Economics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 19

Economics - Essay Example Will has to invest to raise the amount of visitors entering his website. Will has to log of the amount of traffic the website receives on a daily basis and compare it to the sales generated each day. Three months is adequate trial period. Will has to spend money hiring an online expert to increase the online traffic the online store receives. After the trial period Will has several options. He can raise the price of his items by $5 each and test for a month if the demand for the products changes. It is possible that it might stay the same and that way the company can raise his overall profits. Another strategy which is my primary recommendations is to lower the prices of both types of products. According to the law of demand and supply when a manufacturer lowers the price of the product the demand increases. I would start with low price increase of $2 on the non-copyright material and $1 on the copyrighted material. The cheaper product can have a higher price reduction because there are no variable costs associated with them. In the case of copyright material there is a $5 royalty fee to consider. After a period of three months I would evaluate the results to then move forward with a more aggressive discounting strategy of final sales prices of $5 and $12. The most likely scenario is that if Will increases his online mar keting budget and reduces the price of the product the revenues of the company should reached the $100,000 revenue per year benchmark in a short period of time. The sky is the limit for this innovate product created by Mr.

Managers, Management and the Management Environment Lab Report

Managers, Management and the Management Environment - Lab Report Example Effective management requires the organisation management to have a vision, objectives, policies and strategies that must be forecasted. Enhanced management practices have regularly being linked to diligence, superiority, involvement, and regulation of strategic-planning practice by the organisation’s leadership (Harrison, 2003). This discussion paper will focus on the impact of current management practices within the hospitality industry particularly the influence of culture, technology and parochialism in regards to their human resources function. The study will examine why diverse management practices in the industry have impacted negatively on employee turnovers and how modern management practises can offset this trend. There are three main managerial levels in organisations that encompass the top, middle and lower level management levels. The upper level is represented by the company board and managing director or the CEO who formulates the strategic plans for the entire organisation. The middle hierarchy of administration comprise of functional managers including the human resources, marketing, and finance department managers. The lower echelon is made of the front-line managers and their supervisors who must be endowed with commensurate technical skills that qualify them run the daily operations of the organisation. These strata nevertheless necessitate diverse skills to qualify for the particular level’s specific duties hence the top managers need conception or analytical skills to make strategic decisions while the mid-level managers require human skills to interact well with all stakeholders but the last level only necessitate appropriate technical acumen to discharge their duties effe ctively (Robin and Coulter, 2002). [See illustration below Figure: 1] Within the hospitality industry, the management has acknowledged the significance of having quality

Aqa Food Anthology Essay Example for Free

Aqa Food Anthology Essay Compare two texts from the Anthology, which present different views about what we should eat. Text 9 is a newspaper article by John Torode on ‘Why we should all eat red meat’ that vibrantly explores the issue of eating red meat and with a ‘meat lover’ perspective fighting a passionate argument against the ‘bad boy of British culture’ reputation meat has. John Torode is a well-known celebrity chef and his picture endorses the article with a sense of knowledge and character smiling for ‘the culmination of his love of beef’. This article is written to reach out to the general public, more so to the health conscious and the skeptics to persuade and guide through to a new way of thinking towards eating red meat and food in general. A very similar purpose is seen throughout text 11, the Vegetarian Society websites ‘Seven simple steps to going- and staying- vegetarian’ which aim to guide prospective vegetarians to the ultimatum of ‘you are vegetarian’ through the use of enabling and reassuring lexis. In text 11 the text is clearly set out into seven steps that are structured to coincide, following an order to which a structured plan flows like a timeline- building up confidence and experience to the reader with the desired effect of easing them in to the direction of becoming vegetarians. This is almost like an instruction manual and by the text being set in steps it is easy for the reader to digest. In comparison the structure of text 9 does not use bullet points but instead is presented in prose, which allows for story telling. Even though the texts are structured differently they are both still informative, instructive and possibly persuasive. Language techniques are chosen carefully to create these types of texts. For instance, Torode uses narrative and inclusive language. Torode begins by using first person pronouns: â€Å"When I first moved†¦Ã¢â‚¬  in his anecdote of his experiences with meat, this creates a personal, colloquial effect almost as if he is revealing himself to you making him more likeable and warm, and this is consistent throughout the text as he carries on telling us how he’d â€Å"been raised on the stuff† making him seem like a ‘down to earth’ guy who the reader can connect with. Later on in the article Torode employs inclusive language: â€Å"Why? Because we eat too much†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , in this example Torode also uses rhetoric possibly with the purpose of persuading as it makes the reader think and is a transition to his argument to why this is true. To end the article Torode slips back into the more personal first person narration much like the formalities of a conversation. There is a change of direction in the text from the anecdotal and friendly tone to where he gets serious and then back to very personal and reassuring- this is all formed to be persuasive as the personal address is comforting and the serious facts are used to further persuade the reader. The â€Å"Seven Steps† lack some of the fore mentioned techniques. What can be seen instead is a third person narrative throughout the article, thus making it sound less personal but more instructive and informative. The writer uses a brisk selection of lexis making the sentences and whole body of text shorter than text 9. Even though this text is significantly shorter it still manages to come across as concerned and helpful: â€Å"or borrow one from your local library†, here its almost like a whisper as if the voice is matched to someone friendly doing you a favor. So even though text 11 is not as colloquial and expressive as text 9 it still uses language in a way that makes it seem slightly informal, neutral and relaxed for the effect of seeming reassuring and therefore persuasive. For example the personal caption under the picture of the woman also uses first person pronoun â€Å"I gave up meat†¦Ã¢â‚¬  and even uses informal language such as ‘veggie’ to seem relatable and also down to earth- just like Torode is trying to sound. This is seen in both texts as a technique to warm to the reader and draw their interest. In text 9 we see a consistent use of expressive lexis which displays passion from the narrator as he tells us ‘we ate platters of it’ and ‘I loved it’. He tells us about â€Å"my love affair with beef† using an array of adjectives (â€Å"large, smoky, well marbled join of beef†) and alliteration (â€Å"succulent steak†) to entice the readers imagination and glorify meat in support of his argument of â€Å"Why we should all eat red meat†. Combined with the use of  hyperballys and negative exaggeration (â€Å"cholesterol overdose†) when speaking of the opposing argument it radiates a consistent sense of passion backed up by authoritative facts. All in all creating a very impressive, persuasive argument. How the Vegetarian Society’s ‘Seven simple steps’ does try to persuade and guide the reader is quite different from the ‘why we should all eat red meat’ article in terms of language use. As it is a step-by-step guide it doesn’t include a personal story or emotive language like in Torodes article. Instead it uses imperatives and suggestions, (â€Å"try something new†) in every step and modal verbs throughout in a simplistic manner. Perhaps because it doesn’t need to be as persuasive since it is aimed at the already prospective vegetarian and therefore it is not opinionated or overly patronizing in any way. The effect of this is that a calm tone is created and each step simply guides the reader- the persuasion is much more subtle. Whilst language is chosen to include and instruct it is also chosen to discriminate against the opposition to eliminate possible doubts and reassure the reader, this is used in both texts. In Torode’s article he declares, â€Å"Uninformed customers still worry that†¦Ã¢â‚¬  here it mocks those who worry about BSE and what it might do. A superior stance is taken here in order to persuade. In text 11 it is strikingly similar as it tells the reader â€Å"don’t be put off by†¦ ill-informed scare stories† from â€Å"people who know very little about their own health†. Both of these bias declaratives are used to- once again- effectively comfort and assure the reader. Although not so inclusively as text 9, text 11 uses celebrity endorsement in the form of a picture of â€Å"Sir Paul McCartney† a ‘musician and vegetarian society patron’ almost like a figure head that is encouragement for readers to think that it is more acceptable to follow the views of what we should eat according to them because these famous people do. The rhetorical question posed by Sir Paul apparently, captioned below the picture is a touch to make the reader think, the words sound wise and are placed there to enliven such thoughts to the reader. This is also seen in text 9 towards the end of the article when Torode very personally tells us â€Å"My family eats†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚  which he makes very personal even telling us his children’s names. Torode is using himself as a figure head to the views on ‘what we should eat’ as after all he is this celebrity chef and if it is good enough for his family- it should be good for us? In conclusion the texts argue completely different views on what we should eat but the sought effect on the reader is very similar and this is why there are similarities in the way the texts both try to persuade. They are both different types of texts and therefore the language, tone and techniques vary- text 9 uses a more personal and complex approach in the form of a personal narrative to persuade the reader and create an impressive argument, whilst text 9 is a much more simplistic and subtle informative text. They are both consistently persuasive and lead to the final purpose- of leading, encouraging and informing the reader through a set of steps or a structured narrative to a new view of what we as the reader should eat. Even though Text 9 is more opinionated both texts are still biased arguments with mainly the purpose of persuasion. I think both texts are very suited to their purpose and although look and are different they interestingly use language for a very similar purpose.

Mind Body Relationship In Human Person Philosophy Essay

Mind Body Relationship In Human Person Philosophy Essay The mind-body problem has been a much discussed issue in the Philosophy of Mind. All those who undertake any study in consciousness, necessarily need to touch upon this subject. One of the unsettled puzzles is about whether consciousness is part of material or mental realm. It has challenged the scientists as well as philosophers to look for some solutions. They have proposed several theories to address the issue. Among several theories dualism and physicalism were the most discussed. There are some crucial questions regarding mind-body problem: such as; how do they interact, whether the mind and body differ not only in degree and nature but also in kind? The arrival of neuroscience with its several scientific experiments has radically challenged the understanding of relationship between mind and body and forced us to rethink our positions about it. Thus, there is a renewed vigour in studying about consciousness in modern times and it has thrown open several other ways of settling th is issue. This chapter will briefly discuss on how different philosophers perceived the relationship between mind and body in a person and critically analyse various theories of dualism and physicalism in detail and present their difficulties. The concluding part of the chapter will show the need to go beyond dualism and physicalism with the help of neuroscience. We begin our discussion with mind-body relationship in a person. 1.1 Mind-Body Relationship in a Person For many centuries, we have been trying to understand the mind-body relationship in a person. The difficulty behind explaining the relationship between mind-body in a person is that s/he is a dynamic entity.  [1]  Thus, one is in a continued mode of knowing oneself. There are several thinkers who hold the view that a person is composed of body and mind. At the same time there are also some thinkers who oppose this idea. Now we shall discuss the views of some philosophers. There are several ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle who expressed their views on mind-body relationship in a person. For Plato, human being is composed of body and soul. Body is nothing but a prison house into which his/her soul has been locked. His understanding of person is different from our understanding of human being.  [2]  For Plato, person belongs to intelligible world and human being belongs to sensible world. Secondly person can be transformed whereas human being cannot be because human being belongs to physical level of being.  [3]  Thus he says that a person, the subject of interest, is not a human being but rather a soul, an entity distinct from that of human being.  [4]  Here we can see a clear-cut distinction of soul and body in Platos thinking. Aristotle, on the contrary, saw the mind-body relationship from a completely different angle. He says that a person is a composite not of body and soul but of prime matter and the human soul which as a substantial form.  [5]  He does not perceive the distinction between mind and body; instead he makes the distinction between matter and form. Therefore, Aristotle understands body and soul as not of two complete beings in conflict with each other but complimenting each other because matter and form are inseparable in a primary substance. There are also modern philosophers like Hegel, Immanuel Kant and John Locke who understand the mind-body relationship quite differently. For Hegel, an individual is part of the larger life of the Mind. He says that, Mind or spirit, passes through dialectical stages of evolution, revealing itself as subjective mind, objective mind and absolute mind. The subjective mind expresses itself as soul, consciousness and spirit.  [6]  From the above statements it is very clear that he gives importance to mind alone. He has absorbed totally the body into mind; for he says, It (mind) embodies itself, creates a body for itself, and becomes a particular, individual soul.  [7]  Therefore what truly exists for him is mind and not body. However Immanuel Kant speaks about metaphysical dualism rather than substance dualism of the person. He sees person as a Transcendental Self because there is a level of self-awareness that is over and above the categories of normal philosophies. Human being is alone a rational being who has a will and a free choice of action. So Kant postulates person as a transcendental free being, an idea that the inner self is not bound by the laws of nature.  [8]  However, John Locke, being a modern philosopher understands human person as that of ancient philosophers. For him mind is the real person and body is only a possession.  [9]  He separates mind from body and shows that body is only a material reality. He says that, Every man has a property in his own person.   This no Body has any Right to but himself.  [10]  For him mind is the real person and in the real person the body aspect is integrated totally into it.  [11]   The philosophers have changed their focus in the recent years. They give more stress on the purpose of human life. They ask; what does it mean to be a human person? However, with the growing interest in neuroscience, the ontological question bounced back with new a quest. One of the forerunners and pioneers of this movement is Philip Clayton who brought back the same question with a new focus. Now we shall discus the extreme positions of mind-body relationship and their solutions. 1.2 Extreme Positions The Mind-Body relationship has been an unsettled question both for science and philosophy. It has been a herculean task for both scientists and philosophers, who were greatly involved in unlocking the issue of the relationship between mind and body. There are two sets of opposing ideologies proposed; namely dualism and physicalism. Most of the philosophers are divided on their opinions hence this issue seeks our utmost attentions. Here we shall examine these two positions in detail and see why we need to go beyond these divisions. As part of this session, 1.3 deals with substance dualism and property dualism and 1.4 tries to examine the critical appraisal of the mind body relationship. The second part begins in 1.5 which deals with physicalism. Let us begin with dualism. 1.3 Dualism Dualism simply means a condition of being double. It comes from the Latin word duo meaning two which denotes a state of two parts.  [12]  It was originally coined to highlight the co-eternal binary position; for example good and evil, body and mind, mental and material, dark and light etc. It is supported by several arguments.  [13]  In philosophy it is a world view that the world consists of or is explicable as two fundamental entities, such as body and mind, the condition of being double or duality.  [14]  From the point of theology, it speaks about that human being having two basic natures, the physical and spiritual. There are two kinds of dualism- substance dualism and property dualism. 1.3.1 Substance Dualism The substance dualism sees mind and body as two distinct and separate substances.  [15]  Several philosophers like Plato, Thomas Aquinas and Renà © Descartes too held a similar view. They see mind as something that is diametrically opposing body. The attribute of body is extension but at the same time they see that the body is passive; whereas the mind is thinking, active and free. The two substances are absolutely distinct and mind is without extension. Those who hold dualism say that they have a clear and distinct idea of themselves in so far as they are only a thinking and un-extended thing.  [16]  The distinction between body as material and mind as immaterial substance becomes a crucial point of discussion in substance dualism because they differ not only in kind but also in nature and degree. However it is a compelling concept because it gives us a hope of personal survival after death and also many religions hold this theory very dear to them.  [17]  We can see th is distinction in Indian philosophy too. The Sankhaya philosophy holds that there are two entities; namely Purusha  [18]  and Prakrti  [19]  which are the two constitutive elements of the world. However dualism is more clearly and intelligibly spelled by the western thinkers. Now we shall discuss briefly about two predominant philosophers: Plato, from the ancient schools and Renà © Descartes, from the modern thinkers, who represent the rest of the dualistic thinkers of their time. 1.3.1.1 Platonic Dualism Platonic Dualism can be seen very clear in Phaedo, one of his dialogues. In the dialogue, Plato accepts the two ultimate principles; namely body and mind. Here his dualism is metaphysical in nature because he deals with immortality of mind or soul.  [20]  He calls mind as soul.  [21]  For him, the mind is immortal and body is mortal.  [22]  The mind is the one which differentiates the living from the dead. He sees the body as a prison in which the soul is confined. In the imprisoned life, the mind is compelled to investigate the truth by means of the organs of perception of the body. Forms are universals and represent the essences of sensible particulars. Plato says that we do not see reality as a whole. We perceive equal things, but not equality itself. We perceive beautiful things but not beauty itself. To have insights into the pure essences of things, the mind must struggle to disassociate itself from the body as far as possible and turn its attention towards the cont emplation of not only to intelligible things but also to invisible things. Plato defines death as the separation of soul and body, and the state of being dead as state in which soul and body exist separately from one another.  [23]  Thus for Plato, the dualism of mind and body are opposite in nature. He establishes the distinction of mind and body by establishing the distinction between the immortality of mind and mortality of body. He proves the immortality of soul through Argument from Opposites, Argument from Recollection and the Argument from Affinity.  [24]  These three arguments are keys to establish his dualism. Plato defends his immortality of soul from the Argument from Opposites. He says that things that have an opposite come to be from their opposite. For example, if something comes to be taller, it must come to be taller from having been shorter; if something comes to be heavier, it must come to be so by first having been lighter. These processes can go in either direction. Similarly he says that dying comes from living, living must come from dying. Thus, we must come to life again after we die. During the interim between death and rebirth the soul exists apart from the body and has the opportunity to glimpse the Forms unmingled with matter in their pure and undiluted fullness. Thus the cycle of life goes on. The second defence for his immortality of soul is the Argument from Recollection. For Plato, soul must exist prior to birth because we can recollect things that could not have been learned in this life. According to Plato, we recognize unequal things and strive for equality. To notice inequality, we must comprehend what equality is. In order to know what equality is, we must have the prior knowledge so that we can understand the form of equality. Hence, the soul must have existed prior to birth to the form of equality.  [25]   The third defence for his immortality of soul is the Argument from Affinity. Plato claims that composite things are more liable to be destroyed than things that are simple. The forms  [26]  are true unities and therefore least likely ever to be annihilated. Further Plato says that invisible things such as forms are not apt to be disintegrated, whereas visible things are susceptible to decay and corruption. Since the body is visible and composite, it is subjected to decomposition. As against to body, the soul is invisible part of forms and purifies itself by having no more association with the body than necessary. Since the invisible things are the durable things, the soul, being invisible, must outlast the body. Further, soul becomes form-like immortal and survives the death of the body.  [27]  Through these three arguments Plato proves the immortality of soul or mind whereby he makes the distinction between body and mind; thus he proves the dualism. However Platos arguments are highly challenged even by his own disciple Aristotle. Firstly, the Argument from Opposites applies only to things that have an opposite and, as Aristotle notes, substances have no contraries.  [28]  Further, even if life comes from what is itself not alive, it does not follow that the living human comes from the union of a dead (i.e. separated) soul and a body. The principle that everything comes to be from its opposite via a two-directional process cannot hold up to critical scrutiny. Secondly, one becomes older from having been younger, there is no corresponding reverse process leading the older to become younger. If aging is a uni-directional process, perhaps dying is as well. The Arguments from Recollection and Affinity, on the other hand, presuppose the existence of forms and are therefore no more secure than the forms themselves. Thus these criticisms show that we cannot simply take the prior existence of soul as it is true. Therefore Platos und erstanding is more of metaphysical and bit of vague because there are several unanswered questions like things which have two different natures interact. At the same time we acknowledge, he has brought certain clarity in understanding dualism with clear proofs. Now we shall discuss the dualism proposed by Descartes. 1.3.1.2 Cartesian Dualism. Renà © Descartes is one of the modern Philosophers who has extensively dealt with dualism. For Descartes, body and mind are distinct substances and the immaterial mind is somehow associated with the material body.  [29]  Substance dualism gets more predominance in Cartesian dualism.  [30]  He says substance dualism goes along with the view that the identity of a person over time is constituted by the identity overtime of this substance, and in versions of the doctrine that countenance life after death, it is survival of this substance, often called soul perhaps along with certain memory and psychological continuities, that constitutes the survival of the person.  [31]  The idea that there is a fundamental difference in kind between the mind and body can be spelled out in two broadly different ways.  [32]  Descartes held that minds and bodies are substances of distinct kind that, in the case of living human beings, happen to be intimately related.  [33]  The disti nction between the body and mind is: the body is spacial, public and has material qualities; and mind is non-spacial, private and has distinctively mental qualities. By spacial, he means that it occupies some space and time for its existence. It is public which means it is visible and we can experience it. When he says that the body has material qualities, he means that it has several qualities by which the substance expresses itself and reveals it to others and through which we come to know the things.  [34]  Firstly, in contrast to body, the mind occupies no space therefore it can be anywhere at any time. In short it is beyond space and time. Secondly it possesses mental qualities of life feeling, perceiving, experience joys and sorrows of life etc. Thirdly the mind is private because we cannot perceive it.  [35]  Descartes believes that the world is made up of substances. A substance is not a thing as we think like water or coal, or paint. For Descartes substance is an in dividual thing or an entity. He says that substances are different; they are complex. He gives importance to human being and his/her rationality. He claimed that, human rationality could not be a physical process.  [36]   The dualism of Descartes sounds good; however, there are certain conceptual difficulties and seemingly insurmountable problems. One of the crucial issues is the interaction of mind-body which is totally opposing each other in nature and kind. If minds are as distinct from material things as Descartes claims, it seems at least paradoxical: how can then the two sorts of substances interact. In this case property dualism seems to solve some of the problems which substance dualism cannot. 1.3.2 Property Dualism Property dualism maintains that mind is not only one kind of physical substance, having physical or behavioral-material-functional properties but also nonphysical behaviorally-materially-functionally in-eliminable and irreducible properties.  [37]  The advantage of property dualism over substance dualism is that it avoids the casual interaction problem because this theory has no need to countenance causal interaction between material and immaterial or spatial and non-spatial substance, since it admits only that there is only material substance.  [38]  It also need not appeal to Gods divine abilities in order to account for mind-body interaction or the objectivity of the perceived world. It has an edge over materialism that it provides for the intuitive distinction between body and mind by positing a difference in their properties, and especially in the metaphysical categories of their properties. Property dualism holds that without both properties, we cannot satisfactorily ex plain the psychological phenomena. The in-eliminable and irreducible properties are said to be essential to mind because they are responsible for experience, feeling, object directionality and intentionality of psychological states.  [39]  This property dualism could be understood in three ways; namely Theory of Attribute, Anomalous Monism and Non-reductive materialism. 1.3.2.1 Theory of Attribute The first way of understanding the property dualism is through Spinozas theory of attribute. Attributes are part of Spinozas metaphysics.  [40]  For Spinoza God is the only Substance since Gods essence involves existence. He says that, God exists and, moreover, only God can fulfill the conditions for substance, therefore there can be only one substance.  [41]  It is a mistake to assert that mind and body as substances because they are not fully self-subsistent, but are dependent modes or manifestations of God. For him, A true substance must be that which contains within itself, as part of its essence, the complete explanation of its nature and existence.  [42]  This God has infinite attributes. But human being can know only two attributes; they are namely thought and extension. By attribute what Spinoza understands is that the intellect perceives substance as constituting its essence. For him, the attribute of thought is attached to mind and extension to the body. He says that the object of idea constituting the human mind is the body which is certain mode of extension. He says that Therefore, the minds power of understanding extends only as far as that which this idea of the body contains within itself, or which follows there from. Now this idea of the body involves and expresses no other attributes of God than extension and thought.  [43]  This attribute enables us to understand and talk about an extended world and a thinking world in terms of which we understand bodies and minds. He partly invented this theory of attribute for the sake of solving an outstanding question raised by Descartes philosophy of mind. If the mind is, or belongs to, a separate substance from that of the body, then how does the body-mind interact? In order to avoid the problem, Spinoza considered that mind and body is one and the same thing under the attribute of extension and thought. Though the Cartesian notion of dualism was logical, it had constant problems. It coul d not substantially explain the relationship between substance constructed as individual and substance constructed as matter or stuff. But Spinozas explanation came very close to a satisfactory theory.  [44]   1.3.2.2 Anomalous Monism Anomalous monism is proposed by Donald Davidson, who is an American pragmatist. Anomalous monism is a philosophical thesis about the mind- body relationship. This theory has twofold divisions; namely mental and physical.  [45]  It states that mental events are identical with physical events. Events are causes in virtue of the properties that they instantiate, unless mental properties and physical properties are also identified, questions about the causal redundancy of the mental reappear at the level of properties.  [46]  But Davidson says that the mental events are anomalous, that is to say these mental events are not regulated by strict physical laws. Hence, he proposed an identity theory of mind without the reductive bridge laws associated with the type-identity theory. He understands the ontological nature of the relationship of mental events especially propositional attitudes with physical actions. Davidson accepts that there is ontology of events where events, which may seem to be opposed to objects or states of affairs, are the fundamental, irreducible entities of the mental and physical universe. He also believes that event-individuation must be done on the basis of causal powers. He further argues in favour of the individualization of events on the basis of spatio-temporal localization. According to this view, all events are caused by and cause other events and for him this is the defining characteristics of what an event is. The important aspect of Davidsons ontology of events for anomalous monism is that an event has an indefinite number of properties or aspects. He says that a very simple physical action like switching on a light has a large variety of mental events especially reasoning; for example recognizing the need of light, making a choice to switch on etc. For Davidson, a particular reason causes a particular action. Thus it explains that reasons are causes and actions are effects of the causal efficacy of the mental events.  [47]   However there are also people who are highly critical about it. One of the criticisms about the anomalous monism is whether mental events are ever causes of physical events in virtue of their mental properties. Gibb says that If the mental properties of a mental event do make a causal difference, then unless one admits systematic causal over determination, this is to violate the causal closure principle, for according to it an events physical properties are sufficient for the causal effects that event has within the physical domain.  [48]  It is otherwise the mental properties of an event make no causal difference to the physical effects that the event has, then mental properties have the status of epiphenomena. He observes that Consequently, to identify mental events with physical events whilst distinguishing mental properties from physical properties are not to remove but merely to relocate the problem of mental causation.  [49]  For this reason, the non-reductive physicali st who identifies token mental events with physical events but maintains a property dualism can plausibly be accused of property epiphenomenalism. Secondly a strict law cannot be formulated in the same terms as the causal claim because causally related events must have descriptions under which they instantiate a strict law. Similarly, the causal claim and the relevant covering law cannot be formulated in purely mental terms because any mental event that causes a physical event must be characterizable in physical terms and therefore be physical. Hence, mental events are physical events. On the other hand, as there are no strict psychophysical laws that would support the reduction of mental concepts to physical concepts, anomalous monism leads to the rejection of any conceptual reduction.  [50]   1.3.2.3 Non-reductive Materialism Non-reductive materialism represents the current orthodoxy in Western Philosophy thinking about the ontological status of the mind. The proponents of non-reductive materialism hold that the mental is ontologically part of the material world; yet, mental properties are causally efficacious without being reducible to physical properties.  [51]  Even though the mind itself is really physical, our mentalist explanatory scheme is not reducible to physics but is instead autonomous. They hold both irreducibility of the mind as well physical nature of the mind as realism. They are also arguing that they are fundamentally unstable combination. The non-reductionist distinguishes mental kinds from physical kinds, where the mental includes sensation and thought, and the physical is roughly the domain of the physical sciences, including neurophysiology. But those who oppose it say that the whole question of explanatory autonomy became a topical philosophical issue which threatened the reducti onism because there was a general acceptance of materialist theories. It was broadly a metaphysical doctrine. It would seem to follow that all phenomena are susceptible to physical explanation, and if this is true then what can the ontological status be of those concepts, categories and theories which fall outside the domain of the physical sciences?  [52]  Then the non-reductive materialist may have to give up all pretense of having a realist view of mental terms, giving up all talk of real but non-physical mental properties. It seems that you cannot combine Physicalism with realism about the mental and at the same time hold out for the autonomy of the mental. However non-reductive materialism could be still seen as fundamentally a stable position. 1.4 An Appraisal of Mind-Body Relations Though Descartes argues for the mind-body dualism,  [53]  the sort of dualism for which he argues, entails certain conceptual difficulties and seemingly insuperable problems. The main difficulty with mental activity is that, as Descartes understands them, how do the mind and matter interact. If minds are as distinct from material things as Descartes claims, it seems at least paradoxical that the two sorts of substances should interact. The question of the relation between the mental and the physical can be posed equivalently as about mental and ph

the origin of electoral college Essay -- essays research papers fc

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the United States of America, the presidential election takes place every four years, on the first Tuesday of November [1]. Most people believe they are directly voting for the presidential candidate, and the person with the most popular votes will win the election. However, instead of voting for the presidential candidate, people are voting for the electors, individuals who vote in the Electoral College. Moreover, the total electoral vote, not the popular vote, actually determines the winner of the United States presidential election. The election of the year 2000 is a perfect example of the Electoral College. President George W. Bush won the presidential election of the year 2000 with more electoral votes, not popular votes. Before the presidential election of year 2000, most people pay no or little attention to the electoral votes, because most people do not understand the concept of the Electoral College, or even did not know there the different between po pular votes and Electoral College.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Before continue to discuss about the Electoral College, we must first understand the history of Electoral College and the concept of how does it work. The Electoral College system was established in Article II, section I, of the U.S. Constitution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular v... the origin of electoral college Essay -- essays research papers fc   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the United States of America, the presidential election takes place every four years, on the first Tuesday of November [1]. Most people believe they are directly voting for the presidential candidate, and the person with the most popular votes will win the election. However, instead of voting for the presidential candidate, people are voting for the electors, individuals who vote in the Electoral College. Moreover, the total electoral vote, not the popular vote, actually determines the winner of the United States presidential election. The election of the year 2000 is a perfect example of the Electoral College. President George W. Bush won the presidential election of the year 2000 with more electoral votes, not popular votes. Before the presidential election of year 2000, most people pay no or little attention to the electoral votes, because most people do not understand the concept of the Electoral College, or even did not know there the different between po pular votes and Electoral College.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Before continue to discuss about the Electoral College, we must first understand the history of Electoral College and the concept of how does it work. The Electoral College system was established in Article II, section I, of the U.S. Constitution.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular v...

Will My Child be Okay at a Summer Camp? :: Disabilities Education Essays

Will My Child be Okay at a Summer Camp? With the thought of summer camp comes the recollection of cabins filled overstuffed with bunk beds, campfires, and mess hall meals with the loads of friends we met at the opening dance. Summer camp is a childhood memory for many of us, one that changed our youth, usually for the better. Such camp memories and activities still hold true today, even for children with disabilities. The inclusive classroom that takes place during the school year has now begun to carry over into the summer months at camps across the country, whether they be overnight for the whole summer, day camps or weekend camps. Residential camps may be one setting where children can develop greater personal and social maturity, according the Ann Fullerton, et al. article entitled The Impact of Camp Programs on Children with Disabilities: Opportunities for Independence. With that thought in mind the Americans for Disabilities Act now requires all camps to make reasonable accommodations so that children with special needs can attend. But some camps surpass this requirement by a long shot. Inclusion has become quite a popular aspect of the general education schooling and so children with disabilities, learning, behavioral or physical among some, are now being placed in classrooms with their peers with no such needs. These children are given the chance to interact and experience things they would have never done at home perhaps or in a special education school. The same goes for summer camps these children may attend between June and August. As stated in a Washington Post article, â€Å"parents of special education students have long said their children are left in the lurch once school closes for the summer.† Summer camps across the country are beginning to bring together children with and without disabilities for memorable summer experiences. â€Å"The percentage of accredited camps that have tailored service for children with physical or mental disabilities has risen from 9 percent to 13 in the past two years†, states Harriet Gamble, director of co mmunications for the American Camping Association. Having accredited camps that blend children with and without disabilities provides an opportunity for new friendships to form and families to attend camp together. At Kamp A-Kom-Plish in Southern Maryland is where Tiffani Sterling-Davis sent her three children. Alayna and Julian checked into camp with sister Breanna, 11, who has Down syndrome.

Adhering to various articles of the uniform code of military justice Essay

Today’s Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the result of a long history of advances in the rights of military personnel in which duty, obligation, and consequences are spelled out. It is the responsibility of every member of the armed services to keep this in mind and to embrace the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as a guide for appropriate behavior. The precursors to the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) include the Articles of War (1912-1920), The Elston Act (1948), and The Morgan Draft of 1949, each of which significantly furthered the rights of military personnel while securing the equitable application of justice (Articles of War; Elston Act; Uniform Code of Military Justice). Given the long history of the UCMJ, and the number of revisions that have taken place in order to create the modern Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, military personnel should remember and respect the efforts that were put forth to ensure their protections while serving in the military. All personnel should value the efforts of their predecessors by acting in accordance with the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. As a dedicated soldier in the Military of the United States of America, it is my duty to adhere to the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice so that I might best represent myself, my Company, and my Country, and I failed in this duty on October XX, 2006 when I did not report to a special work detail. This was an unfortunate event that I should have avoided, and having reflected on the situation, I see that I erred in several respects. In the future, I shall avoid repeating such actions as it is not my intent to perform or reflect poorly on the military, my fellow soldiers, or myself. Although I failed to report to the special work detail, and violated a number of the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it was not my intent to ignore my duties or act in a manner that, in retrospect, might be viewed as a lack of effort and dedication on my part as well as, perhaps, being viewed as a general disrespect for my fellow officers. I offer no excuse; however, it is my hope that a brief explanation of the situation will show that I did attempt to fulfill my obligations and that I now understand that my actions should have been different. On October XX, 2006, I made an error by arriving to the designated special work detail location one hour in advance of the actual starting time; this error on my part was due to a simple miscommunication. While the miscommunication itself was an event that was primarily out of my control, my actions following my early arrival could have been different. Instead of making every effort to assure that I was at the correct location and had reported at the correct time, I simply returned home. This was not the best choice, and I regret having erred in this way. I compounded this initial error in judgment by assuming that shortly after leaving the special work detail site that I would be contacted via telephone and informed about where and when I was actually to report. This phone call never came, and I made yet another poor choice in not following up on this on my own. Having thought my actions over, I see clearly that as a member of the armed services, I may be faced with occasional miscommunications. I am aware, now, that it is my responsibility to (when possible and appropriate) confirm my assignments with my fellow soldiers to avoid such miscommunications, and if faced with a situation as was the case on October XX, 2006, it is my duty to do everything in my power to ascertain what my obligations are. The Uniform Code of Military Justice can be viewed as â€Å"the foundation for the United. States military justice system,† and as a member of the Armed Forces, it is important that I respect and follow the Code’s Articles without fail (Index & Legislative History of the UCMJ). I showed poor judgment and an overall lack of respect for myself and my fellow soldiers on October XX, 2006 when I failed to report for a special work detail. This was a failure on my part that occurred as a result of a series of poor choices that I made, and I regret having acted in this manner. When I did not appear for the special work detail on October XX, 2006, I violated several Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and in so doing, I did not do my best in representing myself, my Company, or my Country. I am well aware that there are no valid excuses for my actions, and I intend to do my best not to exhibit further incidents of poor judgment. It is my goal to perform my duties at all times to the best of my abilities, and in a manner that reflects positively on me, my Company, and the United States of America. Violating any of the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice contradicts my intentions, and I regret my actions. Missing the special work detail on October XX, 2006 means I failed to appear at my appointed place of duty at the appointed time which was a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Absence Without Leave (Powers, Article 86). This action was not appropriate, and I should have made every effort to ascertain when and where I was to have reported. Special work details are a regular part of a soldier’s responsibilities, and by not reporting on October XX, 2006, I let myself and my company down. Obviously, my not being present meant the other members of my work detail had to take up the slack for my not being present: they became responsible for performing my share of the work. This is contrary to my training, and it is contrary to my duties as a soldier. I realize that as a member of a team, my role is one that I must take seriously, and I cannot let the other members of my team down or threaten my team’s ability to succeed by failing to uphold my portion of any given task. This is what happened on October XX, 2006, when I failed to report to the special work detail. This was an action I regret, and one I hope not to repeat. The United States Military relies on each and every one of its members to report to duty fully prepared to perform and in a manner timely enough to perform as required, and because each soldier depends on his fellow soldiers, it is important that no one be absent without leave. It is also possible that one soldier’s failure to report makes more difficult or prevents the ability of other members of his Squad, Platoon, or Company to perform their assigned tasks, and this could create a number of negative consequences that do not reflect well on anyone. I understand that my failing to report where I was required to do so and when I was required to do so on October XX, 2006 when I missed the special work detail was a violation of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Absence Without Leave, and that this showed a lapse in judgment which should not be repeated in the future. I intend to avoid further violations of this Article as I understand that this failure reflects poorly on the United States of America, the Military, my Squad, Platoon, or Company, and myself. Special work details are often assigned as part of my obligations as a soldier, and by choosing not to report on October XX, 2006, I failed to obey the order of a superior commissioned officer which is a violation of Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer (Powers, Article 90). This was disrespectful, and I regret my actions. I am well aware of the importance of following orders, and it was not my intent to fail to do so. The importance of the Chain of Command cannot be over-emphasized. Each member of a Squad, a Platoon, or a Company must know his role and fulfill it without fail. The Chain of Command provides an easy means by which individuals can work together towards a shared goal while avoiding undue confusion whether completing tasks that are simple or completing tasks that are extremely complex. Superior officers give orders to those under their command to ensure that shared goals are met based on the appropriate and necessary actions of their subordinate personnel. I did not fulfill my role, and in failing to do so, I let myself and those who depend on me down, and I may have cast doubt on whether or not others can rely on me in the future. In addition, my inaction in this situation most likely created a hardship on the other members of my Squad, Platoon, Company by requiring that they do extra work. I understand that my failure to follow the orders of a superior was inappropriate, and not in the best interests of myself or my fellow soldiers, and that further violations of Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer are not in my best interest. Having thought about this, I see clearly that I should have done everything in my power to fulfill my obligations and to avoid the appearance of disrespecting my superior officer by failing to report as ordered. I failed to appear at my appointed place of duty when I missed a special work detail on October XX, 2006. This was a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Failure to Obey an Order or a Regulation (Powers, Article 92). This was an error on my part that I regret and intend to avoid in the future. As a proud and dedicated member of the United States’ Armed Services, I do not have the luxury of deciding whether or not I will abide by an order or a regulation. My job is not to decide whether or not I want to do something; my job is to do what I am ordered to do when I am ordered to do it. It is my responsibility to understand that I play a role in a team, and that my failing to perform my part of a task assigned to the team I am a part of puts all members of that team at risk of failing. In failing to report to the special work detail on October XX, 2006, I let myself and my fellow soldiers down, and I showed poor judgment. Every Company needs order, and the surest way to ensure that individuals come together to form a cohesive group is to establish regulations that must be followed. By failing to report to my special work detail on October XX, 2006, I jeopardized the cohesion of my group, and I brought into question the degree to which I might be relied upon in the future. After thinking about my actions and the effect that my lack of following through had, I regret not having done more to ensure that I knew where and when I was supposed to report on October XX, 2006. I understand that my failure to report to the special work detail on October XX, 2006 was equivalent to failing to obey an order and reflected poorly on myself and my fellow service members, and that violating Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Failure to Obey an Order or a Regulation does not cast me in a positive light. Because it is my desire to perform all of my duties to the best of my abilities, I regret my actions and hope not to repeat a similar error. My failing to report to the special work detail on October XX, 2006 was in flagrant disregard of good order and discipline and was detrimental to the overall well-being of the command with which I am associated. This was a violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman (Powers, Article 133). I now see clearly that missing my assigned task was an error in judgment on my part, and I intend to do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of this error. As a dedicated representative of the United States of America, it is my duty, my responsibility, and my desire to conduct myself in a manner that represents me, my command, and my country in the most positive light possible. When I missed the special work detail on October XX, 2006, I shed negative light on all facets of the Military, and I regret this. Military Units function best when all of their members work in unison towards a common goal, and my missing the special work detail on October XX, 2006 reflects a lack of discipline and an unwillingness to keep good order, both of which are detrimental to my well-being and that of the members of my Company as well as violating Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman. It is not my intent to tarnish the image of the Military of the United States of America, and as a representative of the Armed Forces, my failing to report to the special work detail on October XX, 2006 did just that. This is an action I regret. I neglected my duty to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces when I chose to miss the special work detail on October XX, 2006. This action constituted a violation of Article 134c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Disorder and Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline (Powers, Article 134c). It also created a hardship to my fellow soldiers and threatened the proper, timely completion of the task at hand. This discipline of a soldier is only truly challenged when he is faced with a duty he does not want to perform. Because the good order of a Squad, a Platoon, or a Company often depends on the discipline of each of its individual members, it is imperative that every single soldier practices good discipline at all times, especially when circumstances challenge what he wants to do with what he must do. When one soldier fails to put his personal desires aside, it shows a lack of respect towards his fellow soldiers, and it may have the additional adverse effect of tempting others to disobey orders as well. Having thought about my actions, I see that my failing to report on October XX, 2006 did just this, and I regret my actions and the effect they may have had on others. I understand that my actions do not reflect well on my desire to uphold good order or discipline, that they cast a negative light on me and my Company, and that further violations of Article 134c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Disorder and Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline are not in my best interest. It is my intent to keep this in mind and in the future, to act with a greater degree of appropriate decision-making. I fully appreciate the historical significance of today’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, and my responsibility as a proud and dedicated member of the United States Armed Services to adhere to its Articles. I understand that my actions on October XX, 2006 when I failed to report to my special work detail appears to be an indication on my part of a lack of respect for the UCMJ, the basis of the military justice system, and that in skipping my special work detail on October XX, 2006, I violated Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Absence Without Leave; Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer; Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Failure to Obey an Order or a Regulation; Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman; and Article 134c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Disorder and Neglect to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline. Having taken time to reflect upon my actions, I see clearly that regulations are in place to assist me, as a soldier, in performing my duties in the manner that best suits me individually and my fellow soldiers as a whole, and that in failing to report to my special work detail on October XX, 2006, I let myself and those who count on me down. This lapse in judgment reflects poorly on me, on my Company, and on the United States of America, and I intend to avoid any similar events in my future, so that I might reflect the attitude of the proud, dedicated soldier that I am to those with whom I serve. R eferences Articles of War (1912-1920). , The In Military Legal Resources.Library of Congress. U. S. Govt. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www. loc. gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/AW-1912-1920. html. Elston Act (1948), The. In Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress. U. S. Govt. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www. loc. gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ Elston_act. html. Index & Legislative History of the UCMJ (1950). In Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress. U. S. Govt. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www. loc. gov/rr/ frd/Military_Law/index_legHistory. html. Pound, Edward T. (2002, December 16). Creating a code of justice. History. U. S. News & World Report. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from http://www.usnews. com/usnews/ news/articles/021216/16justice. b. htm. Powers, Rod. Punitive Articles of the UCMJ: Article 86—Absence without leave. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://usmilitary. about. com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm86. htm. Powers, Rod. Punitive Articles of the UCMJ: Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://usmilitary. about. com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm86. htm. Powers, Rod. Punitive Articles of the UCMJ: Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://usmilitary. about. com/od/punitivearticles/ a/mcm92. htm. Powers, Rod. Punitive Articles of the UCMJ: Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://usmilitary. about. com/od/ punitivearticles/a/mcm133. htm. Powers, Rod. Punitive Articles of the UCMJ: Article 134—General article. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://usmilitary. about. com/od/punitivearticles/a/134. htm. Uniform Code of Military Justice; Text, References and Commentary Based on the Report of the Committee on a Uniform Code of Military Justice to the Secretary of Defense [the Morgan Draft] (1949). In Military Legal Resources. Library of Congress. U. S. Govt. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www. loc. gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/morgan. html.