Hypersensitivity Case Study Essay

*Poison Ivy- The body’s immune system is normally in the business ­ of protecting us from bacteria, viruses, and other foreign invaders that can make us sick. But when urushiol from the poison ivy plant touches the skin, it instigates an immune response, called dermatitis, to what would otherwise be a harmless substance. Hay fever is another example of this type of response; in the case of hay fever, the immune system overreacts to pollen, or another plant-produced substance. Here’s how the poison ivy response occurs. Urushiol makes its way down through the skin, where it is metabolized, or broken down. Immune cells called T lymphocytes (or T-cells) recognize the urushiol derivatives as a foreign substance, or antigen. They send out inflammatory signals called cytokines, which bring in white blood cells. Under orders from the cytokines, these white blood cells turn into macrophages. The macrophages eat foreign substances, but in doing so they also damage normal tissue, resulting in the skin inflammation that occurs with poison ivy.  ­ The allergic reaction to poison ivy is known as delayed hypersensitivity. Unlike immediate hypersensitivity, which causes an allergic reaction within minutes of exposure to an antigen, delayed hypersensitivity reactions don’t emerge for several hours or even days after the exposure. Most people don’t have a reaction the first time they touch poison ivy, but develop an allergic reaction after repeated exposure. Everyone has a different sensitivity, and therefore a slightly different reaction, to poison ivy. Sensitivity usually decreases with age and with repeat exposures to the plant. *Transfusing a person of Type A Blood with Type B Blood- ABO blood type system The ABO system consists of A, B, AB, and O blood types. People with type A have antibodies in the blood against type B. People with type B have antibodies in the blood against type A. People with AB have no anti-A or anti-B antibodies. People with type O have both anti-A and anti-B antibodies. People with type AB blood are called universal recipients, because they can receive any of the ABO types. People with type O blood are called universal donors, because their blood can be given to people with any of the ABO types. Mismatches with the ABO and Rh blood types are responsible  for the most serious, sometimes life-threatening, transfusion reactions. So unless the person is RH- there usually isn’t that big of a reaction when An Type A is given Type B blood. These reactions may be mild or severe. Most mild reactions are not life-threatening when treated quickly. Even mild reactions, though, can be frightening. Severe transfusion reactions can be life-threatening, but this is very rare. Mild allergic reactions may involve itching, hives, wheezing, and fever. Severe reactions may cause anaphylactic shock. Exposure to a field of Ragweed- Ragweed allergy, similar to other pollen allergies, may include symptoms of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Symptoms caused by ragweed pollen allergy would be expected to start during August and September and last until October or November, depending on the climate. So stay out of a field of Ragweed during those times a year if you experience allergy or hypersensitivity around ragweed. *Unsuccessful Kidney Transplant- Transplant rejection is when transplanted tissue is rejected by the recipient’s immune system, which destroys the transplanted tissue. Transplant rejection can be lessened by determining the molecular similitude between donor and recipient and by use of immunosuppressant drugs after transplant. Hyper-acute rejection occurs a few minutes after the transplant when the antigens are completely unmatched. The tissue must be removed right away so the recipient does not die. This type of rejection is seen when a recipient is given the wrong type of blood. For example, a person given type A blood when he or she is type B.

Inception Reflection Essay

After watching inception twice I am still confused as to what was real and what was not. I have come to the conclusion that the entire movie was Cobb dreaming. I believe this because Cobb’s totem used to be his wife’s totem. He only retrieved the totem when they were stuck in limbo. He said never to let anyone else feel the weight of your totem. Meaning that he himself has no way of knowing the actual weight or feel of his wife’s totem. In other words Cobb has no totem, no way of knowing what is real and what isn’t. The totem only shows Cobb what he wants to believe. Since the entire movie was a dream of his making, his subconscious may have led the totem to drop/ wobble when he wanted to believe he was in reality. I believe that Cobb’s wife Mol was the one trying to pull them back to reality. Mol kept trying to draw him out when in reality he kept falling further and further. Cobb didn’t join Mol in jumping off the building to get into reality. Cobb has been dreaming for so long and so deep that he has lost reality. The main reason I believe Cobb has been dreaming all along is because of the ending. When Cobb thinks he has arrived back to reality and back to his children, they are wearing the same clothes, and in the same position as he last saw them. He became suspicious and spun the top. Cobb finally saw his kid’s faces and walked away from his totem. Seeing his kid’s faces was enough reality for him. Cobb created his own reality. He formulated the entire dream to justify his belief in what was real and what wasn’t. He needed the elaborate dream to lead him back to his children which signify his reality. With that being said, I believe the movie argued for idealism. Cobb’s reality was based on the mind. If the totem had not been his wife’s, and had not been found in a dream, I would have argued for realism. Because the material thing, or totem, would be what determines reality. The top was supposed to keep spinning in a dream, and wobble or drop in reality. However as stated before Cobb found the totem in a dream, and it wasn’t even his totem, therefore it holds no significance in determining reality. With my interpretation of the entire movie being a dream of Cobb’s, the movie would have to be based on empiricism. Cobb experiences things that I don’t believe were reality yet he takes them to be true. For example, if the movie was in fact all a dream of Cobb’s, then his wife’s suicide was just a projection of his imagination. Yet as he dreams deeper he believes it to be true. Cobb’s knowledge is based on experience because really there is no reason or rational to rely on when your dreaming within a dream within a dream within a dream, etc. Like Cobb said, once you make it down to limbo it is hard to sense what reality is. Cobb’s only grip on reality is his totem, which I explained before, was never really his in the first place. He has no reason. He only has experience to rely on. His experiences in his dreams become his reality. What reason do you have to cling to when the biggest determination of reality(the totem) isn’t real. In the end when Cobb see’s his children’s faces, the experience of being with them is all he needs to justify reality. Hence why he walks away from his totem. Cobb’s experiences within a dream are what formulate his reality. If it was reason that formulated his reality, he wouldn’t be in limbo anymore. He would have listened to his wife and figured out that he is still dreaming by now. He would have never accepted that totem as his own. I would like to argue both pragmatic and coherent theories for my take on Inception. However, I do believe the coherent theory fits a little better. The coherent theory states that something is true if it is consistent with other beliefs that are held to be true. The problem in this theory is that there is no definition or criteria of what a logical belief is. Cobb thinks his wife is stuck in limbo and that he is in reality. Basically any thought that he has that coheres with that main thought is true. Him believing he was hired to plant an idea in Fishers mind was in fact true to him. The capability of planting an idea in someone’s head was true to him. Why? Because his core belief was that he himself had planted an idea in his wife’s head before, causing her to lose touch with reality. All belief’s Cobb had were consistent with his main belief, that he was not longer in limbo. Cobb believed that the totem actually did tell him when he was or wasn’t dreaming. However as stated before the totem wasn’t his to begin with so how could that be true? How could it be true that when the totem wobbles or falls he is in fact in reality? He found the totem in limbo, so he doesn’t know what the true weight or feel of that totem is. Yet he believes in this totem because he needs to. His mind has created a scenario to help him retrieve what he craves, reality. The elaborate dream and all of his truth’s cohere in order to get him back to happiness. Although Cobb may not be in reality, his belief of being so is enough to satisfy him. Cobb’s mind created what he wanted to believe was reality. I guess if you have no grip on reality anymore, creating the closest thing to it would be your best shot at happiness.

Integration of Focused Assessments and Review of Systems using QCPR at Research Paper

Integration of Focused Assessments and Review of Systems using QCPR at Trauma Hosiptal - Research Paper Example However, some of the organizations such Trauma hospitals have managed to improve their accuracy in recording patients’ records, delivery of accurate results from their diagnosis and backing-up their patients’ records that are used in any future reference on these patients in case any information regarding the patient is required. Therefore, it is advisable for all medical institutions to develop QCPR system within their organizations in order to enhanced patients’ recording process during medication that requires emergencies. II. Aims of the Study Over the years, medical institutions have faced pressure from their respective government and clients on the need towards the better provision of health care facilities and medications. This requires the organizations to adopt measures that would allow them to introduce a computerized system within their working premises for better service provision. Moreover, the introduction of computerized system would help in the re duction of costs and time consumption that has been experienced before (Mahoney 56). Therefore, the aim of this research paper is to identify various importance of the system using QCPR at Trauma Hospitals in enhancing the medication process especially in recording of patients while dealing with cases that requires emergency attentions. III. ... lped during the analysis of data as they were used to compare some of the information gathered during the research period, for accurate information to be produced. One of the documents that were found helpful while conducting this research is the journal article by Mahoney (92) bearing the title Transforming Health Information Management Through Technology. Through this document, it was easy to note how the implementation of computerized system within healthcare centers needs to be achieved, various importance of systems using QCPR within hospitals and some of the cautions that need to be taken care of in the implementation and use of the QCPR system (Mahoney 59). IV. Methodologies Need for the production of accurate information regarding the research study required that appropriate data collection methods were to be used (Mahoney 60). Therefore, after considering various data collection methods, interviews, use of questionnaires, observations and document analysis were used. Through observation, time taken for hospitals that uses QCPR were taken and compared to the one that have not yet developed computerized system within their organizations. Through the use of interviews, various patients and doctors were interviewed to gather information on the QCPR system as compared to the manual system and some of the challenges faced in the use of QCPR. While in dealing with document analysis, different documents used during the research period were analysis based on the information contain in them in order for synthesized information to be derived. A Diagram showing results of Questionnaire based on the selected Doctors and Patients Fig. 1 V. Data Analysis and Findings After ensuring that all the available data had been collected, all the information gathered was combined for

M5C Obstacles and Pitfalls to Success Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

M5C Obstacles and Pitfalls to Success - Essay Example More emphasis is put in the endeavor to attain and maintain a considerable health plan which is being inhibited by the massive heath costs and invariably rising insurance costs. Insurance costs are increasing at an alarming rate with many medical insurance pundits alleging that the high risks in the current heath status of many individuals are the contributing factor (Pauly, MacGuire & Barros, 2011). Several factors have been continuously discussed on their influence to the obstacles, pitfalls and barriers of a good health care. Significantly the status of the economy has a haphazard impact on the costs of insurance and the heath care in general. A conducive and better performing economy where virtually all levels of income to the citizens are high and the costs of living low will enhance the affordability of a successful health plan (Pauly, MacGuire & Barros, 2011). Moreover, inflation, continuously poses a big threat to the insurance and health costs. These prices are soaring high and high with the rise in inflation rates an indication of a poorly performing economy. A successful health plan needs stable and steady economic conditions which will allow the concerned parties to attain their esteemed goal (Pauly, MacGuire & Barros, 2011). As noted earlier the levels of income play a big hand in the accomplishment of a successful health plan. Evidently, this influence is demonstrated in the instance of increased propensity to save which enhances the availability of more funds to secure health services when one is rendered less productive or retires. In addition, high income illustrates a better level to afford insurance costs which with the increasing health risks, diseases and infections are continuously rising (Inhurst, 2009). Unemployment rates are another key factor influencing on the costs of health care. With high population being unemployment and rising dependency levels many insurance providers are finding it inevitable to raise their costs

Information Paper on World War I Research Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Information on World War I - Research Paper Example Historians have identified three direct main causes that led to the war. They are the conflict between the Central Powers like Germany, Austria, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire and the Allied Powers like France, Russia, Britain, Italy and the United States. Widespread militarism and economic imperialism pushed the ambitious leadership of the countries to the warzone. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the flashpoint that sparked the war. That was on June 28, 1914 when a Bosnian Serb student by name Gavrilo Princip, shot and killed him. Ferdinand was heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. That student wanted Serbia to be independent from the domain of Austria Hungary. The latter demanded that those responsible for the assignation must be punished .Stewart Ross writes â€Å"On 23rd July, 1914 Vienna sent Serbia an ultimatum that, if accepted, would have made Serbia virtually an Austro-Hungarian province. The Serbs had 48 hours to accept it—or face the consequences.à ¢â‚¬ (p.7)When Serbia did not comply with the demand and Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia. Serbia, as the ally of the Allied Powers, declared war on Austria Hungary. Central Powers intervened on behalf of the later and thus a chain reaction resulted and a full-fledged war was in the offing. Widespread militarism initiated the mind war first. The upper class with the stockpile of weapons and wealth in abundance remained suspect about the power of the other. Desire for maintaining the superior level of military power bothered them much. The Royal Navy of Britain was the envy of Germany and Austria Hungary as it was much superior to theirs. They thought that the ideal strategy to contain the naval might of Britain was to declare war. Economic imperialism empowered by trade with the foreign colonies was the strong point with Great Britain and France. Germany and Austria Hungary had few foreign colonies

Persuasive Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Persuasive - Essay Example Statistics also reveal that 34% of women become pregnant at least once before the age of 20 (Teen pregnancy statistics, n.d; Facts on American, 2010; Tanne, 2005). Such unprotected or unwanted sex increases the risk of both unwanted teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (Facts on American, 2010). Additionally teenage pregnancy also affects the studies and career of the teenager and also the children born from such pregnancies suffer from problems such as low-birth weight and tend to perform less well in school compared to children born to adult mothers (Teen pregnancy statistics, n.d). While abstinence from sex is widely recommended for teenagers, many pediatricians and health counselors have also recommended that they also have access to birth control and emergency contraceptive options (Teen pregnancy statistics, n.d). Denial of access to information pertaining to sexual activity or contraceptive measures has not reduced the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies or s exually transmitted diseases according to studies (Wind, 2005). The need to educate teenagers about birth control and emergency contraception measures has been reinforced by pediatricians as they believe that preaching sexual abstinence alone will not help to reduce unwanted or unintended pregnancies. The pediatricians have suggested these updates as part of the teen pregnancy policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Teaching mere abstinence from sex will only drive the teenagers to engage in sexual acts and a lack of knowledge about safe sexual practices will only compound the issue (Tanner, 2005). Hence many pediatricians have recommended that in addition to counseling teenagers to postpone sexual activity it is also impertinent that they be educated about birth control measures and also ensure proper access to emergency contraception which would be vital in cases such as unintended or forces sexual

Chapter 1 of dissertation on building level principals' knowledge of

Chapter 1 of on building level principals' knowledge of special education law - Dissertation Example blame on the principals, it is, however, important to make sure that the authorities charged with such crucial decisions possess ample knowledge on the legal aspects of special education. Moreover, sound decisions in this regard can only be arrived at when the decision-maker is familiar with the pertinent laws on special education and has formal or any comparable educational background on special education law. A state-wide study, in this regard, will serve as an essential step towards a better understanding of school administrator’s level of proficiency in special education law. Such study will also shed light as to what interventions may be designed and implemented to see to it that the needs of students with disability can be better served, vis a vis the regular students, en route to the optimization of the academic potentials of both types of students. Background of the Study Historically, students with disabilities have not always been guaranteed access to education (Chur ch and Glaaser, 2010; Ebersold, 2011; Flexer, Baer, Luft & Simmons, 2008; Wearmouth, Glynn & Berryman, 2005). The 19th century saw the beginnings of public support for free public education through the passing of compulsory laws on education which allowed representation of both genders, different ages, socio-economic status, and cultural background. One of the most popular legal battles fought for equality in education was Brown v. Board of Education (of Topeka) where Oliver Brown challenged and conquered racial segregations in American schools in 1954 (Miller, 2004). Yet, until the middle of the 1970s, individuals with disabilities did not benefit from the so-called free education. In 1972, a court ruling in Parc v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had to decide that children suffering from... The main purpose of the ‘Chapter 1 of dissertation on building level principals' knowledge of special education law’ is to evaluate the level of proficiency of building level administrators in Pennsylvania of special education laws and look at possible factors which facilitate or deter their decision making on special education issues by way of a mixed methods design. An investigation of factors facilitating and hindering decision making will entail a profound analysis of the type and level of the administrators’ background in special education law; experience and confidence level in handling special education issues; and proficiency of basic special education law in terms of their perceptions on selected cases. The proposed study will adopt the input-process-output model as its theoretical framework grounded on Anderson and Arsenault who recognizes this paradigm for its simplicity simple and wide applicability to education research. In this study, inputs include: (1) the perceptions of building level administrators on selected issues covered in relevant special education laws in Pennsylvania; (2) information on the type and level of special education background among building level administrators; (3) self-reported experience of the building level administrators in handling special education issues in school; (4) self-reported confidence level of the building level administrators when handling special education cases; and (5) areas of greatest concern in special education law as self-reported by building level administrators in their disposition on relevant issues in school.

PhD Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

PhD - Essay Example ..51 7 3.34.REFERENCES †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..53 7 3.48.CHAPTER 2 8 3.49.2.1 Fuel Economy 9 3.50.The fuel economy(FE) of any vehicle can be calculated as a ratio of distance travelled per unit volume of fuel consumed or as the ratio of fuel consumption per distance travelled (GFEI,n.d.). An et al (2011, p4) note that fuel economy standards can be of various forms such as liters of fuel consumed per hundred kilometers of distance travelled or kilometers travelled per liter of vehicle fuel. The global average vehicle fuel consumption hovers around 8L/100 km corresponding to 29.4 mpg and a global drive under the aegis of GFEI, whose partner organizations are the UNEP, IEA, ITF , ITCC and the FIA Foundation has been launched to bring it down to 4L/100km corresponding to 58.8 mpg by 2050 (GFEI,n.d.).The regulations pertaining to fuel economy followed by the four largest automobile markets, namely, the US, the EU, Japan and China differ significantly from each other (An et al, 2011, p4). 10 3.51.The fFactors affecting fuel economy of a vehicle 11 4.Power for consumption by accessories such as air conditioners and heaters is obtained from fuel consumption. The electric power required for operating an air conditioner in a vehicle can be split up into two components, namely, as the power for the compressor and the power for fans. It was found that there was an average increase in power consumption of around 27% in cars with air conditioners running at full power as compared to cars with air conditioners switched off OECD(2004,p124-125).The additional weight of the air-conditioning system by itself results in more fuel consumption due to extra energy required to beat the inertia of the system during acceleration and in turn increases the tailpipe emissions. Auxiliary heaters also contribute to increased fuel consumption and emissions . The ongoing technological developmental work for fuel economy carried out in vehicle air conditioners include reduction in component weight, improvement in compressor efficiency by adopting variable displacement or engine speed independent propulsion, intelligent control accuracy to increase temperature control accuracy, heat pumps, absorption systems, thermal storage, use of refrigerants with lower Global Warming Potential(GWP) with non-conventional system configuration and secondary loop systems(OECD,2004,p126-127).The power requirement of electrical equipment in a modern car is around 1kW and could go up to 12kW in the near future. Table 2.2 (Pundir ,2008,p20) gives the power consumption of accessories in a typical European car.The voltages of the auxiliary electrical systems being developed in vehicles are expected to be changed to around 42V.Since the advanced range of on-board equipment in cars would comprise of computer controlled systems, mobile internet, fax, GPS,TV and v ideo systems which need enhanced power input, highly efficient engines are required to be eq1uipped with alternator or Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) to supply the power(OECD,2004,127). 22 5. 25 6.Table 2.2 the power consumption of accessories in a typical European car ( Pundir,2008,p20) 26 9.1.2.2 Importance of fuel economy 26 9.2. 36 9.3.Table 2.3 fuel economy technologies for automobiles and light trucks ( NRC ,1992,p41) 36 9.5.2.2.1 Design and technology for fuel economy 36 9.6.Pundir(2008,p16-17) lists out the

The problem of democratic regimes in central Europe Essay Example for Free

The problem of democratic regimes in central Europe Essay The First World War which was aimed at making the world safe for democracy had far reaching consequences. More than thirty countries had embraced the spirit of democratization and thus adopting democratic constitutions, a few years after the Treaty of Versailles. A large number of states in Central and Eastern Europe had become democratic. The majority of these countries were new nations that emerged as a consequence of Versailles. Linking up with the prevailing democratic spirit was thus quite natural. The trend spread from Estonia in the North to Albania in the south. It was a period characterized by great hopes for the future of democracy. Before long, the tide began to turn. A counter wave was beginning to take shape, and would gradually gather more and more momentum and strength. The 1920s and 1930s were characterized by far reaching setbacks for democracy. This new trend was witnessed in Petrograd in 1917, with the overthrow of the republican regime and closure of the democratically elected Duma by the Bolsheviks. This same method of gaining power was successfully used by right-wing nationalist forces in other countries. In 1922, Mussolini assumed the leadership of a group of Italian fascists and matched on Rome. He did not encounter much resistance and managed to oust the elected government and make himself a dictator. This came to be a trend setting event. Mussolinis daring act greatly inspired the German Nazis. Democracy thus fell victim to usurpers for many European lands. By the final years of 1930s, virtually every country in Central Europe was under authoritarian government (Rothschild, 1990). In the 1930s, nearly every state that had introduced a civilian and democratic regime shifted to military rule. With the conclusion of a pact between Hitler and Stalin in 1939 which allowed each to expand within his respective sphere of interest, the prospects of democracy seemed bleak. In Czechoslovakia, armed German assault abolished the existing democratic system. Belgium, Netherlands, France, Norway, Luxembourg and Denmark soon came under the same spell. Meanwhile, Finland came under Soviet attack. At the beginning of 1940s, democratic governments were very few. In the en tire world, the number of democratic countries amounted to about ten. Autocracy appeared to be sweeping everything before it. This paper is concerned with the problems that democracy faced during the nineteen twenties and nineteen thirties. It particularly looks at the challenges and threats that faced democracy during this period of time and the consequences of such challenges. The recurrent scene of liberal democracies falling victims to dictatorship dominated inter-war politics. The western powers hoped that their victory would bring in an epoch modeled in their own image. This was backed by the fact that the European continent at the beginning of the Great War had nineteen monarchies and three republics with the number of republics increasing to sixteen while that of monarchies decreasing to fourteen. Yet, the democratic revolution soon proved to be illusory. Not one democratic country could last a year before its democratic constitution became violated by one or other brand of dictator. This phenomenon cannot be attributed to a single cause except for the inability of the Western Powers to defend the regimes that they had inspired. All the brands of dictators shared the conviction that Western democracy was not meant for them. The problem of democracy emanated from both the subjective and objective basis of politics. The subjective aspects of the social foundations of politics were however more difficult to influence than their more objectifiable structural side. Although it is clear that more durable forms of political systems have to be rooted in a more general supportive culture, its more specific elements in most cases defy clearer specification and quantification (Berg-Schlosser Mitchell, 2000). A sense of identification with a politys very existence is a precondition for any form of polity, both with regards its geographical national extension and its legitimate quality. Where there is an absence of either of these elements, or where they are undergoing basic changes, this can to a certain extent and temporarily be replaced by mere force or repression. However, in the longer run, important aspects of political structure and political culture have to be brought in line (Auer, 2004). For the democratic political system, this implies a general respect for the dignity of every human individual and its rights, a particular degree of mutual tolerance and trust in society, and a wider acceptance of democratic rules of the game. Among the things that presented a threat to democracy were Germany and Soviet Russia. These two countries also presented the two fundamental revisionist threats to the interwar territorial and social settlements. Even though many democratic European governments were wary of Bolshevik danger, Germany proved to be the basic menace. Neither in absolute nor in relative terms had Germany been made weak to the extent that had been assumed in the 1920s. Within Germany, the Germans failed to identify with democracy and instead viewed is as an obstacle. The Soviet Union on the other hand wanted to expand the extent of communism. Democracy thus suffered from these forces that it seemed incapable of conquering. As such, weak democratic regimes had to succumb to the emerging ideologies and force of dominant forces. As such, the very structure of the various European societies that supported various ideologies also posed a problem for democracy. The alliance option for other classes in both the late nineteenth century and in the twenties and thirties was changed by the existence of a large landed class which also changed the political outcomes. The authoritarian options for the bourgeoisie were opened up to the extent that the alliance of landlord-state-bourgeois impacted on the politics of the middle class and peasantry, locking out options for the working class (Davies, 1996). This in itself dealt presented various obstacles for democracy. It can also be said that the breakdown of democracy in interwar Europe was a consequence of the agrarian class relations and patterns of state-class alliances of the nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. As such, it may be generally claimed that the major problem that democracy faced in Central Europe during the 1920s and 1930s was the incoherence between the thoughts, social, political and economic structures of the countries. Today, it is now generally accepted that democracy needs a supportive culture, even if it is agreed that this culture can be strongly shaped by temporary and short-term factors including economic performance, and by other underlying variables such as the institutional setting upon which this culture is set. Popular support for the establishment of an independent civil society integrating intermediate group and associations which feed into the political process and aggregate different societal interests is also needed. Since the freedom of speech, religion, media, assembly and the right to form independent groups and opposition parties were all suppressed during the communist era, the norms associated with civic culture had to take time to establish itself.

Religion Definition Essay Example for Free

Religion Definition Essay 1. What is a religion? You’ve read our textbook author’s definition; use that definition as a starting point to go further. The word â€Å"religion† is such a broad word that to this day there is no one definition that can satisfy all religions. For the time being, it is better to simply be open to many possible definitions, without embracing any single one. Different people especially in different religions will all have a difference in opinion when trying to use very few words to define religion. The traditional definition of religion is a system of belief that involves worship of a God or gods, prayer, ritual, and a moral code. Religion is important to many people because it gives them something to believe in. Religion helps human deal with their mortality. As human beings, we look to religion for answers to life’s unexpected or unknown questions such as death, pain, afterlife, or rebirth. Religion has a way of helping us deal with death and offers comfort. Religion also helps us be creativity and express ourselves through music, dance, and art. It gives us a sense of viewing life as something beautiful and lively. People who have a religion usually are more happy knowing that they life can reflect something of the supernatural that they do not understand. Through art, we get to express how we are feeling on the inside. Many people use music, dance, and art to show others what they cannot express through words. Religion gives them a sense of confident. 2. Discuss some of the characteristics that religions have in common. Some characteristics that religions have in common are: belief system, community, central myths, ritual, characteristic emotional experiences, material expression, and sacredness. Not all religions will consist of all elements but rather some of these characteristics are commonly accepted. Many believe in a worldview were all things in the universe and human being has a place in it. Humans need of belonging helps them seek out for a community where they can belong too and share their ideals and practices. Many religions have this so people can rely on one another. Other characteristics that are shared in religions are passed down from generations to generations through stories or reenactment of major events in the religious group. Each religion has its own myth that is central to the religion. Not only are myths passed down but rituals as well. These beliefs are enacted and made real through ceremonies. Also, ethics are passed down which are set guidelines for the group of people; these are viewed as being revealed through a supernatural realm. Religions also allow people to express themselves emotionally and give a sense of inner peace that cannot come from outer resources. Material expression allows religions to make use of astonishing variety of physical elements. Each religion has a source of sacredness that is distinctive from the ordinary. Ceremonies express the distinction through different language, clothing, and architecture. Each tradition exhibit most of these characteristics but for those who practice them will manifest them in different ways and at different times. 3. In addition to characteristics in common among religions, there are some patterns with regard to beliefs, world views, etc., that are exhibited by most religions. Discuss these patterns. There are three different patterns that we look for to see similarity and difference among religions. The first pattern is views of the world and life. Religions must offer answers to life’s great questions that are asked. All questions are the same, but the answers very depending on the religion. Because of the great variety of worldview each answer is different and must be examined close to get a better understanding of why it is the way it is. Some religion view the universe as being created by a Creator while others believe it has no beginning and no ending. Some view nature as the realm of evil where it needs to be overcome. Others believe that humans are called to shape it. Each view differs from religion to religion. The second pattern is the focus of beliefs and practices. There are three concepts that are practiced, although one may be more dominant than the other depending on the purpose of importance. Sacramental orientation emphasizes carrying out rituals and ceremonies regularly and correctly as the path to salvation. Some believe that correct ritual influences the processes of nature. Prophetic orientation implies that a human being may be an important intermediary between the believer and the sacred. This is prominent in Judaism, Protestant Christianity, and Islam. Mystical orientation seeks union with something greater such as God, nature, the universe, or reality as a whole. Upanishadi Hinduism, Daoism, and some Buddhism stress the importance of this. The third pattern is the view of male and female. As human being the role of men and women are very important and religion has had much to say about the roles of men and women on earth and in the divine realm. Today many influential religions consider the male as dominate; the sacred and full-time religious specialists are usually males. Although this may not be completely true, in the past, female divinities once played an important role in many culture and religion. 4. Having discussed in last week’s Discussion Board postings your own reasons for taking this World Religions course, discuss some of the benefits of studying the major religions of the world cited by our textbook author. Studying the different religions around the world allows for a better understanding of each religion and helps educate and improve one’s experience of other related subjects. When studying other religion it allows insights into the religious traditions such as values, relationships, personalities, and human creativity. Not only that but it gives the outsiders an appreciation for the things that are not obvious to the insider. Other benefits include insight into everyday life. Religions influence everyday life in many ways. Many people use religion for moral issues, on buildings, comic strips. The study of religion with help a person recognizes the religious influence everywhere. For someone who has no religion or is on their religious quest, understanding and studying the many different religions will help them find a place to belong too. Knowledge of the different religion will aid a person in their journey of life. Short Answer Questions: 5. What is the origin and meaning of the word â€Å"religion†? The origin of the word â€Å"religion† comes from the Latin roots re-, meaning â€Å"again,† and lig-, meaning â€Å"join† or â€Å"connect.† The translation would then mean â€Å"to join again,† or â€Å"to reconnect.† This word suggests the joining of our natural, human world to the sacred world. 6. What is the meaning of â€Å"sacred†? Sacred is a God or gods that is set apart because of its holiness. These deities are considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion. 7. Define and contrast monotheism and polytheism. Monotheism is the term that means a belief in one God. Those who believe in God believe that He is all powerful, pure spirit, and not fully definable in words. Polytheism on the other hand means worship of or believing in many coexisting gods. These multiple gods may be fairly separate entities, each in charge of an aspect of reality, or they may be multiple manifestations of the same basic sacred reality. 8. Define and contrast atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is the denial of the existence of any God or gods. Agnosticism is to argue that the existence of God cannot be proven. 9. How are symbols used in religion? Symbols are important in religion because religions are so varied in their teachings and in conflict with each other that symbols help express truth. Symbols are fairly concrete, ordinary, and universal that represents and helps human beings intensely experience something of greater difficulty. 10. What is a sacrament? Give two or three examples of sacraments in a religion with which you are familiar. A sacrament is a religious rite or act seen as way of receiving Gods grace. In some mysterious way God uses physical things to bring about spiritual changes and give His grace. As a Christian, a few sacraments that we hold are: baptism, communion, and fasting. These are all important in receiving God’s grace. 11. Contrast linear and cyclical time in the study of religion. Linear time place an emphasis on creation, religions that believe in this is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, time is very important. Linear time means moving in a straight line from the beginning of the universe to its end. In cyclical time, the universe simply moves through endless changes, which repeat themselves over grand periods of time. Buddhism believes time is cyclical and is not as crucial because ultimately the universe is not moving to a final point.

The first sin and its punishment

The first sin and its punishment The First Sin and Its Punishment Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, Did God say, You shall not eat from any tree in the garden? 2 The woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3but God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die. 4 But the serpent said to the woman, You will not die; 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. [1] The book of Genesis is one part in an anthology of materials that have been put together over a considerable period of time. Pertaining to be part of a diverse oral tradition, it does not, according to Burnette-Bletsch, have any singular authorship.[2] The book of Genesis is known as the primeval history, as it is believed to be expressive of a time before, there were any recorded histories. As a result, these histories were often recorded at much later stages[3] However, there are some parallels with Ancient near Eastern literature which contradict this statement. As a result, this debate will, in all probability remain sterile. Regardless of the debate, Genesis is deemed to be an historical book. However, not in the modern sense, it is history with a purpose. It is a collection of instructional, educational, and religious material. The very fact that this tradition had been passed down through the generations, may even have led to omissions of material, however, this should not be viewed by the modern academic as a setback.[4] One must also take into account the fact that many people will not all share the same viewpoint. In this respect Biblical narratives are often a complex mix of sources, genres and interpretation, both in their written and oral formats.[5] Known as mosaic authorship the traditional Jewish and Christian belief denotes that the first five books of the Old Testament were Gods inspirational words which were written down by Moses. P J Wiseman somewhat supports this theory, however, he cites Moses as the redactor rather than its author. He also states that there are several clues within Genesis which reveal how it was written. He refers to the toledots or genealogies in Genesis and draws attention to the colophons, believing them to be a specific symbol of authorship. Thus, concluding that the people that are actually named, (Adam, Noah, Shem et al), were the ones who wrote on the clay tablets in cuneiform, therefore, making them the true authors. Moses, subsequently, as a result of his Egyptian influences, just brought together and edited this work from the tablets.[6] However, more liberal theologians generally accept the Wellhausen theory, or documentary hypothesis which asserts that Genesis and the remaining Pentateuch was written by a group of authors, from diverse locations throughout Palestine, over a substantial period of time. The theory is that these books were redacted or compiled from the texts of pre-existing documents. Within this theory there is also the belief that each author wrote with their own particular style. This effectively meant that the mosaic element contained many layers of material which overlapped in some places. These writers are also believed to have had both their own styles and narratives. For example the J writer, wrote with affection for the Hebrew name for God (YAHWH). The E writer alternatively favoured the divine name Elohim. Whilst the D and P documents were names for the Deuteronomic and Priestly writers.[7] The J, E and P authors are believed to overlap in the book of Genesis, which consequently gives both c omplementary and contrasting elements to the understanding of some of Genesiss abstract concepts. However, it is with critical consensus that the J writer is believed to have edited Genesis 3:1-7.[8] In contrast Wenham cites Rendtorff, in that he has challenged the mosaic theory by stating the heterogeneous nature of material in Genesis cannot be ascribed to J.[9] Indeed, who and to what writer, wrote which parts, still remains a contentious issue within theological debates today Some scholars, such as Freidman and Bloom, have also gone so far as to suggest and imply that the J writer was also a female. Bloom especially exploits the fact that she may have been someone who had access to royalty, perhaps the daughter of Solomon, Rehoboams sister. This would fit with the general consensus that J had royal connections and wrote during the tenth century BCE. However, Bloom argues that Rehoboam (922-915) was the king at that time, not David (1000-961), or Solomon. (961-922).[10] The importance of this is that the kingdom under Rehoboam was experiencing internal unrest and rebellion. This was a stark contrast to the kingdom under the reign of David and Solomon.[11] Similarly another interesting point is made by Alicia Ostriker on Blooms feminist perspective. She compares the male characters in The Iliad, The Odyssey, and the Gilgamesh with the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. In comparison she asserts that the biblical ancestors were family men who initiated negotiation and deflected potentially dangerous situations. Whereas, the characters in the above texts were warriors and fighters, this alone may make a case for the survival of a female perspective within the overwhelmingly male dominated traits contained within the Hebrew bible.[12] The book of Genesis covers the largest time period than any of the other books. It covers the periods from creation, up to the time when the Israelites arrived in Egypt and grew into a nation. The literary structure of Genesis is built around eleven separate units. Beginning with the creation and the origins of the universe, through to the early history of the Israelites.[13] This proprietary text also gives and puts the biblical patriarchs into a creation framework. Originally written in Hebrew the title bereshit translates to in the beginning and is a translation of the Hebrew word toledot. [14] As a result Genesis is a history of origins, births, genealogies, and generations. The primary intent of Genesis one to eleven is focused around the parables. These cover the two creation stories, the Fall, Cain and Abel, The Flood and the Tower of Babel.[15] These myths centre upon deep philosophical meaning as opposed to fable or mere legend. They are also far removed from scientific theory. Indeed, the parables of Genesis with its poetic imagery and symbolism must be read, according to Richardson, as poetry and not as prose. In this context, Adam, Eve and the serpent should be viewed as poetical, religious figures, and not as real individuals.[16] Genesis 3: 1-7 has been the subject of many theories and interpretations between scholars alike. It is taken by many as an explanation of original sin. However, the word sin never occurs. Disobedience and its consequences, however, do occur. Phyllis Trible sees Genesis chapter two and three as A love story gone awry. She identifies that the plot is simple and uncomplicated. However, she also believes it to be full of uncertainty and plurality. She identifies that some may interpret Adam as superior to Eve and be both dependant and worthy, of the description troublemaker. However, Trible also notes that Adam remained silent in this text, a sign of his passive weakness perhaps.[17] Schungel-Strauman believes that no gender can claim dominance over the other, as the author of Genesis clearly provided a male and a female, evident in Genesis 1:.26-28.[18] Richardson expresses the view that the serpent within the text is a personification of temptation and should not be thought of as external to that of human nature. However, the J writer does not attempt to answer the philosophical question of where and how evil came into the world, he just tries to portray humanity. For example, the serpent may appeal to ones vanity and may suggest that Gods goodness can be emulated.[19] The serpent appears to be impersonal towards God as he refers to him as God and not Lord God. This bold rhetoric may be a direct challenge on his divinity.[20]As a result this challenge introduces a sense of unease into the text and is possibly a preamble of manipulation and trickery, is thus, imposed upon the reader. However, in contrast the serpent asked Eve an inquisitive, innocent question. Did God say, You shall not eat from any tree in the garden? This could imply that it was God himself speaking.[21] There is also the question of how did the serpent know firstly that God had spoken and secondly, what God had instructed. This could again imply that that the serpent was indeed manipulative and had an ultimate objective. A common interpretation is that the serpent is identifiable as either Satan or the devil. However, the serpent in ancient times was a symbolic figure, prominent and adored around ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Palestine. There was also an opinion that the serpent was intrinsically wise. Indeed, they often guarded the doorways of Egyptian Tombs, which symbolically, represented the mansions of heaven. They were also kept in temples and in the tombs of Kings.[22] To some, the serpent was also seen as a religious emblem, phallic in nature, it was connected to life, especially everlasting, or continuing. This would fit with the theme of both lineage and fertility of beginnings, evident within the book of Genesis. Next the focus appears to be on Eve the woman. Eve begins a dialogue with the serpent and explains both the instruction and consequence of disobeying Gods word. Eve uses the word God just as the serpent had, which possibly could indicate that she felt it was a somewhat harsh command.[23] The fact that the fruit could not be touched or eaten denotes that the action of disobedience would result in death. This could be taken literally, given the fact that both Adam and Eve had not previously touched these items. However, when the serpent answers you will not die and God knows what will happen, implies that God knew that they were going to both disobey and become enlightened in some way. Death therefore, may not have meant physical death but an ending of another sort. Your eyes will be opened, could be where crafty, the description of the serpent fits, or it could be where a bilateral view of good and evil in the world becomes evident to man. In so much as God had decreed a death sentenc e and the serpent had predicted increased knowledge.[24] However, Eve choose to ignore Gods instruction and take those of a crafty serpent, lured by his promise of liberation, freedom and knowledge, rather than the consequences of death. Yet in her ignorance, disobedience and doubt become parallel processes in so much as, when we obey God we fail to assert ourselves. This failure can then cause doubt and consequently, disobedience. Thus, when the serpent suggests that God did not forbid the eating of the fruit, it may have signified Gods divinity or his concern for humanity. Comparatively, human assertion may have highlighted the need for them to be the central figures, and not God. As a result, this rebellion may have signified human pride, which in turn led to sin, and equated to them wanting a parallel and equality with God.[25] Eve again is the central figure in Genesis 3: 6 and rather than be under the guidance of God, she possibly tries to assert her independence. One interpretation comes from Clare Amos, who believes that this verse is a metaphor for the maturity of both society and human beings. She suggests that Paul in (Rom7.7-12) also supports this theory. She further highlights the idea by explaining that the use of the adjectives, pleasing and desirable draw upon the idea of sexual maturity .Indeed, under the guidance of the serpent, a phallic symbol, the bodys senses became more obvious. When the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Amos, attributes this as a representation of them leaving an immature state of mind and thus, conforming to the constraints of society.[26] As in non biblical primeval narratives, clothing was a mark of civilisation.[27] In conclusion, Genesis 3 is the prologue to mans salvation, resulting from man disobedience towards God, However, it should not be read literally, but in context to ones own understanding. It serves as a theoretical text for the universal question of disobedience. However, it culminates in God not destroying man, but preserving his life. This redemption consequently sets him on a path towards salvation.[28] The book of Genesis is that path as it portrays a concept of human conduct, which both illustrates and illuminates our choices. It offers both subtle guidance and regulations and deals effectively and metaphorically with the possible consequences of noncompliance. Regulation is the backbone of any society, it cannot exist effectively without some controls. As a result the book of Genesis served as an interactive narrative that highlighted these issues and that in turn united the ancient societies. [1] Coogan, Michael, D, (ed), The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha 3rd Edition NRSV, (Oxford, 2007).pp.14-15 [2] Burnette- Bletsch, Rhonda, Studying The Old Testament, (Abingdon Press, U.S, 2007).p.8 [3] Ibid, p.125 [4] Vawter, Bruce, A Path Through Genesis, (London, 1957).p.21 [5] Edward L. Greenstein, The Formation of the Biblical Narrative Corpus AJS Review, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1990), p.162 [6] http://www.british-israel.ca/Genesis.htm [7] Vawter, Bruce, A Path Through Genesis, (London, 1957).p.23 [8] Speiser,E,A, The Anchor Bible Series, Genesis, (New York, 1964). p. XXVII [9] Wenham, Gordon, J, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, (Nelson word Pub Group, 1987). p.xxix [10] Phyllis Trible The Bible in Bloom The Iowa Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Fall, 1991), pp.21-22 [11]Hill, A, Walton J, H, A Survey Of The Old Testament 2nd Ed, (Grand Rapids Zondervan, 2000). p.157 [12] Alicia Ostriker, The Book of J The Iowa Review, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Fall, 1991), p.16 [13] Speiser, The Anchor Bible Series, Genesis, p. LV [14] Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old Testament, p.25 [15] Richardson, Genesis 1-11, p.27 [16] Ibid, p.30 [17] Trible, Phyllis, God And The Rhetoric Of Sexuality, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1978). p 72 [18] Brenner, Athalya, (ed), A Feminist Companion To Genesis, (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).p.75 [19] Richardson, Alan, Genesis 1-11, (Torch Bible series, London, 1953).p.71 [20] Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old Testament, p.30 [21] Wenham, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, p.88 [22] W. G. Moorehead, Universality of Serpent-Worship, The Old Testament Student, Vol. 4, No. 5 (Jan., 1885), p.207 [23] Wenham, World Biblical Commentary, Genesis 1-15, p.88 [24] Burnette- Bletsch, Studying The Old Testament, p.30 [25] Richardson, Genesis 1-11, p72 [26] Amos, Clare, The Book Of Genesis, (Peterborough, Epworth Press, 2004).p.23 [27] Coogan, Michael, D, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, p15 [28] Richardson, Alan, Genesis 1-11, p.79

Children of the Forest by Kevin Duffy Essay -- Children Forest Kevin D

"Children of the Forest" by Kevin Duffy "Children of the Forest" is a narrative written by Kevin Duffy. This book is a written testament of an anthropologist's everyday dealings with an African tribe by the name of the Mbuti Pygmies. My purpose in this paper is to inform the reader of Kevin Duffy's findings while in the Ituri rainforest. Kevin Duffy is one of the first and only scientists to have ever been in close contact with the Mbuti. If an Mbuti tribesman does not want to be found, they simply won't be. The forest in which the Mbuti reside in are simply too dense and dangerous for humans not familiar with the area to enter. Without them he would simply be wandering aimlessly in the forest. It was very important for Kevin Duffy to win the respect of the tribe when he arrived. The Mbuti are one of the most fascinating of all the "uncivilized" peoples of the world. This tribe inhabits equatorial Africa near the city of Kisangani in Zaire in the Ituri rainforest. The Mbuti, being the smallest people on earth, live in the most inaccessible place on earth. An Mbuti tribe is almost impossible to find in such a dense forest. The tribe's men and women are only about four and a half foot tall yet they navigate though rich and dense forestry daily in the search for meat and fruit. The Mbuti greatly acknowledge their beloved forest as the supplier of all their worldly needs and possessions. The forest supplies them with food, clothing, shelter, and to them, affection. The Mbuti treat the forest as their parents and see themselves as it's children. They often sing to it in times joy and pray to the forest in times of remorse. Duffy becomes a "fly-on-the-wall" among this particular Mbuti clan. Not by spying on them, but becoming a friend, a very good friend. The Mbuti trusted him like a brother and invited him into their lives to share everything from the birth Mazero's new child to the death of Ndima, one of the tribes' elders. He was even allowed to film the Mbuti's famous elephant hunt. To achieve this kind of trust among an "alien" culture is a phenomenal feat. The elephant hunt was the first story that depicted the actual way that the Mbuti hunted and shared their shared their rewards from a hunt. The entire tribe set out in order to search for an elephant for a feast. All the males of the tribe, regardless of age left ... ...in that respect. Humans seem to always behave like humans no matter where they are in the world or what technologies they possess. The Mbuti are probably better than Americans in another aspect also. They all hunted together, but not only the hunters and their families got to eat. Families of all the surrounding tribes enjoyed a meal. In today's society, people walk the streets hungry while other live lavishly, eating until they are stuffed. If Americans were more like the Mbuti, this country would be a much better place. The Mbuti pygmies of the Ituri rainforest are a fascinating people. They need their forest for food, shelter, and protection from other peoples of the world. How the Mbuti managed to survive the conquests of the Spanish and the English is beyond our knowledge. Their dense, uncharted forest has kept them a secret to many people to this day. The Mbuti probably are the most unchanged people still living on earth. As long as the Mbuti's forest isn't destroyed by the world's greed for money, they will more than likely remain there for decades to come. Works Cited: Duffy, Kevin, "Children of the Forest". Waveland Press, Inc. 1996

Poisonwood Bible Essay -- English Literature Essays

Poisonwood Bible Barbara Kingsolver is the author of many well-written pieces of literature including The Poisonwood Bible. This novel explores the beauty and hardships that exist in the Belgian Congo in 1959. Told by the wife and four daughters of a fierce Baptist, Nathan Price, Kingsolver clearly captures the realities this family and mission went through during their move to the Congo. The four daughters were raised in Atlanta Georgia in the 1950’s therefore entering the Congo with preconceived racial beliefs, and a very different way of life than they would soon experience. Throughout The Poisonwood Bible Kingsolver explores the importance and impact of faith, and a religion based on your own private beliefs. Orleanna Price, the wife and mother, of this struggling family is a very honest woman, lacking some of the stronger religious background of which her husband possesses. Orleanna, struggles with the hardships of daily life; toting and disinfecting the family's water, scrambling to make ends meet and trying to protect her family from the myriad terrors of the bush. Orleanna uses irony to describe the early days of her marriage. As she describes them, the days when there was still room for laughter in her husband's evangelical calling, before her pregnancies embarrassed him, before he returned from World War II a different man, a man who planned ''to save more souls than had perished on the road from Bataan.'' Her husband, Nathan Price, had escaped those miseries simply by luck, and knowing it curled his heart ''like a piece of hard shoe leather.'' As her husband continually preaches the good Lord’s word, she is faced with what seems to her to be the more important burdens of life, survival and keeping her family safe and sane. She doesn’t appear to have nearly so strong of a religious background as her husband would have hoped for her, h owever, throughout the novel it is made quite clear that she is in fact a better person than her husband could have ever hoped to be. Her daughter, Leah, captures her mothers religion very well when she says, â€Å"my father wears his faith like the bronze breastplate of God's foot soldiers, while our mother's is more like a good cloth coat with a secondhand fit.'' This quote is very true, as her father is the evangelical missionary leader who parades his religion around, as he craves for the reputation of being a ... ... God by a different name, many different names actually, but all of them combined created the same image of what Nathan Price believed in, God. These people helped to show the different forms of which our God takes on, many cultures may appear to be non-believers but in reality each society’s God aims for the same goals. As this novel is told entry by entry, narrated by the women of the family a clear picture of life in the Congo is very accurately represented as well as the influences of faith on each character. Leah clearly points out, â€Å"We've all ended up giving up body and soul to Africa, one way or another." Each of us, she adds, "got our heart buried in six feet of African dirt; we are all co-conspirators here." This is true of each and every character throughout the novel, as their faith is altered and influenced by the events within their stay in the Belgian Congo. Kingsolver presents to her reader many separate versions of faith, from Nathan’s forever devoted, to Orleanna’s incredibly subtle but morally strong. While reading the passages narrated by the women of the family it is realized, that without your own personal beliefs a life filled with success is unfathomable.

Cross-cultural Communication Essay

Language is playing nowadays one of the most important roles in cross-cultural communication, because it is a door into new culture and traditions. Cross-cultural communication arouses great interest compared with that of several decades ago. It means that the future success of a person mainly depends on his ability to use language and to communicate effectively across cultural boundaries. Nevertheless learning other languages doesn’t limit cross-cultural communication, language firstly suggests how cultural traditions and patterns are understood and how cultural values may affect the process of communication. (Managing Communication) Learning other languages is nowadays necessity, not only an option. Lots of spheres are influenced by cross-cultural communication involving, for example, health care providers, businesses, educational institutions, social service agencies and non-governmental organizations. Modern world recognizes and appreciates the role of language that is played in developing communication beyond cultural boundaries. Studying of language will help to achieve goals outside the native country. (Managing Communication) Understanding how to communicate cross-culturally will help to promote creating smoothly working project teams; responding to customers, clients, and markets; living and working in a culturally diverse world. Language is necessary in realizing that a person from other culture expresses his ideas and thoughts in completely different way. It is mentioned that â€Å"developing an awareness of why hearing words alone is not sufficient to discern meaning†. Language is important as well as learning of cultural customs and traditions of the country. In a modern swiftly changing world people and cultures are circulating and interacting as at a really dizzying speed. Those people who know how to use language and how to communicate effectively across cultures have a crucial advantage over others. (Managing Communication) Language in cross-cultural communication is aimed at preserving the traditions of ancient cultures as well as existing ones. For example, it is necessary to mention the kabary dialect based on â€Å"unhurried telling of ancestral proverbs, metaphors, and riddles, frequently in a dialogue using call and response†. Kabary is a form of traditional Malagasy oratory and it is seen that oral language may be the only way for some populations to preserve their cultural traditions. In this case language represents different manners of speech and increases literacy rate. Kabary is an important element in communication during ritual events. However, it is still used in regular, day-to-day talk. Although kabary is spoken solely in the Malagasy language, learning their language will help to understand their culture better and to break misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the cultural customs. (Harman 2002) Nevertheless there are also negative moments connected with language and cross-cultural communication. Although developing of international slang may make the process of cross-cultural communication easier, many countries prefer to stomp out foreign slang considering it â€Å"steals† originality of the native language. For example, Russian government thinks that introducing of international slang, especially English words, may result in serious corrupting their native language. However, the language in communication makes people understand better and introducing of international words may be considered a right action. The negative moment is that very often such international elements can replace native words or even may have no equivalents. For example, lexical interlopers are something new to Russian language: democratic politics, business, banking, holding, etc. and such words as broker, sponsor, chizburger, fax have no equal equivalents in Russian language. (Weir 2002) Language has to be preserved as it is the embodiment of human vision and language varieties are able to provide unparalleled insights into the process of cross-cultural communication. Language is human experience and perception exposed to be the main tool across cultures. (Thucus-Dubrow 2002) References Managing Communications. (1996, August). Peace Watch, 2, 5, 1-2. Thucus-Dubrow, Rebecca. (2002, April 25). World’s Languages Are Fast Disappearing. Retrieved September, 22, from http://www. globalpolicy. org/globaliz/cultural/2002/0425fast. htm Harman, Danna. (2002, May 9). In Kabary the Point is to Avoid the Point. Retrieved September, 22, from http://www. csmonitor. com/2002/0509/p01s04-woaf. html Weir, Fred. (2002, June 4). Russian Lawmakers Try to Stomp out Foreign Slang. Retrieved September, 22, from http://www. csmonitor. com/2002/0604/p14s01-lepr. html

Philosophy of the Mind Essay

Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason Introduction The Critique is a treatise on metaphysics. Kant defines metaphysics as â€Å"a speculative cognition that is wholly isolated and rises entirely above being instructed by experience. It is a cognition through mere concepts (not, like mathematics, cognition through the application of concepts to intuition), so that here reason is to be its own pupil† (xiv). This remark alone indicates that the attempt to answer the question â€Å"How is metaphysics as science possible?†, places the question of the bearing of our empirical judgments on objects qua ontologically independent. Patently, that does not imply that the transcendental deductions will not have any ultimate bearing on such issues. It means nothing more or less than that the transcendental deductions are concerned with the question of the mere possibility of pure a priori judgments – i.e., how it is possible that we are cognitively capable of making synthetic a priori judgments at all – as an independent problem in its own right. The results of the investigation would provide the basis for a subsequent series of investigations into the bearing such judgments have or could have on ontologically independent objects independent of perception and judgment of them. But it is a simple matter of first things first – let us first see what transpires when we attempt to draw on our indigenous cognitive resources alone. The treatise is accordingly a â€Å"propadeutic† and a â€Å"preparation† and a â€Å"treatise on the method† for an ultimate system of pure reason (xxii). The first Critique is about finding the mind in nature hence nature’s dependence on that mind. The second Critique then shows us what efficacy that mind can have in actively shaping at least one aspect of nature — the phenomenal self. Although, this shaping of the self through reason has a wider impact in that through freedom, we gain a new perspective on the entire phenomenal world, the world of nature and value. That said, it is not a small matter to describe in such specificity and detail the particular faculties or powers of the mind. It seems plausible that by granting a mind-dependent nature, a different accounting for that nature could be constructed; the mind and its faculties could be sliced and diced in different ways than does Kant, although then we would be different creatures entirely — something Kant does not rule out. (For Kant, clearly, a creature with a different mental make-up could experience a different nature from the same things-in-themselves.) Given his particular recipe for the mind, Kant’s theory of freedom and morality reveals numerous things we can say about the faculty of reason. Kant begins by setting reason, which is not merely a receptive but an active faculty, apart from everything to do with physical or sensory matter, but he must ultimately find a way to unite it with matter, in the form of experience, in order for there to be freedom since, perhaps oddly, freedom as we think of it can only exist in the context of its lack — determinism. That we might see these realms as disparate only reflects a failure to take Kant’s mind-dependent construction of nature at its word. The answer to many of the apparent impossibilities many find in Kant’s theory of freedom is to see freedom not as an attempt to marry freedom and nature, but rather to marry reason (as author of freedom) and the understanding (as author of nature). Through reason’s law-imposing nature emerge moral entities — indeed, a phenomenal moral realm — and through the understanding (and sensation) emerge objects of nature — a realm of nature. If we take nature (as we experience it) as in any way a given, or even if mind-dependent, as somehow prior to freedom, the impossibilities are impossible to avoid. An Intelligible Faculty Understanding, reason and judgment are most often described, as faculties, that is, as faculties of the mind. Kant appears to distinguish between the passive (sensibility), the empirically conditioned but active (understanding) and the unconditionally active (reason). (575) From this we see that reason is unique among the faculties as being both wholly intelligible and active. Immediately we also see that, from one point of view, the problem of freedom is simply the problem of reason: how can an unconditionally active mental power that is outside space and time be efficacious with respect to that which is in time? How can the purely rational mind cause something? â€Å"Pure reason,† Kant writes, is â€Å"a purely intelligible faculty [that] is not subject to the form of time.† (579) As such, we can have no direct experience of it — other than the bare awareness found in the Fact of Reason. (Our psychological experience of ourselves is as appearances, not as things in themselves.) Pure practical reason is what comprises the intelligible will because it is the faculty that underlies all maxims (or actions) determining that will. Although it is law-giving (this is how it is active), it does not impose particular laws, that is, laws with empirical content, for to do so would remove its purely intelligible and a priori status. Rather, all it can offer is the form of a law. We see an example of this in the Categorical Imperative, with its admonition to test a maxim by universalizing it. It could perhaps be argued that reason simply is the intelligible will; or rather, that the intelligible will is reason. Yet the foundation of freedom, as Kant frequently points out, lies in the noumenal realm of which we can cognize nothing. Only pure practical reason can fit the bill with respect to freedom (Neiman, 1994, p.62-7). Logical Reasoning How does the reason we encounter in its logical guise lead to the reason that produces the problem of freedom, and the other troublesome ideas of the Dialectic? Reason’s logical role as the faculty of inference is perhaps its most celebrated aspect. Here, as elsewhere, its raw material is not the empirical object/sensory manifold but the unifying law or principle that, through inference, reveals some knowledge of an object to us, for example, in the simple syllogism.[1] Kant uses this kind of reasoning from which to extract reason’s guiding principle — its primary characteristic. He argues that â€Å"in inference, reason endeavors to reduce the varied and manifold knowledge obtained through the understanding to the smallest number of principles,† (361) revealing that reason is seeking â€Å"the highest possible unity,† but that this is â€Å"not the unity of a possible experience, but is essentially different from such unity, which is that of understanding.† (363) He ultimately reaches the following principle of reason: â€Å"to find for the conditioned knowledge obtained through the understanding the unconditioned whereby its unity is brought to completion.† Thus, Kant has traced the genesis of the â€Å"supreme principle of pure reason† that ultimately yields the transcendental ideas, and distinguishes reason’s role from that of the understanding (373). This also lies at the basis of Kant’s distinction between reason’s logical and transcendental, or â€Å"real,† use where reason is a the source of concepts and principles â€Å"which it does not borrow either from the sense or from the understanding.† (356) It is this principle of reason and what it yields that Kant then spends the major part of the Dialectic testing and examining, concluding that the principle itself appears sound, but warning of its seemingly unavoidable misuse. His way out, ultimately, is to fall back on the regulative-constitutive distinction: Thus pure reason, which at first seemed to promise nothing less than the extension of knowledge beyond all limits of experience, contains, if properly understood, nothing but regulative principles†¦But if†¦they be misunderstood, and treated as constitutive principles of the transcendent knowledge, they give rise, by a dazzling and deceptive illusion, to persuasion and a merely fictitious knowledge, and therewith to contradictions and eternal disputes. (730) As we have already seen, this seemingly intractable position is itself resolved in favor of freedom via another distinction that is tightly linked to (if not emerges out of) constitutivity-regulativity — that between theoretical and practical — which reintroduces the possibility of a valid use of constitutive reason. In the entire faculty of reason only the practical can provide us with the means for going beyond the sensible world and provide cognitions of a supersensible order and connection, which, however, just because of this can be extended only so far as is directly necessary for pure practical purposes. (706) Thus pure practical reason’s principle takes in us the form of the moral law as the ultimate principle that strives systematize and unify our rules of action (our maxims), just as it sought to unify the rules of nature. And, like the principle we found to be at the root of logical reasoning, this law lies a priori in pure practical reason. Pure or Absolute Spontaneity Kant frequently describes freedom as pure or absolute spontaneity. He also ties freedom to reason and reason to spontaneity. As Kant also points out here, the understanding, as reason’s close cousin, if not identical twin, is also a faculty of spontaneity, but it is one that is limited by the requirements of possible experience and so applies itself to appearances. For the understanding, that which is given (sense, sensation) drives the production of nature, and the understanding’s spontaneity is what allows us to think any object of cognition, regardless of its actuality.[2] Thus, the understanding, which gives us nature, does not and cannot suffice to give us freedom precisely because it is too shackled to sensation and experience. For reason, unrestricted in the practical realm by the â€Å"is,† allows us to create moral entities (through creating the morally situated self), that is, reason as law-giving, as pure spontaneity is also freedom. A Given Nature Among the things that Kant’s various descriptions of reason tell us, is that it has a certain nature (that is, characteristics or features) that endows it with inevitable tendencies or drives. We become aware of these faculties or powers through what we do, and what and how we think, and of course we act and think by virtue of the faculties. (574) This nature appears to be given and, as such, it seems (at least from what Kant says of it) that it cannot be further explained nor analyzed. Of course, this nature is essentially our nature as rational beings. Kant frequently appeals to the nature of reason in explaining why it is that we seem always and everywhere inevitably ask the questions we ask (and draw the often erroneous conclusions we tend to draw about the world): There has always existed in the world, and there will always continue to exist, some kind of metaphysics, and with it the dialectic that is natural to pure reason. (xxxi) They [transcendental ideas] are not arbitrarily invented; they are imposed by the very nature of reason itself, and therefore stand in necessary relation to the whole employment of understanding. (384) Guyer finds Kant’s appeal to nature with respect to reason problematic, arguing that that â€Å"idea that our freedom itself is actually a product of nature† is paradoxical because â€Å"what is merely natural is precisely what would seem to be unfree rather than free.† (2000, p.375) Conclusion Kant insists that freedom has a central role in his philosophy; that freedom and its metaphysics are wholly bound up with the metaphysics of nature; and that at the root of both is the mind. Kant’s Critical corpus is built on the fact of our having minds composed of certain faculties or powers, passive (receptive) and active (spontaneous or even causal), which Kant analyzes based on the manner and matter of the experiences they yield us. Clearly, even if everything about reason upon which my case for understanding Kantian freedom is based is true, what seem to be antecedent assumptions about the mind and its faculties arguably remain unproven, and perhaps improvable. Since so much of what Kant argues makes up the mind is labeled intelligible — the faculty of reason for one — it seems we are still left, at the end of the day, with an even more crippling Kantian unknowability than that met with earlier. This unknowability covers that which is the foundation of the theory, and Kant could be accused of being more dogmatic than the dogmatists in asserting such a starting point. Yet, on another view, there are no â€Å"antecedent assumptions† in Kant’s theory about the mind, since it is precisely the make-up of the mind that the critical system is intended to uncover. This is at least part of Kant’s point when he argues we must consider having objects conform to our faculties of cognition, rather than the other way around — his famous second Copernican revolution (xvi-xvii). On that view, nature is a reflection of the mind, and so an investigation of nature is for Kant simply an investigation of the mind. The Hume: Mitigated Skepticism and Skeptical Conclusions Introduction Hume’s biographer, Ernest Mossner, offers this pertinent insight on Hume’s religious skepticism: How can we recognize [Hume’s] personal convictions on religion? The answer is plainly that we cannot—certainly not without considerable effort on our part and even then not definitively. The conclusions of a sceptic—even a mitigated sceptic—cannot be summarized in a one-two-three pattern or creed if for no other reason than that a sceptic, unlike other types of philosophers, is not altogether stable in his thinking, is perpetually rethinking his principles. Scepticism, first and last, is a frame of mind, neither a collection nor a system of doctrines. (Mossner, 1976, p.5) This section will demonstrate just how restless and inquiring Hume’s skepticism was in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In the Enquiry’s first section, Hume compares those who attempt to indoctrinate their religious dogmas to thieves who are unable to win a fair fight (that is, honestly persuade men to believe their delusive message) and who will then hide behind superstitious â€Å"intangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness.† Chaced from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. (i, 11) Hume concludes the Enquiry’s first section by expressing the hope (indeed his intent) that his philosophical skepticism â€Å"can undermine the foundations of an abstruse philosophy, which seems to have hitherto served only as a shelter to superstition, and a cover to absurdity and error.† (i, 16) Although Hume is always careful to state that he is fighting dogmatism and â€Å"religious superstition†, it is not difficult to see that in the early sections of the Enquiry this amounts to anyone who believes that they possess knowledge of God. The easiest way to see the Enquiry’s skeptical pattern of reasoning is to see that Hume wages war on religious dogmatism on two fronts. The first front is in the early sections of the Enquiry where Hume will mount a general assault on abstruse metaphysics and dogmatic theology with his account of â€Å"true metaphysics† (i, 12), which is an understanding and application of the general principles of human nature. The second front is in sections x and xi where Hume launches particular attacks on theistic bastions of revelation and natural theology. General Assault: True Metaphysics We must first determine whether God is a possible object for human understanding. The first test for the idea of God is â€Å"from what impression is that supposed idea derived?† (ii, 22) The answer must be â€Å"none†, for we can find no vivid and forceful impression corresponding to that abstract and complex idea, â€Å"God†. Thus, if God’s existence is an â€Å"object of human reason or enquiry† (iv, 25) then God’s existence must either be a relation of ideas or a matter of fact. Clearly, God’s existence is not a â€Å"Proposition†¦ discoverable by the mere operation of thought, without dependence on what is anywhere existent in the universe† (iv, 25). God is a being—indeed the Supreme Being—so if God exists. His existence must be a matter of fact. â€Å"All reasonings concerning matter of fact seem to be founded on the relation of Cause and Effect.† (iv, 26) Knowledge of God (the original cause) thus must arise from causal knowledge. For Hume there are only two types of causes: particular and general causes. So God, the original cause, must either be first particular cause or the highest general cause or principle. Particular causes are the constant conjunction of two species of objects found in phenomena. God’s uniqueness precludes the possibility that God can be a particular cause: It is only when two species of objects are found to be constantly conjoined, that we can infer the one from the other and were an effect presented, which was entirely singular, and could not be comprehended under any known species [i.e.. Nature] I do not see, that we could form any conjecture or inference at all concerning its cause [i.e., God]. If experience and observation and analogy be, indeed, the only guides which we can reasonably follow in inferences of this nature; both the effect and cause must bear a similarity and resemblance to other effects and causes, which we know, and which we have found, I many instances, to be conjoined with each other. (xi, 148) In the Enquiry Hume also rejects as impossible a knowledge of God, the ultimate general cause or principle: It is confessed, that the utmost effort of human reason is to reduce the principles, productive of natural phenomena, to a greater simplicity, and to resolve the many particular effects into a few general causes, by means of reasonings from analogy, experience, and observation†¦ Elasticity, gravity, cohesion of parts, communication of motion by impulse; these are probably the ultimate causes and principles which we shall ever discover in nature; and we may esteem ourselves sufficiently happy, if by accurate enquiry and reasoning, we can trace up the particular phenomena to, or near to, these general principles. (iv, 30) Hume limits the human understanding to knowledge of common life and experience (xii, 162). Clearly, however, God transcends human experience, so God cannot be an object of the understanding. Since the idea of God does not arise from the understanding, it must arise from some other faculty. Hume analyzes the idea of â€Å"God† (an infinitely powerful, wise and just entity) and shows that â€Å"God† is generated by the imagination through reflecting on human capacities and faculties and expanding them infinitely (ii, 19; and vii, 72). Hume’s general assault is directed against speculative metaphysics and dogmatic theology, which believes that God can be known by humans. And nothing can be more requisite than to enter upon the enterprize with thorough care and attention; that, if it lie within the compass of human understanding, it may at last be happily achieved; if not, it may, however, be rejected with some confidence and security. (i, 15) Particular Arguments for Theism From a religious viewpoint, Hume’s â€Å"true metaphysics† can be read as an assault on any dogmatic belief in God. In Enquiry sections x and xi Hume focuses his attack specifically on Theism (or one could be even more specific and say â€Å"Christianity†). In these two sections, Hume mounts an attack on the two pillars of Christianity: revelation and natural theology. Hume argues that neither revelation (reports of miracles) nor natural theology (the Design argument) can yield a belief in God that a reasonable man would assent to. By â€Å"reasonable man† here, Hume means the man who follows his â€Å"natural unprejudiced reason, without the delusive glosses of superstition and false religion† (x). As it can be seen from Hume’s argument in Enquiry x, he attempts to undermine the reasonableness of a belief in reported miracles1 using four lines of reasoning. First, â€Å"miracles† are violation of laws of nature. Any belief-system (secular or religious) must take as its foundation that there are inviolable laws of nature. Therefore, it is inconsistent to have a belief-system that is based on the testimony of miraculous events occurring. Miracles can thus never serve as the rational foundation for any belief system. Second, even if we knew miracles occurred, this would only establish a supematural entity who through â€Å"particular volitions† intervenes in nature and history. But miraculous events are useless in establishing what kind of supernatural power (or powers) it is that caused such events. This argument cannot establish whether the supernatural power is wise, foolish, or capricious. Or for that matter, this argument cannot establish that this supernatural power is God (the original cause and sustainer of the world). Third, admitting miracles based on testimony is self-defeating for theism. Other non-theistic and counter-theistic religions (the Gnostics, for example, who hold the creator is malevolent) also have miraculous testimonies that have as much claim to belief as reported Theistic miracles. Fourth, Theists who build their faith on miracles have it backwards: miracles can never justify religious faith. Rather, it is religious faith that justifies a belief in miracles. Section x arrives at a skeptical conclusion: we cannot know if a miraculous violation of law of nature occurred, and even if we could know they did occur such events could never be the foundation for a belief system such as Theism. In Section xi, Hume attacks the second pillar of theism, natural theology or reason’s attempt to understand God unaided by revelation. Hume’s argument against the Design argument of natural theology occurs in two levels: the first level is given by â€Å"the friend who loves skeptical paradoxes† (xi, 132) who draws out the consequences of accepting the Design argument. Let us grant (the â€Å"friend† argues) that there is a Divine Architect who designed nature. Humans can infer the nature or essence of this Architect only by carefully studying the design or order in the Architect’s creation, Nature. Has the Divine Architect designed this world in a way that a moral agent (one who is benevolent and just) would have designed it? The numerous gratuitous evils we discover in our world that appear unnecessary and unavoidable block us from inferring that the designer of our world is a benevolent and just moral agent. The second level of argument against natural theology is given by Hume himself, in his own voice. Whereas the first level granted the Design argument and drew out the anti-theistic consequences of the Design argument; in the second level Hume argues that there are compelling reasons against granting the Design argument. Because we discover a design in our world does not allow us to infer the existence of a designing intelligence. To put this point in another way: this argument states that because there is a causal order in our world, there must have been an original cause, God. But our knowledge of causation is only through experienced constant conjunction between two species of objects. We expect objects of type x to bring about changes in objects of type y because we have experienced this many times in the past. However, the original cause, God, is unique. Therefore we cannot make the required jump which is required by the Design argument that because there is causal order or design in our world there must be an original cause or designer (xi, 148). Faith in the Enquiry The outcome of both Hume’s general account of â€Å"true metaphysics† as well as his particular arguments against miracles and natural theology are skeptical. On the basis of reason we have no grounds to assent to God. Thus, if one assents to God, this assent is based not on reason but on faith: Divinity or Theology, as it proves the existence of a Deity, is composed partly of reasonings concerning particular, partly concerning general facts. It has a foundation in reason, so far as it is supported by experience. But its best and most solid foundation is faith, and divine revelation. (xii, 165). To draw the implication here, since Hume has shown in section xi that God has no foundation in reason or experience, a belief in God is therefore founded totally on faith. Hume’s appeals to faith in the Enquiry should be taken seriously and not regarded as sarcastic asides. We must understand that for Hume faith is a domain entirely outside of natural reason (i.e., understanding): And whoever is moved by faith to assent to it (the Christian Religion) is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience. (x, 131) Hume’s argument is intended to show that a belief in God is, literally, unreasonable: it is outside the domain of reason. Hume is not endorsing faith, but pointing out the status of belief in God. One who accepts Hume’s position on God in the Enquiry recognizes that a belief in God, since it is unsupported by reason, must float in mid-air as if by a sorcerer’s trick. Some theists will face up to this consequence of theistic belief. But for most theists, upon realizing that their belief in God in unsupported by reason, their faith will come crashing down. Conclusion The Enquiry carefully lays out a program of Mitigated Skepticism: all knowledge must be limited to experience and common life. In his general account of â€Å"true metaphysics† Hume shows that given the weakness and limits of human nature, knowledge of God is impossible.   Then in his particular arguments of x and xi, Hume shows that neither reports of miracles (revelation) nor natural theology (reason) provide support for the theistic God. Hume’s aim in the Enquiry was skeptical or â€Å"agnostic†. A century before T.H. Huxley coined the term, in the Enquiry Hume wrote the first agnostic manifesto (Mossner). Comparison and Contrast Hume’s conception of reason and the role it plays are widely disputed, but enough can be agreed upon to at this stage make the points, in particular, that a feeling- or passion-based reason does not allow non-instrumental freedom. Korsgaard notes that Hume discusses several varieties of reason, but says that â€Å"Hume seems to say simply that all reasoning that has a motivational influence must start from a passion, that being the only possible source of motivation, and must proceed to the means to satisfy that passion, that being the only operation of reason that transmits motivational force.† (1996, p.314).   Onora O’Neill argues that for Kant, there can be no such thing as a merely instrumental reasoner: â€Å"Not only does he deny that reason is or ought to be the slave of the passions; he actually insists that there are and can be no merely instrumental reasoners.† (1989, p.52) Before looking at the differences, it is as well to point out what Kant and Hume have in common with respect to reason and cause. Both are trying to grapple with a similar tension — between reason as the fount of what can be known with certainty as set against the metaphysical tangles into which it so often leads us (manifest, for example, in antinomies for Kant and discussions of the infinite divisibility of space and time for Hume). In the end, Kant resolves this tension with his account of the roles of the faculties, particularly in the construction of knowledge, with an a priori reason and a distinction between reason as acting regulatively with respect to cognition and constitutively in the moral realm. In this, he sees reason as an unconditionally active faculty. Hume, on the contrary, while acknowledging the tension, holds that ultimately it cannot be resolved, and that while we continue to debate issues such as whether or not reason has efficacy or dominance over the passions, we will to all intents and purposes remain in nature’s leading rein. And, for Hume, reason is passive, inert. For both thinkers, reason has a nature or tendency that drives our thinking with a certain inevitability. Kant, as we have seen, frequently refers to reason’s â€Å"nature,† while Hume describes it in terms of instinct. In the end, though, their differences far outweigh what they share. For Hume, reason is subordinate to experience in a way that for Kant it is not, indeed cannot be. And this is where the contrast gains particular relevance with respect to freedom. Simon Blackburn describes it this way: Reason can inform us of the facts of the case. †¦ And it can inform us which actions are likely to cause which upshots. But beyond that, it is silent. The imprudent person, or the person of unbridled lust, malevolence, or sloth is bad, of course. We may even call them unreasonable, but in a sense that Hume considers improper. For, more accurately, it is not their reason that is at fault, but their passions. (1998, p.239) Hume considers several species of reason, for example demonstrative versus probable reasoning, and it is difficult to describe and choose one that can be considered the Humean or â€Å"empiricist† counterpart to Kantian reason.   In addition to his view of reason in general, Hume is quite specific in ruling out the possibility that such reason can in any way ground morality, and so it clearly cannot ground the kind of freedom we find in Kant. Consider Kant’s famous confession, that it was Hume’s critique of causality that woke him from his â€Å"dogmatic slumber†. Now, it seems to me that the significance of this remark is completely lost if it is thought to license a reading of the Critique as a ‘refutation of Hume’, that the Analogies are attempting to restore the epistemic foundation for Newtonian physics that Hume’s critique of causality had undermined, etc. As Kant explicitly states, what was for him significant about Hume’s critique of causality is that it was the thin end of a very large wedge, and a gateway into a vastly greater problem. Kant, in short, begins his investigation by agreeing with Hume’s conclusions regarding causality, but then goes further, formulating the problem in its most general form and then determining its corollaries with absolute rigor. Kant attests to the legitimacy of Hume’s critique of causality – for him Hume has incontrovertibly demonstrated that an a priori concept cannot be derived from a series of particulars. Accepting Hume’s conclusion, Kant then raises the next question: what, then, is the origin of such concepts? The skeptical conclusions Hume draws are, Kant contends, the result of his having considered â€Å"not the whole of his problem, but a part, which by itself can give us no information†. In sum, rather than presenting an alternative program, we see that by his own admission Kant sought to elaborate on, to extend and probe in greater depth the same process of rational self-scrutiny that Hume had begun. His objective was not to refute but to develop Hume’s insight by grasping the entire problem of which Hume considered only a particular instance. What, then, is Hume’s problem considered in its most general form? Kant’s remarks indicate that, for him, the generalized version of Hume’s problem is the problem of the possibility of synthetic a priori judgments – i.e., Kant’s generalization of Hume’s problem is the question of the possibility of a scientific metaphysics. Since Hume had shown that a priori concepts do not originate in experience, for Kant the resolution of the problem requires demonstrating the way in which all such concepts â€Å"spring from the pure understanding† While Hume had discovered a mere instance of the way in which in â€Å"judgments of a certain kind we go beyond our concept of the object† (Kant, p.792), we are required to examine what is common to the entire range of   such judgments.   Hume did not grasp the general problem since â€Å"he did not systematically survey all the kinds of a priori synthesis of understanding† (795). It is such a systematic survey, and an attempt to identify what they all have in common in order to consider the general phenomenon of our employing concepts that exceed the empirical content provided a posteriori as a single problem. Kant tells us is nothing other than â€Å"the working out of Hume’s problem in its greatest possible expansion†. The following definitions are submitted accordingly: a) Hume’s insight: Judgments about causality employ a concept that claims universal validity. But a concept derived from a series of particular instances cannot be universally valid. b) Kant’s generalization of Hume’s insight: We employ a range of concepts that claim universal validity. Each concept moreover presupposes an idea of universality as such.   No such concepts can originate from the particular instances perceived by the senses. Therefore, none of our ideas claiming universal validity, nor the idea of universality as such, can be derived from the particular instances perceived by the senses. Thus, for Kant, the general problem instantiated by Hume’s critique of causality is the following: c) Hume’s Point: No conception of universality, qua conception of universality, can be derived from empirical input in general. Our synthetic a priori judgments thus employ concepts whose content cannot be derived from experience. But there is more to the problem than this for Kant, since his question concerns not only the concepts that such judgments employ, but the very possibility of our making such judgments. Kant’s formulation of his central question thus covers not only the concepts that are employed in the judgments, but also the judgment considered as an act, as a cognitive process and achievement. The question of the very possibility of synthetic a priori judgments thus encompasses not only the question of how it is possible that we could make a judgment that makes so much as a mere claim to universal validity (given Hume’s Point), but also the problem of our cognitive capability to execute the act that employs such concepts. The reader should expect, as Kant states in the Introduction, a â€Å"critique of our power of pure reason itself† (27). Kant’s transcendental deductions are employed in an attempt to derive the necessary conditions of possibility our cognitive constitution must independently fulfill in order to account for the mere capacity to employ universal concepts in judgments that we in fact possess. Since, by Hume’s Point, universal concepts by definition cannot be derived from empirical content, we must attempt to discern what is contributed to empirical experience and judgment by the pure principles of subjectivity, considered in utter isolation from empirical input as such. References Blackburn, Simon (1998). Ruling Passions A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Guyer, Paul. (2000). Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hume, David. (1976). Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by LA. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965. Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mossner, Ernest Campbell. (1980). The Life of David Hume (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon Press,. Neiman, Susan. (1994) The Unity of Reason, New York: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, Onora. (1989). Constructions of Reason Explorations of Kant’s Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [1]   â€Å"Reason, considered as the faculty of a certain logical form of knowledge, is the faculty of inferring, i.e., judging mediately (by subsumption of the condition of a possible judgment under the condition of a given judgment.)† (386); â€Å"Every syllogism is a mode of deducing knowledge from a principle.† (357) [2]   â€Å"If the receptivity of our mind, its power of receiving representations in so far as it is in any wise affected, is to be entitled sensibility, then the mind’s power of producing representations from itself, the spontaneity of knowledge, should be called the understanding.† (75)