"How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?"
Daljit Malli "How effectively does Gittings challenge the view that science is a force for good in, 'The Fox'?" When reading this poem we can clearly see the difference between the way that Gittings portrays the fox and the way he describes Darwin and human presence on the island. The fox is portrayed as a beautiful, natural creature throughout the whole poem and Gittings talks as though he is awe of it, "Demurely as a pennant furled, Signal of peace and self won ease." The imagery set from this extract is very modest and beautiful, "pennant furled" being a flag rolled up in a curl. Flags mark territory as would the fox's "brush", but it is at ease. It is almost as though the fox is sitting at ease and peacefully; knowing that it's territory is marked. The reference to other animals such as, "Spear flight of a wedge of geese," is still very harmonious, although metaphorically Gittings is portraying is the arrow shape and speed that the geese fly in, spear flight is a fairly noiseless speed. It is certainly not as disturbing to the island and its residents as Darwin and his crew, both with the noise that they make and their un-natural presence, as Gittings later remarks on. "Kin to nothing on this desolate coast." Here Gittings clearly shows that Darwin and his men should not be on that island or that they have no natural reason to be. There is a fair amount of reference
"How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?"
Question 7: "How were Surrealists' interests in dreams and the unconscious reflected in the aesthetic and stylistic features of Un Chien andalou?" Largely free of production constraints, short, experimental and deliberately shocking, Un Chien andalou is considered by many to be one of the most notorious expressions of surrealism on film in the last century. At its most radical, the surrealist movement asked us to rethink fundamentally our preconceptions about cinema; to challenge and subvert. The film allowed the rapid entry of its two young directors, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali, into the Surrealist movement. Films of this movement had been unsuccessful (for example, those of Man Ray and Antoine Arnaud) up until this point; Robert Short explaining that 'Part of the trouble was that Surrealism meant automatism - absolute fidelity to the voice of the unconscious unsullied by rational intentionality. And filmmaking cannot do without forethought, rehearsal and a certain technical expertise.'1 Bunuel himself clarifies that the film's plot is the result of a "conscious psychic automatism', and, to that extent, it does not attempt to recount a dream, although it profits by a mechanism analogous to that of dreams.'2 The surrealists were greatly influenced by Sigmund Freud, the Austrian founder of psychoanalysis. They were especially receptive to his distinction between the 'ego'
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time?
"I am who I remember being." Does this express the truth about personal identity over time? When answering the above question we must analyse the nature of personal identity over time. The problem of personal identity is problematic, as we need to analyse and distinguish what exactly makes a person. We firstly need to distinguish between the body, the brain, personality, the mind and the soul. Some of these provide better identity criteria than others, as the existence of such entities as a soul are hard to prove. The two main groups we can identify a person under are that of a physical identity, and that of a psychological or mental identity. We must also be aware of the distinction of numerical and qualitative identity. The two forms of identity are both problematic when relating them to personal identity. Numerical identity requires us to be numerically exact when comparing two people over time. If we assume that a person is fundamentally a human body then we would use numerical identity to determine if we are indeed the same person we were five years ago. Biologists would perhaps suggest that we are simply a complex series of matter brought about by evolutionary processes. Our thoughts are nothing more than chemical reactions in the complex matter of our brains and there is no distinction between our thoughts and our bodies. Our brains are simply parts of our bodies,
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood.
"I think, therefore I am." Descartes was one of the first philosophers to delve into the idea that humans were more than just flesh and blood. How a person judged their environment and formed their opinions justified their existence. He began to question how anyone could know anything for sure, if no one was certain of the reasoning behind it. Descartes began to doubt and disbelieve everything in order to ascertain the truths of the world. He formed the notion that, perhaps, the physical world did not exist, but was rather an image created by a powerful and malevolent demon in his mind. He was of the opinion that humans knew very few truths about their world, given that they held to traditional assumptions without questioning the integrity of these common-held beliefs. This lead to Descartes questioning the divine appointment of the King, from which Descartes' effect on the French Revolution becomes apparent. Whilst he lived between 1596 and 1650, over one hundred years before the Revolution began, Descartes' belief was carried through to become a fundamental aspect of the Revolution; questioning the King's right to govern as the sole autocrat. Descartes held that by means of questioning alone, certain self-evident truths would become apparent from which the remaining content of science and philosophy could be derived. Through these truths, the remainder of the physical world
"The body soul distinction is a myth derrived from philosophers such as Plato" - Discuss.
"THE BODY SOUL DISTINCTION IS A MYTH DERRIVED FROM PHILOSOPHERS SUCH AS PLATO." DISCUSS BY OWEN CLAYTON January 9th, 2003 Page 1 of 10 Questions that have plagued mankind for, it seems, almost as long as our existence are ones that cannot be answered in this life. " Will I survive death?" "What am I?" "Am I a unity of the spiritual and the material?" -Traditional church doctrine - "Or am I a mind/soul in a body?" -Typically Plato. There are several different views on the existence of the mind and body, exploring the existence of the mind alone, the body and mind in harmony, the body and mind separate but not linked and so on. Here the following paragraphs describe the main theories behind the body/soul distinction. In order to successfully debate this statement, one must define myth. Aetiological Myth is what is used to try to explain certain events in story form, the Tower of Babylon for example. Normal English usage is a distinction between true and false with myth representing a story, which is made up, e.g. a fairytale. There is no technical usage for the word myth in philosophy, each field of study has its own meaning of the word. The modern usage of the word does not have an inherent link between myth and falsehood, its merely a way of thinking about phenomenon which supersedes modern logical scientific thought, it exceeds the boundaries of time and Page 2 of 10
Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a foetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and illegal in many countries
Abortion Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth and is morally wrong. An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a foetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children and illegal in many countries. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the foetus being destroyed is living, breathing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed a month before the birth, there is no problem, but if killed a month after birth, this is inhumane murder? It is morally and strategically foolish, because we lose the middle when we talk about reproductive rights without reference to a larger moral and spiritual dimension, and we are unwilling to use language like transgression and redemption, or right and wrong. -Wolf p54 The main purpose abortions are immoral is how they are so viciously done. Everyday, innocent, harmless foetuses that could soon be laughing children are being brutally destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the foetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece by piece from the uterus by
Philosophy - Panpsychism vs Emergentism
Is panpsychism a good solution to the mind-body problem. Carefully explain why (according to Nagel) one might believe in panpsychism, and then critically assess it as a solution to the mind-body problem: discuss and give your reasons for why this theory is or is not rationally acceptable. Many views in the discipline of Philosophy of mind, such as dualism and materialism appear to lack evidence in order to favour one position over the other, which is especially the case for panpsychism. Panpsychism, meaning 'all mind' or 'mind everywhere', is a radically different worldview, often disregarded as being counterintuitive and metaphysically demanding (Goff 2009). The doctrine of panpsychism entails that all things have a mind, or a mind-like quality. This is not to say that all matter in the universe are alive in the literal meaning, but rather its constituents are composed of some form of sentience. Panpsychism is often seen as the rival of emergentism, whose doctrines are concerned with entities that 'arise' out of more fundamental entities, that the mental comes to exist out of the physical, throughout certain times, and under certain conditions. Panpsychists such as Friedrich Paulsen have opposed to such notions of emergent properties, exclaiming, "When did psychical life arise? It did not arise, it was present at the origin of things". The sudden appearance of mental
What part, if any, of Anselm's approach to atonement could survive critical theological scrutiny today?
011323895 RT5313 Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Section One Question 2) What part, if any, of Anselm's approach to atonement could survive critical theological scrutiny today? 936 Words Anselm (1033-1109) is described in the dictionary as 'the most luminous and penetrating intellect between St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas'. Undeniably Anselm's mind was intensely rationalist, as is demonstrated in his theology of the atonement. It is important to remember that one of Anselm's earliest works Cur Deus Homo?1 was one of the first essays in a systematic theology of the atonement, which endeavored to bring an intellectual shape to an area where there had been much disorder. Anselm's aim was to 'reconcile philosophy and theology, Aristotelian logic and biblical revelation.'2 There appears to be mixed views in relation to Anselm's achievements, and opinions vary from Professor James Denny's tribute to it as 'the truest and greatest book on the atonement that has ever been written'3 to Dr. Steven's criticism 'it would be difficult to name any prominent treatise on atonement, whose conception of sin is so essentially unethical and superficial.'4 I will examine the conflicting viewpoints on the subject, and evaluate whether Anselm's work is able to survive a contemporary theological inspection. Although he includes biblical quotations and does refer to the Holy Spirit,
"A critical discussion on the ethics of abortion?"
"A critical discussion on the ethics of abortion?" Most cultures accept the premises that it is wrong to kill another human being. If murder is an absolute truth, cultures, which allow killing, can be persuaded through reason that murder is wrong. For example the Aztec empire when discovered in the 16th century would keep human blood pouring down the steps of their teocallis (Aztec temples). They did this because they believed without constant human sacrifices the cosmos would stop existing. Simple reasoning tells us this is not the case; human sacrifice doesn't make a difference to the cosmos. However, are we wrong to judge other cultures and people by are own standards? Are we not being liberal and open minded enough? Well if that is the case I will make up my own rules and kill YOU now! I believe you disagree with that. Absolute truths are there for a reason, to be obeyed. If absolute truths exist, it is logical to assume that there are absolute truths for everyone; otherwise it wouldn't be an absolute truth. For the person who cries out "I am the god of my own universe...there are no absolutes," I ask them, "are they ABSOLUTELY sure about that!!!" and, if you are the "god of your own universe", then I am the god of mine and I say it is fine for me to kill you. Surely this is ridiculous? However the wrongness of killing is not primarily explained by the
"An acceptance of the practice of abortion is incompatible with Christian belief in the sanctity of life, but not with the attitudes of ethical philosophers or popular politicians." Discuss.
"An acceptance of the practice of abortion is incompatible with Christian belief in the sanctity of life, but not with the attitudes of ethical philosophers or popular politicians." Discuss. By Stephen Tunstall, March 2005 Abortion - forever one of civilised society's primary ethical dilemmas. Ever since the basic means and methods were discovered in antiquity, thinkers, courts, and leaders have pondered over the conflicting merits of the emotive issue of abortion. With the number of abortions now being as high as 180,0001 a year in the UK, the issue is gaining prominence in religion, the media, and politics. This essay will look at many aspects of abortion, with the main body of the writing being devoted to assessing whether abortion can be tolerated by Christianity, given the idea of the sanctity of life, and whether abortion is justifiable through ethical philosophy. Emphasis will then move briefly to examine political perspectives on the issue, bringing contemporary relevance to the paper, before concluding what has been discovered in the process of this discussion. A - An introduction to abortion - explanation and a brief history The accepted definition of abortion is that it's the induced termination and expulsion of an embryo or foetus from the uterus. There are alternative classifications, such as therapeutic abortion, which depend on the varying circumstances of