Frederick Douglass
Frederick Douglass was one of the earliest leaders of the abolitionist group who eventually appeared and fought against slavery within the United States. Frederick Douglass, Being an earlier slave, had ringside arguments on the politics of slavery, but he obtained his independence when Anne Murray purchased a free black sailor’s papers required for his escape. His personal experience as a slave afterward provided a persuasive argument that supported in movements against slavery. This experience made Frederick Douglass an autobiographical narrative “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,” which was printed in 1845, not merely a participant in the field of anti-slave narrative writings, but also in the genre of political rhetoric and/or protest writing.
Much of what he writes down is against the slavery, directly or by supposing, of the arguments and views of the supporters of slavery. For instance, supporters of slavery would often identify that slaves themselves often admired the benevolence of their masters. Douglass disproves this at first by illustrating that, “He segues from the wealth of Colonel Lloyd, to the number of Col. Lloyd’s slaves, to the fact that because of this great number, Col. Lloyd did not identify one of his won slaves when he met him on the road, and the slave, not knowing he was talking to his master, answered Col. Lloyd’s questions honestly, telling him that he was mistreated, and in consequence was separated from his family and sold into Georgia (Douglass, 2002, p.46-47). Douglass then proceeds from the particular incident to the general situation, by disagreeing the slavery-supporters’ argument by describing “The rate of the detectives on behalf of the masters has had the effect to ascertain among the slaves the maxim that a still tongue makes an intelligent head” (Douglass, 2002, p.110-111). Douglass provides the clarification stronger and more persuasive by stating the example that confirms it before it, and obtains past at least some of his audiences’ rational “defenses” by proceeding without any interruption into the argument of why slaves admire their masters without providing his booklover where he’s moving until he’s there.
Mr. Douglass continued to provide the conditions which had first directed to his emergence in public. From the time he escapes he was taken under the support of the Abolitionist Movement Society, and his respectful labors had been consecrated in the grounds of his fellow workers. He had stimulated an influence which was increasing a day by day, and enlarging the tide that he expected would soon strike down the rectangle of slavery and its supporters. He had to exercise all potential acts to reveal himself from the search of those who was looking for his blood; for, as he powerfully expressed himself, “there is no mark on the huge domains over which influence the star-spangled sign where the slave is safe; go west, go east, go north, go south, he is still uncovered to the blood hounds that may perhaps let loose in opposition to him; there is no valley so deep no mountain so in height no spot so blessed, but the man- user may enter and tear his target from his retreat.” (Gomes, 2005, p.77)
As he had forever covered the name of his master when lecturing, and similarly changed his own, and in the meantime concealed all the facts of his escape, and the place where he had been born, doubts were elevated by the slaveholders, who were greatly disturbed by his existence in public that he was a fraud. To work against this, he at distance solved to write his biography, which he therefore did, but this only revealed him motionless more to the temper of his persecutors.
In this master piece, he said it was not in contradiction of the Free Church as a Church he meant his views his prepossessions were in her support, but anti to her coalition with the annoyance of slavery. In short, he finished by calling on the people of the Free Church to put their pressure in the reason of the unfortunate slave, and provided that abolitionist movement had already emerged between them, specifically in the area of north, which he expected would however, have the cause of rescinding the act of the General Assembly, and influence them to providing back the price. Mr. Frederick Douglass took his seat accompanied by extended applause.
References
Frederick Douglass. (2002). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, pp. 1-188.
Douglass, Frederick; Gomes, Peter J.; Stephens, Gregory. (2005). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York: Signet Classics, pp.77.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Plato's Theory of Form
Plato's Theory of Form
Plato is both renowned and notorious for his forms of theory. Just what the theory is, and whether it was ever viable, are matters of great controversy. To readers who approach Plato in English, the association between forms and sensible facts, called in translation “participation,” seems objectively mysterious. Furthermore, the claim that the sensible sphere is not totally real, and that it contrasts in this esteem with the “pure being” of the forms, is confusing. A satisfactory understanding of the theory must rely on both historical knowledge and philosophical imagination.
The theory essentially postulates the presence of a level of actuality or “world” inhabited by the ideal or typical forms of all things and concepts. Therefore, a form exists, for objects like tables and rocks and for concepts, such as loveliness and fairness. In the dialogue Meno, “Plato explains a form as the “common nature” possessed by a group of things or concepts” (Taylor, 1980). The forms are everlasting and eternal, but enter into a partnership with variable matter, to produce the objects and instances of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These are always in a state of becoming, and may contribute in a succession of forms. The ever altering temporal world can thus, only is the source of opinion. Plato likens the opinions derived from our senses, to the awareness of shadows of actual objects, cast upon the wall of a cave. True knowledge nevertheless, is the perception of the archetypal forms themselves, which are real, changeless, and unchanging.
Whilst the forms are hidden to the eye, our souls have involved in the changeless world of forms prior to being incarnate in a physical body, and retain a memory of them. Although this recollection is not willingly available to the conscious mind, its existence is adequate, to allow our limited perceptions. Plato maintains that the “theorist can achieve a state of perceiving the forms directly, with his mind’s eye, by: developing dexterity, in discerning the abstract qualities, common to groups of things and ideas, in the temporal world; by understanding these are merely theories; and by using the technique of dialectic, to classify and group the qualities in their exact associations and order; using these theories as stepping stones, to further theories” (Taylor, 1980). Therefore, reason is capable of making a hierarchy of forms, to scale to the height of first principle and get a state of real knowledge. In all learning Plato maintains is, but memory of what our soul previously knows. Plato agrees that enquiry is not possible because unless we previously knew something, we would not identify the subject about which we were inquiring. But adds that enquiry is useful, in that it can reveal our innate recollection.
The dialogue form in which Plato writes is more than a mere literary device; it is instead an expression of Plato realizes of the purpose and nature of philosophy. For Plato, “philosophy is a procedure of continuous questioning, and questioning essentially takes the form of conversation” (Dancy, 2004). Near the end of the Phaedrus, Socrates articulates his doubts about written texts, worrying that people will terminate to think for themselves when they have somebody else’s thoughts written out in front of them. Plato took it upon himself to write his feelings down anyway, but he was cautious not to write them in such a way that we could simply assimilate his thinking rather than thoughts for ourselves. Several of the dialogues reach no definite ends, and those that do commonly approach those ends by casting reservations and examining feasible counterarguments. Plato cannot be there in person to share his thinking with us, but he wants to make sure that we think through them ourselves.
In keeping with this stress on dialogue form, Plato develops a more and more difficult conception of dialectic, or logical argument, as the engine that drives philosophical examinations. In the early dialogues, dialectic consists of Socrates cross-examining and refuting his interlocutors until he brings them to a state of confusion, or aporia. Plato identifies that dialectic can lead people not only to identify their mistakes, but also to optimistic findings, as Socrates does with the slave boy in the Meno. Plato is adequately impressed with the possibilities of the dialectic that, in the Republic, he makes it the greatest success of his rigorous education program. “The Phaedrus presents a more systematic version of the dialectic, seeing it as a matter of “division and simplification,” whereby we analyze concepts so as to realize the precise associations between them” (Dancy, 2004). This procedure of division and simplification becomes more and more sophisticated during Plato’s works, and we see advanced versions of it in the Parmenides and the Sophist.
Plato believes the sophists to be one of the major adversaries of virtue, and he is pitiless in his attacks on them. “The sophists, who were comparatively new in Plato’s day, were a class of itinerant educators who educated young statesmen in the arts of oratory and debate for a fee” (Fine, 2003). They instructed that values are relative, so that the only measure of who is right is who comes out on top. Their teachings capitalized on a void left by the ancient myths and religion, which were falling out of fashion as Greek civilization moved toward a more sensible worldview. The old values were losing their relevance, and there were no new values to replace them. Plato could see the hazard this right relativism posed for the state and for the person who lived in it, and his attacks on the sophists show up their hollow bravado that so many took for wisdom. Plato’s Forms of Theory, and the whole enterprise of the Republic, can be read as a try to discover a solid foundation for ethical values in rational rules.
The Forms of Theory propose that “two different levels of actuality exist: the noticeable world of sights and sounds that we live in and the comprehensible world of Forms that stand above the noticeable world and gives it being” (Fine, 2003). For instance, Plato maintains that in addition to being capable of recognizing a lovely person or a lovely painting, we also have a general conception of Beauty itself, and we are capable to recognize the beauty in an individual or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other terms, the lovely things we can see are beautiful only because they contribute in the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself imperceptible, changeless, and unchanging, unlike the things in the noticeable world that can grow old and lose their loveliness. The Forms of Theory envisions a whole world of such Forms, a world that survives outside time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage, Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the alters and errors of the noticeable world.
Plato’s knowledge of Forms actually varies from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully described, so several aspects of the hypothesis are open to understanding. Forms are first presented in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the contributors are previously familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed. Likewise, in the Republic, “Plato relies on the concept of Forms as the foundation of many of his arguments, but believes no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to describe exactly what Forms are” (Fine, 2003). Critics have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how noticeable objects involve in them, and there has been no lack of disagreement. Some intellectuals advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect instances on which the flawed world is modeled. Others understand Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for instance, is that quality that all lovely things share. Yet, others interpret Forms as “stuffs,” the conglomeration of all examples of a quality in the noticeable world. Under this understanding, we could say there is a little beauty in an individual, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world places jointly is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the ambiguities and variations in his Forms of Theory, as is obvious from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides.
In conclusion, the Theory of Forms introduces Plato try to develop our ability for abstract thinking. Philosophy was a comparatively new invention in Plato’s day, and it competed with mythology, tragedy, and epic poetry as the primary means by which person could make sense of their position in the world. Like philosophy, art and myths gives concepts that assist us to realize ourselves, but art and myths do so by appealing to our feelings and desires. Philosophy appeals to the intellect. The Forms of Theory differentiates the abstract world of thought from the world of the senses, where art and myths operate. Plato also argued that abstract thought is greater to the world of the senses. Plato expects to achieve a superior knowledge, by examining the world of Forms.
References
Taylor, C. C. W. (1980). Plato’s theory of forms, Classical Review. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Fine, Gail. (2003). Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dancy, R. M. (2004). Plato’s Introduction of Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plato is both renowned and notorious for his forms of theory. Just what the theory is, and whether it was ever viable, are matters of great controversy. To readers who approach Plato in English, the association between forms and sensible facts, called in translation “participation,” seems objectively mysterious. Furthermore, the claim that the sensible sphere is not totally real, and that it contrasts in this esteem with the “pure being” of the forms, is confusing. A satisfactory understanding of the theory must rely on both historical knowledge and philosophical imagination.
The theory essentially postulates the presence of a level of actuality or “world” inhabited by the ideal or typical forms of all things and concepts. Therefore, a form exists, for objects like tables and rocks and for concepts, such as loveliness and fairness. In the dialogue Meno, “Plato explains a form as the “common nature” possessed by a group of things or concepts” (Taylor, 1980). The forms are everlasting and eternal, but enter into a partnership with variable matter, to produce the objects and instances of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These are always in a state of becoming, and may contribute in a succession of forms. The ever altering temporal world can thus, only is the source of opinion. Plato likens the opinions derived from our senses, to the awareness of shadows of actual objects, cast upon the wall of a cave. True knowledge nevertheless, is the perception of the archetypal forms themselves, which are real, changeless, and unchanging.
Whilst the forms are hidden to the eye, our souls have involved in the changeless world of forms prior to being incarnate in a physical body, and retain a memory of them. Although this recollection is not willingly available to the conscious mind, its existence is adequate, to allow our limited perceptions. Plato maintains that the “theorist can achieve a state of perceiving the forms directly, with his mind’s eye, by: developing dexterity, in discerning the abstract qualities, common to groups of things and ideas, in the temporal world; by understanding these are merely theories; and by using the technique of dialectic, to classify and group the qualities in their exact associations and order; using these theories as stepping stones, to further theories” (Taylor, 1980). Therefore, reason is capable of making a hierarchy of forms, to scale to the height of first principle and get a state of real knowledge. In all learning Plato maintains is, but memory of what our soul previously knows. Plato agrees that enquiry is not possible because unless we previously knew something, we would not identify the subject about which we were inquiring. But adds that enquiry is useful, in that it can reveal our innate recollection.
The dialogue form in which Plato writes is more than a mere literary device; it is instead an expression of Plato realizes of the purpose and nature of philosophy. For Plato, “philosophy is a procedure of continuous questioning, and questioning essentially takes the form of conversation” (Dancy, 2004). Near the end of the Phaedrus, Socrates articulates his doubts about written texts, worrying that people will terminate to think for themselves when they have somebody else’s thoughts written out in front of them. Plato took it upon himself to write his feelings down anyway, but he was cautious not to write them in such a way that we could simply assimilate his thinking rather than thoughts for ourselves. Several of the dialogues reach no definite ends, and those that do commonly approach those ends by casting reservations and examining feasible counterarguments. Plato cannot be there in person to share his thinking with us, but he wants to make sure that we think through them ourselves.
In keeping with this stress on dialogue form, Plato develops a more and more difficult conception of dialectic, or logical argument, as the engine that drives philosophical examinations. In the early dialogues, dialectic consists of Socrates cross-examining and refuting his interlocutors until he brings them to a state of confusion, or aporia. Plato identifies that dialectic can lead people not only to identify their mistakes, but also to optimistic findings, as Socrates does with the slave boy in the Meno. Plato is adequately impressed with the possibilities of the dialectic that, in the Republic, he makes it the greatest success of his rigorous education program. “The Phaedrus presents a more systematic version of the dialectic, seeing it as a matter of “division and simplification,” whereby we analyze concepts so as to realize the precise associations between them” (Dancy, 2004). This procedure of division and simplification becomes more and more sophisticated during Plato’s works, and we see advanced versions of it in the Parmenides and the Sophist.
Plato believes the sophists to be one of the major adversaries of virtue, and he is pitiless in his attacks on them. “The sophists, who were comparatively new in Plato’s day, were a class of itinerant educators who educated young statesmen in the arts of oratory and debate for a fee” (Fine, 2003). They instructed that values are relative, so that the only measure of who is right is who comes out on top. Their teachings capitalized on a void left by the ancient myths and religion, which were falling out of fashion as Greek civilization moved toward a more sensible worldview. The old values were losing their relevance, and there were no new values to replace them. Plato could see the hazard this right relativism posed for the state and for the person who lived in it, and his attacks on the sophists show up their hollow bravado that so many took for wisdom. Plato’s Forms of Theory, and the whole enterprise of the Republic, can be read as a try to discover a solid foundation for ethical values in rational rules.
The Forms of Theory propose that “two different levels of actuality exist: the noticeable world of sights and sounds that we live in and the comprehensible world of Forms that stand above the noticeable world and gives it being” (Fine, 2003). For instance, Plato maintains that in addition to being capable of recognizing a lovely person or a lovely painting, we also have a general conception of Beauty itself, and we are capable to recognize the beauty in an individual or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other terms, the lovely things we can see are beautiful only because they contribute in the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself imperceptible, changeless, and unchanging, unlike the things in the noticeable world that can grow old and lose their loveliness. The Forms of Theory envisions a whole world of such Forms, a world that survives outside time and space, where Beauty, Justice, Courage, Temperance, and the like exist untarnished by the alters and errors of the noticeable world.
Plato’s knowledge of Forms actually varies from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully described, so several aspects of the hypothesis are open to understanding. Forms are first presented in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the contributors are previously familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed. Likewise, in the Republic, “Plato relies on the concept of Forms as the foundation of many of his arguments, but believes no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to describe exactly what Forms are” (Fine, 2003). Critics have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how noticeable objects involve in them, and there has been no lack of disagreement. Some intellectuals advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect instances on which the flawed world is modeled. Others understand Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for instance, is that quality that all lovely things share. Yet, others interpret Forms as “stuffs,” the conglomeration of all examples of a quality in the noticeable world. Under this understanding, we could say there is a little beauty in an individual, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world places jointly is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the ambiguities and variations in his Forms of Theory, as is obvious from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides.
In conclusion, the Theory of Forms introduces Plato try to develop our ability for abstract thinking. Philosophy was a comparatively new invention in Plato’s day, and it competed with mythology, tragedy, and epic poetry as the primary means by which person could make sense of their position in the world. Like philosophy, art and myths gives concepts that assist us to realize ourselves, but art and myths do so by appealing to our feelings and desires. Philosophy appeals to the intellect. The Forms of Theory differentiates the abstract world of thought from the world of the senses, where art and myths operate. Plato also argued that abstract thought is greater to the world of the senses. Plato expects to achieve a superior knowledge, by examining the world of Forms.
References
Taylor, C. C. W. (1980). Plato’s theory of forms, Classical Review. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Fine, Gail. (2003). Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dancy, R. M. (2004). Plato’s Introduction of Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Time Management and Stress
It may appear that there’s nothing I can do about my stress intensity. The bills aren’t going to prevent coming, there will never be more hours in the day for all my everyday jobs, and my profession or family duties will always be demanding. But I have a lot more command than I might think. Actually, the simple realization that I’m in command of my life is the basis of stress management. Managing stress is all about taking charge: taking charge of my thoughts, my feelings, my timetable, my surroundings, and the way I deal with issues. The eventual objective is a balanced life, with time for work, relations, rest, and fun plus the buoyancy to hold up under stress and meet challenges head on.Stress management begins with recognizing the basis of stress in my life. This isn’t as simple as it seems. Your true sources of stress aren’t all the time clear, and it’s all too simple to ignore my own stress-inducing thinking, emotions, and conducts. Sure, I may know that I am continuously concerned about work targets. But maybe it’s my procrastination, rather than the real job requirements, that leads to deadline stress. To recognize my real sources of stress, look intimately at my habits, conducts, and justifications:
• Do I explain away stress as momentary (“I just have a million things going on right now”) even though I can’t recall the last time me took a break?
• Do I define stress as an essential part of my work or home life (“Things are always extreme around here”) or as a part of my traits (“I have lots of anxious energy, that’s all”).
• Do I blame my stress on other people or external measures, or view it as completely normal and unexceptional? (Emmett, 2008)
Until I accept duty for the part I perform in creating or sustaining it, my stress level will remain far my control.
Since everybody has a unique reaction to stress, there is no “one size fits all” solution to managing it. No single measure works for everybody or in every condition, so trial with numerous methods and policies (Morgenstern, 2004). But I concentrate on what makes me feel tranquil and in control. I often spend time on the subsequent:
• Avoid unnecessary stress: Not all stress can be evaded, and it’s not beneficial to evade a condition that requires to be addressed. You may be astonished, nevertheless, by the number of stressors in my life that I can eradicate.
• Alter the situation: If I can’t evade a stressful condition, try to change it. Figure out what I can do to change things so the issue doesn’t present itself in the future. Often, this engages altering the way I communicate and control in my routine life.
• Accept the things I can’t alter: Some sources of stress are inevitable. You can’t stop or alter stressors such as the death of a loved one, a grave sickness, or a national depression.
Lastly, beyond a take-charge approach and an optimistic attitude, I can decrease stress in my life by developing yourself. If I frequently make time for amusing and rest, I’ll be in a healthier place to handle life’s stressors when they unavoidably come.
References
Morgenstern, Julie. (2004). “Time Management from the Inside Out, Second edition: The Foolproof System for Taking Control of Your Schedule and Your Life”. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Emmett, Rita. (2008). Manage Your Time to Reduce Your Stress: A
Handbook for the Overworked, Overscheduled, and Overwhelmed. New York: Walker & Company.
Greenberg, Jerrold. (2008). Comprehensive Stress Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill Humanities
Only Floss the Teeth You Want to Keep
Only Floss the Teeth You Want to Keep
Nowadays, dentists frequently proposed patients to floss their teeth to protect them from decay and periodontal disorder, the foremost cause of tooth loss in adults. A current research showed flossing can also help decrease the amount of gum disease-causing bacteria discovered in the mouth, contributing to healthy teeth and gums.
The major reason of periodontal disorder is bacterial plaque, a sticky, colorless film that continually develops on your teeth. Hundreds of sorts of bacteria exist in the mouth, so remaining plaque at bay is a continuous battle. That’s why brushing and flossing daily and regular checkup to your dentist are so significant to sustain your dental health.
Flossing suggested an important part of the tooth-cleaning procedure because it eliminates plaque from between teeth and at the gum line, where periodontal disorder often starts. Flossing assists clean teeth in the areas that brushing alone just cannot access (between the teeth and under your gum line). Flossing and then brushing assists eliminate plaque, a tacky substance that collects and solidifies over time. Left untreated, plaque accumulations can ultimately lead to gum disorder and tooth decay.
Flossing can eliminates the bacteria that flee the toothbrush by hiding in the little places in between teeth. Brushing without flossing is similar to washing only 66 percent of your body. The other 34 percent stays unclean. Too many people consider of flossing only as a way to remove the roast beef or popcorn kernels stuck between their teeth. But regular (once a day, at the very least) use of dental floss is necessary for cleaning between teeth and beneath the gums and warding off both cavities and gum disorder. Here’s how to floss properly:
- Begin with 18 to 24 inches of floss, and wind most of it round the middle or index finger on one hand (whichever finger is the most suitable for you).Wrap the rest of the floss around the same finger on the other hand. Think of this other finger as the take-up spool for the used floss. Don’t scrimp. Use a tidy part of floss as you work between each tooth. Or else, you’re just moving bacteria from one tooth to another.
- Hold the floss firmly with your thumbs and forefingers, leaving about an inch of floss between them. The floss should be taut. Use a gentle sawing movement as you move the floss between the teeth. Be cautious not to snap it into the tender gum tissue.
- When you’ve accessed the gum line, bend the floss into a “C” shape to fit cozily around the tooth, and slide it into the space between the gums and tooth softly.
- Bring the floss out from the gum and scrape the side of the tooth, subsequent its curve from bottom to top to eliminate as much plaque as possible. After you pull it out, use a clean part of floss to clean the tooth on the other part of that place. Be certain to clean the back side of the last tooth on every side, both top and bottom.
It is obvious from the above conversation that brushing the teeth is solidly recommended to keep teeth clean. But to keep breath fresh every time, if anyone need to brush his/her teeth more than just twice a day. The main source of bad breath is mouth bacteria. You can chuck out them and keep them from growing and bringing forth embarrassing breath smells by brushing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)