Approach to Persuasion Essay -- Psychology

Embracing an individual’s point of view by means of reasoning, argument or entreaty is an act of persuasion. An individual is regularly confronted by persuasion throughout their everyday life. It takes place in various situations that are categorized in three sections, the appeal to emotion, the appeal to reason, and the appeal to one’s character. Furthermore, this leads to an influential aspect. It is from one’s characteristic to be influenced by persuasion, thus, to be overlooked by outside sources. This is not only found as a human speaks, but persuasion is the aim of advertisements, and political candidates who are trying to sway voters to vote for them. Since Ancient times, persuasive techniques have been observed and studied but due to its importance, physiologists formally began to study of persuasive techniques in the 20th century. The focus of persuasion is to awaken a belief by the appeal to reason, and the use of emotional appeals, and the appeals to one’s character. According to Aristotle and others who tend to echo his belief, these are three these "artistic" or "intrinsic" proofs. Aristotle calls them Ethos, Pathos and Logos. The appeals to reason - Logos is the use logical arguments, logic, rhetoric, the scientific method and proof to persuade. In contrary, the appeal to emotion - Pathos, is the use of advertising, faith, presentation and imagination, propaganda, seduction, tradition and pity for persuasion. Furthermore, Ethos is a Greek word meaning "character" that is used to describe the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation, or ideology (Reynolds). Usually the appeals to reason, and the appeal to emotion, are applied together for more efficient and faster persuasion. These methods ta... ...can be defined as "...a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviors regarding an issue through the transmission of a message in an atmosphere of free choice." Aristotle describes persuasion in three different forms: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Ethos is the persuasive appeal of ones character, Pathos is the appeal to emotion and Logos is the appeal to reason. A persuader should use these forms of persuasion, moreover, motivate them and satisfy them by introducing that what is being convinced fulfills a need. Works Cited Reynolds, Nedra. â€Å"Ethos as Location: New sites for Understanding Discursive Authority.† Rhetoric Review. 11.22 (1993): 235-338. Print. Shell, Moussa, and Mario G. Richard. The Art of Woo: Using strategic Persuasion to Sell Your Ideas. New York: Penguin Group, 2007. 2-163. Print

Undecidability in Beckets The Endgame Essay -- Samuel Becket Postmode

This paper aims to study postmodern element of undecidability in Samuel Becket's Endgame. As Butler and Davis holds, "What is different about Becket is not that he provokes a critical response ... but the protean, open-ended, 'undecidable' and inexhaustible quality of the challenge he offers" (168). Endgame like Becket's other plays is in a way that, as Wittgenstein notes, is nothing more than "language play" between characters and although there are some minor actions there are not in such a way to affect the play, moreover it is their vague utterances that make the play undecidable for the reader to make out what is happening. Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle in their An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory explain the term undecidability as: Undecidability involves the impossibility of deciding between two or more competing interpretations ... classical logic is founded on the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A and not A at the same time. The postmodern gives particular emphasis to ways in which this law may be productively questioned or suspended. Undecidability splits the text, disorders it. Undecidability dislodges the principle of a single final meaning in a literary text (232). One of the most significant and undecidable subject of the play, that perplex the reader just at the very beginning of the play, is its title. Vivian Mercier points out that, the title reminding both of the ?ending? and ?end game? in chess (117). Considering the latter assumption, it suggests that red-faced Hamm in his wheel chair is the Red King, who can only be moved one square at a time in any direction and Clov, also red-faced, is more mobile Red chess man with his unsteadily walk... ... The Norton Anthology of English Literature: . The Major Authors. Ed. M. H. Abrams. New York: Norton, 2001. 2657-84. Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. ?An Introduction to Literature, Criticism . and Theory.? 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall Europe, 1999. Hale, Jane Alison. ?Endgame: How are your eyes?.? The Broken Window: . . Beckett?s Dramatic Perspective. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1987. Mercier, Vivian. ?How to Read Endgame.? Ed. Andonian, Cathleen Culotta. . The Critical Response to Samuel Becket. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, . 1998. Pattie, David. ?The Complete Critical Guide to Samuel Becket.? London: . . Routlege, 2000. Undecidability in Becket's The Endgame Essay -- Samuel Becket Postmode This paper aims to study postmodern element of undecidability in Samuel Becket's Endgame. As Butler and Davis holds, "What is different about Becket is not that he provokes a critical response ... but the protean, open-ended, 'undecidable' and inexhaustible quality of the challenge he offers" (168). Endgame like Becket's other plays is in a way that, as Wittgenstein notes, is nothing more than "language play" between characters and although there are some minor actions there are not in such a way to affect the play, moreover it is their vague utterances that make the play undecidable for the reader to make out what is happening. Andrew Bennett and Nicholas Royle in their An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory explain the term undecidability as: Undecidability involves the impossibility of deciding between two or more competing interpretations ... classical logic is founded on the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both A and not A at the same time. The postmodern gives particular emphasis to ways in which this law may be productively questioned or suspended. Undecidability splits the text, disorders it. Undecidability dislodges the principle of a single final meaning in a literary text (232). One of the most significant and undecidable subject of the play, that perplex the reader just at the very beginning of the play, is its title. Vivian Mercier points out that, the title reminding both of the ?ending? and ?end game? in chess (117). Considering the latter assumption, it suggests that red-faced Hamm in his wheel chair is the Red King, who can only be moved one square at a time in any direction and Clov, also red-faced, is more mobile Red chess man with his unsteadily walk... ... The Norton Anthology of English Literature: . The Major Authors. Ed. M. H. Abrams. New York: Norton, 2001. 2657-84. Bennett, Andrew, and Nicholas Royle. ?An Introduction to Literature, Criticism . and Theory.? 2nd ed. London: Prentice Hall Europe, 1999. Hale, Jane Alison. ?Endgame: How are your eyes?.? The Broken Window: . . Beckett?s Dramatic Perspective. West Lafayette: Purdue UP, 1987. Mercier, Vivian. ?How to Read Endgame.? Ed. Andonian, Cathleen Culotta. . The Critical Response to Samuel Becket. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, . 1998. Pattie, David. ?The Complete Critical Guide to Samuel Becket.? London: . . Routlege, 2000.

On-Screen Violence and Children Essay -- essays research papers

Helping our children be successful in school today can improve their success in the world of work tomorrow. There are many studies and programs developed to help children behave well in school. However, I believe that in order to understand the problems of children demeanor, we have to concentrate not on creating more programs to punish that kind of behavior, but rather understand the causes which contribute to having it on the first place. We need to look behind the problem and try to figure out, where it comes from. Thousand of researches have been made trying to understand why this generation experiences behavior difficulties. The most common conclusion they have reached was that screen violence, which include TV, radio, music, games, all the entertainment involving violence and course language, is harmful and is one of the reasons young generation fail to have good manners, and involves in aggressive activities. Johnathon L. Freedman is one of those academic researchers who try to provide scientific evidence to support the notion that media violence and its effect on aggression is crucial to young children. As taking his notion for true to many people, I would argue that there is no conclusive empirical support of proving such correlation exist and there is no evidence of harmful effect to the present and future actions of the children. The evidences which support that there is any correlation (between the aggression and bad influence of children due to media violence) have failed to consider the high number of children who watch violence, the acceptance of correlation as cause, and the historical evidence of aggression which may have affected the children long before violent entertainment came into play in their lif... ... institutional organization working well. First, make sure children do well in the earlier educational process and do not miss any important knowledge which will be essential in the future. Keep in eye on the friends, and the school progress of the child. If it appears that he/she has a minor behaviour problems try to resolve it as soon as possible because if a kid gets labeled from the society as being problematic, this impression is very difficult to change. Second, a child must learn how to participate in the system of employment. Having good recommendation letters, previous experience, and good academic record will help to get a well paid job. Last, once you get a nice working positions continue to educate in the sphere of your work. Being on the top of new technology and using it in the course of you job will help succeed in the world of capitalism.

Are Liberty and Equality Compatible?

â€Å"Two Concepts of Liberty† defined the distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty. He defined positive liberty as the ability to fulfill one own potential. This Is typified by the phrase â€Å"l am my own master†. For example, if I really want to become an economist, then I would be positively free if not discouraged. Negative liberty is defined as â€Å"freedom from external constraint†. The Implications of Positive and Negative Liberty A sketch by Eddie Izard entitled â€Å"Cake or death†4 offers to people exactly that. We might think that be fully free but even the most ardent of fitness fanatics would of course pick cake. Alternatively, a feared, violent and ruthless highwayman offering you â€Å"your money or your Life†5 may illustrate the point.Assuming that we know the highwayman not to be bluffing, not even Scrooge himself would keep his money. Whilst the above two examples are possible to envisage, It Is clear that they a re not part of your average society and a more realistic example may be prudent. Many prostitutes can and do hate their jobs, however, they often have no alternative to it, even when not forced to do so. There are several reasons why a prostitute would continue to remain in the trade. A study by London South Bank University identified 9 barriers to exist including drug addiction, lack of education and social stigma.The implications are that we are sometimes faced with decisions where there is only one legalistic possible option. Indeed, a determinist would go as far to argue that we are faced all the time with decisions where there is only one possible outcome and we do not have free will at all and everything is – in principle – predicable. It is clear that we cannot mean free to mean negatively free. However, the argument that freedom Is possible becomes much less tenuous when one considers being positively free.It Is defined as the ability to maximize one's potentia l, given the current state of resources available to people. â€Å"Positive liberty Is the possibility of acting ? or the fact of acting ? in such a way as to take control of one's life and realize one's fundamental teacher, then he would be positively free if he is able to realism his aims. In short, he is able to maximize his potential. A misconception of Equality Some of the more pedantic among us could argue that equality is possible. Certainly in areas such as mathematics this is true. A simple example such as 8 +7=1 5 shows that equality can exist.However, it is very clear that this is not what one means by equality in this sense. Many would assume that perhaps equality should be defined then as the equal allocation of resources. However, in the context of animal ethics, Peter Singer argued that it this kind of equality is impossible and should not be defined as such; it seems impractical and perhaps immoral for this to be the case. â€Å"Humans have interests in mountain-cl imbing and skiing, in seeing the world and sampling different cultures. Cows like lush pasture and shelter from harsh weather.Hence to deny humans the right to travel from outside Devon would be to restrict their rights significantly; it would not be a significant restriction for the rights of cows. â€Å"8 However, to avoid complications, we shall not concern ourselves with the epic of equality between animals and humans. Despite this, it can still be applied in the context of between Just humans. For example, it is impractical or pointless to grant women the right to prostate examinations or to equally allocate cricket bats among footballers and cricketers alike. A critique of Singer's claim above could be done by using the following simple example.Imagine two people, Sam and Simon. Sam inherited a large estate, and is very wealthy, despite a lack of talent, determination or ambition. Alternatively, Simon despite being talented and ambitious received a poor quality of education a nd comes from a low income family. Although Singer has debunked the argument that equality means the equal allocation of resources, to many this would still seem unfair. However, Singer offers a counter proposal where the impetus of his argument is equal consideration. This is a broadly abstract term but can be applied to many contemporary and relevant examples.For example, laws regarding maternity and paternity leave or resolving conflict between settlers to an area and to indigenous people. Most significantly, Singer's example could be applied in the context of macroeconomics, in that whilst equality is not honeymoon with social mobility and meritocracy, it can work in close conjunction with the two. State of Nature Before examining the compatibility of the two in a society, it seems prudent to examine whether the two can be compatible without a society, in a State of Nature and synonymous to many as a dyspepsia.A state of nature is a hypothetical thought experiment designed to in vestigate what a pre-societal life would be like for people. In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes posited the claim that, â€Å"a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what e hath the will to do†9, alluding to liberty in its negative sense. He argued, that in the state of nature, liberty did not exist, because actions were hindered by fear of death and fear of the power of others. Despite saying that freedom can only truly exist under a sovereign, Hobbes alludes to liberty in the negative sense.Indeed, others have interpreted his works for people However, people are free in that they interpretation of his own work seems desperately counter intuitive. However, Hobbes has only discussed how we are not free in the negative sense. However, this may not be the case for positive freedom. We are free to maximize our potential. There is no State or Government to restrict us in any way possible. Hobbes also comments that me n are by nature equal in their powers, as even â€Å"the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger as himself. 10 One can therefore conclude that humans are free and equal in a State of Nature, an abstract thought experiment. However, this is neither desirable nor permanent. It is a poor quality of freedom and equality in that the standard. In a State of Nature being free and equal means that we are free and equal to be violent against each other and live the â€Å"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life†1 1 that Hobbes so described.Bringing abstract theory into reality We can establish that these two arguments so that liberty and equality are theoretically possible, however, the question is now is whether these arguments have practical implications. However, what does it mean to be human? Humans are naturally social beings with our own societal friendships, families and relationships. As Hummed pointed out, social contract theory is an unhelpful fiction, because social organization is natural for us is natural. Indeed, a very clear example would be that we all grow up, learn values, language and develop knowledge through parenting, and through social interaction and as a result through discipline, leadership and rules. Therefore, a state of nature must be fiction. Furthermore, equality is referred to as equal consideration, however in a State of Nature, there is no government present to â€Å"equally consider†. Therefore, one has to revert to the equal allocation of resources, and Hobbes argues that resources are shared equally, in that people have roughly the same amount of intelligence, muscle and weaponry.However, the equal allocation of resources is something this thesis is trying to revert from. A Utopia? There are three branches of ethics, utilitarianism, deontological and virtue. And in all three of them liberty and equality are highl y desirable. For example, given that Utilitarianism has its definition coined as â€Å"the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people†13, and one does not need to Justify for the purposes of this essay that liberty and equality are most often highly desirable in society.It would therefore seem prudent to examine a utilitarianism society, and examine whether liberty and equality may be possible. In Aloud Huxley â€Å"Brave New World†, a caste system is depicted with the inhabitants ranked from alpha through to epsilon. 14 Despite height, appearance and Jobs available being dependent on what class one is, each person is conditioned before birth (though that is an inappropriate word to use) and each class is perfectly content to remain in their class and does not aspire to be of any other class.Many would repulsed by this state – and whilst it seems desperately counter-intuitive, both freedom and equality can be obtained. Indeed, some would consid er the caste system to be not far short of slavery, omitting clearly not very equal. However, equality as equal consideration is allowed for, each individual conditioned with their happiness being viewed in the same equal extent that they are positively free and are able to maximize their potential in their designated class. 15 It seems then that in this example, liberty and equality are compatible.Whilst this fictitious society leaves a lot to be desired, it may be useful to have a look at how this society was reached and see if this can be paralleled in reality. The logical conclusion of capitalism There may be faults with the feasibility of a utopia as well. Huxley assumes that Brave New World is the logical end of capitalism. All activity is aimed at continued consumption, for example the slogan of â€Å"ending is better than mending†16. All obstacles to consumption are removed. Mass production, God and individualism are institutionalized. In order to maintain this freedo m, the means of production must be controlled.Utopia translates from Greek meaning â€Å"no place†. 17 Essentially, it means that it does not exist. While there are certainly parallels with society, this is not how capitalism will end, and this is for four interlinked reasons. Firstly, the notion of illogical mass production of humans is deeply concerning and a vital premise to the Huxley argument. One can quite reasonably assert the claim that this will never happen. Secondly, there is a lack of relationships, in the book the notion of family and parenthood is treated with shock and disdain, and as a result society is equal for the reasons given above.However, the notion of family and parenthood does exist, and this can have drastic consequences for the logical conclusion of capitalism. With nepotism and the accumulation of capital there is a case that there is a shift to patrimonial capitalism. However, this will be discussed in more detail later. But most importantly, the logical conclusion to capitalism does not take into consideration how human beings are not always rational. Long before the term behavioral economics was coined, Huxley assumed that â€Å"Homo Economics†18 would prevail. However, people do not always make decisions that maximize their welfare.A very simple argument will show this point to be correct; this is known as the Gambler's Fallacy. 19 When at a roulette table, people will often assume that if at a table, the roulette wheel has shown to be the color red the previous six times, then it is more likely to e on the seventh spin. However, a simple math experiment with a roulette wheel or a computer will show this to be incorrect, and statistical theory on independence provides the reasoning behind this. Even it were rational to Join this kind of society, the likelihood of this happening is not secure.A Thought Experiment With the exception of a conclusion, the rest of this thesis, will analyses and evaluate reasons why free dom and equality may not be practical in society today. A fully free state shall be assumed, and the question will be posed asking if equality can be produced as a by- product alongside. Finally, the thesis will question the aforementioned assumption in two different ways. The Assumption of a Fully Free State To many this seems like capitalism. However, capitalism is far too broad and can name suggests implies that the state is involved and does not prohibit freedom.Laissez-fairer capitalism might be more prudent as a result. We shall now assume that a fully free state but be one determined by market forces, determined by supply and demand in order for me to be positively free and maximize citizen's potential. The First Reason – How Liberty Upsets Patterns This heading is not original, it is on page 160 of Robert Nicks book â€Å"Anarchy State ND Utopia†, the heading alludes to an often quoted example of a successful basketball called player Wilt Chamberlain, which is pertinent. In this world, everyone earns exactly the same salary and money is distributed evenly.At each home game, he receives 25 cents from every person playing the game. To the customers, this seems reasonable – he is very good at basketball. If one million watch him play during the season, Chamberlain has $250,000. He has more money than someone else. 20 Let us extend the analogy further so that everyone else earns a sum of $25,000 a year. It seems that although Chamberlain may have more money than everyone else it is not a problem, because this equality can include a meritocracy and equality is defined as equal consideration.This might seem Justified because of marginal productivity theory; some would say that Chamberlain works harder and is more productive so he should receive more money than anyone else. However, there are two issues with this theory. The first is that the facts do not support it. As the recession went on bankers such as Fred Goodwin continued to recei ve bonuses, despite bringing banks to their knees. Even though they were worse than useless, hey were still receiving money despite having a negative marginal productivity theory.Despite The Royal Bank of Scotland (RUBS) going bankrupt, Fred Goodwin receives a IEEE,OHO pension from RUBS. 21 Secondly, despite Wilt Chamberlain earning ten times more than everyone else is it true that he works ten times harder in order to achieve his wealth? The answer is most likely no. In essence there is a sense of disproportion to the extent of the meritocracy. There is a clear opportunity cost; no one was forced to watch him play basketball. They could have spent their money on everything as mundane from tea bags to headphones.This presents some issues, he now has far more money than anyone else does, and this to many seems unequal. In the I-J, the staggering sums of money that footballers earn is a proponent in an argument for inequality- how can It be fair that Wayne Rooney earns more in one wee k than the average person earns in 10 years? But this is unequal. The Second Reason – Rent Seeking Economies It is necessary to delineate between two different types of economy, wealth generating and rent seeking.Wealth generating refers to ways of earning money whilst increasing the output of the economy at the same time. A quintessential example would be innovation such as Tyson vacuum cleaners. Rent seeking is defined as â€Å"when a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any of the benefits back into society through wealth creation. â€Å"22 Here, a useful example would be through a usefully entitled â€Å"The Locust and the Bee†. 23 Here, the locust is analogous to the rent seeking economy and the bee the wealth generating economy.The economist Joseph Zeitgeist has argued that rent-seeking is a large contributor to income inequality in the United States through lobbying for government policies hat let the wealthy and powerful get income, not as a reward for creating wealth, but by grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort. As Paul Grumman points out, most of the richest 1% in the world are generally not the innovators such as Bill Gates or Mark Suckering, but generally those with a much lower marginal productivity, such as Fred Goodwin or C.Douglas McMillan. Furthermore, despite these low marginal productivities, their income, (in America at least) has increased as seen in the graph below. The Third Reason – The Fall of The American Dream? As Josef Zeitgeist points out, Paul Ryan made a speech saying that despite the US Gin coefficient rising, what is really the most significant is equality of opportunity. 24 The question, is can there be equality of opportunity. It is true that the â€Å"Rags to Riches† story as examples well documented across the world with everyone from Will. . Am to Opera Winfred, but as Zeitgeist asserts, the reason they are so well documented is because they are so rare. Given that, the question is do we always have to have an inequality of opportunity, and the answer to that is yes. The first premise that all else rests on is that equality of opportunity must rest on not only a good but equal education. Given that equal opportunity largely manifests itself in a meritocracy. The second premise of the argument is that having an equal education is unattainable.Even if private schools were completely abolished, if money was spent on students exactly proportional to their needs and the best teachers were distributed around the country exactly proportional to where they should be then equality of opportunity may not work for one key reason – chaos theory. The tiniest of changes in an education can lead to drastic consequences, for example, a certain book could be pivotal in attending a place at a prestigious university. Moreover, despite a stand ardized education, differences in education at home are beyond the state's control.The First Critique Of The Assumption However, Zeitgeist says, â€Å"Markets don't exist in a vacuum†25. Indeed, they must be shaped, mainly through the laws of that country. In the USA in the government gave holders of derivatives priority over bankruptcy. This was seen in its bail out of insurer Alga to the tune of $1 ban. This creates a â€Å"heads I win, tails you lose† situation. The first reason why laissez-fairer capitalism does not work is because the way that the market exists is though legislature which undermines what laissez-fairer capitalism sets out to achieve.The Second Critique of the Assumption- The Growth of Capital in the 21st Century The idea that inherited wealth will always grow faster than earned wealth is the main impetus of Thomas Picket's book â€Å"Capital in the 21st Century'. Pickett argues that as captures in the expression r > g, where r is the rate of retu rn to wealth and g is the economic growth rate. Other things being equal, faster economic growth will monish the importance of wealth in a society, whereas slower growth will increase it. However, there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth.Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the â€Å"patrimonial capitalism†. Furthermore, demographics can influence this point. Writes Pickett, â€Å"Consider a world in which each couple has ten children, it is better as a general rule to not count on too much on inherited wealth, because the Emily wealth will divide by ten with each new generation. In such a society the people will have wealth diminished by 10 each generation. 26 Therefore, given that fertility rates are falling all over the world, this means that wealth will be more concentrated in the future. Regardless of the graph below, some people having more money than others can still be equal, and feel that Pickett makes a generalization as a result. However, he argues that people having more money often leads to a fall in social mobility and as a result, increased inequality of opportunity. There is now a event to patrimonial capitalism which is known more informally as crony capitalism.Given how equality is defined as equal consideration and social mobility is key, he argues that not only do some people have more money than others but social mobility is at an all time low. 27 Conclusion It seems that practically, in some form of Utopia akin to â€Å"A Brave New World† or in a State of Nature, the two may both be possible. However, in feasible ideologies, there are impossible. This is because how in a free society, issues. However, the link between equality being defined as equal consideration and equality as the equal allocation of resources is tenuous.The argument of chaos theory may be weak, as people may still be free in that they can maximize their positive liberty in that they can still maximize their potential. Chaos theory only affects the extent to which potential can be reached – not the other way around. In order for this thesis to be stronger, the link between the two warrants further exploration. Perhaps an exploration of Aristotle opinion on equality might be useful to unpick what equality means, as it depends how we look at equality. â€Å"Justice is equality, but only for equals, ND Justice is inequality, but only for those who are unequal†28.This needs further exploration. It seems that practically, in some form of Utopia akin to â€Å"A Brave New World† or in a State of Nature, the two may both be possible. However, in feasible ideologies, these are unlikely. This is because how in a free society, issues. However, the arguments mainly take the form of an inductive argument as shown below. 1. This example (from Nonionic) shows that und er a certain societal ideology the two are incompatible, 2. This example (from Pickett) shows the same 3. Therefore, the two are incompatible This is akin to â€Å"Black Swan Theory', identified by Massif Tale.If one sees a series of the case. Critically, its implications are that no one argument, shows the two to be inversely proportional to each other – for example, as you have more freedom, you get less equality. Whilst the arguments themselves do not prove that as the two are incompatible, they very much support the arguments. Perhaps further discourse is needed to prove – through a deductive argument – that the two are incompatible. Although the simple fact that social mobility is falling, especially as countries become ore and more privatized, implies that the two cannot work together.However, there is a dim ray of hope, as many of the arguments offer suggestions to solutions to solve these problems. Pickett himself proposes a progressive income tax of up to 80% and a global wealth tax of 2%. Furthermore, a 100% inheritance tax is something that others have suggested. 29 On the other hand, these suggestions are highly controversial and are unlikely to be enforced. Whilst, the two are compatible theoretically, on the current trajectory of society, it seems hugely unlikely that liberty will occur in society in the future.

Murray Bookchin and the Integral Community Essay

Both Locke and Proudhon speak about integrity, integrity as a person with property and skills in a society that no longer recognizes the person. They speak about natural law: the right top freedom and work, the right to function in society as a full person, not as a machine. These rights (and the duties that come with them) are a part of nature, they exist as objective realities, and hence, moral integrity is reached in coming to grips with the reality of these rights and duties: but come to grips not as a part of a state system, but as a person, since these rights predate the state and the modern economic system. Hence, both are subject to natural law, and the repository of the natural law in practical terms is the whole body of the community. Murray Bookchin takes the concept of natural law even further than both Locke or Proudhon. His central concept is that the very existence of the natural whole, the dynamic world of non-human nature, can no longer exist as an â€Å"other,† some useless lump of matter that needs to be exploited for profit. In other words, it is the violation of the natural rights of man that has led to the environmental degradation and exploitation of the modern world. The rule of capital and the central state has destroyed any sense of the rights of man or nature in a real revolutionary sense as outlined above. Instead, they have created wants and needs, and based all of his on a vulgar, pleasure-seeking utilitarianism (Bookchin, 1993, 350). Hence, the crisis we are facing, both the specific crisis of debt and foreclosure in 2009, as well as the deeper crisis of values and rights that have existed since Locke’s time, can be based to systemic causes. This means that it is the system itself that is the problem, and the values crisis is also related to the methods the current system uses to justify itself. But the truth is that natural law functions because man is not essentially different from the natural world around him. Man and nature derive from the same source and are made of the same materials, it is only man that can use technology with substantial theoretical foresight and hence, becomes a very different creature from the non-human nature around him. But this is precisely the problem, since this distinction between human and non-human nature have led to a mentality, a mentality deriving from ancient magic, that the natural world is â€Å"broken† and demands to be fixed by human work. Of course, this is just a mystification for elite rule and domination (Bookchin, 1993, 367-368). The practical effect of all of this is the development of technology that has the creation of needs and wants as its end: the creation of markets and profits. Technology and markets, in other words, have taken on a life of their own over and above the real needs of the community as well as the natural world as a whole (human’s included). These institutions, the market and technology, have long since overstepped their bounds, the bounds that natural law has created for them: the meeting of relatively simple human needs and the creation of rational mechanisms for distribution. When the market and the technological elite broke these natural bounds, the irrational and unnatural ideas of limitless development and hence, limitless profits took over and provided these things with their own world and their own rationale far beyond the much older, rational limits. Hence, the question of moral integrity is a matter of limits, and a matter of the ideas of the market or technology creating a world of their own, alienated form the communities that they were originally meant to serve. Thus, moral integrity is about limits, and the rejoining of technology to the community: in this case, Bookchin and Proudhon are in agreement. While Bookchin stresses the idea of citizenship in an integral community, Proudhon stresses man as a producer, beyond the state and in no need fo it. For Bookchin, a citizen is an integral person by definition: the citizen is someone who can balance the needs to the market, the individual and the person within a integral whole; the community legislating for itself as to what it needs and what will work in specific circumstances.

Long walk Essay

â€Å"I have no friend, Margaret: when I am glowing with the enthusiasm of success, there will be none to participate my joy; if I am assailed by disappointment, no one will endeavour to sustain me in dejection. † (Page 5) -Robert Walton -Letter 2 It relates to the theme of isolation, he believes he is too good for anyone, nobody matched to his intelligence therefore he is alone. He is also ambitious; he wants to be known for discovering something. â€Å"You seek for knowledge and wisdom, as I once did; and I ardently hope that the gratification of your wishes may not be a serpent to sting you, as mine has been. † (Page 16) -Robert Walton -Letter 4 This is foreshadowing, Victor is saying that he hopes that Walton’s thirst for knowledge and adventure not turn into ruin as his fate was before him. â€Å"Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow. † (Page 43) -Victor Frankenstein -Chapter 4 He is advising Walton to believe more in his family and town rather than to seek knowledge because with great knowledge brings great destruction if not used in the correct way. Plus to always follow life as nature will allow and to not defy it. â€Å"Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into our dark world. † (Page 44) -Victor Frankenstein -Chapter 4 He wanted to implore the fine line between life and death, this was when his curiosity into the matter began to stir. â€Å"For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart.  Ã¢â‚¬  (Page 48) -Victor Frankenstein -Chapter 5 He believed his dream to be that of beauty and accomplishment rather he created a monster of such hideous attributes that is disgusts him that he was able to create such a thing. â€Å"flash of lightning illuminated the object and discovered its shape plainly to me; its gigantic stature, and the deformity of its aspect, more hideous than belongs to humanity, instantly informed me that it was the wretch, the filthy demon to whom I had given life† (Page 69) -Victor Frankenstein  -Chapter 7 He goes on to further talk about the hideousness of the monster, he describes the horrid description in great detail, he compares his creation to the devil, thus implying bible stories. â€Å"The sublime and magnificent scenes afford me the greatest consolation I was capable of receiving. † (Page 92) -Victor Frankenstein -Chapter 10 This is a romantic feature; it describes nature, landscape and scenery and how victor feels at peace when surrounded by it. This is once he creates the mo nster and abandons it in fear. â€Å"All men hate the wretched; how then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. † (Page 95) -The Monster -Chapter 10 The Monster is explaining to Frankenstein his hurt and anguish because he left him after creating him, he relates it to god and being Adam. This is where the monster begins to feel the emotion of betrayal. â€Å"When I looked  around I saw and heard of none like me. Was I, a monster, a blot upon the earth from which all men fled and whom all men disowned? † (Page 119) -The Monster -Chapter 13 This is identity crisis, he begins to ask himself questions about who he is, he is in a dilemma within himself. â€Å"Thanks to the lessons of Felix and the sanguinary laws of man, I had learned now to work mischief I bent over her, and placed the portrait securely in one of the folds of her dress. She moved again, and I fled. The theme of revenge, the monster has now realized that he will never be accepted by humanity, so is cunning and knowledge is revealed when he tricks them into thinking Janine killed William. â€Å"I am alone and miserable: man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create. † (Page 146) -The Monster -Chapter 16 The Monster wishes for Victor to create a monster just as him, so he has a companion, this is the climax in the story. This shows that the monster understands the meaning of family and being together and that is what he wants. â€Å"I will revenge my injuries: if I cannot inspire love, I will cause fear; and chiefly towards you my arch-enemy, because my creator, do I swear inextinguishable hatred. Have a care: I will work at your destruction, nor finish until I desolate your heart, so that you shall curse the hour of your birth. † (Page 148) -The Monster -Chapter 17 This shows that if he cannot be loved by people and be part of a family, he will make people suffer and fear him, he will take revenge on those who did not like him, he is angry at the fact that victor left him and thus will destroy him. â€Å"Slave, I before reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master; — obey! † (Page 172) -The Monster -Chapter 20 What you create can always overcome you; the monster says that even though victor created him, he still has the power above him. Further depth on the theme revenge. â€Å"You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains—revenge, henceforth dearer than light of food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. † (Page 173) -The Monster -Chapter 20 Revenge is his main focus and is emphasized now, The monster is very angry and wishes to torment victor. He goes from calling him my creator to my tyrant and tormentor.

Belfast Confetti Essay

The poem ‘Belfast Confetti illustrates the aftermath of a bomb during the troubles that people in Belfast experienced. The title ‘Belfast Confetti’ is a heading that has a dual meaning. On one had the homemade bombs that the IRA used are referred to as Belfast confetti due to the nuts and bolts they put in the shrapnel. The second is more complicated. Confetti is usually used in times of celebration such as weddings, which is strange as the poem is about something completely different to a celebration. It is usually thrown over the heads of the bride and the groom, so it rains down on them. Carson may be using that title to create a metaphor; the nuts and bolts flew over the head of people just like confetti does. Carson presents the poem with widespread references to punctuation marks using words such as ‘Exclamation Marks’ and ‘Sentence’. â€Å"It was raining exclamation marks† this is trying to represent the noises made by fallin g shrapnel. Generally, exclamation marks are used when someone is shouting or when words need to be emphasised. As you can imagine, the noise of the bombs and chaos it caused must have had a huge effect on the noises that were being heard, people screaming, sirens sounding and huge fires blazing. To understand the poem you have to delve deeper into the meaning of the way in which the title of the poem is worded. This poem is very chaotic which matches this experience. The poet also does not present any type of metre or rhythm, this could be because he wanted the poem to be seen and read with the confusion which the people felt after the bomb was detonated. This gives the poem more reality than it would do if there was a clear structure to it. Analysing the lines in the poem, I can see a trend of contradictions and dual meanings. For example â€Å"All the alleyways and side streets blocked with stops and colons† on the outside this line tells us that the escape what blocked and there was n o way out of the chaos. Although looking at the line with more depth, that what is discoverable is that what is trying to be said is that there is no escape because of the violence in general. Using the word â€Å"stops† and â€Å"colons† could refer to the writers own beliefs. Carson may be trying to get a message across that all is being done to try and stop the attacks is through the Governments use of meetings and laws. Ironically, I think the author is trying to say we need to urgently tackle this violence with  actions rather than letters and meetings, hence the quote â€Å"Alleyways and side streets blocked by stops and colons† meaning by lack of action there is no escape. Furthermore, another example of these contradictions is the line â€Å"I know this labyrinth so well – Balaklava, Raglan, Inkerman, Odessa Street† This quote tells us that the author has a connection with these streets and knows his way round them. Carson compares the streets to a labyrinth, meaning the place where a man eating Minotaur lived and was said to be built like a maze, derived from Greek Mythology. This tells us that the streets were like a maze, probably due to the chaos and that there were dead people around. A bomb could be associated with the Minotaur as it was the cause of the deaths and streets to be its home as it is the place he kills. The overall message of the poem is to educate the readers of what it was like to be involved in a bombing. I also believe that the poem is trying to portray a message of invasion. His hometown was getting destroyed in front of him and the only way he believed he could teach people about this was through poetry. The fact that he chose to express his emotions through poetry is a really interesting way of getting his point across. The whole poem is an extended metaphor which shows the conflict and how chaotic the poem is.