Mid-term Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Mid-term Paper - Essay Example This way of conceptualization of the past is has increasingly been used in a number of field sciences such as geology and biology. In archaeology, uniformitarianism is one of the major concepts that have always been widely used to conceptualize the past. For example, many archaeologists believe that the contemporary natural laws and other processes in the universe have always operated in the past as they are today. Uniformitarianism is a theory on the gentle, natural progressions that were experimental on the landscape. It suggested that ice could corrode rocks and sediments as well could accrue and form various new terrestrial land forms in the earth (David, 341). Consequently uniformitarianism is currently widely used as the key principle in a number of fields of sciences such as geology and archaeology. The other ways that have widely been used to conceptualize the past include catostrophism, transmutation and gradualism. Tthe concept of gradualism as used in archaeology is based on the theory that gradual changes occur over time. The theory of uniformitarianism particularly suggested that landscape development occurred over long periods of time as a result of a number of gradual geomorphic and geologic processes. It shows that the present is the key to the past and it was a direct denunciation to the predominant philosophy of the time, catastrophism which held that only violent adversities could adjust the outward of the world. Generally the concepts of uniformitarianism, gradualism, and catostrophism among others have widely been used not only to conceptualize the past but also to help understand the important geological processes that have occurred in the universe and how such processes have influenced events (Baker, 243). Time plays a significant role in all the three concepts and archaeologists have discovered a number of pieces of evidence to support some of these ideas and concepts. How uniformitarianism is used in the conceptualization of the past Ge ologists, Historians and archaeologists often study the remains of the past gologic activity as well as the records of the ancient human civilizations to provide evidence of the specific time and of such activities in history. The concept of uniformitarianism has been widely used by scientists not only to help in the reconstruction of the history of the earth but also to create a timeline of events throughout the history. According to Browman and Douglas (88), black rocks with porous surfaces can be used by geologists as an evidence of the past events. It is however worth noticing that although the idea that there are uniform laws governing the processes of nature, it is often difficult to prove beyond uncertainty what actually took place in the past. In archaeology, the concept of uniformitarianism is rather a process of making an educated guess based on objective and observational evidence found in the material remains. Today, many archaeologists suggest the continuing uniformity of the universal processes can be used as a framework to understand how landforms and some aspects of nature come to be. This is particularly based on the assumption that the processes currently taking place are the same processes that actually took

Disuss being and non-being in lao-zi's concept (老子) Essay

Disuss being and non-being in lao-zi's concept (è€ Ã¥ ­ ) - Essay Example Since nobody knew the name, they called it Tao – the mystery of mysteries. According to the Western culture there is a division between subject and object and prevents the subject from realizing the inner self. Material desires keep mounting and this affects efficiency leading to social problems. LaoZi’s idea of non-being can lessen such desires and enable people to develop with equilibrium. According to this philosophy, ‘being’ is not normal whereas ‘non-being’ is normal. ‘Being’ is not constant; there is continuous movement. ‘Non-being; is actually the denial of ‘being’. ‘Being’ is not limited to concrete material forms but includes abstract ideas and theories. The cosmic process consists of first by giving birth to all things by Dao and then the process of returning all things to Dao. Nonbeing (wu) and being (you) can be seen as the two ontological moments through which the dao manifests itself. From the state of nothingness, from the state of non-being, some forms are realized in the form of being. Hence to become being is to take the form of body. The realm of being comes rarely but the realm of non-being is much richer (Shen, n.d.). Human beings have great potential. Laozi says they should cherish what they have but always remain open to the unfathomable possibilities because the origin is the non-being. In the realm of being, all beings are constituted of opposites, you and wu being one such pair of opposites. You and wu can be analyzed on three different levels of meaning. In the first level, ontologically, you means the real, the actual, the being; wu means non-being, the potential or the possible. Spiritually you means fulfillment and constraint whereas wu means transcendence and freedom. Thirdly, you also means full, presence, whereas wu means void or absence. Non-being or nothingness is the natural state. This state is simply Dao to LaoZi.

Modern and Contemporary Essay Example for Free

Modern and Contemporary Essay This paper deals with two things in relation to pantheism: first a few samples of the contemporary literature, which argue very little and unpersuasively, However, two major historical theorists of pantheism, Spinoza and his later follower, Schelling, serve to rescue the theory and place it on a firmer, more scientific ground. Pantheism has taken many forms throughout its history, and no one definition will suffice to take in all particular manifestations of this phenomenon. One of the main disconnects concerning pantheism as an ontology is to what extent Pantheism can be called a religion: this is the real issue. The modern, contemporary pantheists seem to have no religion whatsoever: no God, no doctrine. The contemporary readings on this question seem to â€Å"socialize† the vague â€Å"interconnections of all living things. † (Russell, 2008, 2). To merely attach a vague feeling of the â€Å"sacred† to a purely secular view of natural interconnections is not to create a religion. And hence, the problem. One might take the view that there are generally two forms of pantheism over time: the modish, trendy version that seeks to sacralize the secular phenomenon of nature, and a far more sophisticated form of pantheism made famous by Baruch Spinoza and his later pupil (of sorts) Friedrich Schelling. Both of these questions will be dealt with in this paper. First, we will deal with the contemporary readings on this subject, and then, the far more substantial questions of pantheism brought up by the Dutch philosopher. Standing in the Light is a book that says very little. It is heavy in vague emotive connectiveness, very light on definition and ontology. Ultimately, the â€Å"light† is whatever you want it to be: it can be a religious figure, a philosophical idea or merely a feeling, hence reducing it to nothingness by attempting to cover every emotive reaction (Russell, 2008, 3-4). In this view, she seeks to redefine atheism (cf page 4) as a view where the â€Å"universe† is seen as not sacred. But since the concept of the sacred is never defined, there are no atheists. Or, better, that this vulgar view of pantheism, which is reduced to a feeling of awe in the face of nature (as representing both good and evil, as she holds, 87ff), is itself atheism in that there is no God, but there is an awe in the face of nature’s grandeur. Few atheists would recoil at awe when looking at nature. In this same vein lies the work of Paul Harrison (2004). Again (35), he holds that â€Å"nature is to be revered. † It is unclear whether he thinks nature of â€Å"god,† since god is an elastic term that covers the object of one’s awe or respect. His dispensing with philosophical rigor is typified in his manipulation of Anselm’s famous ontological argument for god’s existence. In Harrison’s case, he mutilates it beyond recognition. The original argument was, to summarize, that god is that about which nothing greater can be conceived. But since this object must have existence (since to have existence is to be greater) god must exist, since that would be the greatest thing conceptualizable. Harrison does not seem to understand the nature of this controversial view. He assumes (Harrison, 36) that nature is the greatest thing that can be conceived, and hence, is god. This has no bearing on the argument ascribed to Anselm of Canterbury. He also seems to completely misunderstand Aristotle’s argument from causality. On page 38, Harrison holds that the â€Å"skeptical† answer rejects the necessity of a first cause, there is no need for one. If one can imagine a limitless future, one can imagine a limitless past. Since no one can imagine or visualize a â€Å"limitless† future, the same might be said of the past. Harrison seems to posit an actual religious element to pantheism in that it holds that matter is eternal, ever existing, always changing, and hence, it is a belief to be taken on faith, and hence, religious. A mildly interesting argument is his philosophy of history. He holds that history contains three movements: the hunter gatherer stage, agricultural and technological (Harrison, 50-53). It goes like this: at one time, man lived in full accordance with nature as hunter’s and gatherers. Then he decided to become settled. This was the great evil: settled agriculture places man as master of nature. Only in the technological phase was nature reintroduced, permitting a rational eco-centrist to rebuild our planet. Making sense of this argument is difficult: there are several fallicies: first, that the hunter gatherer lives in accordance with nature. He seems to have the hidden premise that all things primitive must be eco-friendly. Second, that agriculture means that man masters nature. This seems hard to swallow, since the agriculturalist mind, up until the 20th century, worked as a partner of nature, not its master. The explicit Baconian idea of dominating nature is precisely the beginnings of the industrial revolution. The argument is that when people no longer had any connection to nature, no longer lived off the land, they could then romanticize nature, and hence, see it â€Å"for its own sake† (Harrison, 52). In other words, when the technological revolution created urbanization and rape the landscape, the now alienated urbanite could make of nature of object of romantic devotion. It is precisely in the leaving of the land that one can then see it as an aesthetic object. Lastly, the author refuses to deal with the question of determinism (60). The pantheist determinism argument might look like this: all things are interconnected, the force, the unity of the interconnection is â€Å"divine,† human beings are part of this divine interconnection and hence, to conclude, humans are determined by these connections. It is difficult to wiggle out of this argument, an argument that is not found in Harrison’s book, but dismissed regardless. If freedom exists, it cannot be material. If it is not material, it is spirit. If it is spirit, then it must have a cause. But the concept of pantheism presented by Harrison posits no cause. Hence, human beings are merely determinations of material reality and hence determined. Harrison denies that human beings are determined, but does not explain how one can get out of the pantheist argument, unless one posit’s human beings as, to some extent spiritual beings and hence outside of the natural, universal causal chains that are so evocative of reverence. This is another serious flaw. Next, we have the short piece by Wood (2005). Wood is not so much arguing here for pantheism as for evolution, upon which all contemporary theories of pantheism seem to rest. This piece is basically an attack on fundamentalism, which is defined as that belief system that rejects evolution in that it rejects the principle of change inherent in all things. Pantheism has no belief system, only evolutionary ecology. One need not be a pantheist to accept everything that Wood says, it is a non-philosophical piece. Far more substantial is that work by Steinhart (2004) on the question of ontology. This is an interesting survey piece dealing with the nature of pantheism from the point of view of materialism, Platonism and Pythagoreanism. But just as interesting is his idea of the nature of god: God, in traditional theology must be: supernatural, complex (in the sense of maximal inclusivity), God must represent Himself to man, and God must be holy (Steinhart, 2004, 65-66). Of course most of these can be challenged. In Christianity, for example, God is not complex, he is simple. He is not merely supernatural, but exists within nature as its designer and guide (thought this is never an ontological connection). Nevertheless, the key to the argument is maximum inclusivity, which is not an attribute of God in traditional theology in the sense Steinhart means it, and it is question begging in terms of pantheism, since the argument presented her is that the nature god of the pantheists is by definition all inclusive, and hence, comes closest to the â€Å"traditional† idea of God. He seems to engage in the same logical fallacies as Harrison. Steinhart fails on several levels. First he fails to explain how the materialist whole can be â€Å"holy,† in any sense. Second, he fails to show how the disembodied forms of Plato can be associated with pantheism in the definition he provides. In fact, the relationship between the forms and matter is precisely Plato’s rejection of earlier Greek pantheism (referenced by Russell, 2008) and, more importantly, is nearly identical with the early Christian and Augustinian view of the relationship between God and creation. God is identified with nature as its guide and creator, but is not identified with nature simpliciter. This is a severe logical flaw. He has better luck with Pythagoras, though it is possible to see a similar objection arising. Nevertheless, it remains the case that this work also fails to do justice to pantheism. The greatest and most interesting approach to pantheism is the creation of Baruch de Spinoza. Here is an intelligent, logical and extremely interesting of the idea. Nearly all the works surveyed reference him, but only for a short time, as it is clear that few of the above authors have spent the large amount of time necessary to master the difficult system of the Dutch metaphysician. Spinoza is the greatest and most intelligent manifestation of the Pantheist idea, and hence, should be treated at length. Spinoza begins with the concept of Substance, which is to be identified with god. Substance is the â€Å"in itself. † That is, it is something that defines both affirmation, since affirmation requires negation (Parkinson, 1977, 451). Substance has gone beyond affirmation/negation because it is the whole, the everything. Hence,. Substance is its only name, and that incomplete. If substance in the Aristotelian sense is that which remains unchanging, that which survives change, for Spinoza, since all Aristotelian substances are part of a larger sphere of interconnections, the only real substance is Substance, or god. All things are determinations of God. There is no external reason for its existence. It is eternal causality. Of this Substance there are two Attributes, thought and extension, experienced as different but making reference to two forms of expression os substance relative to the limited sense experience of human beings. Further, these attributes are divided into a huge multiplicity of modes, which might be called all particular things, which are incomplete existences by definition. What is worth mentioning is that Spinoza holds that these attributes that subdivide into modes are not real. They are experienced, but this experience derives from the limited abilities of the human observer. But God in Himself is Substance that contains infinite attributes, only two of which are available to human beings. The attributes must be infinite because, given the nature fo Substance, there is nothing to constrain their development. A fully understood attribute of an infinite Substance is by definition infinite (Spinoza, 1927, 124-125). Science might struggle with this. First, it suggest that science is only a tiny form of knowledge in a sea of infinity. In other words, science can only deal with incomplete experiences relative to the limited observational capacities of the person. A â€Å"fact† in the truest sense of Spinoza’s pantheism is that which contains all reality, it must be Substance and only Substance. Anything less would be limited, and hence abstract, outside of its true context and contingent. Even Spinoza’s epistemology is limited in the sense that sense data is only the persistence of a pattern of perception. Hence, there is no direct human mode of perceiving God. God is full interconnectedness (the phenomenon, th international of Modes relative to both attributes, i. e. thought and extension make up the same Substance relative to humans) that has its root in the Substance itself (the noumenon, outside of experience) (Rocca, 1996, 192). Spinoza writes: Hence it follows, firstly, that there is no cause, either external to God or within Him, that can excite Him to act except the perfection of his own nature. It follows, secondly, that God alone is a free cause; for God alone exists from the necessity alone of His own nature. Therefore He alone is a free cause (Spinoza, 1927, 132) . Several things come from this: first, that human beings are determined, being themselves manifestations of the divine nature, containing in themselves the two attributes of thought or extension, the only two forms of experience permitted to man. That this determination is a good thing in that all things are pre-determined in the infinite nature of God, and hence, there is little to be done but live peacefully. But it should also be clear that there is no emotive attachment to this will-less and thought-less entity (Spinoza, 1927, 132). God is God only in that He is Substance. He is a metaphysical principle, not a cause of awe or worship. He is substance deduced logically in the following way: A cause of a thing must exist either inside or outside the object being caused. The reason for a square to exist is not to be found in the square itself. There must be a cause, then, outside it, a cause that has made it necessary to exist. Hence, Substance, which exists necessarily, is uncaused. This is because if Substance (that which survives all change) has a cause outside itself, then it is not Substance; that Substance must be it. Hence, there is a cause that is uncaused, Substance, and this is what survives all change, existing necessarily and the (logical) cause of all things (Spinoza, 1927, 124, â€Å"On the Essence of God. † also cf. Bennet, 1997) Friedrich von Schelling is another metaphysician who skirted the concept of pantheism, and is often considered one. Here we have a post-Spinozistic idea of the Spinozian concept of God, taking liberally from Spinoza and yet another interesting approach to the concept of pantheism. Schelling’s basic metaphysic is the spiritual exists as such in nature. Putting this differently, nature is the physical expression of the spiritual, but constantly limited by materiality. Even further, the pantheism derives form the idea that nature eventually creates the conditions necessary for the spirit, or conscious life. Here, the idea of spirit deriving from nature is posited from the circular concept that nature is spirit in expression in matter (Bowie, 2001). The development of the spirit in nature moves like this: 1. The absolute principle is the ground, just as in Spinoza, between the conscious and sub-conscious life, that is, sprit and matter respectively, since here, matter is merely â€Å"slumbering spirit. † 2. Nature and spirit are identical to Spinoza’s two modes, extension and thought respectively. Nature tends to objectification, while spirit tends to subjetification, but there is no ultimate distinction between the two. 3. These are held together in actual life by force: attraction/repulsion; light, gravity, while in spirit these forces take the form of knowledge, will, etc. 4. Both these forces are attributes (in Spinoza’s sense, not modes, since they are not â€Å"particular† and hence unreal, things) derive from the single Substantial source, not called Substance, but the Absolute. (Snow, 1996) 5. The movement of Substance then, is the reconciliation of opposites: thought and extension, matter and spirit, object and subject. Spirit will suffuse matter, matter will be saturated with spirit. This is the evolutionary picture of Schelling prior to Darwin (and is interesting on that account alone). In other words, Schelling differs from Spinoza in granting some limited â€Å"will† to the otherwise abstract absolute: the will for interpenetrating and the end of philosophy with a spiritualized matter. God will be present in matter in full when consciousness and matter merge, or more accurately, nature is suffused with consciousness. This paper has done two things: first it basically dispensed with the contemporary literature in pantheism is non-scientific and hence non-philosophical. Instead, this paper has briefly summarized two major pantheistic writers and metaphysician who are highly related in terms of basic ideas, Spinoza and schelling. In their view of pantheism, the absolute/substance is necessary existence. This is posited and proved because it is impossible to imagine a cause without origin, or a causal chain with ether no purpose or no beginning. Spinoza does not believe that causes exist eternally, but that Substance does: time, and hence, cause, is a human, mental construct. A serious, philosophical pantheism avoids the problems mentioned above, and posits a Substance or Absolute that is conscious experienced in forms or modes. All things are God in that all things are expressions of God. References: Russell, Sharman. Standing in the Light: My Life as a Pantheist. Basic, 2008. Harrison, Paul. Elements of Pantheism. Media Creations, 2004. Wood, Harold. â€Å"Practice of Pantheistic Mindfulness. † Pantheistic Vision 24, 2005. Steinhart, E. â€Å"Pantheism and Current Ontology. † Religious Studies 40: pp 1-18 Parkinson, HGR. â€Å"Hegel, Pantheism and Spinoza. † The Journal of the History of Ideas. 38, 1977: 449-459 Spinoza, Baruch de. Ethics and Other Writings. Joseph Ratner, Trans. Modern Library, 1927. Bennett, Jonathan. â€Å"Spinoza’s Metaphysics. † in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pps 61-89 Della Rocca, Michael. â€Å"Spinoza’s Metaphysical Psychology. † in The Cambridge Companion to Spinoza. Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pps 192-267 Bowie, Andrew. â€Å"Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University Press, 2001. Snow, Dale. Schelling and the End of Idealism. SUNY Press, 1996.

Obesity in Childhood with Regard to Nutrition

Obesity in Childhood with Regard to Nutrition Obesity is a term used in medical in which body accumulates an extra amount of fats; gathered to the degree that it may have a negative impact on health. It leads to reduce the life expectancy or expanded health issues. Risks of diseases and health issues increase due to obesity in the form of heart problem, high blood pressure and diabetes. Stoutness or obesity builds the probability of different diseases, especially coronary illness, diabetes, obstructive slumber apnea, certain sorts of growth and osteoarthritis. Stoutness is most normally initiated by a mix of inordinate nourishment energy consumption, absence of physical action, and hereditary defenselessness, in spite of the fact that a couple of cases are brought about principally by genes, endocrine issue, and drugs or psychiatric. Evidence to help the view that some hefty people take less food yet they gain weight because of a moderate digestion system is constrained. Normal fat individuals have more excellent vitality or energy consumption than their slight partners because of the vitality needed to keep an enhanced figure mass (Obesity). Reasons of Obesity in children due to Nourishment The most evident reason for overweight during childhood as it is in mature and adults are vitality unevenness between calories expended and consumed. Stationary lifestyle and imbalanced sustenance and nourishment support the increment in overweight kids. Scientists estimated modifying systems in newborn children and youthful kids, a trans generational nature of heftiness customizing. This implies that fat moms and the individuals who put on exorbitant weight increase throughout pregnancy by one means or another incline their youngsters towards getting overweight themselves. Once settled in the populace, the expanded danger of stoutness or obesity may proliferate from era to era (Katz). Diet of Children Throughout the most recent decades affordability of food and nourishment has much increased to bigger amounts of individuals as the cost of buying food has diminished generously in respect to income and the idea of food has transformed from a method of sustenance to a marker of lifestyle and a wellspring of joy. Plainly, builds in physical action are not liable to balance a vitality rich, poor nutritive eating regimen. It takes between 1–2 hours of to a great degree overwhelming movement to check a solitary expansive measured (i.e., >=785 kcal) kids supper at a quick nourishment restaurant. Regular utilization of such an eating regimen can scarcely be balanced by the normal youngster or mature person (Zieve, 2011). Unhealthy Eating Habits With the progression of time children have changed their dietary patterns to a considerable measure of degree. Children are consuming a great deal of bad nourishment that is expanding fats in their physique. Utilization of quick and fast food is expanding step by step which incorporate cheeseburgers, pizzas and other quick nourishment things. This sustenance is enjoyed in entire United States of America regardless of sex and age. In the consequence everyone who utilizes this fast food in excess is casualty of fatness. This fast food is unhygienic for everybody who utilizes it (Obesity in Children). Intake of Calories In spite of the fact that obesity and overweight are basically thought to be the consequences of expansion in caloric intake there is insufficient supporting confirmation for such sensation. Nourishment recurrence strategies measure common eating regimen, however gauge caloric intake defectively. Different strategies, for example, 24-hour review or nourishment journals assess caloric intakes all the more precisely however it does not take into consideration the long term intake. All out vitality admission is troublesome to measure correctly at a populace level. Be that as it may, a little caloric awkwardness (inside the wiggle room of estimation techniques) is sufficient over a long time of time to prompt obesity. With simultaneous ascent in adolescence obesity pervasiveness in the USA, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) noted just unobtrusive change in calorie intake around US kids from the 1970s to 1988–1994. For this period, NHANES III discovered an expansion calorie allow just around white and dark juvenile females. The same example was seen by the most recent NHANES (1999–2000). The Bogalusa study which has been taking after the health and sustenance of kids since 1973 in Bogalusa (Louisiana), reported that aggregate intake calorie of 10-year old children remained unaltered throughout 1973–1988 and a slight yet critical reduction was watched when intake of energy was communicated for every kilogram form weight. The consequence of an overview did throughout the past few decades in the UK prescribed that normal intake of energy, for all age aggregations, are easier than they used to be. Some little studies additionally discovered comparable vitality admission around fat kids and their thin counterparts (Zieve, 2011). Fat intake For a long time it has been argued that the increment in pediatric obesity has happened in light of an expansion in high fat taking, conflicting effects have been acquired by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. The principle complaint to the idea that dietary fat is answerable for the quickened pediatric obesity plague is the way that in the meantime the commonness of adolescence obesity was expanding; the utilization of dietary fat in distinctive population was diminishing. Despite the fact that fat consumed in overabundance prompts obesity, there is not solid enough confirmation that the intake of fat is the core purpose behind the rising pattern of obesity during the childhood (Staff, 2013). Other nourishment factors There is a developing proof recommending that escalating consumption of dairy products by something like two servings for every day could decrease the danger of overweight by up to 70%. Moreover intake of calcium was connected with 21% lessened danger of improvement of insulin safety around overweight children and may lessen diabetes hazard. Higher calcium consumption and more dairy servings for every day were connected with lessened adiposity in youngsters in accordance with the longitudinal study (Overweight and Obesity, 2014). There is less information reporting the connection between calcium or dairy consumption and obesity around the children. However it is possible that drinking soda in the place of milk would cause in grater intake of aggregate energy, it cant be finished up authoritatively that soft drink containing sugar result in increasing weight gain on the grounds that these items dislodge dairy items (Mahshid, Noori, Anwar, 2005). Conclusion: Obesity in the childhood due to nourishment is continuously increasing which is an alarming situation. It is because of the wrong intake of food. Children are more inclined to eating the fast food like burger, pizza and other products like this which cause the obesity in the childhood which further result in many health issues like heart diseases, diabetes and high blood pressure. Products containing more fat and calorie are also the reason of increasing obesity in the children. Dairy products are also becoming the reason of obesity. Bibliography Katz, D. L. (n.d.). Childhood Obesity. Retrieved from liebertpub: http://www.liebertpub.com/overview/childhood-obesity/384/ M. D., N. A., Anwar. (2005). hildhood obesity, prevalence and prevention. Nutrition Journal , 24. Obesity. (n.d.). Retrieved from who.int: http://www.who.int/topics/obesity/en/ Obesity in Children. (n.d.). Retrieved from webmd: http://www.webmd.com/children/guide/obesity-children Overweight and Obesity. ( 2014, February 24). Retrieved from cdc.gov: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/ Staff, M. C. ( 2013, June 07). Diseases and Conditions Obesity. Retrieved from mayoclinic.org: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/obesity/basics/definition/con-20014834 Zieve, D. (2011, September 9). Obesity in children. Retrieved from nlm.nih.gov: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007508.htm

Gradient Function :: Papers

Gradient Function For this investigation, I have to find the relationship between a point of any non-linear graph and the gradient of the tangent, which is the gradient function. First of all, I have to define the word, 'Gradient'. Gradient means the slope of a line or a tangent at any point on a curve. A tangent is basically a line, curve, or surface that touches another curve but does not cross or intersect it. To find a gradient, observe the graph below: [IMAGE][IMAGE] All you have to do to find the gradient is to divide the change in X with the change in Y. In this case, on the graph above, AB and you would have gotten the BC gradient for that particular point of the graph. I am going start by finding the gradient function of y=x ², y=2x ², and then y=ax ². I will move on finding the gradient function of y=x ³, y=2x ³, and finally y=ax ³. I will then find the similarities and generalise y=axà ¢Ã‚ ¿ where 'a' and 'n' are constants, and then investigate the Gradient function for any curves of my choice. I will first find the gradient of tangents on the graph y=x ² by drawing the graph (page 3), and then find the gradient for a number of selected points on the graph: Point X Change in Y Change in X Gradient a -3 6 -1 -6 b -2 4 -1 -4 c -1 2 -1 -2 d 1 2 1 2 e 2 4 1 4 f 3 6 1 6 As you can see, the gradient is always twice the value of its original X value Where y=x ². So the gradient function has to be f `(x)=2x for

Subjectivity in Edith Whartons The House of Mirth Essay -- House Mirt

Subjectivity in Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth      Ã‚   Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth presents an interesting study of the social construction of subjectivity. The Victorian society which Wharton's characters inhabit is defined by a rigid structure of morals and manners in which one's identity is determined by apparent conformity with or transgression of social norms. What is conspicuous about this brand of social identification is its decidedly linguistic nature. In this context, behaviors themselves are rendered as text, and the incessant social appraisal in which the characters of the novel participate is a process of deciphering this script of behavior. People's actions here are read, as it were, according to the unique social grammar of this society. The novel's treatment of this conception of social reading is brought to the fore through its devaluing of written texts in favor of legible behaviors.    The novel signals this pattern from its opening. In the first scene we are introduced to Selden, engaged in what we discover is a typical activity for the novel's personae, the silent, personal, interrogation of another person. "If she had appeared to be catching a train," we are told, "he might have inferred that he had come on her in an act of transition between one and another of the country houses which disputed her presenceÃ…  "(5†¹emphases mine). Here, Selden, at his first glimpse of Lily, has taken to conjecturing all manner of explanations for her simple presence in the train station. He, like all members of his social niche, does not shy away from judgement until he is more fully appraised of her situation. Even, the slightest "air of irresolution" gives him license to divert his at... ...bling Structure of 'Appearances': Representation and Authenticity in The House of Mirth and The Custom of the Country."   Modern Fiction Studies 43.2 (1997): 349-73. Gerard, Bonnie Lynn.   "From Tea to Chloral: Raising the Dead Lily Bart."   Twentieth Century Literature 44.4 (1998): 409-27. Howard, Maureen.   "On The House of Mirth."   Raritan 15 (1996): 23 pp.   28 Oct. 2002   <http://proxy.govst.edu:2069/WebZ/FTFETCH>. Howe, Irving.   Edith Wharton, a Collection of Critical Essays.   Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. Miller, Mandy.   Edith Wharton Page.   19 Nov. 2002  Ã‚  Ã‚   <http://www.Kutztown.edu/faculty/Reagan.Wharton.html>. Pizer, Donald.   "The Naturalism of Edith Wharton's The House of Mirth."   Twentieth Century Literature 41.2  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   (1995): 241-8. Wharton, Edith. The House of Mirth. (1905) New York: Signet,. 1998.

Literature of Knowledge Essay

First printed in The North Briton Review, August, 1848, as part of a review of The Works of Alexander Pope, ed. W. Roscoe, 1847. What is it that we mean by literature? Popularly, and amongst the thoughtless, it is held to include everything that is printed in a book. Little logic is required to disturb that definition. The most thoughtless person is easily made aware that in the idea of literature one essential element is, ? some relation to a general and common interest of man, so that what applies only to a local or professional or merely personal interest, even though presenting itself in the shape of a book, will not belong to literature. So far the definition is easily narrowed; and it is as easily expanded. For not only is much that takes a station in books not literature, but, inversely, much that really is literature never reaches a station in books. The weekly sermons of Christendom, that vast pulpit literature which acts so extensively upon the popular mind? to warn, to uphold, to renew, to comfort, to alarm? does not attain the sanctuary of libraries In the ten-thousandth part of its extent. The drama as for instance the finest of Shakespeare’s plays in England and all leading Athenian plays in the noontide of the Attic stage, operated as a literature on the public mind, and were (according to the strictest letter of that term) published through the audiences that witnessed their representation, some time before they were published as things to be read: and they were published in this scenical mode of publication with much more effect than they could have had as books during ages of costly copying or of costly printing. Books, therefore, do not suggest an idea co-extensive and interchangeable with the idea of literature, since much literature, scenic, forensic, or didactic (as from lectures and public orators), may never come into books, and much that does come into books may connect itself with no literary interest. But a far more important correction, applicable to the common vague idea of literature, is to be sought, not so much in a better definition of literature, as in a sharper distinction of the two functions which it fulfils. In that great social organ which, collectively, we call  literature, there may be distinguished two separate offices, that may blend and often do so, but capable, severally, of a severe insulation, and naturally fitted for reciprocal repulsion. There is, first, the literature of knowledge, and secondly, the literature of power. The function of the first is to teach; the function of the second is to move: the first is a rudder; the second an oar or a sail. The first speaks to the mere discursive understanding; the second speaks ultimately, it may happen, to the higher understanding, or reason, but always through affections of pleasure and sympathy. Remotely it may travel towards an object seated in what Lord Bacon calls dry light; but proximately it does and must operate? else it ceases to be a literature of power-on and through that humid light which clothes itself in the mists and glittering iris of human passions, desires, and genial emotions. Men have so little reflected on the higher functions of literature as to find it a paradox if one should describe it as a mean or subordinate purpose of books to give information. But this is a paradox only in the sense which makes it honorable to be paradoxical. Whenever we talk in ordinary language of seeking information or gaining knowledge, we understand the words as connected with something of absolute novelty. But it is the grandeur of all truth which can occupy a very high place in human interests that it is never absolutely novel to the meanest of minds: it exists eternally, by way of germ or latent principle, in the lowest as in the highest, needing to be developed but never to be planted. To be capable of transplantation is the immediate criterion of a truth that ranges on a lower scale. Besides which, there is a rarer thing than truth, namely, power, or deep sympathy with truth. What is the effect, for instance, upon society, of children? By the pity, by the tenderness, and by the peculiar modes of admiration, which connect themselves with the helplessness, with the innocence, and with the simplicity of children, not only are the primal affections strengthened and continually renewed, but the qualities which are dearest in the sight of heaven-the frailty, for instance, which appeals to forbearance, the innocence which symbolizes the heavenly, and the simplicity which is most alien from the worldly-are kept up in perpetual remembrance, and their ideals are continually refreshed. A purpose of the same nature is answered by the higher literature, viz. , the literature of power. What do you learn from Paradise Lost? Nothing at all. What do you learn from a cookery-book? Something new, something that you did not know before, in every paragraph. But would you therefore put the wretched cookery-book on a higher level of estimation than the divine poem? What you owe to Milton is not any knowledge, of which a million separate items are still but a million of advancing steps on the same earthly level; what you owe is power, that is, exercise and expansion to your own latent capacity of sympathy with the infinite, where every pulse and each separate influx is a step upwards, a step ascending as upon a Jacob’s ladders from earth to mysterious altitudes above the earth. All the steps of knowledge, from first to last, carry you further on the same plane, but could never raise you one foot above your ancient level of earth; whereas the very first step in power is a flight, is an ascending movement into another element where earth is forgotten. Were it not that human sensibilities are ventilated and continually called out into exercise by the great phenomena of infancy, or of real life as it moves through chance and change, or of literature as it recombines these elements in the mimicries of poetry, romance, etc., it is certain that, like any animal power or muscular energy falling into disuse, all such sensibilities would gradually droop and dwindle. It is in relation to these great moral capacities of man that the literature of power, as contradistinguished from that of knowledge, lives and has its field of action. It is concerned with what is highest in man; for the Scriptures themselves never condescended to deal by suggestion or cooperation with the mere discursive understanding: when speaking of man in his intellectual capacity, the Scriptures speak not of the understanding, but of â€Å"the understanding heart, â€Å"?  making the heart, i. e. , the great intuitive (or non-discursive) organ, to be the interchangeable formula for man in his highest state of capacity for the infinite. Tragedy, romance, fairy tale, or epopee, all alike restore to man’s mind the ideals of justice, of hope, of truth, of mercy, of retribution, which else (left to the support of daily life in its realities) would languish for want of sufficient illustration. What is meant, for instance, by poetic justice? ?It does not mean a justice that differs by its object from the ordinary justice of human jurisprudence; for then it must be confessedly a very bad kind of justice; but it means a justice that differs, from common forensic justice by the degree in which it attains its object, a justice that is more omnipotent over its own ends, as dealing? not with the refractory elements of earthly life, but with the elements of its own creation, and with materials flexible to its own purest preconceptions. It is certain that, were it not for the Literature of Power, these ideals would often remain amongst us as mere arid notional forms; whereas, by the creative forces of man put forth in literature, they gain a vernal life of restoration, and germinate into vital activities. The commonest novel, by moving in alliance with human fears and hopes, with human instincts of wrong and right, sustains and quickens those affections. Calling them into action, it rescues them. from torpor. And hence the preeminency, over all authors that merely teach of the meanest that moves, or that teaches, if at all, indirectly by moving. The very highest work that has ever existed in the literature of Knowledge is but a provisional work: a book upon trial and sufferance, and quamdiu bene se gesserit. Let its teaching be even partially revised, let it be but expanded, ? nay, even let its teaching be but placed in a better order, ? and instantly it is superseded. Whereas the feeblest works in the Literature of Power, surviving at all, survive as finished and unalterable amongst men. For instance, the Principia of Sir Isaac Newton was a book militant on earth from the first. In all stages of its progress it would have to fight for its existence: 1st as regards absolute truth; idly, when that combat was over, as regards its form or mode of presenting the truth. And as soon as a La Place, or anybody else, builds higher upon the foundations laid by this book, effectually he throws it out of the sunshine into decay and darkness; by weapons won from this book he superannuates and destroys this book, so that soon the name of Newton remains as a mere nominis umbra,† but his book, as a living power, has transmigrated into other forms. Now, on the contrary, the iliad, the Prometheus of Aeschylus, the Othello or King Lear, the Hamlet or Macbeth, and the Paradise Lost are not militant but triumphant forever as long as the languages exist in which they speak or can be taught to speak. They never can transmigrate into new incarnations. To reproduce these in new forms, or variations, even if in some things they should be improved, would be to plagiarize. A good steam engine is properly superseded by a better. But one lovely pastoral valley is not superseded by another, nor a statue of Praxiteles by a statue of Michael Angelo. These things are separated not by  imparity, but by disparity. They are not thought of as unequal under the same standard, but as different in kind, and, if otherwise equal, as equal under a different standard. Human works of immortal beauty and works of nature in one respect stand on the same footing: they never absolutely repeat each other, never approach so near as not to differ; and they differ not as better and worse, or simply by more and less: they differ by undecipherable and incommunicable differences, that cannot be caught by mimicries, that cannot be reflected in the mirror of copies, that cannot become ponderable in the scales of vulgar comparison.