our exposure is orderly and consistent. Use these minutes to organize our ideas will help decisively in his statement. Think that the spell will be much easier if you write in an orderly fashion, or even before submitting your item, a brief outline progress through all the points that you'll try. Thereby to facilitate the task of correction, and get your exercise "between the eyes" that corrected, you will notice also that you are able to structure your knowledge.
The fourth question is the comparison between authors. At this point, there is a fundamental suggestion: choose the author in an appropriate manner. Surely by now you realize that they can build bridges among all philosophers. However, some are more forced than others, especially in the topic of the texts that come into evidence. This makes it easy to compare Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham (with references even to St. Augustine) that Marx or Ortega.
may be done (as long as a suggestion) matches "natural" that correspond to different times in history: Here's advice is very similar to what we gave you in the previous question. Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, Ortega (although the latter "pairing" would be much more contentious than the previous). After choosing the author with whom we compare, we can return the advice we gave in the previous question: looking for 2 or 3 and 2 or 3 different aspects (if any) that you can say that the philosophy of both converge. Engaged, as before, a few minutes to make a little diagram (you can even double column), and take it as a permanent reference for your presentation. As in the previous question, you can include your scheme within the comment. One could finish
comment (but this is not necessary nor does it appear in the entrance exams) with a brief conclusion about the importance of thinking of the author, by looking at two aspects: the influence exercised over the history of philosophy , and the author may now, quoting, if known contemporary writers who try to claim their thinking.
luck, luck and luck
