Book List For Dialectical Journal 2 1 Essay Example for Free

Book List For Dialectical Journal 2 1 Essay Quote Reply War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength They are the Party slogans, and are wri? en in big le? ers on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth. Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. The people controlling the present control everything and can ul! mately change the past and, therefore; the future. Big brother controls the present. The slogan is an example of the Partys technique of using false history to  deteriorate the psychological independence of its people. To Kill A Mocking Bird Harper Lee Lord of the Flies William Golding An! gone Sophocles The Joy Luck Club Amy Tan Bless Me, Ul! ma Rudolfo Anaya Black Boy Richard Wright Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck Night Elie Weisel The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien Catcher in the Rye J. D. Salinger Odyssey Homer The Picture of Dorian Grey Oscar Wilde Julius Caesar William Shakespeare The Perks of Being a Wall7ower Stephen Chbosky.

To His Coy Mistress :: Literary Analysis

In the poem â€Å"To His Coy Mistress†, the speaker is trying to seduce his wife. In the assumption the mistress is his wife; she is being bashful towards losing her virginity. The speaker, which is the mistress’s husband, develops a carefully constructed argument where the speaker seeks to persuade his lady to surrender her virginity to him. In the poem â€Å"To His Coy Mistress†, the speaker says, â€Å"Had we but world enough, and time†¦I would love you ten years before the Flood, and you should if you please refuse till the conversion of the Jews† (lines 1 and 7-10). The speaker is stating if they had all the time in the world, they would have no need to rush their love making. With all the time they would want he would love her from the very beginning until the very end. The speaker refers to the â€Å"Flood† (line 8) as the flood of Noah’s Arc in the Bible, which indicates he would love her from the beginning of time. Next, the speaker says, â€Å"Till the conversion of the Jews† (line 10), which would indicate the end of time. In the Bible, it is believed that when Christ comes back for his people the Jews will convert to Christianity. Therefore when Christ returns, that will be the end times. In conclusion, the speaker is saying if they had time from the beginning to the very end, his mistress is welcome to continue being shy. In contrary, the speaker and his coy mistress do not have that kind of time to spare, which is the reason he is trying to convince his wife to surrender her virginity. The speaker continues to argue that time is not in favor of his mistress’s nervousness or his age. For instance, he says, â€Å"But at my back I always hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near† (lines 21 and 22). In other words, he is saying his time is running out quickly. There can be many reasons why his time is running short, but according to the poem there is one reason he could be in a rush to make love with his mistress. The speaker says, â€Å"And yonder all before us lie deserts of vast eternity† (lines 23 and 24). â€Å"Deserts of vast eternity† (line 24) expresses his concern of not being able to have children, which would make him sterile. As men age, their sperm count becomes less and less, which makes conceiving a child nearly impossible.

Deontology: Ethics and Kant Essay

In our world today it is often hard to genuinely decide what in fact is right or wrong. The reason that it is so tough to determine is because of our human nature given everyone has their own opinion. We do not all think the same or think the same actions and consequences have the same effect. It is this reason we analyze situations with ethical theories, such as that of Kant’s deontology. Kant’s theory in its own right has a strong moral foundation in which it seems understandable to decide what is right or wrong. However it has its weakness as well. To me however, I believe Kant’s theory on deontology offers a sound premise for which to determine what is morally right or wrong. Kant’s theory on deontology is a way of assessing one’s actions. One’s actions are either right or wrong in themselves. To determine if actions are right or wrong we do not look at the outcome in deontology. Instead Kant wants us to look at the way one thinks when they are making choices. Kant believes that we have certain moral duties in regards to one’s actions. It is our moral duty that motivates ones to act. Theses actions are driven either by reason or the desire for happiness. Since happiness is differs from person to person, it is conditional. Reason on the other hand is universal and can be applied to all making it unconditional. In Kant’s theory on deontology, actions are either intrinsically right or wrong, which is based largely on reason. Kant says that it is in virtue of being a rational being that we as humans have the capacity to be moral beings. Also that moral law amounts to one’s duty. Kant says duty is grounded in a supreme rational principle, thus it has the form of an imperative. To determine what actions one should take Kant utilized imperatives. Imperatives are a form of instructions that will guide an individual on what one should do. Kant had two classifications between imperatives, hypothetical and categorical. Hypothetical imperatives can apply to one who aspires for a desired outcome. These imperatives allow one  to take an action for the method of obtaining a certain outcome, meaning if one has a desired outcome, then they ought to act. Kant has divided hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories, the imperatives of skill and imperatives of prudence. The imperatives of skill are imperatives that lead to an action in which the end result desired would be anything other than happiness. The imperatives of prudence are imperatives that lead one to actions, where the desired outcome is happiness. Kant believes that morality however is not like this. Morality does not tell one how to act in order to achieve a goal. Instead morality is made up of categorical imperatives. Kant taught that morality is universal, meaning it could be applied to all and moral law must be obeyed. He believed that when we act we are using moral law and act on the maxims, or the universal rules, of our actions. Kant’s categorical imperative states one can â€Å"act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.† Kant’s uses categorical imperative commands one to take an action. Before one can act they must analyze the principle on which they are acting. Once they have determined why they are acting, it may no longer be ideal, then it is wrong for one to use that maxim as a basis for taking that action. Kant’s principle of morality is the categorical imperative. This means that as an imperative it is a command and being categorical the command has its whole worth with in itself. The categorical imperative doesn’t have some proposed end as in a hypothetical situation, it has its own rational necessity in its justification. Kant’s principle of morality is essential to â€Å"good will.† This is a will that acts for the sake of duty. It is the only thing that is good without qualification. Thus a good will cannot be made better or worse by the result it produces. Good will is also the basis for a major part of Kant’s theory and that is the Universal Law Formula, which is the basis in which Kant uses to determine whether or not things are morally right or wrong. This formula states that one should act in such a way that your maxim could become a universal law of nature. That is if you took your belief or ideal and applied it to the entire world would it hold true and not contradict itself. Kant’s categorical imperative has two formulations included within it, one being the Formula of Universal Law and the other being the Formula of Humanity. The second formulation, The Formula of Humanity, is a principle under the Formula of Universal Law.  Kant’s defines the Formula of Humanity as â€Å"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.† This formulation states that one’s actions are immoral if it is using a person as a means to an end. It also has to be understood that Kant’s ideals greatly fall on a matter of agency, whether or not you are in fact the one willing an action that causes a negative outcome even if you did so now the result of that action would do more good. Because you took act ion you are the agent that caused a negative outcome. The proposed â€Å"better† outcome has no value towards the morality of your action. Kant’s strengths in his theory are that they can be applied to nature as a whole, thus the universal law formula. His theory doesn’t depend on an individual’s virtues or character. His weakness is that his morality is based on one’s personal action and doesn’t take in to account the outlying consequences that could ultimately benefit from that action. With Kant’s theory I believe we can make a more sound argument as an approach to ethics. With Kant we have to take situations and become very specific with them. We focus on what the action is and universalize it. That way no matter where in the world it can apply to everyone and won’t contradict itself. Then and only then we decided if it is morally right. Also Kant’s theory is good because it leave no grey area with its matter of agency. It doesn’t let possibilities of better or worse consequences affect the morality of the action in question. Thus I believe in all Kant has a more promising approach for ethics.

Huckleberry Finn and the Subject of Slavery

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain was first published in the United Kingdom in 1885 and the United States in 1886. This novel served as a social commentary on the culture of the United States at the time, when slavery was a hot-button issue addressed in Twains writing. The character Jim is Miss Watsons slave and a deeply superstitious man who escapes from his captivity and societys constraints to raft down the river. This is where he meets Huckleberry Finn. In the epic journey down the Mississippi River that follows, Twain portrays Jim as a deeply caring and loyal friend who becomes a father figure to Huck, opening the boys eyes to the human face of slavery. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said of Twains work that, Huckleberry Finn knew, as did Mark Twain, that Jim was not only a slave but a human being [and] a symbol of humanity...and in freeing Jim, Huck makes a bid to free himself of the conventionalized evil taken for civilization by the town. The Enlightenment of Huckleberry Finn The common thread that ties Jim and Huck together once they meet on the riverbank — other than a shared location — is that they are both fleeing from the constraints of society. Jim is fleeing from slavery and Huck from his oppressive family. The disparity between their plights provides a great basis for drama in the text, but also an opportunity for Huckleberry to learn about the humanity in every person, no matter the color of skin or class of society they are born into. Compassion comes from Hucks humble beginnings. His father is a worthless loafer and mother is not around. This influences Huck to empathize with his fellow man, rather than following the indoctrination of the society he left behind. In Hucks society, helping a runaway slave like Jim was the worst crime you could commit, short of murder. Mark Twain on Slavery and the Setting In Notebook #35, Mark Twain described the setting of his novel and the cultural atmosphere of the south in the United States at the time The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn took place: In those old slave-holding days, the whole community was agreed as to one thing — the awful sacredness of slave property. To help steal a horse or a cow was a low crime, but to help a hunted slave, or feed him or shelter him, or hide him, or comfort him, in his troubles, his terrors, his despair, or hesitate to promptly to betray him to the slave-catcher when opportunity offered was a much baser crime, and carried with it a stain, a moral smirch which nothing could wipe away. That this sentiment should exist among slave-owners is comprehensible — there were good commercial reasons for it — but that it should exist and did exist among the paupers, the loafers the tag-rag and bobtail of the community, and in a passionate and uncompromising form, is not in our remote day realizable. It seemed natural enough to me then; natural enough that Huck and his father the worthless loafer should feel it approve it, though it seems now absurd. It shows that that strange thing , the conscience — the unerring monitor — can be trained to approve any wild thing you want it to approve if you begin its education early and stick to it. This novel wasnt the only time Mark Twain discussed the horrendous reality of slavery and the humanity behind each slave and freed man, citizens and humans deserving of respect the same as anyone else. Sources: Ranta, Taimi. Huck Finn and Censorship. Project Muse, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. De Vito, Carlo, Editor. Mark Twains Notebooks: Journals, Letters, Observations, Wit, Wisdom, and Doodles. Notebook Series, Kindle Edition, Black Dog Leventhal, May 5, 2015.