Perhaps the most admirable elements of Hobbes's political philosophy are not his solutions but his analyses of problems. Rather than basing his beliefs in metaphysical speculation, he sees political systems as grounded in material realities. He attempts to argue for the evolution of political systems based on how they evolved historically, although at times he relies on preconceptions about historical events, as he did not have access to the textual and archaeological research conducted after his death.
He argues that humans in a state of nature live in circumstances of constant conflict and insecurity. He thus hypothesizes that groups cede most of their freedoms to a strong leader in exchange for peace and security. Looking around at the religious wars fracturing Europe in his period, he argues for absolute monarchy as a solution. Perhaps the best part of this argument is that it explains how people psychologically come to accept authoritarian rule and "strongman" leadership through fear and insecurity even when this runs counter to their own best interests.
More recent scientific studies do not support Hobbes' extreme pessimism about human nature and early humanity. A less despotic form of social contract found in liberal democracies can establish rule of law without authoritarianism. Thus, while it is possible to admire Hobbes's efforts to understand the evolution of political systems, readers should also be aware that many of his historical assumptions are inaccurate and that his recommendation of authoritarian despotism is a flaw in his work rather than something to be admired.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
What are Thomas Hobbes's strengths? What can we admire from his philosophy of giving everything to a ruler?
What is Shakespeare's purpose in having Mark Antony describe Lepidus in such derogatory terms?
To defeat Brutus and his coconspirators, an alliance of three men, or triumvirate, is established. The members of this triumvirate are Octavius, Mark Antony, and Lepidus. It's little more than a marriage of convenience, as the three men have radically different temperaments, each one seeing himself as Rome's sole rightful ruler. Mark Antony bears a particular animus towards Lepidus. He regards him as unfit to rule. The glittering prize of political power in Rome would be wasted on him; it'll be like weighing down an ass with gold:
He shall but bear them as the ass bears gold, To groan and sweat under the business (Act IV Scene i).
As Lepidus isn't up to the job, thinks Antony, he should be put out to pasture:
And having brought our treasure where we will, Then take we down his load and turn him off, Like to the empty ass, to shake his ears And graze in commons. (Act IV Scene i).
But Octavius rebukes Antony, reminding him that Lepidus is a brave and valiant soldier. Octavius can see the bigger picture, as it were; he understands that the forces ranged against the conspirators are going to need all the help they can get if they're to prevail. Mark Antony, however, shows himself to be a snob in rejecting Lepidus, someone from a relatively humble background.
In presenting Antony's snobbery and Octavius's instant rebuke, Shakespeare is foreshadowing later events; the triumvirate will collapse, and Octavius and Antony will go to war with each other. Unlike Antony, Octavius doesn't allow social snobbery to get in the way of his military objectives, and he will be rewarded for his practical common sense by a victory that will lead to his becoming Rome's emperor.
Calculus: Early Transcendentals, Chapter 4, 4.3, Section 4.3, Problem 39
f(x)=xsqrt(6-x)
differentiating,
f'(x)=xd/dxsqrt(6-x)+sqrt(6-x)
f'(x)=x(1/2)(6-x)^(-1/2)(-1)+sqrt(6-x)
f'(x)=-x/(2sqrt(6-x))+sqrt(6-x)
f'(x)=(-x+2(6-x))/(2sqrt(6-x))
f'(x)=(-3x+12)/(2sqrt(6-x))
f'(x)=(-3(x-4))/(2sqrt(6-x))
Lt us find the critical number by setting f'(x)=0
(-3(x-4))/(2sqrt(6-x))=0
x=4
Domain of the the function : x <= 6
Now let us find out the sign of f'(x) at test point in the interval (-oo ,4) and (4,6)
f'(3)=(-3(3-4))/(2sqrt(6-3))=sqrt(3)/2
f'(5)=(-3(5-4))/(2sqrt(6-5))=-3/2
Since f'(3) is positive , function is increasing in the interval (-oo ,4)
f'(5) is negative so function is decreasing in the interval 4
f(4)=4sqrt(6-4)=4sqrt(2)
Local maximum = 4sqrt(2) at x=4
Now to find the intervals of concavity and inflection points , let us find out the second derivative,
f''(x)=-3/2((sqrt(6-x)-(x-4)(1/2)(6-x)^(-1/2)(-1))/(6-x))
f''(x)=-3/2((sqrt(6-x)+(x-4)/(2sqrt(6-x)))/(6-x))
f''(x)=-3/2((2(6-x)+x-4)/(2(6-x)^(3/2)))
f''(x)=-3/4((12-2x+x-4)/(6-x)^(3/2))
f''(x)=3/4((x-8)/(6-x)^(3/2))
Now let us set f''(x)=0 for determining the inflection point and intervals of concavity.
3/4((x-8)/(6-x)^(3/2))=0 , x=8
We have to consider the value of x in the domain of the function
So check the concavity of the function by plugging test point in the interval
-oo
Since f''(5) is negative so the function is concave down in the interval
-oo
Why did Rachel Carson care so deeply about nature?
Rachel Carson was a marine biologist, environmentalist, and author. She grew up on a sixty-five-acre farm near the Allegheny River in Pennsylvania and spent much of her childhood out in nature, enjoying and exploring the fields, forests, and streams around her home. She went on to study biology at what was then the Pennsylvania College for Women and did a fellowship at the US Marines Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. She continued her biology studies at Johns Hopkins University. During her professional work as a writer and editor with US Fish and Wildlife Service, she became more knowledgeable and enamored of ocean life. She also became aware of and began to research the effect of pesticides on the natural world, which became fodder for her most well-known work, Silent Spring. Silent Spring became a massive bestseller and is credited with kicking off the environmental protection movement.
https://www.biography.com/scientist/rachel-carson
https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Rachel_Carson/about/rachelcarson.html
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
What is the similarity between Utopia by Thomas More and The Republic by Plato?
As others have said, these works have in common that they deal with an idealized society that is supposed to allow its citizens to avoid the wrongs of the societies the authors live in. However, there is also more to both of them than meets the eye. Readers often object to Plato's exclusion of poets from his ideal republic, and to other laws that seem too harsh. Some critics argue, though, that Plato wasn't actually saying a republic should be run this way; rather, the "republic" is a metaphor for how one should take care of one's own soul and moral character. Similarly, some aspects of society in Utopia are not ideal; for example, a Utopian must be granted permission by their ruler before traveling to another city. In integrating such extreme rules into his "ideal" society, More satirizes the impulse to imagine ideal societies as well as criticizing the society in which he actually lived. Both authors are doing one thing on the surface and another when examined closely.
Both Thomas Moore's Utopia and Plato's Republic are essentially speculative; that is, both write about societies that don't actually exist as a means of commenting on ones that do. In this way, both offer critical commentary about the way the political systems of their respective times could be made better.
Moore's Utopia, though, is a novel. It presents itself as fiction: a sea-voyage goes astray and the protagonists wash up on the shore of an unknown land. It's the stranger-in-a-strange-land plot. Once in this strange new place, the characters become acquainted with this new place just as we, the reader, do, and what they/we find is that the way things operate in Utopia seems downright fabulous. There's no war, no poverty, no greed, no crime. If only our world could be that way. Moore's saying it could be if only we lived under a different political/economic/social system.
Plato's Republic involves a bunch of toga-clad guys sitting around discussing "big" ideas, one of whom is Socrates, who is essentially Plato's mouthpiece. He has all the good lines. The question of the day is "What is justice?" and what follows is Socrates's long and winding account of what justice is on the sociopolitical and individual level.
The biggest similarity is that each of these books is about an ideal society and government. Both Plato and Thomas More are offering their visions (philosophical, not really prescriptive) of what an ideal society would look like. In short, their books address the same topic. It should be noted that their ideal societies look quite different, but this difference stems from another parallel between the two works. Both men were using their work to criticize their contemporary societies, which, they strongly suggested, were decidedly less than ideal. Plato's Republic, for example, proposes that the best government would be headed by a "philosopher king," who would govern fairly, according to his understanding of philosophical principles. This was a response to what Plato saw as the corrupt and incompetent democratic government of Athens, which had recently condemned Socrates. Thomas More, on the other hand, proposed a society in which the people would have some voice (albeit filtered through several layers of oligarchy). He also envisioned a society that we would call socialistic today, in which private property was basically nonexistent. His "utopia" was a direct response to what he viewed as the increasingly despotic rule of Henry VIII, who would eventually have him executed due to his opposition to the treatment of the Catholic Church in England.
Why does she lie to her client about where the bowl had been bought? How does the author build suspense into the story?
Initially, the real estate agent feigns ignorance about the bowl but eventually tells her client that the bowl had been a present. Furthermore, she maintains that the owners of the home had no idea where the bowl had been purchased.
The real estate agent lied because she does not want her client to know that the bowl actually belongs to her. Furthermore, telling the client the truth would have exposed the agent's use of the bowl to manipulate the emotions of potential buyers. As the narrative reveals, the agent typically places the bowl in strategic places during each house viewing.
As for your other question, the author builds suspense by introducing a dilemma part way into the story, one that concerns the agent's relationship with the bowl. Essentially, the real estate agent becomes obsessed with the bowl and its contribution to her real estate business success. She describes the depth of her emotional distress when she unintentionally left the bowl behind during one of her property showings. In the agent's mind, the bowl had come to represent a sort of magic talisman that ensured her continued business success.
Thus, the author builds suspense by adding a sense of apprehension or the feeling of impending peril to the story. The bowl morphs into a quasi-mystical object, with a personality of its own. At the height of her paranoia, the agent wonders if the bowl feels slighted in some way. She begins to imagine herself a villain who has denied the bowl its just rewards for all the good luck it has brought her. The agent becomes possessive, much like a woman who suspects that her lover is planning to leave her. By this point in the story, we begin to question whether the agent harbors schizophrenic tendencies or whether the bowl will break in some tragic accident.
Essentially, the author uses this sense of impending peril to build suspense in her narrative. Interestingly, the story ends ambiguously, with the author pointing out that the agent often spends quiet moments merely staring at the bowl.
Who are three characters in The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton portraying the theme of fighting for individualism?
The title The Outsiders is a clue to the "outsider" status of many of the characters in this novel. Ostensibly there are two cliques of teenagers who are in a sort of tacit war with each other: the Greasers and the Socs (short for "social"). The Greasers are working class, from the poorer side of town, and they are looked down on by the Socs for being rough and beneath them socially.
But within the ranks of the Greasers are some boys who are intelligent and have an artistic mentality, which makes them different, and one could say they are seeking individuality and an identity apart from the group. These include Ponyboy, who is the main narrator of the story; Johnny, who dies tragically after saving children in a house fire; and Dallas Winston, who, despite being popular and something of a leader of the group, does display a somewhat sensitive side beneath his gruff exterior. Ponyboy in particular stands out; he writes poetry and is sensitive. He befriends Cherry, a Greaser girl, and she appreciates that he is kind to her and that they have things to talk about.
Because Dallas flirts with Cherry, and Cherry admits being attracted to Dallas (against her better judgment), Ponyboy is hurt and jealous. Cherry is rebelling against her own clique by liking both Dallas and Ponyboy. Ponyboy lashes out at Cherry when she tries to be kind, accusing her of giving him charity. She clears the air by saying she likes him and enjoyed their previous conversations. He asks if she can see the stars at night from her side of town. She says she can. He says he can too, and she smiles and understands that neither of them really fit into the groups they are forced to be part of. It is a struggle for them to remain individuals when they are labeled as members of these two cliques, but their "forbidden" friendship allows them both to learn from each other and show compassion for others, despite the animosity between the two groups.