Catharine bond hill Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Catharine bond hill - Term Paper Example According to recent research, fully 80% of all economic majors and postgraduates within the United States are men all stop this is a shocking statistic due to the fact that women comprise upwards of 60% of all college and university enrollment within the United States at the given time. Likewise, the purpose of this brief analysis will be to underscore the importance that women play within this field and draw particular inference with regards to the impacts they can have based upon the life and experience of what can only be described as an exceptional woman within the field. In such a way, the preceding analysis will seek to draw inference based upon the life of Catherine Bond Hill and the means by which women within her profession can seek to affected impacts, whom this profession specifically aims to serve, and the overall outlook and future of this profession with regards to the analysis of current and key statistics. Furthermore, it is the hope of this author that such an analys is will be the reader to an understanding of the increased importance that women should place upon the field of economics means by which they can seek to affect the quality within this field over time. ... However, as has been described, below and extent to which women began to be represented within economics is necessarily been constrained. Although it is beyond the scope of this analysis to determine whether or not this constraint is due to natural/personal choices or a systemic level of sexism within the field, nonetheless, the rate of growth that women have seen within economics over the past half-century has been abysmally low as compared to other fields of study. This very low rate of representation is something of a unique dynamic in an arena in which equality is virtually praised to have been met (Peterson 279). Whereas many professions and fields of academics aim to serve specific segments of society, the environment, science, or philosophy, is various profession and fields are generally concentric upon facilitating a key level of value within a specific community of stakeholders. Conversely, those individuals that engage in economic studies are necessarily interested in maxim izing value for each and every stakeholder within society. Such a macro view sets this field apart from any other fields. Accordingly, the need for women to be represented within it is great due to the fact that they are able to bring a unique perspective of a previously disenfranchised and ultimately silent group that represents fully 50% of the global population. In such a manner, the reader/researcher can understand the profession aims at seeking to understand and define a level of resource allocation with regards to the ever-increasing population and never-ending human demands that are placed upon finite resources (Dimand 15). Moreover, in an age of increasing environmental destruction and the impacts of global

It's FAMILY Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

It's FAMILY - Essay Example Among these authors, Nicolas Cage has tried to uphold the positive sides of a family in his film â€Å"Family Men†. In â€Å"Lottery†, Shirley Jackson talks about the cruelty and superstition of member family members. Whereas in the poem, â€Å"Daddy† Sylvia Plath disparages the conservative control of a father over a girl, Hayden appears to be confused about how to assess his father’s control as well as his care for the child. But in the story â€Å"A Good Man is Hard to Find†, Flannery O’ Connor tells about the fakery of a family member, namely the Grandmother. But she considers all men and women as members of a common human family. After all, authors present both the good and bad sides of family life and family members. They, to a great extent, reflect Charlotte’s view of the negative consequences of family. Thesis: Though family is important for human life, the authors say that it has both the good and the bad sides and some author itative family members can be harmful for other members. Like Charlotte Gilman, Sylvia is preoccupied with the harmful dominance and control of family members such as a father or a husband on a girl or a woman. In the poem â€Å"Daddy† by Sylvia Plath deals with the negative consequences of a father influence on a child. In the poem, the poet compares her father with a number of imagery, such as daddy, shoe, devil, commander of Jewish extermination, etc to portray the unhappiness that her father caused to her. She compares her father with someone protective; but obviously for her protection, this protection is dark and choking. This is evident in her use of the imagery of black shoe. Shoe protects one’s feet but its blackness means that it is a dark protection (Plaths â€Å"Daddy†). Both Charlotte and Sylvia agree that conservative attitude of family members like father and husband harmful for a woman because they make her passive and choke

Reviewing Indian Culture And Society Senarios Film Studies Essay

Reviewing Indian Culture And Society Senarios Film Studies Essay Hindi cinema has always been a major point of reference for Indian culture and society. Not only has it shaped but also expressed the changing scenarios and contours of Indias cultural and societal sentiments to such an extent that no other preceding art form could ever achieve. Hindi cinema has influenced the way in which people perceive and deal with various aspects of their own lives. Movies now portray live-in relationships, girlfriends and boyfriends, pre-marital sex, corruption, people following live and let live policy in life and family, liberal parents, colleges are depicted like dating parties and professors like friends. Of course one has to admit that it is all exaggerated and blown up, sometimes even in epic proportions, but the core idea, the crux, the central theme, comes from the society itself. Obviously those situations and reflections of life and society are exaggerated and blown up converting it all into a motion picture with elements of drama, suspense and comedy so as to attract spectators. The society and the world that we live in is changing and these changes are echoed in the cinema. Lets take the example of the humble and illiterate mother or ma depicted in the Hindi movies of 60s, through the 70s right till the 80. The ma was a female figure, an epitome of sacrifice and hard work, caring and bothered about nothing but her children. She burned the midnight oil to stitch clothes to afford two meals a day and to pay for the heros BA degree, has slowly got replaced with the modern, educated and sometimes even independent mom. The heroine who was normally a simple homely girl has now been replaced by a woman who is not only educated and bold but is also confident about her sexuality. The hero no longer falls in love with a innocent uneducated gaon-ki-gori. He has now been replaced by a simple boy next door with no palaces to live in, with human capabilities, flaws and aspirations. The result is that the audience can now easily relate with the lead characters of the film. But there is a different aspect, a different side to the coin, as well; cinema itself can herald or bring about changes in the society. It inspires fashion and crimes when people try to mimic what they see in movies, failing to realise that what they see on screen is an altered or modified version of reality that is made to look glamorous though instruments and technology and that life like cinema is not predictable. But, there are some movies that bring about positive changes as well like the recent change in the old policy followed by CBSE as a result the movie Tare Zameen Par (2007). CBSE now gives extra time to dyslexic students for their board exams. Similarly, public interest in hockey was renewed after the hit movie Chak De (2007). So it wouldnt be wrong to say that cinema isnt just a source of popular entertainment for families and individuals, but also a vehicle of social change, as it should be. Audiences like to see the familiar on screen. They like to see what they know, what they are aware of, what they believe and it is this reflection on screen that caters to the tastes and sensibilities of the masses. People derive joy, pleasure and amusement when they watch such films and therefore it is the audience that decides what goes into a film. Next it is the investor. The producer of a film would want to invest in something that would fetch him some returns on his investment and therefore they put their money in films that would make the audience happy and consequently bring in the greens for the investors. Unless a film caters to the mass audience, it will not be economically viable. The representation of women is often used as a selling point of the films. Audience likes to watch women on screen in various song and dance routines, in stereotypical images, in various costumes ( as discussed in chapter 2) and the reflection of women on screen change from time to time with changing trends in the continuously evolving society ( as discussed in chapter 3). It is true that the changing ideologies of a society have the power over what is depicted on screen and how it is depicted but another truth is the fact that the patriarchal undercurrents in our society are still the same. Women are still depicted in a way that caters to the male gaze. Women are still categorised and this has been achieved through song and dance sequences, through various forms of dress and through stereotypical images. All these factors help to compartmentalise women, turn them into a fetish leaving no room for the real woman to be depicted on screen. A cursory glance on the history on Hindi cinema and the changing trends of society and cinema leads one to believe that Bollywood has progressed over time in terms of depiction of women. Globalization and western culture has had a strong influence and a huge impact on the content films, the locations where they are shot and even the settings. But a closer examination of the films reveal that indeed there has been progress, but only in terms of technological devices that are used for special effects, locations as in they are more scenic, the films have begun to represent N.R.Is, the speech has westernised, the dresses have a modern influence and the entire aspect of film making and marketing has becoming more commercial and corporate like. It has truly become an Industry, a business. Women are still depicted or portrayed in the old moulds of feminity. Heroines are westernised, as is everything around them, but this has resulted in turning a woman into a commodity that needs to be made a spectacle of so that the film can sell well. The western influence and modernisation has led to more skin show in order to make the film commercially viable as it is now sold to Indian as well as western audiences. Mythology, religion, notions and ideas about family and tradition, cultural ethos, all of these strongly influence Bollywood and consequently the representation of women on screen. But one must understand that all these values that dictate the trends of Bollywood are ruled and dominated by the premise of patriarchy and therefore women are represented in a manner which is submissive to these values and therefore subject to control by men. The women are shown in subordinate roles, upholding traditional values. They represent the community and are seen as repository of community values. Women authenticate a national/cultural identity. The body of the woman is the carrier of cultural signs. Symbols of marriage like the mangalsutra, sindoor etc. are fetishized.  [1]   Women are represented as prototypes, one dimensional characters as daughters, wives, daughter-in-law, courtesan, lover, widow. Such stereotypes have no personal traits, no substance in terms of character and temperament; they only exist in relation to men, to heroes on screen. They are there as foils to the male characters so as to highlight their characteristics. Feminity as it is outlined by the premise of patriarchy is more often than not adhered to in Indian films. However, through an analysis of new emerging trends in Bollywood cinema as well as the parallel cinema, it becomes clearly visible that some women break this mould. There are films that portray women in bold and strong characters and sometimes even as individuals but such films are not very successful commercially. And also the answer to the question whether women in Hindi cinema are constructed so as to attract male gaze remains yes because even in those films, the heroines who played the bold, strong and individual characters were good looking and attractive, they were used in various song and dance sequences and were objectified through the use of costumes and other cinematic tools. There have been attempts to emancipate women from the constraining stereotypical moulds through representation of strong women characters in powerful roles in mainstream cinema but they have been only partially successful because those films were made but they werent very successful. The art movies or parallel cinema as they call it, emerging in the 1970s, avoided objectifying women, and focussed on showcasing the prevalent oppression and exploitation of women in our society. But the overriding themes, ideologies and concepts of religion, culture and tradition have a very strong foothold when it comes to Hindi cinema and they entrap representation of women in fixed moulds of stereotypes strengthened by patriarchy. Events seldom catapult women characters of Indian cinema to a white-hot spotlight. They are dumped into the quagmires of tension-packed fireworks of the home-prison or the ambitious exploitations of healers and killers, lovers and betrayers. The women are shown as having no spheres of their own, no independent identity, no living space. They go down in collective memory as organic imperfections, ramshackle, rickety, unhinged creations, mere fictional constructs of the fragile handle with care male ego.  [2]   Hindi films with excellent photography, picturesque locations, designer costumes and gorgeous heroines enthral and influence audiences in a manner which slowly and steadily transforms the way they think and perceive the world around them. The youth that forms a large chunk of the audience start aping what is shown in screen in terms of costumes, language, style and above all the norms and ideologies highlighted by the films. These ideologies prescribe that domestic bliss and societal recognition is achievable only through submission to the pre-established hierarchies. One of the dictates of such ideologies is that women should be submissive and subordinate to the males in family and in society in general. Films often show heroes pursuing the heroines not with poetry, as the idea of chivalry preaches, but with songs and sequences that manhandle the heroine, pestering her with antics like playing with her dupatta, pulling and pinching her cheeks, blocking her path, coming too close for comfort and sometimes even kissing her without her permission. The girl initially tries to get away from this brute but finally gives in to him and accepts his love. The marvel of marvels happens when she succumbs to such degrading antics and is won over by his charm. Is it any wonder that eve teasing is rampant in this country when films show women giving in to such demeaning and crude gestures used by the male in the film in order to court her? In case a girl is raped in a film, the girl is compelled to marry the perpetuator of such a deplorable and detestable act. The girl isnt even asked if she wants to spend the rest of her life with the man responsible for violating her physically and psychologically in such a horrendous manner and robbing her of her freedom. The woman becomes the property of the man who ruined her life. If she refuses to marry her rapist she is immediately alienated from the society and is deemed undeserving of anyones sympathy and support for she refused to marry the man who violated her and then was willing to provide for her as his wife. The perpetuator, the criminal here becomes noble and self-righteous for in the act of agreeing to marry the woman he raped hes redeemed himself. The victim, if she refuses to marry him, becomes ungrateful, perverted and promiscuous for she refused a mans offer of marriage, a man who as per the norm, could have shrugged off all responsibility towards her. Most Hindi films portray love stories between a rich boy and a poor girl or vice versa. The predictable and often repeated story line being that they meet, fall in love, encounter opposition from their respective families, communities and society and finally they get married after innumerable trials and tribulations. The rich boy who wants to marry below his station is considered noble, heroic, sacrificing and generous while a rich girl who wants to marry the poor boy is often portrayed as fashionable, independent, spoilt, pampered and bratty who desperately needs to be tamed and domesticated so as to bring her in line with what the society expects. In other words she needs to wear Indian dresses with bindi and bangles, should be able cook and serve to the family and finally should see her husband as her sole reason for existence. This she is transformed into by the poor boy who as reward gets the woman as a trophy in the end. The whole idea defies logic. Why would a rich and pampere d girl want to marry a poor boy for there are enough good men in the world with the same moneyed background? The underlying patriarchal assumption being that any man is good enough to marry a girl, rich or poor doesnt matter. A woman, in a film, who puts her aspirations, ambitions and career before family is considered ruthless and also at time unwomanly but if a man does the same he becomes noble and virtuous. If a woman does it she is to be condemned for her professional goals come in the way of serving the family and her husband but if a man does it he is doing so to provide for his family which is commendable. The double standards of the society and hypocrisy of the patriarchal ideologies promoted by films are more than evident but such films are accepted by the audiences and they go on to become hits. The same ideology and story is repeated film after film transforming the ideology into a norm that soon becomes a trend followed by the people. Wielding the camera is probably a more onerous responsibility than wielding the pen, as the visual medium is several times more powerful than the written one. Add to this the sway that tinsel towns charismatic heartthrobs have over the masses and the job of film makers as arbiters of taste and public opinion becomes that much more accountable.  [3]   The ideology of patriarchy works through the concept of female morality setting territorial limits for the whole idea of feminine identity and exposing the hypocrisy of male attitude that ultimately seeks patriarchal domination of women. A females body remains central to the societys as well as her realization of self. Patriarchy, that asserts itself through marriage, adultery and rape, works through the female body. On the other hand a female who tries to resist patriarchy uses her body to express her freedom, desire and sexuality. Powerful woman characters and their impact is eclipsed by the manner in which she is depicted as stereotypes trapping a woman in roles that submit to the dictatorial conventions of our society in the process inhibiting the qualities of a woman as an individual at peace with herself and comfortable in the world of her personal aspirations and interests. This is because a girl child in the formative years of growing up is conditioned through the process of socialization where her freedom and liberty is cut down drastically. At a very young age she learns to submit to the whims and fancies of the patriarchal society. She gives in to the tyrannies of our society and forgets all about her own emotional, social and financial needs along with her individual aspirations. Women in our society are perceived and therefore represented as inferior beings. The realities of the patriarchal society and the standards set by it make the woman under confident and make her believe that the only form of security she can achieve is through obedience to the society that terrorizes her to begin with. This ideology perpetuated by the masculine world around her makes a woman consent to the unreasonable emotional, social and financial demands made upon her, all in the name of peace, happiness, order and security.

Saving Private Ryan :: essays research papers

The book I read and am doing a presentation on is called Saving Private Ryan by Max Allen Collins. Saving Private Ryan is about the heroism of soldiers of soldiers and their duty during wartime, World War Two. This story is to remind you, the reader, that war is nothing but hell, orders on the front line can be brutal, and absurd. The story is set in Europe of 1944, as the Nazis are still advancing and taking over cities and countries. On June 6th, 1944, Captain Miller, and hundreds of other men leave Europe to accomplish one mission, Operation Overlord, also known as D-Day. When they get there, there will be a new task awaiting them. In saving Private Ryan, the same character is Capt. Miller. He is the leader of a squad of 7 men on a mission to save Pvt. James Ryan. Capt. Miller is a â€Å"to himself person†. He does not talk much when not in battle, and when he does talk, he is giving out orders. Capt. Miller played a major roll in this book. He was in charge of Company C of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, when landing on Omaha Beach. He then had to lead the 7 men on a long mission to save Private James Ryan. Private James Ryan is a very sociable person. He lost 3 brothers in the war, which is why he is getting sent home. I said he is sociable because when he was rescued towards the end, he enjoyed talking to Capt. Miller very much. He would tell stories about his childhood before he left for basic, with his 3 brothers. There were 7 men under Miller’s Command. They were Sgt. Horvath, Pvt. Reiben, Pvt. Jackson, Pvt. Mellish, Pvt. Caparzo, Medic Wade, and Cpl. Upham. They all fought against the German resistance to save Pvt. Ryan. One metaphor that was said in the novel was â€Å"Sounds like the Midnight Limited†. This was said by Pvt. Caparzo on the boat before they landed on the beaches. He was describing the boat movement as is sailed through the water. After reading Saving Private Ryan by Max Allen Collins, I would say the overall theme of the novel is heroic. I believe the overall mood of the novel is heroic because eight men took on a mission to save one soldiers life. I would say the overall mood/tone of this novel is courage.

Primacy of Survival in Life of Pi

The urgent crave to survive at all costs is known as the primacy of survival. Survival is essential for every animal, and there is no shortage of lengths they will go to in order to survive. Yann Martel’s Life of Pi portrays the theme of primacy of survival based on Pi’s determination and courage throughout his journey. Piscine Molitor Patel, known to all as Pi, is a Hindu boy who embarks on a journey to Canada along with his family and their zoo animals. Midway through his journey, the boat sinks in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and Pi is left stranded on a lifeboat.However, Pi is not alone on the raft; in his presence are a zebra, orangutan, hyena, and a fearsome Bengal tiger. Once he is aware of what happened, Pi understands that giving up on his life is not an option. This lust for survival is expressed by examining how all animals are naturally dangerous, how man will do cruel things in order to survive, and how all of our morals are lost when we feel threatened . Early on in Pi’s life, he is taught by his father that all animals are naturally dangerous.Pi’s father, who is the owner of a zoo in India doesn’t want Pi to be too comfortable around the animals at the zoo, since they could harm him if they feel threatened. In order to protect his son, he tells him â€Å"Life will defend itself no matter how small it is. Every animal is ferocious and dangerous. † (Martel, 41). This is crucial for Pi to understand, since he may think that some animals are harmless, meanwhile due to their natural instincts, they can be vicious if they feel threatened.However, after Pi’s father explains this to him he still isn’t convinced that Pi is fully aware of the consequences if he becomes too comfortable with the animals. Therefore he decides he needs to prove exactly how dangerous some of the animals can be. One day, he takes Pi and his brother to the big cats section of the zoo, to find a massive 550 pound female Be ngal tiger; the king of the jungle. He tells them how Mahisha, the tiger, hasn’t eaten in 2 whole days. Then, he says â€Å"I want you to remember this lesson for the rest of your lives† (Martel, 47). He then threw in a live goat into the tiger’s cage.With a sudden flash of orange and black fur, Mahisha demolished the goat with a single blow. Blood splattered everywhere, and Pi and his brother Ravi were utterly appalled by the sound of the dying goat. Pi himself is also an example of his father’s words that â€Å"Life will defend itself no matter how small it is. †( Martel, 41). Pi, a very skinny Hindu boy is faced alone with a hyena, orangutan, zebra and tiger on a lifeboat with no weapons. For the majority of his journey, he knows that death could be present at any given moment, but he still manages to protect and preserve himself.In certain situations, the primacy of survival of animals and humans alike can have an immensely powerful feeling, ur ging us to do anything in order to survive. This urge to survive can sometimes drive us to do cruel and unimaginable things. Pi experiences the cruelness of our hunger for survival when the boat Pi and his family are on begins to sink, and crew members throw Pi onto the lifeboat. Pi was thankful for them at first, since he thought being on the lifeboat would ensure his safety; however he wasn’t alone on the lifeboat.An adult hyena that was being shipped had managed to escape its cage and make refuge on the very same lifeboat as Pi! He soon realizes that the crew members didn’t throw him on the lifeboat to save his life, but rather as bait. Shocked, Pi says â€Å"They were using me as a fodder. They were hoping the hyena would attack me and that somehow I would get rid of it and make the boat safe for them. † (Martel, 121). This shows the extent to which humans will go to in order to survive, since there is ultimately nothing more drastic than human sacrifice. La ter on in Pi’s journey, he surprisingly runs into another lone survivor on another lifeboat.At this point in Pi’s journey, his body is severely dehydrated, and is beginning to deteriorate, which results in his loss of vision. The man on the other raft is blind as well, but once Pi begins to talk with him he is able to identify his accent as French. The man, much like Pi, hasn’t had food in days and is starving. Craving his own survival, the man attempts to attack and kill Pi for food. Pi is sure this is the end of his life, â€Å"I could feel him moving off the tarpaulin onto the middle bench and, fatally, bringing a foot down to the floor of the boat. ‘No, no, my brother! Don’t! We’re not-’ † (Martel, 283).Right before the man begins to attack Pi, Richard Parker; the mighty but weakened Bengal tiger on Pi’s lifeboat attacks the man and kills him. If it hadn’t been for Richard Parker, the man would have without a d oubt killed Pi and ate him in order to secure his own survival. Killing someone of the same species as you is sickening and cruel, but doing so to eat them is absolutely insane; something an animal would do. The truth is â€Å"We're animals. We're born like every other mammal and we live our whole lives around disguised animal thoughts. † (Morace, 1).Humans are essentially animals, but once separated from our race, faced with the possibility of death, we will do anything in order to survive. Not only will humans do unimaginable things in order to survive, their morals are all lost to a craving selfishness for survival. Pi experiences this first hand when the hyena on the lifeboat attacks the zebra and wounds it. He is initially horrified at this, but then he expresses how his sense of empathy was quickly overtaken in the fear of his own life: â€Å"When your own life is threatened, your sense of empathy is blunted by a terrible, selfish hunger for survival. † (Martel, 133).This is natural for humans, something that comes instinctualy to us. Later on, Pi feels remorse for the zebra, unlike how he felt in the moment. His instincts however could have saved his life, since he proceeded to hide once the hyena attacked instead of watching and mourning the zebra. Pi even knew that what happened was normal, and that it may have kept him alive. Before he set sail on the ship through the pacific, he learnt about this madness for survival, â€Å"All living things contain a measure of madness that moves them in strange, sometimes inexplicable ways. This madness can be saving; it’s part and parcel of the ability to adapt.Without it, no species would survive. † (Martel, 45). One may argue however that humans are different, that we should not turn into animals when we feel threatened. This is in fact false, since society is what holds us back: â€Å"Deprived of the zoo-like structures (society) that sustain them in their daily lives, humans retur n quite naturally to lives guided by basic instincts and animalistic impulses. † (Dominic, 143). Once Pi leaves society all together, he essentially becomes an animal like figure guided by instinct that only does things that are necessary for his survival. Because of Pi’s instincts, he is able to survive.Even though it may seem that Pi just witnesses these acts of human cruelty and loss of morals, he in fact suffers from the loss of morals and is extremely cruel himself. From as early on as he could remember in his life, Pi was a very strict vegetarian. Once he realized he was stranded on the life raft, he knew he would have to give up on his old habits, and that he would have to eat meat in order to survive. Pi quickly learns that he can’t be picky with the food he gets, and with his stomach rumbling of hunger, he proceeds to devour raw fish eyes, turtle blood and Pi even says that â€Å"I tried once to eat Richard Parkers feces.† (Martel, 237).He quickly learns that tiger feces isn’t suitable for humans to eat, and doesn’t attempt to eat it again. Even though it is entirely disgusting that he would do that, he didn’t have many more options. After these events it is said that â€Å"Pi also begins to recognize, much to his disappointment, that his own behaviours are becoming more animal-like† (Dominic, 143). Once Pi does realize that he is simply living off his instincts, he is surprisingly content with himself.However, on the verge of death, Pi does something that is questionable even in order to survive. One may wonder if there is anything worse that Pi could have done on his journey. The answer is cannibalism. After the man that Pi meets at sea is killed by Richard Parker, Pi actually eats some of the man’s raw flesh. Pi confesses that, â€Å"Driven by the extremity of my need and the madness to which it pushed me, I ate some of his flesh. † (Martel, 284). Having not eaten in nearly 12 day s, he even claims that â€Å"they slipped into my mouth nearly unnoticed. † (Martel, 284).This cruel, sickening and unacceptable act simply shows how we will do absolutely anything and everything in our power to survive. As a whole, the primacy of survival is thoroughly expressed within ample instances of Pi’s journey. What else could show the will to survive better than a teenage boy stranded alone on a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Nothing, except if there perhaps was a giant Bengal tiger aboard. Well in that case Pi’s journey is the ultimate story of survival, since he faced hunger, thirst and death with the king of the jungle in his presence the entire time.Along his way, Pi learned how dangerous all animals naturally are, how humans can do such cruel things, and how our morals are lost when we are threatened. Some may speculate that what Pi did to survive is just plain wrong and unacceptable. Nevertheless Pi survived a record 227 days on the dreadful Pacific Ocean before his journey finally came to a close. From Pondicherry, India, all the way to Tomatlan, Mexico, Pi had to do many undesirable things that all point to an animal’s primacy of survival.

Hobbes’ And Locke’s Political Philosophy Essay

On Hobbes’ Political Philosophy Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy presupposed that man is the self-sufficient interpreter of the facts of life and that man can correctly define what the facts of life are. Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes asserted that the knowable facts of life are only particular empirical things. Thus, Hobbes asserted that universal words, such as good and evil, are incomprehensible to man in the objective sense as rooted in reality. Because they are non-empirical and universal, they are mere names. Like the Sophists, Hobbes was also a nominalist. Moreover, Hobbes asserted that metaphysical essences and metaphysical forms do not exist. God’s attributes are merely names that man thinks would honor Him. Thus, like the Sophists, there is no natural hierarchy tied to the essences or purposes of things, but only a realm of natural causes. For Hobbes, man existed individually in a state of nature before civil government was formed. He asserted that human equality is based upon an empirical condition, namely power. Man in the state of nature was obligated only to seek Peace by self-preservation. Hobbes embraced a negative theory of freedom. There was really no law in the state of nature because the obligation to seek peace was not declared from a higher power; no one had a Bible in the state of nature to proclaim to him the will of almighty God. As one who believed in God’s existence, Hobbes’ scientistic epistemology and ontology forced him to embrace theological voluntarism. Ultimately, morals are grounded in the arbitrary will of God rather than His character. Hobbes postulated that the superior will and power are the only legitimate grounds of law.[1] In terms of what is good and evil, just and unjust, the natural man in a state of nature did whatever he reasonably thought was right in his own eyes to preserve his life. If killing another person was deemed necessary to preserve his life, then it was good and just in the sense that it preserved the peace. Thus, because good and evil, just and unjust are mere names whose meanings no one can agree on, the state of nature is a state of war, every man against every man. And because man naturally avoids the risk of harm, he arms himself to preserve the peace.[2] For Hobbes, only civil society has a supreme sovereign to give the citizens the standard they so desperately need to judge between good and evil, virtue and vice. For Hobbes, good and evil are not objective ideas rooted in reality that man can conceive and understand with his own mind. Therein is the fountain from which springs forth the conflict of individual man in a state of nature. Man, as a risk avoider, contracts with his fellow man to leave the state of nature and create an artificial civil society in which a third party will act as the supreme power. Hobbes pointed, the will of the parties in their social contract create their duties to each other and to the third party. The third party, the king, must define for the society what is good and evil, just and unjust so that the natural war of all against all will cease. The king, however, is not a party to the contract. The king has no contractual duty to the citizens, but only a natural duty to God to seek peace. The king seeks peace by deterring evildoers (the king defines who is evil) by wielding the sword and restricting free speech. Thus, any punishment meted out by the government is for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing, not retribution. That is, the â€Å"evildoer† is neither punished because he necessarily deserves it nor punished proportionally to his just desert, but because the punishment is an example to others how seriously the king takes his duty to preserve the peace. Thus, logically, the king could â€Å"rightly† punish an innocent citizen. The only inalienable right the citizens have is the natural right to preserve their life. Thus, they contracted to obey the king; they did not contract not to resist the king when being punished. In the state of nature, no man is obligated to heed another person’s opinion or power. Every person has a right to all things, to define what is good and what is evil, even to kill a person if one does not trust him. For Hobbes, the primary means of achieving peace is by creating an â€Å"artificial† society through individual covenantal relationships (Ibid, 66). In De Cive, Hobbes defined a contract as â€Å"the act of two, or more, mutually conveying their rights† and a covenant as that which involves promises that bind one to perform in the future (Ibid, 35-36). Hobbes’ political theory involves more of a social covenant idea than a social contract. But he does tend to use the two terms interchangeably, as is evidenced below, perhaps signifying both that rights are given up and that one is bound to perform in the future with the creation of civil society out of the state of nature.[3] Most assuredly, Hobbes’ political philosophy is a recipe for a tyrannical and oppressive government Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in man’s self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. In addition, because the social contract or covenant is made with each other and not with the sovereign, the sovereign has no obligation to the people that arises from the social contract. The only obligation the absolute sovereign king has is to God. In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses why a king with such absolute power â€Å"will not take all, spoil all, kill all†. Hobbes states: â€Å"[T]hough by right, that is, without injury to them, he may do it, yet can he not do it justly, that is, without breach of the natural laws, and injury against God. And therefore there is some security for subjects in the oaths which princes take†.[4] Hobbes seems to say that the king would not be seeking peace, the one obligation of the natural law, if he sought to â€Å"take all, spoil all, and kill all†. But if the king does abuse his power, the citizens have an inalienable right to resist death. For Hobbes, the citizens contracted or covenanted away their natural right to all things, but one: the preservation of life. According to Hobbes, that is the one inalienable right that men have. In essence, men contract or covenant with each other that the king may kill them if they do not perform their contractual duty, not that they will not resist when then king attempts to kill them. Although the king can â€Å"sin †¦ against God,† in no situation â€Å"is the right taken away from him, of slaying those who shall refuse to obey him†.[5] Moreover, the king has the right â€Å"to judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught†.[6] Hence, it is the sole purpose of having a civic government. On Locke’s Political Philosophy The state of nature refers to the natural pre-political state of man. Except for the fact that Locke believed man naturally is a social person in a family, he agreed with Hobbes that man is not naturally a social being. Similar to Hobbes, civil society is not natural, but artificial. In a state of nature, man was free within the bounds of the natural law and was equal in power in relation to everyone else to act as judge in his own case and controversy with anyone else. The natural law obligates man to preserve himself: to do no harm, and to preserve the community in the absence of competition.[7] Similar to Hobbes, Locke equated human equality with power. Although Locke believed in a positive view of freedom whereby man is free only within law, Locke failed to show that man could know the specifics of the natural law code and thus, he failed to show that man really possessed a positive freedom in the state of nature. Do no harm does not provide much moral guidance. In reality, like Hobbes, for Locke man possessed a negative freedom. Locke stated â€Å"state all men are naturally in†¦ is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another†.[8] Similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke believed man began his existence in a state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature is divided into two historical stages. In the first stage, man had a natural property right over his own body. Everything else was naturally held in common. When a man labored over something that was held in common, he acquired property in it. Moreover, man had a natural right of subsistence, which was regulated by spoilage. In other words, what man possessed as property by mixing his labor with it was limited by what he could consume before spoiling. The second stage of the state of nature was initiated in by the invention and use of money. With the invention of money, man could enlarge his possessions way beyond what he could consume before spoiling. Money does not spoil. Although the use of money produced the unequal division of the earth, overall, Locke argues everyone is better off: For Locke, mankind socially compacted to form civil society for several reasons: first, some in the state of nature were ignorant of the law of nature, second some were biased by the amount of property they had, third, there was no impartial judge to resolve disputes, and fourth, there was no third power to execute the law of nature. Underlying all of these reasons to form civil society is, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, man’s self-interested passion to preserve himself. Because not one theoretical or practical principle is written on man’s heart, the natural law is not written on man’s heart. Because the natural law can be known only from a lawmaker, those who are ignorant of God’s existence because they fail to apply their reason are ignorant of the natural law. For those who do apply their reason and come to know of God’s existence and the natural law, Locke claimed that they could know the natural law code as they could know the specifics of mathematics. But Locke never came close to showing that the specific moral code is capable of mathematical demonstration. Locke extremely overestimated how much moral knowledge his empiricist epistemology could deliver. Locke’s empiricist epistemology could not demonstrate in detail what was good or evil, just or unjust For Locke, man’s conscience is nothing other than his own opinion of what is right and wrong. Thus, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke was essentially a skeptic. God’s natural law governs his creatures. Although Locke wrote of God’s right and authority to rule over his creatures, Locke never justifies his assertion. Locke never demonstrated that God was anything except the most powerful being that could compel obedience through rewards and punishments. Locke’s empiricist epistemology does not allow him to draw the distinction between authority and mere power. Thus, like Hobbes, punishment for Locke was merely deterrence. Moreover, because Locke was so consumed with, and analyzed so thoroughly, the empiricist epistemology of natural law, Locke demonstrates clearer than Hobbes that scientism coupled with a belief in God leads to nothing but theological voluntarism, i.e., the law is ultimately grounded in God’s almighty will, not His unchanging character, such that God can will anything to be moral. Thus, whoever embraces an empiricist epistemology and at the same time, acknowledges God as the ultimate lawgiver, will be left with nothing but theological voluntarism. Thus, scientistic modernism destroyed the firm and unchanging foundation of civil law and the only real restraint to civil tyranny, namely, a natural law grounded in God’s eternal and unchanging character. Similar to Hobbes, the source of civil governmental power for Locke is the consent of the people. There are two natural powers that are given to civil society, the legislative and executive. The legislative power in any civil government is superior over the executive because it gives the laws to the executive. Some of man’s natural executive power is retained. This is so because man’s natural right of self-preservation is inalienable, i.e., it cannot be given over to civil government. Thus, men in civil society have a right to resist the civil government if, after a long train of abuses, their opinion on the basis of their feelings grounded in their experience is that the civil government has violated the natural law. The civil governmental authority puts itself into a state of war with the people when it repeatedly violates the natural law. Tyranny occurs when the civil government acts out of its own self-interest and does not protect the property of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is weak, however, because he failed to demonstrate that the specific code of the natural law is knowable.[9] Similar to Hobbes, Locke’s empiricist epistemology made the end of civil government empirical, i.e., the self-preservation of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is based upon the personal opinions of the people. Thus, Locke could support that notion that the civil government should tolerate every religious opinion that does not threaten the people’s physical property.[10] Moreover, Locke placed most religious beliefs in the realm of mere opinions. For Locke, only a few religious propositions were within the realm of demonstrative knowledge. Overall, Locke’s theory of religious toleration is a two-edged sword. In a sense, it encouraged theological relativism. In another sense, it allowed religious liberty, albeit seemingly equating toleration with liberty (negative freedom). Finally, if Hobbes’ political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together under one sovereign power, then Locke’s political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together by balancing their opinions with the civil government’s. Thus, contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed that a little civil resistance now and then is a good thing. Although Locke’s political philosophy guard’s against tyranny better than the political philosophy of the Sophists and Hobbes, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke’s scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in man’s self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. BIBILIOGRAPHY Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, ed. Michael Oakeshott. New York: Simon &. Schuster, Inc., 1997. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. [1]   Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (New York: Simon &. Schuster, Inc., 1997), 54-63) [2] Ibid, 72-77. [3] Ibid, 11-21. [4] Ibid, 77. [5] Ibid, 79. [6] Ibid, 76. [7] Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 283-290. [8] Ibid, 263. [9] Ibid, 290-292. [10] Ibid.

The Suffering of the Innocent in Bowling for Columbine and Iraq essays

The Suffering of the Innocent in Bowling for Columbine and Iraq essays A clear and accurate picture of the state of affairs in USA is depicted in the documentary Bowling for Columbine'. The Director and Writer of the film Michael Moore, conveys the feeling of almost all Americans of today, which is this: why are Americans so very fond of guns' Why are Americans so very fond of shooting at one another at the slightest provocation' Why are leaders advocating the use of handguns' Why are so many people killing each other; the rate of such killings being much more than the average ratio of any other developed country' For example, Canada has a similar ratio of guns per citizen, but a mere tenth of deaths due to random shootings. The director makes Americans ponder these issues and plenty more such as: why do Americans need the protection of guns' Can't American citizens live without the security blanket offered by the presence of a gun' Why does news on the television aim at focusing on violent crimes and bleeding deaths' Why does the news base its emphasis on these scenes even if the rate of crime is at a decline- the TV news coverage of violence is up by 600%' (Bowling for Columbine) The scene of massacre is the Columbine High School where there is a shoot out, and students are dead or injured. The Director Michael Moore, who plays a sharp shooting teacher in the film, returns many times to the Columbine High School to show the viewers horrifying scenes of the massacre. Two students are seriously injured and lie at the scene of carnage completely shocked and bewildered. The Director who is present at the scene makes a startling comment that all the bullets that were used in he shoot out at the School had actually been sold to the teenaged students at the rate of a mere 17 cents per bullet! The place that had sold these bullets was Kmart and this shop...