Friday, May 31, 2019

British Imperialism in India and China Essay -- English Imperialism Co

British majesticism in India and China Imperialism is the domination of a weaker landed estate by a stronger plain. For instance Britain dominated India and China in the mid 1880s to the beginning of the 20th century. Imperialism has had both a positive and negative cause on the countries involved. Britain was imperialistic for many reasons, it could dominate because it had the technology and power to do so. They also needed land to acquire raw materials for growing markets.One country that had imperialism was India. By the mid-1880s, the British East India Company controlled three fifths of India. The cause of British domination was that the land was very diverse and the people could not unite and that the British either paid local princes or used weapons to get control. Positive effects of imperialistic rule in India were that the British set up a stronger economy and more powerful industries. They built roads and railroads. British rule brought peace and order to the countrysid e. They revised the legal system to promote justice for the Indians no matter of class. Indian landowners and princes, who still owned territory grew rich from exporting cash crops such as cotton and jute. The British introduced the telegraph and the postal system as a means of communication. These improvements and benefits from British rule eventually lead to Indian nationalism. The exposure to European ideas caused an Indian nationalist movement, the people dreamed of ending Imperial ...

Thursday, May 30, 2019

German Guilt in Bernhard Schlinks The Reader Essay -- essays research

Every year or so, something happens in the media that brings us all back to the atrocities of World War II, and the German persecution of the Jews. It seems that the horrors of that time can only be digested and understood in small bites. How else can we personalize and comprehend a tragedy of that magnitude? Most of what we instruct and view in the media about the holocaust is a perspective from the Jewish experience. Recently, however, a question has been posed in regards to finding closure with that troubling report of history from the German conscience. Can one Germans experience reflect the tendencies of the entire country with regards to passion, denial, guilt, and finally justice? Absolutely, according to Michael Berg, the main character in Bernhard Schlink?s novel, The Reader. After being hypnotized for two days while I read this very interesting story, I would have to agre e. Once I sawing machine the startling similarities in the area of seduction, the door opened for me to see what I believe Schlink was trying to show all along. We are capable of behaving in kind of extraordinary ways, but when all is said and done, we must live with the consequences of our actions, as individuals or as a Nation. Although we may deny the motives of our past actions, either superb or bad, the truth does not change, and with the truth comes a reckoning, The book starts in post-war Germany. A fifteen year old Michael Berg is assisted by a beautiful older woman after vomiting in the street. He is very ill and needs months to recover from Hepatitis, but goes back to thank the woman, Hanna, as soon as he is fit enough to leave his home. Although Mich... ...anting to forgive the German war criminals, (Hanna), but being unable to openly because it would appear to absolve the actions. He speaks of something being so horrific that the mind can become numb to it. W hat would his approach to Hanna have been if he had not been involved with her emotionally? The questions slip by coming, with no easy answers. Michael tries to atone for his betrayal of Hanna by reading books to her on cassette, then sending them to her in prison. Hanna learns to read and gains understanding of the Holocaust. She tries to atone for her involvement by leaving her earnings to a survivor and after she dies, Michael attempts to carry out her will. The survivor refuses the money, and sends Michael on his way with no sympathy. This book leaves many of us softly asking ourselves, ?What would I have done. It also demands to be read again.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Russell, Strawson, and William of Ockham :: Philosophy of Language

Realism and formula generally establish the parameters of debate over universals. Do abstract terms in language refer to abstract things in the world? The realist answers yes, difference us with an inflated ontology the conventionalist answers no, leaving us with subjective categories. I want to defend nominalism in its original medieval sense, as one possibility that aims to preserve objectiveness while positing nothing more than concrete individuals in the world. First, I will gratuity paradigmatic statements of realism and conventionalism as developed by Russell and Strawson. Then, I will present the nominalist alternative as developed by William of Ockham.Realism and conventionalism are commonly taken to be the primary contenders in the debate over universals. Does abstract language refer to abstract things in the world? The realist answers yes, leaving us with an inflated ontology, the conventionalist answers no, leaving us with subjective categories. In this paper I would like to defend a third possibility which aims to preserve objectivity without multiplying objects. It is nominalism, in the original, medieval sense of the word or more specifically, in the Ockham sense of the word.Willard Quine once signaliseed that the nominalists of old . . . object to admitting abstract entities at all, even in the restrained sense of mind-made entities.(1) This is certainly true of Roscelin, the eleventh-century anti-realist who famously asserted that a universal is nothing but a flapping of the vocal chords. And Quines remark is true of Ockham as well, in so far as he asserted that a universal is nothing but a particular thought in the mind. Yet thoughts, even if particular, are not exactly concrete, and they do abstract, according to Ockham, in a way that Roscelins flapping vocal heap do not. I wont be able to defend Ockhams nominalism by refuting all of the many versions of the competition one by one. What I propose to do instead is set it up in relation to the celebrated exchange between Bertrand Russell and P. F. Strawson. In this exchange, Russell and Strawson were trying to figure out how a sentence can be meaningful even when the thing the subject of the sentence refers to does not exist. Russell makes what I take to be the classic realist mistake Strawson, the conventionalist. In what follows I will first explain Ockhams alternative and then show why I think it compares favorably against these twentieth-century counterparts.