History - Federalist versus Anti-Federalist

History - Federalist versus Anti-Federalist The Constitution of the United States is a remarkable document that was put together by our Founding Fathers and several existing documents including the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence. While the Constitution has provided America with freedom and rights, there were critical issues, concerns and numerous debates. The government has gone through a number of changes in order to become the system that it is today and the Founding Fathers played a large role in drafting and ratifying a new constitution for the United Stated (Ketcham, 1981).In September of 1787 the Constitutional Convention meeting held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania had finally came to a close after critical Federalist debates between had taken place in determining balancing power between State and Federal Governments.One of the most debated issues during the formation of the American government was how much power the federal government should have or how much liberty the states should have.T he Articles of Conferderation, ratified in 1781. ...Two Founding Fathers who represented opposing sides were Alexander Hamilton, who argued for a strong national government and James Madison and John Jay in the Federalist Papers. Now, Thomas Jefferson on the other hand was in favor of a weaker national government where more power instead rested with the states rather than the government. While Thomas Jefferson didnt hang around for the convention, he paid close attention to the ratification debates with Anti-Federalists, George Mason and Patrick Henry.Even though the Anti-Federalist had lost the ratification, they did come close to winning and their opinions represent an important contribution to the American political tradition (Ketcham, 1981). The Anti-Federalist lost the ratification because they did not present a clear and convincing explanation of the threats within the Constitutional plan that stood between the Articles of Confederation. The Anti-Federalist recognized the plan was powerless in fulfilling the...

Early Life Theories - Panspermia Theory

Early Life Theories - Panspermia Theory The origin of life on Earth is still somewhat of a mystery. Many different theories have been proposed, and there is no known consensus on which one is correct. Although the Primordial Soup Theory was proven to be most likely incorrect, other theories are still considered, such as hydrothermal vents and the Panspermia Theory. Panspermia: Seeds Everywhere The word Panspermia comes from the Greek language and means seeds everywhere. The seeds, in this case, would not only be the building blocks of life, such as amino acids and monosaccharides, but also small extremophile organisms. The theory states that these seeds were dispersed everywhere from outer space and most likely came from meteor impacts. It has been proven through meteor remnants and craters on Earth that early Earth endured innumerable meteor strikes due to a lack of an atmosphere that could burn the up upon entry. Greek Philosopher Anaxagoras This theory was actually first mentioned by Greek Philosopher Anaxagoras around 500 BC. The next mention of the idea that life came from outer space wasnt until the late 1700s when Benoit de Maillet described the seeds being rained down to the oceans from the heavens. It wasnt until later in the 1800s when the theory really started to pick up steam. Several scientists, including Lord Kelvin, implied that life came to Earth on stones from another world which began life on Earth. In 1973, Leslie Orgel and Nobel prize winner Francis Crick published the idea of directed panspermia, meaning an advanced life form sent life to Earth to fulfill a purpose. The Theory is Still Supported Today The Panspermia Theory is still supported today by several influential scientists, such as Stephen Hawking. This theory of early life is one of the reasons Hawking urges more space exploration. It is also a point of interest for many organizations trying to contact intelligent life on other planets. While it may be hard to imagine these hitchhikers of life riding along at top speed through outer space, it is actually something that happens quite often. Most proponents of the Panspermia hypothesis actually believe the precursors to life were what was actually brought to the surface of the earth on the high-speed meteors that were constantly striking the infant planet. These precursors, or building blocks, of life, are organic molecules that could be used to make the first very primitive cells. Certain types of carbohydrates and lipids would have been necessary to form life. Amino acids and parts of nucleic acids would also be necessary for life to form.   Meteors that fall to the earth today are always analyzed for these sorts of organic molecules as a clue to how the Panspermia hypothesis may have worked. Amino acids are common on these meteors that make it through todays atmosphere. Since amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, if they originally came to Earth on meteors, they could then congregate in the oceans to make simple proteins and enzymes that would be instrumental in putting together the first, very primitive, prokaryotic cells.

Paul Delvauxs Paintings Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Paul Delvauxs Paintings - Essay Example He quickly distinguished himself as an aspiring musician and took his music classes avidly. Like many aspiring artists, Delvaux entry into the world of art was met with determined criticism from his parents, who wished him to pursue a separate career (Carels & Deun, 2004). It was partly due to this parental pressure that the young man occasionally ventured into other subjects but remained a good reader all the while. The books and subjects he read would later influence the kind of art he chose at an early age. Jule Verne’s fictional writings and Homer were his favorite publications at that young age (Carels & Deun, 2004). His parent’s opposition to an artistic career saw him study architecture at an academy in Brussels. At a much older age, he changed his academic course and switched to art under the tutelage of Constant Montald and another artist; Jean Delville (Carels & Deun, 2004). During the inaugural years of his artistic career, the young artist concentrated large ly on naturalistic art. His penchant at the time was painting of landscapes as he saw them within his geographical surroundings. Later on, his art would change from pure surrealism to pick up aspects of expressionists after he encountered the influences of Constant Permeke and another artist by the name Gustave De Smet (Carels & Deun, 2004). These two artists introduced him into the art of surrealism. An artistic encounter with the figure of Venus would later offer him a new motif that dominated his art for much of his later artistic career. From these influences, he developed a strong taste of nudist art. The artist is well known for his remarkable capacity for juxtaposition. In his art, the most ordinary of things would be rendered in peculiarly different forms. The capacity to engage the aspects of naturalism, surrealism, metaphysics, and expressionism brought him out as one of the most accomplished artists of his time. His art continue to influence critical reviews and appraisal s in Belgium especially, and much of Europe and America generally. One of Delvaux’s most famous paintings is â€Å"The Great Sirens.† It is generally considered as the best landmark of his nudist art as compared to others. â€Å"The Great Sirens† also shows the most telling effects of the influences Delvaux received from Rene Magritte and Giorgio de Chirico. Magritte infused into the artistic substance of Delvaux the elements of surrealism. This influence elevated the Belgian’s art to some higher representations that captured multiple influences in ways that appeared to operate above the normal expectations. On the other hand, deChirico’s art influenced Delvaux into the representations of metaphysical and proto-surrealistic paintings. The art of incongruous juxtaposition that expresses itself in the art of Delvaux borrows heavily from the art of Magritte. In the â€Å"The Great Sirens,† these influences are evident from the dramatic way in w hich the pictures are rendered and in the juxtaposition that follows. It is appropriate to determine some of the influences that contribute to the artistic shock that presents them in this painting. The women are brought about as erotic, shameless, and threatening to the male ego and power (Delvaux, 1947). They are no longer presented as weak and conquered, as they are ready to use their feminine qualities and physique to conquer the domineering power of the men in the society in which they leave. By presenting these pictures as uniquely feminine, the painter brings out the fact that he is an essential feminist. He goes against the dominant tradition where patriarchal artists seek to use the physical attributes of women to display their power. In a way, therefore â€Å"The Great Sirens† might be interpreted as an allegory of feminine redemption,

Proposal Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 5

Proposal - Essay Example But, these people will be able to fulfil this role if they have the requisite knowledge about the diet principles and the requirements of nutrients. The healthy diet includes solid as well as liquid food items. In order to compete with European and American teams the Saudi footballers will have to make good use of healthy food items. While carrying out a study for Business Insights, Siddika Jaffer (2008), find that the overall market for sports and energy drinks has seen immense growth in the European and US markets and this growth is expected to continue at a rate of about 5 percent till 2011. The study points out that the during the period 2001-06, the Spanish market for sports and energy drinks has witnessed the highest percentage of growth pegged at more than 13 percent. Nutrients help in sustaining the long term needs of training and short-term needs of competition (Hassapidou et al, 2003). It is believed that formal training with proper dietary intervention leads to a number of advantages in enhancing the performance of an athlete in aspects like physical performance, better protection against injuries, maintaining a stable stamina, and proper muscular growth. Therefore having updated information regarding the dietary principles suitable for sportspersons provides an edge to the coach. This study is an effort to analyse the knowledge level amongst the football players and the coaches in Saudi Arabia in general. Literature review not only helps in going through the findings and conclusions of earlier researchers, it also helps in shaping a direction for the present research activity as well, because the researcher tends to get fair idea about the areas requiring particular focus. In this case also we are bound to come across a number of research papers about the necessity and usage of rich energy diets for sportspersons in general. It will our endeavour to go through some

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay Example for Free

Plato and Nietzsche on Authority Essay Nietzsche and Plato have many similarities in their discussion of political philosophy. Both dislike and hold contempt for democracy, and both favour a meritocratically chosen elite holding authority. There are even many similarities between the characteristics that they require in the group. However, there are differences too. Nietzsche doesnt outline a strict theory of authority, as Plato does. His governmental system, although it hardly is, could be interpreted, and has been, in many different ways. And, although both of them think that they have justified their authority, there have been several discussions on to whether they are, and in what society they would be relevant. These discussions are perhaps at the core of finding the key differences and usable elements of their philosophies. The notion of authority can be discussed in two main senses. For one, it can be used to discuss a person or groups right to rule. The other is when you talk of someone being an authority on a topic. Both of these involve the subordination of personal judgement to that of another and most 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 leaders are both an authority on a topic and have the right to rule. When authority comes from knowledge, it doesnt necessarily mean that the authority has power, for example as in a teacher trying to control a class at a school. However, in politics, an effective authority must be allied to power. If the authority is recognised, then it is de facto authority. If it is justified, then it is de jure authority, and most de facto authorities claim that they are both de facto and de jure. Plato and Nietzsche both argue for a de facto authority (sensibly who wants to impose an authority that is ignored?) and they both outline what they believe to be justification for this authority. This justification is at the centre of much of political philosophy, as it is important to discover if the justification works. Authority differs, therefore, from justified power, as justified power in itself does not involve subordination of judgement if theyre not recognised, then they cannot require that people follow their rule. Legitimacy is also an issue. In a democratic state, electoral fraud would lead to a leader being illegitimate: there is also no guaranteed way to prevent electoral fraud. However, as Nietzsche and Plato are both anti-democracy, illegitimacy this way would obviously be an issue. However, if either of their desired leaders were to seize power (either by force or just accidentally falling into power), there would be definite issues with people 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 ideally 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 training program for his philosopher-kings they must have their emotions properly trained. Would this lack of emotion make for a good authority? Many would say that you cannot be emotional about your leadership because then your judgement would be swayed by too many subjective factors. However, the thought of a leader without emotion is particularly daunting how would they know what would affect the population, and more importantly how? Emotions are an important part of human life, and a great leader would have to understand (and this would usually be best understood by feeling the emotions oneself) human life to be effective. Plato argues that this would come from knowledge of the Forms, the per fect example of something there is one for every notion that exists on earth. The Form of tables, the Form of emotions, or even the Form of drinks are all said to exist. The meticulous training includes imparting knowledge about these forms and prepares the mind for this abstract thought by rigorously training the rulers in mathematics. The philosophers knowledge of the Forms would include knowledge of the Form of Good, which is the keystone of the system, and therefore is essential for order. If one takes the Forms to be a true (or even just realistic) 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 create a good system, which is surely more reliable than basing it on subjective ideas. The Forms are like a religion, 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, people have become dissatisfied with the religion that they are forced to agree with. Atheism is becoming more and more accepted than before, as many new scientific discoveries render God less and less plausible, and as Nietzsche would put it, less useful as a concept. All this taken into account means that knowledge of the Forms probably wouldnt be useful for an authority (especially in a modern era), but it is not necessarily a bad idea for an authority figure to be well versed 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 atom? Another key question on the subject of religion was raised by Nietzsche. Is there anything that can be taken from religion, even if one wasnt to be imposing religion onto a state, 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 box 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 will to power over oneself he also calls it a privilege of the strong. Plato agrees, 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 slave 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 based and what you want to believe and think. Here, social class, education, religion, parents and friends all play a part in what you write 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, roguish creatures, useless to society philosophers arent currently as useful to politics as they should be, according to both theories of authority. There are other examples of when a more metaphysical concept has been implemented by an authority. Religious people often hold God (rather than the Forms or the free thinkers of Nietzsche) as the ultimate 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 simply thinking it through in prayer, or even through the morals 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 only 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 happy being 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 based 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 vote 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 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, 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. Even 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 practical reasons for the change not to take place. However, there are implications even if this were to be used in an ideal society (where all good ideas based upon an interchangeable ultimate value would be easily implemented with consequences). Its not ideal, from many viewpoints, 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 vote, 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 dine out, we will consult a restaurant 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 completely dependant on moral views, upbringing, teaching, the media and even the way your brain works. We cannot trust teachers of politics to be completely 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 politicians 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 allow. 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 allowed 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 good 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 tends 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 asceticism! Another important feature that both Nietzsche and Plato mention in their political philosophy is asceticism. Nietzsche mentions that the tests of self-deprivation that (Christians mostly) pervade Western 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 advocates 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 ennobles; 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 people in authority. They do not care for pleasures of this world: those of body or money. 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. They both have similar attitudes towards democracy, as well. Plato dismisses democracy he thinks that liberty (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 aristocratic 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 lower classes. This would lead to an economic inequality between classes, which would create an environment which leads to and breeds beggars and thieves. It could also lead to a revolution between the rich and the poor. Another argument against plutocracies occurs in chapter VIII, Socrates says that wealth doesnt allow a pilot to navigate 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 done 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) civilisation has descended from barbarians, and that any decent (and therefore aristocratic) society requires slavery. Plato agrees with this, he says that the most majestic 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, obviously, 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 difficult 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 private 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 murder 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 physical 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 difficult 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 balance 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 always 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 disobedience would be 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 powerful 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 protect 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 enforces a law, should the minority who didnt vote be forced to follow it? It wasnt their choice for that law to be enforced. 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 spirits 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 lower 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 strictly 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. Conclusion Both of these systems involve elements of the totalitarian about them. Plato seems to advocate both communism in monetary matters and lifestyle and the complete opposite when it comes to defining differences between peoples. He 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.

Sustainability Essay -- Sociology Third World Economy Essays

Sustainability Max Weber believed in the power of an idea. This political theorist discussed how Calvinism was one idea that perpetuated the rise of capitalism. Few people ever examine the power of an idea, but if one examines and contemplates this theory, a realization comes across: that ideas drive society. The key premise is that some values of our society must be altered in order to avert catastrophic consequences. The way of life in developed countries is "the origin of many of our most serious problems"(Trainer, 1985). Because developed countries have high material living standards and consume massive quantities of all resources, "hundreds of millions of people in desperate need must go without the materials and energy that could improve their conditions while these resources flow into developed countries, often to produce frivolous luxuries"(Trainer, 1985). People's way of life seems to be a glaring example of values leading to high rates of personal consumption of resources and the waste of these same materials. In addition to overconsumption, the services used to supply our society with goods, (examples of these goods would be food, water, energy, and sewage services.) tends to be wasteful and expensive. Production is organized in such a way, (usually highly centralized) that travel becomes an enormous burden. Another consideration is that our population is expected to increase to rise to eleven billion within the next half century. Considering the mineral and energy resources needed in the future, these estimates must also include the consumption of a population almost doubled from its current status and these same figures must include an expected increase in the affluence of developed countries. "If we are willin... ...st be adopted by every person on the planet, (starting in the developed world), otherwise the world will cease to support life. Bibliography Holdgate, Martin. From Care to Action. 1996. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London. Trainer, F.E. Abandon Affluence. 1985. Zed Books Ltd, London. Von Tunzelmann, G. N. Technology and industrial progress : the foundations of economic growth. Aldershot, Hants, England ; Brookfield, Vt., 1995. Adams, W. M. Green development : environment and sustainability in the Third World , W.M. Adams. London ; New York : Routledge, 1990. 5. Anderson, Anthony, B. Alternatives to deforestation : steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest , editor. New York : Columbia University Press, 1990. 6. Auty, Richard, M. Approaches to sustainable development , edited by Katrina Brown. London ; New York : Pinter, 1997.

Adavantages and disadvantages of space tourism Essay

Tourism is a worldwide popular trend .people love exploring different places by going to destinations which are alien to them. Their are various forms of tourism like ecotourism, cultural tourism, medical tourism ete.. Recently, a new type of tourism was added to list. Namely space tourism. It is just as the name suggest going to space for various purposes like leisure, business ete.. today in this article I will look at the pros and cons of space tourism. One of the main merit of tourism is that it helps to develop economy. As we all know space tourism is a very wide industry hence it will open a path for many job opportunities bringing a solution to the problem of jobless people to a certain extent. Furthermore we will get to discover a wide variety of new things. We can experience firsthand the beauty of comets, asteroids, stars and planets rather than seeing them by using a telescope, after all seeing with our own eyes have a different feel completely. In addition to this ,the fu ture of tourism will flourish. When advanced technological inventions like space shuttles and such are used a lot of people will be attracted to this industry .This is very much true right? Just imagine if we come across an event which we are not very familiar with then the tendency to learn it also grows. On the other hand, there are a lot of demerits of space tourism as well. Space tourism is quite a risky thing. No matter how developed we are if a catastrophe strikes in outer space we are not very likely to survive .moreover, it can be called simply a useless activity. Just for the mere pleasure of the eye there is no need to spend so much. It is a squander of money and time Instead, if that same amount is given to the people who are suffering from famine and natural disasters, magnanimously we can make our world a better place for people of different standards. Space tourism is also affordable to a few. Even one trip to space takes over hundred thousand dollars. This results in different problems between the rich and poor .furthermore, it gives rise to a lot of environmental problems like global warming since a lot of non renewable sources are used in this industry. Space tourism is both a boon and ban .if it is carried out carefully then it will bring about lot of benefits and if it is not carries out carefully then get ready to face the worst outcome.

Business Across Borders Essay

In the business world today, borders are blending and multi-national mergers are causing many company nationalities to become indistinct. As the globalization of markets rapidly increases, many companies are finding international expansion a necessity of competition. North America is greatly affected by this movement towards a global market, and many companies are finding it extremely important to adapt to other cultures. Favorable trade agreements and explosive growth of the middle class in countries once considered underdeveloped have both been important factors in the rush towards globalization. However, the most important factor in increased globalization has been technological advancements, including new transportation and information technologies. Presentation of information is more frequently processed by members of a virtual team – a work group not necessarily in the same geographical location. With the proliferation of e-mail, videoconferencing, fax machine, and the telephone, virtual teaming is becoming increasingly efficient. The most considerable obstructions to successful international marketing involve misinterpretations and contrary views resulting from cultural differences. Being both aware of some of these issues and prepared to make the necessary accommodations can save companies time, effort, and a considerable amount of money. Exploring Context Context is described as the most important dimension of culture and yet is the most difficult to define. Context refers to the stimuli, environment, or ambiance surrounding an event. Communication styles and business practices as a whole are often identified with the context of a country. North American, Scandinavian, and German communicators are generally considered to be low-context cultures. They expect a high level of detail in their visua,l verbal and written communication. Low-context cultures tend to  be analytical, logical and find words and contracts very important. Individualism, freedom and personal achievement are highly valued by these cultures. High-context cultures, such as Japan, China, Arabia, tend to assume the receiver does not need much background. Information and words are not as important as what is surrounding the situation. They are more aware of a communicator’s status, interpersonal relationships, the setting, and ambiance when conducting business relations. In general, tradition and social customs are more important in high-context cultures. These cultures emphasize membership in organizations and groups. Because they avoid confrontation, they frown upon individual decision making and prefer consensus. Relationships In many countries personal relationships are the key to success. It is important to not expect to get down to business right away, but rather get to know a person first. In Mexico, for example, business deals are only made with friends, so one must develop a friendship with any business partner. It is considered polite to ask personal questions about family, and also to answer any questions about your family. Discussions are warm and friendly. In Japan it is unlikely to get very far without connections. Carefully chosen intermediaries are a necessity. Not only will the Japanese feel obliged to be loyal to them, but rank of one’s associates will determine their status as well. A Japanese businessman will always consult within his group before making a decision. Because of their intense loyalty, one’s identity is subsumed into the group. It is important to never single out a Japanese counterpart, even for praise or encouragement. Contrarily, the Spaniards have a hierarchy style of management and it is best to deal with â€Å"el jefe† or â€Å"el pardon†-the one who will be making the decision. Spaniards also will expect whomever they are dealing with to have decisions-making authority. Saving Face When dealing with Spain or most Asian cultures, it is also critical to understand the concept of â€Å"saving face†. Any loss of control of emotions or embarrassment is considered disastrous in business negotiations in these cultures. Honor and personal pride mean everything and they must not be insulted. Because of this attitude it is very important to carefully prepare presentations so that they are easy for the audience to understand. Paying close attention to determine if anything is misunderstood during the presentation is also a must. Because of this concept of â€Å"saving face† the presenter will not know if they are having difficulties. Close attention must be paid to conversations in order to discern the sincerity of what is being said. In Japan, a deal is never refused directly, and any dealings with Japanese business culture should remain indirect. Business Cards In nearly all countries, it is important that business cards be printed one side in English, and the other in their language. When presenting the card, it should be presented with their language facing the recipient. In Japan, the exchange of business cards is not to be taken lightly. When you receive the card of a Japanese businessman, be sure to make a show of examining it carefully and then making a remark about the card. Ask any questions about anything on the card which is difficult to pronounce or understand. The card should then be placed in a case or on a near by table. A card shouldn’t be shoved into a pocket or be written on. Concepts of Time Time orientation is an important cultural difference that Americans must pay close attention to. In America, time is viewed as a precious commodity. Time is related with productivity, efficiency, and money. Many other countries have a much more relaxed perception of time. They take their time, and enjoy it. In Mexico you can ask if a scheduled appointment is â€Å"en punto† (the precise time), or â€Å"mas o menos†. â€Å"Mas o menos† appointments are often scheduled a half an hour to an hour before the actual time. With both  Mexican and Japanese cultures it is also important not to expect instant results. Plenty of time should be allowed for contemplation and decision making. In Mexico it is important to adjust any expectations regarding deadlines and efficiency. Conclusion Doing business over borders and through time zones has become commonplace in the twenty-first century. Technological advancements in communication and travel make it possible to do business across the globe almost instantaneously. Doing business with multiple cultures can be a challenging venture. International communication skills of an organization can determine success or failure. In order to interact with different cultures, it is necessary to understand the basic characteristics of the culture. This type of understanding helps to make adjustments and accommodations. We must rid our minds of pre-conceived notions, stereotypes, and prejudices. It is imperative that one be knowledgeable about such topics as: context, traditions, social rules, etc. It is equally important to possess competent listening skills and to be aware of one’s own nonverbal messages. The ability to adapt to an intercultural perspective is probably one of the most crucial aspects of doing business in today’s â€Å"global village†. Bibliography Sellin, Robert H. J and Elaine Winters. Cultural Issues in Business Communication. Berkeley: Program Facilitating and Consulting, 2000. Guffey, Mary Ellen. Business Communication: Process and Product, 4th ed. Mason, Ohio: South-Western, 2003 â€Å"Etiquette and Local Customs†. The Traveler’s Yellow Pages Online. http://www.infoservices.com/stpete/342.htm. InfoServices International, Inc., 2002 â€Å"What to Know Before Negotiting† Execitive Planet.com. http://www.executiveplanet.com/business-culture.html.

Dont Let These 3 Tools Out of Your Sight

Dont Let These 3 Tools Out of Your Sight Whether you’ve taken a break from work for family or personal reasons or have been in the same job since printer paper had those tear-off edges, it’s important that you keep your skills current. This obviously applies to your technical skills and job-specific responsibilities, but here are some simple professional areas to make sure you’re keeping up with the times. 1. GmailAside from their professional email address (their names @ employer.com), my parents still share a personal email address. Until AOL got hacked a year ago, it was an AOL.com address. This is not how to be current.I give this advice to the college freshmen I teach too- get yourself a gmail address with your real name in it. If yours is taken, try a combination with initials or underscores, but don’t get cute with the numbers. In fact, just don’t get cute at all- avoid RollerSkateDiva@Hotpants.com, for example.2. LinkedInWhile my dad is an avid Facebook oversharer (don’t wor ry, I made sure his profile went friends-only once he retired), my mom doesn’t want her face anywhere on the internet. If she’s looking for a new job someday, I worry that she won’t have the kind of positive professional presence that most employers look for. I’m lobbying to get her to set up a LinkedIn profile- it will only have professional information, it allows her to connect with colleagues and potentially useful members of her extended network, and it puts her firmly in control of the reputation her name has online.If you have a LinkedIn already, congratulations! Welcome to 2009! Make sure your summary has up to date contact info, including phone, your new professional email, and a few highlights from your resume’s achievements section.3. SkypeThis is apparently the post where I heckle my nearest and dearest, but my husband has some kind of Skype-induced rage syndrome. Somehow, every time he logs on to use it when he’s working from hom e or out sick, it won’t load or glitches or takes forever to update (the way programs you haven’t opened in a million years often do).My recommendation, should you be in the market for interviews that may ask you to call in over Skype, is to set up your profile (and give it a professional, recognizable handle) a few days early, and practice with a friend or relative you should really be calling more anyway. Practice logging in, locating your contact, initiating and receiving a call, and hanging up so you’ll be ready and professional come game time.  Staying Current is Key to Managing a Successful Career  Read More at www.social-hire.com

Why Soda Is Bad for Your Teeth

Why Soda Is Bad for Your Teeth Youve heard soda is bad for your teeth, but it is really true? If it is, why is it bad? Answer: Yes, soda damages your teeth. Drinking a carbonated beverage is actually one of the worst things you can do for your dental health. The reason is because the carbonation that makes soda bubbly also makes it extremely acidic. Many sodas also contain citric acid, which gives the drink a tangy flavor, but destroys teeth. Its a one-two punch with sweetened sodas, because the low pH attacks tooth enamel, while the sugar feeds bacteria that cause decay. Youre not off the hook drinking diet soda, because its mainly the acid in soda that harms teeth. How To Minimize Damage To Teeth From Soda The best way to minimize damage to your teeth from soda is to avoid drinking it. If you cant give it up, try to reduce how often you drink it and follow these tips: Avoid colas and regular orange soda. Regular, diet, or flavored cola is the most acidic. The one with the highest sugar content is regular orange soda. Consider testing a sweetened soda to see how much sugar it contains. The results may surprise you! Non-colas drinks are still terrible for your teeth because they contain higher levels of citric acid. The pH of these drinks may be higher, but citric acid binds to calcium and erodes enamel.Sip soda through a straw. Drinking through a straw minimizes the contact between teeth and the acidic drink.If you must drink soda, try to have it with food rather than by itself. Food helps regulate the pH inside your mouth, limiting the acid attack on teeth.Rinse your mouth with water after drinking soda. This will help neutralize the pH and reduce the level of sugar. Alternatively, eat a dairy food. Dairy products help remineralize tooth enamel. You could also chew on a crunchy vegetable or xylitol-containing gum. This helps clean teeth.Dont brush your teeth right after drinking a soda. It sounds like it would be a good idea, but it actually makes a bad situation worse because the mechanical action of the toothbrush erodes weakened enamel. Allow at least half an hour after drinking soda (or eating anything acidic, like citrus or sour candy) before grabbing the toothbrush. Switch to root beer. Genuine root beer contains natural carbonation, so it doesnt contain the same levels of destructive phosphoric acid or citric acid. You can test how bad soda is for your teeth. If you can get hold of teeth (they dont need to be human teeth), soak them in soda and watch how quickly the dissolve. An easier option is to soak chicken bones. Bones arent quite as hard as teeth, but are chemically similar. The acid strips calcium from teeth and bones. Bones are left rubbery because they contain a lot of collagen. Teeth dissolve almost completely.

Foundation - DBQ 1 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Foundation - DBQ 1 - Assignment Example Therefore, a strong foundation entails the development of a framework that provides for the development of school counselling programs. This will ensure that counselling professionals do not address issues when they arise, but develop strategies that ensure issues do not occur. In addition, the prior development of the foundation ensures that the school counselling program is comprehensively integrated into the schools mission (Young and Kaffenberger 20). The integration of the program will ensure that each student in the school is included in the program, irrespective of whether the student indicates problems that require counselling or those that do not. Establishing a foundation before counselors can delve into the counselling curricula facilitates the identification of the key components of a developmental school counselling program (Young and Kaffenberger 6). Furthermore, critical factors such as the skills, attitudes and knowledge that students should acquire as a result of the schools’ counselling program are identified before the counselors can begin their work. Therefore, the development of this foundation ensures that the schools counselling strategy is comprehensively designed and delivered systematically for each and every student in the school. Evidently, the foundation of the schools counselling program can be described as program standards that facilitate consistency in the creation, design and implementation of these programs in schools. Young, Anita and Carol Kaffenberger. Making DATA work: A process for conducting action research. Journal of School Counselling 11 (2013): 1-31. Web. 12 September 2014.

Health Care Disparities in the United States Research Paper

Health Care Disparities in the United States - Research Paper Example Yes, it is possible to eliminate health disparities in the United States. Eliminating the disparities that exist in healthcare is politically sensitive and rather challenging because they are somehow intertwined with a controversial record of race relationships in the US. Â  Some of the approaches that can be applied in eliminating health care disparities include increasing the competence and number of healthcare practitioners in areas which are underserved, expanding health insurance coverage, increasing the awareness base on root and arbitration to decrease the occurrence of health care disparities and raising community and health care practitioners understanding of racial or ethnic health care disparities. These strategies combined with others by the government are bound to be successful in eliminating health care disparities in the US. Â  The similar theme is that exists in the assigned articles is that eliminating health care disparities is key to improving the general quality of health care provided in the US. Most Americans do not often receive the quality health care that they deserve or on other occasions, the health care they get causes them harm (Williams, 2007). It is such incidences that have resulted in health care disparities in America.