1.) Audible actions are a kind of stimuli that calms you. They are important to calm someone down or help them to focus. 2.) A phoneme is a term for two words that look the same but have completely different meanings. Lalling is when your speech has a kind of staggering to it, and your words don't sound right. Lalling is something you can try to control while you can't control a phoneme. 3.) It's a new variable or something that is more than it seems. 4.) A metaphor can mean something different to different people based on their perception. That is why a metaphor can be considered an organ of perception. 5.) Postman says that is school they test kids "smartness" however, kids can be smart in different ways. There are multiple ways to explain how kids will be either an over or underachiever in school.
6.) I have to map the reality of a college student. The words that help me map the territory are work and experience. College does take a lot of work to learn what I need to in my time here. However, the experience of college will also help me learn a lot and work my way through the map of college.
1.) Bacon says that idols are errors in society. We can find the errors in ourselves, false teachings, and our culture. I feel that he uses the term idol incorrectly though. To me an idol is a positive thing that people can look up to and gives them the drive to be a better version of themselves. 2.) Bacon says the word idol means that these are the false images in which a person has an error. We have the tribal idol that symbolizes our natural human errors as a group. The idols of the cave are our errors that come from ourselves. The idol of the marketplace represents errors that come from others. A marketplace idol is sort of like a rumor. I believe that the least severe idol is the idol of the tribe. The most severe idols are the idols of the marketplace and idols of the theater.
3.) The idols that are the result of social intercourse are those of the tribe and marketplace. The idols that are the result of individual reflection are the idols of the cave and theater. If a person was restricted in society they would be trapped with the idols. We would be exposed to more of the idols of the cave. This is why a hermit would not be completely free of the idols, not only this but they would be ignorant in all facts. Socialization is always good, this how we learn street smarts and natural instinct. People who travel know more, and people who are around other people are more knowledgeable as well.
1.) Survival of the fittest means that the strongest of a species will survive to pass their traits on to their offspring. The weak will die off because they do not have the skills or traits that allow them to keep themselves alive. A good example would be the runt of a litter of dogs. They will usually die off because they are not strong or big enough to fend off the other dogs to get food.
2.) When people breed animals, they get to choose certain traits to carry on and they breed those animals to keep those traits prominent. Natural selection has more chance to it because the animals don't understand genetics and they can only guess what the best mate for them will be. Breeding is a more efficient way to get rid of the weak traits in a species. However, natural selection is very important though because that is the natural way to have genetic improvements without humans interfering in any way.
3.) Darwin would have liked the idea of cloning because it is a way for humans to select certain traits to keep in the blood lines. This helps to keep the strongest traits around and get rid of the "weak". I feel that cloning won't undo the work of natural selection. It will just be a different way to get genetic change to improve the species.
4.) Human social policies is undermining the survival of the fittest idea. They are allowing sick humans to have medicine that makes them better to survive longer. In the wild, they would just die off but we now have ways to make them better so they don't die off.
1.) I believe that using our senses is very important. Using all of them is what helps us gain an understanding of the world around us. To take some of our senses away, we won't get the full "view" of the world as we know it. However, people that have lost one sense are still able to live and understand the world without it, however, their view still isn't quite as complete as if they had all five senses.
2.) I don't think it is materialistic because we are using what we were given to help us navigate the world. However, some of the alternates we could use would be knowledge, common sense, critical thinking, and logical facts would help us to give a similar understanding. 3.) I feel experiencing the world without the senses would be very boring. The Earth would lose some of its wonder because everyone would view the world the same. Part of the Earth's beauty comes from everyone seeing things a little different. Just using facts would cause the world to become less different and less vibrant. 4.) If I could choose a sixth sense to have it would be the sense of understanding others struggles. As people tell me a story I would be able to tell what it was like to live through that. I feel this would help me to fully realize the struggles other face on a daily basis and help me be more accepting of others. 1.) All of my dreams are random and I don't think they have any relevance or are important to understand because they are all very straight forward and don't have anything new to tell me.
2.) The dreams that most mystify me are the ones that are normal and not unusual in any way. I don't understand why I would dream about me eating lunch with my friends but sometimes I have those dreams. When my dreams could be anything, they are boring and that is the most intriguing to me. 3.) The most frightening dreams are the ones when you see someone you love get hurt. Those are the ones that stick with you because it is hard to imagine life without them and your dreams sometimes forces you to imagine what that world would be like and how terrifying it would be. 4.) I feel that dreaming is a mental activity. Sometimes I think dreams are trying to tell you something but most of the time I think you dream because your brain gets bored for lack of a better word. Sleeping is a long time for your brain to do little activity and dreaming is a way to keep your brain busy.
1.) Her essay talks about the hardships that women had faced. She uses Shakespeare's sister as an example to get her point across to her audience, women, that they are not considered equal.
2.) The title reveals that women don't have control over their lives and are often controlled by men. The men in their lives will usually beat them to show they have full control.
3.) The biggest different would be made from education. Women are not supposed to be talented because it breaks the norms set in society. They would be made fun of if they went against the norm. Women were not educated at the time, only men were. If women were educated they might be better prepared to use their talents.
1.) Both the men and women are described as ruthless and positively sexed individuals. Women are supposed to be more gentle and poised but Mead says they are not.
2.) The price is hectic situations that causes one sex to feel less important than the other.
3.) The price that is paid is the creation of social labels. The social norms for men is that they are supposed to be tough while women are supposed to be silent. If someone steps out of the social norm, they will be harassed and made fun of.
4.) Primitive cultures had different standards for men and women. These cultures didn't respect men and women equally. This has caused problems in our modern industrialized society.
1.) The pernicious effects talked about is what was done to women. Wollstonecraft talks about the fact that women do not have the same rights as men do. Society was run by men which is why this evil was able to be done. Women had no way to stand up for themselves so they accepted that they were inferior and that was harmful to a whole group of people because no one should be considered less a person for any reason, especially because of their gender.
2.) At the time of this essay, women were considered to be property. They were not able to make a much money as men, they were told they needed a man in order to survive, and men told women what to do in every situation. Because of this, women were seen as inferior. Wollstonecraft argued against this and said women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.
3.) I believe the way women are treated do affect how they act in society. For so long they were oppressed and told they were inferior. For just as long they believed that and were willing to go along with it because they were told that is right. Eventually after a long time they started questioning it and since then women learned what is right and are willing to fight for it because they now know the truth. If women were now treated equal they wouldn't be so loud in their fight for equality.
4.) Kozol says diversity in schools is pretty much non-existant. Teachers teach about the civil rights movement but they don't talk about the fact that most schools still don't have a lot of diversity. Kozol said that we need to pay attention to the segregation we are still facing. To me, diversity is a mix of a bunch of different people of race, gender, economical status, beliefs, and sexual orientation, in a certain area. I don't believe schools have reach full diversity since there are a lot of classes I have been in that are only white people of middle to upper class status. Until we experience more diversity, we won't learn how to be more excepting of everyone.
5.) Woodson meant that African Americans in this country can become educated but not in the correct way. They are taught how to conform to white culture because schools do not teach that blacks are considered equal. They are taught throughout history that they were inferior until they decided to fit into white culture and then they received some freedom. No schooling teaches that the African American citizens can have their own culture without being looked down upon. That is why Woodson said African Americans can be educated but they won't learn the truth behind black history.
1.) The basis is freedom for the students. The students can learn in multiple ways and are respected. It helps them feel important and in turn encourages them to learn. Also the students are encouraged to use hands on learning which just helps them learn in ways outside of just sitting in a classroom. 2.) The classroom must be an environment that is comfortable for the students. Being comfortable helps encourage the students to stay focused an absorb as much information as they can. The more fun the classroom the more excited the students will be to come learn. 3.) The children have to have freedom in order to gain the most out of their education. Once they learn the information they need to be free to go use it in hands on work or in the real world. Children will be more willing to use what they learn if they have the freedom to use the knowledge how they want. 4.) He says thinking in education means that you have to grow and learn through the classroom. In order to think fully and critically, one has to have experiences that go with the learning and the best way to get that is through hands on learning. 5.) In order for students to have thinking in education their must be topics that interest them so they stay invested in learning. They also must have hands on activities that cause them to use problem solving. Finally, they must be able to apply the new knowledge to the real world in order have a full understanding of what they have learned. 6.) Dewey supports the idea of an interactive and social learning. Learning has to come from hands on work in order to have the interactive learning. However, learning also has to come from others and working with others. One of the best ways to learn is by learning from those around you.
1.) Smith wrote his book in order to say that to fix the wealth of a country you have to start with the country. Products are made from the supplies in the country so in order to make more products the country needs more supplies. Smith was also right that wealth comes from the country not the town so in order to make the individual more wealthy, the country has to be wealthier. Smith does a good job to satisfy my curiosity of how a nation becomes wealthier and he explains it is a good way.
2.) In today's society, we do not see our wealth in the terms of land. We see wealth based on how big your house is, how nice your car is, the brand of clothes you wear, and the investments you have. The wealthy find a secure capital investments in the things they invest in because that is what will make them more wealthy and rich people like to make themselves richer.
3.) In some ways Smith was right. We do have a huge dependence on farming in order to grow things and feed the country. The cities do depend on the country for products and the country depends on the cities for supplies. However, in today's world the U.S. depends on manufacturing just as much. Manufacturing supplies a lot for the country and contributes to a lot of the money for the country. In turn we rely on foreign trade to supply fuel for the country. While we do rely on farming, we also need manufacturing and foreign trade in order to run the country to the best it can be.
1.) I would say that the United States is an affluent society. The country has more wealth than any other country in the world. Our military is very strong and we have resources other countries don't have. We have some of the richest people in the world living in our country. The U.S. has the power to help other countries since we are one of the most affluent countries in the world. Our founding fathers would be proud of the wealth this country has acquired and of the power we hold in the world today. An affluent country is one that has the ability to help other countries because they have more resources and has a better ability to help. Since we have the power to help, it is our responsibility to help.
2.) I feel it is the government's job to provide jobs for the people of the country. However, it is up to the citizens to go out and get those jobs. We need to have enough jobs that everyone can have a job if they so decide to go out and make a living for themselves. If opportunities dry up for people, the government does need to help by creating new jobs for them. It is important the government does this because this country can only remain affluent if the middle class is strong and a shortage of jobs will weaken the country, like the recession we experienced recently.
1.) The bourgeois is the richer business owners. They control everything because they can control the money of a country and have control over all businesses which means they control. They are the bosses. The proletarians are the working class. They are the people controlled by the bourgeoisie and their businesses. Since they have no money to start up their own businesses, they can't have any control over their work. It is a vicious cycle to keep everyone in their current economic status so they can't take over.
2.) Expanding the world market leads to an increase in the needs of goods. That is turn also increases the bourgeois. In order to cover the demand, businesses would have to increase and at that point, the bourgeois has pushed all other classes down that they would benefit the most and continue to grow their wealth. For a nation, Marx thought expanding would just cause a bigger wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
3.) Marx thought communism would help the proletarians overthrow the bourgeois. It would cause the rich to help and give to the poor which would decrease the power the bourgeois has over the proletarians. By decreasing the wealth gap, everyone will have more equal opportunities and Marx thought this would great a healthier nation.
4.) I do think people should follow what Carnegie says. Giving to the poor will help create a more prosperous country and will help everyone to have the same opportunities as everyone else. I also feel that what Bill Gates is doing will help to solve the problem of the rich vs. the poor. The wealth gap in this country is huge and if everyone gave a little to help their neighbor, our country would be better off. However, if it is to truly work, the country needs to focus less on how much money we have and worry more about if those countries around us need help. We need to learn that if other countries are failing, no matter how prosperous the United States is, we are still affected by other countries.
1.) Aristotle would have approved of the picture of the men working on the Constitution. The men was working on a way for the government to have power over the states and Aristotle approves of that. All Aristotle wanted was a government that was far and just and one that allowed all the citizens to have a say in how the government was being run. Since that is what the men were trying to accomplish in the picture, Aristotle would have like the picture.
2.) The painting represent most of the elements of society. The man standing who is George Washington is clearly the President and the leader of the government. The other men on stage with him represent the rest of the government that oversee the citizens. Everyone else in the room represent the common people. In society they are the citizens. The citizens are calling out to the government with their opinions and what they want to see happen. It is at the core the basic way that our representative democracy works.
3.) Aristotle would have assumed that the government they were creating was a democracy. The picture shows some people sitting that all seem to be equal to the others. Also the picture shows that everyone is able to speak their mind. That is something Aristotle felt very strongly about because that would show that everyone had a say in the government.
4.) The men well represented the white men of the country. They were all wronged by Great Britain and the men wanted changes to occur so they made the change happen themselves. However, the men did not represent all of society since a lot of the citizens were either women or slaves and those citizens did not have any representation at the Constitutional Convention. Since they were not represented, any citizens other then men were not included in the Constitution fairly.
5.) Tocqueville felt similar to that of Aristotle. Tocqueville came to the United States to gain a deeper knowledge and understanding of the government that we had here. Both of them wanted a government that was fair and equal to all its citizens. Tocqueville found some of that here but the government that they both want does not exist today. We however can get close and that is what both men wanted.
1.) King's view is very similar to that of Henry David Thoreau. Both men feel that it is the duty of the people to disobey laws created by the government if they deem them to be unjust. I also feel that both of them wanted to achieve their goals with nonviolence. They believed that would be the best way to achieve their goal. I do believe that King ready Thoreau's Civil Disobedience to study the ideas of morality and immorality. In doing so, I think it helped King to better understand the goal he was striving for; to have equality for all by just laws made by the government. However, I think one of the major differences between their beliefs was the King still wanted to have a government that ruled over the people. He just wanted one that had fair and just laws for everyone it ruled over. Thoreau, on the other hand, wanted a government that stepped back and governed less. He felt that the best way for the government to rule over its people was to have a more hands off approach.
2.) Cicero's "The Defense of Injustice" talks about what it really means to be just. The two characters in the story argue back and forth about their definition of just. Cicero does this to show us that justice is always changing and their really isn't a definition of it. It is hard for there to be an exact explanation for something when everyone has a different view of it. So, how can we judge when someone is acting just if everyone thinks differently about acting just. As Cicero says that justice is always changing, we can see that in today's society when the government gave women the right to vote or through the civil rights movement. However, Cicero also wants to get the point across that if we acted justly, history would not have changed for the better. Sometimes it takes people acting unjustly to make major change happen. Nevertheless, as we have gotten closer to a definition of justice everyone agrees upon, people will continue to act in the way they best feel is just.
1.) Thoreau talks about one of the values of government is the fact that they make laws to please the majority. They listen to what a majority of the country thinks should be happening. The government thinks this is the best way to run a democracy. The problem with running the government that way is not everyone has a say if they go against the masses which causes the government to not properly represent all of the citizens. The government treats matters of justice, ethics and morality that goes along with what the masses feel. A lot of time, the government will make laws that are unjust for some people. Thoreau says in that case that it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey those laws then. Thoreau also talks about how too much respect for the government hurts causes people to do unjust things. If someone trusts the government whole heartedly, they are resistant to question what they are doing. It causes people to become complacent and they are less likely to disobey unjust laws. The government of Thoreau's time is similar to the government of today because they still want people to be complacent and not question what they are doing. The government is only worried about pleasing the majority rather than doing what is write.
2.) The annexation of Texas was the main reason for the Mexican-American war. Mexico and America was fighting over where the border between the two countries should be and the status of Texas. President Polk at the time was not good of informing the U.S. citizens what was happening. He was trying to keep them in the dark and work without needing the permission of the United State population. That is what Thoreau was worried about with the government. He felt it was unethical for the government to do whatever they wanted without limitations from the people which is what Polk was doing at the time of the war. This war helped people believe what Thoreau was saying in his reaction to the government.
1.) Rousseau believes in the social contract theory. The government and the people have a give and take relationship. They both rely on each other and both are in a known contract. The government must keep the rights of the people safe and the people must be willing to follow the rules of the government set for them when they are represented correctly. Rousseau believes a direct democracy would be the best form of government. He feels that everyone who wants to have a say in the government should have the right to. In order for each person to have their natural rights protected, they have to be able to have a little control over it. Each individual represents themselves, no elected officials to represent a group of people. Rousseau felt this was the best way to make sure everyone had representation.
The closest thing to a direct democracy we have today is the government in the United States. We have a representative democracy where the people vote on who represents them. A direct democracy would most likely not work in today’s society because the population is too big that there would be no way to organize all of the people’s opinions. There are also too many things to vote on in today’s world that nothing would get done if everyone had to vote for each law to be passed. We have representatives that we feel will protect our natural rights for us. The goal of this type of government was to bring order and make it easier to rule the country but still allow everyone to have some say in what happens in their country.
2.) The declaration claims that it is the duty of the colonists to rebel against the British government. Jefferson thought it was their responsibility to do what is best for their country. That included getting rid of a government that did not have their best interest in heart. Jefferson stated that a rebellion would be the only way to get rid of British rule and would gain independence for the United States. Jefferson said the colonists had to be willing to do anything to gain their independence. In his eyes, gaining independence justified their means of war to get it if needed. Also Jefferson would have agreed with Machiavelli that at times, one needs to take extreme measures to get what they want. The Declaration of Independence shows this by stating that the colonists are willing to do anything to get their independence. I agree with Jefferson that sometimes the ends justify the means. In extreme cases, like a country trying to gain their independence, sometimes war has to be fought in order to win. No great victory in history has been accomplished without some violence. We as a society get so set in our ways that humans don't like to change. In order for some changes to happen, extreme measures have to be taken. I somewhat agree with Lao Tzu that violence needs to be part of the last resort, but the colonists needed a last resort in order to free themselves. I feel that is how it is with most major changes in history, they had to go to their last resort to accomplish their goals.
Lao Tzu wrote the Tao-te Ching which became the basis for the Taoism religion. In it, Lao Tzu felt it was important for politicians to only interfere when it is necessary and their goal is to do so as inconspicuously as possible. He stressed the ideas of simplicity, patience, and compassion.
Lao Tzu wanted to minimize the power of the state. The goals of a leader, according to Lao Tzu is to be take away all of the bad qualities of a person, like desire, so they act morally and civilized on their on own. Lao Tzu felt that a good leader helped without others realizing and be willing to know when to step back and let the path that has been laid to take action. Sometimes a leader is not able to control everything and he/she has to be willing to accept that. Also, Lao Tzu feels a good leader can't lead the people unless they are willing to sometimes put the people before him/her and be a follower.
Machiavelli wrote a book called The Prince. In that book, Machiavelli talked about bringing more power to the leader of the city-states in Italy. He said a prince had to be a well rounded military man since one's first priority should be war. Machiavelli felt the an "armed man is a powerful one." Also, he said a leader needs to do whatever necessary to achieve what they want, even if that means torturing one's followers. Machiavelli said "it's safer to be feared than to be loved" and that a prince just needs to keep up his reputation. It doesn't matter if he keeps his promises or is a good person, all that matters is securing power by direct and effective means.
Even with all the differences between the two works, there are a few notable similarities. Both Lao Tzu's master and Machiavelli's prince want to be considered good leaders. They both strive to make their respected lands a better place. Also both works say that a leader needs to believe what he is doing is right, he can't look to others for validation. They think an uncertain leader is a weak leader. Also Lao Tzu and Machiavelli feel one of the worst things to be is despised. A powerful leader is not one that is despised by its people since it will lead to unwillingness to behave as the leader wants. Again both goals of the master and prince is to be a successful ruler and they can't do that if they are despised.
2.) A phoneme is a term for two words that look the same but have completely different meanings. Lalling is when your speech has a kind of staggering to it, and your words don't sound right. Lalling is something you can try to control while you can't control a phoneme.
