Demonstrative Communication Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

unreserved Communication - Assignment ExampleIt is purely relayed or conveyed through signs, gestures and conduct. It can be so complicated especially when the means applied need accepted intellectual skills to decipher. Demonstrative communication can be very challenging since people can flush communicate their feelings and intentions by use of color, dressing, walking style or even long-term behavior (Jones, Stanley & Curtis, 2002). around demonstrative communications, therefore, need some levels of expertise, and can only be translated into an understandable means by professionals comparable a psychiatrist or psychologists.The circle of communication involves the purpose of the sender and the opinion of the receiver. There is a blurred line between these two aspects and are most times mistaken. Effective communication has everlastingly been accomplished by verbal communication, which is direct and easy to relay. The only demerit of verbal communication or the use of language to communicate is the case of language barrier, which refrains one from understanding the message. Non-verbal communication is not as effective as verbal communication (Jones, Stanley & Curtis, 2002). However, it is not entirely ineffective both non-verbal and demonstrative communications have their merits and demerit the effectiveness of demonstrative communication comes in when the sender knows exactly when, where, how and to whom to relay it to.Demonstrative communication can be easily confused since it relies on the perception of the receiver. It can result to mix-up especially when the receiver makes a wrong translation of the message conveyed. Besides, perceptions are dynamic and depend on mode, emotions, prejudice and place. This form of communication is also ineffective since the receiver can fail to notice anything at all. Mode of dressing can tell a lot about character, social status and secern while the color of clothing can demonstrate

History and Work of Ikko Tanaka Essay Example for Free

History and Work of Ikko Tanaka EssayLooking over the take on of Henryk Tomaszawski I found his melt to be whimsically his own in the way that each externalise is composed. I also felt hes done a fine job in expressing his culture throughout his work. Id learn to compare his art form and technique to Japanese graphic designer Shigeo Fukudo. In comparing their poster works they two display their own unique style but the form, colours, and in some posters ideas are much alike. In both artists work you fill their individual cultures expressed. In Tomaszawski work theres a constant use of rich colors of purples, yellow, wilds, and greens. He also uses black to emphasize his designs. Like bold lettering in heavy buffet lines. His use of these heavy stokes resembles to Japanese calligraphy. Many of his posters are very impacting but in an animated and live(a) way that pulls the viewer in. His work presents much softer and curvier stroke than that of Fuduka, but much of thei r elements are similar. The feeling is kind of the same with Shigeo Fukuda.Hes also expresses his culture throughout his work. In his more than recent work theres a modern Japanese feel to it. Much of his work displays the vivid red color like that from Japans flag. He also fuses heavy strokes of black into most of his work. In some of his older works you see these heavy yet softer strokes but recent work shows harder more uniformed lines. Fukudas work is very simplistic with an animated twist. Throughout his work you see a constant use of bright colors. I think Tomaszawski and Fuduka express a sense of illusion in their work. They do this excellent job of getting their points across in a way thats nigh fantasy like. Even in their more serious nationalistic posters both chose to represent them in a impacting way that still expressed a bit of animation.Henryk Tomaszawski Manekiny Opera Poster (1985)Shigeo Fukuda In Poland (1995)In both posters you can see the elements are very sim ilar but each artist has a secernate way of expressing his style. I found throughout many of their posters they both have found a impost for limbs thats quite interesting. hither is these poster Tomaszawski used more whimsical strokes to draw a womanishs leg. His poster looks very much like other Polish art I have seen. While Fudukas poster is quite similar he chose harder more serious modern style. Here he has intertwined a male and female leg while giving the illusion of a link flying.

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay Example for Free

Plato and Nietzsche on self-confidence Es jointNietzsche and Plato assume m two standardisedities in their discussion of semipolitical philosophy. some(prenominal) dislike and hold contempt for majority rule, and two favour a meritocratic of tout ensemble timey last(predicate)y chosen elite holding federal agency. at that place atomic number 18 point m some(prenominal) similarities betwixt the characteristics that they require in the group. However, on that point are struggles too. Nietzsche doesnt outline a strict theory of position, as Plato does. His political remains, although it hardly is, could be interpreted, and has been, in m any(prenominal) different ways. And, although both of them think that they conduct honourableified their authority, there ware been several discussions on to whether they are, and in what society they would be relevant. These discussions are possibly at the core of finding the key differences and usable elements of their ph ilosophies.The notion of authority suffer be discussed in two main smell outs. For iodine, it substructure be used to discuss a soul or groups right to rule. The new(prenominal) is when you speak of soul being an authority on a topic. twain of these pick out the subordination of someoneal judgement to that of another and some political theorists would consider this subordination to be binding. One of the main problems is if you should surrender your own personal judgement independent of the content of the authoritys ideas both Nietzsche and Plato would say that one should, as their attractions are both an authority on a topic and halt the right to rule. When authority comes from get it onledge, it doesnt necessarily call back that the authority has force, for example as in a teacher onerous to control a class at a school. However, in politics, an effective authority mustiness be allied to power.If the authority is recognised, thusly it is de facto authority. If it is warrant, because it is de jure authority, and closely de facto authorities claim that they are both de facto and de jure. Plato and Nietzsche both grapple for a de facto authority (sensibly who wants to impose an authority that is ignored?) and they both outline what they cogitate to be justification for this authority. This justification is at the centre of much of political philosophy, as it is important to pick out if the justification works. Authority differs, therefore, from confirm power, as justified power in itself does not involve subordination of judgement if theyre not recognised, then they cannot require that concourse follow their rule.Legitimacy is also an issue. In a democratic enounce, electoral fraud would lead to a leader being illegitimate there is also no guaranteed way to pr withal offt electoral fraud. However, as Nietzsche and Plato are both anti- bucolic, illegitimacy this way would on the face of it be an issue. However, if either of th eir desired leaders were to seize power (either by force or just accidentally falling into power), there would be definite issues with pack who didnt believe their justification. In this case, their authority could be considered illegitimate.Plato, especially in Republic, gives epistemology and metaphysics substantial roles in political philosophy. In Platos warningly just city, philosophers would gain power, or, at the very least, rulers would have to engage sincerely and adequately in philosophy. Plato also suggests a rigorous didactics program for his philosopher-kings they must have their emotions properly trained. Would this pretermit of emotion make for a good authority? Many would say that you cannot be emotional just some your leadership because then your judgement would be swayed by too many personal factors. However, the thought of a leader without emotion is particularly daunting how would they admit what would affect the population, and more importantly how? Em otions are an important part of human breeding, and a gravid leader would have to understand (and this would usually be best understood by feeling the emotions oneself) human living to be effective. Plato argues that this would come from companionship of the Forms, the perfect example of something there is one for every notion that exists on earth. The Form of tables, the Form of emotions, or even off the Form of drinks are all said to exist.The meticulous upbringing includes imparting humpledge about these forms and prepares the mind for this abstract thought by rigorously training the rulers in mathematics. The philosophers write outledge of the Forms would include knowledge of the Form of Good, which is the keystone of the system, and therefore is inseparable for order. If one takes the Forms to be a true up (or even just vivid) idea then it is sensible for a leader to understand what the true notion of good is. If one knows good then one can use this mould to lay do wn a good system, which is surely more reliable than basing it on subjective ideas. The Forms are like a faith, which makes Platos system almost a theocracy (unlike the authority of Nietzsche) and this has been implemented as a political system before.In the past, however, deal have become dissatisfied with the godliness that they are laboured to jib with. Atheism is comme il faut more and more accepted than before, as many new scientific discoveries render god less(prenominal) and less plausible, and as Nietzsche would put it, less useful as a impression. All this taken into flyer government agency that knowledge of the Forms in all probability wouldnt be useful for an authority (especially in a modern era), neertheless it is not necessarily a bad idea for an authority figure to be well compose in philosophy. Philosophy introduces abstract thought (like Plato suggested) and calls for knowledge in logic. Abstract thought is useful when trying to find theories that fit with the real world where would physics and chemistry be without abstract thought concerning the division? some other key interrogative mood on the subject of piety was raised by Nietzsche. Is there anything that can be taken from religion, even if one wasnt to be imposing religion onto a rural area, as Plato does? Nietzsche believes that, although religion in itself is too dogmatic and God is useless as a concept, the passion behind religion is admirable, and would be one of the key characteristics of his new philosophers. Nietzsches new philosopher, as opposed to the more traditional concept of Plato, would be more like a contemporary artist than a contemporary philosopher. They would not even necessarily be searching for the truth.These new philosophers are the Ubermensch and coupled with this think outside the shock attitude, they have a strong Will to Power, which makes them the perfect leader. They crave solitude, when independence is not necessary or normally preferred , which Nietzsche says is an example of exercising the go forth to power over oneself he also calls it a perk of the strong. Plato halts, and says that the philosopher follows truth alone. These new philosopher overmen dont follow the rules that are currently put in place by Christianity and knuckle down morality like self-sacrifice for ones neighbour and self-denial. Similarly to Platos philosopher kings, these Ubermensch/new philosophers are uncommitted to anyone or anything, and they are not afraid to break the boundaries currently put in place by political authorities.-Of course, these philosophers that are in power must be significantly different from those that we call philosophers today. Nietzsche says that every great philosophy so far has been just the personal confession of its author meaning that philosophy is subjective and just dishd and what you want to believe and think. Here, social class, education, religion, parents and friends all play a part in what you wr ite down as your philosophy. As previously mentioned, Nietzsche wants to use people who a free thinkers, someone that yearns to be set free from the crowd. Plato agrees when Adeimantus says that people who study philosophy too long become weird, rascally creatures, useless to society philosophers arent currently as useful to politics as they should be, according to both theories of authority. in that respect are other examples of when a more metaphysical concept has been implemented by an authority. Religious people much hold God (rather than the Forms or the free thinkers of Nietzsche) as the supreme authority, and although we have discussed briefly the problems with making this the law of a state (as in theocracy), this religious politics may not be a bad idea. For example, if those with authority look to God for advice on political matters, it gives them a chance to think about and receive information (either from God, or solely thinking it through with(predicate) in prayer , or even through the morality in religious scripture this neednt be a discussion of religious philosophy) about what may be the better decision. Obviously, if we take the Forms to be incorrect (as most people do), then God would be the ultimate good, which means that those that understand God would have to hold the power, rather than philosophers.Of course, there has to be a line drawn between looking to God (or another spiritual being) for advice and forcing views on other people. Plato would argue that the people dont know what is good for them, and so should trust whatever the authority says, but this isnt a realistic idea for people of today, who have fought for free speech for centuries. Nietzsche would both agree and disagree with this. He would agree in that the Ubermensch are the yet ones that can be truly rulers, and that the vast majority of people dont know whats good for them. However, he wouldnt necessarily say that this was a bad thing, as if slaves are smart bei ng slaves, then they have less of the Will to Power and therefore do (in a sense) know whats good for themselves personally.Of course, even if we convert Platos theory on Authority to be found around any religious ideals then it is still an argument against democracy in that if an Authority must have something to be a good ruler, there is no point in asking the untrained masses to take for a good ruler. They wouldnt, presumably, be able to understand the Forms, or God, sufficiently enough to choose an Authority (or even understand that there could be an Authority) that would do the job to Platos standards.Another Platos philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral enroll, which is then implemented upon the Republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to nucleotide the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge they need to know the moral c ode upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen dont need to implement a moral code their only morals are the will to power. until now if this seems like a good idea within the context of Platos Republic, this Authority wouldnt make sense in todays politics. For example, there are many various types of religion, and within those religions, thousands of sub-sets. This means that, even without using the Forms, that this theocracy idea couldnt be imposed without some force (the implications of which will be discussed later). Secondly, using one type of morality based on dogmatic principles wouldnt hold sway for a similar reason there would be complaints (or even uprisings) about the lack of freedoms this gives. These are functional reasons for the adjustment not to take place.However, there are implications even if this were to be used i n an ideal society (where all good ideas based upon an interchangeable ultimate value would be easily implemented with consequences). Its not ideal, from many bases, to force everyone to hold the same viewpoint (although Plato would argue that there is only one true viewpoint) and Nietzsches subjectivism would agree. Human nature would be indulged in an ideal world, if happiness was the ultimate value, and this calls for freedom to be a central concept of any Authority.Freedom to ballot, to those in the UK, seems to be a basic human right with few restrictions. This means that democracy would seem to be part of an ideal society in pursuit of happiness. There are good reasons for this we all have subjective opinions (as Nietzsche rightly said) and these need to be reflected in the way we are governed by an authority. For example, in most other situations, we would consult someone who we believe to be an authority on a subject. If we are ill, we talk to a doctor. If we want to din e out, we will consult a eating house critic. Therefore, it seems sensible to leave governmental decisions to those with political knowledge. However, the teaching of medicine is universally taught in a similar (if not identical) way there is little room for a subjective opinion.The more subjective something is, the less we can trust it. The restaurant critic, for example, will sway our views either way, but it probably wont be the final judgment. The reason it will still sway us is that there is still good and bad food. Politics, however, is different. Everything in politics is exclusively dependant on moral views, upbringing, teaching, the media and even the way your brain works. We cannot trust teachers of politics to be only impartial when teaching the political theories. Teachers of religious studies are usually biased towards Christianity in this country, and politics teachers would probably be the same. People wouldnt be happy with simply going along with what the politic ians say thats why people have died for democracy. Everyone has different views, and democracy is the best way to incorporate all (or most) of these when creating a government.There is, however, a problem with the amount of democracy to pass on. The current system in the United Kingdom is for people to vote in a representative that they trust to make similar decisions to those that they would choose. Of course, the representative cannot be trusted to have exactly the same views, and therefore, should the vote be more open? If people were resigned to vote on any topic that interests them, what would happen? The government may be forced to ban petrol cars.The main question is, is it really democratic once elected? The system in the UK is not fully democratic. Plato would argue that the only way for a government to make truly right decisions (and therefore decisions that the public would have to agree with theres nothing to disagree with if something is right) is for them to know g ood be trained in abstract thought and philosophy. So democracy, to be worthwhile, perhaps needs to be more democratic, or Plato and Nietzsche have the right idea.Jeremy Bentham famously associated utilitarianism with democracy he believed that one vote per person would lead the the greatest good for the greatest number. This is because human nature naturally extends to lead us towards pleasure, as opposed to pain. And, because everyone has this same desire towards pleasure, democracy would effectively allow all of us to vote for pleasure, so to speak. This seems like a more feasible idea than relying on someone who, although in theory doesnt have personal interests, probably would be biased. Humans do tend to avoid pain, so an open vote would lead us away from pain.Change Nietzsche quotes on abstainerismAnother important feature that both Nietzsche and Plato mention in their political philosophy is asceticism. Nietzsche mentions that the tests of self-deprivation that (Christi ans mostly) pervade westerly society are bad wherever religious neurosis has appeared on earth, we find it tied up with three dangerous dietary rules isolation, fasting, and sexual abstinence. However, further on in Beyond Good and Evil, he seemingly changes his mind. He indexs appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker oppression, harshness, forcing ones own forms on others, incorporation, and at the very least, at the very mildest, exploitation which would surely induce suffering, especially when considered with a modern mind. He then goes on to say in 270 that Profound suffering en formals it separates. Even earlier on, in 40, he says that everything deep loves a mask surely a sign of internal suffering is being hidden? Presumably, deep is a good thing, as his description of his new philosophers necessitates that they are deep creatures.Plato, on the other hand, consistently advocates an ascetic lifestyle, especially when he is discussing his peopl e in authority. They do not care for pleasures of this world those of body or cash. We can apply the same thoughts to asceticism as we can to Platos philosopher without emotion. If a leader doesnt care for pleasures of this world, then surely they cannot truly understand the pleasures of this world whether they are philosophers or not. If the authority was supposed to be similar to a Christian God, then it would be omnipotent, and therefore know and understand everything a priori. However, neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocates a Christian God as the best authority and neither of them suggests that the leader would be omnipotent. Therefore, it would make sense to disagree with asceticism on the grounds that it would cause the perfect leader to have a lack of understanding about typical human pleasures.It will be evident by now that Nietzsche (and Plato, to an extent) advocates an oligarchy (albeit meritocratic) both place small groups of people in charge of the general public. Th ey both have similar attitudes towards democracy, as well. Plato dismisses democracy he thinks that improperness (557b) and equality (558c) lead to a break down of all the essential characteristics of a philosopher-king. Evidently the very existence of a ruling class of philosopher kings is controversial to the central themes of democracy. liberty leads to a lack of self-discipline. He doesnt believe in equality as some humans are superior. Nietzsche has a similar idea he mentions that Every enhancement in the type man up to this point has been the work of an gamey society, which shows that he believes that an aristocratic society will further mans development.Although Plato seems to advocate a meritocratic oligarchy (although he wouldnt admit it), he doesnt recommend that his republic be based around money (also known as a plutocracy) where a small group of rich people, similar to an aristocracy, rule the set out classes. This would lead to an economic inequality between class es, which would create an environment which leads to and breeds beggars and thieves. It could also lead to a regeneration between the rich and the poor. Another argument against plutocracies occurs in chapter VIII, Socrates says that wealth doesnt allow a pilot to journey a ship, so wealth wouldnt allow an authority to rule a republic.Money seems to be a key problem with many theories of authority. It is often said that money corrupts people, so it could be argued that in any governmental system where the authority gets paid or is chosen because of its wealth would be corrupt. However, it is not practical to impose this most people associate power with money either subconsciously or consciously. The authority, even if chosen democratically, would want some reward for having to rule a country, and money is the usual and probably most desired reward.In The Prince, Machiavelli justified using force to gain and retain political power, and it, therefore, justifies any actions simply d one to gain power. This may, of course, have influenced Nietzsche, who also advocates gaining power by force. In 257, he mentions that every noble (not in the typical sense) well-behavedisation has descended from barbarians, and that any decent (and therefore aristocratic) society requires slavery. Plato agrees with this, he says that the most stately society and man is tyranny and the tyrant.Although there are sections in The Republic where Plato seems to advocate violence, such as 465 where he says Arguments can be settled with fists, there and then, as they arise, when he discusses his perfect State he seems to believe that it will just come into being. For example, in 502, he mentions that the only way it could come about by a philosopher wiping the slate of human habits and society clean. This could, simply, mean the annihilation of the human race, but it seems to mean just cleansing the mind of incorrect ideas. He then acknowledges that putting it into practice would be he avy which it wouldnt, if they just forced people into obeying, which makes it seem like he hopes that one day, it will happen, but he is not going to force it.More examples of this anti-force opinion occur when he is discussing the types of government that he is against timarchy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. He explains that oligarchy and tyranny can only come about by using force individual(a) wealth means that people feel that they have the right to keep the populace down by force. Democracy, he believes, causes excessive liberty, which then causes its own downfall. From this comes a tyrant, who is not afraid of discharge and stirs up war. Another point he makes is that it is simply never right to harm anyone at any time which obviously is a specific way of showing his feelings on violence and this would apply to taking a country or state by force.Of course, this helps to illustrate a key difference between power and authority. For example, we all have in us the physica l strength to murder (although, obviously, we dont usually have the mental state to want to do it) and this is power in one sense just like a dictator killing thousands of people because he can. However, an authority differs from this in that it would be classed as capital punishment. So what is the difference? Why does an authority have the right and others do not?If an authority is de jure (with justification) although it may be tall(prenominal) for some to think when murder would be justified then all its actions could be seen as justified by proxy, as if an authority is justified, the decisions they make would be somehow related to the reason they are in power. For example, Plato justifies his philosopher-kings by saying that they are the only ones who can have true knowledge of the forms, and, if this is true, then they know the Form of Good. So, if they murdered someone, then it would be based upon something theyve seen in the innate Form of Good.The rest period between freedom and authority comes into question when discussing issues like the above. Even though the authority may be justified on its own terms, it may not be necessarily right. Using Plato as an example again, the theory of the Forms is now commonly thought to be incorrect, and people wouldnt accept that as a reason to allow capital punishment. Even if there was a truly irrefutable source of justification, people will forever and a day have differing views, especially on such an important topic. So how does an authority find the perfect balance between power and authority?Authoritarianism is a social theory popular with dictators and the like. It supports, at the totalitarian end of the spectrum, the total subjection of personal opinions (usually through oppression) and enforcing strict control upon those that live in the state. It often involves what many political philosophies would see as an erosion of civil rights and freedoms lack of a private life and suppression of religious beliefs, for example. Obviously, there are differing degrees of authoritarianism and even the most democratic and liberal state must exercise its authority upon those within the state, but finding the right balance is important.Both Nietzsche and Plato advocate the subordination of those under the command of the philosophers, which means that their theories would be less easily accepted today than they would have been in the past. As previously mentioned, people have fought (and still are, particularly from the 20th century until today) for their civil rights and this includes their freedom, which means that an authoritarian government, like those advocated by Nietzsche and Plato, would be more difficult to impose today than ever before.This calls into question obedience to the state. The more democratic the state, the more free speech and dissent is usually allowed. However, as neither Plato nor Nietzsche advocate democracy, it is required to understand when noncompliance would b e allowed. Of course, both would say that their state would be obedient at all times, but this is unrealistic. In a theocracy, the state executes the law of God. In Plato, God can be easily exchanged for The Forms.However, what would happen if people were to disagree with Platos theory, as many do? Would they be justified in breaking the law of something that they dont believe in? A true authority would mean that the law would either be unbreakable morally or that their authority was so mesomorphic that people could not, or would not, break the law. However, as has been seen, it is difficult to see where Plato or Nietzsches arguments would lead to such an authority. Although disobedience of the law is obviously illegal, sometimes mass disobedience, in the UK at least, can lead to a change of law. Plato would disagree that this is even possible.If duty to the State is accepted, it is still possible to find examples when the law can be disobeyed. As the duty of the state is to protec t the people (and, for my example, this includes their freedom), state infringement of this freedom could cause the person involve to break the law to retrieve their liberty.Another issue arises (in the case of democratic government and perhaps in Nietzsches subjective government) in that if the majority part follow ups a law, should the minority who didnt vote be forced to follow it? It wasnt their choice for that law to be apply. Of course, with major things that infringe on human rights, like murder and domestic violence, should be universally enforced, but what about poll tax and property protection? If it was enforced by a government of authority that imposed itself, this could be an issue in that it is unfair to enforce laws that almost all of the population disagree with.In some cases, it could be considered immoral, but Plato would disagree, as the Rulers are following the only moral code that exists. Platos philosopher kings rely on their knowledge of the Forms to provide their moral code, which is then implemented upon the republic. The Form of the Good provides the perfect moral code upon which to base the real (material) moral code. This is one of the main reasons why Plato requires his rulers to have philosophical knowledge they need to know the moral code upon which to base their own. Nietzsche, however, believes that everything is subjective, based on experience and opinion of the individual. This means that his philosopher supermen dont need to implement a moral code as previously mentioned, their only moral is the will to power.Nietzsche never specifically argues for a government system like we have today. For example, he mentions that his free liquor should be in power, but also says that religion should be allowed for the common people. This shows, slightly patronisingly, that he is not expecting the common people to understand the rulers (much like the take down classes today are note expected to understand politics) which is obviously a very sweeping judgement, and could be considered as harsh and pro-Big Brighter in support of a tyrannical state. Although Nietzsche did support tyrant, he did appreciate the subjectivism of morals and opinion, and was not advocating forcing ones views upon others (unlike Hitler).His lack of respect for democracy is not the only thing that calls into question modern government. He doesnt even specify if there should be a (totalitarian?) leader at all, merely that the free spirits would hold power as such. His appreciation of subjectivity means that a leader would not rigorously work all views are different, so no leader would be truly right. The free spirit seems merely to be an authority to show others with the will to power what they can achieve.ConclusionBoth of these systems involve elements of the totalitarian about them. Plato seems to advocate both communism in monetary matters and lifestyle and the complete pivotal when it comes to defining differences between peoples. H e argues strongly for different classes of people, like Nietzsche, and for an authority that is placed in power with no choice. Its not as bad as it seems, if one agrees with the justification of the argument however, it would be a long struggle for people to accept it. Nietzsche, on the other hand, has often been blamed for inspiring Hitler (which is untrue, as Nietzsche despised racism and anti-Semitism), and it is easy to see why, as he advocates gaining authority by force, relishes in aristocratic barbarianism, and believes that there are levels of people.This means that their theories on authority arent very practical, and neither de jure or de facto, particularly by modern standards. A preferable system, therefore, would be a mix of Platos equality for women, Nietzsches appreciation for the artistic nature, and (include other philosophers). Of course, its unforeseeable to be able to find a perfect authority, one who is justified, true, moral and recognised. As Nietzsche said , all philosophy to date has been personal confession if this is true (which it seems likely to be), then there will never be a perfect authority, justified and recognised by all.

Epistemic Themes Explored Essay Example for Free

Epistemic Themes Explored EssayAll men, the learned philosopher Aristotle insists, desire to lie with. Thus, when the first group of men from Ionia, thusly part of the ill-famed Grecian province of the ancients, began their thoughtful quest to know the most fundamental parry constituting reality, it started a whole history of inquiry which later on was to be c altogethered philosophy (Marias, 1967, p. 11).But patch their controlling concern was primarily cosmological in that these philosophers wrestled with the problem of explaining physical personality by intercommunicate what is the one basic material out of which the world is made their inquiry nevertheless engendered lasting impacts on the way public has since then understood the genius, scope and use of human noesis (Lavine, 1982, p. 23).In thinking of the foregoing, this opus aims at successfully presenting a summative account of some of the major concerns or themes of Epistemology passim the history of Phil osophy specifically, the theories which were propounded by key philosophers as they seek to understand certain epistemic issues. along the same vein, I would also attempt, through this paper, to evaluate, if non comp be such concerns within the present context of use as my way of appropriating what I have learned from this course into my own frame.Methodology and Scope This paper endeavors to firstly circumscribe trine salient (among m whatsoever others) themes of epistemic exploration, namely, (1) the quest to understand the nature of fellowship, (2) the oblige desire to establish certitude, and (3) the all-important need to appropriate human knowledge into a prolific use.As such, these three elements correspond to three different epochs in the history of Philosophy the ancient, the post-Scholasticism and the recent periods respectively and these epochs are further typified by key philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (for the ancient epoch), Rene Descartes (for the modern epoch) and the empiricists in the likes of J. Stuart sub and Francis Bacon. second and as hinted above, this paper is an attempt to appropriate their concerns with my own present context.The method with which this paper employs shall be both expository and analytic. The Epistemic Concerns of Key Philosophers of Knowledge At the onset of Philosophy, the overarching epistemic concern was to discover the nature of human knowledge. In order to do this, the Ionian philosophers started to put into question the things that they took for granted. Socrates tried to propound, through the infamous Socratic method, that knowledge potnot be equated with belief or personal opinion (Bruder Moore, 2005, p. 35).Plato on the other egest maintained that true knowledge consists not in our perception of the visible things, but in eruditeness of a type of knowledge that brings us into the World of Ideas (Lavine, 1982, p. 26). Refuting Plato, Aristotle meanwhile asserted that abstraction alone does not afford true knowledge. Instead, he believed that true knowledge must be scientific i. e. , it circumscribes the proximate and contrasted causes of things and events. As one author puts it, for Aristotle, to have scientific knowledge of a incident, it is not enough to know that it is true you must also know why it is true (Robinson, 1985, p. 11).If these ancient philosophers were chiefly engrossed with the meet definition of the nature and parameters of human knowledge, the thinkers of the modern era meanwhile sought for a kind of knowledge marked by certitude or truthfulness. Simply put, the concern shifted from the defining the contents of human knowledge into describeing whether such contents were truthful or not. Far more critical, modern philosophers did also entertain in a fair amount of skepticism. The chief proponent to this cause was Rene Descartes and he is usually credited for scratch a new phase in the field of Epistemology.He is known for his skeptici sm a adjuration to suspend judgment about e actuallything so as to arrive at a knowledge which is certain, if not altogether doubt-proof (Broughton, 2002, p. 1). The crux of this doubt does not lay on the act of doubting itself for at the very least, the act of doubting has to serve its reasoned purpose, which is to proceed from an induced skepticism into an irreducible conclusion. And Descartes succinctly refers to this as the first principle of philosophy a principle which serves as a formidable base from all kinds of human knowledge stand erect (cited in Marias, 1967, p. 214).Descartes and his contemporaries thus dedicated their efforts to establish what constitutes certainty in human knowledge. By contrast however, the philosophers after them began to focus on discovering how human knowledge wad be used prolifically in life and work. Thus, from being merely speculative in approach, the philosophers after the modern era began to see the wisdom of framing human knowledge with in the context of practicality. John Stuart Mill for instance asserted that the true measure of human intellect lays in the way we human persons can employ knowledge for the progress of world (Donner, 1991, p.123) Still, another important facet of this utilitarian perspective would be palpable in the formulation of the Principle of Induction. Francis Bacon for instance rejected the deductive reasoning of the ancients in upgrade of the principle of inference i. e. , from a serious of individual factsone obtains by abstractionthe general concepts of the things and the laws of nature (Marias, 1967, p. 250). This principle is now widely known as the scientific method and this method has in change shape led to the rise of technological advancements witnessed during the Industrial Revolution.The concerns addressed by the three epochs herein cited could be summed into these three fundamental questions (a) what constitutes knowledge? , (b) how do we know the truth? (c) and how do we conc retely apply what we know? In ways more than one, these three questions are the self-same concerns which continuously confound the present society. Now more than ever, humanity is a witness to the flood of competing information from all fronts and it is indeed a tall challenge to decipher which information affords a knowledge that approximates the truth and/or engenders beneficial results.For instance, in drafting key policies, any given government needs to be fed with accurate information about societal conditions as indeed, in contemplating medical procedures, doctors and nurses need to be given precise information to avoid errors. To be sure, a thousand and one other examples may be cited to this end. But the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, even at an age when we are able to verify the veracity of information with advanced technologies, humanitys chief concern has always been about correctly obtaining knowledge, establishing the its truthfulness thereof, and putting the m into practical use.

Thunder from the Sea Essay Example for Free

Thunder from the Sea establishThe story of Joan Hiatt Harlows Thunder from the Sea (2004) revolves around a 13 year-old boy named turkey cock Campbell and a dog-c solelyed Thunder. tom has been an orphaned since the age of 3, which is why he has never experience belonging in a family.On the new(prenominal) hand, Thunder was lost at sea during a very bad storm and it was during this magazine of need that Tom rescued this dog. Tom and Thunder were able to set companionship with each other. Tom experienced having a family with the Murray household and a loyal friend with Thunder. It was through these relationships that he was able to find the sense of acceptance and belongingness that he never experience in the orphanage. No man is an island. This line is indeed true especially when you used it in the context of this book. Tom Campbell is like anyone else also needs other people in fiat to make their lives complete. Almost everyone have to establish a certain confederation with others in order to know more about themselves. It is through the very idea of caring for someone, world loyal to other people and most especially loving your fellow individual that one provide make sense of the world. The mere idea of feeling these emotions makes a person realized that he or she is indeed a human being that is capable of giving a part of his or her flavour to other people and sometimes that is what it takes for a life to be meatful. This heart-warming story emphasizes the importance of finding lifes meaning through the influence and aid of others. Someone does not have to be a dog-lover in order to appreciate and see the lessons underlying this book. It approaches the idea of loneliness, loyalty, and love in a way that almost all people could relate to. Harlow succeeded in writing a piece of literature that tackles an important aspect of a persons life especially during this present time that the society is taking for granted how essential it is to establis h significant and long-lasting relationships. Thunder from the Sea is a good read that will take its readers to an exciting journeying of finding lifes meaning. It will also invokes its readers to re-think and re-assess the relationships that they have or need to have as well as their over all outlook about their lives.ReferenceHarlow, J. H. (2004). Thunder from the Sea. U.S.A Simon and Schuster Childrens Publishing.

Early childhood education Essay Example for Free

Early childhood education EssayFriedrich Wilhelm August Froebel (1782-1852) was a German educator born in Oberweisbach. He is known as the founder of Kindergarten and was one of the or so influential educational reformers of the 19th century. Froebel had a difficult childhood. His mother died when he was still unfledged, and his father, a pastor, and stepmother unattended to care for him. Finally, an uncle took over his care and ensured that he receive a high school education. It was there that young Froebel grew up with a love for nature and strong Christian faith, which led him to seek happiness and star in all things. Froebels faith also led him to think as an educationalist. Froebel studied at the University of Jena for a short time. In 1805, while perusing architecture in Frankfurt, he was persuaded to become a teacher by the model school at Frankfurt. He then studied with Pestalozzi at Yverdon, earlier returning to the University of Gottigen and Berlin in Germany. Fro ebel believed that there was something missing in Pestalozzis theory- the spiritual mechanism. According to Froebel, this was the fanny of early childhood education.Pestalozzi takes man existing only in appearance on earth, he said, scarcely I take man in his eternal being, in his eternal existence. (Shapiro, 1983, p. 20. ) Froebel took a break from studying to join the army for a year from 1813-1814. Afterwards, he received a position at the mineralogical museum in the University of Berlin. Two years later, he founded a school at Greisheim (which later mover to Keilau) which he called the customary German Educational Institute. It was there that he taught his methods to other teachers.Froebel opened the first Kindergarten in the year of 1837 in Bad Blankenburg. Later, he also founded a Kindergarten training school at Liebenstein. Froebel felt that children, like plants in a garden, need to be cared for and shielded from outside influences. Froeble believed that children need to imitate a teachers values and morals. Therefore, teachers need to be respected, receptive, and easily approachable. Among Froebels subordinates, however, there were constant disputes, which he was unable to control. He encountered more problems when the Prussian government did not approve of his ideas.In 1851, an edict was issued, which forbade the establishment of Kindergartens. This decree was repealed just about 10 years later- in 1860. Froebel was not alive at that time and had no idea of the feign he left on the school system worldwide, and especially in the United States. The philosophers of his times, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) and Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling (1775-1854), also influenced Froebels educational ideas. He placed an emphasis on self-activity, physical training, and pleasant surroundings in the evolution of children.His most important work was the book he wrote in 1826 called Menschenerziehung (tr. The Education of Man, 1877). References Lilley, Irene M . , (1967). Friedrich Froebel A Selection from His Writings. Kilpatrick, William H. , (1916). Froebels Kindergarten Principles critically Examined. Retrieved from http//www. uv. es/EBRIT/micro/micro_221_12. html Froebel, Friedrich. (1896). The Education of Man, trans. W. H. Hailman. New York Appleton. Retrieved from http//www. answers. com/topic/friedrich-wilhelm-august-fr-bel.

William Shakespeare Biography Essay Example for Free

William Shakespe be Biography EssayWho was William Shakespeare? Where was he natural? Where did he go to school? How did William Shakespeare live his life from the beginning to the ending? William Shakespeares life became a great mystery with lack of evidence to support any findings. His schooling, his family and parents will be revealed in my paper. Who were William Shakespeares parents? The parents of Mr. Shakespeare were tush Shakespeare and bloody shame Arden Shakespeare. Mary Arden marry William Shakespeare in 1557. Mary was the pet of eight daughters of the widowed Robert Arden (Absolute Shakespeare, 2000-2005). William Shakespeares parents were both uneducated. John Shakespeare had become the Mayor of Stratford were William Shakespeare was born which I will go into that later in my paper. Mary was n constantly taught to read or write even though she came from a well full-grown family (Life Story of William,1999 ). John Shakespeare was born in 1531 while Mary Arden was born in 1540 with a golf club year age difference betwixt the both of them. Mary Arden was from a catholic family, while John Shakespeare lived a life as a farmer.The marriage between John and Mary Arden was much of a talked ab bulge event (William Shakespeare Site-Map,2005 ). Both came from two different lifestyles with John as a farmer and Mary from a wealthy family it was not likely that the two would grow to love each other the focal point they did. William Shakespeare was born in 1564, eight historic period after his mother and father were get married. He was born in Stratford, a town south of Warwickshire, England. As nobody really recognises his place of birth was at his family groundwork supposedly. William Shakespeares discipline is somewhat of a mystery.There are no records of him attending school, but we know from archives that he did. William Shakespeare started school at the age of seven and stopped going to school at the age of fourteen. He attended King Edward IV grammar school and received precise pocket-size education there. The school is also known as The Kings New School (William Shakespeare Site-Map,2005). There are also rumors that at the age of eleven William Shakespeare went to grammar school in Stratford, which I assume would be The Kings New School. He studied theatre, acting, as well as Latin literature and history.When Shakespeare left school, which the age is still foreigner, he went to work with his father and there is talk that he did take up teaching, but there are no known documentaries of that happening (Literature Network,2006). William Shakespeare met Anne Hathaway in Stratford, England. Shakespeare being 18 historic period of age, and Anne Hathaway being cardinal years old, an eight year difference existed between the two, similar to William Shakespeares parents with an age difference of nine years. Annes parents were both deceased and she lived with her brothers.Around the time she met Shakespeare she became pregnant, which caused an uproar back then and was talked about. Not being married and bringing a child into this world out of wedlock was not looked upon as something great. On November ordinal 1582 the court issued a marriage license to Shakespeare and Hathaway and they were married on November twenty-eighth 1582, William being eighteen and Hathaway twenty-six years of age. It is believed that Anne Hathaway was William Shakespeares start-off love, but with the pregnancy he was forced into a marriage that he was not ready for.With William Shakespeare being a teenage father he may have tangle the pres incontestable of doing right and feeling somewhat overwhelmed with pressure from his family, wife and society to be married. He was out of work with no m oney to support his wife and child and now unable to attend a University of his choice (In search of Shakespeare,2003 ). Shakespeare and Hathaway went on to have three children in total. A girl named Susanna, and two years later tw ins a boy and a girl named Hamnet and Judith. What occurred in Shakespeares life between 1583 and 1592, is unknown.It was and still is a mystery. But as archives do reveal Shakespeare was in London in 1592 and was known as the greatest playwright anyone had ever known of. The nine years between is barely some other mystery that nobody can figure out(Shakespeare Online, Actor and Playwright,1999-2010 ). There is no doubt as of to twenty-four hour period that William Shakespeare is the greatest writer of side of meat Literature. His plays have been made into movies, books have been written, music has been conducted and published, and if your real gilded you capability even be able to see a play of one of his greatest storiesever told in which I have seen many movies and read many books.Here are some of my favorite stories ever written Othello, The Moon of Venice, The Taming of the Shrew, Twelfth Night or What You Will, Julius Caesar, Richard III, Macbeth (which was a favorite in lavishly school), Midsummer Nights Dream ( I have read that book), Henry V, Hamlet, which I might add Mel Gibson did very well playing that part, and my most favorite love story of all time, Romeo and Juliet. As you can see the title says it all. His mind went to the extreme and with such little education he clean knew what his passion was and went for it.William Shakespeares children, as mentioned earlier, Susanna, Hamnet and Judith had a much different life of the great English Poet. William Shakespeares first-class honours degree born, Susanna, was raised by her mother, Anne. When Susanna turned twenty-four she was to marry a prosperous medical doctor. The marriage was held on June 5th 1607. Susanna had a baby girl eight months after her wedding, so this was William and Annes first grandchild (Children and Grandchildren,2005). Shakespeare and Hathaways son Hamnet was also raised by his mother. Little is known on the life of Hamnet since it was take down so short.There are n o records that he ever attended school, which with his family background, Im sure there was some type of education. In the late 1500s an outbreak of the Bubonic Plague occurred, otherwise known as Black Death or Black Plague. Hamnet contracted this deadly disease of unknown sources and died at the age of eleven years old. He was buried where Shakespeare was born, in Stratford, England on the eleventh day of August in 1596 (Children and Grandchildren,2005). Judith the twin of Hamnet was to marry Thomas Quiney who came from a good family. Judith was thirty-one and Thomas was twenty-seven.They were married in Stratford, England on the tenth of February of 1616. A scandalous breakout occurred after the marriage that Quiney had made another girl pregnant. On March 12th the marriage was excommunicated (Children and Grandchildren,2005). The grandchildren of Shakespeare and Hathaway were many. Judith had three children, and Susanna had one daughter. Judiths sons all died tragically, and v ery young. All of them boys, first son died at six months old, second son died at the age of blackjack from the Black Plague, and her other son died the same month from the Black Plague, which would of been in January of 1639.On Judiths side nobody survived the Shakespeare line. Susannas daughter Elizabeth was the only grandchild William Shakespeare ever knew (Children and Grandchildren,2005). William Shakespeare died on the twenty-third of April in 1616 of an illness that to this very day is still a mystery. He was buried on April twenty-fifth at the Holy trinity Church in Stratford, England. Shakespeare just weeks before his death made his last will and testament. This will touch on many people in his life.It started with his daughter Judith, sister Joan, Joans three sons, which were his nephews, his granddaughter Elizabeth, to the poor of Stratford, his friends, and his wife Anne. To his first born Susanna and son-in-law Dr. John Hall he left the most of his assets too. Dr. J ohn Hall was the only one who oversaw his final days and treated Mr. William Shakespeare (The Last Will and Testament,2005). I believed he knew he was going to die, mayhap just had a sense or a feeling so that is why he started his will weeks before his death, but never told anyone.After all of my research conducted on William Shakespeare I believe he was a great man. He had a hard start at life but with little to no education to having a child with an older woman at the young age of eighteen and being out of work and with very little hope of his future he managed to beat the betting odds that were against him. With his knowledge, determination and confidence he overcame all of his setbacks to become one of the worlds greatest English poet. To this very day his poems and stories are still taught in middle schools, high schools and college. References Absolute Shakespeare. 200-2005.Shakespeares Biography. Websitehttp//absoluteshakespeare. com/ small beer/biography/shakespeare_biograp hy. htm The Early Life Story of William Shakespeare Stratford, England, 1564-1569. Who was William Shakespeares parents. 1999. Website http//www. englishhistory. entropy/Shakespeare/index. html The Parents of William Shakespeare. 2005. William Shakespeare Site-Map. Website http//www. william-shakespeare. info/william-shakespeare-biography-mother- and-father. htm The Literature Network. 2006. William Shakespeare. Website http//www. online-literature. com/shakespeare/ In Search of Shakespeare.2003. William marries Anne Hathaway. Website http//www. pbs. org/shakespeare/events/event92. html Shakespeare Online. 1999-2010. Shakespeare the Actor and Playwright. Website http//www. shakespeare-online. com/biography/shakespeareparents. html William Shakespeare His Children Grandchildren. 2005. William Shakespeare Site-Map. Website http//www. william-shakespeare. info/william-shakespeare-children-and- grandchildren. htm The Last Will and Testament of William Shakespeare. 2005. William Shakes peare Site-Map. Website http//www. william-shakespeare. info/william-shakespeare-the-will. htm.