Strategic Management Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Strategic Management - Coursework Example Coca Cola itself has stated growth rates with the gradual diversification policy. According to its reports for the year 2013 and third quarter, the overall sales rose by a figure of 2 percent and this was largely attributed to the policies in context of diversification (Trefis, 2013). This in turn brought about a balance to the company’s standing and performance with regard to the previous quarter’s performance.. Diversification is a process when the given company changes its focus from one particular product or item to multiple items and services. This brings along various considerations, challenges and questions with regard to future trends, policies, and actions along with marketing patterns that are needed to be kept intact. This scrapbook looks into these dimensions in case of two globally recognized brands of beverages namely Pepsi Co and Coca Cola. Each has over period of time moved from single item to diversified product and service delivery. Coca Cola’s diversification plan and products delivery came about in the form of Coke Diet, Fanta, Sprite, Mineral water and various other side products that have given Coca Cola an impetus in the market in terms of sales (Volkman, 2014) Such a process of diversification brings along strategic management principles and actions with itself. These include the concept of layout, feasibility against the new product and the communication, promotion and marketing strategy against the given items that are aimed at for expansion. Coca Cola’s diversification plan and products delivery came about in the form of Coke Diet, Fanta, Sprite, Mineral water and various other side products that have given Coca Cola an impetus in the market in terms of sales (Volkman, 2014) The process of diversification opens with itself the new horizons of expanded market. The expanded market in turn leads to increased demand, expanded supply chain network and insuring the timely delivery of products and services.

Importance of English Essay Example for Free

Importance of English Essay By using language someone could make statements, convey facts and knowledge, explain or report something, and keep social relations among the language users. These indicate that by means of language, people can express their ideas, feeling, information etc through communication. Ladies and Gentlemen, As one of language in the world, English is considered and applied as international language. Since then, it is very popular and have been spoken and learnt by almost people in the world. There are some reasons why English is important and many people attempt to learn it. Some of them are: for finding job, traveling, interacting one each other, doing business, taking examination, doing research, writing in the foreign language, etc. Ladies and Gentlemen, In such developing country like Indonesia, English has a vital role in all aspects of life, particularly in science and technology. Furthermore, it can be used for developing relationships in the international forum, for reading English book (especially for students from primary school up to colleges/university), to tighten the relationship among nations in the world, etc. As students, we learn English are intended to obtain various knowledge, to comprehend and understand the textbooks learned in English, to gain knowledge and skills, and to be ready enter to the university, as one of the test requirements for students of senior High School (SMA), etc. Looking at the above important roles of English, that is why English is very important to understand and to master by every people throughout the world since before. My brothers and sisters! At the end of my speech, I will quote a wise expression This expression reminds us how importance of English for human life is. As global or universal language, English is not only enables us to communicate and interact with every people throughout the world, but also it could alter our life to be better. Furthermore, we also must be aware that the western countries play extra ordinary role in developing and keeping science and technology. Thus, if we want to be a skilful scientists, linguists, and be able to compete with the other countries in the world, we must understand, master and learn the language they use, namely English. Ladies and Gentlemen, Before ending this speech, let me conclude the essential points of my speech: 1. English is highly necessary to be learned and mastered by everyone, in order to be able to compete in the globalization era; 2. English is a key to open and master science and technology, because most of scientists write their experts and inventions in English. 3. As students of high school (SMA), we have to prepare ourselves by learning hard, particularly English as well as the other subjects at school; 4. By mastering English enables us to become survive and go anywhere throughout the world; Goethe (a Greek philosopher) has ever said: â€Å"Knowing is not enough, we must apply. Willing is not enough, we must do† Remember: Language indicates Nation. And Don’t Forget â€Å"English is a bridge for the future† Ladies and Gentlemen, I think it’s completely enough for me to this point. The wrong utterances are caused by limitation of my ability and the right one is merely from Allah SWT. So, I beg your pardon, finally I say.

Relationship Between Mind And Body

Relationship Between Mind And Body The relationship between the mind and body has been a preoccupation among philosophers since the Greek antiquity, with famous writers such as 5th Century philosopher Plato, and his student Aristotle. Ideas concerning the mind and body originate as far back as Platos and Aristotles time, whereby they questioned whether or not intelligence is connected with the body. In the 16th Century, Michel de Montaigne treated the same question again, and it was then continued in the 17th Century but by Renà © Descartes and Blaise Pascal. Their point of view is diverse and the conclusion that they reach upon at times is somewhat in a way satisfying to each other or plain rejects. Before embarking on the essay, a brief explanation on their works will be examined. Michel de Montaigne was one of the most influential yet sceptical writers of the 16th Century, especially with his Essais being a compilation of various short topics describing man and human nature. His essays had direct influence on other classical thinkers such as Renà © Descartes and Blaise Pascal. Blaise Pascal was not only an influential French philosopher, but he was also a French mathematician and physicist. His unfinished most famous work in philosophy, Pensà ©es, is a series of philosophical sections and essays, whereby Pascal identifies and explores the contradictions of human nature with regards to psychology and sociology. Pascal used his personal thoughts and opinions concerning human suffering and religious beliefs to write this philosophy towards the close of his life. French philosopher, but also a mathematician and scientist Renà © Descartes, had published two well known philosophical works in history called Discours de la Mà ©thode and Mà ©ditations Mà ©taphysiques. Descartes main goal was to present us with a series of thoughts that he took into consideration, in order to shed light on his views on God and the existence. Rà ©ne Descartes was, by nature a dualist. In fact, he created the notion of Cartesian dualism and was the first person to clearly classify the mind with consciousness and to differentiate this from the brain, which held intelligence. Cartesian dualism viewed that ones intelligence cannot be touched and is non-physical. He was the first to create the mind and body problem, an issue which tried to question how the mind and body can interact, especially if the mind is based solely on thought and the body is purely an addition. This was the basic breadth of the mind-body debate which began during the times of Plato and Aristotle and extended long past Descartess death. Aristotle believed mind was connected to the soul. The mind is the soulss object, which becomes active only when it thinks. The soul, which is also known as the intellect, does not work unless it is thinking. Therefore, it is unlikely that it would be mixed with the body. Aristotle was therefore a thinker who was more concerned with the metaphysical concepts. Platos thought was more based on concrete principles of the natural world. While Aristotle described the levels of reality, Plato focused on subjects such as how one could be of a righteous character, and therefore a better person within themselves. Cartesian dualism permits both these theories to work together in order to be recognised as one. Descartes, like Montaigne and Pascal to some extent, were philosophers who all had different ways of going about their works. Descartes used more indirect means of philosophising. Meanwhile, Pascal would have been purposely direct and informative, as a mathematician who drew on his knowledge of the sciences in order to develop his conclusions. On the other hand, Montaigne studied himself with subjects such as religion, philosophy, humanism as he believed this was crucial in order to describe human nature. These three Frenchmen contrasted with their views regarding the mind and the body. While Descartes thought that the mind was separate from the body, Montaigne along with Pascal definitely would have argued that the mind was part of the physical body. Obviously, there are good arguments for and against these two very different views, which will be explained. Montaigne preferred to make his opinions clear by providing facts in order to attempt to uncover the truth, providing the readers a chance to analyse his thoughts personally. His aim was to describe man and human nature by using memory as a description to address his topic. This is what he did to highlight his view on the mind and body. He argued that the development of the mind is connected to the body and expressed how he believed the imagination is the drive for the downfall of the body. His philosophy regarding these two substances is one of which explains his view that a healthy mind comes from the studies of other great writers. Lame que loge la philosophie doit, par sa santà ©, render sain encores le corps. (Montaigne: 208: 1969) He argues that anyone who is taught by the philosophy of past great writers will have the perfect body, as he believes thinking for oneself is truly unhealthy for the body and mind. Therefore, according to him there is only one type of education whic h should be used, based purely on thoughts of the past to achieve both a healthy body and mind. In order to transform a child to becoming a well formed healthy man, there should be a connection between the mind and body. Throughout De Linstitution des enfants Montaigne proves his opinions for training both body and mind and therefore the tutor is responsible for this training as ce nest pas assez de luy roidir lame; il luy faut ausi roidir les muscles. (Montaigne: 201: 1969) When training the body, two advantages appear. Firstly, the mind is able to relax and secondly the body is able to build itself for the prevention of illnesses. Therefore, the mind cannot work unless the body has been trained. Furthermore, tout lieu retirà © requiert un proumenoir. Mes pensees dorment, si je les assis. Mon esprit ne va pas seul, comme si les jambes lagitent. Ceux qui estudient sans livre, en sont tous là  . (Montaigne: 76: 1993) Even though he was distracted by his books, he persists that one cannot achieve the pleasure of reading unless our mind and body are exercised in the correct manner. There is a healthy regime of the mind no less than of the body, and in fact the two are inseparable. An inquiring mind will be just as active as a healthy body in the pursuit of its interests. (ONeill: 101:2001) According to Montaigne, it is common for one to believe that the mind operates in a different manner to the body. But, even the active life of the body is inseparable from intelligence which itself is not exercised simply by closing ones eyes. (ONeill: 101: 2001) Thus, one should not separate these two elements. We can understand that Montaigne fully believes in this connection. Descartes was able to make complex philosophical concepts simple by breaking them down into manageable pieces. This is what he tried to do with the mind and body problem in order to insist that they are two unique substances, with the mind being regarded as a non-physical element, without connecting to the body. He therefore believed that he could live without the mind. Secondly, that the mind and the body may be dissimilar but they do interact. Nevertheless, he understands that this relationship is not ideal in that doà ¹ il est entià ¨rement manifeste que, nonobstant la souveraine bontà © de Dieu, la nature de lhomme, en tant quil est composà © de lesprit et du corps, ne peut quelle ne soit quelquefois fautive et trompeuse. (Descartes: 89:1992) The mind and body are surely two separate things in some senses of the word, but Descartes could have seamlessly made these two entities dualist aspects that can and must be separated. This is because intelligence comes from a place which cannot be defined. One cannot control the human mind and simply confine it to the body, because intelligence is completely separate from ones physical capabilities. For example, if one were to be paralysed from the neck down, Descartes would argue that the mind would still be unharmed. Similarly, someone could be unconscious but their brainwaves could still be functioning well. Since he believed in the power of the mind and intelligence, he was a deep thinker. Descartes argues, quil y a une grande diffà ©rence entre lesprit et le corps, en ce que le corps, de sa nature, est toujours divisible, et que lesprit est entià ¨rement indivisibleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. je considà ¨re mon esprit, cest-à  -dire moi-mà ªme en tant que je suis seulement une chose qui pense, je ny puis distinguer aucunes parties, mais je me conà §ois comme une chose seule et entià ¨reà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.lesprit semble à ªtre uni à   tout le corps, toutefois un piedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ou quelque autre partie à ©tant sà ©parà ©e de mon corps, il est certain que pour cela il ny aura rien de retranchà © de mon esprit. (Descartes: 86: 1992) Descartes disputes that the mind and body are separable, and argues that the mind is different to the body and therefore one can exist without the use of the other. Furthermore, to clarify this argument, Descartes gives an explanation of the body. If man loses a limb or part of their body, they have not lost the mind. According to Descartes , the mind is the core element that makes him aware that he exists. His well known philosophical quotation je pense donc je suis (Descartes: 110: 2000) is connected to this theory of dualism as it forms the basis of it. According to him, we exist due to the fact that we think. He realises that he has a working mind, without being entirely sure that he has a body. The combination of mind and body presents Descartes views of a genuine human being (Cottingham: 7:1999). He realised that a problem could not simply be analysed on the common sense level. Moreover, his statement cest-a-dire lame par laquelle je suis ce que je suis, est entierement distincte du corps, (Descartes : 111 :2000) can assert that the soul is the fundamental self, in contrast to the Thomist thesis that a human being is essentially a composite of body and soul. (Moriarty : 142: 2003) It is possible for one to doubt everything from God to ones body, but it is not possible for one to deny the fact that there is a consciousness, which led him to this famous motto. He realised doubting t he truth would be the only manner in which he would find out what was essentially true regarding the mind and body. However, he managed to put this aside and found one true belief, cogito ergo sum. (Descartes: 110:2000. His belief in God is strong, as he believes God is all-powerful. This enables him to believe that anything he wishes to visualise is without a doubt possible. If he can prove Gods existence, then he will be able to confirm other truths in life. Since the mind and body can be considered clearly as separate, it means that it is possible for God to make it happen. Descartes is not exactly clear on the connection between mind and body, but we can deduce from his work that he did not think they were related. Even though this was the case, he still discusses at some length the nature of the union of the human mind with its body. (Wilson: 177: 1982) Most likely, Descartes would take a roundabout way at arriving at his conclusions. First, he would take an abstract concept, by using the mind and intelligence as a kind of springboard for talking about other subjects more liberally. Then, he would continue to use evidence to back up his theoretical reasoning, probably using more abstractions to support his theoretical concept. Finally, he would wrap up in summation by using some concrete examples of what he was talking about in abstract terms. He believed in what he thought made him who he was. Un autre est de penser; et je trouve ici que la pensà ©e est un attribut qui mappartient : elle seule ne peut à ªtre dà ©tachà ©e de moi. (Descartes : 2000 : 25) not so with Pascal, who could clearly distinguish between the thought processes and separate that out from himself. Pascal, who preferred making explanations about various aspects of reality difficult and layered it with complicated aspects of knowledge argued against the dualist, and easily made the reverse of the mind and body argument. According to him, doubt could only lead to more doubt. He believed that one could not explain ones existence through reasoning and that man is mostly guided by beliefs and feelings. Therefore, the only solution and help is faith. One can only gain certain knowledge through obedience to God. He also confirmed that one may not be able to use his mind due to a certain reason, but yet his body would be kept physically alive. Je puis bien concevoir un homme sans mains, pieds, tete, car ce nest que lexperience qui nous apprend que la tete est plus necessaire que les pieds. Mais je ne puis concevoir lhomme sans pensee. Ce serait une pierre ou une brute. (Pascal: 107:2000) Therefore, it would seem that the mind and body definitely would be connected. Pascal also believe d in the power of the mind, but his focus was more on the physical and the reality of the body. The body is a concrete substance, and empirical in the sense that its functions can be measured and regulated. In his implications, he will find religious yet ethnical views to explain the mind and body problem. For instance he quotes toute notre dignite consiste donc en la pensee. Cest de là   quil faut nous relever, et non de lespace et de la duree, que nous ne saurions remplir. Travaillons donc a bien penser. Voila le principe de la morale. (Pascal: 171: 2000) It is possible to note his stress on morality here as he wants to acknowledge the suffering of human existence that could be found from these two non-connecting substances. Pascal would have been much more of a mathematical thinker. He thought in a linear fashion, and his arguments were in relation to geometry theorems. First, Pascal would begin with one argument and then logically make sure the other arguments followed in a linear sequence. For example, he would take one statement which would be his main idea. Next, Pascal would most likely support this idea with relevant evidence and facts. He would clearly and succinctly make his case as for why the mind and the body were one and the same element. Pascal was primarily concerned with the differences between the intuitive mind and the mathematical mind. In some ways, this would have been the difference between Descartes, Pascal and Montaigne. The mind and the body are surely two separate things in some senses of the word, but Descartes could have seamlessly made these two entities dualist aspects that can and must be separated. Pascal and Montaigne would have no doubt argued in the contra, that the mind and body are ultimately one and the same. However, any philosopher would see that all three philosophers would have had equally valid arguments in trying to convince people of their view. Each philosopher had very valid points about their own positions that would lend relevance to each of their particular theories. Pascal saw himself as a defender of Christianity, whilst Descartes knew himself as purely a philosopher. Without question, Pascal did take into consideration Descartes belief on the mind and body, but he did not believe that Cartesian Dualism was between the soul and the body, but instead between the infinity of God and sin of men. Montaigne accepted that the mind and body were connected, but should be used in the correct manner in order to work efficiently. Yet, all three thinkers share opinions regarding the creation of human and with this we can discover how they both have certain views in common. They both consider human beings as having a body, mind and thought, and because of this, Pascal regard man as un Roseau pensant. (Pascal: 171: 2000) They also realise that the mind and consciousness can encompass the body. These philosophers were all thinkers who looked at the world from their own perspectives and tried to make sense of their worlds. They tried using reason in order to make deductions and educated guesses, making sure to try their hardest to come to logical conclusions. As we can see, the relationship between the mind and body as conceived by all three philosophers vary. Both Montaigne and Pascal believe in the connection of the mind and the body, but Descartes does not. Pascal was hugely influenced by Montaignes writings and this could be the reason why they shared more of the same thoughts. Descartes was also influenced by the works of Montaigne, but had more of an influence from Aristotle and Plato. Both Montaigne and Pascal were sceptics and therefore questioned and rejected ideas of their times, which resulted in doubt. But whilst Montaigne did not find this a problem, Pascal did as he was over whelmed with religious doubts. Alternatively, Montaigne and Descartes differed because Descartes strongly agreed with the dualist view that the mind and body are independent substances. But, all three philosophers argued in favour of Gods existence. For Montaigne, he argued religion and human values through sceptic philosophy and doubt, Descartes through doubt and Pascal through faith. Descartes chose to understand that the mind must be separate from the body and therefore, intelligence was a nonphysical entity. Pascal and Montaigne thought intelligence and the mind were part of the body and also the same. In that sense, all three men were classically trained philosophical thinkers who followed in the footsteps of their predecessors by rationally deducing logical and well-thought-out arguments. Each of these men should be revered for their great contributions to society. 2990 words

Eros And Civilization Analysis

Eros And Civilization Analysis In order to be able to fully understand this literary piece of work, it is important to first start by defining a few terms that will mostly be referred to in this piece of work; Eros refers to an instinct that works towards self-preservation, pleasure and procreation. When the three are considered in a group, they are what constitute Eros. Civilization is a state or condition of being highly developed and mostly refers to a society that has a very high level of organization culturally and socially. In terms of individuality, civilization refers to a certain level of material comfort which a person is used to and probably would not do without. Repression or suppression, which can be used interchangeably in this context, refers to a psychological mechanism in which people try to protect themselves from harmful or not-so appealing thoughts, by blocking them out of their conscious mind. Capitalism is a free market system in which there is private ownership of capital (means of productio n). Distribution of goods and services is based on a motivation to gain more profits than ones competitors. Instincts are strong freely occurring impulses that occur in the mind to warn somebody about something without necessarily reasoning about it. Sometimes also known as an inborn trait, it is the behavior pattern shaped by biological necessities (Herbert, p.16). Eros and civilization is a piece of literary work done by one Herbert Marcuse who was a German philosopher who lived in the 20th century. The literature revolves around a critique approach to Freuds sociological titled civilization and its discontents. Marcuse begins by giving an elaborate description of biology, which he argues is a fight against suppression of instincts, hence is a force that tries to bring out the best of intuition or the sixth sense as many call it. He continues to argue that capitalism, which is the economic lifestyle that has overtaken society, is up in arms trying all it can to prevent us from reaching the level of a non-repressive society. Herbert continues to say that the theory put forth by Freud that repression is a necessary condition if civilization is to survive in the current. On the contrary, Herbert thinks that Eros is more superficial, constructive and liberating (Herbert, p.16). What Herberts works aims at disapproving is the notion that human instincts and suppression/instincts/superego are always in conflict for survival. Freud argues that the superego is ever in a struggle to follow societys norms and rules at its own expense. In his view, Eros and civilization cannot co-exist, and their clash is what gives rise to a repressed humanity history. He continues to say that it is as a result of suppression of instincts is what has given rise to the modern level of civilization that we are living in today, without which civilization would not have been possible. He gives the example of the sexual instinct. Had it been that human beings give in to this instinct whenever it arises, without a second thought and without channeling that energy into progress, it is likely that there would be no civilization at all in the first place. Herbert comes in to argue that in as much the energy is channeled into progress, human beings do so at the expense of their Eros; pleas ure, procreation and self preservation, which should not be the case. According to Marcuse, progress is just another word for sacrifice of human happiness. He is of the opinion that conflict is not really between work and Eros, but between alienated labor and Eros. To give an example on this, he goes ahead to say that sex, for example, is a preserve of the capitalists, and for the laborers when they are not disturbing progress. He advocates for a socialist society that would not need the performance of the poor top progress, and hence a society that would not deliberately suppress the sexual drives of its inhabitants. Such a society would do away with alienated labor and in its place adopt non-alienated libidinal work. This would then give rise to a non-suppressive civilization. In his view, Herbert confidently infers that instincts are shaped by historical aspects like repression and that today, society suffers from increased suppression which is as a result of contemporary society (Herbert, p.24). The struggle for existence is a dynamic concept that should involve a rationality that subdues repressive reasoning. This way, when happiness and reason converge, they will be able to create their own hierarchy of doing things, their priorities and divisions of labor, without one being repressed to give way to the other. This is the performance principle that should administer things or events, but not people. This is so much in contrast to modern civilization which is nothing more than close coordination and arrangements that must carry recognized authority. Marcuse has established that todays hierarchical civilization does not come easy or with freedom per se, but it all the same comes so strongly because repression has become so effective that it has assumed the position of freedom. An attempt in the abolition of this order of things is seen as a terrorization of freedom, which in essence is nothing more than repression of gratification and pleasure. Freedom, in his perception is not only private, but does not exist in the absence or privacy. So the question arises, does civilization give rise to freedom, and how? If it does not, who is supposed to establish and enforce objective standards? After a closer analysis of other philosophers writings, Marcuse has settled for the idea that creation of a favorable human existence for all people is no longer confined to a selected few. It is now very possible to create happiness, but only if the human consciousness is not arrested and diverted elsewhere. People have the capacity to learn, understand and tell the difference between what can be termed as normal repression and excessive repression. This cannot be achieved overnight, but would, with time, give rise to a utopia society, marked with perfection, happiness and a balance between work and gratification (Herbert, p.27). Major themes raised by Herbert Marcuse In his theory of Eros and civilization, there are many life topics that this philosopher seeks to address. These themes include conflict, happiness, sexual desire/lust, gratification, and exploitation. In the theme of exploitation, we can see that repression is a force applied unconsciously by laborers, so that they can please their employers in the capitalist setting. The employers on the other hand know that their employees are working extra hard at the expense of their happiness, but they do nothing to liberate the employees from this torture. All the employers want is to maximize their profits from the labor of these poor fellows, while at the same time being able to enjoy the finer qualities of life. One of the things that they enjoy freely without having to repress their feeling is sex, as Marcuse says †¦sex is a preserve for the elite†¦ who in this case are non others than the exploitative employers. Life, looking at it from a larger perspective, also exploits the me mbers of society. This is because they put in so much effort into their work, with the hope of being able to enjoy rewarding benefits, but what happens? Life continues to tie them in a cycle of what is commonly referred to as the rat race; putting much effort with little or no rewards to enjoy. Isnt this exploitation (Herbert, p. 36). The theme of happiness comes out so strongly because it is the essence of the writing anyway. Herbert seems to strongly support the idea that happiness should be the essence of living, and anything that derives us of the opportunity to be happy should be done away with or modified to fit into the lifestyle in which we can derive happiness. Marcuse says that a utopia society is possible, a society where everyone is happy, satisfied with life and still enjoys the benefits of labor. He dreams of a society that will not require Eros does not posses a natural self-restraint, delay or detour from the normal course of life. The theme of gratification comes with happiness. Marcuse is of the idea that, when peoples desires are met and they have a sense of gratification, then the most likely thing that will follow is happiness. Gratification comes as a pre-requisite for happiness. When Eros and civilization co-exist at harmonious levels, what results is gratification. Conflict is depicted so clearly when Freud suggests that for there to be civilization, there must be some level repression. Civilization is viewed as progressive development and for progress to be realized, energies that seek gratification must be converted into energy and then directed towards progress. There is conflict of instincts, progress/development and happiness/gratification. This conflict as depicted by Freud is what forms the basis of Herberts critic theory of Eros and Civilization. There is also conflict of ideas in that while one philosopher feels that Eros and civilization cannot co-exist, the other one is of a totally different view and feels that Eros must be present if civilization is to be meaningful (Herbert, p.46). Sexual desire is theme that is sharply projected in Herberts work of Eros and civilization. To Marcuse, the ability to freely express and satisfy sexual desires equate to human liberation. This, he says, has become a preserve for the rich and the elite, while the poor and the less educated are left with nothing but alienated labor that forces them to suppress their desires, with a false hope of becoming civilized. He adopts the Marxist approach and advocates that human beings should adopt play, phantasm and art in order to be able to fully express their real needs and desires. Marcuse sees human beings as the vessels of abundance, with the full potential of gratification of energies and other faculties of existence. Non-repressive civilization is a concept that Marcuse is fond of referring to, having borrowed the idea from Marx, with a great emphasis on sexual liberation. Describe the internal logic of the piece of political philosophy you are reading. This piece of article has a great sense of logic in it, in that it brings out the complete essence of civilization. If civilization is described as the level of material comfort that an individual is able to enjoy and which he hopes to maintain, then it beat logic if man is able to create that wealth, but lacks the freedom or opportunity to enjoy the benefits that come with the wealth, then he might as well not have struggled so much to make that wealth. In as much as Freud argues that some repression is determined by society, Marcuse is of the feeling that some limitations that we impose on ourselves are not necessarily stimulated by an external repressive reality principle. Instincts, he says, are sometimes bound to obey the rules of nature because they happen to have inherent libidinal value. This he goes on to explain saying that there is a great possibility that the sexual instinct in nature has some characteristics that makes it impossible to achieve absolute gratification. Rep ression, if always allowed to dominate the human mind, would more likely than not become barriers to human freedom since they tend to protect that other nature from which pleasure, gratification and happiness originates. Eventually, human beings would not be able to rise to the level of self actualization; neither would they be able to differentiate gratification at the mere sense of the word and happiness as a result of gratification. If human beings concentrated on the pleasure principle, then they would be able to bring together their refusal s and selections, gauge which ones helps to alleviate conflict, pain and frustrations, then these antagonisms would be embedded with the rational mind of gratification ((Herbert, p.74). Pleasure principle is a concept based on psychoanalysis and was developed by Sigmund Freud and Marcuse applies it in his Eros and civilization theory to bring out the close relationship between the strength of Eros and the level of civilization that one can achieve depending on that strength. 6the principle of pleasure states that people are always on the look out for things, activities or events that bring them pleasure and not pain. They are always out to satisfy their biological and psychological needs. On the other hand, and contradictory to the pleasure principle is the reality principle, which tends to postpone gratification when necessary for attainment of a greater need at that moment. The id, which is the selfish nature in human beings, is ruled by the pleasure principle and starts operating when human beings are very young. As they grow older this nature is overtaken by the ego and superego, which teach man to suppress their immediate desires and emotions and to defer grati fication. This is how people learn to reason and to take account the reality principle, which even though seeks pleasure as well, does so in account of reality and hence postpones pleasure. Marcuse is of the idea that id should not be suppressed and should be let to rule, but in a balanced level. If the so much desired pleasure can be attained in the here and now and yet maintain the required level of civilization, then be it whatever the cost (Herbert, p.264). The reality principle on the other hand takes into account the advantage there is in postponing gratification for the sake of attaining a goal that is long lasting and which will provide security in the future. This is where the concept of repression comes in as depicted by Freud. The principle implies that is only desires and pleasures can be suppressed today and that energy directed towards growth and progress, then gratification will come at a later date, with all its benefits because with it will be happiness and satisfaction. To Marcuse, this is flawed thinking because repression of desires and emotions is an injustice to naturally occurring desires and wants. For example, he says, repressing the desire to have sex today in order to enjoy it at a later date when one is economically stable is doing an injustice to this natural biological drive that one is born with. Logically speaking, if these desires were not meant to be satisfied, why then do they exist in the first place? Why does their gratification have to be suppressed all in the name of civilization? In Marcuses words and opinion, it is very possible for these two factors to harmoniously co-exist (Herbert, p.67) Incorporate some historical context surrounding Herbert Marcuse. Herbert Marcuse was a German philosopher born in Berlin in the year 1898 and died in 1979. He was a critical thinker who in his lifetime wrote a lot of philosophical works among them being Eros and Civilization, One dimensional Man and The Aesthetic Dimension. In his early youthful years, he joined the German army and he later found his way into the soldiers council that participated in the Sparta cist uprising where he became a members. By the year 1922 he had completed his Ph.D. thesis at the University of Freiburg. He moved to Berlin after this and worked with a publishing house and while at it met and married Sophie Wertheim, who was a mathematician. In 1924 he and another writer by the name of Martin Heidegger, whom he referred to as his greatest teacher, wrote a book by the title Hegels Ontology and Theory of Historicity, which was later published in the year 1932. In 1933 after Marcuses academic career was blocked by the rise of the Third Reich, he joined the Frankfurt Institu te for Social research. In the same year he published his own review of Marxs Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. This was the first publication that helped him gain a social standing as a theorist of his generation. He did not step here because while still a member is the Institute, he created a model for critical social theory by creating a theory on capitalism. In this theory he described the relationships between philosophy, sociology and cultural criticism. He went ahead and provided a criticism and analysis of German fascism. His works were boosted by the fact that he closely worked with critical theorist while in Frankfurt Institute (Herbert, p.301). In an analysis and critique of Marxs woks, Marcuse argued that many of Marxs thoughts had become too rigid for life and that they needed a phenomenological view in order to become revived and to apply to the modern-day life. This is bearing in mind that Marx had neglected individuality in his writings, yet Herbert was for liberation of humanity from the philosophical ideologies that held him captive. Herbert views a world where society would transform from capitalism to socialism. His study and critique of Hegels Ontology and theory of Historicity also had some major contributions to the Hegel renaissance that took place in Europe around the same time. His was an emphasis on the theory of spirit and dialects, which greatly shaped the outcome of the Hegel. Herbert became quite an observer on anything and everything about society, from politics, to economics to social interactions. So ingrained was he in analyzing society that in 1941 he wrote his own book in English whose title was Re ason and Revolution. The book traced the genesis of Hegel, Marx and modern social theory. In 1934 he had become a social radical and he fled from the Institute of social research in which he was based then and went to the United States where he lived for the rest of his life ((Herbert, p.304). Marcuse served in the Office of Street services and in the government offices in the years between 1941 and 1950. It was his experience in this workforce that led him to write the book Eros and Civilization. In his view, the US government was motivated by a desire to overcome fascism. It was in this book that Herbert tried to synthesize Marx and Freuds ideologies and to bring out an outline of a non-repressive society. He argued that the suggested repressed conscious in human being is expressed through daydreams, works of art, philosophy and other works of cultural projection. In his works, Marcuse hoped to bring out the possible outlines of non-repressive civilization characterized by libidinal and non alienated labor, play, free and open sexuality and liberation of humanity into freedom and happiness. His desire and vision for a liberated society gave shape to many of his 1960s writings and this is what helped him to become a major political, social and intellectual influence durin g his lifetime and years after his death. It was during his tenure at Brandeis University in the year 1958 that Marcuse published a critical study of the Soviet Union (Soviet Marxism) and his view and opinions are what brought to an end the taboo that existed within the government circles of criticizing the USSR and Soviet communism. He distanced himself from those people who had a tendency of viewing Soviet communism as a bureaucratic system that was not capable of reforms and democracy. To him, the Union possessed the potential to become liberal and this indeed was seen in reality in 1980 when the union came under the rule of Gorbavech. In an attempt to theorize the potential decline of capitalism, Marcuse published yet another critical book known as One Dimensional Man in 1964. He argued that the industrial society had succeeded in creating false needs in which individuals would be so much ingrained to satisfy that they would forget about everything else that pertains their lives. Media, industrial management, advertising and contemporary modes of thinking all worked in perfect harmony in order to keep humanity from complaining, negativity and opposition. As a result, man became a one-dimensional creature while his very aptitude and ability for critical thinking withered away. This book was severely criticized by orthodox Marxists and other theorists. However, it remains a great influence in the New Left as it was in the forefront for a demand of revolutionary change that earned Marcuse the respect of new radicals ((Herbert, p.216). Conclusion Eros and Civilization has continued to be a great piece of philosophical criticism that arouses mixed feeling among other philosophers and theorists. Marcuse is today a renowned social, political and economic critic although his influence is slowly but surely waning. However, this fading of his influence can greatly be attributed to the fact that there are not many writings that have followed since the publication of Eros and Civilization to support his works. However, this does not mean that his works have no relevance to the contemporary society we live in today. Marcuse presents humanity with rich and unbeatable philosophical views on human beings and their relationship to society in terms of nature, social theory and radical politics. In addition, Marcuse had a vision of the existence of a liberal, repression-free society that allowed people to attain happiness without necessarily postponing gratification. Marcuse comes out very strongly as a sharp, keen and ever-present social a nalyst. In other writings, he brings out the relationship between technology, economy, and culture and everydays life and even predicts a rapid change. In as much as technology was not so advanced in those days, we in the twenty first century can witness what this philosopher predicated. Marcuse had a great desire to leave behind a legacy and this he achieved without much struggle. Eros and Civilization, if well studied and analyzed forms a basis on which society can become free from oppression and repression and people can learn to live a day at a time. Work cited Herbert M., Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, London, Routledge, 1987

Characterization in Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown Essay -- Young Goo

Characterization in â€Å"Young Goodman Brown†Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      The dialogue, action and motivation revolve about the characters in the story (Abrams 32-33). It is the purpose of this essay to demonstrate the types of characters present in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown,† whether static or dynamic, whether flat or round, and whether protrayed through showing or telling.    There are only three well-developed, or three dimensional characters, in this short story, and they are the protagonist, Goodman Brown, and his wife, Faith, and the fellow-traveller or the devil. Faith is, of course, less well developed than her husband; much of her development comes from inference rather than from action,dialogue and explicitly expressed motivation as in the case of Goodman Brown.    From the very outset of the tale, Goodman is a person of action: â€Å"YOUNG GOODMAN BROWN came forth at sunset, into the street of Salem village, but put his head back, after crossing the threshold, to exchange a parting kiss with his young wife.† The reader sees him develop emotionally even as he walks away towards the woods:    So they parted; and the young man pursued his way, until, being about to turn the corner by the meeting-house, he looked back and saw the head of Faith still peeping after him, with a melancholy air, in spite of her pink ribbons.    "Poor little Faith!" thought he, for his heart smote him. "What a wretch am I, to leave her on such an errand! She talks of dreams, too. Methought, as she spoke, there was trouble in her face, as if a dream had warned her what work is to be done tonight. But, no, no! 'twould kill her to think it. Well; she's a blessed angel on earth; and after this one night, I'll cling to h... ...h these grave, reputable, and pious people, these elders of the church, these chaste dames and dewy virgins, there were men of dissolute lives and women of spotted fame, wretches given over to all mean and filthy vice, and suspected even of horrid crimes.    In this essay on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s â€Å"Young Goodman Brown† we have seen that the narrator’s use of the showing technique presents two dynamic characters, three round characters and a host of undeveloped, static characters.    WORKS CITED    Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1999.    Hawthorne, Nathaniel. â€Å"Young Goodman Brown.† 1835. http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~daniel/amlit/goodman/goodmantext.html    Wagenknecht, Edward. Nathaniel Hawthorne – The Man, His Tales and Romances. New York: Continuum Publishing Co., 1989.

A Holiday For Murder :: essays research papers

Part 1, Chapter 1. A man called Stephen gets off a train and he is set on doing something that he has planned to do for a long time. The man is from Africa because he said that he felt homesick. Was three days before Christmas. Uses words like DrabSaw a beautiful girl sitting on the train. She looked out of place. Part 1, Chapter 2.Pilar, the girl narrates. She was also set to do something. She saw a good looking man in the corridor. He walked in to talk to her. Gave what both people are thinking while they are talking to one another. They talked about how much they hated England. Pilar came from Spain. A war was on at the time. She told a story of when her driver was killed by a bomb: she did not seem to care! (P5)He told her about Africa and a story of when he was a kid. Part 1, Chapter 3. A bunch of people talking about their father. They talk of how much they hate him, and how they want to break their chains. Lydia had a garden with a number of scenes that she had made the garden to look like. One of the scenes was the Dead Sea. Butler had been at the house for forty years. Part 1, Chapter 4.Two, David and Hilda, talking about the man's mother and how she was humiliated by his father with his affairs that he boasted about. The mother was not able to devorce because of the times. Blames his father for his mothers' death. He had not seen his father since he started college because of a dispute between what he wanted to do and what his father wanted him to do. Part 1, Chapter 5. George Lee and his wife are talking about his father's great wealth. "A millionaire twice over, I believe." (George:P17)Made his money from mining South African Diamonds.Georges' sister died a year before the time of the book. Harry is the brother who went travelling the world, and often sent messages to wire him money. He usually got money from his father even though he had a huge fight with his father before he left because his father wanted him to do something with his life. Part 1, Chapter 6. The old man and Lydia talking about the two mysterious people that were supposed to show up the next day.

Huck Finn: Appearance Versus Reality

Many people in this world will believe in the first impression they get. The appearance people see will usually satisfy them without further investigating into the reality of a situation. The difference between appearance and reality can be quite different. This also applies to literature. There are many instances where an author will describes a character as kind, but is actually deceptive and mean. In the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, there are characters and situations that show how appearances can differ from reality.The three main instances are the Grangerford and Shepherdson feud, through the Duke and the Dauphin, and Miss Watson. The difference between appearance and reality is easily seen through the Grangerford and Shepherdson feud. They are two families who appear to be very classy. Huck believes them to be noble families. Huck shows that he believes this when he says, â€Å"There was another clan of aristocracy around there – five or six families â€⠀œ mostly by the name of Shepherdson. They was as high-toned and well born and rich and grand as the tribe of Grangerfords† (142).The two families show that this is not how they really are when they shoot at each other and try to kill one another. Col. Grangerford is also a man who is not who he appears to be. He is the head of the Grangerford family and in Huck’s eyes, is the perfect man. Huck says, â€Å"COL. Grangerford was a gentleman, you see. He was a gentleman all over; and so was his family† (140). Huck sees a man who is kind and perfect. The reality is that Col. Grangerford allows for the continuing slaughter of two families over a feud they don’t even remember how it started. Col. Grangerford is actually the exact opposite of the person he appears to be.The Grangerford faTmily is overall not who they seem to be. They appear to be kind and thoughtful, yet they partake in the owning of slaves. Huck finds out that the Grangerford family owns many fa rms with over a hundred slaves. The Grangerford’s could not possibly be good people and treat hundreds of people with disdain. The Grangerford and Shepherdson families are perfect examples of people are not who are not who they appear to be. The Duke and the Dauphin are two men who fake their appearance for a living. As con-men, they rely on people to believe in their appearance.The episode of the Royal Nonesuch illustrates how the Duke and the Dauphin swindle people. They put up posters around the town stating that there would be a performance of the Royal Nonesuch for three nights. The tricksters’ plan was to charge the villagers to get in to the performance, and then the Dauphin would cut the performance extremely short. They achieved this and made a large sum of money. They also use their ability to fake their appearance to gain special treatment from people. This was seen when the Duke said, â€Å"I will reveal it to you, for I feel I may have confidence in you. By rights I am a duke† (163)!The Dauphin quickly followed the Duke’s lead and said, â€Å"You ain’t the only person that’s ben snaked down wrongfully out’n a high place/ Bilgewater (the duke), I am the late Dauphin† (164/165)! By claiming that they are people of high stature Huck and Jim believe that they should be treated like royalty. However, Huck was smart enough to be able to identify the men as fakes and see past their appearance. That prevented Huck from completely following the men as a servant. The Duke and the Dauphin also show that if we just accept people for whom they appear to be, we could get hurt. The episode with the inheritance claim is an example of this.The family believed the Duke and Dauphin to be the uncles of the Wilks nieces and therefore claim the six thousand dollars. People such as the Duke and the Dauphin use people’s compellation to believe in appearances to survive. Not everyone takes advantage of peopleà ¢â‚¬â„¢s awareness toward others; some, like Miss Watson, are actually better people than their appearance dictates. In the beginning of the book Huck talks about Miss Watson in a quick description. Huck said, â€Å"The Widow’s sister, Miss Watson, a tolerable slim old maid, with goggles on, had just come to live with her, and took a set at me now with a spelling-book.She worked me middling hard for about an hour, and then the widow made her ease up† (3). Miss Watson appears tough and severe to Huck, employing harsher methods than necessary at times. From Huck’s point of view she does appear like a mean old women, but she most likely had her reasons for using the methods she did. Huck was most likely not the best student and his behavior skills were sub-par. It is easy to see how Miss Watson became frustrated with Huck’s struggle to be civilized. The underlying concept behind her strictness is that she cares for Huck.There has to be a reason for her to us e up so much energy to try and teach a boy without any previous knowledge. Huck does not realize that Miss Watson actually cared for him until his conscience starts bothering him about Jim. His conscience was theoretically incorrect because he was upset that he had taken Jim from Miss Watson, but he understood why Miss Watson acted the way she did in the beginning of the novel. Huck realized this when he said, â€Å"Why, she tried to learn you your book, she tried to learn you your manners, she tried to be good to you every way she knowed how.That’s what she done† (118). Miss Watson is an example of someone who is better in reality than who she appeared to be. The appearance of something whether it is an object or a person, is not always what is true. The true reality behind something or someone may be completely different than what seemed. Some people take advantage of people who commit to a first impression. Others are actually better people than what their appearanc e dictates. Looking into this topic, I realized that applying the concept used in understanding literature can also be used in life.The skill of being able to understand who a character is and why they do the things they do instead of just accepting how they appear can translate into real situations. We can do this by looking at situations through another’s point of view; or commonly said, putting yourself into another’s shoes. Gaining a deeper understanding of someone’s actions and beliefs can help us rise above the level of just tolerance. When we gain this understanding, we reach a level of acceptance. You can always have facts bolstered by imagination, but you can never imagine facts.