Research into Independent University Learning

Research into Independent University Learning Hazel Christie, Paul Barron and Norma D Annunzio-Green published an article Direct entrants in transition: becoming independent learners in Studies in Higher Education, 2013. It examines students who have come from College having undertaken one or two years of equivalent education, then transitioned directly into a second or third year of a degree in University. Information was taken from direct entry students in their first year of study at University identifying what factors helped them succeed in studies. It identified that students who adjust quickly to new education environments understand what independent learning entails. The challenge for direct entrant students is adjusting to the different learning environment at the university level, where students are required to function considerably more independently than they are used to at college.   A critical factor of success is the ability to be flexible in adapting to new learning environments and adopting the attributes of an independent learner.   Other characteristics of success are students concepts of assessment and time management. Not only understanding the contents and required format prove challenging for students, but also managing their time effectively to allow for sufficient preparation and timely submission of assessment items is vital for academic success. This study was undertaken by Edinburgh Napier University located in Scotland over the 2006-2007 years. The study was made up of sixteen women and four men of which, six entered the second year and fourteen entered third-year studies. Eleven took business studies with the rest undertaking other related courses. Twelve were mature aged, working part time and or raising families. Eight students pathway went through school, college then to university. Interviews were taped and then transcribed at the end of the first year, discussing previous learning environments and their perceptions and preparedness for studies. Information collected was on initial expectations of the new learning environment at the university, the extent to which their expectations were met, and issues around teaching and learning. The study found two key success factors in transitioning to university and becoming successful learners, coping and succeeding in module assessments, and good time management skills. Results identified three groups. Group one found transition reasonably smooth, the second found it hard to adjust, the third found it overwhelming and struggled to cope. The overall transition experience was challenging coming from structured and directed learning to independent learning. Group one were flexible and adapted quickly to the new learning style. They were confident and able to prioritise their time to separate study, work and family life. They believed this was imperative to their success. Students recognised the need to prepare for lectures and tutorials in advance, and the need for feedback on performance to critique themselves for self-improvement. The second group had high expectations but found difficulties in making the transition. They struggled with independent research, the conventions of essay writing, referencing and putting the material together. Students struggled to achieve a balance between their studies and other commitments. By putting things off they engaged in crisis management or adopted a do enough approach. Again, this group identified the need for independent learning and time management skills. They reflected on the need to improve on this if they wanted to be successful at university. The final group was struggling to understand independent learning and found it difficult to take ownership of their learning. They experienced crises which made some consider leaving. None were nervous about starting university, more so they struggled to adjust to university study. They had limited understanding of what independent learning demanded and struggled with time management, interlinking work, social and academic time. Expectations were, they would study the same way as in college, relying on lecturers to guide them and advise on reading material needed. Likewise, lecturers were not aware that they had direct entry students who were unaware what university required. Twenty students were interviewed about their experience of entering university directly from college into a second or third year of a university qualification. There was an assumption from the university that there would be a smooth transition, moving from one education framework to the next. Some students transitioned rapidly however others had difficulties with this transition. These students believed that support would continue, like what was provided at the college. Overall, students need to develop independent learning and time management skills to be successful in the transition to university. Universities need to identify and provide support to those students transitioning from college to university. Characteristics Time management Prior to commencing this course, I felt I was ready to study. I knew I would have trouble with chemistry and biology, but I believed I was ready. After the first week, I soon learnt I was wrong. I then drew up a study timetable and highlighted in different colours each course with lectures, tutorials and study. I utilised the semester planner and diary plotting my course timetable and assessment dates. On Sundays, I now print out the weeks PowerPoint presentations and go through these with study materials to support my learning prior to attending classes. With my prior work experience, I rapidly adapt to change. My family has started encroaching into my study schedule. I have since adjusted some of my study time to after the children are in bed.   I have found some lectures hard to follow, I now watch the recordings from Sippy Downs. I attend the recently introduced weekly consultation support for chemistry and biology to aid my learning. From discussions with co-students, I now utilise YouTube videos to assist my chemistry and biology learning. I have a weakness in writing, so I am using an online grammar spell checker Reverso. With these strategies in place, I have been successful in keeping a study family life balance. Preparedness for Classes The following information has supported my preparedness for classes. On my study wall, I have a timetable outlining lectures and tutorials. A weekly planner has been created setting out each course, highlighted in a different colour showing the day and times scheduled for lectures, tutorials and study. My weekly planner has been amended due to the need of additional time required for the study. This will be monitored and adjusted as changes are needed. A semester planner detailing due dates for each assessment and how they are to be submitted is also on the wall. I update my diary each week with each weeks classes and any additional information as it comes to hand. I attended the two-day skills workshop the week prior to studying studies and I have enrolled in upcoming skills workshops that are available throughout the semester. I have read the TPP101 Course Outline and I review it as we progress through the semester. I access Blackboard which has my e-lectures, quizzes, lecture recordings and PowerPoint presentations, assessment criteria and due dates. These materials are supporting my preparation for classes. The Task 2 Toolkit supports my preparation for not only each week leading up to the assessment submission date but also requirements for the upcoming assessment. The workbook is providing me with opportunities to practice and check on my understanding of key points. Going through these study materials has allowed me to prepare for the class as well as identify questions which can then be asked face to face at the lecture or tutorial.

Contemporary Moral Problems And Issues Philosophy Essay

Contemporary Moral Problems And Issues Philosophy Essay As Glaucon recalls the legend of Gyges he said that, a Shepherd found a powerful magic ring in a fissure opened by an earthquake. If the ring was worn, the person will become invisible and would able to travel anywhere and do anything undetected. However, he used the ring for evil, to get what he wants and satisfaction. There are two kinds of ring, the virtue and rouge. In the story the morality that has been raised in the story was about being greedy on the power that he possesses. This power made him to think evil rather than doing good deeds and he cannot let go of what he have. He acted selfishness, choosing to become immoral to the whole society and go against the cleanliness of his heart. 2. Distinguish between psychological and ethical egoism. Psychological egoism, means that all men are self-centered in everything that they do. Just to satisfy his needs for his own good which acts as self-interest. And Ethical egoism, means how men ought to act. That gives a factual response of a persons behavior; they have no obligation to do anything what is in their own interest, regardless of the effect on others. 3. Rachels discusses two arguments for psychological egoism. What are these arguments, and how does he reply to them? The first argument describes one persons action as selfish, and another persons action as unselfish. We are overlooking the crucial fact that in both cases, assuming that the action is done voluntarily, the agent is merely doing what he most wants to do. The first argument shows bad example it would not deserve to be taken seriously, because it rests on the premise that people never voluntarily do anything except what they want to do. And the second argument for psychological egoism is the so-called unselfish actions always produce a sense of self-satisfaction in the agent, and since this sense of satisfaction is a pleasant state of consciousness, rather than to bring about any good for others. 4. What three commonplace confusions does Rachels detect in the thesis of psychological egoism? The three commonplace confusions are: Confusion of Selfishness with self-interest. Assumption that every action is done either from self-interest or from other-regarding motives. Common but false assumption that a concern for ones own welfare is incompatible with any genuine concern for the welfare of others. 5. State the arguments for saying that ethical egoism is inconsistent. Why doesnt Rachels accept this argument? An ethical egoism is inconsistent, because the egoism cannot be easily advocated that is commonly adopted by many. And if people adopted the egoistic policy of pursuing their own interests to the exclusion of his interests, as he pursues his interests to the exclusion of theirs, then such a world would be impossible. So he himself will be an egoist, but he will want others to be altruists. 6. According to Rachels, why shouldnt we hurt others, and why should we help others? How can the egoist reply? By doing actions that would harm others may affect them. He will protest that we may accept this as a reason, but he does not. There are limits to what can be accomplished by argument, and if the egoist really doesnt care about other people. As a reason not to do an action simply because he cares about what happens to that other person. What the egoist says that he does not accept that as a reason, he is saying something quite extraordinary. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Rachels answered the question raised by Glaucon, namely, Why be moral? If so, what exactly is his answer? Yes, his answer was, we must be a moral not for ourselves but for others. 2. Are genuine egoists rare, as Rachels claims? Is it a fact that most people care about others even people they dont know? Yes, the genuine egoists are rare, because most of the people can love or care others, even though they dont really know that person. Helping others may give a reason for doing it as a good habit to show what care really means for them. 3. Suppose we define ethical altruism as the view that one should always act for the benefit of others and never in ones own self-interest. Is such a view immoral or not? The view is not immoral, because things and life are never too late, in our lives no one is perfect, and to make an impact about this we should show how we develop our moral values. John Arthur: Religion, Morality, and Conscience Review Questions: 1. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion different? Morality involves our attitudes toward various forms of behavior like lying and killing, its typically expressed using the notions of rules, rights, and obligations. While religion typically involves in prayer, worship, beliefs about the supernatural, institutional forms and authoritative texts. 2. Why is religion necessary for moral motivation? Religion is necessary for moral motivation, because those religious motives are far from the only ones people have. The decision to do the right thing is made for a variety of reasons. 3. Why isnt religion necessary as a source of moral knowledge? Religion isnt necessary a source of moral knowledge, because people tends to not understand truly the idea of religion it should always be done right. 4. What is the divine command theory? Why does Arthur reject this theory? The divine command theory mean that God has the same sort of relation to the moral law as the legislature, which has to statutes it enacts without Gods commands there would be no moral rules, just as without a legislature there would be no statutes. Arthur rejected the divine command theory, simply because he doesnt believe in God. 5. According to Arthur, how are morality and religion connected? The two are connected, because morality is influenced by religion and they are based on its moral code, which also creates a culture. 6. Dewey says that morality is social. What does this mean, according to Arthur? As Arthur made a study about the morality is social, its about the sense that we are, subject to criticism by others for our actions. We discuss this with others what we should do, and often hear from them concerning whether our decisions were acceptable. Only through the powers of imagination can we exercise our moral powers, envisioning with the powers of judgment what conscience requires. Discussion Questions: 1. Has Arthur refuted the divine command theory? If not, how can it be defended? Arthur did not refute the divine command theory, because he talks about the limitation to the premise of God he is refining god where the principle of God is very powerful. We should remember that in every religion, we can never truly understand the concept of God, because it can never decide the concerns of society and conclusion can never be a factual. 2. If morality is social, as Dewey says, then how can we have any obligations to non-human animals? Even though animals are not human beings. They are also a living thing that can think, feel, and etc. We should have obligations for them, because we also get some of our resources from the animals. 3. What does Dewey mean by moral education? Does a college ethics class count as moral education? Moral education simply means your own family tradition on how you grow up with them and how they raise you. Family is our first teacher in our lives, and we also involve within the society. Yes, because moral education has been taught, which we are learning from discussions and on how we act them in the real world. We will carry this as long as we live. Friedrich Nitzsche: Master-and Slave-Morality Review Questions: 1. How does Nietzsche characterize a good and healthy society? Nietzsche characterizes a good and healthy society by allowing superior individuals to exercise their will to power, their drive domination and exploitation of the inferior. The superior person follows a master-morality that emphasizes power, strength, egoism and freedom, as distinguished from a slave-morality that calls for weakness, submission, sympathy and love. 2. What is Nietzsches view of injury, violence, and exploitation? Nietzsches view of injury, violence and exploitation is from the result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given. Its a will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. 3. Distinguish between Master-Morality and Slave-Morality. Master-Morality has the idea of a good and bad character and its also similar to the noble and despicable. While Slave-Morality has the idea of morality of utility and according to them the evil man arouses fear. 4. Explain the Will to Power. This is best described on how you think, if you put something on mind that you like to achieve something or a goal. The power of your will become immovable. That youll do everything just to get what is best. We develop this through experience, so that we will have a strong will, which strives constantly towards a self-chosen goal under the influence of a self-supplied motivation. Discussion Questions: 1. Some people view Nietzsches writings as harmful and even dangerous. For example, some have charged Nietzsche with inspiring Nazism. Are these charges justified or not? Why or why not? Nietzsches writings are not harmful and not may cause danger. These are very factual record that can be supported through the future. He made every opinion and classified it to have a meaningful life for the whole society, which we could easily identify what are our strengths and weaknesses. 2. What does it mean to be a creator of value? It truly defines the origin of where and how it started that belongs to their ancestors so they could master something coming from the history. Mary Midgley: Trying Out Ones New Sword Review Questions: 1. What is moral isolationism? According to Midgley, the view of anthropologists and others that we cannot criticize cultures that we dont understand. We learn from our culture on how we live our lives. This is an essential doctrine of immoralisim, because it forbids any moral reasoning. It also falsely assumes that cultures are separate and unmixed, whereas most cultures are in face formed out of many influences. 2. Explain the Japanese custom of Tsujigiri. What questions does Midgley ask about this custom? Tsujigiri is a Japanese samurai sword, which means crossroads-cut because it had to be tried out if it works properly; it had to slice through someone at a single blow, from the shoulder to the opposite flank. Otherwise, the warrior bungled his stroke. This could injure his honour, offend his ancestors and even let down his emperor. So tests were needed, and wayfarers had to be extended. The questions are: Does the isolating barrier work both ways? Are people in other cultures equally unable to criticize us? Does the isolating barrier between cultures block praise as well as blame? and What is involved in judging? 3. What is wrong with moral isolationism, according to Midgley? According to Midgley, moral isolationism would lay down a general ban on moral reasoning. This is the programme of immoralism that carries a distressing logical difficulty. 4. What does Midgley think is the basis for criticizing other cultures? Midgley thinks that the culture of our society is the basis of criticizing other cultures. It defines that, why would we judge other culture if we also criticize our own culture. Discussion Questions: 1. Midgley says that Nietzsche is an immoralist. Is that an accurate and fair assessment of Nietzsche? Why or why not? No, because each one of them has different beliefs that they follow and has also different perspective. 2. Do you agree with Midgleys claim that the idea of separate and unmixed cultures is unreal? Explain your answer. No, everything can change, because in one country, you cant tell whether the people there follow the same culture or not. Living in one country can have different varieties of culture and own beliefs. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. State and explain the Principle of Utility. Show how it could be used to justify actions that are conventionally viewed as wrong, such as lying and stealing. It states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or happiness. The feelings of pleasure and pain are biological events involving our central nervous system, which are controlled by our cerebral cortex. We obviously experience pleasure when we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions such as doing something that can be done every time if a person is very dependent which causes to lie and steal. 2. How does Mill reply to the objection that Epicureanism is a doctrine worthy only of swine? Mill reacted by saying that represent human nature in a degrading light; since the accusation supposes human beings to be a capable of no pleasures except those of which swine are capable. The comparison of the Epicureanism life to that of beasts is felt degrading, precisely because a beasts pleasure do not satisfy a human beings conceptions of happiness. He doesnt consider the Epicureanism to have been by any means faultless in drawing out their scheme of consequences from the utilitarian principle. 3. How does Mill distinguish between higher and lower pleasures? The two pleasures are, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure or the higher pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted by both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent and would not resign it foe any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small amount. 4. According to Mill, whose happiness must be considered? -Mill said, neither of the happiness should be considered. He said that neither pains nor pleasures are homogenous and pain is always heterogeneous with pleasure. He said that for that standard is not the agents own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether. Utilitarianism could only attend its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others and his own, so far happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit but the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous. 5. Carefully reconstruct Mills proof of the Principle of Utility. The Principle of Utility says that happiness is nothing more than ones pleasure and absence of pain. However, happiness is subjective from one person to the other. Ones happiness can or cannot be another persons happiness. Happiness varies from person to person. Also, ones perception of what happiness is varies from one person to the other. One might think that he is doing an act that will make him happy however, it really does the opposite. A man is destined to be happy. Mans end is to reach Happiness. Subjective in a sense that they believe certain things that doesnt make them happy, they feel happiness temporarily. However, mans being subjective prevents man to achieve happiness. Discussion Questions: 1. Is happiness nothing more than pleasure and the absence of pain? What do you think? No, because happiness is where you feel free of thoughts that could not bring depression and wont give hatred. Happiness can be seen in a person once their desire is fulfilled. Happiness also is not being alone this is shared to others and to God. 2. Does Mill convince you that the so-called higher pleasures are better than the lower ones? What about the person of experience who prefers the lower pleasures over the higher ones? Yes, because higher pleasures give maximum experience once in a life time. This is where we always remember the good times. I also agree on the second question, having lower pleasures over the higher ones can test you if you really love a person. But if you give up on something, all of your hopes can disappear one by one. 3. Mill says, In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. Is this true or not? Yes, the statement is true. The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain. Hence, utility is a teleological principle. This once again raises some of the same basic issues of associated with hedonism, as discussed in the earlier section on Teleological Theories. Recall that a hedonist believes that the good life consists solely in the pursuit and experience of pleasure or happiness. 4. Many commentators have thought that Mills proof of the Principle of Utility is defective. Do you agree? If so, then what mistake or mistakes does he make? Is there any way to reformulate the proof so that it is not defective? No, because Mills principle has explained its definition thoroughly. Although the principle of utility is difficult to apply and often leads to immorality, it is, nevertheless, an important moral principle. Fundamental problem for utilitarianism is justifying the altruistic principle of self-sacrifice in order to benefit others. James Rachels: The Debate over Utilitarianism Review Questions: 1. Rachels says that classical utilitarianism can be summed up in three propositions. What are they? As said in the book, the three propositions are actions are to be judged right or wrong in virtue of their consequences. Nothing else matters. Right actions are, simply, those that have the best consequence. Second is, assessing consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness. Lastly, in calculating the happiness or unhappiness that will be caused, no ones happiness is to be counted as more important than anyone elses. Each persons welfare is equally important. Right actions are those that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each persons happiness counted as equally important. 2. Explain the problem with hedonism. How do defenders of utilitarianism respond to this problem? By hedonism, it believes that happiness is the definitive good, and unhappiness is the definitive bad. We would always value all sort of things, including artistic creativity and friendship, for their own sakes. It makes us happy to have them, but only because we already think them good. Therefore, we think it a misfortune to lose them, independently of whether or not the loss is accompanied by unhappiness. 3. What are the objections about justice, rights, and promises? For justice, according to the critics of Utilitarianism this is incompatible with the ideal of justice. Justice requires that we treat people fairly, according to their individual needs and merits. It also illustrates how the demands of justice and the demands of utility can come into conflict, and so a theory that says utility is the whole story cannot be right. For rights, this has a bond with the legal rights and morality behavior. The moral to be drawn from this argument is that Utilitarianism is at odds with the idea that people have rights that may not be trampled on merely because one anticipated good results. But we dont think that our rights should be set aside so easily. Its a notion that places limits on how an individual may be treated, regardless of the good purposes that might be accomplished. For promises, its because the only kinds of considerations having to do with the future, because of its exclusive concern with the consequences, Utilitarianism has is confine our attention to what will happen as a result of our actions. Utilitarianism is that it seems to be an adequate moral theory because it excludes what we might call backward-looking considerations. 4. Distinguish between Rule- and Act-Utilitarianism. How does rule-utilitarianism reply on the objections? Rules will be established by reference to the principle, and individual acts will then be judged right or wrong by reference to the rules. Rule-Utilitarianism is to contrast the original theory it has no difficulty coping with the three antiutilitarianism arguments, now commonly called the Act-Utilitarianism is something McCloskey, would tempted to bear false witness against the innocent man because the consequences of that particular act would be good. 5. What is the third line of defense? This third line of defense discusses moreover various irrational elements, including prejudices absorbed from our parents, our religion, and the general culture. It doesnt follow the concept of justice, individual rights and so on. It simply talks about the way of thinking. Discussion Question: 1. Smarts defense of utilitarianism is to reject common moral beliefs when they conflict with utilitarianism. Is this acceptable to you or not? Explain your answer. We all know what is right and wrong; we should always understand the facts that may give a good sense and values to help each other. All of us have different beliefs, but even though they are different, we only have one goal in our lives. Common moral consciousness could bring a support for only a short term; we should know the values of life. 2. A utilitarian is supposed to give moral consideration to all concerned. Who must be considered? What about nonhuman animals? How about lakes and streams? We all have freedom, but we should not abuse it. Its also our responsibility to save the animals and also the lakes and streams. Not all the time they are still there for us, because most of the time we always abuse our planet, and we dont respect and love the animals and our environment. It could create an unhappy result for the animals, lakes and streams. 3. Rachels claims that merit should be given moral consideration independent of utility. Do you agree? I agree that merit should be given moral considerations, because it can give a lot of benefits that may help the people to think what would benefit for them. Even if its only a small reward, this can help people to do good deeds and it would practice a good moral for everyone. Immanuel Kant: The Categorical Imperative Review Questions: 1. Explain Kants account of the good will. Its impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will. For Kant, good will is not good, because of what it affects or accomplishments. Its fitness for attaining some proposed end, its good through its willing alone, which is good in itself. 2. Distinguish between hypothetical and categorical imperative. Hypothetical means possibility or circumstances. As for categorical imperative means having knowledge about what it contains, which has no conditions to be applied. 3. State the first formulation of the categorical imperative (using the notion of a universal law), and explain how Kant uses this rule to derive some specific duties toward self-and others. From the illustration, this principal of self-love can become a universal law of nature. Its then seen at once that a system of nature by whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the furtherance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature. 4. State the second version of the categorical imperative (using the language of means and end) and explain it. For the universality of a law that everyone believing himself to be in need can make any promise he pleases with the intention not to keep it would make promising, and the very purpose of promising, itself impossible, since no one would believe he was being promised anything, but would laugh at utterances of this kind as empty shams. Discussion Question: 1. Are the two versions of the categorical imperative just different expressions of one basic rule, or are they two different rules? Defend your answer. I think they differ in expressions of one basic, we should think first before we do an action. The same treatment with everyone else, by simply looking what is the right way to do. But as for the second formulation, it discusses a means and ends. 2. Kant claims that an action that is not done from the motive of duty has no moral worth. Do you agree or not? If not, give some counterexamples. I agree, because it is truth that there are no moral worth since everyone should consider their duty as an individual. Rational nature exists as an end in itself. Thus the value of all objects that can be produced by our action is always conditioned. 3. Some commentators think that the categorical imperative (particularly the first formulation) can be used to justify nonmoral or immoral action. Is this a good criticism? Yes, because commentators has good insight about the categorical imperative. It can also be justified if a persons action is morally right or wrong. I can say that its a good criticism, because they have a point of what it really is. Aristotle: Happiness and Virtue Review Questions: 1. What is happiness, according to Aristotle? How is it related to virtue? How is it related to pleasure? According to Aristotle, all human beings seek happiness, and that happiness is not pleasure, honor, or wealth, but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue is of two kinds, moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. 2. How does Aristotle explain moral virtue? Give some examples. According to Aristotle, Virtue is of two kinds, moral and intellectual. Moral virtue comes from training and habit, and generally is a state of character that is a mean between the vices of excess and deficiency. Example is that Aristotle portrays the virtue of courage as a mean between the extremes of rashness and cowardice. 3. Is it possible for everyone in our society to be happy, as Aristotle explains it? If not, who cannot be happy? Yes, it is possible for everyone in our society to be happy, but its hard to know what kind of happiness would the society like, because most of the people have different definition of being happy. Not like what Aristotle explained. A character of a person should have passion and love. All of us deserve to be happy and want to feel happy. Discussion Questions: 1. Aristotle characterizes a life of pleasure as suitable for beasts. But what, if anything, is wrong with a life of pleasure? Aristotle define pleasures which are suitable for beasts, most of them cannot change what a human being thinks. They are defined as a whole different level, which can be expressed in a bad manner and can be done with evil things and thoughts. 2) Aristotle claims that the philosopher will be happier than anyone else? Why is this? Do you agree or not? I agree on what Aristotle said that it can bring happiness than anyone else, since a mission has been made, and it was been fulfilled. If we compare it to others, his definition of happiness doesnt compose of pleasure, honor or even wealth. Joel Feinberg: The Nature and Value of Rights Review Questions: 1) Describe Nowheresville. How is this world different from our world? As defined by Feinberg, Nowheresville is a world like our own except that people do not have rights. As a result, people in this world cannot make moral claims when they are treated unjustly. They cannot demand or claim just treatment, and so they are deprived of self-respect and human dignity. 2. Explain the doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties. What is Feinbergs position on the doctrine? The doctrine of the logical correlativity of rights and duties means that all duties entail other peoples rights and all rights entail other peoples duties. Feinberg believes from both ways as he defined it. 3. How does Feinberg explain the concept of personal desert? How would personal desert work in Nowheresville? Based on Feinberg, he calls it a sovereign monopoly of rights. When a person is said to deserve something good from us what is meant in parts is that there would be certain propriety in our giving that good thing to him in virtue of the kind of person he is, more likely in virtue of some specific thing he has done. A desert has evolved a good bit away from its beginning by now, but nevertheless, it seems clearly to be one of those words. One should be happy that they ever treat us well, not grumble over their occasional lapses. It deserves from what you teach and learn to expand all knowledge and share experience. 4. Explain the notion of a sovereign right-monopoly. How would this work in Nowheresville according to Feinberg? As a sovereign right-monopoly, it means that one country is being self-governed; we dont have any rights to complain, because for it, we have no knowledge about it. The notion of a sovereign right-monopoly means that if one country self-governed us, we have no right to complain since we are not knowledgeable of our rights. Its also about treating people in a good and bad way. Sovereign was quite capable of harming his subjects, he could commit no wrong against them that they could complain about, since they had no prior claims against his conduct. 5. What are claim-rights? Why does Feinberg think they are morally important? Claim-rights are person that has claim to the rights. God could have claimed performance of the martial duties as his own due and God alone had claim-rights violated by the nonperformance. By believing in claim-rights these are important, because if we wont claim it people might abuse our rights. Discussion Question: 1. Does Feinberg make a convincing case for the importance of rights? Why or why not? -Yes, because Feinberg shows the possibilities of having the right and respecting others by not stepping on the boundaries of each individuals. 2. Can you give a noncircular definition of cl

La Oferta del Año - Spanish Essay :: Papers

La Oferta del Aà ±o Esta casa es ideal para una familia grande. Es situado en el corazà ³n de la ciudad y es la cerca muchas estaciones. Hay abajo una bastante grande cocina integral. Es muy mordern con baldosines. Hay tambià ©n un comedor grande y es decora agradablemente. Prà ³ximo a el comedor hay un aseo pequeà ±o. La casa tiene dos espacios de recibo, ambos grande y con chimineas. Al lado de primero espacio de recibo, hay un conservatorio nuevo con el plan encantador de madera y es la iluminacià ³n muy buena. Hay arriba cuatro dormitorios y dos cuartos de baà ±o. Ambos cuartos de baà ±o son completamente embaldosado. El dormitorio principal es grande, tiene las ventanas grandes y armarios empotrados. El tercero y segundos dormitorios son idà ©nticos con armarios empotrados. El cuarto dormitorio es pequeà ±o pero puede quedar una cama matrimonial. Todo el dormitoros son decorado hermosamente. Afuera, hay un garaje con suficiente espacio para dos coches. En el fachada jardin hay arboles frutales y las plantas grandes. En el jardà ­n de espalda hay una piscina climatizada pero pequeà ±o. La casa tiene el calefaccion central, vantanas insulados y parabolica. La arquitectura es extraordinaria, mordern y es diseà ±ado por un arquitecto bueno. El precio muy razonable y se acceptan afertas. Para mà ¡s informacion, contacta. Agentcia Anjani Amlani sobre: TLF: 0208 863 4444 CELULAR: 07704 404 404 ====================== Mi Casa Mi casa esta en Harrow Weald. Esta tambià ©n cerca de Wealdstone y diez minutos de mis escuelas. Mi casa tiene dos pisos. Abajo hay un grande salon. Es decorà ³ agradablemente pero es un poco pequeà ±o. El comedor es conectado el salon y es decorà ³ misma manera con una mesa pequeà ±a de vidrio en el centro del cuarto. La conservitorio es muchisimo largo y y tiene la iluminacià ³n bueno. Es muy frio en inverno o muy caliente en verano. Arriba hay tres dormitorios y una cuarto de baà ±o. El cuarto de bano es regular y es todo azul. El dormitorio de mi hermano es muy pequà ±o y

Toni Morrisons Sula - Female Struggle for Identity Essay -- Sula Ess

The Female Struggle for Identity in Sula   Ã‚  Ã‚   The novel Sula by Toni Morrison exemplifies the new feminist literature described by Helene Cixous in "The Laugh of the Medusa" because of the final portrayal of the two main characters Nel and Sula.   However, it is clear throughout the novel that both Cixous's and Gilbert and Gubar's descriptions of women characters are evident within this novel.   The traditional submissive woman figure paradoxically is set against the new woman throughout the novel.   It is unclear whether the reader should love or despise Sula for her independence until the very last scene.   Although both the perspectives of Cixous and Gilbert/Gubar are evident within the text, ultimately it is the friendship of the two women that prevails and is deemed most important.   This prevailing celebration of womanhood in all of its dualistic and mysterious aspects is exactly what Cixous pushes women writers to attempt.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   First there is the presence of the old stereotypical woman character, a woman split between the conventional and nontraditional roles of women.   No differences are apparent initially between Morrison's Sula and any other women's literature in the past.   Women are depicted either as docile servants to men, like Nel, or ball-busting feminist monsters like Sula.   The hidden aspect of the novel lies underneath these stereotypical surface roles, in the incomprehensible and almost inappropriate bond of the two women.   In the final scene of Sula, Nel comes to the realization that the emptiness inside her is due to the loss of Sula, not Jude (Morrison 174).   Her friendship with Sula is all that matters.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The development of a feminist reading from the perspective of Gilbert and Gubar... ... but instead reunites the two women's spirits.   "We was girls together," Nel says, and it becomes clear the importance of this revelation to her.   She cries "circles and circles of sorrow" for the lost itme between herself and Sula (Morrison 174).   Perhaps she also cries for a whole history of lost women seperated by societal functioning and a world built my men.    Works Cited   Cixous, Helene. "The Laugh of the Medusa."   The Critical Condition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends.   Ed. David H. Richter.   Boston:   Bedford Books, 1998. 1453- 66.   Gilbert, Sarah M. and Gubar, Susan.   "From the Infection in the Sentence: The Woman Writer and the Anxiety of Authorship."   The Critical Condition: Classic Texts andContemporary Trends.  Ã‚   Ed. David H. Richter.   Boston: Bedford Books, 1998.   1361-74.   Morrison, Toni.   Sula.   New York:   Plume Printing, 1982.

“Mythology” by Edith Hamilton

â€Å"Mythology† By Edith Hamilton Mythology is mainly known for the pagan religions that dominated Europe during the times of the Greek and Roman Empires. The main pagan religion being that of the Greek gods like Zeus, Hera, Ares, and Hercules which was the most prevalent and accepted amongst Europeans at the time. The religions although very harsh and unforgiving were prevalent because the people needed a strong spiritual source to depend on. The people needed a sense of unity in order to have their rising civilizations succeed. The people need someone to blame for the many negative things that may have happened during their times.All of these things contributed to the success and need for the pagan religions in Europe. The Greek pagan gods were a very harsh and unforgiving lot. Zeus the father of the gods along with his brothers betrayed and banished his father Kronos after he tried to devour them all. Zeus then tricked his brother Hades into being the master of the Underwo rld where only death and sorrow prevailed and Poseidon the king of the Oceans. He then proceeded to make himself the ruler of the gods effectively making sure he wasn’t challenged as he ruled from the heavens.In the same way the people of the Greek and Roman empires pursued power and fame. The Greek city states warred with each other endlessly, constantly making and breaking alliances in order to gain the upper hand in the name of their respective god or gods. The two gods who were the cause of the greatest of catastrophes were Athena and Ares. Which were the gods of the city states of Sparta and Athens. Both of the city states believed that their god was superior and that they should in turn rule over the other Greek city states and all the other lesser gods.This led to great conflicts between the two nations which in mythology is depicted by the grand arguments and betrayals that Athena and Ares committed on one another. The people always praised their gods and offered them bountiful gifts and sacrifices. They believed that in doing this the gods would grant them the ability to win any war or avoid any catastrophe. With this feeling of superiority and divine intervention they felt invincible and so always went out to carve out their empires at the expense of lives and money.Because of all the bloodshed brought forth from the different gods and different cultures ending in wars it was necessary for the Greek and Roman city states to have gods that were strong and merciless. The people needed to know that their god would not allow any other nation or god to harm his people or disturb his domain. Anywhere where the dominant god was not of a warrior personality city states fell to more aggressive ones and anywhere that these aggressive city states went they carved out territories and imposed even greater control of entire regions. A weak god was indeed a weakness and a strong, merciless one was indeed the way to go.

How does Hamlet deal with the revengers r&amp Essay

Revenge is defined as â€Å"retaliation for an offence or injury†; Hamlet has two main reasons for needing revenge, political and moral. Politically he has to kill Claudius for the offence of denying Hamlet, the heir to the Danish kingdom, his usurped crown. He also has a moral reason, as the â€Å"son of a dear father murdered†(II. ii. 581); he has a duty to extract revenge for the injury; and filially to protect his mother by ridding her of an incestuous and immoral marriage to a murderer. He has no doubt even to himself that he does have this dutiful role to perform,† I know my course† (II. ii. 596). To seek this revenge he would have to kill Claudius and his mother, for they are both guilty of having impure souls. But one of the very first internal conflicts Hamlet has is when the Ghost tells him â€Å"nor let thy soul contrive Against thy mother aught. Leave her to heaven†¦ † (I. iv. 85). This leaves him in great turmoil, as he can justify to himself the killing of Claudius, but not letting his mother live. He is so overcome with a sense of purity and morality, especially with concern to women, it does not seem right to him that something so tainted should be allowed to carry on in the world. He wants his perfect revenge, one that would satisfy his meticulously accomplished conscience, but he can not carry it out, so instead he declines it altogether, or at least puts it off in stages, until he can prove it to himself and can put it off no longer. He is willing to taint his own soul and so go to hell and enter a damnation possibly even worse than that in which the Ghost resides, which he tells Hamlet just to know about would, â€Å"harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood, make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres, thy knotted and combini d locks to part, and each particular hair to stand on end like quills upon the fretful porpentine† (I. iv. 16). Yet he is willing to suffer all this for the sake of revenge in killing Claudius, to avenge his father, so to save his mother, to â€Å"leave her to heaven† (I. v. 86), when even he is not allowed this blessing. What he is giving up to be the dutiful son and revenge his fathers murder in comparison to what Gertrude is giving up leaves his worse off than her, even though she has been an adulterous wife. Therefore her being allowed to live on in sin is as wrong not only on her part, but also on Hamlets for allowing it to be. Hamlet knows what he is sacrificing of himself, his immortal soul, if he is to take on the revengers’ ri le. It is a heavy burden to carry, and not one that he is willing to undertake lightly, so he wants to be absolutely certain of Claudius guilt before taking action. For as certain as he is of the course of action that must be taken, the truth of the Ghosts words must be ascertained, for when Hamlet converses with him he does not know for certain if it is â€Å"a spirit of health or goblin damned, bring with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, be thy intents wicked or charitable† (I. iv. 40). So to affirm the facts for himself, Hamlet has the players perform the play and watches for Claudius’s reaction to his own murderous and incestuous actions being acted out before him. For Hamlet this is supposed to be a resolution, a confirmation of his suspicions before he can act, a catalyst to spur him on depending on the success of his experiment. Hamlet becomes angry and disgusted with himself; he can’t understand his own lack of passion, even after proving to himself that Claudius is guilty. He is very aware of himself not crying in the rehearsal of the play, when the players are moved to tears over the story of the â€Å"rousid vengeance† (II. ii. 486) of Pyrrhus, Priam and Hecuba. As soon as he is alone, he bursts out â€Å"O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I! Is it not monstrous that this player here, But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Could force his soul so to his own conceit That from her working all his visage waned, Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect†¦. And all for nothing† He feels miserable at his deficit, he is forced to compare himself and he comes of he worse. † What would he do had he the motive and the cue for passion that I have? †¦ Make mad the guilty and appal the free†. He again feels this lack of justified fervour when young Fortinbras goes to battle to fight and possibly to die for a land that is acknowledged to be not worth the sacrifice â€Å"we go to gain a little patch of ground that hath in it no profit but the name† (IV. iv. 18). This is again someone showing emotion and action when there is not as much reason to do so as there is for Hamlet. When he is alone he sees what Fortinbras has done as being honourable and a rebuke of his own inaction, whereas before when talking to Fortinbras’ captain, he had been cynical as to the actions they were carrying out. He analyses himself as â€Å"thinking too precisely on th’event – A thought which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom and ever three parts coward† (IV. iv. 41). He sees his need to think things through before acting as a deplorable weakness. Even he can see hat he is being weak minded and indecisive. But even when convinced he can’t kill his uncle deliberately, in a rage he thinks he has killed him, but it was just Polonius. Having proved Claudius’ guilt, Hamlet now has to act, and yet does not act straight away, but postpones it, indicating that there are also other deeper subconscious reasons that could affect him. The death of his father at the beginning of the play and the hasty incestuous marriage of his mother upset him greatly and have led to his obsessions with death, decay, sin the body and its parts and with women, purity and the defiling of them. We can see this from speeches such as, â€Å"O that this too too sullied flesh would melt†¦ Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His cannon ‘gainst self-slaughter. † (I. ii. 129) â€Å"Frailty, thy name is woman. † (I. ii. 146) â€Å"For if the sun breed maggots in a dead dog, being a good kissing carrion – have you a daughter? † (II. ii. 181) â€Å"Or in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil† in which Hamlet is clearly fixed on purity, women, death and suicide. Claudius being a murder and committing incest and yet still having the crown of Denmark and outwardly appearing to be just, honourable and a good leader (quote? ) could explain why Hamlet often confuses the order of society in his speeches. This can be seen when he calls himself a â€Å"rogue and peasant slave† (II. ii.547) when he clearly isn’t, or when he calls himself â€Å"unpregnant† and likens himself to a â€Å"whore† in the same soliloquy, when he obviously is not. To Hamlet, Claudius is tainted and impure in mind and action, yet he is a good ruler of Denmark, a good king, and a good diplomat. He is efficient, confident, in control of affairs, in every way assured and poised. Hamlet identifies with Claudius in a way that restrains him from being able to kill him, hamlet has all the ability and the necessary desire, but Claudius has everything Hamlet wants, which leads to internal sub-conscious conflict on as well as his conscious conflicts. His mother’s ability to alter the direction of her affection from one person to another so suddenly hurts Hamlet, as having to share her with his own father was difficult enough, but at least was understandable. He is now jealous that someone else holds such high regard in her affections but at the same time is disgusted with her for loving someone else. But as his jealousy is repressed, as he doesn’t even admit to himself that he is jealous of his mother’s lovers, all he feels is a deep sense of disgust towards Gertrude that helps him deal with his rejection. Hamlet could be suffering from the theory that Freud developed, the Oedipus theory. This states that as children, young boys feel great bitterness and resentment towards their fathers for making them share their mothers affections and for having sexual relations with their mothers which the young boys also desire, and so they view their fathers as rivals that they would rather have out of the way. These thoughts are repressed as a form of defence for fear that their fathers will realise what they are thinking. To compensate for this they resolve the complex by over identifying with their fathers and adopting many of their fathers’ attitudes. This could be used to explain Hamlet’s impediment and self-frustration towards his revenge. He tries to carry out the task, but he is held back in some way, because he cannot kill a person who he recognises as so like himself in what he wants to be like and wishes he could do. His desires towards his mother have been so long repressed that they are now repulsive to him, but yet her remarrying brings those thoughts to his attention. He sees someone taking the place of his father in her affections, the place that he has long coveted. The nature of this usurper, a relative, makes the link between the two even more incestuous in Hamlet’s mind and even more connected towards him. This, coupled with the fact that Claudius is able to gain his mother’s affection by killing old Hamlet, ridding him, once again something that Hamlet has long wanted to do but repressed from himself, hinders Hamlet greatly from carrying out his revenge. When Hamlet discovers the identity of his father’s murderer his first instant reply is â€Å"O my prophetic soul! My uncle? † (I. v. 40). This does imply that unconsciously the idea had been in his mind and had suddenly been brought back to his awareness.

Book Review: Leading Change by John P. Kotter Essay

Leading Change by John P. Kotter. Harvard Business School Press, 1996. In light of the increasing rate of change in the business environment due to factors such as technological advances and globalization, the need to be able to make successful transformations within an organization becomes more imperative than ever before. In Leading Change, Kotter identifies an eight-step guide for making successful organization changes. These eight steps stem from avoiding common mistakes made during organizational change efforts seen in the past , such as: too much complacency; failing to create a powerful guiding coalition; underestimating the power of vision; under-communicating the vision; permitting obstacles to block a new vision; failing to create short term wins; declaring a victory too soon; and neglecting to anchor changes firmly into the organizational culture. To avoid these mistakes, leaders of an organization requiring changes should consider the following steps: 1. Establishing a sense of urgency 2. Creating a guiding coalition 3. Developing a vision and strategy 4. Communicating the change vision 5. Empowering broad-based action 6. Generating short-term wins 7. Consolidating gains and producing more change 8. Anchoring new approaches into the culture In establishing a sense of urgency , it is hoped that a leader of change will be able to direct stakeholders’ drive towards a common purpose and reduce  complacency. Common causes of complacency include : the absence of a crisis, low overall performance standards, wrong performance measurement indexes, too much happy talk from management, and lack of sufficient performance feedback from external sources. It is suggested that a leader creates a sense of purpose allowing weaknesses to be exposed, setting performance targets that are too high, analyze current opportunities and highlight the organizations inability to pursue them, and cut-down on the â€Å"happy talk† and listen to disgruntled customers. Very often, committees of employees devoted to making organizational change are ineffectual because they do not have the any influential, senior managers who can make changes happen and reinforce the urgency of the committee’s purpose to all levels. Kotter suggests careful selection of committee members to include senior management and influential people, with care taken to avoid those employees he labels â€Å"egos† and â€Å"snakes† (i.e. those employees whose egos may take precedence over the committees agenda and those people who may undermine the trust necessary to build strong committee relationships) By developing a vision, a leader creates â€Å"a picture of the future with some implicit or explicit commentary on why people should strive to create that future.† (p. 68) It not only clarifies direction but helps in motivating those people who will be affected and/or implementing change. Kotter gives examples of good and bad visions and suggests that a perfect vision should be clear and simple enough to explain within five minutes. A vision should also inspire people to force people out of their comfort zones, it should be challenging but attainable, and usually takes advantage of fundamental trends such as globalization or technological changes. In communicating the change vision, Kotter argues that in this day of information overload, talk of vision and strategy takes up only a small fraction of employee time and the ideas are often lost. Using analogies, repetition and the use of multiple forums for conveying change vision will help employees to understand and remember the ideas. Clear concise language is a must. To empower employees for broad-based action enables much more flexibility within an organization to adapt to a changing environment. Barrier to empowerment however exist in i) the organizational structure where resources are so fragmented that timely delivery of objectives is nearly impossible , ii) the skills of employees, iii) systems of the organization such as HR systems which advocate antiquated measures of performance which contradict new changes, iv) supervisors who are reluctant to change from the traditional command-and-control style of management. Despite the long-term nature of many organizational changes, Kotter suggests that the generation of short-term wins is of utmost importance and not necessarily at the expense of long-term benefits. He cites examples of CEOs who have implemented long term change initiatives but the failure to create short-term wins and tangible benefits made stakeholders impatient resulting in disenchantment. He reinforces the clear difference between management and leadership and their importance in the pursuit of short-term and long term goals (leadership being more long-term vision and strategy-oriented, management being more concerned with the pursuit goals in the immediate future). The achievement of short-term goals not only reinforces that scarifies made for long-term goal achievement are paying off. They also help to reward change agents and undermine cynics/anchors to change, they build momentum and can help fine-tune vision and strategies. After a short-term win, Kotter warns that it is all too tempting to relax and even regress in some cases back to old ways. All momentum of change is lost. To be able to consolidate gains and keep producing more change, he suggests that management increase urgency levels, and learn to understand and appreciate that interdependencies with in the organization dictate that when changes are made in one area, they often require further changes to be made in other areas or departments. Once changes have been made, it is then important to anchor them into the corporate culture. It is observed that culture is not easily manipulated so this should be done when all changes have been made. Changing â€Å"the way we do  things around here† is imperative so that regression to old practices is not experienced. To summarize, Kotter reinforces that an increasingly changing business environment is forcing decisions to be made quicker and organizations to become more flexible to external changes than ever before. Only with increased flexibility, teamwork and leaner organizations can a leader ever hope to make changes in response to these pressure. The leadership qualities of the change agents very important because they set the vision for others to follow. The importance of continual learning is also emphasized because leaders who are constantly changing themselves and going out of their comfort zones arguably are more able to leave those comfort zones in order to adapt to a changing environment.