Film Analysis - The Joy Luck Club - Prajakta Kanegaonkar Essay

Film Analysis - The Joy Luck Club - Prajakta Kanegaonkar - Essay Example Going ahead this becomes a major point of clash between the two generations, none comprehending and understanding other’s view point. For the women in the film ‘The Joy Luck Club’ we see this struggle going on constantly. In this essay based on the film, we are going to analyse this clash of culture as strong as generation gap and how the women in the film try to bridge the gap in the relations with the help of their values and cultures. This film is based on the novel by Amy Tan by the same name. This was completed and released in the year 1993 and received critical as well as mainstream acclaim. This movie and the book is based on the lives of four Chinese women who came to America because of some or the other reason and settled there. They came together and found the club called ‘The Joy Luck Club’ indicating that they would always find joy and happiness wherever they go and would not let circumstances affect them. The story could have happened any where in this world. Howsoever torn we are with the extreme circumstances around us we don’t give up and nor should we. The name of the club in itself is an indicator of the ever going hopeful attitude of the ladies who have formed the club. There are many stories that go on at the same time in the film. Unlike the book the director of the film has to make choices about which character to bring to surface and which one should relegate at the background. Irrespective of a few characters going in the background the weave of the story is not loosened. In fact all these characters contribute to the protagonist’s sketch very beautifully. The purpose of including Jing-Mei in the club is to tell her about her half-sisters in China, whom her mother longed to be reunited with all her life. The seamless flow of the story begins at this point. The story is not about Jing-Mei fulfilling her mother’s last wish. The story narrates the highs and lows of her relationship with h er mother, of broken moments, of tears and joys and most importantly of discovering her mother all over again. The story ends with Jing-Mei meeting her sisters and introducing them the mother they never had. The journey of a relation begins with self-discovery and acceptance of our own self and then the closed ones around us as they are. This journey is portrayed beautifully in the book but is also conveyed with same passion by the actors through their excellent acting and by the powerful media of cinema. The movie impacts the audience as much as the impact caused by the book on the reader. History and traditions are carried forward by the women of the society all around the world. This handing over happens seamlessly through stories, through teachings of pride, memories and is blended beautifully in the upbringing of the children. When we go through the stories of the club members, it becomes increasingly apparent that the cultural gaps between America and China would never be full y reconciled. The question arises when women in the film are trying to blend into a new culture of individualism, freedom of speech and decisions and free thought they are unable to let go of their Chinese ties and traditions. Surprisingly each of them has been a direct or indirect victim of the same ties and tradition. The daughters Jing-Mei, Lena, Waverly and Rose are all American women, because they don’t want to be a part of their Chinese heritage. This is what worries the mothers in the club, while their trying to preserve the Chinese traditions

Reaction Paper Movie Review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Reaction Paper - Movie Review Example The movie explores how world economies failed and the new ideas that were embraced to carry out the shock therapies. Majority of these countries later embraced the free market capitalism. Russia, Poland, India, Chile and Bolivia had to survive through the rapid changes and had to deal with the new freedom and the dangers associated with deregulation and privatization. After the Russian revolution, the socialist economy in the country faced a major crisis with the leadership responding by coming up with programs that allowed limited capitalistic activities (Cran & Yergin, 2002). The economy began to improve but by the 1980s, it was in shambles again mainly due to lack of incentives. The country made attempts to free the market through privatization, but due to lack of clear guidelines and goodwill, the denationalization was done in an unequal manner, further hurting the economy. â€Å"Agony of Reforms† also looks at the economic practices that were witnessed in Latin America in the 20th Century. Majority of the countries in this region relied on the dependency theory that supported industrialization by reducing the amount of manufactured goods that were getting in. This was done by subsidizing the locally manufactured commodities. The counties were, therefore, using a Marxist approach to grow their economies and the impact of this was that the local industries lacked the much needed competition to be innovative and efficient. The failure of the set polices became evident in the 1980s when the nations started losing investments from the few foreigners (Cran & Yergin, 2002). Chile at the time became an experiment in the free market and its leaders called for the evaluation of the free market economic reforms that had been put in place. However, due to the dictatorial regimes, the free market idea was associated with fascism. The country strived to dere gulate the market with majority of the reforms implemented becoming a success

Fitzhugh And His Defence In Cannibals All Philosophy Essay

Fitzhugh And His Defence In Cannibals All Philosophy Essay George Fitzhugh, in his defense of slavery in Cannibals All! represents a truly conservative ideology. Fitzhugh articulates the necessity of slavery as an absolute good, not merely a political reality. In doing so, Fitzhugh decries the supposed better lives of ?free labors? by attacking the notions of natural right and liberty and the belief in consent of the governed. Fitzhugh reverts to an Aristotelian view of natural inequalities ? some men are meant to be slaves and others to be masters ? and praises slavery and feudalism as a benefit for both the aristocracy and the masses. Fitzhugh represents an attack on the basic principles of modern liberalism, as well as a rejection of the new ?isms? of his day (notably socialism and abolitionism), which would lead to the abandonment of all social institutions (marriage, government, etc). Fitzhugh embraces Aristotle?s concept of the origins of government, and rejects the Lockean social contract (6-13). Fitzhugh further rejects the institutions of the North and praises the institution of slavery throughout the south. Aristotelian Fitzhugh prefers Aristotelian, classical political theory to modern, liberal political thought. Fitzhugh asserts that inequality and slavery is natural ? i.e. that aristocracy is a natural instititution. Some men are better than others; equality is a fraudulent concept. Fitzhugh rejects any notion of natural liberty, as there was no state of nature outside civil society. Hobbes, Locke and the liberal tradition are wrong ? there is no state of nature, men do not exist individually, but only in society. Government are always instituted by force, not by consent; there is no social contract. Men are by nature social, as Aristotle states, thus there is no such thing as a state of nature absent society. Thus, there is no natural right, men only exist under the rule of government and society. Government are not made by consent, as Locke claims, but by ?birth and nature?. Restrictions on liberty exist to ?preserve the human hive.? Liberty does not exist in the civil society either; men are ruled by government for ?security.? Liberty is neither attainable nor desirable (71-78). Liberty leads men to harm others just to ?be just to himself? ? but men are not selfish, but social, longing for social institutions (228). Fitzhugh affirms that man is by nature social and loves first his family, then his slaves, then his countrymen (36). Fitzhugh denies the principle of the Declaration that government ?derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.? Only the elites were consulted in forming the government ? all governments are instituted by force and continued by force. Good republics are governed by a small group of elites ? much as the southern states are governed. Only a limited few in North are truly granted consent ? consent government is the equal of anarchy (243-246). Slavery Good Following Aristotelian and classical premises, certain men are by nature superior ? they are meant to rule and be masters. The mass of men are meant to be slaves. Any notion of equality is false, men are not by nature equal, some men have genius while most men mediocre. This is certainly true when comparing whites to Negroes, or when comparing laborers to capitalists. The purpose of society is to provide not liberty, which ensures the destruction of men in a Hobbesian state of war, but to provide security to men, which demands a state of slaver. Only a handful of men are meant to rule; the notion of self-government has been tossed out the window ? the masses are not fit to rule, or even to be consulted as to rule. Men of genius are fit to command, the masses are meant for imitation and slavery; mediocrity must be ?chained down?. ?Liberty for the few, slavery for the masses? (63). Elites should rule, and impose strict restrictions on liberty for the protection of society. Elites certainly possess liberty ? the liberty to govern men to provide for their best interests. The ruling class takes upon themselves the making of all decisions as to the best interest of the people. Men have a natural right to be ?taken care of and protected? ? i.e. to be slaves. Only one man in twenty is fit ?for liberty and command? (67-69) It is the duty of society to protect the weak; thus it is the duty of society to enslave the weak. Blacks are weak because they lack the means to support themselves in infirmity, and that they lack the wits and abilities to survive in free competition (187). Liberty is a terrible thing for blacks; they must be protected by the institution of slavery. The competitive, individualistic state of nature a state of war and the masses are not fit for competition. Inferior men must be protected by elites, this can only be done when they submit all their ?liberty? to masters ? that is, submit to slavery. Scripture supports slavery, recognizing that slavery is ?promotive of men?s happiness and well-being?, and instills morality (30). Slavery is a police institution, protecting slaves from the tyranny of husbands and parents. The Bible defends the institution of white slavery, thus it must be either untrue, or else slavery is an absolute good and not a violation of natural liberty (if such a th ing even exists). Fitzhugh supports the notion that slavery is an absolute good. Slavery serves to make men moral and intelligent, and is preserved by a love of the slave for his master and the master for his slave. Slavery promotes the good of the slaves, because masters love their slaves as they love their families; whereas there is no such attachment among laborers and capitalists (200-206). A society based upon slavery is necessary to protect men from a Hobbesian ?war of all against all?; liberty is undesirable as it will bring harm to the weak (218-19). Slavery serves the best interest of the slaves ? a society based on liberty and competition would overwhelm them, much worse than a kind, loving master would. Elite masters will protect, teach, and ensure the morals of the masses. Poor better off in Aristocracy/Feudalism than Liberalism Fitzhugh teaches that the feudal state was superior to the modern state in protecting the interests of the masses ? i.e. the poor. He believes Southern society is akin to the feudal society, and thus superior to the Northern way of doing things. The Reformation, in trying to grant liberty to the mass, in reality harmed the poor. The institutions of aristocracy, feudalism, and church power over land protected the poor and provided them ?true liberty.? By attacking these institutions, the reformers ?impaired the moral, spiritual, and physical well-being? of the masses (107). ?There was no pauperism in Europe until feudal slavery was abolished? (210). Feudal lords protected their serfs and provided for their needs. In the modern state, competition leads to nothing but the oppression of the weak by the strong. The rise of modern science teaches that men have a right to private judgment; this leads to the concept of human individuality and to the notion of a social contract. Doctrines of Laissez-Faire, free speech and press, human equality, and liberty of action descend from this notion. This philosophy results in ?the supreme sovereignty of the individual, and the abnegation of government? (53). All power is deferred from govern ment to individual men; given Fitzhugh?s view of natural elites, it is his contention that the few will dominated, and destroy, the many. Fitzhugh decries the abolitionist movement as in favor of abolishing all institutions, not just slavery, in favor of individual rule. Abolitionism mean the abolition of government, of marriage, of family, of church, and of property (85). It is this characterization of abolitionism that demonstrates ?the failure of free society?, thus free institutions, liberty under law, does nothing to promote the public good (99-100). The right of private judgment leads to the institution of ?no government (132). ?All modern philosophy converges to a single point ? the overthrow of all government? (190). Liberty demands the end of private property; the socialists recognize that this is the logical end to modern liberalism ? they are either right, and all must be abolished, or liberalism is wrong and liberty is undesirable (222). Fitzhugh, as stated previously, believes the latter; liberty is destructive of security for the masses. Only elites should be granted liberty ? the liberty to rule over and enslave the masses in order to protect them. Comparison of North and South Having demonstrated that modern liberalism is based on flawed logic, and that slavery is an absolute good, Fitzhugh seeks to demonstrate that Southern institutions are superior to Northern capitalism. In the South, slaves are well provided for by kindly, loving masters, while in the North, wage labor is treated appallingly by wealthy elites. That is, he has first attacked the ideology behind Northern thought, and is now attacking the institutions of the North, in defense of Southern slavery. Southern slavery is superior to Northern capitalism. Slaves ?keep more of the products of their labor? than wage laborers; and slave masters care for the needs of slaves far beyond what capitalist ever would do. White ?slave-holding? is characterized by making others work for you, and paying as little as possible; while Southern slave masters work ?as hard as their slaves.? Negro slaves are happier and freer than wage-laborers; northern whites are slaves to money, their liberty limited by their need for wages. The northern capitalist views ill treatment of labor as a ?moral good? and thus cannibalism is the name of the game. Slave masters do not enjoy the luxury of northern capitalists; they must labor with their slaves to preserve their estates. Slave masters protect and improve the conditions of the slaves, by ?enforcing morality? and educating them by merely being around them (15-30). Men are happier in slave states than in the North; they are well cared for and not starving (234) . Fitzhugh?s contention is that Southern slave masters must work to maintain their estates; as slaves are part of their household, their interests lie in the protection and well being of slaves. The natural relationship of master and slave is similar to that of the family, masters are loving toward their slaves ? which is evident in the kindness of Southern slave masters. Northern capitalists desire nothing but to profit by the exploitation of laborers. Southern slave masters exhibit kindness for the slaves, educate them and teach them morals, and protect them as any natural aristocrat would. Fitzhugh?s analysis of the Southern slave holder, or of Northern capitalism, may not be an accurate portrayal of 19th century life, but it is based more on political theory than on current events. Fitzhugh maintains than natural aristocrats, elites blessed with superior wisdom and abilities, must govern the mass of men for their own protection. Self-government and liberty harm the masses and undermine security; liberty is reserved for the elites, aristocratic institutions are superior to democratic. Slavery is justified, not as a necessary evil, but an absolute good, as slavery allows masters to protect and provide for the well-being of slaves. Northern capitalism, based on liberal traditions, exploits the masses, and has failed. The only progress for liberalism is, as socialists and abolitionists advocate, the destruction of government, property, family, and all institutions ? which will only lead to greater oppression. The only solution is slavery ? allowing elites to rule over sla ves. This serves in sharp contrast to Lincoln, who holds the Declaration and the principles of Locke and the founding fathers as absolutely good. Slavery is evil in that it denies equality and liberty to all men. Slavery has been tolerated only as a necessary evil. Freedom is always preferable to freedom, regardless of intellectual ability. Lincoln Abraham Lincoln?s speeches and public documents can best be characterized by two key tendencies. First, Lincoln, in the wake of radicals (such as Fitzhugh) in the South and in the North in abolitionists, takes a position that is both moderate, and based on pragmatic concerns. Second, and building upon his pragmatism, Lincoln points to the principles of the founding fathers, i.e. the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the supremacy of the Constitution in justifying his positions. Lincoln?s proposed limits on the expansion of slavery into territories is a moderate position; based on his resistance to abolition ? both for practical reasons and because of the views of the founders, and his view that slavery is a wrong ? based on the principle of equality and natural right espoused in the Declaration. Lincoln?s approach to the slavery issue, and the preservation of the Union, demonstrate his belief in moderate, gradual, and legal approaches to the problems, as well as his utmost commitment to the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. Spirit of Founders ? Liberty and Equality Lincoln believes that the US is a truly great experiment that will demonstrate that a people can govern themselves. To demonstrate the success of such principles, the Union must be preserved. (Address to Young Men?s Lyceum, 1838). Slavery undermines the example of the notion of self-government, denying the republicanism of US institutions to a substantial proportion of the population. Both enemies of free institutions and true advocates of freedom will point to the US example as hypocritical (Speech on Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854). No founding father denied that the Negro was to be included in the Declaration of Independence. ?Inferior races? are equal in regard to natural rights (Fifth Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Lincoln believes strongly that the privileges of government, and the notion of self-government should be extended to all who pay taxes or serve ? i.e. all white men and women (Letter to the Sangamo Journal, 1836). Lincoln mocks the view of Stephen Douglas and other Democrats on their notion of self-government. Lincoln claims self-government is the right of the people to govern themselves while characterizing Douglas? view of self-government as the right of a man to enslave another without interference. Thus, popular sovereignty becomes ?the right of people to govern niggers? (?House Divided? Speech, 1857; Speech at Edwardsville, IL, 1858). Liberty refers to the right of each man to do with his body and the products of his labor what he will (Lockean and Jeffersonian principles), not the right ?for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men?s labor? (Address at Sanitary Fair, 1864). Lincoln reaffirms the notion of the natural rights over life, liberty, and property, and attacks the premise that men should naturally rule over other men ? equating this feudal, classical notion with Douglas and the Democrats. Slavery, for Lincoln, is an absolute wrong, not such more in the moral terms of abolitionists, but in the principles of the founders. Slavery violates the principle of civil liberty of the Declaration. Lincoln maintains that there is no moral right for one man to enslave another (Speech on Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854). The founders, and the spirit of the Declaration, abhorred slavery as an institution, but accepted in as a necessity. Lincoln attacks the view that slavery is right in principle. He contrasts, in opposition to Fitzhugh, northern laborers and slaves: northern laborers may work for wage one year, may work for themselves another, and may hire others to work for him in another. Northern laborers are free to choose their occupation, to acquire wealth, and to improve their condition. Slaves are denied this liberty. (Speech at Kalamazoo Michigan, 1856). While Lincoln denied that Negroes were equal in intellect and moral attributes to whites, he rigorously defends their equality of rights. Lincoln defends the natural right of blacks, and specifically, their right to ?life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? as written in the Declaration (Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, 1857). ?There is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (First Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Lincoln holds that slavery is not ?better than freedom? and that government was created to secure the blessing of freedom ? for all men (Speech at Edwardsville, IL, 1858). The Declaration and Constitution, while securing property rights, suppose ?superior devotion to personal rights.? Individual liberty trumps property rights ? the right of a man to be free is greater than the right of a man to hold another man as property (Letter to Henry Pierce and Others, 1859). For Lincoln, the founders held the principles of liberty and equality dear, and applied them to all men. Slavery undermines these principles, and was only tolerated for the necessity of the institution in Southern states; the founders intended for the containment, and eventual, gradual extermination of slavery. These principles of the American founding provide the ultimate example for the world of a nation built on liberty and self-government. Should the American experiment fail, the cause of freedom would suffer a great setback. Thus, from his exemplifying the ideal of the founders, Lincoln derives his approach to the slavery issue and the view of the importance of the preservation of the Union. Moderation of approach Lincoln?s approach to issues, while building on the ideological background of the founders, is strictly pragmatic. Lincoln still maintains that slavery is a necessary evil, and believes that only moderate approaches, not radical change will be effective. Slavery can only be abolished gradually, and can only be limited from expansion at present. Moderation is necessary to preserve the Union. Lincoln responds to radicals from both the South, but particularly the North (see for instance Thoreau and Emerson), that government serves the purpose both of redressing wrongs, and providing public goods. That is government serves needs that individual persons cannot provide for themselves, but not more than that; ?that if all men were just, there would still be some, though not so much, need of government? (Fragment on Government, 1854?). The rule of law is a consistent theme in Lincoln?s writings. When the law is ignored, and people lose attachment to government, civil society breaks down. Lincoln denounces mob rule and articulates the view that the ?sober judgment of courts? should govern. Bad laws do exist, and should be repealed, but until they are, they must be respected. Rule of mobs is detrimental to society and will tear apart any government (Address to Young Men?s Lyceum, 1838). His approach to slavery is constrained by law ? using ?every constitutional method? to prevent the spread of slavery. (Speech at Edwardsville, IL, 1858). Lincoln?s view on the Dred Scott decision demonstrates this view ? he claims not to resist the decision, but that the decision has not become ?settled? as precedent yet (Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, 1857). Lincoln does not hold the Dred Scott decision to be binding, or ?the word of the Lord?, but that it may yet be reversed.? His approach to the Dred Scott case is to acknowledg e it as law, but to attempt through legal means, to reverse it and reduce its applicability to other cases (First Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Approach to Slavery Lincoln?s positions on the current laws and the Dred Scott ruling demonstrate his commitment to the spirit of the Founding and his moderate, pragmatic approach. Lincoln advocates neither the immediate abolition of slavery (prior to the war), nor resistance to the interpretation of the court ? but only to attempt to change the law through political solutions. Lincoln?s approach to slavery concurs with the abolitionists on some points, but with the Southern interests on others. Lincoln supports the Fugitive Slave Law and opposed abolition of slavery in Southern states (prior to the Civil War), but opposes the extension of slavery in US territories. In this approach, he acknowledges the necessity of preserving slavery: slavery has been introduced in the South, and the Southern states are dependent upon it, slavery is a necessary evil. Likewise, Lincoln points to the founders in his position: the founders acknowledged the necessity of slavery, but wished for its gradual extinction. The founders, like Lincoln, could not immediately eliminate the practice of slavery where it existed (the South) but attempted to limit it to where it currently was, banning the African Slave trade and opposing the extension to new territories. Thus, slavery was tolerated, but only in that it was necessary, and ultimately, wrong (Speech on Kansas-Nebraska Act, 185 4). Slavery is viewed by Southerners in terms of dollars and cents, the institution is justified only as what it means for their economy (Speech at Kalamazoo Michigan, 1856). Lincoln believes he cannot, under the constitution, nor should not for pragmatic reasons, interfere with slavery in Southern states (First Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Lincoln?s singular tool for opposition of the extension of slavery is for Congress to prohibit slavery in all the US Territories . Thus, the territories, when applying for statehood, may choose whether to permit slavery, without being corrupted and dependent upon slavery. Likewise, in the District of Columbia, slavery should only be abolished gradually, with the majority of the residents consenting, and with compensation for owners (Second Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Though the federal government has the prerogative to prevent the extension of slavery into federal territories, the institution of slavery within the states of the south remains a state issue (Address at Cooper Institute, 1860). Similarly, Lincoln does not support Negro citizenship ? i.e. allowing blacks to vote, serve on juries, etc, but merely the n atural rights (as opposed to civil rights) that the Declaration declares for all men (Fourth Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Lincoln believes that abolition of slavery will occur slowly, and only at the prerogative of states. During the Civil War, Lincoln advocates for the plans to abolition slavery in the border states, but only gradually, with compensation for slave holders, and at the direction of the states (Message to Congress, 1862; Appeal for Compensated Emancipation, 1862; Annual Message to Congress, 1862). Lincoln believes the founders view has been abandoned; the founders held a principle of ?the equality of all men?, and began ?practical progress toward the equality of all men.? The view of all men as equal had been replace by the view that ?all states are equal?. (Speech at a Republican Banquet in Chicago, 1856). The alteration of laws since the founding, and particularly the Dred Scott decision, have continued to restrict the rights of blacks. Freed slaves have lost the right to vote they once had in several states, and constraints on emancipation of slave owners have made continual bondage almost unalterable. ?Our Declaration of Independence ? is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not recognize it at all? (Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, 1857). Lincoln?s fear is that a ?second Dred Scott decision? will declare that slavery cannot be banned by any state. This fear is based on the nature of the Dred Scott ruling: that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in the Constitution, and that no laws may destroy the right of property in a slave. If these two premises are true, then states cannot ban slavery within their limits without violating the Constitution. However, Lincoln holds that these premises are false: that the Constitution does not affirm the right of property in a slave; as demonstrated above, Lincoln holds that the framers permitted slavery only as a necessity where it was already long-established. Lincoln?s approach to this disagreement with the court was political ? the ?second Dred Scott? decision will never occur if the Republican Party is elected, but will certainly occur if the Democrats retain power. Thus via election, the Republicans can affect the makeup of the court and maintain the vision of the foun ders (Fifth Lincoln Douglas Debate, 1858). Thus, in his approach to the Slavery issue, Lincoln reaffirms his commitment to the intent of the founders, as well as the moderation of his approach, consistent within legal bounds and pragmatic concerns. Preservation of the Union While Lincoln maintains that he has no desire to interfere with slavery in Southern states, he does mandate the use of force to preserve the Union. The Union of the United States is ?perpetual?. No government ever has in its law a means for its extermination. The Constitution serves to make a ?more perfect union?; secession of states is inconsistent with the Constitution. The minority has no right to secede from the government, or else the government serves no real purpose, and can never be maintained ? it devolves to anarchy. Lincoln maintains that the laws of the Union must be executed throughout the States, thus justifying the use of force to execute the laws (First Inaugural Address, 1861). States have status only ?in the Union?, not as separate institutions. There exists no principal by which the states may secede from the Union. States remain part of the United States, and thus it the duty of the federal government to uphold the law and ?republican form of government? within the states? (Special Message to Congress, 1861). Lincoln articulates the need for war based upon these principles of preserving the union. The importance of a perpetual, democratic nation is the crux of his justification of military action. The Civil War is to ensure ?that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth? (Gettysburg Address, 1863). ?The nation is worth fighting for, to preserve such an inestimable jewel? (Speech to 166th Ohio Regiment, 1864). Thus Lincoln reverts to the importance of the principles of liberty, equality, and self-government of the founding, and the importance of the continuation of the democratic experiment. Lincoln?s wartime approach to slavery continues his tendency toward the founding principles and toward moderation. He proposes first that slavery, as a necessary evil, be abolished only gradually (at one point stating over 37 years), with compensation, and at the direction of states (Message to Congress, 1862; Appeal for Compensated Emancipation, 1862; Annual Message to Congress, 1862). His Emancipation Proclamation abolishes slavery only in areas that are in rebellion against the Union ? thus serving military goals of winning the war more than a goal of immediate abolition. Lincoln later support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting slavery as, in his view, the only way to ensure the continual preservation of the United States is to eliminate the cause for civil war. Thus, sudden elimination of slavery serves the pragmatic concern of preservation of the Union (Reply to Committee of National Union Convention, 1864; Proclamation Concerning Reconstruction; 1864). Like he pre-presidency stance on slavery, Lincoln?s desire to preserve the Union and his actions during the Civil War demonstrate his commitment to the founders? principles of liberty, equality, and republican government as well as his pragmatism. The Union is worth fighting for, as the principles of the founders must endure in a ?perfect.? Lincoln?s actions toward slavery reflect his belief in the validity of the Constitution and his pragmatism. Initially indicating the desire for gradual abolition of slavery in border states, and at state prerogative demonstrate his belief in the limits of the Constitution and the consistency of moderation in his proposal; mirroring the pragmatic approach of the Emancipation Proclamation. His eventual belief that slavery must be exterminated nationally only evolves from his commitment to the preservation of the union, and the pragmatic belief that the Union can only ensure its perpetuality if slavery, and the conflict surrounding it, is ended for a ll time.

The Surreal World of William Gibsons Neuromancer :: Neuromancer Essays

The Surreal World of Neuromancer Neuromancer, written by William Gibson, opens with the reference to a blank television screen. This symbol of an altered, incomplete world is made reference to throughout the novel. This altered world leads to a dystopia with technologically altered human beings sleeping in coffins, and dependent on drugs. Because of this harsh life, the people are left in a harsh world where they must learn to form friendships with others who can get them the supplies that they need. Though many things evolve throughout the novel to better the lives of the characters, the novel ends with the same reference to the blank television screen. It returns to the surreal, unidentifiable existence of what life is for these people. Many of the people in this futuristic world have a type of AI, or Artificial Intelligence. The first introduction to this is the bartender. It is written that the "antique arm whined as he reached for another mug"(4). Though he has an artificial arm that is only about five years old, it is described as being an antique using the word whine to give it the characteristics of being old. This shows has fast technology improves and changes in their society. Molly is another prevalent character in the novel who has advanced eyes allowing her to see thing magnified and with great clarity. One character in particular, Wintermute, has an advanced mind. Though a computer, he can, by what seems to be telepathy, make people think and do things. These advances in their physical and mental characteristic causes the characters to question who they are. This affects their mental state. The term coffin is used to describe the living quarters of the characters. As shown through Cases travels, there seems to be two different types of coffins; one being like a small cheap hotel and the other made up of a wall of small units to sleep in appearing to look like a morgue. The first could show how Case lives a confined life, closed in the tight confinement of the dystopia. In the second, the reference to death mirrors the enslaved lives of the people. They live a captive life restricted by a higher power who runs their world; which is Gibson's view of the futuristic Earth. This restriction of their lives adds to the dystopia. Drugs play an important role in the lives of Molly and Case adding another dimension to their complex life styles.

Meanin of Life

Eric Boggs 10/29/2012 Martin Philosophy The meaning of life has been debated among many people throughout history. Different theories have been used to try and explain what our purpose is in this life. I’ve always heard from my parents that life is too short for regrets, and that there will be good and bad days. However what is it that people strive for in life? In reality there is no right answer to this simple question. Some people strive for living life in the moment which philosopher Baggini can agree with.Others see religion as an important way to lead their life’s as Pojman could agree with. Some like Camus believe its â€Å"humanly impossible† to find the meaning of life. Ultimately people must find it in themselves as to their purpose in this life. Julian Baggini speaks of our purpose in this life that is more appealing than Camus or Pojman. Baggini has a teleological view on life meaning our purpose is looking forward to future goals and objectives. Howe ver Baggini doesn’t mean that our purpose is to succeed presently avoiding personal happiness to achieve a better future.An example he mentions is when people say â€Å" I can die happy now† because a lifetime fulfillment has been achieved. What is the purpose of life after achieving a lifelong goal, and in reality Baggini essentially says â€Å"Why not†. There is nothing to live for and the feeling of emptiness settles in as nothing will satisfy that lifelong achievement. Baginni says â€Å" the person who sacrifices too much enjoyment of life to serve the purpose of future wealth and security is thus making the mistake of overestimating the extent to which is future life will be better than the one he could have now†.Most people strive for a rich and fashionable lifestyle, but at what cost is someone willing to make for it. Baggini says what about this rich lifestyle is different than a person who doesn’t have these luxuries. Just because someone has a lot of material happiness doesn’t mean that person is happier. In my view I believe Baggini has the closet view on the meaning of life because living life for a nice future while taking advantages of life’s luxuries presently is a meaningful way to live.Personally I’m not a deeply religious person, but I do know people who value religion and incorporate their views in their daily actions. Pojman argues that religion specifically theistic religion gives meaning to life. Pojman begins by defining what it means to be free and autonomous; he refers being autonomous as being â€Å"self-governed† or freedom to make your own choices. Pojman points out autonomy is good if it serves a purpose. Whether it is doing good or bad it still serves a purpose towards life. Pojman pointed out to key points an atheist women had mentioned to him in the past.One being it is more important to be free than autonomous, and the second point being â€Å"Religion provides a grand meaning or purpose to live, but it does not allow humans to be free or autonomous† according to the atheist women. Pojman argues freedom can’t be understood apart from the notion of purposiveness. Pojman states in order to be â€Å"free† one has to† Act A, when you want to, in order to reach some goal G†. However Pojman looked into the bigger picture as to what this atheist woman was stating. Pojman essentially contradicts her statement with reasoning.Pojman says freedom and autonomy are often distant from each other, but in theism it is bound together. Pojman way of defining the purpose of life wasn’t as appealing to me as Baggini. Religion does play a role in aspects of people’s lives just not enough in my opinion for it to matter. Camus had different views from Pojman and Baggini because he believed life was absurd and meaningless. Suicide was a prominent idea that Camus commonly spoke of. Camus states that suicide was implying you were confessing that â€Å"its not worth the trouble†.He used an example of a man who killed himself five years after his daughter had passed away. The man simply was to emotionally instable to return to his normal behaviors. Camus had also mentioned absurdity which he defined a split in a man and his overall life. Camus explained that daily routine like working several hours a week and doing the same thing everyday will eventually come to a halt. The question is why? Why do eventually want things to change after having a stable routine life.Camus says this is weariness which possibly leads to the idea of suicide. If something abruptly changes such as death there are two options he implies. One being able to recover what is lost, or the other is suicide. He uses the example of Sisyphus which is a god that was condemned to the underworld. Sisyphus pushes a huge stone to the top of this mountain only to roll back to the bottom to do the process from start. Camus implies tha t this is a usual aspect in people’s lives where being stable and having a routine is sustaining until it collapses.I feel Camus implies what is the point of living such a life if it’s inevitable that tragedy will likely occur. I’ve had friends commit suicide and I’ve have often wondered if there was anything I could have done about. In reality I looked at it from Camus point of view as it provided them a way out and essentially tell me life is not worth living. There in so plan that says how one should live, but merely a reason to find a way to live. Baggini viewed life mostly in the moment as long as happiness and future endeavors were balanced.Pojman had the idea that religion played an important role in one’s life while Camus thought in the end suicide seemed to be the right choice if life became too difficult. Baggini in my opinion had the closet way in interpreting the purpose of life. Baggini explains that happiness in the present with balan ced goals in the future should be a way someone should live. I certainly don’t want to wait ten years to live a rich lifestyle while family and friends slip away. Life is what one makes it, but the key is finding out what purpose do people find it.

Consumer Durables and Nondurables

Analysis The definition of consumer durables and nondurables Consumer durables involve many kinds of products that is purchased by consumers, it is manufactured for long-term use. Such as: car, furniture and so on. But consumer nondurables are opposite. It is expendable goods purchases by consumers for their daily or short-term use. Such as: clothing, shoes and so on. The characteristics of consumer purchase Because of consumer durables has long-term use, and comparing with consumer nondurables, price is higher, so consumer purchase behavior is more cautious. There are some reasons. First of all, much more selectivity cause consumers are hard to make decision. Secondly, because of there are a lot of different brand, so they will carefully compare the various brands of cost performance, generally, consumer focus on the quality, service, and brand reputation. Finally, consumers can not buy from nearest store, they are willing to go to large scale shopping malls. But consumer nondurable is opposite. There are some features of consumer nondurables. Because of nondurables goods are short-term use, it can be daily product, such as towels, soap and so on, so consumer is willing to buy those at nearest store. Also, it can be visual product, when consumer decide to buy it, they might be affected by packing and store’s ambience, which means consumer can make decision easily. On the other hand, consumer has less loyalty for brand, they usually change same product with different brand. So we can sum up some features about consumer purchase habit, which are easy, fast, impulsive and emotional. Main characteristics of market Consumer durables: For product advertising strategy, company usually focus on product exhibition and display as much as possible, also they must have a large scale warehouse for inventory Consumer nondurables: For advertising strategy, Company is willing to choose outdoor billboards in the down and some crowded place, or promote on the internet. They don’t need large size warehouse for inventory.

Free Essays on Existence Of God

My argument falls under the issues of religion and faith because the main question asked is, to believe or not to believe? The problem I see concerning this issue is not whether we believe in God, but if He truly exists. The only example I can think of to illustrate this problem would be to say, â€Å"What if?† What if we believe and it turns out that there is nothing after death or what if we believe but we find that faith has counted for nothing? The main people involved in this argument would then be people who do not believe in God on the basis that God created everything and some of the things He created were bad. The thing that is on the line is our immortal souls. Is He there and was religion worth it? Myself and atheists who may read this paper must look broader than they may have ever looked before at any other time so that this problem can be truly seen without preconceived notions and bias. I will try to approach this argument from a purely factual point of view. No w my claim can be simply stated as the fact that God does not exist. The key terms and phrases that need defining would be God and existence. Webster’s Dictionary defines God as, â€Å"the Supreme Being; ruler of life and the universe.† This states that God is omnipotent and controls all that goes on within his universe. The next most important term would be existence. Webster’s Dictionary defines existence as, â€Å"the state or fact of having being especially independent of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.† This definition would then infer that existence is reality as opposed to appearance or a sentient or living being. With these definitions in mind, my claim then becomes the ruler of life and the universe does not have being especially independent of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. The audience for this argument would then mainly be theists. The problem that they would foresee that God does exist and His ex... Free Essays on Existence Of God Free Essays on Existence Of God My argument falls under the issues of religion and faith because the main question asked is, to believe or not to believe? The problem I see concerning this issue is not whether we believe in God, but if He truly exists. The only example I can think of to illustrate this problem would be to say, â€Å"What if?† What if we believe and it turns out that there is nothing after death or what if we believe but we find that faith has counted for nothing? The main people involved in this argument would then be people who do not believe in God on the basis that God created everything and some of the things He created were bad. The thing that is on the line is our immortal souls. Is He there and was religion worth it? Myself and atheists who may read this paper must look broader than they may have ever looked before at any other time so that this problem can be truly seen without preconceived notions and bias. I will try to approach this argument from a purely factual point of view. No w my claim can be simply stated as the fact that God does not exist. The key terms and phrases that need defining would be God and existence. Webster’s Dictionary defines God as, â€Å"the Supreme Being; ruler of life and the universe.† This states that God is omnipotent and controls all that goes on within his universe. The next most important term would be existence. Webster’s Dictionary defines existence as, â€Å"the state or fact of having being especially independent of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence.† This definition would then infer that existence is reality as opposed to appearance or a sentient or living being. With these definitions in mind, my claim then becomes the ruler of life and the universe does not have being especially independent of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence. The audience for this argument would then mainly be theists. The problem that they would foresee that God does exist and His ex... Free Essays on Existence Of God â€Å"Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine On the Existence of God† Synthesis Paper #1 The existence of God has come into question since the beginning of time. Throughout history, philosophers have searched for an answer to creation. How did the earth appear? Who is responsible? Why did they create humans, where do we come from and how did we get here? Regardless of the many theories, most thinkers manage to agree on one thing; there is some superior being responsible for Creation. I will explore the philosophies presented by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and St. Anselm in an attempt to discover which, if any, has uncovered the unquestionable truth. Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine each exhibited a love of knowledge and shared strong ties to religion, namely Christianity. Apart from of their personal religious beliefs they also agree on several basic principles regarding creation. The most common thought these ancient seekers of wisdom share is the belief that a being greater than themselves upholds divine unity, goodness and power, someone called God. Augustine describes God as eternal, Anselm defines God as the â€Å"most perfect being† and Aquinas refers to God as the â€Å"unmoved mover.† Whatever name or label each philosopher chooses, they still agree that God has unlimited knowledge and intelligence while being the ultimate model of perfection. Augustine is first last and always a Christian. His philosophy explores his personal belief that wisdom can only be fully revealed through Christ. Augustine is convinced that the truth is one and that both philosophers and prophets have made important contributions to our understanding. Along those same lines, Aquinas considers philosophers as simply, lovers of wisdom who lack the fullness of knowledge as Christ reveals it. Augustine and Anselm base their views on the idea that faith and reason are the only true sources of human knowledge. On one hand, Anselm believes in God, but ...