The Ten Commandments of my Method

Why I cannot be accused of being a nihilist, relativist or a proponent of cynical reason ‘When someone else does what I couldn't do I learn that my failure was a Failure of skill; and there is suggestive evidence in the failure of others that my failure Was a consequence of the properties of the field.' First Commandment is to read widely, before I make conclusions on a theory. The important thing for me is to view all sides of the subject, being inclined to deviate to what I know I have to make a constant effort to make sense of other views and try to understand the varied views on ontologism. Second commandment I realize that legal reasoning in the field of human rights comes from understanding the ontological and realizing that whatever my ontology provide a basis for why I subscribe to it. I continue reading but with the mind set of whatever I believe needs to be reacted on in a critical manner. Critical thinking has often been a weak point for me, am learning to develop it here and not take things as they are without a basis or argument for my beliefs. Third Commandment is to come down on critical analysis, here I am researching but internalizing the concepts. At this stage am asking myself questions such as, why and how I have come up with the arguments. To internalize for me is to exclude voices that may otherwise interfere with my epistemology. What is directing my sense on a subject becomes the most important thing as it leads me to my fourth Commandment Fourth commandment who am I writing for? What is it I want to put forward? So what if I write this? Does anything change? Is it for my satisfaction or it is about bringing some form of change to this world? And the audience in a way starts to guide me. Fifth Commandment: This stage is never definite but at this point is where the paper starts to take shape. I set to work on the problem in human rights and start to provide arguments that defend or refute it. Here I see myself as a force of change in the politicization of refugees, and my job here is to view how African nations can best fulfill their responsibility in the protection of the refugee. Ontology and essentialism are key for me at this stage and I know I am not a nihilist because human rights is linked quite intimately with morality and enhances the idea that human beings should be treated with the uttermost respect and dignity. It is often at this stage when critiquing on one level becomes problematic as I get deeper into essentialism. Sixth commandment: The moment there is a click, I start to write my paper. It does not matter whether I start a paragraph, or the introduction, I just write. Usually there comes a point when I stop writing and return to the internalizing, research and reading process. What is interesting is that once I have started writing, the arguments start to flow; so even after I retreat to an internalizing mode, the writing gets easier because I have already chosen a path; the ideas get clearer as I flesh them out with analogies. The reason I cannot be accused of being a relativist is that this is the point where judgment is not relative to the individuals in the situation involved. In my view if it is to uphold the dignity and respect for human rights, it does not matter what a culture is based on, the standard should be to uphold the dignity of the human being. For instance if female genital cutting is done to women, my argument would be why the woman? Does she have a say to what is done to her? Why is it that it is her and not the man? How does it affect her? Does it show dignity and respect for the human being in her? Would the man have this done on himself if there was a way to do it? These may be simplistic arguments yet the questions are driving at finding a place where the woman can be treated with dignity and respect. Seventh commandment: At this stage I am never sure whether am on the right path or pretty much staggering between subjectivism and objectivity. This is the stage where Peer reviewing is most helpful, whether it is having someone look at my work or asking people questions about what they think of my views. Intentionality becomes critical as reviewing my question provides a clear image of what I am out to do and this aligns my paper to the arguments. Reviewing the question brings me to the teleogical argument as the question for me is often the center of the paper, therefore coming back to it time and again is useful. Eighth commandment: here is where I am able to view the contradictions and criticisms that others may have about my topic. After the criticisms I have to remind myself not to crash as I am doing this with a motivation for change and not a self satisfaction mission. Criticisms am learning make me stronger and better. More to that they help me understand that I have been successful at coming up with an argument and there exist views that very from my own. So I welcome the criticisms. Ninth commandment: After the criticisms, I try to define my position, basing my legal arguments with facts. Here I am aware that my audience will have several varying positions but my work and plan is to allow them view my arguments, my position may never be clear because to take a stand in law can become problematic. At this point I try to do away with the auto poetic-ness of the law. As a human rights research writer it is imperative for me to explore the surrounding arguments- selecting a limited view of a few subjects- outside the field of law and not just focusing on a specific subject as pure Law does. My job is to present positive and negative aspects of my argument. This is a critical point in my research because if I fail to do this well then my position and the goal of the paper is tarnished. So my job is to focus on conveying a message to my audience and doing it well. Tenth commandment: Define my goals for writing and structure my writing in such a way that I am understood without trying to be verbose, using present tense and focusing on who the audience is, for instance if I am writing with the goal of presenting ideas for change my sentences will be precise and concise whereas if I am writing for the purpose of critiquing theory, my sentences maybe be longer. As I conclude my methodology, my question (ontology, metaphysics, epistemology), goals (utilitarianism, teleogical arguments, intentionality, post realism auto poetics) and audience (essentialism, structuralism, legal liberalism) stand out as the most important aspects of my research.