Baruch Spinozas Anti Anthroponcentric View Essay -- Philosophy Spinoz

When Baruch Spinoza composed his philosophical masterpiece, the Ethics, he knew that his ideas (particularly those of God) would be considered heretical in the extreme, leading to any number of unpleasant consequences. This was the reason that the Ethics were published in 1677, posthumously (p.97)1. His apprehensions are well justified in the light of what he writes in the Appendix (p.145-149) to Part1: Concerning God (p.129-145) regarding the prejudices present in the minds of human beings. For, it is here that Spinoza directly challenges the prevalent religious orthodoxy and seeks to remove the very dogma that was the basis of their power. Spinoza asserts in the Appendix (p.145) that there exist certain prejudices in the minds of people that prevent them from understanding (and accepting as true) the conclusions that he reaches after a thoroughly logical and indeed, geometrical process of reasoning. The root of all these prejudices, he further clarifies, is the almost universal belief that all Natural things exist and act with some definite goal being pursued. Further, he presents for scrutiny the very strong anthropomorphism inherent in most human minds that makes these people believe in the universe having been created for their sake. Lastly comes the religious part of this picture, wherein mankind exists so that it may worship God, thereby closing the circle of creation. Spinoza (naturally, considering his philosophy) rejects this picture and thereby attempts in the Appendix to argue on the following crucial points: 1) The reason 1 Roger Ariew & Eric Watkins. Modern Philosophy: An anthology of primary sources. Indianapolis/Cambridge, 1998. Note: All references to Spinoza will be to this text unless otherw... ...e former, Spinoza replies, â€Å"...the perfection of things should be measured solely from their own nature and power† and not with respect to definitions in the imagination. Furthermore, God had no free will in creating the universe, (from Cor. 1 Pr. 32, p.142 as described previously) and (from Pr.16, p.137) â€Å"from the necessity of the divine..(follows)..everything that can come within the scope of infinite intellect†. Therefore, God must, of necessity, be the cause of everything, perfect and imperfect! 6 In conclusion, Spinoza provides an immaculate argument that should readily convince the reader of the truth of his main proposition in the Appendix, i.e. that the major reason for obstacles in the path of understanding is the anthropocentric view of Nature that most people hold on to, irrespective of the enormity of the contradictions inherent in that view. 7

Hamlet Act 3 scene 1 Essay

Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare. It recounts how Prince Hamlet of Denmark goes about taking revenge for his father by killing his murderer, Claudius. In act 3, scene 1 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern fail to report the reason for Hamlets ‘madness’, so Ophelia, Hamlet’s lover, is instructed by Claudius to see if his ‘madness’ is caused by her. I chose to perform this scene because it shows key elements of Hamlets character, his contemplative yet cynical side, shown fully in his famous â€Å"to be, or not to be† soliloquy and Hamlet’s rash and impulsive side, showing his anger at Ophelia as well as his unpredictability. The area that I focused on was from the start of his soliloquy to where he leaves Ophelia before her â€Å"oh what a noble mind† speech. I started the scene in silence, keeping a neutral body posture, and slowly began with â€Å"to be, or not to be†, instead of making it a huge dramatic statement, I chose to make it more hesitant, with a lengthened pause at the comma, this was done to make it look like it was a statement that had just come to Hamlet. Hamlet is a scholar and a philosopher and I was trying to portray this by making it seem as if he had discovered this notion of the ‘point of existence’, a key recurring theme throughout the whole of the play. Hamlet is not talking about a wish to commit suicide, in fact he does not use the words â€Å"I† or â€Å"me† throughout the whole speech, which meant that the speech was more rhetorical than personal. I tried to portray this by conducting the speech as if it were two balanced sides of an argument. In an underlying tone that would be used to say the phrases like on the one hand for the line â€Å"whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune† and on the other hand, â€Å"or to take arms against a sea of troubles†. I also had to show how Hamlet related to the speech, showing how he contemplated the idea of ending all his troubles through death, but without actually expressing the actual desire to kill himself, so I put emphasis on lines like â€Å"to die, to sleep† and using lengthened pauses to make is seem like he was in pensive state. This ‘argument’ then brings him to the issue with his issue of â€Å"being†, which was that of not knowing what comes after death, which Hamlet concludes is what all men fear, â€Å"thus conscience does make cowards of us all†. I said this line with a defeatist tone, lowering my voice and adding a sigh to show Hamlets philosophical and cynical attributes made him come to this conclusion. When Ophelia enters, Hamlet is initially glad to see her, although he is still in his pensive mood, this was achieved by him smiling when facing her and returning to a more sombre expression when turned away, emphasised by the three â€Å"well†s which are in response to Ophelia demanding how hamlet is. The first is higher pitched, and said with a smile to show how hamlet is happy to be standing in front of his love, the second is more to himself, said with a more questioning feel to it, and the last is more for the audiences benefit who previously participated to his† to be, or not to be speech†, said in a lowered voice almost through gritted teeth to show how Hamlet is thinking about the conclusion to his soliloquy, and the uncertainty of life after death. Ophelia has been instructed by her father to return several tokens of Hamlets love to him, this hurts Hamlet who thinks it odd and makes him start to question her motives; concluding that Hamlet might think that she might have a sent by someone else, at which point I look around stage looking for this ‘other man’ to show how Hamlet is cynical. At this point Hamlets anger comes out, which is where I raise my voice to a near shout, throwing the tokens, in this case, books, to the floor. Hamlet then tells her how he really feels for her, saying, â€Å"I did love you once† which is where I lock with the actress playing Ophelia to show how Hamlet is in fact saying his true feeling, to which she replies â€Å"indeed my lord, you made me believe so†, this blunt statement just angers Hamlet’s character even more, which makes him want to hurt her feelings, so he retorts with â€Å"I loved you not† which is in fact a lie, was portrayed by Hamlet looking in the opposite direction to Ophelia, so I could give Hamlet a pained expression that expressed his true feelings. Hamlet then has his â€Å"get thee to a nunnery† speech, which is where Hamlet again addresses the wider public with his notions; a key speech which is the dramatic climax of the scene, here I had to show Hamlet releasing all his anger and frustration by essentially saying that Ophelia should lock herself away never to be a temptation for any other man ever again. Being quite a vicious message, I chose to put emphasis, on the key words and phrases such as â€Å"get thee to a nunnery† and â€Å"breeder of sinners†, to show it was like Hamlet was actually trying to hurt her with each metaphorical â€Å"blow†. At the end of his speech Hamlet asks the question â€Å"where is your father†, I interpreted this as Hamlet giving Ophelia one last chance, to show his compassionate and loving side. This was done by getting closer to the actress playing Ophelia and instead of demanding as a loud command which is what would have been expected, I whispered it, to show how Hamlet was testing her, as he knew that there was someone else, observing them. And when Ophelia fails his test, I expressed disappointment instead of anger, again to show how really he would have wished for her to be truthful to him, so that he could continue to love her as he always had. Now Hamlet is resigned to not being able to trust Ophelia, so he returns to his previous way of abusing her. I again used this chance to show Hamlets hasher, angrier side. Emphasising his more powerful images such as â€Å"chaste as ice† where I elongated the sound of the sibilance. Toward the end of the scene is where Hamlet says a line that indicates that he is referring to the other person in the room; â€Å"all but one shall live†. This shows how the aim of revenge is ever present in Hamlets head; I showed this by focussing all my characters attention on a spot that had previously been accidentally pointed out by Ophelia. In conclusion, I portrayed Hamlet as an impulsive and unpredictable character who did not always give the reaction expected by the audience. The scene contained a speech that was perfect to show Hamlets philosophical and cynical side, where key themes are introduced into the play. I also showed Hamlets ability to love through his relationship with Ophelia, where even though he knew she wasn’t acting truthfully, he still gave her a chance to prove herself to him. And finally, I was able to show how Hamlet reacted in anger, which was the state that he is in for the better part of the scene, portrayed through a number of little venomous speeches directed at Ophelia.

BILLY BUDD Essays - Billy Budd, Herman Melville, Billy, Budd

BILLY BUDD Essays - Billy Budd, Herman Melville, Billy, Budd BILLY BUDD Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were perfect. They were innocent and ignorant, yet perfect, so they were allowed to abide in the presence of God. Once they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, they immediately became unclean as well as mortal. In Billy Budd, the author, Herman Melville, presents a question that stems directly from this original sin of our first parents: Is it better to be innocent and ignorant, but good and righteous, or is it better to be experienced and knowledgeable? I believe that through this book, Melville is telling us that we need to strike some kind of balance between these two ideas; we need to have morality and virtue; we need to be in the world, but not of the world. To illustrate his theme, Melville uses a few characters who are all very different, the most important of which is Billy Budd. Billy is the focal point of the book and the single person whom we are meant to learn the most from. On the ship, the Rights-of-Man, Billy is a cynosure among his shipmates; a leader, not by authority, but by example. All the members of the crew look up to him and love him. He is strength and beauty. Tales of his prowess [are] recited. Ashore he [is] the champion, afloat the spokesman; on every suitable occasion always foremost(9). Despite his popularity among the crew and his hardworking attitude, Billy is transferred to another British ship, the Indomitable. And while he is accepted for his looks and happy personality, hardly here [is] he that cynosure he had previously been among those minor ships companies of the merchant marine(14). It is here, on the Indomitable that Billy says good-bye to his rights. It is here, also, that Billy meets John Claggart, the master-at-arms. A man in whom was the mania of an evil nature, not engendered by vicious training or corrupting books or licentious living but born with him and innate, in short a depravity according to nature(38). Here then, is presented a man with a personality and character to contrast and conflict with Billys. Sweet, innocent Billy immediately realizes that this man is someone he does not wish to cross and so after seeing Claggart whip another crew-member for neglecting his responsibilities, Billy resolved that never through remissness would he make himself liable to such a visitation or do or omit aught that might merit even verbal reproof(31). Billy is so good and so innocent that he tries his hardest to stay out of trouble. What then was his surprise and concern when ultimately he found himself getting into petty trouble occasionally about such matters as the stowage of his bagwhich brought down on him a vague threat from one of [the ships corporals](31). These small threats and incidents establish the tension between Claggart and Billy, and set the stage for a later confrontation. They also force Billy to search for help. The person he goes to is yet another type of character presented in this book. Red Whiskers. Red Whiskers was an old veteran, long anglicized in the service, of few words, many wrinkles, and some honorable scars(31). Billy recognizes the old Dansker as a figure of experience, and after showing respect and courtesy which Billy believes due to his elder, finally seeks his advice, but what he is told thoroughly astonishes him. Red Whiskers tells Billy that for some reason, Claggart is after Billy, but Billy cannot believe it because he is so innocent and trusting. Through this situation Billy now finds himself in, Melville has us ask ourselves a question: Would it be right for Billy to heed the advice of experience and wisdom and tell the captain about Claggarts conspiracy? Or should he instead keep his mouth shut and try to work things out himself? Being the good person that he is, Billy tries to forget about it and hopes that it will pass, but it does not. And that is where the fourth of these few characters comes in. Captain Vere, with his love for knowledge and books, and his settled convictions [which stood] as a dike against those invading

What make us humans essays

What make us humans essays In general terms the word human being includes a diversity of behaviors. The way each of us is entitled to run their own life; many things that we need to do in order to survive, describe us being humans. Thinking is one of the most important things humans do to overcome lifes struggles. If we would not have the necessity to think before acting we would not be called Humans at all. The fact of saying that a human is able to think does not mean that a human cannot commit a mistake. Thats the other reason we are called humans. Humans make mistakes and we are not perfect; otherwise we would be gods. Being a human is being ourselves, which means that we are all different in one aspect but as a whole we are all called humanity. There are humans from different parts of the world. We all have different cultures, ways of thinking, dressing, ways of behaving and ways of living our lives. Laughing and loving are signs of being humans. That is what makes us different from animals. Animals act by instincts only; humans act by instincts and thinking. Laughing is a human sign; a way of showing friendliness, likeness and sometimes it is a sign of showing love and appreciation to one another. Sense of humor and common sense are very important in a human. That determines the personality of each of us, which it converts us a special kind of person. A Human is unique; there is no one similar to the other one. We are specials; we all have different taste, likeness and hobbies. Being a human means diversity of characters, personalities, physical characteristics, races, food and cultures. Human rights are what make us human. When we speak of the right to life, or development, or to dissent and diversity. It is our spirit that makes us human. It is our spiritual characteristics that make us human beings. We human being have these characteristics that the animals of the lower orders do not have. We know that there is the conce...

The Invention of the Wheelbarrow

The Invention of the Wheelbarrow Its one of those ideas that seems so self-evident, once you have seen it in action. Rather than carrying heavy loads on your back, or burdening a pack animal with them, you can put them into a tub or basket that has a wheel beneath and long handles for pushing or pulling. Voila!   The wheelbarrow does most of the work for you. But who first came up with this brilliant idea? Where was the wheelbarrow invented? The First Wheelbarrows Were Created in China Not too surprisingly, the first wheelbarrows seem to have been created in China - along with the first gunpowder, paper, seismoscopes, paper currency, magnetic compasses, crossbows, and many other key inventions. The exact date and the actual inventors name both seem to be lost to history, but it seems likely that people in China have been using wheelbarrows for around 2,000 years. Invented in 231 CE According to legend, the prime minister of the Shu Han Dynasty in the Three Kingdoms Period, a man named Zhuge Liang, invented the wheelbarrow in 231 CE as a form of military technology. At the time, Shu Han was embroiled in a war with Cao Wei, another of the three kingdoms for which the era is named.   The Gliding Horse Zhuge Liang needed an efficient way to transport food and munitions to the front lines, so he came up with the idea of making a wooden ox with a single wheel.  Another traditional nickname for this simple handcart is the gliding horse. Using the wooden ox, a single soldier could easily carry enough food to feed four men for the entire month. As a result, the Shu Han tried to keep the technology a secret - they did not want to lose their advantage over the Cao Wei. Archaeological Evidence This legend is very tidy and satisfying, but probably untrue.  Archaeological evidence suggests that Chinese people were using the wheelbarrow more than a century before Zhuge Liangs supposed invention of the device in 231 CE. For example, a wall painting in a tomb near Chengdu, in Sichuan Province, shows a man using a wheelbarrow - and that painting was made in 118 CE. Another tomb, also in Sichuan Province, includes a depiction of a wheelbarrow in its carved wall reliefs; that example dates back to the year 147 CE. Invented in the Second Century in Sichuan Province It seems possible, then, that the wheelbarrow was invented in the second century in Sichuan Province.   As it happens, the Shu Han Dynasty was based in what is now Sichuan and Chongqing Provinces. The Cao Wei kingdom encompassed northern China, Manchuria, and parts of what is now North Korea, and had its capital at Luoyang in present-day Henan Province. Conceivably, the people of Wei were not yet aware of the wheelbarrow and its possible military applications in 231 CE.   Thus, the legend could be half-correct.  Zhuge Liang probably did not actually invent the wheelbarrow.   Some clever farmer likely had the idea first. But the Shu prime minister and general may well have been the first to use the technology in battle - and may have tried to keep it a secret from the Wei, who had not yet discovered the ease and convenience of the wooden ox. Since that time, wheelbarrows have been used for carrying all kinds of burdens, from harvested crops to mine tailings, and pottery to building materials.  Sickly, wounded, or elderly people could be carried to the doctor, before the advent of the ambulance. As the photo above shows, wheelbarrows were still being used to carry casualties of war into the 20th century. Invented Again in Medieval Europe In fact, the wheelbarrow was such a good idea that it was invented again, apparently independently, in medieval Europe. This appears to have happened sometime in the late 12th century. Unlike Chinese wheelbarrows, which usually had the wheel under the middle of the barrow, European wheelbarrows generally had the wheel or wheels at the front.

Hamas Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Hamas - Essay Example There are many causes of this violence and brutality that is happening from the both sides but three of the most important reasons are discussed below: 3) Occupation of oil resources: the recent surge in the violence in the region is also directed at the notion that US is after the oil resources of the region and by occupying them, West will deprive the region , its rights on its own resources. I believe that the occupation of Palestine is the root cause of the violence in Middle East and in order to bring in peace to that region, West has to come up with a solution of recognizing the due rights of each party to the region and based on that decide to provide the right political as well as diplomatic support. Hamas is an Islamic militant and political group working in the Palestinian region. Founded in 1987 by Sheikh Yaseen Ahmed in Gaza, Hamas soon emerged as one of the most robust terrorist organizations in the region with Israel as its main target. Listed as terrorist organizations by many countries including Canada and US, Hamas is now considered as the leading political party in Palestine also after the failure of PLO and demise of Yasser Arafat. (Hajjar, 1993). It was also believed that the success of Hamas as political as well as terrorist organization largely depended on the failure of PLO and Yasser Arafat and that the Oslo agreement between Arafat and Israel, brokered by US, provided Hamas necessary political support in the region to flourish and strengthen its roots. (Kristianasen, 1999). It is also believed that Hamas, having an Islamic Brotherhood beginning, emerged as a new militant movement in the region colored with the Islamic hue and it was because of this that Hamas wa s able to won the elections. Hamas is an organization which seems to be combining the Islamic fundamentalism with the Palestinian Nationalism. With the basic aim of the destruction of Israel, Hamas is also intending to replace the PA with an

Should women be allowed in combat (yes) arguing for the issue Research Paper

Should women be allowed in combat (yes) arguing for the issue - Research Paper Example First, women who comprise almost 14 percent of the armed forces should be allowed to serve fully in front- line combat units because they have proven themselves to be mentally, morally, and physically able to lead and execute combat-type operations (Healey, 57). As a result, some of these female marines feel qualified for the opportunity of taking on the role. My personal experience has been that women are as good leaders and team builders as men. I have noticed that women have good interpersonal and communication skills. They are good at taking orders; they are careful, keen and observant, and incorporating them in the combat can make it very successful (express.co.uk). Secondly, there is no clear evidence that integrating women soldiers into military operations or previously closed units damages cohesion or has other ill effects. In fact and independent report has suggested that women who serve in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq had a positive impact on the accomplishment of the mission (King, 409). Allowing women in the military makes the army looks normal to the society and increases its operational capability. General Sir Peter Wall put is that "they are fundamental to the operational effectiveness of the UKs Armed Forces, bringing talent and skills across the board† (express.co.uk).   Allowing women in combat creates a mixed gender force thus keeping the military strong. Deploying and recruiting women who are in better shape is much easier than many men who are sent in combat. Over the years I have realized that women are as intelligent as men and a woman, who commits into doing something, always does it perfectly (express.co.uk). Lastly, women should be allowed in combat because it will elevate their status in the military. Combat duty is often necessary for promotion to senior positions, therefore, denying female personnel the experience further entrenches sexism as very few will reach the highest