Lord Raglan’s & Hercules Essay Example for Free

Lord Raglan’s Hercules Essay Lord Raglan’s gave Hercules an outstanding 17 points on his hero scale pattern. This scale classifies the parallel characteristics of most mythical heroes. Overall, the similarities of Hercules to other heroes is the fact that he is the son of a god, there was an intent of killing him during birth, he once wandered in a place away form his family, and won battles with abominable creatures (Raglan, 1998). William Burkert, in years of evaluating mythical heroes, found a pattern on the makings of a fictional icon. Particularly the idea of a hero being a master or mistress of animals has won over the side of hunters which is possibly of a Paleolithic origin. In the story of Hercules this is apparent in most of the Twelve Labors he battled. Hercules’ first task is to kill the Nemean Lion and to bring back its skin. He later found out that arrows are useless in fighting the mighty beast. With his pure strength, he grasped the lion with his own bare hands and choked him to death. His second labor is to slay the Lernaean Hydra, a monstrous snake with nine heads living in the murky waters of Lerna. Every time Hercules got the chance to cut off one head, another one will grow in its place. He them commissioned the help of Iolaus in holding a torch every time Hercules cut off one head. Then after, Hercules finally disposed of the monster for good. Other examples of Hercules as master of animals can be stressed in the third to eighth labor, as follows: †¢ Capture the Ceryneian Hind †¢ Capture the Erymanthian Boar †¢ Slay the Stymphalian Birds †¢ Capture the Cretan Bull †¢ Steal the Mares of Diomedes In Greeks official religion, this may be deemed as somehow similar to folklore. Burkert detected a recurrent pattern in some of the actions and behavior of Greek heroes. This particular pattern includes youth, defloration, threat by a close relative, finding a partner, giving birth and finally, retribution. Another pattern is a relevant scapegoat in most hero storylines. (Burkert, 1979) Hercules (also referred to as Herakles and Alcides) was a Roman-Greek hero popular because of his strength and bravery. He is the half-god, half-mortal son of the powerful Zeus (Jupiter) and the Alceme. This identity of Hercules is similar to Catholic patron God, Jesus, who is also both human and divine. When Hera, Zeus’ goddess wife, heard about the birth of Hercules she was madly jealous about him. She sent two serpents to kill the young Zeus in his crib. Exhibiting valor and incredible strength, even as a child, Hercules killed the serpents all by himself. This display of power can be compared to the Bible hero Samson. Unlike Samson, who gains his vigor with his long hair, Hercules has an inherent strength that is within him ever since his first breathe. During his youth, an important decision during his lifetime is choosing between the life of virtue and the life of pleasure. A hard question posed to him by the goddess Aphrodite and Athena. The young hero decided to lead a life of virtue. This is a unique path to lead. This is in contrast to revered Indian icon, Gautam Buddha, who lived the life royalty and pleasure in his father’s palace when he was a child. Hercules welcomes struggle and hardships of life, with a strong belief that glory and true happiness comes along with it. Hercules then married Megara and the fruit of their love gave them children. Hera, still enraged about the very existence of Hercules, used all her powers to drive Hercules mad. In his insanity, he unknowingly killed his children and wife. Once he regained his insanity, he asked Oracle and Delphi on how he can compensate for what he did. He was instructed to serve the Eurystheus, the King of Tiryns, for twelve years. He is then ordered to carry out Twelve Labors to attain a peaceful soul again. During his quest, he was endowed with the virtue of courage, strength, and wisdom. His journey was quite similar to the long and tedious adventure of Odysseus. Traveling different land and voyaging the waters. He completed his tasks and redeemed his integrity and good soul. With such an exemplar accomplishment, he was then crowned a seat in the place of gods in Olympus. In his ascend to Olympus, he left all his mortal characteristics on earth and was born again with all divinity. Hercules the reconciled with Hera and lived peacefully as a family with this divine father, Zeus (Loewen,1998). Works Cited Burkert, Walter. Structure and History in Greek Mythology and Ritual. University of California Press, 1979 Loewen, Juvenile. Hercules. Capstone Press, 1998 Raglan, Fitzroy Richard. The Hero: A Study in Tradition, Myth and Drama. Somerset: Courier Dover Publications, 2003

The Paradox Of Omnipotence Philosophy Essay

The Paradox Of Omnipotence Philosophy Essay While tackling free will as a solution to the problem of evil, Mackie who holds that the problem adequately makes the existence of an omnipotent, wholly good God irrational, argues that God in his omnipotence could have made man with a free will to always choose the right thing. Gods failure to intervene in the evil application of free will can only be justified thus: that God gave man the highest liberty that He cannot control mans will. However, herein arises the paradox of omnipotence. If God created men so free that he cannot control their wills, then there is something he cannot do he cannot control mans will and would thus not be omnipotent, but if it be that God has the ability to have control over mans will, then He has failed at something creating a man whose will He has no control over and thus would not be omnipotent. When the query we are considering is phrased as a question: can God create a man who has such freedom that God cannot intervene in his actions, answering e ither yes or no leads to the implication that God fails at doing something and thus cannot be omnipotent. This paper will focus on the paradox of Omnipotence which would in and of itself prove the irrationality of the existence of a God who has a primary component of omnipotence. The mention of the sorounding content of Mackies paper Evil and Omnipotence only serves as background information on how he comes to encounter the paradox to be debated. I will define omnipotence, present the paradox in the common place example of the stone, then recount the paradox of omnipotence as Mackie describes it. The second part of my paper will attempt to solve the paradox of omnipotence by considering a restructured definition of the trouble presented by the paradox of omnipotence where I will categorize degrees of failure in levels. After observing that restrictions to omnipotence defeat the term itself, I will consider if the paradox can be solved rationally if the omnipotent being existed in timelessness. I will use the term omnipotence to mean all powerful. The paradox of omnipotence is commonly exemplified by the riddlelike question that one was told naughty children asked their pastors: whether God can create a stone he cannot lift where he answers in the affirmative, he would be admitting Gods inability to create a stone of certain characteristics, if he answered in the negative he would be admitting that there is something God cannot do lift the stone after creating it, thus each either answer would contradict omnipotence, a central tenement for the God of Western tradition. Mackie defines the God in question as omnipotent, discredits the coherence of omnipotence and therefore discredits the existence of a God defined with a primary characteristic of omnipotence. Like those who ask about the creation of the unliftable stone, Mackie asks whether God can create a being that he cannot control in the case of the man with free will. To the his objectors response (which he had anticipated earlier in the paper) that God creates casual laws or rules of logic which he chooses to follow, Mackie asks whether the omnipotent being can make rules which bind his power. This question plays out like that of creating of an omnipotent God creating man with free will: If God could create casual rules, despite choosing to follow them freely, His powers would be restricted by these rules and after their creation , He could do what these rules restrict Him from. Should the answer be negative, then there is something he cannot do he fails at the ability to create the causal laws. Mackie then says that one cannot respond by saying that his questions are not proper because if the a question of a similar nature was asked about man and machines: whether man can create a machine over which he has no control over, the question would be considered sound. He thus points to the notion of omnipotence as the source of the problem. He appreciates that theological determinists would argue that man in his assembly predisposed the machine to act in certain ways as did God in his creation of man and that being omniscient God was already aware of the specific actions man would take. However, Mackie highlights that the question is not on Gods original influence at creation but His continuos influence. Mackie compares the probability of Gods restriction by the laws of nature to a parliament that creates a law that liquidates its power. Can a parliament create a law that nullifies its power? If one answers yes, they would be considering a as a laws something set by a body that would no longer be valid as the item of governance. Yet if they say no, one would be denying the sovereignty of the body by saying there is a law it cant make. Contrasting actions arrive to the same denial of omnipotence. This implies that omnipotence as a concept is logically incoherent. Mackie solves this paradox by distinguishing between laws that govern the land (which he names first order laws) and laws that govern the law making body( which he calls second order laws). He says we can consider a parliament to have absolute power over the first order laws or a present parliament which has both absolute power over creation of laws for the land and laws governing itself but that we cannot conceive of a parli ament having control over laws that govern parliament yet guarantee that future parliaments will have absolute power over first order laws because the present parliament may remove a parliaments ability to create laws of the land. We can reconcile God and the laws of logic in the same way. If Gods powers were considered in the categories of power over creation and power to create the rules which creation shall follow. Then we can conceive of God always having omnipotence but none of his creation can have free will or that at one instance God could have both first and second order omnipotence in which he creates laws for creation to follow independently thereafter creation would determine its future in accordance with the laws assigned but that God would have relinquished his first order omnipotence of directly determining the actions of all of creation. Mackie reaches the conclusion that God can have omnipotence if it is categorized as above: one eternally or to have one and two at one instant but to forever relinquish 1 but not both powers continuously unless God were to exist outside time. I find Mackies attempt to reconcile omnipotence over eternity by creating orders compelling. It feels more natural to have an omnipotent being who cannot create a stone that he cant lift than it does to have him lack the ability to lift a stone. There is something to be said about that. Perhaps because the latter, yes, he can create a being that he cannot control seems self defeating and would in itself express a limit to his power in a positive sense. I say positive sense because something would exist of which he would not wield power over. That object in that sense would have power over him so to speak. However, in the first case of answering, no an omnipotent being cannot create something that he cannot control, it appears to be in accordance with his power that he does not create an object embedded with a limit to his power. Because no indicates that this object cannot be brought into existence, in its consideration it is an abstract limit to his power, not as real as that being he cannot control when we answer yes because that being already exists. This view would lead to levels of failure where in the first level of failure would be failing to create a stone he cannot lift is considered a comparatively more powerful state than the second level of there existing the being that cannot be controlled. Though the analogy is not exact to Mackies this is to say that I cannot equate my first level to his first order and my second level to his second order, it borrows from Mackie that we would have to put a restriction to explain or have omnipotence. Nevertheless I ran into the same point of the paradox that Mackie runs into: that the existence of the restriction contradicts the concept of omnipotence. Omnipotence is absolute and cannot have exception for this or the other ability. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines omnipotence as maximal power so that the being possessing it only need to have a total power that beats every other beings, not the ability to do everything. This suggests a distinction between power and ability. Such omnipotent being is conceivable but is this really omnipotence? There is the suggestion of an essentially omnipotent being who cannot will Himself out of omnipotent, here again we run into the paradox. How can an all powerful being fail at something willing himself out of omnipotence. But if He could, He wouldnt be omnipotent, thus we would loose the eternity. If the discussion were to halt here, I would agree with Mackie that omnipotence is incoherent. However, there is the suggestion of God existing in timeless which Mackie touches on but immediately dismisses that might yet solve our paradox without proven irrational. Omnipotence as power in an absolute state would entail the ability to influence events which would appear to be beyond influence for being defined as past events. If God existed in time then, time would be his master and this would add to the unfeasibility of omnipotence. However, if we were to consider God to exist outside the frame of time, in timelessness, this would remove the confine of time. Suppose God could posses life all at once, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy includes in the definition of timelessness. Imagine an instance that was eternal, so that events would not be a sequence within time but one unity as if they were simulteneous this would be the scope of this Gods life. Perhaps as all the time periods of the universe compressed as into one which He would experience as a whole. It is quite challenging to define timelessness without applying terms that refer to finite time because the words are all formed with reference to time and in defining timelessness w ould be negating ie. saying not time. Even the encyclopedias words life all at once use the word once which is itself takes from time. But this does not mean that the something like this supreme being cannot exist in timelessness. If one considers time as a frame, it suggests the possiblilty of factors outside time itself bringing this frame into existence. If we consider defining time in terms of change:We can observe the age of statue by observing it wear Sometimes we define time in terms of the change of the frame so that if we created a statue that did not wear out, we can observe (through the sense of sight) that it has existed for such and such a time by observing the change in its environment. Change around an object that isnt extended in space might be harder to quantify, but perhaps this would serve no purpose for if this being was experiencing all of life simultenously, there would be no change and thus no time. If it was the case that God experienced life all at once and there was happiness and sadness on earth, He would experience them both simulteneously. Perhaps contradiction is a term defined by the rules of our logic just the way there was a time when men laughed at the thought of flying but today we have planes. Ability and contradiction might defined in terms of the realm of possiblity perceived by that generation. Perhaps the contradiction even a frame of the human mind operating in a universe subject to natural laws and logic but just as the universe exists there could exists something other forms ( non universe forms) that follow different laws, perhaps even laws of contradiction if one can envision such a world, Gods form could be one such. The God of contradiction could create a stone that he cant lift, yet as all of life is in an instant, he would (at what would appear to us to be a different time) lift it as well. We can thus not rule out an omnipotent being in timelessness where omnipotence is conceivable. I agree with Mackie that a God who is eternally omnipotent, having absolute omnipotence to both influence events and create laws to govern how events are influenced is incoherent because he could at one instant create the rule that would restrict Himself from further influencing events. However, I disagree with Mackies dismissal of the concept of God in timelessness: if it is conceivable that God can experience life all at once: what to us would appear to be a sequence of events at different times within the frame of time would occur at one eternal instant so contradictions could occur. Perhaps if the definition of a thing is determined by the existence of its opposite, that we only notice red because other colors exist and perhaps if there were no other color we would just never conceive of any color altogether, if time exists, perhaps it is because we can imagine timelessness, or its possibility. Timelessness cannot be ruled out, consequently neither can an omnipotence that Mackie can grant if timelessness existed.

Suzuki Samurai :: Car Automobile Marketing Market

Suzuki Samurai In 1985, automobile company Suzuki was entering the American automobile market with the Suzuki Samurai, a lightweight off-road four-wheel drive vehicle. A dilemma that the American Suzuki Motor Corporation (ASMC) was faced with was exactly how to position the Samurai in the American market. There were several options for them to do this, each of which had unique advantages and disadvantages, however only one that would effectively maximize the sales potential for the Samurai. The first option was to position the Samurai as a sport utility vehicle (SUV). The Samurai already had the look of a "mini-jeep", and already had four-wheel drive capabilities. Standing out from all other SUVs, the Samurai was smaller, lighter, and less expensive; suggested retail was about half the price of the average SUV. Leanord Pearstein, CEO of a competing advertising agency, preferred to portray the Samurai as a "tough little cheap Jeep." Those who had already purchased the automobile had also considered buying a Jeep or other sport utility vehicles. In 1985, the sport utility vehicle market was very small. Less than 3% of automobile sales in the United States in 1985 came from SUV sales. Douglas Mazza, who headed the Samurai operation in the US, had a goal to sell 30,000 units within two years, which would exceed all SUV sales in 1984. The second option was to position the Samurai as a compact pickup truck. The market share was two and a half times the compact SUV market. This would make it easier for Suzuki to enter is they positioned the vehicle in this way. In the pickup truck market itself, Japanese trucks sold very well; they accounted for 54% of total compact pickup truck sales. If they wanted to introduce the Samurai as a truck it would be more versatile and less expensive than a subcompact car. Since custom regulations for compact pickup trucks state that there must be a 25% tariff on all trucks imported in to the US, this is ten times the amount the tariff would be for a car. Pearlstein believed that even with the high tariff it would be worth paying in the long run, however this is still a significant cost. Another positioning strategy was to sell the Samurai as a subcompact car. This market was considerably larger than the previously stated markets. Pearlstein suggested that they should market this as an alternative to the "dull" automobile, a compact car with a "cuter" look.

Cognitivism Essay -- Psychology Essays

Cognitivism Cognitivism is considered the dominant approach in psychology today. The dramatic shift from behaviorism to cognitivism occurred in the early part of this century. After years of almost exclusively behaviorist research, psychologists and educators became discontent with the limitations of behaviorism. Although behaviorism encouraged observable and measurable research in the field of psychology, it did not incorporate mental events. This paper will present a general overview of the origin of cognitivism and a discussion of three widely accepted cognitive theories—the Atkinson-Shriffin stage model, Craik and Lockhart’s levels of processing theory, and the parallel distributed processing approach. Finally, this paper will briefly summarize some ways that cognitivism has influenced instructional design theories. Origin of Cognitivism The origin of cognitivism can be traced back to the early part of this century when the Gestalt psychologists of Germany, Edward Chase Tolman of the United States, and Jean Piaget (1896-1980) of Switzerland had a tremendous influence on psychology and the shift from behaviorist theories. Behaviorists argued that mental events were impossible to observe and measure and could not therefore be studied objectively. Consequently behaviorists could not explain the ways learners attempt to make sense of what they learn. Cognitivists proposed that through empirical research and observation inferences could, indeed, be drawn about the internal, cognitive processes that produce responses. According to Matlin, Cognitive psychologists generally agree that the birth of cognitive psychology should be listed as 1956†¦During this prolific year, a large number of researchers published influ... .... (1990). The child’s conception of the world. New York: Littlefield Adams. Piaget, J., Gruber, H. (Ed.), & Voneche, J.J. (Ed.). The essential Piaget (100th Annicersay Ed.). New York: Jason Aronson. Renner and others. (1976). Schumaker, R. (1996). Anniversary: Jean Piaget—A foundational thinker. UNESCO Courier, n11, 48-49. Scott, B. D. (1997). Constructivism: Teaching for understanding of the Internet. Communications of the ACM, v 40n10, 112-117. Striebel, M. (1995). Instructional plans and situationed learning. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, future (2nd ed). (ppl. 145-166). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Vygotsky, L. & Vygotsky, S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Boston: MIT Press.

Abortion: A Freedom of Choice Essays -- Argumentative Persuasive Essay

Abortion: A Freedom of Choice During the last twenty-five years, abortion has been one of the most heated topics being debated the world. The only topics that equal the abortion debate are race and war. Abortion is a discussion of human interaction where ethics, emotions, and law come together. People have different opinions usually only have two choices when confronted with abortion. They are either for it or against it. There is the pro-choice and the pro-life. These are the only two categories that people?s views fall into. A pro-choice person would feel that the decision to abort a pregnancy is that of the mothers and the government has no right to interfere. A pro-lifer would hold that from the moment of conception, the embryo or foetus is alive. Since this embryo or foetus is alive and is a person you have no moral right to abort a life. If you aborted the life you would be committing murder. The word ?murder? is mainly used by pro-lifers to describe what happens when you abort a foetus. Murder means deliberate and unjustified killing of another person containing intent. A women cannot bear the thought of having a child that would be a constant reminder of what happened on such and such a day, such and such number of years ago. The mother doesn?t want to kill a baby; she wants to interrupt the growth of an embryo so that it will not become a baby. My own personal opinion is that each woman has the right to decide whether she wants to abort an unwanted preg...

Assessment Equality and Diversity Essay

1. What is meant by diversity? It’s meant that every individual is unique and recognizing our individual differences (race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies). It’s about understanding each other, understanding and appreciating interdependence of humanity, cultures, and the natural environment, practicing mutual respect for qualities and experiences that are different from our own, understanding that diversity includes not only ways of being but also ways of knowing, recognizing that personal, cultural and institutionalized discrimination creates and sustains privileges for some while creating and sustaining disadvantages for others, building alliances across differences so that we can work together to eradicate all forms of discrimination . Diversity is a reality created by individuals and groups from a broad spectrum of demographic and philosophical differences. It includes knowing how to relate to those qualities and conditions that are different from our own and outside the groups to which we belong. 2. Describe the community you live in. Highlight some of the variations you may observe in terms of: †¢Interests †¢Beliefs †¢Ages †¢Lifestyles †¢Personal, social and cultural identities. I live in very diverse community. People who surround me – my friends, co-workers, neighbours are different age, they’ve got different lifestyles, interests, beliefs, personal, social and cultural identities. For example: there are many different race and ethnic background people in my community. I live with Lithuanians, one of my neighbours is black, other ones white English. The English ones are pensioners and the black one is young mother, who spend a lot of time in her garden, looking after her plants. My housemates love sports, they go to the gym almost every day. The English couple most of their time spend at home, I often see their children visiting them. They are Catholics. There also are some Muslims living somewhere close to me, I often see them passing by my house. 3. Explain how the variations in question 2 contribute to the diversity of the community. The mixture of tolerant people who are different age, have got different nationalities, interests, beliefs, lifestyle create a diverse community. Different religions contribute into many different kinds of churches and temples, ethnic groups contribute to continental food shops and restaurants, because of different interests there are many different places to spend time – gyms, cinema, theatre, spa centre, etc. and better variety of goods and shops. 4. Give some examples to explain how diversity: †¢Enhances your life †¢Enhances the local community †¢Enhances this country. Just because of the diversity I’ve tried many different kinds of food, learnt to cook continental food. I also know more about different cultures and traditions. The diversity improves tolerance in the community as there are many different people and you have to be kind and tolerate each other if you want to live peacefully. There is a very big diversity in this country and it’s a good thing for its economy: different people have got different needs so there are good conditions for many kinds of businesses. 5. Describe what it means to respect people’s differences and why it is important to respect differences. Respect people’s differences means that we have to tolerate people who are different gender, age, ethnic background, etc. This is important, because we live in a very diverse society and we have to prevent discrimination and ensure equal abilities.

How Much Land Does a Man Nee Essay

A parable often contains irony, because the lesson of the story may be obvious to readers but not to the main character—at least until it’s too late. Irony refers to literary techniques used by a writer to portray differences between appearance and reality, expectation and result, or meaning and intention. In dramatic irony, there is a contradiction between what a character thinks and what the reader knows to be true. In irony of situation, an event occurs that directly contradicts the expectations of the characters or the reader. Often, an event in a story is ironic only in hindsight. Complete the following chart by telling why each example listed from Tolstoy’s story is ironic. The first one has been answered for you. When you are finished, answer the question that follows. Unit 2: Striving for Success Story Event 1. Pahom says, â€Å"If I had plenty of land, I shouldn’t fear the Devil himself!† 2. Pahom is angry when he gets fined by the woman’s manager, because he is careful with his animals. 3. Pahom’s heart fills with joy as he looks at his land. Why It’s Ironic The devil is listening and will tempt Pahom by giving him land. 4. Pahom is ten times better off in the Volga than he had been. 5. Pahom thinks he is tricking the Bashkir chief by getting a great deal on the land. 6. Pahom dies of exhaustion after marking off a huge area of land.