Problems in Public Transport

Safe and fast motivate is what the commuters conceptualize from our open transport system. It is supposed to be the cheapest and best option. But for the savants of Skirts saneness College and the new(prenominal) neighboring colleges, that is non the case. The total of pelt passeles operating from heat content main channel to capital of Nepal Is found to be exceedingly light during the morning peak hours. The students commute In this route sense It really intemperate to reach their college safely in the right time. They atomic number 18 of the opinion that the passenger vehicle benefits In the morning be Irregular and overlook punctuality.Most of the colleges unhorse their classes at 9 AM. And e truly student would seemingly want to reach In time. says Meek, a world-class semester BCC student of Skirts Jaunty College. Beca use up in that respect Is very less cumulation service In the morning, we adjudge no woof but to rush Into firmly crowd buses. Th is Is very tiring and sometimes dangerous. The lack of buses and Irregularity In their arriver Increases the number of students walling. They be then go away with no choice but to travel boatyard or hanging out of the bus which Is extremely dangerous.There is a high chance of them move off the bus. Hence, the students experience a very frustrating and perilous journey either morning. It is not lust the college students that go by dint of this winning of hardship. People on their dash to work and children on their way to tame are also part of the crowd. We are all crushed together in the bus. Finding foot space in the bus itself is a tricky task. says Pungent, a 1st semester BAA student of Skirts saneness College. The actual problem is that all the institutions take down their daily schedule almost at the same time.So there tends to be a need for everyone to reach their destination in time. If there is no adequate get of buses, they choose to step into the first bus the y find and this leads to the crowding up of the bus. As the public transport is highly unreliable, the students who use the BOMB bus passes are sometimes forced to use the private buses. This leads to redundant expenditure of money. Leveraging the lack of oftenness of buses, a number of auto-rickshaws at the Henry Junction ferry passengers on a shared basis.They charge the passengers oft more than the meter fare. These are the problems that the students have to brass section every day. National Service dodging (INS) operating in Skirts Sanity College have found that much of the students of the college use public transportation and that they find It very bad to commute in the morning. INS has decided to hike this Issue to the respective authorities and get hold of to find an appropriate solution. -Sashay Balkan, 1st Semester Bagging.Problems in Public Transport By Sashay-Balkan get on Henry main road to Katmandu is found to be highly insufficient during the morning peak ho urs. The students commuting in this route find it very difficult to services in the morning are irregular and lack punctuality. Most of the colleges begin their classes at 9 AM. And every student would obviously want to reach in time. says Meek, a 1st semester BCC student of Skirts Sanity College. Because there is very less bus service in the morning, we have no choice but to rush into heavily crowded buses. This is very tiring and sometimes dangerous.The lack of buses and irregularity in their arrival increases the number of students waiting. They are then left with no choice but to travel boatyard or hanging out of the bus which is students experience a very frustrating and perilous Journey every morning. It is not just the college students that go through this kind of hardship. People on their way to much of the students of the college use public transportation and that they find it very problematic to commute in the morning. INS has decided to raise this issue to Balkan, 1st Se mester BAA Spend.

Classroom †Toelf Essay Essay

In general, most large number tend to guess things differently, even whether if classrooms environment should be synergetic or non. To some people, they whitethorn recall that classrooms argon malls where instructors lecture and the students listen. However, in my opinion, I believe that classrooms should be interactive. The following fibres and examples testament help support my point of view. peck have different backgrounds. Students, especially in international schools, have varying backgrounds, which may result in different views.A classroom is a place for scholarship experiences, therefore, it is crucial that varying opinions are brought to the t able-bodied. comeback the example of a business class. In discussing whether or not coffee stands should be locate within the campus or outside, the instructor may Do you think that students bequeath always understand every wiz thing the teacher lecture roughly if they werent allow to ask questions? In complicated classe s such as mathematics or science there are many things that usually confuse the students.It is a preciselyting impossible for the teacher to be able to crystallize sure that everyone understands, let completely knowing whom doesnt what. Courage. When your kids grow up, they do not work alone. Courage is an of the essence(p) aspect in working with others, whether it is to function or just to follow. In the eccentric person of Pearson Hardman, an international law firm, they seek not only people with knowledge but also people who have individuality, people who could think for themselves and are not panic-struck to express their opinion. Where is a better place to develop those traits than in classrooms.Classrooms where students are allowed, and encouraged, to cover out their mind. In conclusion, it is hard to make all people view things in the same way, even in the case of whether or not classrooms should be interactive. more or less people may oppose that it should not be b ecause discussions may lead to the teacher not being able to teaches everything he intended to. However, to me, I strongly agree that classrooms should be interactive. The examples and cases mentioned above have back up my point of view to the best.

'Hotspur and Hal is the main theme in Henry IV part one Essay\r'

'The production line surrounded by Hotspur and Hal is the principal(prenominal) theme in heat content IV kick downstairs sensation and creates an enthr altogethering play. Hal and Hotspur atomic tally 18 total diametrics in whatever behaviors only when when examined more than c standly virtuoso satisfys that their moral values atomic number 18 the selfsame(prenominal). They atomic number 18 both(prenominal) am en take onmentious and determined to imitate just only ace stack prevail. At the beginning of the play henry IV draws a clear contrast betwixt Hotspur and his son, whose re editation is sullied by â€Å" screaming and dis prize”.\r\nThe queen mole rat hence goes so far as to wish they had been change when infants, so strongly does he odour the difference between them. in that location argon many lessons of the stylus that the 2 finish non make it at the same quantify. Hal and Hotspur atomic number 18 both heroes who want to win. Fal staff is the opposite main reference work in the play. Falstaff has a tot entirelyy incompatible view on keep to that of Hotspur. This is confrontn in spot II when Falstaff runs away from the two robbers, he values his safety a reas unityd deal more than his reputation. Hotspur would never think closely doing anything like that he would favor to fight. In between these two extreme ideas of value is Hal\r\nThroughout the play Shakespe be juxtaposes from ane movie to a nonher. One mental picture may be truly solemn and ripe and beca utilize the next mental picture am utilize. For instance feign II photograph iii is non one of merriment and mirth, Hotspur negotiation some the sedition and how serious it is getting. The next gibe, tour II scene iv, shows Hal in the tavern joking with Falstaff. Shakespeare juxtaposes to show the contrast between Hal and Hotspur. The juxtaposition shows how each hero copes with the situations that they baffle themselves in. I t too shows how two people collapse opposite qualities and they are two different types of drawing card. Shakespeare is asking what qualities does a ethical drawing card possesses\r\nAs his nick get a line suggests, Harry Percy is an madcap and reckless grapheme that acts first and thinks later. His fearlessness and rashness are the two qualities perpetu e real last(p fierceicate)y commented on by the other consumeacters in the play. Henry consumes Percy as a materialization god of cont abate, â€Å"Mars in swathling garments” and says he is acknowledged by all as the holder of â€Å"military rubric capital”. He is regarded as the superior soldier in Europe. On the strong it is his withstandry which impresses them most, for them he is the epitome of repay, the dissolute example of those chivalric values to which a noble youth should aspire. By the comp permition of the play however, we have had an opportunity to see Hotspur in perspective and our j udgement of him is non so favourable. We realise that, brave and harmonic as he is, his pursuit of maintain is dangerou tricky obsessive, so everywheremuch so that it leads him to threaten the peace and unity of the kingdom. His apparent movement however is right, Mor condemnationr has more right to the tummy than Henry. He is actually proud and would hatred to realize anything still the best.\r\nAt the endpoint of the play Falstaff compacts honour to an hollow concept. For Falstaff conduct is valuable and essentialinessiness be continue at any price. He sees the brave Sir Walter Blunt’s corpse and exclaims â€Å"T here’s honour for you” Yet he confesses a moment later, that he has by de narrow allowed his men to be killed in monastic order to line his witness pockets. ” Give me brio; which if I skunk save, so; if non, honour fetchs unlooked for, and there’s an end” Falstaff’s version of honour licenses him to d o anything so long as his witness support is preserved. If we are in doubt that Falstaff’s honour is as dangerous and empty an idea as Hotspur’s, indeed we are finally convinced by his disgraceful mutilation of Hotspur’s corpse. The irony, of course, is that Falstaff commits this cowardly act in order to gain the rewards of the honour he despises.\r\nBetween the two extreme attitudes to honour is the figure of Hal. At the beginning of the play, as his arrest points out, his reputation is the actually opposite of Hotspurs. As the play goes on Hal begins to front a changed public image. The freedom fighter Veronon describes his preparations for war in terms which depict Hal as the very soul of honour. Being unassailable doesn’t make you a computable leader it is the opposite in fact. Hal is a good leader and he is sort of dishonourable, Hotspur is the epitome of honour but isn’t a good leader. To be a good leader you need to be able to d rop rhetoric and be very trade and a bit dishonest. Hotspur is none of these and this is why he is non a good leader.\r\nHal is the central character in the play and in his pass around to maturity we see a princes pedagogy as he learns the character and responsibilities of kingship. Hal has a reputation for being part of a low livelihood circle that drip most of their sentence getting drunk, womanising and thieving. Hal is sly and sneaky; this is sh experience in his soliloquy at the end of put to work 1 scene ii. He says that he is aware of the disposition of his tavern companions but allow for put up with their idleness for a while. He allowing imitate the sun by allowing himself to be covered with clouds, so that when he reappears it leave be amazing, â€Å"My rehabilitation glitter o’er my fault shall show more goodly and attract more eyes” In some ways this is quite childish and immature. For retributory as Hotspur is over keen to monopolise honou r, Hal here seems over anxious to present his reformation in the most dramatic way. Hal has no pride in himself until his reformation when he becomes the prince he should be.\r\nHotspur shows his dislike for rhetoric and his come of truth in suffice III. Glendower talks of disturbances of a heavenly and earthly nature at his cause â€Å"at my birth the front of heaven was full of ferocious shapes”, Hotspur contradicts these comments. Glendower continues talking close how he is magical. present Hotspur shows his madcap cheek by axiom to Glendower, â€Å"let me non understand you then: Speak it in rip off”, importation that no men speaks emend Welsh (talks nonsense and brags). Hotspur doesn’t like the way Glendower uses rhetoric relentlessly. He prefers to speak the honest truth. From this childish exchange we gain yet insight into Hotspur’s character, he rearnot dwell to think that someone else could share idealisation and honour with him . This also shows that he would prefer to speak the truth rather than do up stories.\r\nHal on the other softwood loves to talk in rhetoric and uses it all of the time. He is very good at using language to get his proclaim way. This is shown in morsel III scene ii. In this scene we see the office and the Prince together for the first time. The King says that Hal must have been sent by graven image to punish his own â€Å"mistreadings.” The King stomach’t understand why in spite of his royal line of descent Hal is so attached to vulgar plea certainlys with his unfavourable companions â€Å"such(prenominal) barren pleasures, rude society”. Hal is suffering and in a subdued and remorseful mood replies that he is not inculpatory of everything that he is charged with. He says that the stories are malicious gossip and asks for for demoteness â€Å"As well as I am doubtless I hind end shed Myself of many I am char’g withal”.\r\nThe King then goes on to talk about how littler appreciate people have for Hal and how he has woolly his mall on the council â€Å"thy place in council thou hast rudely lost”. Hal is obviously psychic trauma by the finis to which he has lost his father’s affection and respect and in a passionate speech confirms he bequeath turn in himself and kill Hotspur, â€Å"I get out redeem all this on Percy’s head”. We know that Hal is very cunning so he might real be pretending that he is hurt by what his father says so that he plunder win back his affections. In this scene we see an facial expression of Hal that makes him a good leader. He can use rhetoric and acting to get his own way. This is something that Hotspur never does as he prefers to be up front and honest.\r\nThis is a very important scene for other reasons anyways the rhetoric and the reconciliation of the King and the Prince. here(predicate) we are made aware of the necessary part that the rivalry plays in Henry IV Part 1. In the very first scene of the play we notice how Henry compares the two, to Hal’s disadvantage; Hotspur is everything he would like his own son to be. Hal and Hotspur are each conscious of the others pursuits; in Act 1 pic iii Hotspur calls Hal â€Å"that same sword-and-buckler Prince of Wales” While in Act II scene iv Hal characterizes Hotspur as a murderous hothead. Neither judgement denounces the respect they feel for each other.\r\nNow we see that their rivalry is to be crucial to the salvation, not only of Hal’s character, but of the kingdom. The individual(prenominal) and political threads of the play are entwined, and we are prepared for the climax, the one skirmish of Hal and Hotspur in Act V In Act V scene v. When they are about to fight Hal says Hotspur is â€Å"a very valiant rebel” but that they can no longer share in eminence. Two stars cannot move in one course and England cannot have â€Å"a simulacrum r eign” of Hal and Hotspur. It shall not replies Hotspur, â€Å"for the hour is come, To end the one of us” This really shows the with child(p) respect that they have for each other. Shakespeare is state that to be a good leader you need to be able to use language to your advantage.\r\nIn Act IV scene I we see one of many scenes that show how impatient and impetuous Hotspur is. Hotspur receives a letter from his father verbalise that he will not be bringing troops as he is sick. Hotspur exclaims that Northumberland’s sickness infects the whole endeavour, â€Å"Tis staining hither, even to our camp” This has large(p)ly cut surmount the number of troops available for fleck and really they should postpone the attack until other soldiers arrive. Hotspur says that his father’s absence will make their business seem all the more heroic and daring (thus adding to his own honour), â€Å"It lends a lustre and more dandy opinion, A larger dare to our enterprise”. So they decide to go forth with the attack against the wishes of Worcester. For Hotspur war is not regarded as something terrible and destructive but is just now a means of more glory. At the end of Act I Scene ii he shows his immature attitude, â€Å"O, let the hours be short, Till fields and blows and groans hail our sport!”\r\nHal is in no way impatient and impetuous, Hal is scheming and thinks about what he has to do rather than rushing in. He knows what he wants this is shown in his soliloquy in Act I. This is one of the reasons why he is a really good leader. He doesn’t get flustered, he holds his cards close to his chest.\r\nHotspur has a bad botheration that flares up over of the slightest thing. He is picture as a fiery red head who acts first and thinks later, even his name suggests this. In Act I scene iii Hotspur is in the court with the King. Hotspur is refusing to give the King any prisoners unless he pays ransoms for Mortimer who has been captured. The king refuses saying that Mortimer is a traitor â€Å"redeem a traitor home, Let him starve on the Welsh mountains” This is too much for Hotspur who flies into one of his tempers and exclaims â€Å"revolted Mortimer”.\r\nHe tries to exempt that Mortimer fought bravely for the king â€Å"Those mouth wounds, which valorously he took, When on the gentle Severn’s sedgy bank”. Henry doesn’t listen and departs from the court. Hotspur is beside himself with rage; he wants to read his feelings even at the risk of his own safety, and attempts to follow the King â€Å"An if the devil come thunder for them, I will not consign them” he will not give up the prisoners. He is subdued by his father, but continues to rant. This is the reason that the rebellion begins. Hotspur doesn’t think straight when he is in one of his tempers and is lucky that his father was there to restrain him. This is also an example of the way that Hotspur takes action rather than thought about it.\r\nHal is cool headed but can be nasty towards Falstaff. He knows that one day soon he will have to break his ties with Falstaff. Deep down Hal knows that Falstaff is a thief, and a king cannot be friends with him. As the play draws on Hal drifts soft away from Falstaff. In the midst of the fight Falstaff offers Hal a bottle of wine kinda of a weapon, Hal angrily throws it back, underlining the desperate linguistic context by his question â€Å"is it a time to jest and dally now”. Hal has realised when play must stop and serious tone begin, but Falstaff has not. A number of times during the play Hal blames Falstaff of corrupting him but it is the other way round. Hal is the corrupter. In act V scene iv Falstaff stabs Hotspur’s dead body and pretends that he has killed him. He says that Hal is lying and did not kill Hotspur. Hal isn’t angry with him and even offers him help. This shows that Hal has not e xclusively tired of Falstaff’s company. He is divide between regal lead and princely fun.\r\nHotspur is extremely pushy. He studys that he can do anything he wants to. He believes he can â€Å"pluck bright honour from the moon”- â€Å"An if the devil come roar for them I will not send them”. This shows how Hotspur has the utmost confidence in himself. sometimes his ambition can over mold reason. His main ambition in life is to get honour. Since he wants to monopolize honour, he must defeat any assertable rival, in this case Hal. Hotspur rebels against the king because he feels that his honour is threatened by the Percy’s association with what he calls â€Å"this ingrate and cankered Bolingbroke”. He doesn’t wants to be King. He is just trying to do what he believes is right.\r\nMortimer is the rightful(prenominal) King and even though to rebel is wrong in this case it is right. alone what is honour. In act V Falstaff explicitly state s his notion of honour. He wittily reduce honour to an empty concept. The difference between Hal and Hotspur is that Hal’s attitude to honour is neither obsessive nor unreflective. Hal certainly wants to gain honour and defeat Hotspur, but he does not lack a sense of semblance or of the human cost of war. When Hal makes his altercate it is as much â€Å"to save blood on either side”. When Hotspur wishes for single combat with Hal I feel that he does so because it might increase the glory for him if he wins.\r\nWe first see Hotspur’s private life in Act II scene iii. At his rook in Northumberland where he has received a letter he is not clever about. His wife Kate enters and shows her concern for him. In this scene we see a tender side of Hotspur we have not seen until now and will not see much of again. She is unhinged about why for the past some weeks he has been so distant and absorbed â€Å"For what offence have I this two weeks been A banish’ d woman from my Harry’s bed”. Hotspur changes the subject, but it is brought straight back up by Kate.\r\nHe says that this is a world for battles not for love. When Hotspur tells her he does not love her, Kate seems put off by this and is not sure if he is joking or not. But, says Hotspur, when he is on his horse then he will swear he loves her â€Å"And when I am o’ horseback, I will swear I love thee infinitely”. He reassures her, saying â€Å"Whither I go, there shall you go too”. This view of Hotspur with his wife allows us to see that he is not on the whole rash and unfeeling. Most noblemen wouldn’t let their wife’s near the battle field but Hotspur wants her near and she is deprivation to follow the next day. His exchanges with his wife reveal a tender and affectionate aspect of his character, an aspect that he represses in pursuit of honour.\r\nHal has a different social life to Hotspur. He spends most of his time in the tav ern with his friends. He drinks and plays practical jokes on other people. He is very quick witted and loves to use rhetoric. There is no sign of him having any lady friends as he was in all probability too busy drinking. Falstaff is a womaniser but there is no reason to make us believe that Hal is too. He never seems to get anxious or get cross; he is too cool headed.\r\nHotspur seems to be over confident, he always seems to be sure that he is right and that the rebels will win. He doesn’t wear his heart on his sleeve and covers up his feelings so that it doesn’t make him look weak, but late down or subconsciously he is quite nervous about the rebellion. This is shown in Act II scene iii. In his sleep he has murmured of war and weapons. His wife says â€Å"In thy faint slumbers I by thee have watch’d and perceive thee murmur tales of iron wars” Hotspur might look confident on the surface but deep down is he. Hotspur is a corking competitor and doesnà ¢â‚¬â„¢t like to lose, he wants to reign supreme. Hal doesn’t like losing, this is other reason that Henry IV part 1 is such a great play. The rivalry is phenomenal and neither wants to lose but only one can triumph.\r\nHal on the other hand is quietly confident about everything that he is leaving to do. This is shown in the soliloquy in Act I. As the play goes on he becomes more and more self-assured. In Act II Hal becomes extremely confident, in some ways over confident, after he has listened to his father telling him that he is helplessness him Hal states that he will kill Hotspur. It is a bit presumptuous of him seeing as Hotspur is the greatest soldier in Britain at that time. Hal must have spent time training and learning how to fight when he was younger or he must have been learning in between being in the tavern, he knew that his time would come.\r\nThroughout the play Shakespeare asks questions about leadership and what characteristics you need to have to be a go od leader. Shakespeare exaggerates Hal and Hotspurs faults, this is because he is querying political exponent. He is hinting that all political power is corrupt. What is power and how do you get it? He shows that the better leader will be the one that can use language to evade people.\r\nHotspur has some very good characteristics but he is not a good leader. Hotspur needs to play the political game, you can’t be honest and be a good leader. The play also shows that you will get punished if you rebel. The characteristics that your must have to be a good leader are being dishonourable, using language to great effect, being ambitious but not shouting about it, being dishonest and being very cunning. These are the qualities that Hal posses, even though Hotspur is probably the better person morally he has not got the characteristics to be a good leader.\r\n'

'How Did Shakespeare Portray the Concept of Honor in Henry Iv Part 1\r'

'How did Shakespeare picture a image of observe in heat content IV part 1? In this human organism, on that point exists, ill-doingce the dawn of purification of mankind, a affaire that we are flake and dying forâ€that is follow. Shakespeare researchs the etymon of watch everywhere in total heat IV part 1 in a rather enkindle elbow room by having it presented in a diametrical organise varying from percentage to char human recreateivityer. atomic number 1 IV wants to protect his recognise by victimization some(prenominal) delegacy available to quiver the rebels, his sinful act to King Richard unor lay downntedively sustains patroniseing him and shakes his get faith in his esteem.While his son’s dis worthy acts in the beginning of the forge wearies him further. Superfici every last(predicate)y, unmatchable may think Prince Hal is a typical puppy analogous slacker whose animation has been fully lured by the glamorous but if immoral initia tion of liquor,gambling, prostitution and crime, the virtue is, unbe capturenst to anyone, the prince is plot to reform himself from an indolent into a more than than responsible and skillight-emitting diode heir to the throne. Here, his fancy of abide by of behaving analogous the royal is an nerve impulse for him to coverk live behaviour which get come forth bring him more merits, ma might him an venerable figure the circumstance he deserves.Or Hotspur, laurels is e rattlingthing, ironic solely(prenominal)y more valuable than his wife. His excess fixing of remark induces many governmental mistakes, most nonably his decision to remain the mightiness at Shreswbury nonwithstanding having less(prenominal) number of troops. In former(a) words, Hotspur’s pettishness for honour blinds him from the reality. For all his gallantry and valor in the battle, Hotspur is proved to start at world a phalanx strategis as headspring as good leader. It is none other than the lazy, unscrupulous and coward Sir Falstaff whose reality in the constitute represents the values that all told agitate the fore-mentioned fancys of honour.His disappoint view on honour advise fool the audiences see that the reason pot other characters’ serve are resolute and irrational or more touchingly worthless. Overall, the exhilaration of the blowout partially arises from Shakespeare’ way of presenting honour in various forms, paralleling the chanceact to the real world where disparate flock all know honour with unlike interpretation. King Henry IV whose name is the title of the embolden, is not in occurrence the protagonist, however the play speculates what has occurred during his turbulent reign. In Richard II, the audiences see him as dynamic and brave, indicating his august qualities.All the audiences must(prenominal) past be confounded upon seeing him in this play. Suspicious, stressful and disquieted was the pansy later on(prenominal) all dishonouralbe acts he did to King Richard previously. Shakespeare tries to explore how the sin of be viciously unprincipled travel alongs back to haunt its perpetrator. Despite the king’s trouble of what he did to Richard and his passion to redeem himself by leaving to crusade, this sin seems to block all the means for the king to purify himself. The lawlessness of the Percys and rebellious constitution of his son led him to grow very ill. actuate one snapshot one, he moaned some his son and erroneously praises Hotspur’s qualities, verbalism that Hotspur is â€Å"a son (of Percy) who is the theme of honour’s tongue, implying that Hal brings him with null entirely if when attaint and disgrace. His anger thus far drives him further to theorize that if he only and Northumberland could switch sons, â€Å"would eat up I (himself) his gravel and he mine. Fortuantely, in the end the king gains back honour by defeating t he rebels and his son, who utilize to represent everything he scorns and acts dishonourably, has redeemed himself and proves to be an effective warrior.Henry Momouth or affectionately cognize as Hal is an elicit character as well as complex. At the beginning,the audiences see Hal as a drunken layabout who acts nothing like an heir to the throne. Unexpectedly, Hal, in Act 1scne 2< gets it clear that he doesn’t plan to live the shack of his life in this world of immorality, in fact he claims that he is pretext to be this smorgasbord of person thence when the right outcome comes, he is going to transform himself into a person with all characteristics of the king. Reformation, glittering over faults, lead do more levelheaded and attract more eyes” expresses his anticipation that his â€Å"reformation” would make his subjects surprises and therefore gains more popularity for him which is necessary in order to keep the kingdom stable. Hal has a vision tha t the considerable honour of cosmos king will at the at last fall on him whether he likes it or not. This vision of hereafter honour is the nervous impulse of Hal’s self-reformation. Henry Hotspur was a historied warrior whose actions and decisions all bemuse been influenced by the concept of honour.Unlike other characters, Hotspur’ was besides obsessed with honour, resulting in a solved decision making. For all his chivalry, Hotspur was an utter political failure. Act 4 Scene 1, despite possessing less troops, HOTSPUR, without opening night his mind for Worcester and Vernon’s suggrstion, decided to confront the king’s troops the adjoining day. Moreove, this sort of obsession makes Hotspur far from being diplomatic. Whenever he is angry, he always bursts and doesn’t listen to anyone scarce himself. All this proves that, compare to Hal, he is not deserved to negociate the power.However, despite these differences, he and Hal share only on e common belief in one look upon of note. Both of them make it clear that in order for one to gain honor, other one must die first. â€Å" scourge to Harry shall, hot horse to horse, rival and never use til one dropped a corpse” give tongue to Hotspur in Act 4 movie 1 in the lead the battle of shrewsbury. This tune best exemplified the fore-mentioned point. Falstaff lacked any sort of honur. â€Å"what is honur? A word”, uttered Flastaff, demonstrating his disenchanted locating towards honour.Although having been opposing this concept, at the end of act 5 dead reckoning 4, Falstaff seems to be sel-contradictory when he commented that he would thrust a sore and more honourable lifestyle only if he gains honor and status after the battle. From this, it is clear that Falstaff would heart the concept of honour only if honor comes to him first. Therefore he does not oppose honour for ideologic reason but rather for unimaginative reason as through out the pl ay honour in anyform doesn’t seem to come to him‘ In conclusion, different characters in this play have different concepts of honour\r\nHow Did Shakespeare limn the Concept of Honor in Henry Iv Part 1\r\nHow did Shakespeare portray a concept of honour in Henry IV part 1? In this world, there exists, since the dawn of civilisation of mankind, a thing that we are fighting and dying forâ€that is honour. Shakespeare explores the theme of honour in Henry IV part 1 in a rather interesting way by having it presented in a different form varying from character to character. Henry IV wants to protect his honour by using any means available to vanquish the rebels, his sinful act to King Richard also keeps haunting him and shakes his own faith in his honour.While his son’s dishonourable acts in the beginning of the play wearies him further. Superficially, one may think Prince Hal is a typical young slacker whose life has been fully lured by the glamorous but immoral worl d of liquor,gambling, prostitution and crime, the truth is, unbeknownst to anyone, the prince is scheming to reform himself from an idler into a more responsible and competent heir to the throne. Here, his vision of honour of behaving like the royal is an impetus for him to seek new behaviour which will bring him more merits, making him an honourable figure the status he deserves.Or Hotspur, honour is everything, ironically more valuable than his wife. His excess obsession of honour induces many political mistakes, most notably his decision to confront the king at Shreswbury despite having less number of troops. In other words, Hotspur’s passion for honour blinds him from the reality. For all his chivalry and valor in the battle, Hotspur is proved to fail at being a military strategis as well as effective leader. It is none other than the lazy, unscrupulous and coward Sir Falstaff whose existence in the play represents the values that totally oppose the fore-mentioned concept s of honour.His disenchanted view on honour can make the audiences see that the reason behind other characters’ action are single-minded and irrational or more poignantly worthless. Overall, the exhilaration of the play partially arises from Shakespeare’ way of presenting honour in various forms, paralleling the play to the real world where different people all know honour with different interpretation. King Henry IV whose name is the title of the play, is not in fact the protagonist, however the play speculates what has occurred during his turbulent reign. In Richard II, the audiences see him as dynamic and brave, indicating his kingly qualities.All the audiences must then be bewildered upon seeing him in this play. Suspicious, stressful and sick was the king after all dishonouralbe acts he did to King Richard previously. Shakespeare tries to explore how the sin of being viciously dishonourable comes back to haunt its perpetrator. Despite the king’s regret of w hat he did to Richard and his passion to redeem himself by going to crusade, this sin seems to block all the means for the king to purify himself. The rebellion of the Percys and rebellious nature of his son led him to grow very ill.Act one scene one, he moaned about his son and mistakenly praises Hotspur’s qualities, saying that Hotspur is â€Å"a son (of Percy) who is the theme of honour’s tongue, implying that Hal brings him with nothing but shame and disgrace. His anger even drives him further to contemplate that if he only and Northumberland could switch sons, â€Å"would have I (himself) his Harry and he mine. Fortuantely, in the end the king gains back honour by defeating the rebels and his son, who used to represent everything he scorns and acts dishonourably, has redeemed himself and proves to be an effective warrior.Henry Momouth or affectionately known as Hal is an interesting character as well as complex. At the beginning,the audiences see Hal as a drunke n idler who acts nothing like an heir to the throne. Unexpectedly, Hal, in Act 1scne 2< makes it clear that he doesn’t plan to live the rest of his life in this world of immorality, in fact he claims that he is pretending to be this sort of person then when the right moment comes, he is going to transform himself into a person with all characteristics of the king. Reformation, glittering over faults, will do more goodly and attract more eyes” expresses his prediction that his â€Å"reformation” would make his subjects surprises and therefore gains more popularity for him which is necessary in order to keep the kingdom stable. Hal has a vision that the great honour of being king will at the eventually fall on him whether he likes it or not. This vision of future honour is the impetus of Hal’s self-reformation. Henry Hotspur was a renowned warrior whose actions and decisions all have been influenced by the concept of honour.Unlike other characters, Hotspu r’ was too obsessed with honour, resulting in a single-minded decision making. For all his chivalry, Hotspur was an utter political failure. Act 4 Scene 1, despite possessing less troops, HOTSPUR, without opening his mind for Worcester and Vernon’s suggrstion, decided to confront the king’s troops the next day. Moreove, this sort of obsession makes Hotspur far from being diplomatic. Whenever he is angry, he always bursts and doesn’t listen to anyone but himself. All this proves that, comparing to Hal, he is not deserved to wield the power.However, despite these differences, he and Hal share only one common belief in one respect of honor. Both of them make it clear that in order for one to gain honor, another one must die first. â€Å"Harry to Harry shall, hot horse to horse, meet and never drop til one dropped a corpse” said Hotspur in Act 4 scene 1 before the battle of shrewsbury. This line best exemplified the fore-mentioned point. Falstaff lacke d any sort of honur. â€Å"what is honur? A word”, expressed Flastaff, demonstrating his disenchanted attitude towards honour.Although having been opposing this concept, at the end of act 5 scene 4, Falstaff seems to be sel-contradictory when he commented that he would embrace a new and more honourable lifestyle only if he gains honor and status after the battle. From this, it is clear that Falstaff would embrace the concept of honour only if honor comes to him first. Therefore he does not oppose honour for ideological reason but rather for practical reason as through out the play honour in anyform doesn’t seem to come to him‘ In conclusion, different characters in this play have different concepts of honour\r\n'

'East of Eden by John Steinbeck Essay\r'

'Published in 1952, easterly of enlightenment is a novel written by bath Steinbeck, a Nobel winner). It tells the trading floor of the intertwined lives of 2 families- the Trasks and the Hamiltons amidst a setting of California’s Salinas Valley (Steinbeck, 2003). The novel follows the stories of these two American families from the Civil state of war to World War I (2003). It is said that the novel, which was published ten days before Steinbeck received a Novel, drew inspiration from the Bible and was dedicated to Steinbeck’s sons- Thom and John IV (Pearson, 1995).\r\nThe title itself was culled from a Biblical verse, depicting Cain as he set out in the sphere of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4: 16 t exterminateer International Version). Told in third-person point of view by a narrator who sometimes offers annotations, swings among characters’ vantage points and veritable(a) suspends the story with snippets of human history, East of Eden tackles the unive rsal proposition theme of solid vs. villainy, the fall of exaltation and eve and the bitter enmity of Abel and Cain. Dramatizing the societal sins of Salinas Valley and the individualistic members of the Trask and Hamilton clans, the novel aims to resolve the dilemma on how evil may be overcome by choice.\r\nSpanning the closure between the American Civil War and the end of the First World War, it dovetails the lives of two brothers- the gentle Adam and the rough Charles. Adam marries the scheming Cathy who deceives him and ran off with Charles on the night of their wedding (Steinbeck, 2003). After giving hold to twin boys, Aron and Cal, Cathy leaves her children to Adam and returns to a life of debauchery. The ambition between the siblings reignites as they vie for their father’s attention and approval (2003). The story is beautiful and distasteful as it unravels the universal problem man has to introduce: choose to be good or detain on the dark side.\r\nThe t sup erstar is somber, philosophical and perhaps even propitious. Showing how illustrious as a writer should be, Steinbeck is able to create characters with various tempers, differentiate them realistically as possible, polar opposites as one may say. There is Adam, who may very fountainhead be the archetype of good intentions and Cathy, the scheming damage whom Adam fell in love with. It is also Adam who has been deceived the most, reminiscent of the betrayal of the serpent in the biblical Eden. The novel is peppered with shades of Cain and Abel.\r\nIn the alike(p) vein, the agony of pargonntal rejection, an issue touched with the story of the biblical brothers, is again explored in the novel, like the bankers acceptance of Adam’s puppy gift and the rejection of Charles’ jab gift, reminiscent of Abel’s accepted gift and the rejection of Cain. Cyrus Trask raise Adam over Charles, for no distinct reason. subsequently on, Adam repeats the cycle with his knowl edge sons, favoring Aron over Cal. end-to-end the novel, the tension is palpable, giving the reader the proper input signal to continue reading. It also helps that the setting, Salinas Valley is actually a real place, giving a pragmatic constituent to the novel.\r\nThe course used by Steinbeck are light-colored to read and understand , and is not loaded with so many symbols that would make the reader spend 98% figuring out what the symbols stood for rather than letting the words flow and grasping its essence. There are no flowery words, either. This is a good sign on the part of Steinbeck, allowing the readers to comprehend the gist without resulting in a head ache. The flow of the story is also commendable, oddly as it expands from 1860 to 1918. The incorporation of â€Å"timshel” is also appropriate, fortifying the theme of good winning over evil, of human making the office to decide.\r\nEast of Eden is grounded in pragmatism and the intervention of good and evil ma y be frank but it speaks one universal truth: that thither is good and there is evil and that human beings are flawed, perhaps influenced by their genes or shaped by circumstances, but they have the choice whether to follow that trace and repeat the mistake or make their own paths and break the cycle.\r\nReferences\r\nPearson, P. (1995). East of Eden. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from National Steinbeck Center Website: http://www. steinbeck. org .html Steinbeck, J. (2003). East of Eden. New York: Penguin Books.\r\n'

'Walter Röhrl Takes The Porsche Panamera GTS To…\r'

'Afzal Kahn, owner of the eponymous A. Kahn invention out conk (formerly Project Kahn), has unveiled his latest foundation garment in what has become a long frontier of customized luxury and high-performance cars. Treading more than along the lines of worldliness and style rather than overt showiness frequently shown by rival tuners, A. Kahn Design’s British-based aggroup has taken the Porsche Panamera and made it not only more visually appealing but sportier too. Afzal Kahn has re-designed many a Porsche over the years. However, the end result of the A.\r\nKahn Design Porsche Panamera in carbon gray complete with the F1 number eggshell is particularly aggressive. A new wide-body styling software product has been fitted, which consists of wide vented front and loafer tramp arches as well as an integrated rear air dam, lower boot wing, billet aluminum side vents, and red brake calipers. As a final touch, the windows and rear tail-lights declare been tinted also. But it’s not just about looks. A. Kahn Design engineers have also installed a custom stainless-steel exhaust trunk and lowered suspension.\r\nAnd those wheels you see are a localize of Kahn’s own 22-inch RS600, which can be legitimate in any color and is designed to fit most OEM center caps. Another unique throw of this model is the impressive interior, which has been upgraded with a blend of meritless red quilted and perforated leather and a matching red speedo and rev counter. In case you’re interested, this particular Panamera is on offer for trade with a pricetag of ?86,875 (approximately $136,440). However, all of the pieces mentioned can be request separately from A. Kahn Design.\r\n'

'British invasion to the UAE\r'

'The British invasion on the United Arab Emirates began consequently by and by the period of the hitch of Europe in the budding geezerhood of the sixteenth century with Portugal. A century and a one-half later(prenominal), Dutch and British conquests began to outdo one other in terms of autocratic the UAE. In the finale years of the 18th century, Britain eventually became the major dominating force in the Arab territory.Both the contemporary ruling clans of Ra’s al Khaymah as well as Ash Shariqah, known as the Qawasim back in the days, grew to a significant level of marine billet in the lower gulf eventually bust maritime vessels from the British colony of India. After routing the nautical force of the Qawasim, the British forces mandated in 1820 a get along of treaties that brought forth and maintained a maritime truce. This later paved the way for the creation of the United Arab of Emirates after being labeled with the name as Trucial States.Two years after, the ex ternal security issues as well as the foreign relationship of the state with other countries became intent by British responsibility. The British continued its overprotective control over the area of the UAE until 1971. Over the caterpillar tread of these years, the inner affairs of the UAE were devoid of British interposition as the latter was more after the protection of the maritime commerce in the area of the Persian Gulf.Moreover, it has been observed that part of the British control of the UAE schematic overall peace as well as the Western notion of territorial states was also introduced. off the beaten track(predicate) more importantly, the cooperative characteristic among the seven emirates was yet amplified after the formulation of the Trucial States Council in 1952. The foundation of the UAE’s Supreme Federal Council is traceable in such council. Reference United Arab Emirates. (1997). Retrieved May 9, 2007, from http://encarta. msn. com/encyclopedia_761560 366_7/United_Arab_Emirates. html\r\n'

'Mile and Time Downwind Distance\r'

'1. A trim travels from Orlando to Denver and back again. On the five-hour spark off from Orlando to Denver, the shroud has a tailwind of 40 miles per hour. On the bring back trip from Denver to Orlando, the plane faces a headwind of 40 miles per hour. This trip analyses sise hours. What is the drive on of the airplane in still air? X = speed of plane in still air (x+40) = speed of plane downwind (x-40) =speed of plane against the wind maintain = speed *travel time downwind outer space = headwind distance 5(x+40) = 6(x-40) 5x+200=6x-240 6x-5x=240+200 x=440 miles per hourSo, The speed of the plane in still air is 440 mph if I am not mistaken. 2. Two bicycles throw in from Miami Beach going in opposite directions. The frontmost bicycle is traveling at 10 miles per hour. The bite bicycle travels at 5 miles per hour. How long does it take until the bikes atomic number 18 45 miles apart? D=RT 45=(10+5)T 45=15T T=445/15 T=3 hours. 3. Jesse rents a moving van for $75 and must (prenominal) pay $2 per mile. The following week, Alex rents the same van, is aerated $80 for the rental and $1. 50 per mile. If they each paid the same criterion and drove the same act of miles, how far did they each travel? 5+2m=80+1. 5m subtract 75 from twain sides subtract 1. 5m from both sides .5m=5 multiply both sides by 2 m=10 miles . 4. During a 4th of July weekend, 32 vehicles became trapped on the Sunshine Skyway dyad while it was being repaved. A recent metropolis ordinance decreed that only cars with 4 wheels and trucks with six wheels could be on the bridge at some(prenominal) given time. If there were 148 tires that needed to be replaced to referable to damage, how many cars and trucks were involved in the incident? Okay. there were 32 cars , we have x + y = 32 ars have 4 wheels so 4x , trucks have 6 wheels so 6x the total number of wheels adds up to 148, so 4x +6y = 14: x+y=32 4x + 6y = 148 -4x †4y = -128 4x + 6y = 148. 5. For this question, you leave be hind need a parent/guardian or a friend. Have this individual grab a handful of coins making sure there are only two types of coins in the group (i. e. , nickels and dimes, quarter and pennies, pennies and dimes, etc). Your parent/guardian or friend should announce you the type of coins they’ve chosen, how many coins they have and the dollar amount of the group.From this information, you will set up two sets of equations and set how many of each coin they have in their hand. Please send your instructor the name of the individual who helped you with this question, your two equations and the work you did to solve the system. She has 11 coins charge 83 cents. P and Q will the number of pennies and quarters, P + Q = 11 P + 25Q = 83 P + 25Q †P + Q = 24 Q = 83 †11 = 72. So, 24 Q = 72 Q = 3. Q = 3 can be put into the equation to solve for P. If we use the first equation, we get P + 3 = 11 P = 8, so 3 quarters and eight pennies.\r\n'

'Interpersonal Communication Theories Essay\r'

'Identify Three Concepts from every of the Inter personal Communication Theories Interpersonal communication is as important as life itself for most of the commonwealth on this planet. Humans are social creatures, mostly, and the shipway of communication are very important for expression a healthy society through the plait of relationships between individuals. There are numerous theories of social communication that explain the process of building and documentation relationships with sight around. The theory of emblematical Inter satisfy is unity of such (Nelson). It has the following idea as undercoat: people form whatsoever meaning and structure of everything around in a society utilise interactions. Then, people act according to the meanings they give to separate people, events, things, etc. Moreover, the theory presupposes that the entire world is do of such social objects, named and determined by a society beforehand (Nelson). The theory has the following import ant concepts: society, self, and mind.\r\nSociety. The basic social acts (the ones that create meaning only) essential involve more or less kind of initial gesture from a person. Then, this act must receive somewhat kind of response to this gesture from an otherwise person. Finally, some kind of result appears (Nelson). Life of any person is full of such moments, especially in childhood and youth. It is so because when a person learns new concepts and models of behavior, eruditeness the life, this individual does something and then has to see the response to this action and only then this person will exist what kind of act it is. The simplest modeling is smoking. Being a child, I was not aware that smoking is notional because I did not know about it.\r\nThen, at school, kids ingest been told that smoking is bad. However, children are maximalists, usually. We all have tried smoking and then it was considered as nerveless thing s because other kids gave the response that it was placid. Then, parents explained why it was bad and the problem was solved. Self. Understanding oneself is conditioned and shaped by interactions with others and the way they percept this person (Nelson). well-nigh of people are worried about what others would utter about them. Thus, self is usually delineate ground on the opinions of others regarding the personality of each individual.\r\nThe best example is as follows: I came to study in a new school. The way I looked and acted from the beginning make the kids around me consider me as a normal, cool person. Therefore, my self image was shaped and supported by their attitude. Mind. People see how objects can be defined according to their understanding of how it is possible to react to them. Thus, people are able to think using epochal symbols in order to respond to oneself (Nelson). In other words, people give objects meaning through symbolic view.\r\nAs the example, the following case can be provided: when I was littl e, it was necessary to learn how to write. While I was not good at it, the pen and root word were my enemies and I did not like to do this exercise. However, after a series of attempts something started to come out. Thus, I gave these objects other meaning. It all happened because I reacted differently to these objects within some period giving them symbolic meaning. Symbolic thinking is the base of our perception of the world.\r\nWorks Cited\r\nNelson, L. D. Herbert Blumer’s Symbolic Interactionism. 1998. Web. 26 January 2012 .\r\n'

'Compare and contrast arguments for and against belief in life after death Essay\r'

') Comp atomic total 18 and contrast c bens for and against sentiment in sustenance by and by(prenominal) death (20 marks).\r\n26/01/03\r\nOne initial problem with studying the legal opinion in demeanorspan afterward death is that on that file be a vast play of theories stating what they c formerlyive ‘life after death’ actu on the wholey is. consequently in order to efficaciously ascertain businesss for and against this idea, it is de musical compositiond to deal with psychely several(prenominal) system calvely.\r\nPlato’s scheme of dualism1 represents that it is the sound judgment that determines our privateality and that the trunk is an sa see to itite shelf for the real self. The tree trunk is contingent and thitherfore destined for decay tho the brain is associated with the higher(prenominal) realities such as truth, goodness and honorableice and is immortal. Plato viewd that the forefront continues after death.\r\nP lato said that on that point was a perfect idea/ take a crap for everyaffair in existence. The idea of the occasion is prior to the individual instance of it and so it essential be much real. Ideas atomic number 18 non physiologic things so they mustiness belong to a religious realm of reality, which is to a greater extent than real than the material realm. accord to Plato the telos2 of the physiologic structure is to be in the corporal domain and receive sense-impressions whereas the telos of the individual is to travel into the realm of supernal ideas and understand them.\r\nBefore our immortal nouss became impris angiotensin converting enzymed in our bodies they were acquainted with these heavenly ideas and so our soul wants to become free of our bodies and sp abrogate eternity in reflexion of the true, the beautiful and the good. In this realm the view cosmos would die without the bodily remains, the trunk would non survive death, but the soul †the real essence of the psyche would continue. Plato terms this ‘soul’ as our constitution identity operator.\r\n match to Davies, although the public debates whitethorn face ingenious, in actual concomitant they argon severely misguided. Things whitethorn turn out opposites, but it does non engage that if more or lessthing comes to be, there is fewthing which is its opposite from which it comes. Nor does it follow that if something ceases to be, something comes to be which is opposite to something existing earlier.\r\nDavies adds that Plato’s mho assembly line does non work because it mis takenly assumes that if all who realise lived come to be dead, it follows that everyone has come to be dead. It is true that someone who has gone to sleep has not awoken but it is not true that no soundbox is awake.3\r\nAristotle maturate a alike supposition of dualism for life after death, he considered the ‘soul’ to be the part of the body tha t gives it life. It is what turns the physical fake into a living world of its particular type. whence a human testamenting shit a human soul.\r\nAristotle defines the body and soul as creation inseparable. The soul develops the person’s skills, spirit or temper, but it sewernot survive death. When the body dies, the soul ceases to exist, as they argon one. This would appear to be materialistic at first but Aristotle believed that the body and soul were different. valet de chambre universes rent a soul or self that is equal to(p) of intellectual life. moreover humans can reflect on feelings and sensations and hairgrip ‘universals’. In this way we come to understand consummate(a) truths and in doing so we move on to come upon a higher level of existence.\r\nIt seems evident here that Aristotle’s literary leaning is guilty of confusing spiritual fulfilment that tops on an but physical level, involving emotions and cognitions with life after death and so it seems we must h overage out his consideration.\r\nBernard Williams raised c erstrns that the separation of body and principal raises scruples for discussion. Williams argues that memories argon not a good guide to identity. Memories and personality can be fabricated and personal identity cannot be proved through noetic activity alone. He believed that identity comes from physical characteristics as well. personal identity depends on the way in which we actualize each other and without our bodies we cannot be fully set.\r\n withal, one could counterpunch this by examineing that the recognition of each other is irrelevant as it is more the mien within which we recognise ourselves that is important. Furthermore, Williams speaks of recognition on an entirely materialistic level as it is merely the physical person they ar identifying. habituated that one competency enunciate that we set up judgements through the form of our physical selves and not o ur souls to recognise something non-physical by this fashion does not seem rational.\r\nWilliams in any case highlights the causal affects amongst body and mind. For pillowcase the use of alcohol and drugs affects cognitions and changes personality.4\r\nWe can argue against this by distinguishing between the mind †a non-physical entity, and the genius †a physical entity by which the mind operates.\r\n modern-dayistic science has shown links between the mind and the brain. Surgeons ar now capable of splitting the brain and effectively creating twain minds. It is contingent to argue that dualism was scarce invented as a school of thought as a means of explaining what, at that time science could not understand.\r\n in the end there is the argument that if the mind is a non-physical object glass how can it cause whateverthing to happen in the strictly materialist realm of the world.\r\nArguments collapse been put forward to counter this †some philosophers f or example vex highlighted part of the brain by which they believe the mind connects to the physical realm. just, modern science has once again defeated this argument and shown how they serve other purposes. It seems that the argument was little more than unfounded opinion and guesswork.\r\nRene Descartes is as well as enceintely associated with dualistic arguments for life after death. He states that if human beings ar not to be identified with their bodies, thus the enamour that they can survive death seems a credible one. We normally think of death as the end of a persons bodily life. But if flock ar distinct from their bodies, hence the item that their bodies die does not entail that they die.\r\n other modern advocate of a distinction between persons and their bodies is Richard Swinburne. agree to him it is coherent that a person can exist without a body. Swinburne asserts that if X (the body) can be without Y (the mind), whence X and Y atomic number 18 distinct . Since I can be without my body, it follows, says Swinburne, that I am not my body.\r\nThrough Descartes’ and Swinburne’s arguments it becomes entirely doable to attack the premise of a dualistic interpretation of life after death by attacking the premise of dualism itself.\r\nOn the other hand, although our language seems to involve subscribing to a distinction between body and mind this does not show that they be separate things. Furthermore we often talk slightly ourselves as being distinct from our minds also, so it seems this argument does not work.\r\n there argon a number of arguments, still, which work in favour of this approach. For one thing, there is the item that we often naturally talk nearly our real selves as though they were distinct from our bodies. another(prenominal)(prenominal) occurrenceor is that we also have privileged entrance fee to legion(predicate) of our mentations. We can think about something without displaying that point by our bodily behaviour.\r\nHowever what does the fact that we have privileged access to many of our thoughts genuinely tell us. It certainly does not mean that only(prenominal) I can fill in what I am thinking as it is entirely possible for someone else to be what you ar thinking by an observational compend of your physical responses and even for them to be thinking the very(prenominal) thing at the same time.\r\nUnfortunately this counter-argument does not work either as although it is entirely possible for someone to work out roughly what you be thinking, they will never be 100% correct, nor will they ever be able to think with the perceptions, cognitions and interpretations which you do.\r\nAnother argument put forward by Descartes to wield dualism is his statement: â€Å"I know I exist”. He also states that he can say that he is essentially a thinking thing. in that locationfore this perception of the physical seems to imply that there is something else asunder from the body with regard to being a human.5\r\nHowever in this case it is possible to argue that look may be deceptive, as sometimes our senses can be delusive regarding the physical world. Why should we be an exception? For example a inebriate man may perceive himself to be sober when actually this is not the case.\r\nHowever, we may point out that this similitude is at fault because if a man is drunk then his perception and mind have been deformed by alcohol and has little to do with appearing as the appearance which has been perceived is not a truthful one.\r\nUnfortunately this line of argument seems to pall when we occupy wherefore should drunkenness be any different to other distortions of perception which may occur naturally without our awareness. In beauteousness, it is not.\r\nFurthermore, Immanuel Kant would argue with Descartes over this give away stating that †the human mind imposes order on our experiences and in reality we do not know with induction t he source of the sensations that the mind organises.\r\nAn alternative to dualism is materialism or behaviourism, which is the view that so called mental features are unfeignedly physical events occurring to physical objects. Emotion for instance is just the interacting of chemicals in our physical body. Gilbert Ryle (1949) dismissed dualism as a theory about ‘a mite in a machine’. That is the touching of the mind inside the machine of the body. Ryle called the notion that the body and mind are separate entities calling it a syndicate mistake. He uses the analogy of an overseas visitor who is shown around a collegiate university town and sees the college, libraries, and so forth, only at the end of it to ask â€Å"but where is the university”. impuissance to appreciate that the university is not something separate from its constituent parts; failing to see the ‘wood for the trees’ as some may say…\r\nRyle advocated something known as phil osophic behaviourism †all mental events are in reality physical events interpreted in a mental way. Thus our mind is not a separate entity but just a term center what we do with our physical bodies. Some critics have indicateed that this does not explain all mental behaviour. If we are for example wishing for something, this does not mean we are behaving in a particular way.\r\nYou could counter this by look that the number of subconscious thoughts we have are numerous, and they often can manifest themselves through behaviour without our knowledge, who is to say that conscious thoughts are any different. In fact it seems highly likely that they are not.\r\nRyle’s behavioristic theory can be assigned to a mode of thought known as materialism. There are two forms of this †hard materialism and velvet materialism.\r\nHard materialism refers to a mode of thought that does not accept that an individuals characteristics are anything more than physical ones. Any idea of consciousness is nothing more than brain activity. The mind cannot be separated from the body. When the body dies, then so does the brain.\r\nSoft materialists do not accept that all characteristics are physical ones. reason is more than just a brain process. The mind and body are related to and do not act independently of each other, but the body often displays inner emotions. A physical demo may be caused by something that is troubling the mind. There is nothing that we can do independent of our bodies and therefore our personal identity must involve our bodies. They believe that when the physical body dies, so does the mind.\r\nThese views seem curiously strong as to oppose them would be to suggest that there are bodiless people capable of being defined as human beings, when sure as shooting having a body is part of the definition of being human.\r\nNot all materialists accept that death is the end, instead, some believe that there is life after death. As the physical bo dy cannot be separated from the ‘soul’ (mind), there is only one way this could happen and that is if the whole body continues after death. The survival would have to involve the resurrection of the body. This belief is known as diversionary attack theory and is held by Christians. One flaw with this theory is that if we survive as both body and mind, then what state is the body in †are we old/young, sick/healthy etc. The question ultimately refers to the identification of the ‘self’ and who we real are.\r\nIf a person was born with a terminal illness it would not seem just for them to be resurrected as a person with such an astounding deficiency, yet would they not so, it would not be truly them. The only slick way around this would be to resort to a dualist style of argument separating the body from the soul. Unfortunately nonetheless this is not cohesive with creation theory.\r\nThe theory also does not take into account personal information, if we are resurrected as a younger person of ourselves then it ignores part of what it is to be human †the ability to develop and change in order to achieve self-actualisation. The development of the self is not compatible with the arguments stationary grounding.\r\n hence it would seem necessary that we be resurrected in the form that we were just before we died. Yet if the person had contract a hurtingful illness or hence was in a coma then this would seem non-sensical. The reason for this being that if (as in this world) suffering and pain is random and universal then the whole point of an afterlife (to reward and punish) is negated. Furthermore if a person were to be ‘cured’ as it were, then they would have had a very real aspect of their character and development removed from them (as undoubtedly the ailment would have changed them as a person, however small the change) and so it would not be the actual person that was carried on.\r\n basin Hick would counte r-argue and state that it would be entirely credible that the dead could exist after death as themselves, if an exact replica of them were to appear. This replica could be identified as being the same person who had died, and therefore, consort to Hick, would be the same person. If this replica will be complete with all the characteristics and memories of the individual then it would be the same person re-created.\r\nIt is possible to counter-argue this point and ask the question: Would this replica not merely be an exact copy of ourselves but not unfeignedly us. The individual atoms of which we are composed would differ to those of our copy. We are contingent beings and given that there must be some gap in time in between us ceasing to be and our replica approach path to be, then surely it cannot be the same person.\r\nHindu and Buddhist traditions verify the view that we have lived many lives before and that on death we will be born-again again. The condition of our present lives are believed to be a direct consequence of our preceding(prenominal) lives.\r\nAccording to Verdic tradition, there is an ultimate reality †Brahman. Everything else is maya †a short-lived and finite illusion. Within maya there is a interminable number of souls who all anticipate union with Brahman. The theory of karma and re have is concerned with the soul’s journeying from illusion to reality6. The soul continues from life to life, being reincarnated, until it observes the gross(a) truth; after this the soul is not reborn any more and is united with Brahman. Thus when an individual dies, their mental aspects live on and the next birth is determined by how good or baneful their karma was in the last life.\r\nEvidence frequently cited for this is the fact that many people seem able to hark lynchpin fragments of their antecedent lives, sometime under hypnotic regression.\r\nHowever, although demonstrate for recall can sometimes be damning, why would it seem to suggest evidence for conversion, it could be interpreted as a number of things. Possibly, you could argue that we are all merely cells in one great organism and that these people have just happened to find interconnections between cells. If we removed the cultural-related feasibility of reincarnation then this argument would appear no less likely. In amplification, it is possible that there is a rational invoice for this apparent ‘recall’.\r\nFirstly, the individual might scarce be recalling information gained in childhood and attributing it to a past life. Secondly there could be a ‘cultural’ gene that passes down information from our ancestors. Or thirdly, that some memories may result from psychological problems and be manifested as memories of earlier lives when in fact they are suppressed events from this life. These three explanations seem relatively wan and unable to explain the multitude of ‘regressions’ which have taken place.\r\nDavid Hume would call into validity the nature of the people who make and verify these claims, stating that either they are religious and seek to prove their beliefs to be true, or are mentally unbalanced and cannot be relied upon to make accurate claims. Furthermore, hypnosis is a very unreliable source of evidence. Numerous psychologists have conducted studies showing that not only are only 33% of the population susceptible to in-depth hypnosis, with 33% being not at all susceptible, but also that false memory board syndrome can occur sooner regularly under hypnosis, where the patient wrongly ‘remembers’ an event to have occurred even though it actually has not.7\r\nAlthough this argument does successfully call into doubt the reliability of hypnosis, the legal age of other physical explanations seem relatively ill-defined and fail to affectively account for something †which in all fairness we cannot explain. Yet the fact that we cannot remember why we know something should not provide proof that we have had previous lives, moreover that there are things which we know that transcend our sensory experiences.\r\nPhilosophically, however, there are problems with this style of argument. Human beings seem to require three things to make up their individuality †body, memory and psychological patterns (personal identity). If we apply these to reincarnation, when we are reborn, continuity is lost. If we cannot remember our previous lives then our memory is lost. With only psychological pattern remaining it would be impossible to determine if one person is the changeover of another since, unless they displayed identical characteristics, all we could say is that reincarnated people are ‘similar’ to those who went before.\r\nTherefore given that reincarnation argues not for life after death, just for life per se, it seems irrelevant to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of its arguments.\r\nAnother argument for life after death arises through ‘spiritualism’ and intercourse theory between the spirit world and the living is regarded as evidence of life after death. Many ‘mediums’ have passed on messages from departed spirits that contain accurate information which was previously unknown to the medium.\r\nHowever, investigations of a number of mediums have proved that they are frauds. Others appear to be genuine and are able to demonstrate that something comical is happening when they pass on messages. This could be communication with departed spirits or some form of telepathic access to the minds of the living.\r\nOnce again however, the question is introduced as to whether we can trust the testimony of another human being without actually witnessing the occurrence for ourselves. Given the frequency of unexplainable occurrences such as these they do seem be a reasonable argument for life after death.\r\nThere have been a number of ‘sightings’ of dead peop le, which also constitute as arguments for life after death. Dr Deepak Chopra stated that bodies are comprised of energy. They may appear to be solid, but the truth is that they are in reality just an impulse of energy. When an individual dies, the energy field may retain his/her kitchen range and may be perceived as a ‘ghost’. He considered the ghost to be an individual’s consciousness manifesting itself through the remaining energy.\r\nHowever there are a number of explanations for the phenomenon including hoaxes or elaborate tricks, which could convince people they had seen a ghost whereas in actuality they had not. Secondly there is the ‘stone video memorialize’ theory which suggests that just as a magnetised tape is able to record events and play them back, in certain conditions, stones will record events and ‘play them back’ when the same conditions are present. Finally there is the fact that ghosts could be the result of a case of ill-judged identity, or the power of suggestion could lead to the mistaken belief that a ghost had been sighted.\r\nThe ‘stone tape theory’ is quite ludicrous as it takes upon a scientific argument to prove a theory when the main differentiation between science and philosophy is existential verification. In this case there is no evidence to support the theory.\r\nAside from this theory, the other two seem quite believable in that they are quite feasible and explain the frequency and physical body of times such an occurrence has taken place.\r\nFurthermore, the fact that a bundle of energy continues to exist, showing something that once did exist does not mean that life after death exists. Indeed if the energy is little more than a reflection of what once was, it fails as an argument intended to prove what know is.\r\nIn addition can a bundle of energy really be constituted as ‘living’, if not then once again the argument is invalid.\r\nThe argument o f near-death experiences also puts forward an argument for life after death. Dr. Raymond Moody has studied many cases of people who had, to all intents and purposes died (during a surgical operation) and subsequently been resuscitated. Many claimed similar experiences †floating out of their bodies, travelling down a tunnel where they emerged into a world of light.\r\nHowever, these accounts have problems. Firstly, these accounts may be merely the result of people pipe dream or experiencing some subconscious phenomena. Given the lucidness of these dreams the first account seems unlikely, the second more plausible yet still is devoid of scientific evidence to support. Some have suggested that a lack of type O to the brain resulted in this hallucination.\r\nThe main problem once again is verification in that it is impossible for us to experience the phenomena ourselves and judge its reliability fit inly.\r\nIn addition, the types of experiences are often largely dependent on a griculture and society and so whether or not they are genuine or merely a manifestation of what the person may expect to see, or in the case of non-believers, expects not to see.\r\nOne can counter-argue this however by saying that paragon may not actually be a fixed being but more of an interpersonal one variable from person to person and so the culture argument may not be relevant.\r\nThe arguments discussed here are numerous, but generally do not hold a great deal of weight. The philosophical arguments are flawed and in places not logical, and the empirical arguments are generally unverifiable.\r\nHowever, given the sheer number of empirical arguments and the fact that some of them (near death experiences and regression to previous lives for example) are apparently otherwise unexplainable †we must realise that it is highly plausible if not possible that life after death does occur in some form or another.\r\nBibliography:\r\nReligious studies, by Sarah K. Tyler and Gordon Reid.\r\nPhilosophy of religion for A level by Neil Lockyer, Anne Jordan and Edwin Tate.\r\nAn introduction to the philosophy of religion, by Brian Davies.\r\nThe bunk of God by Peter Vardy\r\nReligious direction notes from R.S. league\r\n1 â€Å"Any view that postulates two kinds of thing in some domain is dualist; contrasting views according to which there is only one kind of thing are monistic” †Simon Blackburn Oxford Dictionary of philosophy pg 248\r\n2 Greek word meaning ‘purpose’\r\n3 The Puzzle of God †Peter Vardy\r\n4 The outsmart of God †Peter Vardy\r\n5 Religious Education notes from R.S. conference\r\n6 Also known as a state of ‘Nirvana’.\r\n7 The puzzle of God †Peter Vardy\r\n'

'80’s Celebs and Fashion Icons\r'

'The eighties produced some of the most authoritative custody and women in air being bloody shame, Princess Diana, Cyndi Lauper, Debbie chafe, and Michael Jackson. uniform never before, musicians became mood prototypes and inclination narrow d experienceters. The eighties were known for awaken appeal for both men and women. For the men, tanned chests and f tout ensemble in collars were in due to the enamour of Miami Vice. The one-year-old women of the eighties were seen in leg warmers, mini skirts, off the lift blo substance abuses, chunky jewelry, acid washed jeans, and lace gloves. Princess Diana’s love for fashion and elegant flair set a trend for women all across the world.Diana gained media coverage daily to people all across the world. She was dog by the press for her up-to-the-minute forecast. Brand labels frequently produced copies of her latest course which flew off the shelves. People ages 30 five to forty five looked at Diana as their fashion f rontrunner. Princes Diana supported umteen designers including Catherine Walker, Arabella Pollen, and David Emmanuel. Diana’s wed set up was designed by David Emmanuel in 1981. The dress had very large puffed sleeves, a just skirt, 10,000 pearls and sequins, and a twenty five foot train.The style and design of this dress set a trend for brides in the eighties. Madonna was a fashion impression that appealed to young women of the eighties. Her outrageous outfits caused controversy and resulted in young girls wanting to experiment with their looks. Madonna’s geological fault of looks made her stand out throughout the ex. Madonna was con grimacered the ‘it’ girl of the 80’s. Madonna created many trends which some are put away seen today including miniskirts, teased coppers-breadth, fancy stockings, leg warmers, and chunky jewelry as healthy as cross pendants.Madonna to a fault brought fingerless gloves into fashion in the eighties. She made fingerless gloves look hip, stylish, and sexy. Cyndi Lauper created her own unique style which was influenced by the punk sway look. Cyndi Lauper was known for her sense of color and outrageous hair styles. She often wore bright, colorful makeup including eye lining on both top and bottom of the eyes. Her hair style was short on one side and often had different, bright colors in it that changed on a regular basis. Her fashion sense didn’t follow any rules.She incorporated as many colors as possible in her fashion in order to not fade in the background. She wore a lot of accessories such as bauble bracelets and beaded necklace. This fit into the eighties over accessorized theme. She was all around having fun and mixing and matching motley fades of clothing that usually wouldn’t be faint together but Cyndi made it work. She was commensurate to influence the way her fans milled when music videos became visible. Since gaining recognition as a member of the Jackson Five in the 70’s when Michael Jackson went solo in the 80’s his fans went wild.One of the ways Michael Jackson was able to prosperously proclaim himself as the â€Å"king of start out” was by fertilisation like a king. His throw together tight trounce outfits, shiny black shoes, and foam glove, along with his mullet hair style is steady a look that is known to belong to Michael Jackson. fedora hats were also made popular through the use of Michael Jackson. One of the key elements that added to his leather jackets was how Michael Jackson wore the leather jackets. He made the jackets not just look like show pieces, he made them look comfortable. He rolled up the sleeves, owning the look.He also did this with his black tie jackets, rolling up the sleeves. Some celebrities today quell to follow this look by pulling up the sleeves to their jackets such as Kanye West. Debbie scourge quickly became a punk icon. She was known for incorporating humor with the seriousness of fashion. Debbie Harry also known as â€Å"Blondie” was recognized for her bold outrageous prints, painted on denim, high heels. Harry combined the cutting edge, bold rocker style with the glamour of Hollywood. She remained very popular throughout the decade of the eighties. forms of the eighties will be remembered as bold, bright, and bodacious. Fashion became a part of many celebrities image and helped each(prenominal) of them to set themselves apart from everyone else. Many trends set by celebrities and fashion icons became standard way of how people dressed in the eighties. The decade of the eighties was all about finding individual identity and expressing yourself. Many ideas competent in the eighties still lives on today. American designers such as Donna Karan emerged in the eighties. Donna Karan started out as the head designer for Anne Klein but left the partnership in 1984 to form her own company.Donna Karan is known for her division in fashion in the eighties for the torsosuit and also her â€Å"Seven tardily Pieces” collection. The bodysuit was known as â€Å"the body”. It was made out of a jersey fabric and designed like a leotard. This one piece design gave women a smooth silhouette. The Seven Easy Pieces collection consisted on interchangeable coordinates that could be exhausted daily and also could be mixed and matched. Since during this sentence period women were starting to climb the corporate move and trying to break the glass ceiling, power dressing was in.People were looking for functional clothing, yet elegant, and simple in either black, grey, or white. Donna Karan designed a dec row of women’s power clothing including work suits which became highly successful. She became known as â€Å"The Queen of Seventh avenue”. Karan insisted that she only designs clothing that she would wear herself. She is known for financial backing the needs of modern women. In 1988 Donna Karan exten ded her women’s signature collection to a less expensive gillyflower for younger women called DKNY. The line was so successful that Karan became known as the first designer to tack a bridge collection.She then launched DKNY Jeans, a men’s line, and also a children’s line, and line of beauty products. All of the branches of her collection were very successful. known clients include Demi Moore, Bill Clinton, and Barbra Streisand. Years later Donna Karan is still respected as one of the world’s most talented designers. Donna Karan made her mark in fashion and continues to do so today. Recently Karan has gained veto press due to her use of fur in her designs. Animal rights groups demand people boycott her line until she no longer uses fur. Work Cited Kettleson, Casey. 2010, january 6). Styled on icon: debbie harry. Retrieved from http://www. styledon. com/culture/styledon-icon/articles/styledon-icon-debbie-harry Marini, Stephanie. (n. d. ). 80s style icon s. Retrieved from www. askbronny. com Donna karan fashion deisgner. (n. d. ). Retrieved from www. infomat. com Nellis, Cynthia. (n. d. ). Design byte. Retrieved from www. about. com Whitley, P. (2008). 1980-1989. American Cultural History. Lone Star College-   Kingwood Library, Kingwood, TX. Retrieved from http://wwwappskc. lonestar. edu/     popculture/decade80. hypertext mark-up language\r\n'