...No Fate, No Bad Luck, No Excuses, Simply Man, His Choices, And The

...No fate, no bad luck, no excuses, simply man, his choices, and the situation in which he finds himself... -Anonymous The concepts of existence and human freedom have been presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in his book entitled Being and Nothingness. However, Sartre also presents other related concepts, such as bad faith which has been referred to as a device that protects us from the anguish of realizing that we are freer than we like to think we are. Analyzing his examples and my own, Sartre's bad faith theory will hopefully be illumined and broken down. He believes bad faith is to not acknowledge one's right to make choices and be more than what you are. His view however is flawed in its complexity, there are loopholes and rules that should not be there, his stereotypes are too chiseled. But before delving into bad faith I would like to give some background on several of the philosophies I found while reading his book. In his early philosophic work -- Being and Nothingness -- Sartre conceived humans as beings who create their own world by rebelling against authority and by accepting personal responsibility for their actions; unaided by society, traditional morality, or religious faith. Distinguishing between human existence and the non-human world, he maintained that human existence is characterized by nothingness, that is, by the capacity to negate and rebel. By distinguishing between two things, you create this idea of nothingness. His theory of existential psychoanalysis asserted the inescapable responsibility of all individuals for their own decisions and made the recognition of one's absolute freedom of choice the necessary condition for authentic human existence. This freedom of choice is the root of Sartre's bad faith theory. To be what you are, to recognize what you are... but not only be that. "It is best to choose and to examine one determined attitude which is essential to human reality and determined attitude which is essential to human reality and which is such that consciousness instead of directing its negation outward turns it toward itself. This attitude, it seems to me, is bad faith" (87). Thus, choice is the epitome of Sartre's bad faith philosophy, and a controversial one at that. I agree with his concept of bad faith, but he does take it too far in my philosophical opinion, but I will get to that after I introduce Sartre's point of view. Let us take for example the waiter in the caf?. "His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid" (101). Sartre is convinced that the man is playing at being a waiter in a caf?. The waiter has the duties of being a waiter: getting up early, sweeping the caf?, starting the coffee pots. Because of these obligations, the waiter takes on a certain persona, which really makes his being a waiter. In other words, he accepts this responsibility as a sort of costume that he can not take off. His whole life is affected because of a choice he made that he now lives by. Without realizing that he is in bad faith and can choose to do things differently, he is by default not living in good faith, being free to choose how to live. This case of the waiter is definitely one of Sartre's more controversial examples because the waiter could ultimately be in good faith by choosing to be a free-minded waiter who knows he is more than just a waiter, while he is working. People ta ke many things for granted; the clean air in Santa Cruz, or the freedom of choice in any situation. I became confused about bad faith when I began to consider the individual who fully takes the responsibility of being a free-minded, choice making individual. Is this person in bad faith because they are being "good faith"? To clarify, let's pretend Descartes (pretend Descartes knows of Sartre and his philosophies) tries so hard to not be in bad faith that he is the opposite of bad faith, he is by default in bad faith because he is living a life of nothing but good faith. Sartre hints on this himself, "We must note in fact that the project of bad faith must be

Mesopotamian And Egyptian Rulers

Mesopotamian And Egyptian Rulers There are a few similarities between the attitudes that people, in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, had about their rulers. Despite theses similarities, there were also significant differences. There were very different definitions of who ruled, and how they ruled, each land.Mesopotamia was the first identifiable civilization in the Ancient world. Located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, it was given its name by the Greeks, literally meaning "the country between rivers." The name referred mainly to the land of Sumer, however it also included the countries of Akkad, Babylonia and Assyria. All were connected by the Tigris and the Euphrates, which flooded swiftly and irregularly (at different times during the year).Ancient Egypt was located closer to the Nile and Indus rivers. The Nile Valley of Egypt was notably different from the Tigris and Euphrates. The waters flowed slowly and flooded on a much more predictable basis .PharaohRock walls and barren desert closed off Egypt from the rest of the continent.In Mesopotamia, it was believed that gods ruled the world. They were said to have behaved like human beings only they lived much longer; they existed forever. Each individual god embodied the most important natural entities; they were earth, sky, sun, moon, storm, fresh water and salt water. Statues, set in individual temples, represented each god. They inhabited the statues in the same manner that souls inhabit human bodies .Mesopotamian cities developed around the temples of the gods. The people of these cities were servants to their gods. If they served them well, they would reap the benefits. However, if the gods were not pleased, there would be severe repercussions in the form of famine, invasion and so forth .The people of Mesopotamia believed that the gods were petty, just as people could...

Construction Economics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Construction Economics - Essay Example Vegetables, for example is a homogeneous product while soap is not. Because the consumer will not care who supplies the product, there is tougher competition among suppliers. There is freedom of entry and exit. Firms can easily enter the market without impediments brought about by old timers and should they decide that the market is no longer attractive, they can leave without problems. Suppliers of trout, for example, will experience this type of freedom. Lastly, there is perfect information, i.e., no unknowns in the market. Price, supply and demand information is available to all players regardless of size and status. Stock trading of Gold for example, has the information readily available for all players to use in their trade. It maybe hard to find a market under perfect competition, despite the examples mentioned above. However, it definition is made for the purpose of differentiating other market structures present in the real world (Baumol and Blinder, 2009, p. 199). Economics as a subject tends to be viewed as neutral and objective, even emotionless when expressed in terms of humanity. However modern economists have taken the view that motives and emotions do play an intrinsic part in economy principles and decision. Emotions affect businesses. In his paper, Gopal asserts that there is a fifth element in which business can retain customers and their profitability apart from the four P’s of marketing – a better product, a lower price, an attractive promotion, or a more convenient location (placement)—the fifth being people (2004). All businesses have human customers at the end of the chain, who are needed to realize profits. Gallup research found out that 70% of customers’ decisions are based on positive interactions with the sales staff (cited in Gopal, 2004), thus the evidence of an emotionally-driven economy. Staveren shares the same view in his dissertation that

Columbian Exposition Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Columbian Exposition - Essay Example The fair’s lead architect and overseer of the design and planning of the fair’s main buildings were Daniel Burnham. These massive, neoclassical structures came to be known, commonly, as the White City. Despite their elegant appearance, the buildings were made from wood frames wrapped in staff, a plaster mixture that creates the illusion of stone (Rydell and Wells-Barnet, 33). The White City was lasting for not more than six months. The exhibition closed in late October 1893 and that winter, almost all of the buildings came down due to the massive fire. The documents that follow present the history of the Columbian Exposition in comparison to the history of Chicago. With the town’s location on the Michigan, there was the facilitation of access to road, sea as well as rail. It was a congregation of ideas, men, and technologies from every part of the world, with each country putting forth the best of their industrial, cultural, commercial and educational enterprises . The Renaissance style of the expositional buildings was unlatches by its architectural beauty. The Exposition itself was a work of art. The Exposition was a brilliant show of science, art, and industry. All the people of the world have its pilgrimage to Columbian Exposition. The fair’s contribution to the restoration and development of Chicago as a whole is without the doubt great. The over 40,000 skilled laborers and workers who took part in the construction of the fair--at Jackson Park together with Burnham.

My Tiger Mom Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

My Tiger Mom - Assignment Example Music is supposed to be about freedom, right? Not at all! Tiger moms choose what you can play. Playing the piano is a requirement. You can’t just play for fun. You play for the win. FTW- For The Win. I hate that urban acronym. It’s always about that. FTW. You can’t be second in anything, or worse, the third. Excel in almost everything! Or face the wrath of your Tiger mom! At first, I thought I played the piano only for my Mom. But I actually loved it. I loved how my fingers created music. I love my piano. I love my music. I love music. I excelled in playing the piano for some time, but soon enough, my peers surpassed me. Mom wasn’t too pleased. I tried my best, but I gave up. I wanted to do something else. I still play the piano, but only when I feel like it. Only when my soul wants me to. Mom didn’t mind because I was doing great in school. Her priority, I mean, our priority, is academic success. Now, let’s talk about sports. My mom was not into sports so much. But she let me swim. I swam and I was free, but not as free as I wanted to be. I wanted sleepovers and more time with my friends. Not that we talked about these things in China. My friends and I only imagined our days of freedom together, falling in love with strangers, and making mistakes.

Macbeth | Analysis | Morality

Macbeth | Analysis | Morality The question of morality goes well in hand with the story of Macbeth, the wayward man who chose, at the encouragement of his wife, to kill the king. Morality is more than just the typical right and wrong, its also about good and evil. The only elements that have proved satisfying in Shakespeares ending is the clear and unambiguous triumph of good over evil (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1620). So, with the question of good and evil swinging in the balance and Macbeth losing sight of his morals, were his wrongs truly righted? Initially, Macbeth disputed the witches prophecy that he would be king, but upon telling his wife the news, she could not let the idea die. She was determined that not only would her husband succeed, but so would she. She derived the plan to rid the world of dear King Duncan and after some difficulty persuading Macbeth to follow through with it, all plans were a go. Harry Jaffa wrote, Lady Macbeth had been the force driving her husbands ambition (Jaffa, 2007). This seems to be true. After all, Macbeth was deadest on not killing Duncan. The king had been good to Macbeth, good to everyone in fact, and there was no reason to kill him. Nevertheless, Lady Macbeth gets what Lady Macbeth wants. Relaying the plan to Macbeth she says, And well not fail. When Duncan is asleep,/ Whereto the rather shall his days hard journey/ Soundly invite him, his two chamberlains/ Will I with wine and wassail so convince/ That memory, the wander of the brain, Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason/ A lim beck only (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1628). Shes a conniving little madam, thinking things through so far that she has a scapegoat, two poor guards that never knew what hit them. Almost instantaneously, guilt begins to enrapture Macbeth and his wife, maybe even before the murder, with Macbeth vision of a dagger. This initial hint of remorse is not recognized by the pair, for they are still focused on what they have just done. Perhaps, it is also not recognized because they have not felt shame like this before. Immediately after the killing of King Duncan, the couple begins to notice the sounds of an owl, but there is really nothing to be heard. This is the first of their strange hallucinations brought on by unconscious guilt. Later on, Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo sitting in his chair at dinner after he [Macbeth] is named King. He believes that someone is playing a joke on him, but his dinner guests believe he has gone mad. Other visions present themselves as the play progresses, and Macbeth seems to lose his grip on sanity each time one occurs. Meanwhile, Lady Macbeth is dealing with her own guilt, which she is feeling only during sleep while sleepwalkin g. As she sleeps, she believes she is talking to herself and then to her husband, but a doctor and gentlewoman are with her. She says, Out, damned spot! Out, I say! One- / two-why then tis time to dot. Hell is murky. Fie, my/ lord, fie! A soldier and afeard? What need we fear who/ knows it, when none can call out power to account? Yet/ who would have thought the old man to have had so/ much blood in him? (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1646). Clearly, despite the way both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth appear, they know the difference between right and wrong. Lady Macbeth all but says that she doesnt care what has to be done as long as her husband becomes king. They may not outwardly show that they feel remorse over the conspiracy, but their conscience is certainly telling them what they did was wrong. Its as if they had Jiminy Cricket tagging along with them saying you really shouldnt have done that. Ultimately, justice was served to Macbeth and his lady. They conspired to kill a beloved king, and in the end, they got what they deserved. Rightly so, Lady Macbeth took her own life. As readers, this isnt known until the very last scene of the play when Malcolm makes his speech. He says, Who, as tis thought, by self and violent hands/ Took off her life (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1650). Macduff, seeking his revenge on Macbeth for his family being slaughtered, served Macbeth his justice. Afterward, Macduff chops Macbeths head off and brings it to Malcolm. Malcolms closing statement is, As calling home our exiled friends abroad/ That fled the snares of watchful tyranny, /Producing forth the cruel ministers /Of this butcher and his fiendlike queen (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1650). Some argue that justice was not served since it was Macduff and not Malcolm that delivered Macbeths death sentence. Historically, this is what happened: Macbeth was killed in battle by Malcolm, not Macduff (Orgel and Braunmuller, 2002, p. 1620). While Justice may not have been served the way everyone wanted, it was served accordingly. Justice always prevails in some way, be it in the form of death or some other tragedy. While this justice may not have occurred the way some people wanted, or even expected, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth paid for their crime. Morality is being able to distinguish the difference between right and wrong and good and evil. The pair knew what they were doing was both evil and wrong, yet they chose to proceed anyway because they wanted to succeed. It is only appropriate that the couple be punished for the murder of King Duncan. Both Macbeth and Lady Macbeth will be punished with eternal, fiery torment in hell, the lady for taking her own life and Macbeth for taking Duncans. After all, the old saying goes, theres no rest for the wicked.

Death of naturalist Essay -- English Literature

Death of naturalist This poem is a fertile mixture of imagery, sounds and an impression created by nature on people’s mind. Heaney sensualises an outstanding fear of the physical wonders of the world. He vividly describes his childhood experience that precipitates his change as a boy from the receptive and protected innocence of childhood to the fear and uncertainty of adolescence. As he wonders along the pathways of salient discovery, Heaney’s imagination bursts into life. The title of the poem is amusingly ironic – by a naturalist we would normally think of someone with expert scientific knowledge of living things and ecology. The poem ‘Death of a naturalist’ has quite a lot of emotional images because it’s the poet’s memory and he is reminiscing. There are a number of poetic devices to create an image. Firstly, the poet uses the metaphor ‘in the heart of the town land’ to add interest to the poem. He also uses languages like ‘sweltered’ and ‘punishing sun’ to convey to the reader the hot summers day Heaney remembers. Nature is also brought up in the poem by ...