Essey Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

Essey - Essay Example Management is the dynamic, life-giving element in every business. Without it the resources of production remain resources and never become production." (Sharma, 2004 11) This definition emphasizes that the managers achieve organizational objectives getting things done through the employees. Human resource Management is very essential for successful running of an enterprise. It ensures proper use of physical and human resources by deriving the best results. It leads to efficient performance and higher productivity. Human Resource Management is very essential for every organization to make productive use of human physical and financial resources or the achievement of the organizational goals. It helps in determination of objectives. No organization can succeed in tits mission unless its objectives an identified and well denied. Management helps in achieving these objectives by the efficient use of resources. The entry of multinationals has also brought in fundamental changes in the work culture, work ethics and remunerating patterns in many countries, all of which have a clear bearing on the career growth path of individuals. Added to this are the rapid changes taking place on the technological front, flattening hierarchies and making people come together more than ever before. Amidst all this change, the high ethical standards of an individual, be it a workman on the shop floor or the Chief Executive Officer, matter more now than ever. The dual ethical standards often maintained by people front-often the exact opposite when it comes of the way they conduct business are counterproductive in the long run. The new authority is emerging and organizations are member led, officer driven, customer focused; a team environment where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; a flat management structure where employees and managers are learning rather than blame; a clear since of direction and purpose. A firm commitment to delivering high quality public services through a combination of direct-provision and effective partnerships. 2. ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Human Resource Management plays a very important role in managing the mode in business organizations, which are complex and complicated. The role of management is summarized below. 1. Role in success. Human Resource Management plays a very important role the success of an organization. It helps in achieving group goals. Human Resource Management assembles and organizes the available recourses for the accomplishment of the goals of enterprise. It adds effectiveness to the efforts of group persons organized to achieve the given objectives. 2. Role in efficiency. Human Resource Management utilizes the available physical and human resources productively. It eliminates all types of wastage and leads to efficiency in all business operations. Thus it results in effective running of business activities. To secure efficiency of operations, management is concerned with reducing the cost of production and increasing the output. Through better planning, organizing and control, and the use of various cost-reduction techniques, efficient management leads to reduced costs and increased output. (Sharma, 2004 13) 3. Role in soundness of organization. Human Resource Management lays down a pattern of authority- responsibility relationship. The structure so formed

Of Mice and Men The End Analysis Essay Example for Free

Of Mice and Men The End Analysis Essay What happens at the end of this novel shows that Steinbecks view of life is a pessimistic and negative one. By the end of the novel tragedy struck the hopeful couple Lenny and George, as once again Lenny have done a real bad thing. He accidentally killed his little puppy, not knowing that it would get killed that easily. It really wasnt his fault, for it aint little as mice, though it wasnt big enough of a puppy either to be kept outside its mothers reach. And if that wasnt bad enough, on that same day he viciously killed Curleys wife. In the barn she was consoling her loneliness by talking to Lenny in a passion of communication. With pleasure she talks of her dreams and of her life, about how her life would be if she made somethin of herself. How she was said to be a natural in movies and how her ol lady stole letters from a guy she knew that was in pitchers. Her dream dies as with her body as Lenny tries to shut her up. Not knowing his own strength he breaks her neck after she struggles to break free, and her body flopped like a fish, as Curley did when he tried to let go of his hand from Lennies strong grasp. As soon as Candy and George discovers the unlawful act that Lenny has done, they try to reason with his actions and find the best action that should be taken against him. Pessimistically George wants to get im an lock im up, for his own good so he wont starve to death. In the end George decided to kill Lenny, for he thinks that if anyone should lynch Lenny, it should him that would kill Lenny, mercifully. I agree with the statement that Steinbecks opinion on life by the end of the novel is a pessimistic and negative point of view. By pessimistic I mean that he has a tendency to stress the adverse aspects of a situation, in this case expecting the worst possible outcome in life. Negative, meaning he expresses denial, refusal, prohibition, bad, or evil things in general. The ending of this novel in my opinion is very tragic, having three deaths occur in one day which not only does it represents physical death, but also emotional death. I see death as the negative side to life, but then again death can be seen as something positive, as religion tells us of something called heaven, which for Lenny might be tending rabbits and live off the fatta the land. On page 112 where George describes the perfect life: Everbody gonna be nice to you. Aint gonna be no more trouble. Nobody gonna hurt nobody nor steal from em, it is all positive things. But the fact that Lenny had to imagine it means that he cant see it with the naked eye, therefore it does not exist in reality, leaving reality with the opposite of that imagination of the perfect life which is the negative things. I believe the puppy represents the death of trust and responsibility in the companionship between Lenny and George. George trusted Lenny to take care of his puppy, but once again Lenny acted irresponsible, not listening to Slims and Georges advice to not take away the pup from its mother. This is why Lenny was very nervous after the dog gets killed. He was afraid maybe George aint gonna let me (Lenny) tend no rabbits, that George would lose his trust on Lenny. He was afraid that George would pass a negative judgement on Lenny. The death of Curleys wife I say would mean the death of the innocent. I thought she was caught in the middle of life in the 1930s where her gender was discriminated against, and as a wife she should stay at home where she belongs. I feel pity for her living on a ranch where there arent many other women around. As her husband prohibits her to talk to other men, people might find her as trouble, jail-bait, one that conceals nothing. Lennies death, the climax of the novel situated at the end of the novel is very important. His death expresses the death of true friendship between George and Lenny, unlike the other migrant workers relations. The death of Candys dream of having a place he can call his own, the death of Crooks hope to be treated as equal, as a human being and also as a friend. The relationship between George and Lenny are different from other guys. We got each other, not like other guys who aint got nobody in the worl that gives a hoot in hell about em. Lenny and George get a sense of security out of this. This may be considered a luxury for any other migrant workers. Candy who is old and weak also yearns for security. Jus as soon as I cant swamp out no bunk houses theyll put me on the county, shows how he is afraid of his future, how if hes unemployed with no permanent residence and what would happen if he would be left out in the streets. He was deeply stricken with sadness, as his eyes were blinded with tears and how he just lay down in the hay and covered his eyes with his arm. Crooks who tries to conceal his pleasure with anger as Candy and Lenny both were guests at his bunk, is a man who lost all his pride and dignity because of racism. People degrade him in a level so low that he has no more self-confidence or even self-respect. With the coming of Candy and Lenny he gained them piece by piece. For a moment he felt to be part of something in Lennies dream, how he hoped to live a better life where people would treat him with the respect that he deserves. All is but a memory once Lenny is killed, no chance the dream would come true. Id think everybody would just go their separate ways, living their lives in a straight line, hardly ever cross. Steinbecks style of writing noticed in the description of nature on chapter 6 is far more violent than described in the beginning of the novel. A silent head and beak lanced don and plucked it out by the head, and the beak swallowed the little snake while its tail waved frantically. But one could argue that his negative view on life already started from the beginning of the novel. The title Of Mice and Men which is taken from a poem by Robert Burns says that no matter how you plan something, something always goes wrong. George expected the worst possible outcome, being pessimistic of Lennie, by foreshadowing him to get in trouble. If you look in the positive way, the end can also mean a new beginning.

Archaeology: Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism

Archaeology: Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism How does archaeology interact with Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism? Have they contributed to archaeology in any way? Discuss with examples. When we look at the history of the archaeology, it can be said that the archaeology have always been a part of political activities however the most sensational and the conspicuous time of this interaction between archaeology and the politics can be dated after the French Revolution. With the French Revolution, the nationalism ideology raised and swiftly spread around the world with industrialization. At the first round, rising Nationalism awaken the curiosity of the people about their ethnicity. With this curiosity, people focused ethnicity researches to find out their origins and for this reason many archaeologist take a place in this quest. Governments started to support the archaeological excavations and many institutes started to be opened and many archaeology students started to be educated. In this manner, archaeologists’ interest began to turn form historic times to pre- historic times. With the emergence of Darwinian evolutionary theory, all these ethnicity research a nd the focus on the pre-historic excavations prepared foundation of Colonialism and Imperialism. Nationalism is defined by Trigger as â€Å"an all embracing sense of group identity and loyalty to a common homeland that is promoted by mass media, widespread literacy, and a comprehensive educational system.†(Trigger, 2007). As a result of Nationalism, in the 18th and 19th C. ,the ethnicity concept gained a significant role among the most European states and they started to courage pre- historic archaeologist to study the origins and early ethnic groups. Although all the European states made archaeology which serves to the nationalistic ideology, for me the most striking and passionate studies are done by Germans who carried nationalism into the fascism level in the Word War II. With the establishment of German Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistoric Archaeology, Germans began to be professional in the pre-historic archaeology and they introduced culture-historical approach to the archaeology (Trigger, 2007). For the nationalistic archaeology, Kossina is the most striking name for that period in German archaeology. He claimed that the Germans are the noblest topic for the archaeological research and criticized the archaeologists who were studying classical and Egyptian archaeology (Trigger, 2007). He seeks for the origins of Germans and he wrote â€Å"Die Herkunft der Germanen†. He evaluated his archaeological data in a biased way and this evaluation encouraged â€Å"Germans to regard Slavs and other neighboring E uropean peoples as inferior to themselves and which justified German aggression against these people† (Trigger, 2007). Although Kossina died in 1931, he continued to be effective on the nationalistic and racist actions of Germany. For example, Nazis supported their discourses by using the works of Kossina. As a result of the nationalistic and ethnic researches, people became more aware of the different nationalities -such as the French, Germans, and English etc. It encouraged thinking that the people are biologically different from one another; therefore their behavior was determined by these racial differences as opposed to social or economic factor. This kind of thinking led people to think about â€Å"the inequality of the races†. Gobineau, who was a part royalist French family, claimed that â€Å"the fate of civilization was determined by their racial composition† (Trigger, 2007). Also in this time, Darwin’s evolutionary thought started to interact with the ethnicity oriented and nationalistic archaeology. Darwin claimed that plants and animals pass on their characteristics to their offspring however different offspring vary from each other. He believed that some of these offspring suited to their environment than others. This idea was explaining tremendous variety and the complexity of the natural world. He published his ideas in â€Å"Origins of Species†. This book was highly effective on the Herbert Spencer who introduced the idea of â€Å"survival of the fittest† and applied this view into the archaeology to explain the human societies in uni-linear evolution concept. He claimed that all human societies move from simple to complex (Johnson, 2010). As a result of this interaction â€Å"inequality of races† idea had gained scientific credibility. Additionally to these ideas, in 19th century Lubbock suggested that as a result of natural section human groups had become different from each other not only culturally but also in their biological capacities to utilize culture (Trigger, 2007). He regarded Europeans as the product of intensive cultural and biological evolution. His idea used to legitimize the British colonization and the establishment of political and economic control on their colonies. He also vindicates British and American colonialist from the moral responsibility for the rapid decline of native peoples in North America, Australia and the Pasific. This decline of these peoples was not because of what colonialists were doing them but because of the natural selection. This type of modality toward the native people increased the colonialism and the imperialism all over the world. As a result of colonialism, â€Å"historians of archaeology have sometimes justified acts of colonialist usurpation in adopting ethnocentric viewpoints which presuppose that archaeological pieces are better conserved in Western museums.†(Abadà ­a, 2006). For an example, the situation of Elgin marbles can be mentioned in this matter. Evans says, in 1816, Elgin Marbles were brought to the British Museum and all the drawings, excavation and the exhibition coast like  £35,000 to the British government. In 1821, Greece separated from Ottoman Empire and it created an endless controversy about the propriety of the ‘marbles’. What is beyond all of this discussion most people think that they would have great damage if left in their original home (Abadà ­a, 2006). With the increasing industrialization, which is the period inventions and developments, created the ideas in diffusionism and the migration to explain the cultural differences in past cultures. Many of the researchers rejected the culture evolution theory. As result of this, the idea of psychic unity, which is introduced by Adolf Bastian, lost its importance. It made racism much more powerful because the belief that every culture has a potential to develop their culture is collapsed. The idea that indigenous people were viewed as biologically inferior to Europeans became much more solidified. Writers and social analysts claimed that human beings were not inherently inventive. If there is a development in culture it should be a reason of diffusionism or migration. Also they said that the change was naturally belong to the human nature and it was not beneficial to people. Therefore it is supported that unchanging societies are the most convenient to human being. In this manner, indepen dent development idea in the cultural changes ignored and a belief emerged which is particular inventions were unlikely to be made more than once in human history. This kind of discourses solidified perceptions about the savage people inferiority. In the United States, the ‘myth of the mound builders’ was aroused and it has been thought that these mounds could not have been built by the Native People of America, who were considered too savage. Instead, they were built by a ‘civilized’ race that disappeared a long time ago (Abadà ­a, 2006). When the people see the mounds in Zimbawe and investigators claimed that this similarity is the proof pf prehistoric white colonization in Southern Africa (Trigger, 2007). To sum up, the interaction between archaeology and Imperialism, Colonialism and Nationalism developed after the French Revolution. Archaeological studies and the scientific developments to answer the questions in the archaeology have been abused by the politicians. The archaeological studies which suit the politician were encouraged and supported financially. Although this mutuality helped the archaeological developments, the results that archaeology reached had been used to satisfy the nationalist, colonialist and imperialist actions. Bibliography Abadà ­a, Moro O. 2006. The History of Archaeology as a ‘Colonial Discourse’.Bulletin of the History of Archaeology16(2):4-17 Johnson, Matthew. 2010. Archaeology Theory an Introduction. Trigger, Bruce. 2007. A History of Archaeological Thought.

Strong Continental Empire :: essays research papers

There are five key ingredients in building a strong continental empire. A strong continental empire must be able to up-hold these five things to survive. These five important things are: a strong central government; foreign policy, to deal with others countries, manifest destiny, to deal with matters, and the ability to solve internal problems such as social, economic, and political problems. America is a continental empire and runs itself by using these five things. The most important of these is probably the strong central government. A strong central government ensures that the government will be able to run smoothly in a time of crisis and have the capability to make sound decisions that will benefit the American populace. Foreign policy was developed so that America would know where it stood when it came to dealing with other countries. It was important that America dealt with international problems in a uniform manner. Manifest destiny deals with the issue of how America and Am ericans will acquire land. Infrastructure is America working together. America depends on many things to keep it running, when these things cross paths we develop an infrastructure. America must solve internal problems all of the time. What these problems are and how we solve them is what shapes America. America slowly began to build a continental Empire.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  America developed a strong continental empire by accomplishing the five things needed for a strong continental empire. America started slowly by developing a government that was rusted by the people. Once they accomplished this they started to filling in the pieces of the continental empire puzzle. They developed a strong central government. Then America began to gain land, which led to conflicts with foreign nations. As the United States of America grew, it's infrastructure of money, transportations, and other aspects grew.

Plato’s Writings Essay

This paper will discuss several of Plato’s writings such as The Apology, Phaedo, Crito, etc.   The paper will be in part an analysis and in part a presentation of the philosophy of Plato through is writings as well as his writings in accordance with Socrates’ philosophy. Mortality Human nature is a nature of reason, not strictly adherent to passion or feelings.   Morality then, becomes the crux of this nature.   Morality is reason.   This is not to say that Plato was an ascetic; he placed passion, and feelings in his philosophy but the ethics of humanity are tied into the good of a person because reasonably, being virtuous, or good led a person to being happy (eudemonism).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Anything else that a person may be presented with and made to make a choice, that choice should be rooted in virtue.   Whatever else is chosen by free will should only serve to making that person virtuous.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Plato was a man filled with faith in human nature.   Plato’s philosophy of human nature doing evil was that a person only does evil in ignorance, for he believed everyone, just as himself wants only what is good.   The source of someone doing evil is brought about by unlimited desire.   Something that goes unmitigated becomes possessive of that person and they in turn want, and want, without satiation.   This is when the appetitive part of the soul (the part of the soul that wants sex, food, etc.) overtakes the rational (part seeking truth, and reason) of the soul resulting in moral weakness or akrasia.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   It is not then self-interest that leads a person to happiness, and there is a definite equilibrium between the allowance of each part of the soul guided by reason, and asceticism.   Plato was a not a Sophist.   Without the guidance of moral reason then a state of chaos would ensue entailing an everyman for himself type of attitude.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Morality must then be shown as adhering to individual interests.   Plato did not agree with the type of hedonism exhibited by the Sophists, who thought human nature was an extension of the animal world.   Instead, Plato states that the nature of man is reason; and in this reason exists an organized society constructed by reason.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Happiness for the rational man then comes into fruition by governing their more base, animal, desires, which are irrational.   This morality is extended into the realm of society because of human interaction.   Therefore, if a man is to be the pinnacle of reason, and morality, and happiness, then the society that he lives and associates must then also exhibit such a moral temperance.   If then a society is blinded by hedonism, or pure desire of self, a man in that society has no hope for personal happiness because of lack of morality, reason, and thus fully succumbing to akrasia. Plato’s Phaedo and Immortality The realm of the reasoning man, according to Plato in his work Phaedo, is extrapolated by Socrates, that is, a man who is within reason also must admit to the fundamental truths regarding life after death.   That is to say, in Socrates explanation of immortality, there remains the outlook that the body and the soul are not eternally combined; but the soul is grounded in the body through emotions, and feral states of humanity.   When the soul is released from such torpor, it then reclines back into its previous non-corporeal state to either rest, or to transform and reinvent itself in the world.   The soul, according to Socrates, is that which is in us that commands and it is the body that serves.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The soul then, according to the previous statement is created in the divine will, and since divinity cannot be defined through the corporeal, the body must be mortal, and therefore finite.   The soul on the other hand is infinite.   The soul is the image of divinity; in the soul there is found an unceasing existence of transformation.   The reasonable man must then accept the dichotomy of the body and soul, as well as accept their harmony he must distance the idea that the body and the soul are one.   The body is mortal, and can succumb to dissolution, but according to Socrates, the soul is indissoluble.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The soul then has a life of her own.   Socrates questions the ideas of what humankind supposes to be immortal.   God is immortal, and the diversity of heaven and hell in all fallible senses is immortal, but the reasonable man but design for himself the idea that he too is of a strand of divinity.   The soul is associated with the ideal and the invisible.   The body commands emotions, and its fate lies within those external circumstances, that is nature, but the soul, in Socrates’ view is above nature. The soul is a higher self.   As the introduction to Phaedo states, â€Å"The human being alone has the consciousness of truth and justice and love, which is the consciousness of God.   And the soul becoming more conscious of these, becomes more conscious of her own immortality† (23).   The soul hinges upon the realization that she is immortal.   In that consciousness, and in that state of being, there exists God, and all that is immortal.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Therefore, Socrates is trying to define the perimeters of immortality, and the fact that a reasonable man cannot indubitably believe that the body and the soul will perish, but must in fact take credence to the soul existing at a higher level of existence, that is, at the level with God.   Socrates is placing a belief system in his dialectic, and in so doing he goes into analyzing the existence of God, or the intangible being that is the divine.   In Phaedo Socrates circulates his ideas around the immortality of the soul and the acceptance of this by the reasoning man on the basis of the dimension that God portrays.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   By dimension, suffice it to say that God, in divine right, is perfect.   It is in that perfection that man may find allusions to his reasoning, and by so doing, reason that since the soul is of God, then man himself is immortal, as Plato wrights, â€Å"An evil God, or an indifferent God might have had the power but not the will, to preserve us†¦But is he is perfect, he must will that all rational beings should partake of that perfection which he himself is† (23).   Life after death then is a certainty on a celestial level.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Socrates is attempting to connect his theory of knowledge with that of the soul’s ability to reincarnate or transform or simply exist beyond the development of the natural world.   In this doctrine he attempts to bring forth the ideas of past and future states of existence.   He is attempting to define eternity, which is incomprehensible to the mortal keen, but with the soul, the soul being undoubtedly of a higher fiber than that of the mundane, Socrates must conclude that the mind itself is therefore dependent on an ephemeral essence that is beyond its comprehension.   This type of thought process is one that is known as the transcendental method of interpretation. The Apology and The Cave In The Apology Plato presents Socrates explanation of immortality.   The Apology presents the principles of Socrates in that philosophers should be humble and admit that they know nothing.   Also, in this book Socrates is explaining why he is being persecuted and the following few paragraphs will highlight his philosophy about religion. Socrates taught philosophy in a question answer dialogue.   The dialectic art of arriving at the truth was the system Socrates used.   In this regard he would arrive at the truth by questioning the belief of engaged speakers in a philosophic circle.   Although this idea of philosophy may come across as non-confrontational, Socrates used this method to verbally jab at the speaker until they themselves found fault in their philosophy, and through a system of negative or positive responses came to recognize the truth. This type of philosophy has been likened to a cross examination present in today’s court rooms, where the person under oath is asked a series of questions that are both destructive and humiliating, until they are forced to acknowledge the truth, much like the arguments around Socrates.   The aim of such confrontational questioning was always about truth; Socrates believed that this was the main goal of philosophy, and philosophical discussions, and he believed that everyone involved with the account was in pursuit of this goal as well.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In order to be human, not only the idea of reflection upon life is necessary but in emphasizes of the use of the Socratic method in that reflection and in the course of finding the truth, questions are paired with such reflection.   At this level, questioning and reflection are the apex of what it means to be human.   Socrates however had some varying views on philosophy that opposed some of what Plato believed.   Socrates was a skeptic, as was Plato, and as can be exemplified in the cave metaphor, but Socrates also believed that a person can be convicted of their own beliefs even if they cannot find their pathway of truth. Plato, in contrast, believed that philosophers were the delegates who maintained what was and was not truth, and led the way to such truth for the common man.   It is not then self-interest that leads a person to happiness, and there is a definite equilibrium between the allowance of each part of the soul guided by reason, and asceticism.   Plato was a not a Sophist.   Without the guidance of moral reason then a state of chaos would ensue entailing an everyman for himself type of attitude.   It is a bitter debate on whether or not Socrates was a Sophist, he himself vehemently denied it but some of his philosophies correlated with Sophist thinking (i.e. the issues of ethics, and living a good life, each Sophist preoccupations). Plato’s Crito, The Trial, Death of Socrates Plato is a firm believer in man not adhering to the masses opinion but staying true to one singular person, a person of wisdom, and as Plato states through Socrates, â€Å"And he ought to live and train, and eat and drink in the way which seems good to his single master who has understanding, rather than according to the opinion of all other men put together?†Ã‚   Plato’s basic rhetoric involves the golden rule of do unto others as you would have done unto you.   There must then remain the basic principles of morality in society for society to maintain it’s virtuous code of ethics.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Socrates gives many examples of when a man is injured then he in turn must not injure, for here is the principle of a moral society, and the society in which Plato was integral.   Socrates is continually requesting of Crito whether or not it is right to do evil.   For, Socrates states, that doing evil in return damages not only the man, but also the society in which the man presides.   It is therefore unjust to do evil, for committing evil is the same as injuring man, and by extension, the State.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Though the difference of partnership and dominator society is both prevalent in Plato’s Crito the difference can also be subjective.   So, subjectively speaking there is a definite sense of the dominator society in Socrates adherence to their death sentence for him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Though Socrates’ philosophy dictates that the State has to maintain control in order for morality to support society, Plato’s partnership with the State is deceived by the phallic nature of human’s innate aptitude for error.   If the State is made up of individuals, and in Plato’s own writings, man is presumable good, or at least strives to be good, the objective reader must not misinterpret this to mean that man will always be good.   In the absolute of this believe there can exist no room for fluctuation, and it is within the nature of humanity to be inconsistent, fallible, and wrong.   Therefore, Socrates is misguided in the State, for the State is within reason imperfect for its members are human.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The State, according to Socrates is holier than father and mother for they beget father and mother and all generations.   It is because of the State that humanity exists, but it is also with the State that human nature is best exampled as dichotomized.   The State and humanity are both good and bad, capable of very evil and wicked deeds as well as   adhering to moral laws.   Plato is optimistic with Socrates, or Socrates was a very gullible man who professed to the rightness involved with the State because he was a man who liked control and not chaos.   With an objective mind, there must exist both sides of the spectrum, both control and chaos so that society can function.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The dominator societies were about autocratic power and partnership societies were about shared responsibility.   Socrates placed his faith in not the masses but the one ‘man’ that was full of wisdom; that is, the State, Plato writes, Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable, as I was just now saying, and as has been already acknowledged by us? Are all our former admissions which were made within a few days to be thrown away? And have we, at our age, been earnestly discoursing with one another all our life long only to discover that we are no better than children? Or are we to rest assured, in spite of the opinion of the many, and in spite of consequences whether better or worse, of the truth of what was then said, that injustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts unjustly? Shall we affirm that? Crito says yes, injustice is evil, and those who oppose the dictation of the State are acting with dishonor.   Socrates forgets in his delusions of morality that the State is not always guided by such moral virtue, and that in its compromise of this, becomes evil.   In current worldviews, there is a definite dissatisfaction in the governing of certain states, such as mass genocide, child crimes, etc, and if a person is to believe fully in Socrates and Plato’s philosophy the State is just in such action. Work Cited MacDonald, Ross.   Socrates versus Plato.   Aspects of Education.   P9-22.   1996. Plato.   Phaedo.     Ã‚   Plato.   Crito.   Translated by Benjamin Jowett.   < http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html>

What liquid will cause metals to corrode or rust faster

I have decided to base my experiment on four different types of metals and four different liquids. I will be using a penny, nail, paper clip and a needle as my four metals. My four liquids will be vinegar, beach, lemon water and salt water. To get started, the metal contents should be established. Today’s pennies are mostly made of zinc with a thin layer of copper overcoating. A nail is a form of carbon steel or black iron. Paper clips are made from a low grade steel. A needle is made from stainless steel. Examining the liquids and lemon juice is a citric acid. It should have corrosive actions on some of the metals, but not all. I believe that it will not affect this penny, except to clean it and shine it. I don’t think it will affect the paper clip either. I think that the only way it will have any affect on the needle or paper clip, will be if they were damaged or scratched. Corrosion would be caused If that were the case. I also think there were not to be any corrosion to the nail with lemon juice. Vinegar water is used to clean things. Related article: Vinegar Battery Review of Related Literature I don’t think the vinegar will rust a eedle, paper clip, nail, or penny the fastest. There will be a minimal affect on The steel material. The carbonation of water, vinegar and oxygen on the air will form iron oxide on the nail, the scientific name for rust. Vinegar will remove any corrosion and clean the penny. Bleach is a chloride, like vinegar, I think the affects will be minimal on Most of the metals. Since bleach contains oxygen, it would be most likely the liquids to rust the nail the fastest. The affect on the penny will be more like a cleaning agent, like vinegar and lemon uice, than as a corrosive. I think that salt water will be the best Corrosive liquid. Salt water will cause corrosion faster because the salt will act as a catalyst steel up the change and erode the materials. I feel it would corrode all of the metals. The needle may be the only metal it may not affect it, like some other liquids, it may not rush unless the metal has been scratched deep. In conclusion, I think that salt water will be the most corrosive liquid and the nail made from carbon steel will be the most corrosive metal, in the least amount if time.