David Pham Tran Essays (824 words) - Bacteriology, Rooms, Bacteria

David Pham Tran Essays (824 words) - Bacteriology, Rooms, Bacteria David Pham Tran Biology 10H Block 1 DRAFT OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS RESULTS The purpose of this experiment was to test the colony counts of bacteria after growing them in the same amount of time. The independent variables of this project were the different locations in school that bacteria were being collected from. The locations were the doorknob at the staircase, the doorknob in the biology room, the bathroom sink, the bathroom toilet, the cafeteria table, the cafeteria railing, the water fountain, the locker combination, the floor of the biology room, and the hallway floor. The dependent variable was the number of colonies that grew from the bacteria. The control group is was the cafeteria table since it was constantly wiped. Quantitative data was used in this experiment and the level of data was ordinal. The ANOVA test was used to do the statistical analysis of the data. The means for the bacteria colonies of each location were respectively as follows: 32.6 for the staircase doorknob, 32.2 for the biology room doorknob, 44.2 for the bathroom sink, 32.2 f or the bathroom toilet, 28 for the cafeteria table, 15 for the railing in the cafeteria, 30.6 for the water fountain, 21.8 for the locker combination, 24 for the biology room floor, 15.8 for the hallway floor. The null hypothesis was if the different locations in school have no effect on the colony counts of the bacteria, then the averages of colonies will be slightly the same. The p-value of this experiment was 0.05, approximately 0.033. Due to the p-value the null hypothesis was rejected. The alternative hypothesis was if bacteria are collected from different locations in school, then the colony counts of bacteria will be the same. The results of this experiment did not support the alternative hypothesis. As shown below in Table 1: The Counts Of Colony Depend On The Locations In School, the standard variations were the following: 7.89 for the staircase doorknob, 11.5 for the biology room doorknob, 26.8 for the bathroom sink, 10.0 for the cafeteria table, 12.2 for the bathroom toil et, 8.63 for the cafeteria railing, 13.9 for the water fountain, 8.41 for the locker combination, 14.0 for the biology room floor, and 9.68 for the hallway floor. As shown in Graph 1: The Average Counts of Colony, the average counts of colony were shown as following: 32.6 for staircase doorknob, 32.2 for biology room doorknob, 44.2 for bathroom sink, 28 for cafeteria table, 32.2 bathroom toilet, 15 for cafeteria railing, 30.6 for water fountain, 20.8 for locker combination, 24 for biology room floor, 15.8 for hallway floor. TABLE 1: THE COUNTS OF COLONY DEPEND ON THE LOCATIONS IN SCHOOL Descriptive Information Staircase doorknob Biology room doorknob Bathroom sink Cafeteria table Bathroom toilet Mean Standard Deviation Number 32.6 7.89 5 32.2 11.5 5 44.2 26.8 5 28.0 10.0 5 32.2 12.2 5 *Continue of the previous table due to lack of space Descriptive Information Cafeteria railing Water fountain Locker combination Biology room floor Hallway floor Mean Standard Deviation Number 15.0 8.63 5 30.6 13.9 5 20.8 8.41 5 24.0 14.0 5 15.8 9.68 5 Results of ANOVA *(This include both of the previous tables) Between groups F= 2.319 p0.01 (0.033) df= 49 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this experiment was to test the colony counts of bacteria after growing them in the same amount of time. The alternative hypothesis that the colony counts of the bacteria would be slightly the same even though they were collected from different locations was rejected. The reason why the results did not support the alternative hypothesis was because the colony counts of the bacteria turned out to be very different. The highest number of colony found in one petri dish was 84 and the lowest was 6. Only 3 out of 10 group average were in the range of 30 to 35 and only one group average was higher than 40. These results above were not enough to support the alternative hypothesis. To support the alternative hypothesis 7 out of 10 groups had to have the average in the same range. The independent variable (the different locations that bacteria were collected from) had this effect on the dependent variable (colonies) was because it depended on how dirty the locations were. If on e location was extremely dirty like the bathroom sink or toilet, the more bacteria will be collected and the more colonies will grow. According to the literature review, bacteria would need at least 24 hours to be visible. The bacteria were ensured to be visible and develop as many colonies by leaving

Socratic Dialogue Definition and Examples

Socratic Dialogue Definition and Examples In rhetoric, Socratic dialogue is an argument (or series of arguments) using the question-and-answer method employed by Socrates in Platos Dialogues. Also known as  Platonic dialogue. Susan Koba and Anne Tweed describe Socratic dialogue as the conversation that results from the Socratic method, a discussion process during which a facilitator promotes independent, reflective, and critical thinking (Hard-to-Teach Biology Concepts, 2009). Examples and Observations The Socratic dialogue or the Platonic dialogue usually begins with Socrates professing ignorance of the subject matter. He asks questions of the other characters, the result being a fuller understanding of the subject. The dialogues are usually named after the key person interrogated by Socrates, as in Protagoras where this famous Sophist is questioned about his views on rhetoric. The dialogue has obvious relations to both dramatic form and argumentation. In the dialogues, the characters speak in ways appropriate not only to their own views, but to their speaking styles as well. Lane Cooper points out four elements of the dialogues: The plot or movement of the conversation, the agents in their moral aspect (ethos), the reasoning of the agents (dianoia), and their style or diction (lexis).The dialogues are also a form of dialectical reasoning, a branch of logic focusing on reasoning in philosophical matters where absolute certainty may be unattainable but where truth is pursued to a h igh degree of probability. (James J. Murphy and Richard A. Katula, A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003) The Socratic Method in Business[S]he could see that he was trying to teach the other men, to coax and persuade them to look at the factorys operations in a new way. He would have been surprised to be told it, but he used the Socratic method: he prompted the other directors and the middle managers and even the foremen to identify the problems themselves and to reach by their own reasoning the solutions he had himself already determined upon. It was so deftly done that she had sometimes to temper her admiration by reminding herself that it was all directed by the profit motive ... (David Lodge, Nice Work. Viking, 1988) The Socratic Method, According to H.F. Ellis What is the argument of the Idealist School of Philosophy against the absolute existence, or externality, of the objects of experience? A question of this kind is best answered by the Socratic Method, an admirable arrangement whereby you call yourself Philosopher and your opponent, who has no will of his own, Man in the Street or Thrasymachus. The argument then proceeds thus. Philosopher: You will, I suppose, agree that the Understanding, through the same operations whereby in conceptions, by means of analytical unity, it produced the logical form of a judgement, introduces, by means of the synthetical unity of the manifold in intuition, a transcendental content into its representations, on which account they are called pure conceptions of the understanding? Thrasymachus: Yes, I agree. Philosopher: And further, is it not true that the mind fails in some cases to distinguish between actual and merely potential existence? Thrasymachus: It is true. Philosopher: Then S is P must be true of all predicative judgements? Thrasymachus: Certainly. Philosopher: And A is not -A? Thrasymachus: It is not. Philosopher: So that every judgment may be taken either intensively or extensively Thrasymachus: Indubitably. Philosopher: And this is through the activity of the apperceptive unity of self-consciousness, sometimes called cognition? Thrasymachus: Indisputably. Philosopher: Which arranges the phenomena of the sense-manifold in accordance with the principles of a primitive synthesis? Thrasymachus: Incontrovertibly. Philosopher: And these principles are the Categories? Thrasymachus: Yeah! Philosopher: Thus the universal is real and self-existent, and the particular only a quality of the understanding. So, in the end, your opinion is found to coincide with mine, and we agree that there is no a priori necessity for the continued existence of unperceived phenomena? Thrasymachus: No. My opinion is that you are talking a lot of balderdash and ought to be locked up. Am I not right? Philosopher: I suppose you are. It will be observed that the Socratic Method is not infallible, especially when dealing with Thrasymachus.(Humphry Francis Ellis, So This Is Science! Methuen, 1932) Example of a Socratic Dialogue: Excerpt From Gorgias Socrates: I see, from the few words which Polus has uttered, that he has attended more to the art which is called rhetoric than to dialectic. Polus: What makes you say so, Socrates? Socrates: Because, Polus, when Chaerephon asked you what was the art which Gorgias knows, you praised it as if you were answering someone who found fault with it, but you never said what the art was. Polus: Why, did I not say that it was the noblest of arts? Socrates: Yes, indeed, but that was no answer to the question: nobody asked what was the quality, but what was the nature, of the art, and by what name we were to describe Gorgias. And I would still beg you briefly and clearly, as you answered Chaerephon when he asked you at first, to say what this art is, and what we ought to call Gorgias: Or rather, Gorgias, let me turn to you, and ask the same question, what are we to call you, and what is the art which you profess? Gorgias: Rhetoric, Socrates, is my art. Socrates: Then I am to call you a rhetorician? Gorgias: Yes, Socrates, and a good one too, if you would call me that which, in Homeric language, I boast myself to be. Socrates: I should wish to do so. Gorgias: Then pray do. Socrates: And are we to say that you are able to make other men rhetoricians? Gorgias: Yes, that is exactly what I profess to make them, not only at Athens, but in all places. Socrates: And will you continue to ask and answer questions, Gorgias, as we are at present doing and reserve for another occasion the longer mode of speech which Polus was attempting? Will you keep your promise, and answer shortly the questions which are asked of you? Gorgias: Some answers, Socrates, are of necessity longer; but I will do my best to make them as short as possible; for a part of my profession is that I can be as short as any one. Socrates: That is what is wanted, Gorgias; exhibit the shorter method now, and the longer one at some other time. Gorgias: Well, I will; and you will certainly say, that you never heard a man use fewer words. Socrates: Very good then; as you profess to be a rhetorician, and a maker of rhetoricians, let me ask you, with what is rhetoric concerned: I might ask with what is weaving concerned, and you would reply (would you not?), with the making of garments? Gorgias: Yes. Socrates: And music is concerned with the composition of melodies? Gorgias: It is. Socrates: By Here, Gorgias, I admire the surpassing brevity of your answers. Gorgias: Yes, Socrates, I do think myself good at that. Socrates: I am glad to hear it; answer me in like manner about rhetoric: with what is rhetoric concerned? Gorgias: With discourse. Socrates: What sort of discourse, Gorgiassuch discourse as would teach the sick under what treatment they might get well? Gorgias: No. Socrates: Then rhetoric does not treat of all kinds of discourse? Gorgias: Certainly not. Socrates: And yet rhetoric makes men able to speak? Gorgias: Yes. Socrates: And to understand that about which they speak? Gorgias: Of course... Socrates: Come, then, and let us see what we really mean about rhetoric; for I do not know what my own meaning is as yet. When the assembly meets to elect a physician or a shipwright or any other craftsman, will the rhetorician be taken into counsel? Surely not. For at every election he ought to be chosen who is most skilled; and, again, when walls have to be built or harbours or docks to be constructed, not the rhetorician but the master workman will advise; or when generals have to be chosen and an order of battle arranged, or a proposition taken, then the military will advise and not the rhetoricians: what do you say, Gorgias? Since you profess to be a rhetorician and a maker of rhetoricians, I cannot do better than learn the nature of your art from you. And here let me assure you that I have your interest in view as well as my own. For likely enough some one or other of the young men present might desire to become your pupil, and in fact I see some, and a good many too, who have this wish, but they would be too modest to question you. And therefore when you are interrogated by me, I would have you imagine that you are interrogated by them. What is the use of coming to you, Gorgias? they will say. About what will you teach us to advise the state?about the just and unjust only, or about those other things also which Socrates has just mentioned? How will you answer them? Gorgias: I like your way of leading us on, Socrates, and I will endeavour to reveal to you the whole nature of rhetoric.(from Part One of Gorgias by Plato, c. 380 BC. Translated by Benjamin Jowett) Gorgias shows us that pure Socratic dialogue is, indeed, not possible anywhere or at any time by showing us the structural, material, and existential realities of power that disable the mutually beneficial search for truth. (Christopher Rocco, Tragedy and Enlightenment: Athenian Political Thought, and the Dilemmas of Modernity. University of California Press, 1997) The Lighter Side of Socratic Dialogues: Socrates and His Publicist, Jackie At lunch, Socrates voiced his misgivings.Should I be doing all of this? he asked. I mean, is the unexamined life even worthAre you being serious? interrupted Jackie. Do you want to be a star philosopher or do you want to go back to waiting tables?Jackie was one of the few people who really knew how to handle Socrates, usually by cutting him off and answering his questions with a question of her own. And, as always, she managed to convince Socrates that she was right and avoid being fired. Socrates listened to her, then paid for both of their lunches and went right back to work.It was shortly after that fateful lunch that the backlash began. Socratess constant questions had become intolerable to many of the Greek elite. Still, as his Publicist had promised, he had become a brand. Imitators all over Athens were now practicing the new Socratic Method. More and more young people were asking each other questions and doing it with Socratess patented smart-assy tone.A few days later, Socrat es was brought to trial and charged with corrupting the youth.(Demetri Marti, Socratess Publicist. This Is a Book. Grand Central, 2011)

Manhattan Project Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Manhattan Project - Research Paper Example The success of this project advanced both scientific concepts but changed the potential nature of warfare for the rest of time. Still, today, the threat of such bombs, along with any other Weapons of Mass Destruction, remains a terrifying apocalyptic fear shared by people all over the world. In order to understand how we moved into the â€Å"Atomic Age† it is best to discuss how it all began; the answer might be surprising to some people. It all began with a letter to President Roosevelt from Albert Einstein in August of 1939. He, along with other European scientists, feared that Nazi Germany was exploring atomic technology; in fact, they were already working to purify uranium-235. This is one of the potential radioactive components necessary to create an atomic weapon (Bellis 1-2). Einstein and the other scientists were opposed to Nazi Fascism and were afraid of Nazi Germany developing this technology, primarily because they believed a tyrant like Hitler would not hesitate to use it. At first, Roosevelt’s reaction was not one of great concern and he worried about expending resources and finding the budget necessary might be an issue. However, after some deliberation he wrote back to Einstein. He explained that they could not risk Nazi forces gaining such a dangerous advantage and that America would be exploring atomic technology. The endeavor to accomplish this in totality makes up the Manhattan Project (Gosling 1-120). Unlike previous top secret military or government projects that used covert and misleading code-names like â€Å"Magic,† which was the covert information gained concerning Japanese ciphers and â€Å"Overlord,† which was the secret intentions of the Allied forces to invade Europe; the Manhattan project was much more literal (Broad ). It earned its name because of much of the earliest experimentation and planning began in 1941-1942 in New York at, at least, 10 different locations within the city. Robert Oppenheimer ove rsaw and participated in the project from its beginnings to its completion. Together, along with the research of some of the greatest scientific minds in history, like Einstein, Walter Bothe, Neils Bohr, and Marie Curie, they worked quickly to accomplish the completion of a functioning atomic bomb (Bellis 1-2). An atomic bomb ultimately derives its power from the release of nuclear energy at high speeds. Through the process of fission of the heavier atomic nuclei, the damage it causes results from, not only, the heat of the blast, but, also, from the radioactive elements of its design. In December of 1942 laboratory scientists were finally able to produce the controlled nuclear chain reaction. With this success, the research and the funding began to move rather quickly from there. ( Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia). Nuclear facilities were constructed in Hanford, Washington and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, while the main plant, dedicated to assembly was constructed in Los Ala mos, New Mexico (Gao 9-11). By the summer of 1945 Oppenheimer was prepared to test the first atomic bomb detonation; the hard work of, more than 100,000 people and at the cost of, more than 2 billion dollars of government supports brought them to this day ( Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia).On July 16, just before dawn, at the Trinity site, not

College application Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

College application - Essay Example Indeed there are many good schools competing with each other for a student’s education and training but an enrollee has to consider also that he himself has competitors in the business so that it becomes crucial to him to consider the school he must enroll in. The internet opens one’s knowledge of the different schools and poses a greater challenge for the choosing of a good school because every school claims to be the best. However, such a problem can be made easy to solve by defining a person’s abilities, capabilities, limitations and expectations. Personally, I have aimed to be in a school whose quality education is well known and has been tested through the years. Considering a well established school which has been in the business long enough to show its assets, strengthened by the testimonies of her graduates has been on the top of my list of criteria in looking for the school I will enroll in. Jain’s Choosing the Best Hotel Management School: The 10 Basics (thetalentjungle.com) helped me a lot in defining important criteria which one should verify when looking for the school that would best fit one’s expectations and has proved to have made considering options easier. Jain suggests students to verify information regarding official bodies that recognize the school, courses offered and levels in addition to what has been mentioned earlier about testimonies.

Bombs on Japanese Essay Example for Free

Bombs on Japanese Essay A number of analyses have been conducted on the bombing action that was carried out in the month of August the year nineteen forty five by the US on Japanese cities. This bombing was very significant since it resulted to a very large number of deaths and further effects which are still evident in some people including those caused by radiation. The main reason as to why this action has attracted a wide range to philosophical analysis is that; despite the fact that so many people died from the bombing, US government still hold it that their action was grounded on morality. They argue that they had saved greater damage from resulting from war and should be thanked rather than condemned. ETHICS ANALYSIS Introduction When Second World War was coming to an end, US grew impatient and decided to speed up its ending. US made use of atomic bombs to attack Japan which managed to kill a large Japanese population and wounding a larger number as well. This action carried out by US has been widely analyzed by philosophers with John Stuart being one of them. John has based his analysis on the bombing morality which contributes to a deeper understanding of events that took place, causes as well as effects that accompanied the action. He begins with noting that the bombing action was among the most significant events that took place during the Second World War. The actual bombing took place in two places; one was dropped in Nagasaki while the other bombing took place in Hiroshima. Two hundred thousand people died immediately the bombing was carried out while about one hundred and thirty thousand more people lost their lives in a period of five years that followed. The subsequent deaths were caused by aftermath effects of bombing including trauma and radiation. Further more, about three hundred thousand people are found to suffer from bombing effects in several ways including disability. Daniels (2008 pp 37-40) Morality of US Bombings on Japan Despite the fact that bombing caused great damage on Japan citizens, American government has not taken a moment to apologize for its devastating actions. On the contrary, Americans led by Harry Truman have opted to justify their actions giving moral reasons as to why they attacked Japan even after they had lost war. One such instance where this has happened is when Truman was writing about the issue in nineteen fifty eight where he commented that he did not have any reservations concerning the bombing. These words reached the Japanese in good time and city council of Hiroshima criticized Truman’s words noting that they signified great defilement to people affected by the bombing. Instead of declining his statement, Truman arranged a meeting where he addressed an American press conference outlining justification for bombing. He said that Japan tempted the US to act since they had attacked them at the Harbor of Pearl earlier before the bombing and this was just a â€Å"pay back†. Truman’s comments were backed by other Americans who were eager to show the morality of bombing among them being Paul Fussell, who had a disbelief in war. Paul argued that revenge from US did not represent a reasonable motive though it was still America’s motive when it was destroying Japanese Empire. Paul also point out on disbelieve on Americans who regard the nineteen forty five bombing as an action of violence that they did not support since during the actual time of bombing, almost every American was delighted. The delight did not only come from the fact that war period was shortened which saved a great number of Americans from perishing but also for the reason that Japanese deserved to be punished for attacking American troops at the harbor of Pearl. More evidence, of Americans’ delight was noted where about twenty three percent of them suggested on dropping of more bombs on Japanese. Mearsheimer (2001 pp 17-24)

Abortion Essay -- essays research papers

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America today. Abortion is the ending of pregnancy before birth. There are approximately 1.5 million abortions every year in this country. Abortion was made legal in the 1970s. However, pro-life activists argue that it is murder. Should the government have the legal power to take away a woman\'s right to make decisions regarding her own body? An abortion results in the death of an embryo or a fetus. Abortion destroys the lives of helpless, innocent children. In many countries abortion is illegal. By aborting these unborn infants, humans are hurting themselves; they are not allowing themselves to meet these new identities and unique personalities. Abortion is very simply wrong. Everyone is raised knowing the difference between right and wrong. Murder is wrong, so why is not abortion? People argue that it is not murder if the child is unborn. Abortion is murder since the fetus being destroyed is living, growing and moving. Why is it that if an infant is destroyed months before the birth, there is no problem, but if killed a month after birth, this is inhumane murder? Everyday, innocent, harmless fetuses that could soon be laughing children are being cruelly destroyed. One form of abortion is to cut the fetus into pieces with serrated forceps before being removed, piece-by-piece from the uterus by suction with a vacuum aspirator. Another form consists of bringing the fetus feet first into the birth canal, puncturing its skull with a sharp instrument and sucking out the brain tissue. The remains of the fetus or embryo, as the case may be, are put into plastic buckets and then sent to a dumpster where these precious bones and limbs are disposed. However, how and when an abortion takes place are of little significance to pro- abortionists and other defenders of abortion. Even former abortion practitioners have a new view on abortion. These changes of heart were caused by psychological, religious and scientific reasons. One doctor, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, performed 60,000 abortions and supervised 10,000. Scientific evidence and the use of an ultrasound convinced him he was promoting and participating what he now calls â€Å"the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States.† Other doctors refuse to perform legal abortions, saying they should save lives rather than destroy them. Abortion becomes particu... ... life movement will win, because when you hold up a picture of a six month old fetus being stabbed in the neck and all you say is ’choice, choice, choice’ you are going to loose.† In conclusion, a women’s right to choose can justify abortion, but it should be banned because it\'s immoral and life begins at conception. Women have been given the right to have an abortion under the United States Constitution, but this right is still being protested by the people that fight for the unborn\'s rights. It is immoral because it is simply defined as murder. Life begins at conception not at birth. Before a child is born it is given all its supplies to survive. Before birth the child’s heart beats, all its necessary organs have been made present, and gastric juices flow in the stomach. This is a child that dreams, feels pain, and thinks. Some women may look at having an abortion to solve personal conflicts, but in all, women that chose abortion are abandoning their strengths of creation, compassion, and ability to be a mother. After evaluating each side, especially that of the pro-choice movement, and debating each side, I feel pro-life is the movement I st ick with in most circumstances.

Leadership Management of the Virgin Group Essay

Change is the only constant in the world so when the world changes it is a must for an organisation to have the pace of change, to anticipate a success ahead. Virgin Atlantic has undergone many changes as the case in 1999 49% of Virgin Atlantic’s stake was sold to Singapore Airlines to have a partnership. (virginatlanbtic, 2010) and there was another change in 2008 where Virgin Atlantic started to use bio fuel instead of jet fuel(Virgin Atlantic,2011). When the organization faces challenges like these different situations, leadership styles canadapted to address the challenge. When Virgin Atlantic sold its 49% of stake to Singapore Airlines, it made the following challenges of merging, because now Virgin Atlantic is not fully authorized to change issues of it, it had to rely on Singapore Airlines too, so it can’t adapt an autocratic or bureaucratic leadership style, it should adapt the democratic where each party’s opinion is considered in the process of Virgin Atlantic. Since Richard Branson is a charismatic leader (Grant, 2004). He can easily adapt to any leadership style as it is required by the joint venture. In the case of bio fuel usage too the condition is the same. Being democratic the leader listens to the opinions from others too when there is an issue and can tell them the importance of change for an instance the bio fuel usage reduces green house gas emission in the environment, so it is an environmentally friendly activity. Task 2. 1 Virgin Atlantic is one of the successful products of The virgin Group whose organisational culture is quite complex, because this specific organisation has got more than 100 companies with often completely unrelated products. The Virgin Atlantic was too launched to expand the brand value of The Virgin Group, so having an understanding about The Virgin Group tells what kind of organisational strategy is followed in the Virgin Atlantic. It tries to create the loyalty of the customers; the innovative management inspires the employees to be actively engaged in the organisation (http://ivythesis. typepad. com/term_paper_topics/2010/07/case-study-richard-branson-and-the-virgin-group-of-companies-. html, 2010). Many leadership theories have influence over such organisational strategy of Virgin Atlantic. The transformational leadership can have positive impact on the development of the organisation. The possibility of having transformational leadership is assured where all united together as an organisation with sense of commitment (Naughtin), since Virgin Atlantic has a team work with the involvement of each employee, this leaderships favours the health of its organisational strategy, because here the group works under a common goal like increasing the image of Virgin Group in the world, which definitely increases the overall efficiency. Transactional leadership is something different from transformational, in transactional leadership personal performance of leadership is mainly concerned ,which can lead to greed and lack of team work. According to the organisational behaviour pattern of Virgin Atlantic this leadership theory won’t work well because, although the chairman is Richard Branson, he is not one, but million ones together who has the interest on Virgin Atlantic. So this style rarely helps to increase the performance of Virgin Atlantic. Task 2. 2 As stated above the vision of Virgin Atlantic is â€Å"to grow a profitable airline where people love to fly, and where people love to work†. Virgin Group has gone far in achieving this, but to be the one of the leading world’s airline, the organisation should have a realistic strategy with many features, that supports the direction of the organisation. Being a transformational and charismatic leader (Richard Branson) is the best to navigate Virgin Atlantic in the path of success (Virgin Atlantic, 2011).

How does Austen use contrasting characters in Pride and Prejudice? Essay

How does Austen use contrasting characters in Pride and Prejudice? (Part B question) Jane Austen uses contrasting characters in ‘Pride and Prejudice’ to highlight her characters traits, both good and bad, and comparing them to others, and by doing this she can shape the plot of the novel. One obvious contrast in the novel is that of Mr Wickham and Mr Darcy and is used to build tension in the plot and convey Jane Austen’s message of being too judgemental. When we, and the characters of the novel, are introduced to Wickham for the first time we see him in an extremely good light because of the overwhelmingly positive description of his ‘gentlemanlike appearance’, ‘perfectly correct and unassuming’ manners and everyone in the communities good opinion of him. This contrasts to when we first meet to Darcy who is instantly ‘discovered to be proud, to be above his company and above being pleased’. This is judged by Elizabeth as well as the whole community; the effect of this is that as a reader we are instantly prejudiced against him and have a very low opinion of his character from the start. However this view is challenged by Austen’s use of a casual narrator that can switch from the, more usual, point of view of Elizabeth to the view of the Bingly’s and Mr Darcy at Netherfield, which shows Darcy in a better light than we previously saw him. We go from hearing his outrageously rude manners at the ball; saying ‘there is not another woman in the room whom it would not be a punishment to [him] to stand up with’ to the narrator informing us that ‘he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her fine eyes’. However the most drastic alteration of our view of him comes in Volume two of the novel, when we find out about Wickham’s true character and how much of a fraud he is, and the repercussions of this for the Darcy and Bennet families. Austen uses these characters and their contrasts in order to highlight one of the main themes of the novel; first impressions (which was originally going to be the name of the novel) and how wrong they can be, because after judging Darcy and Wickham at two ends of the spectrum with little information, the reader, and the characters, find out that actually, not only were we wrong, but they turn out to be exact opposites of who we expected, and the significance of this is shown to us by the drastic effect on the plot-line that the characters judgements have. Another influential character contrast that Austen creates is that of Jane and Elizabeth Bennet. This contrast is important to the novel because it highlights the other main theme and message that Austen is putting across; Pride and Prejudice. In the novel Elizabeth is a drastic contrast to her sister Jane because of the prejudice attitudes she shows throughout when she judges people, and sometimes rightly, on her first impressions, and then it too proud to change these opinions, until it is too late; in the case of Wickham and Lydia. This is shown to us from the very start of the novel although we do not immediately pick up on the dangers of this. Elizabeth first shows her pride when she says that Darcy’s pride ‘had mortified [hers]’ when he called her ‘tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt [him]’, and she holds this against him for the majority of the rest of the book. She is also very sceptical of the Bingly sisters from the very start, although she knows little about them besides her judgement that ‘their behaviour at the assembly had not been calculated to please’. This contrasts to Jane’s blind trust of everybody, which, although sometimes proves itself a bad thing, it does show that she is a far kinder person than Elizabeth, always thinking the best of people; ‘to take good of everybody’s character and make it still better, and say nothing of the bad – belongs to [Jane] alone’. Sometimes her judgement is portrayed to us as a positive aspect of Lizzy, showing she is smart; for example when she deduces Collins’ character after just reading his letter, however it goes to extremes though the novel; for example when she believes Wickham’s twisted story of Darcy because she has already judged Darcy badly for the sole reason that he insulted her when they first met. Occasions like this, when Jane ‘would not wish to be hasty in censuring anyone’ portray Austen’s message that we should not judge people on our first impressions, or hold our pride against them, and show us her clever use of contrasting characters to develop theme.

Siddhartha essays

Siddhartha essays What do you get when you cross a novel with a spiritual guide to life? Hermann Hesses Siddhartha. The book is the life story of a man who has one lofty goal: to become enlightened. He was born the son of a Brahmin, a member of the highest social class. Yet he was unhappy with the teachings of the Brahmins, so instead of remaining one of them and becoming a priest, he became a wandering ascetic (a Samana), then a merchant, then a ferryman, seeking some sort of enlightenment every step of the way. Eventually, at the end of his life, he reached enlightenment, but only after a lifetime of diligently following divergent paths. Siddhartha had to take so many different paths in his life because he didnt really know what he was searching for. His goal was enlightenment. But what is enlightenment? That was the question that he never asked himself. He was searching for something undefined, something that is indescribable. He had a general idea of what it was, and he had a general idea of how to get it, but however hard he tried, whatever path he took, it never seemed to come any closer. As a Brahmin, something was bothering him. He felt unfulfilled, like his life was empty. The Brahmins...knew a tremendous number of things but was it worth while knowing all these things if they did not know the one important thing, the only important thing? He knew that he could not attain enlightenment as one of them, so he joined the Samanas, thinking that they were on the right path. But after three years with them, he was able to realize that they werent going anywhere either. I believe that amongst all the Samanas, probably not even one will attain Nirvana. He had heard rumors of a man who had become enlightened, and so he left the Samanas with his friend Govinda, and went to seek out Buddha, the enlightened one. There, he acknowledged Buddhas transcendence but disagreed with his teachings. ...

Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism

Patriarchal Society Defined According to Feminism Definition: Patriarchal (adj.) describes a general structure in which men have power over women. Society (n.) is the entirety of relations of a community. A patriarchal society consists of a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships. Power is related to privilege.  In a system in which men have more power than women, men have some level of privilege to which women are not entitled. The concept of patriarchy has been central to many feminist theories.  It is an attempt to explain the stratification of power and privilege by gender that can be observed by many objective measures. A patriarchy, from the ancient Greek patriarches, was a society where power was held by and passed down through the elder males. When modern historians and sociologists describe a patriarchal society, they mean that men hold the positions of power and have more privilege: head of the family unit, leaders of social groups, boss in the workplace, and heads of government. In patriarchy, there is also a hierarchy among the men.  In traditional patriarchy, the elder men had power over the younger generations of men.  In modern patriarchy, some men hold more power (and privilege) by virtue of the position of authority, and this hierarchy of power (and privilege) is considered acceptable. The term comes from  pater  or father.  Father or father-figures hold the authority in a patriarchy. Traditional patriarchal societies are, usually, also patrilineal - titles and property are inherited through male lines.  (For an example of this, the Salic Law as applied to property and titles followed male lines strictly.) Feminist Analysis Feminist theorists have expanded the definition of patriarchal society to describe a systemic bias against women. As second-wave feminists examined society during the 1960s, they did observe households headed by women and female leaders. They were, of course, concerned with whether this was uncommon. More significant, however, was the way society perceived women in power as an exception to a collectively held view of womens role in society. Rather than saying that individual men oppressed women, most feminists saw that oppression of women came from the underlying bias of a patriarchal society. Gerda Lerners Analysis of Patriarchy Gerda Lerners 1986 history classic,  The Creation of Patriarchy, traces the development of the patriarchy to the second millennium B.C.E. in the middle east, putting gender relations at the center of the story of civilizations history.  She argues that before this development, male dominance was not a feature of human society in general.  Women were key to the maintenance of human society and community, but with a few exceptions, social and legal power was wielded by men. Women could gain some status and privilege in patriarchy by limiting her child-bearing capacity to just one man so that he could depend on her children being his children. By rooting patriarchy - a social organization where men rule over women - in historical developments, rather than in nature, human nature or biology, she also opens the door for change.  If patriarchy was created by culture, it can be overturned by a new culture.  Ã‚   Part of her theory carried through into another volume, The Creation of Feminist Consciousness, is that women were not conscious that they were subordinate (and it might be otherwise) until this consciousness began slowly to emerge, starting with medieval Europe. In an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove on Thinking Aloud, Lerner described her work on the subject of patriarchy: Other groups that were subordinated in history - peasants, slaves, colonials, any kind of group, ethnic minorities - all of those groups knew very quickly that they were subordinated, and they developed theories about their liberation, about their rights as human beings, about what kind of struggle to conduct in order to emancipate themselves. But women did not, and so that was the question that I really wanted to explore. And in order to understand it I had to understand really whether patriarchy was, as most of us have been taught, a natural, almost God-given condition, or whether it was a human invention coming out of a specific historic period. Well, in Creation of Patriarchy I think I show that it was indeed a human invention; it was created by human beings, it was created by men and women, at a certain given point in the historical development of the human race. It was probably appropriate as a solution for the problems of that time, which was the Bronze Age, but its no longe r appropriate, all right? And the reason we find it so hard, and we have found it so hard, to understand it and to combat it, is that it was institutionalized before Western civilization really, as we know it, was, so to speak, invented, and the process of creating patriarchy was really well completed by the time that the idea systems of Western civilization were formed. Some Quotes About Feminism and Patriarchy From bell hooks: Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and practice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving. Also from bell hooks:  We have to constantly critique imperialist white supremacist patriarchal culture because it is normalized by mass media and rendered unproblematic. From Mary Daly: The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a [person] trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin. From Andrea Dworkin: Being female in this world means having been robbed of the potential for human choice by men who love to hate us. One does not make choices in freedom. Instead, one conforms in body type and behavior and values to become an object of male sexual desire, which requires an abandonment of a wide-ranging capacity for choice... From Maria Mies, author of  Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale, linking the division of labor under capitalism to the division of the sexes: Peace in patriarchy is war against women. From Yvonne Aburrow: The patriarchal/kyriarchal/hegemonic culture seeks to regulate and control the body – especially women’s bodies, and especially black women’s bodies – because women, especially black women, are constructed as the Other, the site of resistance to the kyriarchy. Because our existence provokes fear of the Other, fear of wildness, fear of sexuality, fear of letting go – our bodies and our hair (traditionally hair is a source of magical power) must be controlled, groomed, reduced, covered, suppressed. From Ursula Le Guin: Civilized Man says: I am Self, I am Master, all the rest is otheroutside, below, underneath, subservient. I own, I use, I explore, I exploit, I control. What I do is what matters. What I want is what matter is for. I am that I am, and the rest is women wilderness, to be used as I see fit. From Kate Millett: Patriarchy, reformed or unreformed, is patriarchy still: its worst abuses purged or foresworn, it might actually be more stable and secure than before. From Adrienne Rich,  Of Woman Born:  Ã¢â‚¬Å"There is nothing revolutionary whatsoever about the control of womens bodies by men. The womans body is the terrain on which patriarchy is erected.†

MidTerm Two Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

MidTerm Two - Term Paper Example Plato on the other side argues that the best rational political order leads to harmony and unity in a society. He says that behaviors of people determine the outcomes of any political endeavor. If dialogue is initiated, then there is the belief that there would be some political order (Kennedy 152). Plato insists that justice is the best character that leads to a political order. Plato’s argument seems to be best since it urges people to prepare and ensure that everything is in order before politics is initiated. On the other hand, Aristotle argues that only the happy and virtuous people can participate in politics. For both ideas of Aristotle and Machiavelli, there is belief in a spectrum of some diverse categories for exercising social development and organization. Both believe that social organization can function as an on-going negotiation of time among the individuals with desperate aims. It can also function as a partnership that aims at persuading common goals (Gross et al.