Meaning of life - Question Essay Example for Free

Meaning of life Question Essay Freud, like Newton and Darwin, did not consider himself to be a philosopher but had an enormous influence over philosophy, he believed that to consider the question: â€Å"what is the meaning of life? † is a waste of time. The question, he thought, is rather meaningless and has no ultimate answer, asking it is being somewhat like asking what the color of time is (Mason). There are serious arguments that can be advanced in support of this point of view, especially if we agree that meaning is not something inherent to events, things, and other processes and so on, but something we ascribe to them (Mason). To think otherwise would involve ascribing them something that is a product of our intellect and consciousness. The meaning of X, whether X is an event, a thing, or a process, is actually the connection or a set of those connections X has with other events, things, and processes and so on, which we choose to consider to be of particularly importance to us (Mason). This is why the same events have different meaning for different people. For a Chinese, be he a Communist or an anti-Communist, the meaning of the war in Korea is that it marks the end of a century of national humiliation and a permanent threat of devastation through a long series of military defeats by foreign powers; for an American, the meaning of that very same war is that it put an end to the attempts to expand by direct military invasion the influence of Chinese Communism (Adams). There are undoubtedly countless amounts of explanations to this riddle, and there are many circumstances that can change one’s perspective towards this problem, but ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer. Paragraph 2: Everything changes radically, of course, if we belong to a Church. Everything is noted under God’s eye For believers, their life long goal is to sustain God’s knowledge and go his way. Go to the right passage and obey his â€Å"laws† Their passage of life consists of saving one’s immortal soul. Duty of life makes up the meaning of life. Paragraph 3: The practical Romans grasped something that over the head of two millennia of Christianity resonates with contemporary pragmatism, and with the life philosophy resumed in the dictum â€Å"the meaning of life is life itself† Meaning of life is life itself Living the life in happiness is the meaning of life. Anything that fits you the best will become your meaning of life. Find out your goals, what you want to achieve life, and that will become your meaning of life ultimately. Limitations will apply. Paragraph 4: Living your life according to this life philosophy, which is the most commonly chosen among the life philosophies derived from the answer â€Å"the meaning of life consists in living life†, is usually not too difficult for a â€Å"normal† person living under â€Å"normal† circumstances. Meaning of life depended on the status of the person. Meaning of life is to live a good life. Do not know what exactly is a good life but a good life will be noted. Everyone has different meanings to life. Paragraph 5 (Conclusion): But be it Confucius, Aristotle or even Kant with his theory of being impossible to achieve moral perfection or any other of the great minds each of whom spent years of their lives trying to provide humanity with an answer to the fatal question, essentially, they trying to tell us what to live for and how to live. Namely, almost all the answers they offered have the same basic flaw: when they are workable at all, they work only for very few exceptional individuals and are way beyond the reach for the rest of us (Shields); us, those weak, silly and prone to sin creatures that make up the vast majority of humankind. Luckily, this vast majority do not worry too much about what great minds have in mind, but just live their lives as they best can according to their own, petty, senseless wishes and notions (Metz): work their gardens, even if they never heard of Voltaire, and whether they know that Freud existed or not, do not waste their humble intellectual potential trying to answer a question that has no answer (Metz). The rest is a senseless waste of time, â€Å"Primum vivere, deindre filosofare†, and if you spend too much time and effort philophizing, you will have no time nor energy to live, which involves earning money to pay the bills. As to the great eternal and fundamental questions, let’s leave them to professional philosophers whom society pays to do this specific job, as it pays plumbers to do the plumbing, scientists to explore nature, nurses to help the sick, the clowns to entertain us.

Nicholas Romanovs Role in the Russian Revolution :: Russian Russia History

Nicholas Romanov's Role in the Russian Revolution "Nicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive leader. His character was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution" "The last Tsar of Russia was a tragic figure a classic case of being a leader in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing within his power could have prevented the forces of change from overtaking Tsarist Russia." To what extent do you agree with these explanations of the collapse of autocracy in Russia? Nicholas Romanov was an indecisive man who was easily influenced by others. Although it was not his character that was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution. He may have been a leader at the wrong time but if he had related better for the time he was in power. Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire. In economic terms it was backward as it was late industrialising and late to emerge from feudalism. In political terms it was also backward as there was no legal political parties nor was there any centrally elected government Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state . The fact that his father who died at age 49 thought that he had many more years ahead of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas' poor leadership of Russia . Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian society was not prepared to turn on it's heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria . The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a 'critical relationship at a turning point in history' . He was weak and indecisive but he wasn't an imbecile, Alexandra, if not an imbecile was politically and socially illiterate, dominating him and towards the end of their lives forced him to make chaotic decisions. Nicholas nor Alexander III were well trained for the job of ruling this vast country. Alexander was not so much superior to the son in character of abilities to justify admirers hopes that he lived longer, so the monarchy would have.

Notes for exam question Essay

Chapter 1: social scientist have argued that issues of inequality, poverty and social exclusion cut across both social welfare and crime control domains, and noted that while some responses to these issues may become the focus of social welfare policies, others may become the focus of crime control interventions. Social justice then is neither the exclusive terrain of social welfare nor of crime control. The boundaries between these two domains tend to be mobile and porous. This idea was introduced by arguing that the neat distinction between the goals of social welfare (well being) and the goals of crime control (maintaining social order) break down on closer inspection. Chapter 1 section 4: crime control measures impact adversely on social welfare and produce justice struggles. State withdrawal from the direct provision of welfare services is accompanied by greater attention to antisocial behaviour of younger and poorer groups in society. Social welfare is oriented towards the creation and maintenance of social well-being through the provision of various social supports combating social inequalities by promoting redistribution and social inclusion and countering various social harms such as poverty and discrimination. The domain of crime control is more oriented towards the creation and maintenance of social stability, social order and security by addressing behaviours and activities of those who are perceived to threaten these in some way. Crime control and social welfare policies, there are many examples of entanglement between them. For example, countering antisocial behaviour may be defined as a social welfare matter in that it protects the welfare and well being of some against the disruptions caused by others. This example also raises wider social welfare questions, I.e how can societies support young people and others so that they do not conduct themselves in ways that are viewed as antisocial? The relationship between social welfare and crime control is dynamic meaning it is likely to change over time, and it is contested. Another example of how social welfare and crime control is entangled: protecting children from abuse- a role taken on by both police and social workers, acting in partnership but with rather blurred boundaries between the welfare and crime control functions. The entanglements between welfare and crime control take many different forms. Welfare states in its traditional form is considered by many commentators across the political spectrum to be in need of reform. Social scientists focus on creating social inclusion rather than on providing welfare Ideas about an underclass of marginalised individuals – often black Afro caribbean or Hispanic – have informed policies on crime preventions and crime control in countries such as the USA. Many studies are handing over more responsibility for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour to local communities, who in turn address crime prevention through a mix of welfare and control strategies. As environmental issues become more important in ensuring security and well-being, so attention is turning to new kinds of harm – harms perpetrated not by those traditionally defined as problem populations, often on the margins of society but by the rich and powerful who perpetuate environmental and other kinds of crime. Many struggles for social justice, produced laws that have to be enforced through the institutions of criminal justice. On the other hand, some criminal justice measures including many of those now associated with anti terrorist measures are viewed as producing harms such as internment or the loss of rights for certain population groups. Chapter 1 section 3&6: dissent and protest against social injustice may be the subject or criminalising responses. The darling study for the Joseph row tree foundation shows an increasing inequality of wealth in the uk in the late 20th century when income inequalities grew rapidly. It also shows a greater degree of spatial segregation of wealth and poverty, with local areas increasingly dominated by wealthy or poor residents and a decline in social mixing. Poverty concentrates attention on one segment of society: those living below a certain level of income, or below a certain level of resources. Many studies of poverty tend to focus attention on poor people rather than the wider social structures which generate and reproduce poverty. In the process, then, such studies divert attention from the relationship between wealth and poverty, and the ways in which richer and more powerful groups manage to increase their wealth and hold on to it at the expense of poorer and less powerful groups. Much social investigation into poverty has in practice involved looking at the poorest people to see what was wrong with them, and is based on the assumption that there must be something about them that makes them different from us. In the 19th century, investigators went like intrepid explorers – into the neighbourhoods where the poor lived in order to examine their habits, their ways of life, their culture and most frequently their character. The poor were associated with a range of social dangers from illness, through crime and vice, to the threat of socialism. This emphasis on statistical investigation has had a profound influence on the subsequent development of social research in the uk and how we come to know about and understand the social world. But the investigation and observation of the character and habits of the poor has also had enduring consequences, reflecting a persistent belief that the cause of poverty could be discovered there. 19th century investigations into moral failings of the poor merged into20th century concerns with their dysfunctional family life or their culture of poverty. The idea of a culture of poverty had mutated into a culture of dependency. All of these terms expressed the idea that poor people had habits, attitudes and ways of life that has passed poverty on across generations. Chapter 2 section 2: welfare states are involved in the maintenance of social order and stability by naturalising and normalising social inequalities Chapter 2 sections 2,3&4: welfare states prescribe certain ideas of behaviour. These may stigmatise certain categories of people – in booths study, the poor; and in the 21st century, those who are not gainfully employed or who do not comply with norms of active citizenship. Welfare states also police adherence to norms of good conduct and may punish those who deviate from them. Punishments may range from measures such as the withdrawal of benefits and services to actual criminalisation. Chapter 3 section 3: care – whether provided informally or through welfare states – can involve the abuse, neglect and exploitation of vulnerable people. Some abuses are subject to criminal prosecution. Chapter 3 section 4: treaties, conventions, laws and workers rights are often ineffective in regulating safety and ensuring freedom from harm in the workplace. Trade unions have attempted to limit workplace harms by pursuing rights and legal safeguards, but there power has been weakened. In attempt to avoid legislative action, some companies are now developing voluntary codes of conduct based on the idea of social responsibility. Chapter 4 section 2: problem populations, in problem places – such as the black population of new Orleans – tend to be stigmatised, viewed as a source of harm, crime and social disorder Chapter 4 section 3: some of the case studies show how welfare policies that sought to solve housing problems in the past have had damaging consequences, leading to punitive and criminalising policies in the present. Chapter 5 section 2: global slums are sites of concerns about crime and disorder. They are also sites of emerging understanding about how slums can be a source of progress and development through self help Chapter 5 section 4: transnational institutions concerns with regulating environmental crimes are contrasted with restorative self regulatory and participatory models of development.

The Allegory Of The Cave By Jason Rene Castro And Seth David

I Believe, written by Jason Rene Castro and Seth David, is a song about having faith. The narrator believes that we can control the future, but more specifically, our own future. The title extensionally defines this song by indicating all the things that he believes in and why he believes in such things. There is a deep meaning throughout the song and it expresses how people should be good and positive, even in the darkest times, which I believe is true. In The Allegory of the Cave,† by Plato, there are prisoners in a cave with a fire that is located behind them. They have always faced the wall of the cave and have only seen what was outside of the cave from the shadows. They believe that the shadows of the objects carried are real but in reality, it s just a shadow of the truth. The prisoners play a game where they guess what the shadows are and end up believing that it is the truth. However, when one prisoner escapes and faces reality, where the sun is a source of life, he realizes that the game was pointless. He seeks for meaning and truth from his journey outside of the cave. Socrates then insists that he must return to the cave and share what he has found with the prisoners because it will benefit everyone as a whole. However, when he returns and informs the prisoners, they react by not believing him and threatening to kill him if he set them free, because they are scared of the change that would occur after knowing the tr uth. Socrates believes that knowledge gained