Important Symbols in the play Trifles Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Important Symbols in the play Trifles - Essay Example Generally, the setting of the play is somewhat focused in the kitchen and the staff. The kitchen stuff is irritably prescribed by men as worthless. Furthermore, there are other things in the kitchen including sewing box, shawl, apron and quilt. These paraphernalia then wonder whether Mrs. Wright is going to not or quilt her half-finished quilt. Susan Glaspell uses symbolism as device to highlight certain issues that afflict women. Additionally, Glaspell ingeniously uses this symbolic feature to bring to the limelight the view and perceptions that men have toward women (Glanspell 45). This point, therefore, brings to us how careful Glaspell was in choosing her characters. Her female characters make us see that men assume that women more often than not, worry unnecessarily about worthless and or unimportant issues. This kind cynicism concludes that it’s only men who associate themselves with important matters that will never across the minds of women, or slip out of their mouths while they are discussing. Come to think of it, the male characters spend in the whole play searching for solutions to solve a murder case. Ironically, however, it is the two female characters, Mrs. Hale and Peters, that is, who finally get the evidence and solve resolutely the murder case, not the two men. Canary bird in the cage is one of symbol that Glaspell brilliantly uses in his play. For one thing, this canary bird represents Mrs. Wright herself and her heart. The bad is capable of singing sonorously, as Mrs. Wright singed in the church before getting married to her husband Mr. Wright. Come to think of it, she is the bird, caged and confined like a prisoners to woes. Mr. Wright is perfect character who represents the cynicism of men who believe that they rightly own women, and that they have well full control over women. Additionally, Mr. Wright represents the notions of men who think that women have no brains at all, to think correctly. For, instance, the manner in which th e name â€Å"Wright† is written connotes that men always think that they are always right, and that they always think wisely (Glanspell 68). Mr. Wright, sardonic act of killing Canary symbolizes that it is right to murder his wife, Minnie’s personality and freedom. Ideally, the bird before it was killed was associated with peace and freedom. Conversely, after Minnie was married to Mr. Wright, she is hardly seen getting out of the house, and stopped singing in the church. Furthermore, she was no longer known as Minnie, but as Mrs. Wright. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters eventually find out that the real killer of Mr. Wright is his wife. It is at this point that the two women understood Minnie humiliation over staying in place where there is no freedom. For one thing, Minnie wanted a child, but her husband could not allow it to happen. The killing of Mr. Wright symbolizes that women can stay independently without men. The dirty kitchen is also symbolic. To be true, the dirty k itchen offers a symbolic explanation of the messiness of the kitchen. Ideally, the dirtiness of the kitchen also offers a symbolic interpretation of something. It represents that Mrs. Wright Minnie was now liberal. She was not going ever to wait for anyone. She too was no going to ever fear anyone. We also see that the two women, Mrs. Hale, and Mrs. Peters being protective of Mrs. Wright. The two women rose up for Mrs. Wright when she was point blankly criticized for having a dirty kitchen. The two women bravely affirmed that men fail to keep their hands as

Economic data analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Economic data analysis - Essay Example The situation is likely to be very different if we are dealing with time series data, for the observations in such data follow a natural ordering over time so that successive observations are likely to exhibit inter correlations, especially if the time interval between successive observations is short, such as a day, a week, or a month rather than. The classical model assumes that the disturbance term relating to any observation is not influenced by the disturbance term relating to any other observation. For example, if we are dealing with quarterly time series data involving the regression of output on labor and capital inputs and there is labor strike affecting output in one quarter, there is no reason to believe that this disruption will be carried over to the next quarter. That is, if output is lower this quarter, there is no reason to expect it to be lower next quarter. Similarly, if we are dealing with cross-sectional data involving regression of family consumption expenditure on family income, the effect of an increase of one family's income on its consumption expenditure is not expected to affect the consumption expenditure of another family. If such dependence exists there exists autocorrelation. Symbolically, In this situation, the disruption caused by a strike this quarte... The situation is likely to be very different if we are dealing with time series data, for the observations in such data follow a natural ordering over time so that successive observations are likely to exhibit inter correlations, especially if the time interval between successive observations is short, such as a day, a week, or a month rather than. c) What do you understand by the term 'autocorrelation' What implications will this have for the properties of ordinary least squares The term 'autocorrelation' can be defined as "correlation between members of series of observations ordered in time [as in time series data] or space [as in cross-sectional data]" In the regression context, the classical linear regression model assumes that such autocorrelati8on does not exist in the disturbances ut. Symbolically, E(ut1, ut2)=0 t1#t2 The classical model assumes that the disturbance term relating to any observation is not influenced by the disturbance term relating to any other observation. For example, if we are dealing with quarterly time series data involving the regression of output on labor and capital inputs and there is labor strike affecting output in one quarter, there is no reason to believe that this disruption will be carried over to the next quarter. That is, if output is lower this quarter, there is no reason to expect it to be lower next quarter. Similarly, if we are dealing with cross-sectional data involving regression of family consumption expenditure on family income, the effect of an increase of one family's income on its consumption expenditure is not expected to affect the consumption expenditure of another family. If such dependence exists there exists autocorrelation. Symbolically, E(ut1, ut2)#0 t1#t2 In this

Clinical Research Industry Issues Essay Example for Free

Clinical Research Industry Issues Essay Services in the business sector becomes troublesome when customers seem to act too superior when dealing with the company’s employees (Bassett 25). Companies which disseminate excellent customer service definitely excel in the market (Bassett 26). There are plenty of physicians who run out of patients to treat, and still, there are a lot of patients who search for the right physicians (Rizzo Sindelar 968). Physicians enter into a competitive market within the consumer population by trying to put the best medical practices forward in the market of consumer population (Rizzo Sindelar 968). These medical practices are what make the physicians stand out among the patients (Rizzo Sindelar 968). Patients may decide to seek the services of a different physician due to relocation reasons (Rizzo Sindelar 968). Patients also may change the physician that they are seeing due to the fact that their previous physician is not able to disseminate the quality level of services that the patients are seeking (Rizzo Sindelar 968). Wider government services are of no use to be implemented as aid to pharmaceutical operations if the pharmaceutical industry would not adjust its degree of services to public needs (Olson 304). The pharmaceutical industry needs to work hand in hand with other health care provider companies so that it would be able to improve its services to the public (Olson 304). The pharmaceutical industry needs to work more closely with physicians in order to better improve its services. The pharmaceutical industries would be able to obtain advice from physicians regarding the following matters: Clinical Research Industry Issues 3 1. The rampant illnesses that patients possess. 2. The common types of medications that patients are prescribed to. With this information gathered by the pharmaceutical establishments from physicians, the pharmaceutical establishments may be able to provide better services to the patients. Literature Review 2. Ethical And Policy Issues In Research Involving Human Participants It is of utmost importance that the welfare or well-being of the human participants be given consideration when conducting a research (Jones 97). It is required that every researcher declare the progress of his/her report to a research study agency as outlined in a particular research’s ethical guidelines (Jones 97). 3. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decision- Making-Capacity Researches on the origins of mental disorders refer to neurobiological elements as their causes (Walsh, Green, Matthews Puerto 43). Sixty one percent of the participants that have been studied on these researches unanimously states that a person with a high level of mental illness inherits the illness from a mentally ill parent (Walsh, Green, Matthews Puerto 43). 4. Bias In Pharmaceutical Sponsored (Funded) Clinical Trials Clinical Research Industry Issues 4 The pharmaceutical industry may become biased when sponsoring clinical trials. They may actually tamper with the results of the clinical trials to make it appear that the participants are sick even when they are not, just to increase the pharmaceutical industry’s sales. 5. Relationship Between Clinical Investigators And The Pharmaceutical Industry At times, the executives of the pharmaceutical industries bribe the clinical investigators in order to tamper with the results of the clinical trials. This is an unethical and legally violating event that takes place sometimes 6. Corporate Hand In Clinical Trials And Their Contracts With Medicine Academia The corporations usually consult the medicine academia for sources and aid in order to facilitate their clinical trials at the highest level of quality. Clinical Research Industry Issues 5 References: Bassett, G. (1992). Operations Management For Service Industries : Competing In The Service Era. Westport: Quorum Books. Rizzo, J. A. Sindelar, J. L. (2002). Optimal Regulation Of Multiply-Regulated Industries : The Case Of Physician Services. Southern Economic Journal, 62: 968. Walsh, J. , Green, R. , Matthews, J. Puerto, B. B. (2005). Social Workers’ Views Of The Etiology Of Mental Disorders: Results Of A National Study. Social Work , 50: 43.

Animal Intelligence and Evolution of the Human Mind

Animal Intelligence and Evolution of the Human Mind The human brain lacks conspicuous characteristics-such as relative or absolute size-that might account for humans superior intellect. Researchers have found some clues to humanitys aptitude on a smaller scale, such as more neurons in our brains outermost layer. Human intelligence may be best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition. Subtle refinements in brain architecture, rather than large-scale alterations, make us smarter than other animals. As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species-at least by our own definition of intelligence. Of course, intelligence must emerge from the workings of the three-pound mass of wetware packed inside our skulls. Thus, researchers have tried to identify unique features of the human brain that could account for our superior intellectual abilities. But, anatomically, the human brain is very similar to that of other primates because humans and chimpanzees share an ancestor that walked the earth less than seven million years ago. Accordingly, the human brain contains no highly conspicuous characteristics that might account for the species cleverness. For instance, scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Brocas area, which governs speech in people. The lack of an obvious structural correlate to human intellect jibes with the idea that our intelligence may not be wholly unique: studies are revealing that chimps, among various other species, possess a diversity of humanlike social and cognitive skills. Nevertheless, researchers have found some microscopic clues to humanitys aptitude. We have more neurons in our brains cerebral cortex (its outermost layer) than other mammals do. The insulation around nerves in the human brain is also thicker than that of other species, enabling the nerves to conduct signals more rapidly. Such biological subtleties, along with behavioral ones, suggest that human intelligence is best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition. Smart Species Because animals cannot read or speak, their aptitude is difficult to discern, much less measure. Thus, comparative psychologists have invented behavior-based tests to assess birds and mammals abilities to learn and remember, to comprehend numbers and to solve practical problems. Animals of various stripes-but especially nonhuman primates-often earn high marks on such action-oriented IQ tests. During World War I, German psychologist Wolfgang Kà ¶hler, for example, showed that chimpanzees, when confronted with fruit hanging from a high ceiling, devised an ingenious way to get it: they stacked boxes to stand on to reach the fruit. They also constructed long sticks to reach food outside their enclosure. Researchers now know that great apes have a sophisticated understanding of tool use and construction. Psychologists have used such behavioral tests to illuminate similar cognitive feats in other mammals as well as in birds. Pigeons can discriminate between male and female faces and among paintings by different artists; they can also group pictures into categories such as trees, selecting those belonging to a category by pecking with their beaks, an action that often brings a food reward. Crows have intellectual capacities that are overturning conventional wisdom about the brain. Behavioral ecologists, on the other hand, prefer to judge animals on their street smarts-that is, their ability to solve problems relevant to survival in their natural habitats-rather than on their test-taking talents. In this view, intelligence is a cluster of capabilities that evolved in response to particular environments. Some scientists have further proposed that mental or behavioral flexibility, the ability to come up with novel solutions to problems, is another good measure of animal intellect. Among birds, green herons occasionally throw an object in the water to lure curious fish-a trick that, ornithologists have observed, has been reinvented by groups of these animals living in distant locales. Even fish display remarkable practical intelligence, such as the use of tools, in the wild. Cichlid fish, for instance, use leaves as baby carriages for their egg masses. Animals also can display humanlike social intelligence. Monkeys engage in deception, for example; dolphins have been known to care for another injured pod member (displaying empathy), and a whale or porpoise may recognize itself in the mirror. Even some fish exhibit subtle kinds of social skills. Behavioral ecologist Redouan Bshary of the University of Neuchà ¢tel in Switzerland and his colleagues described one such case in a 2006 paper. Bony fish such as the so-called cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) cooperate and remove parasites from the skin of other fish or feed on their mucus. Bsharys team found that bystander fish spent more time next to cleaners the bystanders had observed being cooperative than to other fish. Humans, the authors note, tend to notice altruistic behavior and are more willing to help do-gooders whom they have observed doing favors for others. Similarly, cleaner wrasses observe and evaluate the behavior of other finned ocean denizens and are more willing t o help fish that they have seen assisting third parties. From such studies, scientists have constructed evolutionary hierarchies of intelligence. Primates and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are considered the smartest mammals. Among primates, humans and apes are considered cleverer than monkeys, and monkeys more so than prosimians. Of the apes, chimpanzees and bonobos rank above gibbons, orangutans and gorillas. Dolphins and sperm whales are supposedly smarter than nonpredatory baleen whales such as blue whales. Among birds, scientists consider parrots, owls and corvids (crows and ravens) the brightest. Such a pecking order argues against the idea that intelligence evolved along a single path, culminating in human acumen. Instead intellect seems to have emerged independently in birds and mammals and also in cetaceans and primates. Heavy Thoughts? What about the brain might underlie these parallel paths to astuteness? One candidate is absolute brain size. Although many studies have linked brain mass with variations in human intelligence [see High- ­Aptitude Minds, by Christian Hoppe and Jelena Stojanovic], size does not always correlate with smarts in different species. For example, clever small animals such as parrots, ravens, rats and relatively diminutive apes have brains of modest proportions, whereas some large animals such as horses and cows with large brains are comparatively dim-witted. Brain bulk cannot account for human intelligence either: At eight to nine kilograms, sperm and killer whale brains far outweigh the 1.4 kilograms of neural tissue inside our heads. As heavy as five kilograms, elephant brains are also much chunkier than ours. Relative brain size-the ratio of brain to body mass-does not provide a satisfying explanation for interspecies differences in smarts either. Humans do compare favorably with many medium and large species: our brain makes up approximately 2 percent of our body weight, whereas the blue whales brain, for instance, is less than one 100th of a percent of its weight. But some tiny, not terribly bright animals such as shrews and squirrels win out in this measure. In general, small animals boast relatively large brains, and large animals harbor relatively small ones. Although absolute brain mass increases with body weight, brain mass as a proportion of body mass tends to decrease with rising body weight. Another cerebral yardstick that scientists have tried to tie to intelligence is the degree of encephalization, measured by the encephalization quotient (EQ). The EQ expresses the extent to which a species relative brain weight deviates from the average in its animal class, say, mammal, bird or amphibian. Here the human brain tops the list: it is seven to eight times larger than would be expected for a mammal of its weight. But EQ does not parallel intellect perfectly either: gibbons and some capuchin monkeys have higher EQs than the more intelligent chimpanzees do, and even a few pro ­sim ­ians-the earliest evolved primates alive today-have higher EQs than gorillas do. Or perhaps the size of the brains outermost layer, the cerebral cortex-the seat of many of our cognitive capacities-is the key. But it turns out that the dimensions of the cerebral cortex depend on those of the entire brain and that the size of the cortex constitutes no better arbiter of a superior mind. The same is true for the prefrontal cortex, the hub of reason and action planning. Although some brain researchers have claimed in the past that the human prefrontal cortex is exceptionally large, recent studies have shown that it is not. The size of this structure in hu ­mans is comparable to its size in other  ­primates and may even be relatively small as compared with its counterpart in elephants and cetaceans. The lack of a large-scale measure of the human brain that could explain our performance may reflect the idea that human intellect may not be totally inimitable. Apes, after all, understand cause and effect, make and use tools, produce and comprehend language, and lie to and imitate others. These primates may even possess a theory of mind-the ability to understand another animals mental state and use it to guide their own behavior. Whales, dolphins and even some birds boast some of these mental talents as well. Thus, adult humans may simply be more intuitive and facile with tools and language than other species are, as opposed to possessing unique cognitive skills. Networking Fittingly, researchers have found the best correlates for intelligence by looking at a much smaller scale. Brains consist of nerve cells, or neurons, and supporting cells called glia. The more neurons, the more extensive and more productive the neuronal networks can be-and those networks determine varied brain functions, including perception, memory, planning and thinking. Large brains do not automatically have more neurons; in fact, neuronal density generally decreases with increasing brain size because of the additional glial cells and blood vessels needed to support a big brain. Humans have 11.5 billion cortical neurons-more than any other mammal, because of the human brains high neuronal density. Humans have only about half a billion more cortical neurons than whales and elephants do, however-not enough to account for the significant cognitive differences between humans and these species. In addition, however, a brains information-processing capacity depends on how fast its nerves conduct electrical impulses. The most rapidly conducting nerves are swathed in sheaths of insulation called myelin. The thicker a nerves myelin sheath, the faster the neural impulses travel along that nerve. The myelinated nerves in the brains of whales and elephants are demonstrably thinner than they are in primates, suggesting that information travels faster in the human brain than it does in the brains of nonprimates. What is more, neuronal messages must travel longer distances in the relatively large brains of elephants and whales than they do in the more compact human brain. The resulting boost in information-processing speed may at least partly explain the disparity in aptitude between humans and other big-brained creatures. Among humans cerebral advantages, language may be the most obvious. Various animals can convey complex messages to other members of their species; they can communicate about objects that are not in sight and relay information about individuals and events. Chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins and parrots can even understand and use human speech, gestures or symbols in constructions of up to about three words. But even after years of training, none of these creatures develops verbal skills more advanced than those of a three-year-old child. In humans, grammar and vocabulary all but explode at age three. This timing corresponds with the development of Brocas speech area in the left frontal lobe, which may be unique to humans. That is, scientists are unsure whether a direct precursor to this speech region exists in the nonhuman primate brain. The absence of an intricately wired language region in the brains of other species may explain why, of all animals, humans alone have a language that contains complex grammar. Researchers date the development of human grammar and syntax to between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago, which makes it a relatively recent evolutionary advance. It was also one that probably greatly enhanced human intellect.

Most Memorable Scene In Of Mice And Men :: essays research papers

Part One:The scene that was most memorable to me in this play was when Lenny and Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife shared a conversation while the others were away. It started with Lenny moping around about the rabbit he had killed and then Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife joined him. This scene ended in a surprising way, but in my opinion many interesting things were discussed about the concept of life. I was extremely surprised with the ending of this scene because when the conversation began I predicted that it was the start to a close relationship between the two of them. During this conversation they discussed issues such as life and dreams. At first Lenny refused to open-up. "  ¡Ã‚ ¥George says I ain ¡Ã‚ ¦t to have nothing to do with you-talk to you or nothing. ¡Ã‚ ¦ " He was very reluctant to talk to her or share anything with her. She was the complete opposite. Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife was looking for someone to talk to. As the scene continued, Lenny relaxed and was able to talk and listen to her. Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife began by asking Lenny questions. As she continued walls were torn down and she was able to get closer to him. Then she told him about her life. "  ¡Ã‚ ¦I get lonely ¡Ã‚ ¦  ¡K..  ¡Ã‚ ¦You can talk to people, but I can ¡Ã‚ ¦t talk to nobody but Curley. Else he gets mad. How ¡Ã‚ ¦d you like to not talk to anybody? ¡Ã‚ ¦ " It was hard for Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife to get Lenny to talk but eventually he told her about his rabbit and other things about his life. "  ¡Ã‚ ¥We gonna have a little place-an ¡Ã‚ ¦ rabbits. ¡Ã‚ ¦ " In the end Lenny became overly excited and ended up killing Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife. From this, I gathered that Lenny had never been so close to anyone, especially anyone of this opposite sex. This gave him such a great feeling that he did not know how to deal with it. The moment he felt Curley ¡Ã‚ ¦s wife moving away, he acted on his inner feelings and he was frightened. The scene portrayed a good example of the interaction of two complete strangers, it was interesting to see how they shared things and opened up to each other.Part Two:This scene is related to the theme in different ways. I think that it incorporates three main aspects of the theme. It is related to belonging, loneliness and dreams. All three of these are active issues in society today.

Thomas W. Lippmans Understanding Islam Essays -- Thomas Lippman Islam

Thomas W. Lippman's Understanding Islam Thomas W. Lippman gives an introduction to the Muslim world in the book Understanding Islam. He has traveled throughout the Islamic world as Washington Post bureau chief for the Middle East, and as a correspondent in Indochina. This gave him, in his own words, "sharp insight into the complexities of that turbulent region." However, the purpose of the book is not to produce a critical or controversial interpretation of Islamic scripture. It is instead to give the American layman an broad understanding of a religion that is highly misunderstood by many Americans. In this way he dispels many myths about "Muslim militants," and the otherwise untrue perception of Islamic violence. In this way the American reader will become more knowledgeable about an otherwise unfamiliar topic. However, the most significant element of Lippman’s book is that it presents Islam in a simple way that makes the reader feels his awareness rise after each chapter. This encourages him to continue learn ing about the world’s youngest major religion. Understanding Islam dispels many misconceptions about the Muslim world, and presents the subject in a way that urges his reader to further his understanding of Islam through continued study. The book lays the foundation of Islamic basic beliefs and practices. Muslims believe in one God, and feel their religion continues the Judaic and Christian traditions. Arab peoples "trace their origins to the patriarch Abraham, who, according to the Koran was neither Jew nor Christian, but a kind of universal ancestor of monotheists" (5). Thus, Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. The Islamic translation for God is Allah. Many Americans think of Alla... ... Understanding Islam gives a broad outline which could help to erase American misconceptions about this religion, and could be helpful in easing global racial tensions. The book is not top of the line scholarship about Islam; it is for the uninformed or otherwise unaware beginner. After reading this book the reader has a basic understanding of Islam, devoid of many American or western misconceptions. However, Lippman explains that the holy book is not spelled "Koran," but rather "Qur-an," though he uses the first spelling throughout the book (56). The real version is written in arabic, but I would have rather him used the more authentic spelling. In this way I see that this book was beneficial, but not the final word. It is a good book because it lays a positive foundation for Americans, and hopes to inspire them to continue their study of a fascinating religion. Thomas W. Lippman's Understanding Islam Essays -- Thomas Lippman Islam Thomas W. Lippman's Understanding Islam Thomas W. Lippman gives an introduction to the Muslim world in the book Understanding Islam. He has traveled throughout the Islamic world as Washington Post bureau chief for the Middle East, and as a correspondent in Indochina. This gave him, in his own words, "sharp insight into the complexities of that turbulent region." However, the purpose of the book is not to produce a critical or controversial interpretation of Islamic scripture. It is instead to give the American layman an broad understanding of a religion that is highly misunderstood by many Americans. In this way he dispels many myths about "Muslim militants," and the otherwise untrue perception of Islamic violence. In this way the American reader will become more knowledgeable about an otherwise unfamiliar topic. However, the most significant element of Lippman’s book is that it presents Islam in a simple way that makes the reader feels his awareness rise after each chapter. This encourages him to continue learn ing about the world’s youngest major religion. Understanding Islam dispels many misconceptions about the Muslim world, and presents the subject in a way that urges his reader to further his understanding of Islam through continued study. The book lays the foundation of Islamic basic beliefs and practices. Muslims believe in one God, and feel their religion continues the Judaic and Christian traditions. Arab peoples "trace their origins to the patriarch Abraham, who, according to the Koran was neither Jew nor Christian, but a kind of universal ancestor of monotheists" (5). Thus, Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians. The Islamic translation for God is Allah. Many Americans think of Alla... ... Understanding Islam gives a broad outline which could help to erase American misconceptions about this religion, and could be helpful in easing global racial tensions. The book is not top of the line scholarship about Islam; it is for the uninformed or otherwise unaware beginner. After reading this book the reader has a basic understanding of Islam, devoid of many American or western misconceptions. However, Lippman explains that the holy book is not spelled "Koran," but rather "Qur-an," though he uses the first spelling throughout the book (56). The real version is written in arabic, but I would have rather him used the more authentic spelling. In this way I see that this book was beneficial, but not the final word. It is a good book because it lays a positive foundation for Americans, and hopes to inspire them to continue their study of a fascinating religion.

Strength and Weaknesses of Ontological Argument

The Ontological Argument was, and still is, a hot-topic for debate among philosophers; many famous philosophers have published criticisms of the theory including Immanuel Kant and St. Thomas Aquinas. This obviously raises questions regarding whether or not this argument works.While there is no clear-cut answer to these questions, I personally believe that the negatives of this argument outweigh the positives, thereby making it a weak argument. The first published criticism of Anselm’s Ontological Argument was from Gaunilo in his book In Behalf of the Fool (making reference to the fool in the book of psalms who didn’t believe in God).While Gaunilo was a firm believer in God (and was in fact a monk), he disagreed strongly with Anselm’s method for proving his existence. His problem is with the strand of Anselm’s argument which is put forward in Chapter Two of Proslogion.While Anselm claimed that the God, who is defined as perfect, must exist because an existe nt God is better than a non-existent God meaning that if he didn’t exist, he wouldn’t be perfect and therefore, wouldn’t be God, Gaunilo applied this logic to the example of a Perfect Island.If the perfect Island didn’t exist in the real world, it would be a contradiction to call it the perfect Island. By this logic, the perfect Island must exist seeing as if it didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be perfect1. We obviously know that the Perfect Island does not in fact exist and, by Gaunilo’s reasoning, Anselm’s argument doesn’t work; if it doesn’t work with parallel arguments, it doesn’t work in the example of God. This criticism is very astute and, therefore, severely weakens the argument and its effectiveness.However, Anselm directly responded to his contemporary Gaunilo’s criticism in an attempt to defend his argument and its ideals. Firstly, Anselm pointed out the fact the example of the Island (or any oth er examples for that matter) do not work because it, unlike God, is contingent and not at all necessary; its existence relies on the Earth and the Sea and it would have been entirely possible for it never to have existed. God, however, must exist and depends on the existence of nothing else.Moreover, Anselm goes on to say that the perfect Island is impossible to define; will it become more perfect as it gets bigger? God, however, is specifically defined by Anselm allowing the Ontological Argument to be applicable to him.This response deals with the criticism well and manages to re-strengthen the Ontological Argument to some degree. Another philosopher who disagreed with Anselm’s Ontological Argument was St. Thomas Aquinas. Again, he believed in God but disagreed with Anselm’s argument proving his existence.Aquinas raises questions about God’s self-evident existence. He claims that things can be self-evident in two ways: in itself and both in itself and to us; ev en though something may exist self-evidently in itself, this self-evidence may not be known to us as humans and therefore, its existence would not be self-evident to us.This is exactly what Aquinas proposes God to be. God is self-evident in himself because he is his own essence. However, seeing as this essence is unknown to us (as we do not know enough about him), the statement ‘God exists’ is not self-evident to us.This, again, is another criticism which holds weight against the Ontological Argument, highlighting a glaring weakness in its logic. A third philosopher who published a criticism on the Ontological Argument (though in this case it was directed towards Descartes’ version of the argument which was published several centuries after Anselm’s in 1641) was Pierre Gassendi. In Descartes’ version of the Ontological Argument published in his Meditations, he claimed that God was entirely perfect and, as a result, must possess every possible perfec tion – including the perfection of existence.Gassendi believed that this logic didn’t work because if a thing doesn’t exist, it is neither perfect nor imperfect; it merely doesn’t exist. Therefore, if God doesn’t exist, this logic could not possibly be applied to him in an attempt to prove his existence.Descartes published a response to this criticism. In this response, he claimed that God could not be compared to anything else, proposing that ‘the relationship and essence is manifestly quite different in the case of God from what it is in the case of a triangle’; it is a part of God’s essence to exist.While this does respond directly to Gassendi’s criticism, it does not particularly strengthen the argument seeing as Descartes gives no reason as to why God’s existence is a part of his essence; he merely states that it is true. Yet another philosopher who published a criticism of the Ontological Argument was Immanue l Kant.Kant (who was an atheist) published a book called A Critique of Pure Reason in which he attempted to contradict both Descartes’ and Anselm’s versions of the Ontological Argument in two different ways.In his first argument, Kant begins by hypothetically accepting that existing is indeed a defining predicate of God (which both Descartes and Anselm claim it is). He then goes on to argue that, even if this were true, there would be no contradiction in altogether rejecting the concept of God.For example, you may understand that having a single horn on its head is a defining predicate of a unicorn. However, this does not mean that it would be contradictory to not believe in unicorns or magical horses with horns.By this logic, you could also claim that you agree that if God did indeed exist, he would necessarily exist but that you do not believe in God or his necessity without contradicting yourself. In Kant’s second argument, he attacks the Ontological Argument at its base by claiming that ‘existing’ could not possibly be considered as a defining predicate as it does nothing to change the definition of the being in question; two people – one of whom believes in unicorns and one who doesn’t – would most likely share the same idea of what a unicorn is.While these two people would disagree on whether or not unicorns were real, they would not disagree on what a unicorn was. Therefore, it is impossible to say that existing is a defining predicate of God because it adds nothing to the definition of God.Overall, therefore, while the Ontological Argument is by all means a sound theory to some degree, the criticisms which highlight so many of the argument’s weaknesses show how the theory is weaker than in it is strong.