Thucididies and Heroditus
"The historian's most important quality is accuracy". Discuss this view, with reference to any two historians in the classical period and explain how they contributed to history and if their work is reliable. Herodotus and Thucydides are two of the first historians that contributed greatly to historiography yet their styles of conveying and writing history are vastly different. Herodotus changed the way in which history was presented but it is mainly suggested that he was a great story teller and told facts. Yet, Thucydides is regarded as the Father or history as he went further, Thucydides did not merely attempt to retell history but went as far as to analysis sources and ask existential questions and hence he presented truth in history. Herodotus' methodology was a combination of "disciplined enquiry, based on research, observation, scepticism about information," and a "richness of storytelling". Herodotus broke away from the traditional written form for history which was epic poetry. He instead wrote in prose, "in what was then a relatively new literary form". He did this because he believed that "prose is more flexible." He believed that unlike poetry, prose allows for the entertainment of "all sorts of possibilities" and the playing "of stories one against the others" and as such he believed that prose supplied "freedom to historical writing". Herodotus in this
"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
"Assess the differences and similarities between the tombs belonging to kings and those of their subjects".
"Assess the differences and similarities between the tombs belonging to kings and those of their subjects" To first assess the differences and similarities between the tombs of the pharaohs and those of their subjects, it is perhaps fitting to discuss why tombs were such a focal point of ancient Egyptian life. It was not uncommon to spend a good proportion of one's life preparing the place where you would be buried; the ancient Egyptians had relatively short life spans, and especially amongst women fatality rates were high. Thus it made sense to prepare one's tomb early on to avoid being caught out by death. The tomb was seen by all, king or peasant, as a home for eternity; life did not end with death. This is a very contrasting view to the one many of us hold today, which is why it is at first perhaps hard to grasp, but it was believed wholeheartedly that one passed into the afterlife after dying, where you would continue to live for evermore. A person was considered a split entity, comprising of at least three parts; the body, the soul and what was known as the ka, or the double. The ka was of grave importance, being considered as a spiritual being that was present at all times with a person. It was thought that a person's activities were actually those of one's ka, thus it was important to do that which would please the ka. This spiritual ghost remained in the tomb
"By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy" - How far do you agree?
Mateusz Odziemczyk G11 For Mr.Morris "By 1849 the supporters of the Risorgimento had achieved nothing towards creating a free, united and independent Italy." How far do you agree? The fall of Napoleon led to the Vienna Settlement of 1815, by which the Austrians effectively restored the old ruling class. Metternich, the Austrian Chancellor, did all he could to foster any local loyalties that might weaken the appeal of unity, yet the years between 1820 and 1849 became years of revolution. Uprisings began in Sicily, Naples and Piedmont, when King Ferdinand introduced measures that restricted personal freedom and destroyed many farmers' livelihoods. A makeshift army quickly gained popular support in Sicily, and forced some concessions, before Ferdinand invited the Austrians in to help him crush the revolution. In the north, the oppressive laws enacted by Victor Emanuel I in the Kingdom of Piedmont sparked off student protests and army mutinies in Turin. Victor Emanuel abdicated in favor of his brother, Carlo Felice, and his son, Carlo Alberto; the latter initially gave some support to the radicals, but Carlo Felice then called in the Austrians, and thousands of revolutionaries were forced into exile. Carlo Alberto became King of Piedmont in 1831. A secretive, excessively devout and devious character, he did a major volte-face when he assumed the throne by forming an alliance
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution" Do you agree? Justify your answer.
"Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution." Do you agree? Justify your answer. I partially agree with the statement that Czar Nicholas II inherited not a throne but a revolution. During the reign of Alexander III, discontent of people grew as a result of his repressive rule and policies. Peasants' discontent grew because of the heavy redemption payments and land taxes, insufficient land and poor harvests. The discontent and economic hardship all passed to Czar Nicholas II. It is no doubt that when Nicholas II took over the Russian Empire, the familiar problems still existed, and some were even worse, such as the problem of peasantry. However, discontent alone could not turn to be a revolution. It was Nicholas II who made it a real one. The first revolution broke out in 1905. The chaotic situation was somehow inherited from Alexander III. The peasantry problem was a traditional problem of Russia. It became worse when in Nicholas II's time. The emancipation of serfs in 1861 liberated lots of peasants, but in turn they needed to pay redemption payments to their landlords and heavy land taxes to the government. However, due to poor harvests and insufficient farmland, the redemption payments and land taxes became a large burden of the peasants. As a result, discontent of peasants increased. In addition, the revolutionary activities had been generated in the 19th
"Debased Roman, yet Roman still": compare the roles of 'Romanitas' in two barbarian kingdoms - Ostrogoths in Italy and Merovingians in Gaul.
"Debased Roman, yet Roman still": compare the roles of 'Romanitas' in two barbarian kingdoms - Ostrogoths in Italy and Merovingians in Gaul Before the barbarian states established themselves as replacements to the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, Germanic soldiers had served in the imperial army, rising in rank and even all the way to the Senate; thus they had a similar material culture to Romans, and apart from their names, one could argue, they were indistinguishable. This dates back as far as the mid fourth century, where the Frank, Bonitus, served under Constantine I. Such prominent soldiers were normally more than illiterate boors. Some were self-made, for instance Arbitio, who became Master of Cavalry under Constantius II, having begun his career as a mere soldier. Other barbarians transferred their military power into Rome. These examples indicate an ostensible absorption of barbarians into Roman society. The disappearance of 'us' and 'them' probably did occur before 476, especially in the army. Resultantly, many Germanic leaders became highly Romanised, and this was reflected in their respective societies after the fall of the Western Empire. The Germanic people never destroyed nor restored the Roman world- they just found a home for themselves within it. One emperor in the East however, was enough for them. Romanitas is a concept of wider emporium,
"Descartes: Discourse on Method and Related Writings"
"Descartes: Discourse on Method and Related Writings" In the "Discourse on Method" Descartes tells us that he, in spite of the education he had been given and in spite of having read the works of the great ancient thinkers, became more and more aware of his own lack of knowledge. He came to the conclusion that all disciplines, except geometry (more specifically geometrical analysis, which takes point of departure in making the assumption that we know the result beforehand and thereafter analysing the conditions for its existence, in order to produce it step by step) and algebra, were unsuitable for his purpose, since they are all based on philosophy, which is so full of different opinions about the same issue, therefore making the results untrustworthy. He built his confidence on mathematics being the only instrument to reach sound knowledge of whatever comes before the mind. The fundamental aim of Descartes was to attain philosophical truth by the use of reason alone, as he claims in this writing, and therefore he developed a system of true statements, in which nothing would be presupposed which was not self-evident and certain. He was determined to start again from the beginning and was resolved to rely only on his own reason, not on any philosophical authority, which means that he deliberately broke with his past. Descartes proposes a method to reach this philosophical
"Different cultures have different truths." "A truth is that which can be accepted universally." What are the implications for knowledge of agreeing with these opposing statements?
"Different cultures have different truths." "A truth is that which can be accepted universally." What are the implications for knowledge of agreeing with these opposing statements? The "truth" by definition is conformity to fact or actuality. It is a statement proven to be or accepted as true. Often the truth is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. But can a statement regarding a common issue be validated as the truth universally or is the same statement regarding the same issue be questionable in one culture but not in another? The issue of discussion is "do different cultures have different truths or is truth is that which can be accepted universally? The ways of knowing the truth can be through perception, language, logic and emotion. But it can be stated that all of the mentioned methods of knowing, have problems of knowledge. Some of the problems of knowledge involved in the methods of knowing the truth are, the limits of ways of knowing, errors in the methodology and bias. In my opinion, it is true to a certain extent that truth differs from one culture to another, as different cultures promote different ideas within its society, therefore making room for variation when observed from a global point of view. This variation of ideas lead to the fact that the truthfulness of a statement may be suspect
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?"
"Do you agree with Bismarck's opinion that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened?" Bismarck claimed that the period from 1815 to 1848 was a time when nothing happened. I disagree with this, as it was definitely not the case. Events happened before 1848 such as cultural nationalism, the Industrial Revolution, the Zollverein and the growth of roads and railways. This was due to the increasing progress of German Nationalism. Germany was split into 39 different States, which were totally independent and able to make its own laws. It was this separation of Germany that enabled so much to happen in Germany between 1815 and 1848. Cultural Nationalism assisted the growth of nationalist ideas. Linked with the Romantic Movement it consisted of literature, music, art and national traditions. Scholars and poets concentrated in writing in their native tongues and even National Anthems were composed to arouse a German feeling. People also started taking an interest in the history that surrounded them. Someone in particular who contributed to these new ideas was Hegel, a German writer and philosopher. Having such a Nationalist philosopher present gave people a vision of a United Germany as did many other academics and University lecturers. Cultural Nationalism helped spread pride in Germany and encouraged movement towards unity. Another factor that did
