Using Argument and Persuasion in Writng Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Using Argument and Persuasion in Writng - Essay Example Even though this story was only the figment of writer Caspian Tredwell-Owens imagination. It is not something that is too far from the reality that we currently face in the fight to prevent the cloning of human beings. The proponents of Human Cloning do so in the name of science. Their stand being that by cloning humans, we will gain the much needed medical advantage and understanding of illnesses and easily be able to avert, cure, or create person specific vaccines for the recipients of Human Cloning technology. Although these supporters have sound and valid arguments, they fail to see that Human Clones are just as their name implies, human beings. Even though they are the final product of a highly complicated medical science, it does not erase the fact that these people shall, in the future, be born into this world as innocents. They will experience life and live their lives until some doctor tells them they can no longer live because their body parts are now needed. In other words, Human cloning turns their creators, the doctors and clone nurturers into gods. Having the power to give and take a life at their own convenience and hide the murder of another human being behind the cloak of medical science and technological advancement. Man was not created in a manner that he can be allowed by natural forces to live forever. Our bodies were not designed to be like car parts that can be replaced once it is worn down. Transplant technology is one thing. Such a technology is governed by rules and often comes from donors who are no longer part of this world. Such an argument cannot be used in support of human cloning. It is one thing to take a perfectly good body part from a person whom you know no longer has any use for it and another to harvest a body part from an exact genetic replica of a person in order to save his life. Think about it. What good is it to save the life of one if it means that another must die in order

Qualitative Research Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Qualitative Research - Essay Example Students who go to teach abroad have experience and deal better with diversity issues and hence when it comes to employment, employers prefer these students as they can be able to handle students better as students are not the same. The interview has yielded three different coding after undergoing in depth analysis of the themes mentioned above. The first is that teaching abroad leads to a re-evaluation of an individual’s personal values having experienced the lifestyle of other people different from what one is used to. The second is that this experience of different cultures eventually leads to acculturation and this marks the end of stereotypes against people and communities. Lastly, there is the issue of the student having a broader perspective not only on the issues of teaching but about life in general as they get to live another life totally different from theirs and get to understand what life is really about as well as know the importance of not taking things for

Busines stratgt Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Busines stratgt - Essay Example SWOT analysis is a management tool that allows managers to view the company’s at a wider picture thus enabling them to designing both short-term and long-term plan that may improve business performance. The following SWOT analysis identifies the company’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. In other words, the analysis tries to identify the company’s problems and recommends the best strategic moves for the company to remain competitive. Strengths One of the company’s greatest strength is its business model. The company sells its products directly to consumers. In other words, there are no intermediaries i.e. retailers and wholesalers. This has assisted the company in bringing down distribution cost significantly. Because of this, the company is able to charge lower prices than its competitors thus acquiring a competitive advantage. The time lag between the customers’ orders and delivery is less compared to competitors’ time. Th is is because of lack of wholesalers or retailers in the distribution channel. This has contributed a lot in strengthening the company’s relationship with its customers, as well as, enhancing the customer satisfaction. Additionally, the business model supports customization of the company’s products and services especially the personal computers. The direct contact between the company and the customers enables the company to tailor-make its products to meet the customers’ needs. The company is also able conduct the market research effectively thus focusing on enhancing the customer satisfaction. The company’s high stock turnover is, as well, its strength. Because of this, Dell Inc has a good relationship with its suppliers since it has a healthy liquidity that enables it to pay the suppliers as early as possible. Because of this, the company is able to obtain supplies at lower prices compared to if it would pay later, thus reducing the cost of manufacturi ng. The company’s other strength is that it does not only sell to individual consumers, but also to businesses and government organizations. Consequently, Dell is able to supply a large number of personal computes and other related products thus increasing the profitability. Another Dell’s strength s product differentiation that enables customers to simply identify the company’s products. Weaknesses One of the company’s strength, customization, is also its weakness. A customer would have to wait for more time before receiving his or her computer from a delivery than when he or she goes direct to a retailer store, buys a computer, and acquires it as soon as he or she pays. Additionally the customers are not given an opportunity to physically touch the products and test them before they purchase them. The customers should have an opportunity to go to the retail shop and compare different products before deciding the ones to purchase. For the case of Dell, t he company expects consumers to order their products direct from the company without comparing them with competitors’ products, in the market. Another weakness is that the company focuses more on businesses and government organizations as customers in expense of individual consumers. Jenster states, â€Å"every market segment is equally important for every business meaning that he focus should be on all customers (52)†. To eliminate the weaknesses the company should segment its

Adultery and Society Essay Example for Free

Adultery and Society Essay Much has already been said about Couples – John Updike’s controversial 1968 novel about the lives and indiscretions of well-off couples living in the suburban town of Tarbox, Boston. At first glance, the novel may seem like a run of the mill erotic novel – tawdry and titillating, but nothing more. This was, in fact, the common perception that greeted the novel on its debut in 1968, hence its notoriety as a â€Å"controversial† novel. Much of its hype, however, is not lost, considering the amount of sex – illicit and otherwise – that graces the pages of the novel, as well as the forthright manner with which Updike boldly discusses these activities. Scandal and notoriety prevented a proper and contextual understanding of Updike’s novel, leaving it languishing in literary purgatory. In time, however, with the changes in society and modern views on sex, Updike’s Couples has, to some degree, been resurrected and reevaluated with a different perspective and point of view. Though still shocking in its extensive discussion of adultery and lecherous behavior in general, the novel has finally emerged from under its tag as a bawdy piece of B-rated literature to become one of Updike’s signature novels. No longer viewed as eroticized sensationalism, the novel is now seen as a representation of Updike’s most striking leitmotif: suburban adultery. If not erotica for eroticism’s sake, what then is the central thought in Updike’s Couples? Such is the question that this paper now intends to answer. This paper posits that John Updike’s Couples reflects the collapse of traditional values in the face of modernity particularly in the early 1960s. With the parameters of sexuality shattered by the advent of birth control, wealthy men and women living the â€Å"perfect† life are actually morally in disarray. Society, despite its beautiful and urbane facade, is in reality rotting away and slowly experiencing a moral decay. The beauty of suburbia and its polished citizens stand in sharp contrast to the breakdown of social norms and propriety. Such is the theme of John Updike’s Couples. To prove so, it is necessary to first look into the writer himself, John Updike. Much of his writings reflect his personal opinions, of course, and understanding the writer will most certainly provide a better contextual understanding of the novel. Moreover, it is necessary that a discussion of the era (early 1960s, under the Kennedy administration) be conducted in order to fully relay the circumstances that give way to the morally reprehensible â€Å"system† established by the titular couples. Lastly, this paper shall look into the juxtaposition of aesthetics (the beauty of both the people and the suburban town they inhabit) and the rotten structure of banality they willingly cling to. These are the significant aspects of John Updike’s Couples that shall be discussed. First of all, who was John Updike? Little is known about Updikes childhood, except that he was born to a middle class Pennsylvania family in 1932. John Updikes interest in writing began with his mothers instructions, herself a prolific writer. His mothers influence proved intense and enduring, giving him the strength and courage to continue with writing. Despite the lack of sufficient funds for his education, Updikes talents received recognition and earned him a full scholarship at Harvard University, where he joined the Harvard Lampoon. Upon graduation, he joined the New Yorker, which published his first story, Friends from Philadelphia, in 1954. The story would soon be followed by several more of his writings, all published through the New Yorker. By the end of the 1950s, Updike was reaping the fruits of a successful literary career (Pritchard 2000, p. 2). It was not, however, his writing technique that caught the fancy of critics. Though fluid and never boring, it is not his efficient style that gained support for John Updike. Unfortunately, his choice of subject matter overshadowed his style of writing, essentially giving way to the â€Å"controversial† tag. Couples is just one example of his unique point of view and manner of describing even the most intimate of details (Amidon 2005, p. 51). The mention and overt discussion of sex remained quite touchy, if not entirely taboo, even as society during the 1960s had significantly modernized. The effect of his controversial topics, however, had led to a period wherein his writings were shunned, to a certain degree, and remained misclassified as bawdy erotica. â€Å"Suburban adultery†, a topic most associated with John Updike, is born of his own experiences in grappling with the temptations of sex and desire. The writing of the novel Couples came at a time when he was completely confused in his personal life, particularly with regards to his marriage. Updike was in the middle of a passionate love affair and was, in fact, contemplating filing for a divorce. In the end, he decided not to push through with the plan for divorce (Pritchard 2000, p. 119). The topic, therefore, is described vividly in every scene of the novel, reflecting Updikes own struggle with his inner demons and the destruction of the institution of marriage before his very eyes. The crumbling of his own marriage proved to be the very basis of Couples. To Updike, a certain degree of the story of a failed marriage is â€Å"sad magic† (Pritchard 2000, p. 124). Extramarital relations for Updike are not erotic, despite the manner with which he describes the sexual activities of his characters in the novel. Rather than titillating, the goal of Updikes prose is to portray the emptiness that these affairs and illicit relationships cause. There is no desire to eroticize or sexualize the characters; the idea is to present the weaknesses of their personalities and the ramifications of unbridled desire. It is not specifically aiming for preaching either, focusing only on the emotional hollowness that gives birth to the seed of lust and temptations in the first place. As Updike himself explains, his idea of sex in his literary achievements is far from intentionally erotic. Rather, the idea is to create a portrait wherein sex is a tool; it is a means by which Updike indicts the weaknesses of societys moral fiber. As he said of sex in his writings in an interview with CNN, â€Å"Ive seen it said of my work that its anti-aphrodisiac, that it doesnt – that my descriptions of sex doesnt turn you on. But theyre not really meant to do that. I mean, sex described in detail is not a turn-on† (Austin 1998). Updike is far from a prude, true, yet his writings are not erotic for eroticism’s sake. The goal is to present moral weaknesses, not join banality. Unlike the earlier accusation of critics, the story of Couples is far from erotic, despite its routine use of sexual scenes and explicit activities. The story revolves around the lives of several couples living in an upscale community in Tarbox – a fictional suburb located in Boston. These young couples live wealthy lifestyles and have enough time on their hands to fool around. Piet Hanema, for example, is a serial adulterer. He has trysts with Foxy, as well as with several more of the novels women. His decadence is merely one of the morally bankrupt scenes in the story. It is not just Piet, though, who experiences a life of immorality and lack of a moral center. The couples engage in â€Å"wife-swapping† activities, such as in the case of the Applebys and the Little-smiths. None of the members of the community are entirely above the erotic rondalla, sending everyone in the community into a moral tailspin. In the end, however, it is Piet and his mistress Foxy who are cast out from the lot. Piet, since the beginning of the novel, is insistent on gaining freedom from his marriage. Though initially not bent towards the destruction of his own marriage, in the end, Piet divorces his wife Angela and his thrown out of the apartment with his mistress. As Greiner (1984) points out, â€Å"lovers are drawn as much to what destroys marriage as to what supports it† (p. 146). They are far from completely beyond the trappings of love, hence its effect as a double-edged sword. While it is love that bound two souls together under the sacrament of marriage in the first place, it is also â€Å"love† or whatever passes for it that successfully questions the sacrament and stands as a threat to its stability. Despite accepting the sacrament of marriage and his chained life, Piet needs and wants room, seeking sex and love from elsewhere despite his wifes presence. There is a need to hone his skills as an illicit lover, and the adrenaline rush of such relationships do exist. And yet despite their illicit activities and immoral actions, Updike refuses to view his characters as villains. They are far from perfect, given their morally unstable relationships, and they are all tottering over the edge of hell with their hypocritical Presybterian lives. None of them truly lives up to the Christian ideals, and they can be described as having their own religion – the religion of sex and lust. Despite these errors and flaws, however, the characters are not evil per se. They are, rather, personifications of Updikes understanding of suburbia and the moral decay that goes on behind the facade of wealth and propriety. They are weak, not evil, and are merely caught in the struggle to keep up with the liberal times even with the significant changes in society during this period (Greiner 1984, p. 148). Unfortunately, the highlighting of adulterous Tarbox soon became news across every home in the United States. Rather than view the sublime veins incorporated in Updikes novel, it was soon branded sensationalized and controversial. Protests emerged, decrying Updikes use of explicit words and graphic portrayal of sex. Perhaps most important of these criticisms, however, may be Anatole Broyards criticism of Piet Hanema, noting that there could be no sympathy for a â€Å"fornicator† (Greiner 1984, p. 149). In this the critics see the point of Updikes novel, yet completely miss it as well To classify Updikes novel as no more than a potboiler is to ignore its finer and less prominent points. To many, the adulterous activities and their graphic descriptions are the core of the novel. Looking past beyond such however, is the only way to find the true meaning of Updikes Couples. In the world of Tarbox, sex is just another ordinary day. Despite their preoccupation with it, sex is not the core of the community. It is, of course, an ironic glue that brings various couples together and inevitably unhinges them when the time comes. The characters are simply wandering from one relationship to another, in search not of true love, but of companionship and momentary beauty. Rather than portray the couples as treacherous villains determined to subvert the values of the day, Updike presents them as brats unwilling to succumb to the demands of married life. The central concept of their lives is â€Å"fun†, and with the end of each day, beyond the trappings of the suburban community, husband and wife find themselves alone with the bills, the children, the leftover food and the dishes to wash. To a certain degree, such a relationship is less exciting and not quite as desirable as spending time with the equally bored neighbors (Grenier, 1984, p. 151). The couples, therefore, are far from total villains and much easier to understand as adults with the minds of young children, unwilling accept responsibility yet entirely willing to pursue the cult of fun. To say that they are the product of a determinedly lost generation is to heap unnecessary blame on the characters. It is not that they preeminently wished for the structure of such a morally reprehensible situation. The issues in the novel are, in fact, the product of the times. The characters are merely swept up in the current, following the changing values and transitional problems that occur when modernity clashes with traditional values. There are changes in society, with growing wealth and scientific advances, and it is simply not possible to ignore the changes; the characters succumb to the call of the â€Å"wild† despite their surface urbanity. As mentioned earlier, it is not an innate â€Å"evilness† that Updike wishes to uncover in his Couples. The underlying core is less sinister than what critics and censors of his day had easily assumed. In truth, the story of Updikes novel is no more a potboiler than a thriller. It is simply a portrayal of Updikes own nostalgic view of the changes in society, including the slow deconstruction of a small town similar to the one he grew up in. Throughout the novel, the tone is largely wistful, reminiscent of a different past. There is something in the manner with which Updike contrasts the beautiful town and the rotting away of its core; a resounding sigh seems to escape Updikes lips with every word. Much of the storys very core is essentially reliant on the time frame of the novel. Updike pegs it on the early 1960s, under the Kennedy administration. As he himself pointed out, there is no way that the plot couldve existed in a different era. He noted that the action â€Å"could have taken place only under Kennedy; the social currents it traces are as specific to those years as flowers in a meadow are to their moment of summer† (Neary 1992, p. 144). There is something specific in the era that Updike particularly takes note of: the introduction of the bill and the liberation of women from the yokes of pregnancy. Without fear of pregnancy hanging over their heads, sex outside of marriage becomes a much more realistic possibility. It is what Updike calls the â€Å"post-pill paradise† (Sheed 1968), a world wherein the problem of unwanted pregnancy no longer exists. Updike describes his characters as wealthier than their predecessors, having been born into an era of relative prosperity. There is no limit to their desire for fulfillment, regardless of the price. They are driven by the id, raised in a culture of â€Å"me† and supported by the changing society. It is not just Tarbox which is changing. It is far from a microcosm entirely separate from the rest of society. Updike does not portray the suburb as a cancer entirely separate and different from the rest of the country. Rather, the suburb of Tarbox is a representative of many. The characters, themselves generic, are easily interchangeable and quite possibly recognizable in any town across the United States. In this world of change, not omly the couples of Tarbox are transformed. They are part of a larger social transformation, and Updikes focus on their interactions and illicit affairs present his understanding of society (not just suburbia) in general. The couples, though seemingly too deviant and unbelievable to be considered general stereotypes, are in fact Updikes definition of the moral breakdown of society. It is not an indictment of suburban life (despite the use of the term â€Å"suburban adultery†). The location of his subjects is more of a realistic portrayal than an unfair indictment. His judgment is not one of localization. Rather, Updike is presenting the class most affected by the changes in the Kennedy administration, primarily due to their wealth and social status. It is also in this level that the reality of class versus crass becomes most realize. Behind the beautiful homes and educated facades, there is darkness. The players randomly select their next partner, playing a grand, elaborate and ritualistic game of musical chairs with their neighbors. Play, again, is a significant theme in Updikes novel, being the central concept that drives the couples to pursue sexual adventures again and again. The significance of the time period should not be ignored. Updike describes his characters as the products of national tribulations. Following the Great Depression and World War II, these young couples find themselves thrust into a new America, one that struggles to keep up the facade of decency while slowly eroded away by modernity and the vulgarity of the new world order. These characters are far from intentionally indecent, however. Their initial goal was to be enveloped in beauty, separate from the staleness of the rest of the nation and the vulgarity that threatens to creep up the morality ladder (Sheed 1968). In the end, however, they find themselves in a vulgarity of their own making, hidden under the sheen of decency and beauty that the suburbs signify. Quoting Updike, â€Å"the ultimate influence of a government whose taxes and commissions and appetite for armaments set limits everywhere, introduced into a nation whose leadership allowed a toothless moralism [sic] to dissemble a certain practiced cunning, into a culture where adolescent passions and homosexual philosophies were not quite yet triumphant, a climate still furtively hedonist† (Neary 1992, p. 146). The passage describes Updikes view of the world in which the couples were molded. For all their failures and flaws, these characters were but the products of a bigger problem. Society itself, led by the government, was far from the pristine, moral structure it once was. The Applebys, the Little-smiths, the Guerins, the Constantines, the Hanemas etc. are merely the by-products of a flawed era. The destruction of society, therefore, does not begin and end with suburban adultery. It is merely a microcosm of a larger decay – one that goes beyond the wife-swapping activities of the inhabitants of Tarbox, Boston. In part, Updike’s focus is on the period and the circumstances that give rise to the opportunities for suburban adultery. One significant detail that Updike notes is the introduction of birth control. Whereas the novels of the 1950s focused on the â€Å"everyone is pregnant† motif, in Updike’s novel it is more of an â€Å"everyone is guilty† narrative (Greiner 1984, p. 145). Previously, pregnancy outside of marriage was the biggest obstacle for illicit lovers. Physical consummation, after all, could always leave an undeniable proof in the woman’s womb. With the introduction of the pill, however, a new â€Å"paradise† is opened to the people, with the characters of Updike’s Couples taking full advantage of the situation. These new methods of birth control had, to some effect, liberated the characters from the burdens of pregnancy. Now as long as his mistresses would remain on the pill, Piet would have no problems keeping his affairs in order. No longer would the characters of Updike’s novel fear the repercussions of sex outside of marriage, hence the ease with which they gradually fall into the abyss of sexual debauchery and adultery. And yet it seems as if this is just the tip of Updike’s metaphorical discussion. More than an indictment of the potentially â€Å"evil† consequences of birth control (such as the encouragement of promiscuity, perhaps), Updike’s inclusion of the pill is less of a reproach and more of a symbolism. It is not the pill per se that drives the characters into the arms of others. It is the slow break-down of society, particularly religion. The pill is merely a tool by which society slowly presents its disintegration. In itself, it cannot be identified as the cause of social decay. Rather, it is a sign of the changing times – a symbol of the struggle of the old traditional values to keep up with the changes in the modern world. In Updike’s own point of view, the concept of the novel is not really adultery. It is a discussion of the disintegration of society through the disintegration of church. Marriage, after all, is a sacrament. The destruction of marriage, therefore, does not signify the end of a union alone. It is a metaphor for the slow destruction of the church and its foundations. Sex is the new religion (Greiner 1984, p. 149). With the church crumbling and religion not as reliable as it once was, the characters of Updike’s Couples seek comfort and solace from another source. Marriage is not enough to provide the human warmth the characters require. They are not villains, just people trapped by circumstances and incapable of escaping from the needs of the flesh. It is a religion in itself, this search for fun. Quoting from the jacket blurb of Couples, Sheed (1968) notes how one character is supposed to be a priest and the other a scapegoat. In some ways, the idea of a spiritual leader leading the empty towards greater hypocrisy and shallowness is apt for the story. Fred Thorne is identified as the priest, the leader who organizes parties and games for the bored couples. His party on the night of Kennedy’s assassination is telling; the couples swear to be solemn yet soon revert to their partying ways. In a sense, this invokes a feeling of emptiness, of floating through space. These characters have nothing else but their physical selves to cling to. The government’s leader is assassinated, God strikes his own church with lightning and society is giving way underground to new bores. In essence, they are free of religious and political encumbrances, only to realize that without these structures there is almost nothing to hold on to at all. In the end, there is nothing but the warmth that sex provides – be it illicit or otherwise – giving a physical reality to the world. Without this physical connection, they are lost. The couples move around, shuffle in their beautiful clothing and beautiful homes. Beyond the facade however, are emptiness and a world of gradual moral decay. Works Cited Amidon, Stephen. â€Å"Unzipped: John Updike’s Prose is as Supple as Ever in This Chronicle of a Lifetime’s Erotic Exploits. † New Statesman, 134. 4724(2005): 51 Austin, Jonathan. â€Å"His Characters Allow Updike to be ‘Free’. † CNN. Com, 16 November 1998. Available 27 April 2008, from http://edition. cnn. com/books/news/9811/16/updike/index. html Greiner, Donald. John Updike’s Novels. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1984 Neary, John. Something and Nothingness: The Fiction of John Updike and John Fowles. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992 Pritchard, William. Updike: America’s Man of Letters. South Royalton, VT: Steerforth Press, 2000 Sheed, Wilfrid. â€Å"Couples. † The New York Times, 7 April 1968. Available 27 April 2008, from http://www. nytimes. com/1968/04/07/books/updike-couples. html? pagewanted=1 Updike, John. Couples. NY: Ballantine Books, 1999

Atomism: Democritus And Epicurus Essay -- essays research papers

Atomism: Democritus and Epicurus In the Atomists, we see pluralism taken as far as it could possibly go. We see Democritus and Epicurus divide all the world, as well as the universe, into two categories; atoms and empty space. Everything else is merely thought to exist. The atoms are eternal, infinite in size and number and they are moving through the empty space. There is no motion without empty space. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that motion was impossible in a plenum, but it is here that their theories diverge. In the cause of the motion, we begin to see a variety of opinions. Both Democritus and Epicurus agreed that the â€Å"qualitative world of sense perception arises from the motion of qualitatively neutral atoms. They believe that the immense qualitative variety results from the ‘jostling' of atoms...as they collide and bounce apart, and so, constantly form new groupings† (Jones 84). They believe it to be a mechanical process occurring completely by chance. Furthermore, although new groupings are constantly being formed, only the few that can survive are considered the â€Å"right† combinations. These are the combinations we recognize through our senses as being â€Å"real†, although they are not. However, the way in which this complex motion begins is a source of controversy and disagreement amongst the Atomists. Democritus assumes that the atoms' motion is perpetual. The atoms are never at rest. He presumes that their nature is to move, thereby avoiding â€Å"the problem of explaining the origin of the complex motion of atoms by simply affirming that it is in their nature to move so† (Jones 85). He believes that atoms are born along with the whole universe in a vortex. The vortex is not an outside influence, but rather the motion of the atoms themselves. He never accounts for the initiation of this motion. He simply states that it is an inherent quality of the atoms themselves. Epicurus, on the other hand, wanted to find a reasoning behind the initial movement of the atoms; to find the cause of the initial collisions which start the creation process of the universe. Through observation of objects falling â€Å"down† within our limited perceptual space, Epicurus concluded ... ...ualities? Epicurus ambiguously calls these qualities â€Å"accompaniments† yet never explains how they can exist outside of reality and still be considered real. Epicurus changed the doctrine of Democritus in many ways in an attempt to clarify some of the more questionable postulations. Epicurus' theory is not necessarily superior, but certainly progressive. There is room for discourse on a variety of the Atomists' theories. Since they are the first school of thought from which we have so much written record, there is bound to be divergence of opinion. The areas I have discussed relate only the area of physics. Epicurus attempts to resolve some of the dilemmas Democritus leaves unresolved in ethical and psychological dilemmas as well. Of course, lingual and interpretive constraints play a part in all philosophical theory of the classical period. Yet in our "modern" world, we rely heavily on the ideas set forth by these great thinkers. It would be foolish to take one concept as superior over another because the scope of ideas given to us by these thinkers is too great a wealth to judge subjectively.

Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome

Ancient Greeks and Romans Contributed Ideas on Government The first societies to experiment with ideas on government that would later influence Americans were Ancient Greece and Rome. The Ancient Greeks and Romans developed the ideas of democracy and representative government more than 2,000 years ago. A Democracy in Ancient Greece. The cities of Ancient Greece were organized into city-states, or small independent nations. Athens was one such city-state. For many years, Athens was ruled by a small group of wealthy and powerful men known as the Great Council.Members of the Council passed laws that favored wealthy people like themselves. Between 750 B. C. and 550 B. C. , however, this system of rule began to change. Poorer Athenians, such as farmers and small merchants, protested the great power of the Council. They believed that the laws made by the Council harmed the interests of the middleclass and poor. Many Greeks wanted to participate directly in making laws affecting their lives . Greeks used the word â€Å"demos kratia†, to explain what they wanted.The equivalent word in English is democracy, which means government by the people. Gradually, Athenian leaders agreed that more Greeks should be allowed to participate in the Great Council's decision-making process. They developed a political system now known as a direct democracy. In a direct democracy, people not only vote for leaders, but actually serve in the government. In order to decide who should be allowed to serve in the Great Council, Greek leaders developed the idea of citizenship.Those Athenians who were citizens had the right to participate directly in government. But how was citizenship determined? Greek leaders decided that only men who owned large plots of land were citizens. Women, slaves, and people with little or no property were not given the rights and responsibilities of Athenian citizenship. While the Ancient Greeks restricted democratic rights to a small portion of the population, the idea of democracy was born. A Republic in Ancient Rome. Ancient Rome was the first nation to create a republic.A republic is a form of government in which people elect representatives to govern them. Between 750 B. C. and 350 B. C. , the Romans established a republic. At first, only patricians – members of the Roman upper-class were allowed to vote or serve as representatives. Over several centuries, however, the right to vote was extended to plebeians – the lower class. As more Romans gained the right to vote, they used their new power to bring about other changes in the political system. About 450 B. C.Roman citizens demanded that laws governing their lives be written down. They wanted to know what the laws were and that laws could not be changed any time their leaders wanted to. Many Romans believed that codified, or written, laws would prevent Roman leaders from abusing their power. They called this the Twelve Tables and it was posted in the Roman Forum for al l of Rome’s citizens to see. Ancient Greek and Roman ideas and practices concerning government eventually spread to Europe and to the United States.

Fate and Predestination in Moby Dick Essay

Fate and predestination are two entirely different themes found in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. Fate and predestination are not one and the same. Although most people might unknowingly use the terms interchangeably, there is a very real and distinct difference. Fate is determined by man, and is the end result of a free will action. In Moby Dick, Ahab’s free will and belief that he is driven by destiny determines his own fate, the fate of his crew, and results in the inevitable destruction of the Pequod. Melville often uses symbolism to indicate the existence of fate. The Pequod itself is a symbol of the ill-fated journey to conquer the great white whale. On the other hand, predestination is a theological doctrine in which God predetermines the outcome of all events. One assumption of predestination is that God will save some souls while condemning others to eternal damnation. If that distinction is made and held to be true, then fate leaves open the possibility that free will by man exists, while predestination eliminates it all together. And, freewill is important in setting the many complex themes in Moby Dick. Moby Dick is narrated by a sailor known only as Ishmael. The story opens: â€Å"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear or every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people’s hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. This long passage tells the reader all that is needed about Ishmael. First, he’s educated and intelligent. Perhaps he is a teacher. He talks about whaling ships being his â€Å"Yale College and Harvard . † So, Ishmael is qualified to act as narrator for the tale. He is also philosophical. Throughout the story Ishmael reflects on life aboard the Pequod. He also delves into all sorts of academic subjects as well as theology, free will, morality, destiny and fate. However, Ishmael isn’t going to sea to find himself. In fact, he believes all men on whaling ships are lost. Whaling is an inherently dangerous occupation, so taking a berth aboard a whaling ship is Ishmael’s attempt to commit suicide. Ironically, he survives. Ahab and Ishmael are opposites of each other. Ahab dies and Ishmael lives. Essentially, Ishmael is needed to narrate the story because he is the opposite of Ahab who is driven by what he believes to be predestination. Ishmael is trying to create his own fate by killing himself. But, he is still more philosophically grounded than Ahab. For example, in Chapter 96 Ishmael has an image about daydreaming and suicide: â€Å"There is a wisdom that is woe; but there is a woe that is madness. And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can alike dive down into the blackest gorges, and soar out of them again and become invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he for ever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains; so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they soar. † He can see both the literal as well as the metaphorical meaning in this image. Ahab can’t make the distinction. Ishmael has been to sea before and isn’t driven by fate, but he does know whaling is a dangerous business in which injury and death can occur. So, through an act of free will he is tempting his own fate. However, Ishmael in the course of his narrative does make many references to fate. As described, the whaling vessel Pequod is a symbol of doom. Gloomy, black and adorned with whale teeth and bones, the Pequod is a floating coffin named after a Native American tribe that didn’t survive long after the Europeans arrived in North America. It should be noted that there are times in the story when Ishmael disappears for long stretches and replace by soliloquies often delivered by Captain Ahab. Ahab is the one-legged captain of the Peqoud. From the time his leg is bitten off by a whale during a previous journey, he has pursued the huge white whale. Moby-Dick is Ahab’s nemesis which is misunderstood, mysterious, and difficult to interpret. But Ahab attempts to do just that; his efforts are futile and eventually fatal. In fact, Ahab interprets the whale as being the physical incarnation of evil living in the world and believes against common sense that he can defy the natural world and destroy the whale. â€Å"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it. † This quote, from Chapter 41 indicates that Ahab lacks the ability to understand the world around him. Ahab can’t see that the loss of his leg is a result of his dangerous occupation, but, only sees it as evil persecuting him. As a result, he believes it is his inescapable destiny to destroy the evil. And, this soliloquy from Chapter 37 show’s Ahab’s over confidence and belief that he is predestined to destroy the whale. â€Å"Come, Ahab’s compliments to ye; come and see if ye can swerve me. Swerve me? ye cannot swerve me, else ye swerve yourselves! man has ye there. Swerve me? The path to my fixed purpose is laid with iron rails, whereon my soul is grooved to run. Over unsounded gorges, through the rifled hearts of mountains, under torrents’ beds, unerringly I rush! Naught’s an obstacle, naught’s an angle to the iron way! †Ahab does several other things in this passage as well. First, he is attempting to inspire his crew to help him in his quest. Finally, and more importantly, Ahab he feels he has no control over his behavior. In the end, it is Ahab’s irrational behavior and free will, which he very much had control over, that resulted in his death, the destruction of the Peqoud, and demise of the crew. Therefore, predestination had nothing to with the destruction of the ship and crew. Even in his last moments Ahab believed it was predestination that destroyed him. â€Å"Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear! † Ahab curses the whale and his fate as he is going under. Moby Dick disappears and everyone goes under except Ishmael. Moby Dick is a complex tale with too many themes and intricacies to delve into in just four pages. However, it would have been very difficult to narrate the story any differently than what Melville did. Ahab didn’t understand fate or predestination. Yes, he believed he was predestined to conquer evil, but that was only because his view of the world was so literal, he couldn’t see it any other way. If he did have a clearer view of life and the world, he would have seen that losing his leg was an occupational hazard and would never went have gone off on a monomaniacal quest in the first place. Right up until the moment he started to go under the water, Ahab couldn’t see how his own risks could lead to his death, and he didn’t believe he would ever lose his quest to kill the whale and eradicate evil. Ishmael knew the risks involved from the very beginning of the voyage. That was his motivation for going on the journey. So, man created the twist of fate that allowed Ishmael to survive and Ahab to perish.