Comparing Two Artists Essay Example for Free

Comparing Two Artists Essay Magritte uses minimal dull colours though he changes tones within his colours to create shadowy effects and also creates a layered element contributing to line within his artwork; the horizontal layers between the background make the vertical lines of the owls stand out in the foreground of his artwork. Magritte is known to not leave hidden messages within his artwork, cleverly painting the reality he see’s. For this particular symbolic painting Magritte uses oil on canvas, the sharp detail he uses in his brush strokes make the image look real but not real at the same time. His witty version of reality he paints fall into surrealism, although his artwork include symbolic owls his painting is clear, interesting and well defined, he wanted his viewers to look at his painting and appreciate what is right there, not leaving them wondering why or what it means, because everything he wished to portray is right there in the artwork. Owls symbolize wisdom. In many cultures they are believed to be able to see all things that are usually hidden quite possibly fears. Magritte uses these owls to represent as an ancient human fear or the owls are the companions of our ancient fears, the birds growing from the soil may represent the ‘roots’ to our fears. In comparison to Magritte, Peter Booth’s artwork ‘Untitled 1976’ displays an image of apocalyptic shock, at the same time Booth includes his painful personal experiences and his view of humanity. This is evident when he uses harsh and cold colours to represent the apocalyptic vibe he sends through his artwork, the tones are very similar within each colour although when looking at the whole painting the contrast between the different colours is quite prominent leaving a cold feeling for his viewers to feel. Line has most strongly been used to create the strong horizon line and hence fore-middle- and background. The thin repeated lines of the fire and sky create pattern and simulated texture. The texture of the paint Booth uses to illustrate the industrial side of his landscape maybe suggesting he had a rough childhood. The shape of the figures in Booth’s artwork are all out of proportion, implying they could be apart of his hazy memory or hallucination, and this is how he remembers them. Booth uses gouache on paper for this particular artwork his intense brush strokes create perspective on his painting, guiding his viewers to understand and follow where he directs them. His work is characterised by an intense emotional power of often dark narratives, and esoteric symbolism, this artwork also reflecting on his nightmarish dreams which categorise him in surrealism, as he works closely with the element of surprise or shock difference. The colours he uses are symbolic to aspects of his childhood growing up in the industrial surroundings.

Definition Of What Good And Evil Are Philosophy Essay

Definition Of What Good And Evil Are Philosophy Essay Hsun Tzu rejected the idea that humans had a natural inclination towards goodness. People were born with an evil mind and if the mind was to be properly trained, only then may it lead to goodness. He believed that all humans are bad by nature but he did not disagree with the fact that personal experiences and interactions could help to cure the evil mind and embody human goodness. For example, he believed that babies were evil because as soon as they are born they do not know any better. They do not know the difference between right and wrong. If a baby were to pull its mothers hair, it would not be considered a wrongful action. What humans define evil is the ideal evil of society. Doing something that makes somebody else uncomfortable or unhappy is considered a wrongful action, but whether or not it is, is a different story all together. Society has taught us that babies do not know the difference between right and wrong, therefore even if the action is considered wrong to a grown p erson, there is no way the baby knows what he or she is doing. Until you live life and are able to experience and interact with others, your mind is set to neutral. If a baby has not been taught the difference between right and wrong, regardless of what people who have been taught the difference believe, there is no possible way the babys actions are bad. Although Hsun Tzu believed this way, Mencius believed the complete opposite. Mencius believes that people are born good, and that it is the evil situations/surrounding that people are placed in that cause them to act evil. When discussing the Yi, it is referring to the way one values them self. As soon as a person falls under their own standards as a person, they are a disgrace to themselves as well as to everyone else. Keeping this in mind, because he believes that everyone is born with a good mind, they only way to destroy that is yourself. Regardless of the experiences that life throws at you, its up to you to make sure you do not fall victim to the negative aspects that could alter your non-evil mind. A very important aspect to consider is that of societies view on good and evil. Without knowing what is considered truly evil or good, no one can judge others or even themselves for that matter. Ones actions are judged by all, and if society has outlined something such as killing to be wrong, then the actions of a killer are evil. Usually when someone commit s a crime, they had to have thought about it first, so its safe to say that thoughts are just as evil as actions. The constant repeating of ones evil actions are also considered wrong or immoral. No one wakes up one day and decides to do something wrong unless they have gone through the experience of seeing someone else doing it or being taught it first hand. Therefore, once you are lucky enough to be given to opportunity to make a suitable life for yourself, it is up to what information humans attain to decide what type of person they turn out to be; good or bad. Platos idea of universal goodness and evil however are quite different from the views of both Mencius and Hsun Tzu. According to Plato, people are representations of things on earth and therefore people are born without being ultimately good or evil. It is impossible for a person to be truly evil, because humans only represent the ideal evil. Nobody truly knows what evil is. Evil is what is taught to us through the personal experiences we encounter throughout our life. It is also learnt through what is taught to us by teachers as well as other people. If someone is considered to be a good person, then it only takes one wrongful act to turn him or her evil, or so we have been taught. According to Aristotles Law of Non-Contradiction that states that something cannot be said to be and not be at the same time illustrates that man is good, and if man is good then he is not evil, concluding that good are evil are two opposite things. Nobody is perfect, so it is impossible to say that somebody can be truly good or evil. What everybody knows for sure is that what people view to be good and or evil actions differs from human to human. If there is no universal census or conclusion on what makes a person truly good or evil then it outlines that there is not just one answer as to what people are thinking of when first born. Everybody is born with a neutral mindset and without the experiences that life has to offer, regardless of whether it turns humans into good or bad people, it is what is taught to you in life that defines people as individuals. This concludes that without the knowledge of living life to the fullest, nobody can be considered good or evil because we are all born with neutral minds. Thee definition of what makes a person truly good or evil is impossible to prove as it differs between different societies as well as over time. No one can be considered truly good or evil, as it is only a state of mind placed on a person in a given experience from his or her daily life. Without the experience of being able to interact with others, it is impossible to consider someone good or evil. It because our nature it is because our nature has taught us to be both good and bad that there is no tangible evidence to prove that one overpowers the other to create the ultimate good or evil person. Furthermore, no one person can be born good or evil as it is against our biological make-up to be evil in the first place. People are born neutral and then learn how to define ones self through personal experiences and interactions. GOOD VS. EVIL ESSAY By: Alexee Simon Date Submitted: April 2nd 2010 Submitted to: Dr. Brown Course Code: HZT4U1

The Limits of Science Essay -- Philosophy Papers

Does science have any limits? Scientists say no. Philosophers are divided in their response. The humanities say that science is not "humanitarian," and thus not metaphysically deep. In response, scientists and some philosophers contend that science is the best knowledge we have about the world. I argue that science is limited by its form. Science has no object that derives from the human form. Everything that is incomparable to the dimension of the human body is reducible to notions that are commensurable to that body. This phenomenologically clarifies some of the most important discoveries in contemporary science. The Special Theory of Relativity shows the dependence of space and time on the accounting system. Quantum mechanics displays the limits of observation (Heisenberg) and logical indefiniteness by compelling the creation of a macropresentation of micro-objects and gets around logic (Feyerabend) through the principle of additionality. Experimental science has come out as an ar tificial projection of human expansion, not as a reflection of the transcendent order of the world itself. "The life world" successfully takes the place of "the objective world" of modern rationality. Does Empirical Science have any limits? This question is not so interesting for the contemporary philosophy of Science. Not like the questions of reality, objectivity, rationality. I believe, that these questions could be elucidated by answering the question of limitness, or, of form of Science. Does Empirical Science have any limits? The answer of the scientists is No: Science is unlimited. There are no scientifically unresolvable questions, they have sense. The answer of the philosophers is not clear, but it is close to No. It is shown not only i... ...rld. And now, at the issue of this study, occurs a question: Does the pre-scientific grasping of the world through logic, space and time really need the "reinforcement" which the experimental science proposes? Notes (1) Gherdjikov, S. Limits of Science. Sofia, Extreme Press, 1995. (2) See Heelan, P. Space-perception and the Philosophy of Science. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, University of California Press, 1983. (3) See McTagart, J. The Nature of Existence. Northampton, J. Dickens & Co., 1968. Paragraphs 303-351. (4) Hempel, K., Oppenheim, P. Studies in the Logic of Explanation. N. Y., 1970. (5) Gerdjikov, S. A Matrix Model of Scientific Explanation.-International Congress "Logic and Methodology of Science." Proceedings. Moscow, 1987. Vol. 6, p. 367- 368. (6) Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson of London. London, 1959.

Social Norms :: Sociology

Lately the concept of social norms, common rules of behaviors, has engaged the interest of a numerous philosophers, who are concerned with understanding the rational actors’ behavior. Kennedy and Brown addresses the concern from different aspects, they are mutually disturbed by the same social norm questions, specifically in the theory of human behavior development that is significant to the construction of legal institutions. In their endeavor to account for social norms they both argue that Human Rights pose challenges for politics. This is far from absolute, Human Rights in a way, present difficulties to politics but it is in fact social norms which pose the most critical problem for politics. At the same time social norms seem to decipher the complications of human rights; they construct a particular problem for politics because they appear to manipulate laws that govern social norms for their own personal use. Theorist challenge the thinking of these such norm compliances to explain a principle that people always act in their own self-interest, to maximize the greediness of their social power. Moreover, Human Rights in this situation are described at presents as a mutual exploited problem. Such as â€Å"institutional practice of human rights promotion propagates an unduly abstract idea about people, politics and society (Kennedy p111).† Because of these general expectations, politics can simply construct this space of lawlessness to circumvent and established social norm traditions. The avoiding of certain taboo like deploying nuclear weapons or tripping the waiters falls into this complicity that society follows. This brings up the rational choice of individualâ €™s actions. Which is why social norms would sanction governments or people for violating this paradigm of â€Å"language may well establish our legitimacy within a legal framework (Butler p25)† and the â€Å"particular vocabulary (Kennedy p111),† something we know occurs regularly in Human Rights language to be used to create this lawlessness that pose problems for politics. The eruption of criticism to politics that violation Human Rights language is rapidly eclipsed by potential threats of counsel to â€Å"problems of intellectual dishonesty (Brown p461)† which invokes norms instinctively to questions that transpires. In this context of challenging the expectations of rational political institution’s choice bring forth how social norm constrict and occasionally govern or deceive individuals. For example in the War on Terrorism and Guantanamo Bay, President Bush pushes for a preemptive strike as a legitimize sanction of Human Rights and social norms reactions for security.

Pakistan :: essays research papers fc

Pakistan   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Pakistan is a country that, since its creation, has been rooted in turmoil. The recent years are no exception to this. Since 1988, power has been divided among the president, the prime minister and the military. Tensions between the three, however, have led to eight changes of government and three elections. No elected leader has ever completed a full term in office. Benazir Bhutto, who was dismissed by the president in August 1990 after only twenty-one months in office, is the only Pakistani leader to be given a second chance at ruling (Newberg 19). On October 6, 1993 a general election was held in Pakistan. The Pakistan People's Party (or PPP) received a majority of the vote and as a result Benazir Bhutto once again became prime minister. This time however, she has a pliant president in the form of an old friend. On November 13, 1993, Farooq Leghari was elected the country president. Yet even with this unique opportunity for agreement within the ruling circle reforms have not taken place (The Europa World Year Book 2460). Despite the PPP's success in the 1993 election they still faced uncertainty. They lack not only a parliamentary majority but unity within their own ranks. One of the biggest problems was a bitter family feud between Benazir Bhutto and her mother, Begum and brother, Murtaza. Murtaza had returned from exile to claim a seat in the Sind provincial assembly, but was immediately arrested for alleged terrorist activity. In late December 1993, Benazir removed her mother as PPP co-chair after she had endorsed Murtaza's claim that he was the rightful heir to his father's political legacy. However, in September 1994, the family feud seemed to end during a visit of the prime minister to her mother (Banks 717).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Pakistan the end of the cold war had not brought on new, pragmatic thinking on foreign policy that could make Pakistan less reliant on Western support and allow it to develop closer ties with its neighbors. After the cold war, many third world countries were abandoned by their protectorates- the U.S. or the former soviet Union. However Pakistan's elite has yet to fend for itself (Rashad 158). Pakistan's relations with India worsened. Since the creation of Pakistan, relations with India have dominated foreign affairs. These relations reflect a centuries old rivalry between Hindus and Muslims. The reason for the tensions today is allegations that each side was on the verge of conducting nuclear tests (Year Book 2462).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Much of Pakistan's problems stem from a legacy of rule by a small group of around 300 families. Through blood ties, marriage, and business, they have

A Comparison of Discipline Models

A Comparison of Discipline Models ComparisonsWongKagan, Kyle and Scotts Morrish Theories†¢His concept is a belief that the students’ accomplishments are pretentious by the procedures used. †¢This philosophy has a solid positions that are shared with the students †¢It constructive and creative foundation. conveys the realistic skills of the students †¢ nurtures communication with the students in the classroom †¢This model includes procedures and approaches envisioned to assist students with being respectful, accountable, and cooperative.Strengths†¢It has a very clear procedural and specifies arrangements required (what to say, goals to have in mind, expectations, etc. ). †¢Can easily be followed because it is designed (before school after school and what happen throughout the day. have Communal and clear prospects for students †¢ Positive and creative basis. †¢convey the prospective of the students. †¢ nurtures communication and responsibility. †¢ This exhibits a strong consideration of human nature and how students have a tendency to respond. This model has three clear elements – training, teaching, and managing – and this makes it easily implemented and measured by the educators. Weaknesses†¢One of the weaknesses is that it has cause-effect connections between principles and student engagements that are not totally true. focuses additional on the success and behavior of the teacher as to what to do and when) than the requirements of the students†¢ One of the flaws is using the classroom to support the student’s ability to master adverse outlooks and shape abilities that are optimistic weaken negative Behavior. This model is based on normal potentials and thus inferences on response more than launch. Advantages†¢The theory shows entirety of what the teacher has control over, all grades can utilize It nurtures discipline and direction, likelihood and uniformity. â⠂¬ ¢ A since of pride for the students as they gain knowledge and their abilities, with the help of the teacher change their negative into positive. teaches the students individual, and knowledgeable progress †¢ This concept, when applied correctly and known by the students, can bring about a well-designed classroom. †¢ Students who are taught this concept will learn reverence and restraint. Disadvantages†¢The key disadvantage to this philosophy is its inflexibility. It also does not take in to account differences, o r individual student’s needs, and unforeseen procedures †¢ Some teachers that are applying this concept may struggle thru modification to student requirements and conduct. Educators who us this concept may be too expectant and may have some dissuasion, and place to high of demands on the students. †¢ Students may become overly depend on the teacher and perform in definite ways to receive attention. †¢ Centering on attitudes can cause an educator to spending less time on class content. †¢ This theory may possibly struggle with collective and outlooks in some the social order or settings. †¢ Students may not absorb the concept of complying, and could cause future upheaval.

Moral Permissibility of Torture

To most, torture is seen as action with a single definition that defines it, but in fact there are different types of torture that Henry Shue discusses in one of his articles. According to Shue there are rare conditions under which torture could be morally justified, but he does not endorse neither the interrogational torture not the terroristic torture. Although Shue agrees with illegality and morally wrongness of torture, he explains how one may go about defending torture and how it could possibly be morally justified. Henry Shue begins his article discussing torture with constraints which allows the victim to â€Å"surrender† and comply with the demands of the torturer. According to the Constraint of Possible Compliance (CPC), â€Å"the victim of torture must have available an act of compliance which, if performed, will end the torture† (Shue 427). With the aim of interrogational torture being to extract information from a person with holding it, this torture appears to satisfy the constraint of possible compliance, since it offers an escape, in the form of providing the information wanted by the torturers, which affords some protection against further assault. In practice there are evidently only a few pure cases of interrogational torture. For the most dominant type of torture that occurs today is considered to be terroristic. Terroristic torture is meant to put fear in not only the victim, but also all those who oppose that government. The victim’s suffering is being used as a means to end over which the victim has no control over. Terroristic torture cannot satisfy the constraint of possible compliance because its purpose, intimidation of persons other than the victim of the torture, cannot be accomplished and may not even be capable of being influenced by the victim of the torture. If terroristic torture were actually to be justified, the conditions would of course have to be met. The first condition Shue defines is the purpose being sought through the torture would need to be not only morally good, but also supremely important. These purposes would then have to be selected by criteria of moral importance which would themselves need to be justified. The second condition described is that the torture would presumably have to be the least harmful means of accomplishing the supreme goal. With the terrible pain and harm that is associated with terroristic torture, this condition could rarely be the case in this type of torture. The last condition Shue defines is it must be absolutely clear for what purpose the erroristic torture was being used, what would constitute achievement of that purpose, and when the torture would end. Henry Shue believes these three conditions will never be met primarily because terroristic torture tends to become a routine procedure in methods of governing and once it is set in motion by that government it would gain enough momentum to become a standard operating procedure within the government. Shue also describes how governments to choose to try and prove themselves to other nations, over eliminating themselves from the fight.