A Compilation of Essays on People and Their Personalities

THOSE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR * AG Gardiner Points to Ponder NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination We seldom know our neighbors. London city has its inhabitants and people are busy with their domestic chores. Thus people often cohabit as virtual strangers showing the least interest in knowing their neighbors. This trait as mentioned by A. G. Gardiner is being increasingly noticeable in modern towns and cities in all parts of the world.The ignorance to know people who live next door is a trait which is increasingly shared by city dwellers. The only sound is the noise generated by the fire irons and the piano which indicates that the other human being is occupying the premises. (Picture of people living in London in the 20th Century) The aloofness in relationship in city dwellers is not to be construed as pride or incivility. It is the peculiar London way of living. Each person guards his or her personal space and does not show any curiosity in knowing the other.Men have been described as lonely as oysters each living in their own shell. The life in villages are however different. People in the rural areas are inquisitive to know about their neighbors’ whereabouts and well being. Villagers do not exist as individuals but as a collective social unit. The case of people reveling (it means taking pleasure in something) has been described in great detail. The incident described is of people enjoying themselves by having a party. There are the inmates of the house we also have the guests and the merry making continues till late hours of the morning.According to Matida she had seen the revelers leave the house in a car at 4o’clock in the morning. Probably the din and bustle created by the neighbors’ was not seen in good light. The question raised is can we have fun and frolic at the cost of disturbing our neighborsâ⠂¬â„¢ peace? Is it something appropriate and sanctioned by the law or social conventions? The essayist A. G. Gardiner also brings out the differences between man and man. Each individual is different and very often we take the judgmental route in trying to ascribe reasons for human behavior.Why do our neighbors sleep so late or wake so early, There is inquisitiveness about dress and way of living. How can our neighbors’ enjoy more of holidays? Why do our neighbors not dress well or dress so shabbily? The habits of people the friends they associate with, the pets they keep often give credence to our worst fears about our neighbors. However, in most cases our fears do not have any founding are they are merely a figment of our imagination. People also have a tendency to believe the worst about their neighbors.There are misleading statements and rumor in the air giving inappropriate portrayal of our neighbors’ activities. However, when we happen to meet our neighborsâ€⠄¢ personally we find them to be different. There is nothing sinister (it means threatening) about them and our neighbors’ are human just like us. It is the game of judgment and misjudgment which lends the unfavorable opinion giving rise to prejudices and biases. However, the St John’s Wood case provides a different perspective. On the one hand there were two musicians living in a house imparting lessons to pupils on the piano.The venture of course was stared to earn a livelihood. The musical notes were construed as creation of noise and disturbance of peace by the neighbor. In retaliation the neighbor banged on tin cans to make things unpleasant for the musicians. In the first case it was effort made to earn an honest living and the musicians did not have the intention of being offensive. This leads to the need of being more sensitive to our neighbor’s needs. We have to learn to respect our neighbor’s sentiments According to the essayist a perfect neighb or is one whom we never hear except when he pokes the fire.HOW TO ESCAPE FROM INTELLECTUAL RUBBISH : Bertrand Russell NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination According to Bertrand Russell if it is important to deduce matters; we must abide by the tenets of observation. The observation of matters and things must be undertaken by us and us alone. We must not believe others blindly. All evidence needs to be tested for its credibility and validity.Thinking that a person knows things whereas in reality to remain ignorant of men and matters comes in the way of our deduction and findings. Russell has given us the example of Aristotle in a jocular manner stating that the best way for him to account for human teeth is to count them. Similarly if one is interested in knowing about the life of ‘hedgehogs’, then the appropriate course of action w ould be to find our more details about the animal by way of personal observation which can lead to appropriate deductions. There are however issues on which we have our passionate convictions..In many such cases we remain oblivious of our personal bias. Thus we become angry or frustrated when we have to face an opinion contrary to our beliefs (Say for example if we meet an atheist and the opinion given by the atheist makes us angry) The writer has quoted if someone believes that two and two are five, or Iceland is on the equator we tend to feel more of pity than anger. Persecution is used in theology (it means cruel treatment that is meted out to someone because of their race, religion or political beliefs) that is because religion is based more on opinion rather than evidence.Take the example of arithmetic and theology in arithmetic you have to have the knowledge to do things the right way in order to get the right answers. The study of mathematics is thus more logical where answer s are deduced scientifically. Religion or theology is based more on opinions of what the prophet or sages have said and are not based on credible evidence. We the people living in different lands tend to suffer form national prejudice. By national prejudice we mean that we are given to believe that our nation is the best, there cannot be any better culture, religion, social structure, way of life and the like.However, when we travel and travel extensively and meet people of foreign lands we find things to be different. The appropriate way to know about others opinion is to read a different newspaper that advocates a different ideology (beliefs or ideas). You might think that the newspaper is mad and the people believing the ideas are mad. But then again the people believing in the doctrine and the philosophy advocated in the newspaper must be also considering you to be mad, for you to be holding a different point of view and a different set of opinion.Thus there are always the two s ides of the coin. The writer has also cautioned us that becoming aware of foreign customs does not always have a beneficial effect. Read the example of China (Page 54, 2nd paragraph) where the writer says the custom amongst Chinese women was to have small feet and among the Manchus for the men was to wear pigtails. There was the adoption of custom by the conquered and the victorious which in a way shows the trait associated with intermingling of culture. The writer speaks of having an argument with a person having a different bias.Probably having such a debate will help us to know the others perception and point of view more lucidly. Mahatma Gandhi for example believed that deplored railways and steamboats and machinery and all the benefits associated with the industrial revolution. This opinion will sound as contrary to development and especially to the western ears who take the advantage of western technology for granted. In such a case it is always good to test the arguments of t he opponent party before refuting it. This helps in understanding the others point of view most admirably.The writer says that if a person has an imaginary dialogue with himself justifying both sides of the arguments trying to debate the pros and cons of the situation then he would develop a better understanding of the situation. There are no rights and wrong r answers, the arguments are more based on opinions and not verified by facts and figures. For example there can be one argument that capital punishment is a crime and should be abolished and yet another set of argument that the evil doers of the heinous crime should be hanged.Both sides of arguments has a reason and it is indeed mentally challenging and invigorating to debate the pros and cons of the situation However, we must be wary of opinions, of opinions that flatter our self esteem. For example opinions like there is no question that men are superior, or one’s nation is superior, or our values are the best or our culture has no parallels such arguments are baseless and are filled with demerits on a large scale. The rational person will be able to apply reason as to the code of conduct and justifications to such abominable code of behavior.Apart form the false sense of esteem that is floated by people and nations there is the element of fear that holds us down. Fear often originates from inventing or assuming rumors of disaster during war times or our fear of ghosts which have no practical founding. These fears pulls us down, and makes us think of things comforting like the heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies. These thoughts are the figment of our imagination the fears can take various forms and may include fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown and such specific terrors.The way out for it would be to guard ourselves against fears by sheer effort of will power. This act will help us to think more logically and rationally. Fear happens to be the main source of superstit ion and a source of cruelty. To conquer fear marks the beginning of wisdom and helps us to champion the cause of truth and make our life more meaningful and a worthier one. How to overcome fear One way is to persuade ourselves that we are immune (protected) from disaster. The other way is by way of practicing courage. The later one is more difficult as it becomes impossible after a certain point. The former is the one which is more popular.Primitive magic served the purpose of securing safety either by injuring enemies, or by protecting oneself by talismans, spells and incantations. Such believes have survived over the ages and many people believe in mascots and sorcery which later was condemned by the church. Magic however has a simple way of avoiding terror and witches were burnt for centuries. However, newer beliefs did set in and there is the concept of Gods and heroes surrounded by good spirits Plato belief that the next world being governed by the state not because they were t rue but to make soldiers more willing to die in battle makes interesting reading.It is thus important for people to learn to be more rational and scientific in their outlook and believe in the power of observation. People are to avoid being dogmatic (it means rigid) and learn to appreciate others opinion. Then the source of opinion is to be found through logical reasoning and its authenticity is to be ascribed. ON MARRIAGE Ernest Baker NOTE: Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination Summary The family has been portrayed as being a single society.There were eminent people like Aristotle who viewed the family as a federal society. The family has been divided into three distinct groups. The first group comprises the husband and the wife the second group has in its ambit parents and children and the third group consists of the master of the house and his serv ants. Thus three different societies have been earmarked by the older writers. These writers did not recognize the family as a single society. Leibniz was wiser he believed the family system contained four societies and that is the family itself inclusive of the other three groups.The nuptial society or the consortium (a group of people who work in cooperation with each other) that is the husband and the wife exists in its pure and isolated stage only during the period of honeymoon. The period is compared with Adam and Eve’s life in the garden where the individuals have a blessed time. However, the times changes and priorities change with the birth of the child. This is compared with the loss of Eden. The man has just the memory of the honeymoon period and the woman gets busy in caring for the child. Marriage however enforces strict codes of discipline, demands and its own system of education.Marriage requires adjustment of personalities (that is the husband and the wife) who have diametrically opposite personalities. A common way of life is chalked out. Marriage thus is full of delight and difficulty, disagreement and reconciliation, differences and comprises. It becomes more like a way of give and take adjustment and adoptability being called into play. The author sarcastically says that marriage is the only kind of democracy where you find debate and compromise being increasingly used to settle differences. The institution of marriage is funny indeed.There are distinct differences in preferences and life styles of both men and women. Men for instance like warm room, with windows happily and firmly shut, a good fire and a pipe of tobacco. Women love the singing air, the open window and the sight of driving clouds. Man loves to think that he is dying when he is ill women do not entertain such thoughts and are more practical. Man is always on the look out for novelty and always wishes to hear or see something new. Women face the daily chores steadily. T he writer says that women do smile at men and find them to be annoying, exciting and annoying like obstinate playboys of the human world.It is again the women who bring in stability and good sense in the lives of men. Thus we find great differences in the thinking pattern of men and women. The writer says that men and women are yoked together in marriages for better or for worse. They however have respect for one another’s differences. The man and the woman remain different in their thoughts, action and deeds. The differences persist for ever. Marriages only seem perfect only when there is identity of interests or pursuits. However, there is sympathy and sharing in plenty. Marriages succeed when partners listen to each other and report events truthfully.Common interests do bring the partners together. Communication in marriages increases when things are done together. A wife who loves music tries to influence her husband into liking music and to attending concerts and musical shows. The writer says that novelty must be discovered by pursuing common interests like travelling. These acts appear to be substitutes for comradeship, and cooperation. Marriages thus at times become less passionate and remain more like an institution. Like the monk, the couple gains more form observation and experience.The writer says that rules for marriage like it persists in monastery would create more of happy marriages. Romance keeps the marriages alive. If we ascribe divine influence in marriages then we would not just accept marriages to be a ‘human contract’. Agreement of the husband and wife is essential to the existence of marriage. The institution of marriage is however created by the divine scheme wherein we say that all marriages are made in heaven. MENDING WALL (Summary) A stone wall separates the speaker’s property from his neighbor’s. In spring, the two meet to walk the wall and jointly make repairs.The speaker sees no reason for the wa ll to be kept—there are no cows to be contained, just apple and pine trees. He does not believe in walls for the sake of walls. The neighbor resorts to an old adage: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. † The speaker remains unconvinced and mischievously presses the neighbor to look beyond the old-fashioned folly of such reasoning. His neighbor will not be swayed. The speaker envisions his neighbor as a holdover from a justifiably outmoded era, a living example of a dark-age mentality. But the neighbor simply repeats the adage.The image at the heart of â€Å"Mending Wall† is arresting: two men meeting on terms of civility and neighborliness to build a barrier between them. They do so out of tradition, out of habit. Yet the very earth conspires against them and makes their task Sisyphean. Sisyphus, you may recall, is the figure in Greek mythology condemned perpetually to push a boulder up a hill, only to have the boulder roll down again. These men push boulders back on top of the wall; yet just as inevitably, whether at the hand of hunters or sprites, or the frost and thaw of nature’s invisible hand, the boulders tumble down again.Still, the neighbors persist. The poem, thus, seems to meditate conventionally on three grand themes: barrier-building (segregation, in the broadest sense of the word), the doomed nature of this enterprise, and our persistence in this activity regardless. But, as we so often see when we look closely at Frost’s best poems, what begins in folksy straightforwardness ends in complex ambiguity. The speaker would have us believe that there are two types of people: those who stubbornly insist on building superfluous walls (with cliches as their justification) and those who would dispense with this practice—wall-builders and wall-breakers.But are these impulses so easily separable? And what does the poem really say about the necessity of boundaries? The speaker may scorn his neighbor’s obstin ate wall-building, may observe the activity with humorous detachment, but he himself goes to the wall at all times of the year to mend the damage done by hunters; it is the speaker who contacts the neighbor at wall-mending time to set the annual appointment. Which person, then, is the real wall-builder? The speaker says he sees no need for a wall here, but this implies that there may be a need for a wall elsewhere— â€Å"where there are cows,† for example.Yet the speaker must derive something, some use, some satisfaction, out of the exercise of wall-building, or why would he initiate it here? There is something in him that does love a wall, or at least the act of making a wall. This wall-building act seems ancient, for it is described in ritual terms. It involves â€Å"spells† to counteract the â€Å"elves,†and the neighbor appears a Stone-Age savage while he hoists and transports a boulder. Well, wall-building is ancient and enduring—the building of the first walls, both literal and figurative, marked the very foundation of society.Unless you are an absolute anarchist and do not mind livestock munching your lettuce, you probably recognize the need for literal boundaries. Figuratively, rules and laws are walls; justice is the process of wall-mending. The ritual of wall maintenance highlights the dual and complementary nature of human society: The rights of the individual (property boundaries, proper boundaries) are affirmed through the affirmation of other individuals’ rights. And it demonstrates another benefit of community; for this communal act, this civic â€Å"game,† offers a good excuse for the speaker to interact with his neighbor.Wall-building is social, both in the sense of â€Å"societal† and â€Å"sociable. † What seems an act of anti-social self-confinement can, thus, ironically, be interpreted as a great social gesture. Perhaps the speaker does believe that good fences make good neighb ors— for again, it is he who initiates the wall-mending. Of course, a little bit of mutual trust, communication, and goodwill would seem to achieve the same purpose between well-disposed neighbors—at least where there are no cows. And the poem says it twice: â€Å"something there is that does not love a wall. There is some intent and value in wall-breaking, and there is some powerful tendency toward this destruction. Can it be simply that wall-breaking creates the conditions that facilitate wall-building? Are the groundswells a call to community- building—nature’s nudge toward concerted action? Or are they benevolent forces urging the demolition of traditional, small-minded boundaries? The poem does not resolve this question, and the narrator, who speaks for the groundswells but acts as a fence-builder, remains a contradiction.Many of Frost’s poems can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on the creative process; â€Å"Mending Wall† is n o exception. On the basic level, we can find here a discussion of the construction-disruption duality of creativity. Creation is a positive act—a mending or a building. Even the most destructive-seeming creativity results in a change, the building of some new state of being: If you tear down an edifice, you create a new view for the folks living in the house across the way. Yet creation is also disruptive: If nothing else, it disrupts the status quo.Stated another way, disruption is creative: It is the impetus that leads directly, mysteriously (as with the groundswells), to creation. Does the stone wall embody this duality? In any case, there is something about â€Å"walking the line†Ã¢â‚¬â€and building it, mending it, balancing each stone with equal parts skill and spell—that evokes the mysterious and laborious act of making poetry. On a level more specific to the author, the question of boundaries and their worth is directly applicable to Frost’s poetr y.Barriers confine, but for some people they also encourage freedom and productivity by offering challenging frameworks within which to work. On principle, Frost did not write free verse. His creative process involved engaging poetic form (the rules, tradition, and boundaries—the walls—of the poetic world) and making it distinctly his own. By maintaining the tradition of formal poetry in unique ways, he was simultaneously a mender and breaker of walls Every year, two neighbors meet to repair the stone wall that divides their property.The narrator is skeptical of this tradition, unable to understand the need for a wall when there is no livestock to be contained on the property, only apples and pine trees. He does not believe that a wall should exist simply for the sake of existing. Moreover, he cannot help but notice that the natural world seems to dislike the wall as much as he does: mysterious gaps appear, boulders fall for no reason. The neighbor, on the other hand, asserts that the wall is crucial to maintaining their relationship, asserting, â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. Over the course of the mending, the narrator attempts to convince his neighbor otherwise and accuses him of being old-fashioned for maintaining the tradition so strictly. No matter what the narrator says, though, the neighbor stands his ground, repeating only: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. † Analysis This poem is the first work in Frost's second book of poetry, â€Å"North of Boston,† which was published upon his return from England in 1915. While living in England with his family, Frost was exceptionally homesick for the farm in New Hampshire where he had lived with his wife from 1900 to 1909.Despite the eventual failure of the farm, Frost associated his time in New Hampshire with a peaceful, rural sensibility that he instilled in the majority of his subsequent poems. â€Å"Mending Wall† is autobiographical on an even more specific lev el: a French-Canadian named Napoleon Guay had been Frost’s neighbor in New Hampshire, and the two had often walked along their property line and repaired the wall that separated their land. Ironically, the most famous line of the poem (â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors†) was not invented by Frost himself, but was rather a phrase that Guay frequently declared to Frost during their walks.This particular adage was a popular colonial proverb in the middle of the 17th century, but variations of it also appeared in Norway (â€Å"There must be a fence between good neighbors†), Germany (â€Å"Between neighbor’s gardens a fence is good†), Japan (â€Å"Build a fence even between intimate friends†), and even India (â€Å"Love your neighbor, but do not throw down the dividing wall†). In terms of form, â€Å"Mending Wall† is not structured with stanzas; it is a simple forty-five lines of first-person narrative.Frost does maintain iambic stresses, but he is flexible with the form in order to maintain the conversational feel of the poem. He also shies away from any obvious rhyme patterns and instead relies upon the occasional internal rhyme and the use of assonance in certain ending terms (such as â€Å"wall,† â€Å"hill,† â€Å"balls,† â€Å"well†). In the poem itself, Frost creates two distinct characters who have different ideas about what exactly makes a person a good neighbor. The narrator deplores his neighbor’s preoccupation with repairing the wall; he views it as old-fashioned and even archaic.After all, he quips, his apples are not going to invade the property of his neighbor’s pinecones. Moreover, within a land of such of such freedom and discovery, the narrator asks, are such borders necessary to maintain relationships between people? Despite the narrator’s skeptical view of the wall, the neighbor maintains his seemingly â€Å"old-fashioned† mentalit y, responding to each of the narrator’s disgruntled questions and rationalizations with nothing more than the adage: â€Å"Good fences make good neighbors. As the narrator points out, the very act of mending the wall seems to be in opposition to nature. Every year, stones are dislodged and gaps suddenly appear, all without explanation. Every year, the two neighbors fill the gaps and replace the fallen boulders, only to have parts of the wall fall over again in the coming months. It seems as if nature is attempting to destroy the barriers that man has created on the land, even as man continues to repair the barriers, simply out of habit and tradition.Ironically, while the narrator seems to begrudge the annual repairing of the wall, Frost subtley points out that the narrator is actually more active than the neighbor. It is the narrator who selects the day for mending and informs his neighbor across the property. Moreover, the narrator himself walks along the wall at other poin ts during the year in order to repair the damage that has been done by local hunters. Despite his skeptical attitude, it seems that the narrator is even more tied to the tradition of wall-mending than his neighbor.Perhaps his skeptical questions and quips can then be read as an attempt to justify his own behavior to himself. While he chooses to present himself as a modern man, far beyond old-fashioned traditions, the narrator is really no different from his neighbor: he too clings to the concept of property and division, of ownership and individuality. Ultimately, the presence of the wall between the properties does ensure a quality relationship between the two neighbors.By maintaining the division between the properties, the narrator and his neighbor are able to maintain their individuality and personal identity as farmers: one of apple trees, and one of pine trees. Moreover, the annual act of mending the wall also provides an opportunity for the two men to interact and communicate with each other, an event that might not otherwise occur in an isolated rural environment. The act of meeting to repair the wall allows the two men to develop their relationship and the overall community far more than if each maintained their isolation on separate properties.

Rhetorical Anaylsis

Jorden House-Hay Rhetorical Analysis- Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor I chose Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor, by Garret Hardin, to analyze because, out of all the readings I have ever done for English, this particular one is by far the most memorable. It is also perfectly suited for my argument, because it is appropriately as offensive as it is logical. The essay, in short, is a rhetorical argument that claims that helping the poor or unfortunate people of the world-though it is considered the â€Å"right† thing to do- is, in actuality, harmful to the very future of our species. The actual message of the essay, however, is not what I want to endorse. When this essay was assigned to my class junior year, the almost overwhelming reaction was immediately a dismissal of the essay’s content, even though we had only so far been given the title. This can be attributed to the modern sense of morality regarding charity, or what the â€Å"politically right† thing to do is; my classmates were so outraged by the idea of not helping the poor that they formed their opinion before even being presented with the argument. This reaction- sensibility before rationality- is what I wish to argue against. I think that this takes place a lot in society, with public support unanimously given to the general agreement of what is â€Å"morally right†, even though what is considered â€Å"morally right† today may not actually be a good thing at all, and is arbitrary at that; different generations and societies over time- and even different cultures in the same time period- can have totally different views on what is moral and what is not. Therefore, there should always be, for the sake of intellectual purity, a detachment of sensibility from logic, especially regarding major decisions that can affect the entire country, or even the entire world. The essay is crude in terms of the modern western sense of morality, yes, but it is also very logically sound in a lot of ways, and worth at least dissection for truth before dismissal. So my purpose, or what I want to demonstrate in my analysis, is to show that just because something is offensive does not mean it is automatically incorrect. In regards to the essay, I am going to be analyzing the ways the argument against helping the poor is constructed, and why it is written at all. For my purpose, it is essential to my point- that something morally â€Å"wrong† can still have merit- that I demonstrate clearly that the argument Hardin makes is well thought out, written for a legitimate reason, and, above all, logically sound. In order to make my case, I think it is necessary for me to prove that Hardin did his research, and is writing the essay not just to offend people or get a reaction, but out of genuine concern and actual belief in what he is saying. This is important because when the essay was released in 1974, it did indeed generate a public reaction, and was published in a well-known magazine, Psychology Today, so the argument can be made that Hardin wrote the essay for the singular reason of getting attention and provoking people, which, if true, would debase everything I am trying to prove in regards to its validity. My goal in analyzing, then, is to provide enough rhetorical evidence of the legitimacy of Hardin’s argument that my own argument is subsequently well supported. To prove that Hardin’s argument- and therefore my argument- is legitimate, I am going to analyze four major rhetorical devices he uses to help deliver his message. The first, and arguably most prominent, of these devices is metaphor. Hardin constructs the world in terms of an ocean, with its people floating in it. Wealth, in this metaphor, is a lifeboat, or safety, while poverty is being stranded in the ocean, unprotected from almost certain death. The second device is logos; Hardin uses fact based evidence and logical appeal in his argument as opposed to emotional appeal or personal accreditation. A third major device found throughout the text is refutation; frequently, Hardin addresses opponent’s arguments to his own points, and then ably refutes them. The final major device I will describe that Hardin employs is specific example; instead of just talking in general terms, Hardin uses specific examples of policies and perceptions that were current at the time of the essay. I chose these devices to analyze in the essay because I think they are the most prevalent, and that together they provide very solid evidence that Hardin makes a sound argument. The first device, metaphor, is brilliant in the respect that it takes a complicated, general principle, and simplifies it down to a specific and easily understandable scenario, which in turn makes the point Hardin is trying to make more easily grasped. Hardin sets up the metaphor as this: a lifeboat has a capacity of sixty people, and this safety is related to wealth. So, a lifeboat is the rich nations, and all around it in the water are the poor people of the world. There are fifty people in the lifeboat, according to the metaphor, so that leaves room for ten more. The dilemma, however, is that there are significantly more than ten people that need to be saved. This is the basis of Hardin’s whole argument; it is considered morally right to help the people in the water, or the poor people in the world, but given the situation helping them all is just not possible; to do so would mean the demise of us all, just like letting one hundred people on a lifeboat that can afford ten, at the very most (Hardin actually demonstrates that even this is too much due to the need for â€Å"excess capacity† as a safety measure against disease and famine, but for the purpose of the paper I will not go into too much detail about that), will inevitably swamp it and save no one. Thus, Hardin’s argument is made clear; if we help the needy, we will all die in the long run, and in the short run suffer resultant consequences. This metaphor is used throughout the paper in addition to Hardin’s support to make the message perfectly clear†¦ for example, in addressing the guilt factor of ignoring the needs of the â€Å"drowning† people, he memorably states â€Å"Get out and yield your place to others. The point he makes is that short of switching places with a poor person, there is almost nothing we can do to help people that will not do more damage than good, so for reasons of absolute necessity we must be, to the appropriate extent, callous. While metaphor serves to make his argument clearer, Hardin’s other devices work to give it logical and fact based support. The next device, logos, is a prime method Hardin uses to support the essay. He argues from evidence, and logic, not emotion, and thus his information, which relies on the established credibility of others, cannot be refuted on basis of opinion, as the essay without evidence would almost certainly be handled that way. For example, in arguing that the population of poorer nations is increasing much faster than the richer nations, he uses actual data amongst his argument: â€Å"As of 1973, the U. S had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by . 08 percent per year†¦ [poor nations] are increasing at a rate of 3. 3 percent per year. Using real evidence, he makes his point that poor reproduce faster in modern times, supports it with evidence, and then logically feeds the information back into his argument, again using the metaphor for clarification: not only are there more people in need of help-getting on the life boat- than we can afford to help, the numbers of the needy are creasing substantially faster, and the amount of people we cant afford to help is growing, making it necessary to become even more callous, or as Hardin puts it â€Å"The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher†. Another example of this is in reference to an actual quote made ironically by a former senior member of a corporation Hardin is criticizing. He laces the specific point he is trying to make at the time with evidence from a source that can hardly be called unfairly biased, and thus sets up the same dynamic; he states his point, backs it with evidence, and logically ties it back to his thesis, which is a classic and textbook application of logos. By constructing his argument from logic, and fact –logos-, and not just opinion, Hardin makes it significantly more reliable. The next device, refutation, is extremely important given the context of Hardin’s thesis. Stating a case against helping the poor is understandably going to cause controversy, as it goes completely against the â€Å"politically correct† system of beliefs that state the opposite: helping those less fortunate than you is moral, and admirable. So, because of the touchiness of the subject, there is likely to be no shortage of counter arguments- by addressing some of what he probably considered the major ones, Hardin reinforces his case to some of his critics before they even start criticizing. A prominent example of this is when he addresses an argument he know will arise against his point of limiting immigration. He imitates an opponent and describes their argument: â€Å"’You say that immigrants should be kept out. But aren’t we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? ’† Having addressed his opponents case, Hardin then logically defeats it; he states that if we are to operate out of an inherent sense of guilt and â€Å"pure justice†, then it follows that in the case of America, we must return all land, as well as all the assets and profit gained as a result of it, back to what natives remain. It would be very hard to find even the most liberal opponent who would endorse this solution, thus Hardin shows that we have to operate based off real world situation, and â€Å"must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point we are today†, essentially refuting the refutation and logically demonstrating that argument from perspective of absolute justice is absurd, and irrelevant. Through employing this method of refutation here, and also at other particularly controversial points in the text, Hardin shows conclusively that his argument is well thought out, and also defends it in the process, adding yet another level of validity to the essay. Finally, in order to avoid being abstract and opening the door wide for increased criticism and skepticism , Hardin uses specific, real word examples to go along with his general statement. One of these is The World Food Bank, an organization in the process of being established during the time of the essay’s publication. The goal of the organization, in short, was to provide food for people in countries that had a lack of it. This is, of course, completely in opposition to what Hardin argues we should do, and so it is a very good example. To demonstrate why a global food bank is a bad idea, Hardin attacks it from several angles. First, he debases its intention, stating that while it â€Å"appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses†, it is not as pure of motive as its lobbyists claimed it to be. He outlines that an organization like that would mean â€Å"’Billions for U. S Business’†, using the past example of the â€Å"Food for peace program† that did indeed, in historical fact, profit its creators much more than its supposed benefactors. After showing corruption in modern institution of charity, Hardin then defeats it in its own terms, or in other words he argues against it as if it was in reality pure in its intentions. He argues that helping the overpopulated poor only leads to more overpopulation, and therefore a greater demand, that defeats possibility and would ultimately deplete the world’s resources, leading to the suffering of our posterity. Here, Hardin thoroughly defeats the advantage of charity in a specific scenario relevant to his time, which solidifies his thesis and makes it much harder to refute then if he had stated it as opinion; the argument was made relatable to the current political system and functioning that Hardin wished to criticize, and by doing so he criticizes much more effectively. Reading this essay years later gives us the advantage of analyzing his statements for truth, and subsequently having a better idea as to whether his argument was a valid one or not. One particular piece of assumptive data that jumped out of me was Hardin’s prediction that India’s population would increase from what it was in his time, â€Å"600 million†, to â€Å"1. 2 billion in a mere 28 years. † Today, 37 years later, India’s population is estimated around that number. This gave me pause because, while it didn’t increase quite as fast Hardin claimed, it was close enough that it proves the population numbers he was working with and the predictions he made were fairly accurate. I do not know the extent to which Hardin was right, and how much we should trust his solution to overpopulation, but I do know based on this evidence along with the clarity of his logic and the completeness of his argument that it certainly should not be dismissed without giving what it proposes careful consideration. The reaction of my class, then, in rejecting it immediately was ill advised, and if that is at all an indicator of the habits of people in general, it can be a very dangerous thing; what Hardin claims will be a result of ignoring his advice is the suffering of our posterity and, eventually, the demise of our race and ruin of our environment. As a concerned member of an overly sensitive society, I want to urge with this essay that we consider all proposal given from every source with any sort of legitimate or fact based ethos, and that we absolutely must take on this intelligent and logical consideration in order to avoid the mistake of disregarding something that could be as serious as the subject addressed in Lifeboat ethics, especially for the poor reason of adherence to arbitrary, current morality. The fate of our country, of our children, and of the world itself could depend on it. Literal application of this essay is tricky, because it argues for a general attitude more than a specific action, and an attitude is something that you apply constantly. A great example of a way this attitude can be applied, however, is in an election of any kind, obviously including the upcoming presidential one in 2012. A literal application of this essay would be to encourage people to really analyze what the country needs and what a candidate offers without including personal and irrelevant opinion into the decision, such as whether abortion should be legal or whether the candidate offers support or disapproval to gay marriage. I understand that these are powerful issues to people, but given the state of the country I think there are definitely more important things- foreign policy and financial plans for example- that deserve more consideration. This encouragement could take place in a campaign to convince people of the necessity to logically and intelligently evaluate campaigns, or something of the sorts.

Zeus Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Zeus - Essay Example Zeus’s most ancient shrine is located at Olympia. This shrine is known for its oracles. It is the place where people celebrated the Olympic Games every four years, in his honor. The Nemean games that are held at Nemea are also dedicated to him. Hesiod does not represent Zeus as it is in the Greek mythology. According to Hesiod he is the son of Cronus. He is the sponsor of justice and the one who has crushed the titans and has successfully imposed new laws and order on the earth. While according to Aeschylus, Zeus is on the business to impose change and give the full responsibility in the hand of the men. Whereas according to Ovid Zeus he was the one who introduced seasons so that men may learn art and agriculture. Hera has been represented the goddess of feminism by many mythologists. She is the typical representation of womanhood as she represents that what exactly happens to women in the world where her powers are not being appreciated. A world where men want to be authoritative; however if women act the same way they are called greedy. She was represented in this way so that a link can be drawn between her and the suffering of the women today(HERA: Great Mother Goddess). Zeus’s rule is represented by Hesiod as both legislative and cosmic; however as long as he remains legislative his rule may be limited cosmically only for the human beings. The rule of Zeus was more of human than cosmic and therefore it failed to meet the cosmic demand. He used his power to threaten the people and other powerful beings. He was the god of the skies and had his control over the thunder. His short tempered nature has often forced him to use his power for destructive purposes. His enormous power and his control on the sky was the threat in itself for his enemies; however Zeus himself is seen breaking the conventional laws at times(Clay). Zeus is a supreme God, he mates with a number of

Concerns for the Future of Our Society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Concerns for the Future of Our Society - Essay Example Our major issue in the world is that we are not doing too well with our reputation in other countries. There are many news items and movies that are telling how we are no longer the "superpower" that we once were and how other countries are not seeing us as "good people" anymore. We need to change that because if we are to move forward in the world and help other countries, we have to learn to work with other cultures. Our greatest hope for the future will be to find a way to get along instead of destroying the sanctity of other countries. We don't have the right to go into other countries and try to force them to do what we say. We have to learn to work with them through understanding their ways and helping them to understand ours. I hope that in the future, well be able to sit together and find ways to work from the common ground. There are a lot of important issues in our world today and AIDS Awareness is one of them. Although people are able to live longer with this disease than they were in years past, it is still a concern. HIV/AIDS isn't just in our country or in Africa anymore but it is all over the world. According to Avert, an International AIDS Charity, "Russia has the largest HIV epidemic in Europe and accounts for around two-thirds of the cases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia Regions". According to the same agency, says that "it is estimated that about 2.5 million people in India are living with AIDS." When I think about this I wonder why we haven't found some kind of cure for this disease. AIDS Awareness has worked for some people and the new incidences of AIDS have decreased in many areas, but the fact still remains that it is of epidemic proportions. Although we have talked to people and informed them of the dangers of unprotected sex, many still engage in the practice.     

Climate Change Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Climate Change - Research Paper Example Extreme temperature is not suitable for sustaining life forms on earth. If the temperature rises beyond certain limits, survival of humans and animals on this earth would be difficult. It should be noted that there is equilibrium, with respect to the quantity of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide from atmosphere for photosynthesis and they liberate oxygen when the process is over. On the other hand, human and animals breathe oxygen and liberates carbon dioxide. Thus, the atmospheric content of oxygen and carbon dioxide follows a ratio all the time. However, when atmospheric temperature increases, survival of trees and plants would be difficult and thereby the ratio of oxygen with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be spoiled. In other words, the content of carbon dioxide increases whereas that of oxygen decreases in the atmosphere because of atmospheric temperature rise. Such a situation is not suitable either for humans or all othe r living things. â€Å"Deforestation is an important factor in global climate change. It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year† (Deforestation). ... In many villages women are hit the hardest by natural disasters. They often cannot swim, have fewer assets to turn to for alternative livelihoods when crops are destroyed, and have fewer employment opportunities away from the home. The perception of many villagers and local leaders is that the climate is already changing. The main problems were typhoons, unpredictable weather, and the threat of salt water intrusion from sea level rise and other factors (A report for Oxfam, 2008, p. 3-4). Floods, tsunamis, earthquake, hurricanes etc are some of the weather calamities caused by climate change problems. All these natural disasters can cause immense damage to human life and properties. The frequency of occurrence of these kinds of natural disasters has been increased a lot in the recent past. Many people believe that climate change problems are the major reasons behind it. The occurrence of unexpected weather calamities is causing huge damage to the life environment and agriculture. Huma n activities are causing huge damages to the environment. Heavy industrialization and increased automobile use result in increased use of fossil fuels. Increased use of fossil fuels causes big problems to the environment since fossil fuels have the ability to release toxic greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at the time of its burning. Land, water and air are getting polluted as time goes on because of unregulated industrialization and automobile use. Moreover, greenhouse gases have the ability to destroy the ozone layer at the top of the earth which is shielding us from the intrusion of harmful radiations from sun and outer universe. â€Å"Scientists believe that Global Warming will lead to a weaker Ozone

The Six Core Functions Performed by the Financial System Essay

The Six Core Functions Performed by the Financial System - Essay Example The set of institutional arrangements for accomplishing this task is collectively known as the payments system. Banks and other depository financial intermediaries fulfill this function thru wire transfers, checking accounts, and credit cards. Function 2. Pooling Resources and Subdividing Shares The mechanism for the pooling of funds in a financial system is done so that it could undertake large-scale indivisible enterprise or for the subdividing of shares to form larger amounts of capital. In modern economies, the minimum investment required to start or maintain a business is often beyond the regular means of an individual or even several individuals. From the perspective of firms raising capital, the financial system provides a variety of mechanisms (such as security markets and financial intermediaries) through which individual households can pool their money to form larger amounts of capital. An interesting function of a financial system is its ability to transfer resources across time and space. Serving this function are intermediaries like banks involved in financing corporate investments and housing, insurance companies and pension funds in financing corporate investments and paying retirement annuities, and mutual funds. A well-functionin

2 important issues for paralegals today licensing and unauthorzed Research Paper

2 important issues for paralegals today licensing and unauthorzed practice of law by non-lawyers - Research Paper Example For example in some states, it is regarded as a felony which can lead to a sentence of a minimum of five years, or a fine of not less than five thousand dollars, regardless of whether the unauthorized person had permission from court (Susan 2007 p 158). However, other states grant permission to unlicensed people to offer certain services such as selling legal forms, and providing common instructions and other services whereby the interest of clients may not be put at stake. They are preferred by clients because they charge lower prices than the attorneys. Blades and Vermylen (2004 p 642) observe that information technology has brought drastic changes in the legal profession. People are able to access critical information regarding legal issues from the internet. This has been a major improvement in enlightening the public regarding their legal rights. However, people are exposed to the wrong information generated by the unauthorized practicing lawyers that can jeopardize their rights. This is because both the authorized and unauthorized lawyers can post unlimited information on websites. The most risky part is where a client completes a deal in the website, where there is no interaction between the lawyer and the client. Such passive websites may be used by laymen and may not offer the correct information regarding legal matters, a problem that has recently raised concerns in many states (Tony 2004 p 227). However, secure methods such as the use of cautiously developed disclaimers are in use by lawyers in order to separate between th e unauthorized practices of law from the licensed lawyers. The use of measures for identification through the use of disclaimers have been significant in ensuring that only the authorized lawyers serve clients, but without any deals being completed in the website. They only provide general information, making it less attractive to people in the unauthorized practice of law (Blades