Analyze the def-14a by JPMorgan of advanced corporate finance Term Paper

Analyze the def-14a by JPMorgan of advanced corporate finance - Term Paper Example Michael A Neal has had quite an experience too (JPMorgan Chase & Co.). He has had quite an extensive experience in management of large complex businesses within regulated industries around the world. As a vice chair person of the general electric company, he oversaw financial services as well as products provision to customers and organizations of different sizes in south America, north America, Australia, Asia and Europe. He has experience strategic planning, risk management as well as operations (JPMorgan Chase & Co.). The basic responsibility of aiding the board in overseeing in respect to legal risks, operating risks, as well as compliance tests does rest with the company’s audit committee. Every board committee does oversee issues of reputation risk within its responsibility scope. The way guidelines on membership in the director’s risk policy committee show that the committee is very independent and members are well vetted before they are given their posts. The firm has a chief risk management officer who does report to the company’s CEO and is accountable to the company’s board. The chief risk officer is well vetted before appointment and the proposed priorities, staffing plans as well as budget are reviewed annually. The firm’s fiduciary risks are the responsibility of director’s risk policy committee (JPMorgan Chase & Co.). Risk management in the financial services business, involves assessment as well as quantification of business risks and then putting in place measures to control them. Risk management also happens to be part of compliance function and part of precise business units (Kolakowski). JPMorgan has done the best to put in place different units that are independent in risk decision making to ensure risks are anticipated, minimized hence well managed. A bachelor’s degree is the minimum education

Shyness refers to anxiety Essay Example for Free

Shyness refers to anxiety Essay I believe millions of people are suffering from shyness. â€Å"Shyness refers to anxiety and excessive caution in interpersonal relationship† (Corey 2009). We have learnt that shyness is actually social anxiety in which the individual tries to avoid eye contact with people, making it difficult to communicate effectively. I am an outgoing person when interacting with my family or close friends, however, when it comes to someone I don’t really know, I am very shy. However, the anxiety and shyness disappears little by little after I have gotten along with such person, I also have a fear of public speaking especially if I am in the center of attention. I consider myself as being too shy, so I am always willing to get over my shyness and trying to build confidence. Since I am a student, I have a lot of opportunities to interact with other people. I put myself in situations where I forced to make contact with people, like speech class and engaging in social activities, even though I find doing these stressful and uncomfortable. However, these didn’t work well and my shyness actually gets worse. After all attempts to get over my shyness fails, I have no choice than to live with it. However, Prof. Occhiato mentioned in class that shyness is the same as selfishness, I had to face this trait of mine again since I concur with what the professor said Before getting into the theme of the book I chose, I would like to talk on how my shyness/ fear of public speaking developed. When I was in elementary school in Switzerland, I was prudent but energetic and outgoing person. During lectures, I usually ask question without thinking of embarrassment that might result from my inquisitive character. Even though I was only seven or eight years old, I knew that I need to perform and produce good results. I received my teacher’s and peer’s praise for my good work and I was encouraged to keep the flag flying. I became industrious and tried to accomplish my task successfully, I also wanted to gain recognition for creating new things. In general, children’s efforts to master their school work help them to grow and form a positive self-concept a sense of who they really are. However, after I moved to Asia, I changed a lot, although in negative ways. In Korea, it is considered rude for a student to ask questions during class, such act is regarded as interruption to the flow of the lesson, whereas, in Swiss classrooms children are encouraged to ask questions. It is all about culture so that moving to a new school abroad means I have adjusting to the new culture. However, since I am used to taking classes either in the United States or in Europe, I felt uncomfortable with being in this environment. Older children may find it hard to adapt, both to a new culture and a new language, but since I was still ten years old, I settled in quickly. Once I get used to being in Korean culture, I started to feel embarrassed asking questions in the class, but I also felt a sense of shame that I am different. This feeling became worse after moving to Japan. Even though I have lived in abroad for most of my life, I consider myself as a very Japanese since my parents taught me a lot of things about Japanese culture, morals, injunctions and many other things. One day, my teacher asked me the meaning of famous Japanese proverb and I was floored by that question. She said â€Å"This question is actually quite easy and a kind of common sense. † And she pointed at me and said â€Å"However, even you are not able to answer the question; this is understandable to me since you are from the different culture. † My face was flushed with shame that I couldn’t answer the easiest and a kind of common sense question. At that moment, I felt I had been stupid all the while and that I am and failure in everything. However, anytime I think of it now, I didn’t have to be panic any longer since I know I wasn’t old enough to think logically and subjectively during those periods. As a result of the embracement that I experienced in my childhood, those negative feelings are firmly planted in my mind. This is the reason why I develop extreme shyness/ fear of public speaking. Well, I would like to go into the main theme which is about the book I chose. The author, Leil Lowndes was able to produce a magnificent book that can counter shyness and workout confidence among people. The book â€Å"Goodbye to Shy: 85 Shy Busters†, helps readers to face everyday lives with full confidence and brighter perspectives. It determines the source of shyness, the effects of being shy and introduces possible remedies to achieve a shy free life. Each chapter focuses on a particular step that shy individual can use. Then at the end of each chapter, it is summarize the discussion in a little gray box called a `Shy Buster. ` The first part of the book tackles proper way of dealing with people nowadays even in the presence of shyness in one’s personality. The goal of attaining a shy free life is never an easy task; it will take time to gain a complete confidence. The other day, I told people that I am shy, however, they didn’t even believe me. †Oh I don’t think you are, since you are talking to me. † They don’t know how much I am suffering inside. Since then, I have been thinking it is not a proper idea telling people that I am shy. Surprisingly, the author recommends telling other people that you are shy (Lowndes 3). In most situations, shy people try to hide their condition to avoid being humiliated. People will only laugh at an individual whoadmitted that he/she is shy and may say things like â€Å"Oh, not you! You’ve got to be kidding† (Lowndes 3). According to the book, shy people are classified to three different types: born shy, situational shy and traumatic experience shy. The first type of shy people is a natural shy from birth. The sensitivity of born shy people is extremely high and they try to avoid socialization as much as possible. The second type of shy is usually affected by certain events that expose them to others. One great example of situational shyness is during class discussions. Lastly, traumatic experiences make someone shy because of too much humiliation or failure. This can also be viewed as people who are usually well taken care of right from their childhood days. It produces traumatic shyness because they will keep on depending and talking to close family members rather than exposing themselves to people that they barely know. In my case, my shyness comes under either the second or the third one. Once a person is already aware of the type of shyness he/she possess, it is the time for him/her to get out of the situation (Lowndes 7). There are discussions made in the book about battling with blushing, sweating and other signs of shyness (Lowndes 10). The author also encourages shy people to talk about their condition (Lowndes 12). This will make them face the tough situation that they are and step by step settle the problem with their personality (Lowndes 15). The book is indeed helpful for shy people because they will be aware of the things that they need to do to counter shyness. It is one way of showing readers how life will be more meaningful with the right confidence and sociable personality. Another good part of the book is the second chapter which discusses different point of views of people about the shy person. Either the shy person says that he/she is shy or not, other people can notice it even without even telling them (Lowndes 21). The author also based her findings on studies that prove how shy people view themselves worse than what they really are. The â€Å"mud colored glasses† hinders people from growing up and showing off their proud personality (Lowndes 25). Shy readers will find themselves whispering â€Å"Yes that’s me! † upon encountering several discussions in the book when the discussions are really similar to their life experiences. This is a good way of making people aware of their weaknesses so that they can work it out and transform it into strengths. Reading the book serves as a self discovery for shy people. after they have already gathered pertinent information about their condition, the author then lead them to more juicy chapters that will make them finish with confidence. As mentioned before, there are shy busters’ techniques identified by the author which can be easily applied to the lives of shy people. There is a three-step game plan given by the author, so that shy people will unhook themselves from the terrible condition (Lowndes 43). It includes chapters about hooking hide and seek, shaving off the years of suffering from shyness and how to warm up one’s wacky confidence (Lowndes 45- 58). For beginners, there are shy buster techniques that will improve shyness little by little. From simple eye to eye contact to giving out a perfect smile and eliminating snob mannerism were discussed in the chapter titled† The seven best beginner’s shy busters† (Lowndes 61). Rare shy busters were also given by the author that will allow shy people contemplate on things that made them shy. It will also encourage them that the only people who can help them from recovering are their own selves. Big time sufferers were also tackled in the book, but eventually there is still a hope for them to recover. Crowd behaviors were also cited in the book and how shyness is available on almost every place like parties and other places. Shy people often treat crowded people as hell but the book will make them change this kind of orientation. The book is great for both the shy and people that are not shy, the author outlines many aspects of personal relations that will be beneficial to everyone. In a humorous way, she sites real-life examples (many of her own) that point out where a shy person may have shortcomings. She then explains why they may behave the way they do and offers alternatives to overcome the shy behavior. Also, it manifests the author’s willingness to help out and change the lifestyle of shy people. Fearless conversation will be made available for shy people after reading this book. Family and sexual relationship problem which are affected by shyness will also be resolved through several shy busters given in the book. Getting to know one’s self is the best way to get out of a shy life. Loving yourself is the main message of this book because it assures shy people that life is a priceless gift especially for those who extends themselves to others. Again, each shy buster introduced by the author allows shy people to practice and apply it in their lives. Every accomplished shy buster technique leads them closer to graduation day. By the end of the book, shy people will find themselves successful and free from painful shyness experiences. It will give shy people the chance to look attractive and feel more comfortable whenever other people are around them. In conclusion, this is an excellent step by step guide to getting over our shyness. I found many of the author’s suggestions and words very helpful. Honestly, I initially resist buying this book because the cover is so local. It looks like some 1980s book that I usually find in my mothers closet. But then, I bought it anyway. I am glad I did. It is quite funny and entertaining to read. As I read the book, it eases away from its clinical insights and moves more towards the practical. And the practical offers tips that I think would help most people regardless of how shy they are. (Chances are good that most people have some shyness in them based on how the author defines `shyness. ) The exercises help to give me some confidence and it really helps me realize that people are not as critical as we think they are. Besides, she opened my eyes to a lot of things. For example, I’ve heard before that people considered me to an arrogant person for avoiding them, and I was just shy. I had no idea that they did not understand it. I always thought that there is no hope for my shyness. Reading this book doesn’t mean I can get over my shyness completely. I know I have to put theories into practice. But at least, this book gives me some hope. I want to thank Prof. Occhiato for mentioning that â€Å"shyness = selfishness. † It could be a life changing book that will reshape and reconstruct the lives of many shy people.

Reality and Illusion in Richard Bach’s Illusions Essay -- Richard Bach

Questioning Reality in Richard Bach’s Illusions The message of Richard Bach’s Illusions is based on the concept that the things we interpret in the world as reality are actually illusions. This is made evident to one of the main characters, Richard, through his interactions with his newly found friend, Donald Shimoda. Donald Shimoda is a â€Å"messiah†, and he has gifts that he uses to help mankind. A quote that Richard reads is â€Å"Here is a test to find whether your mission on earth is finished: If you’re alive, it isn’t† (121). During the entire story, Don proves this quote to be true. Donald works to share his gifts and carry out his mission on earth. Richard and Don are barnstormers. They live their lives flying from town to town, landing in farm fields, and giving flights to local people for three dollars. Richard meets Don when Richard sees Donald’s plane parked in a field as he is passing by the nearby town. Richard is very curious about this plane because it is extremely unusual to encounter other barnstormers. He also feels lonely at times, and he wants to see if the other barnstormer can keep him company. When Richard lands his airplane, he meets Don. He talks with Don for several moments and, despite noticing some unusual quirks about Don, does not think that Don is too out-of the ordinary. Then he notices that Don’s plane is immaculate. It does not have any dirt or oil or any other evidence that it has been flown before. When Richard asks Don about this, Don tells him that there are things that Richard does not know. Later in the story, however, Richard learns more about Don and why he seems to be mysterious. Richard has a dream that reveals to him why Donald seems so mysterious. He sees a man a... ...ir problems or uncertainties. When people realize that they are capable of knowing the truth, they are able to overcome the illusions and to help others break their own boundaries. Donald Shimoda is aware of his mission on earth. He knows that he has the power to help all of mankind, and he works to help any person who he encounters who is in need. He works hard to do so throughout his entire life and until his death. When Donald dies, his work on earth really is complete. He teaches Richard to look past illusions and to see the reality behind them. Richard comes to realize that he too can perform miracles. In learning and sharing the gifts that Donald offered to the world, Richard is able to help mankind. Donald does finish his mission when he dies. However, his friend Richard has the ability to carry out the same mission and to help others as Donald did.

Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy: A Review

JUSTUS HARTNACK, Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy (trans: Maurice Cranston, New York: Anchor Books, 1965) pp. (x+142). Paper. The book Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy, written by Professor Justus Hartnack, was first published in Danish. Later this book was translated to English by Maurice Cranston who was the author of Freedom, What are Human Rights? , Jean-Paul Sartre and the standard biography of John Locke. Hartnack is also famous for his book Philosophical Problems. The book Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy deals with the philosophy of the most famous contemporary philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.This book covers over one hundred and forty two pages. It begins with a preface by the author. This book, having five chapters, is the interpretation of Wittgenstein’s philosophical works. The first chapter, under the title ‘Biographical Introduction’, dealt with the life history of Ludwig Wittgenstein—the most renowned figure of the time. He was a great philosopher who dedicated himself to the growth of philosophy. â€Å"†¦philosophy was his life† (p. 3). Though he made lectures on British universities, he was not at all English, but an Austrian Jew, living and working in England.He was born in Vienna in 1889, the son of a rich engineer. Initially he had a taste to engineering; but later, it transformed to mathematics and he became a disciple of Bertrand Russell in Cambridge University. At the outbreak of the First World War, he contributed a few years in the Austrian army. His first and the most famous book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was published in 1922. Indeed the language of the book is elusive, â€Å"it has had an enormous influence among philosophers† (p. 6). Its influence was particularly marked in the logical positivism that became so fashionable in the years between the wars.But the later teachings of Wittgenstein were contrasting to the former teachings. His The Philosophical Investigations (1953) , which published only after his death marked a new beginning in the world of philosophy. Besides the above books, he was also the author of the book, The Blue and Brown Books (1958). His writings paved a place for Wittgenstein in the history of philosophy. The second chapter named ‘The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus’ gives out a brief summary of Wittgenstein’s eighty pages book—Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.The author begins with the traditional notion of language—â€Å"consists of words and each word possesses meaning insofar as it stands for something† (p. 13). It is the search for the problem of philosophical assertions that brings out the serious errors in using the language. So, Russell in his Principia Mathematica comes up with the need of constructing a new language preserving the logical form. It was the beginning of symbolic logic. But Wittgenstein was not satisfied with this new language because â€Å"he did not think there was a ny need to construct a new language because he held that there is only one language† (p. 6). His book Tractatus shares this idea. The author expresses the content of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus in nine parts in this chapter. The world, thought and propositions nave the same logical form—world is represented by thought and it is expressed in words as propositions. So, according to Wittgenstein, â€Å"the world is the totality of facts, not of things† (p. 18). A thing is not itself a fact even the thing is bound up with the notion of a fact. The author uses the example: â€Å"It is a fact that my watch is lying on the table, but neither the watch nor the table is a fact† (p. 25).The thought and propositions serve as pictures of facts. This is known as ‘Picture Theory of Language’—language is a picture or model of facts. Pictures are models of reality and these are made up of elements that represent objects. The combination of objects in the picture represents the combination of objects in reality. So the function of the language is to represent the state of affairs in the world. But the proposition does not give a spatial representation of the fact; it is only a logical picture of the state of affairs. Then, Hartnack points out Wittgenstein’s concept of ‘mystical’.There are some facts â€Å"that would be nonsensical to discuss, describe or even to think, because language cannot logically be employed about it† (p. 40). He included all the ethical and spiritual values in the realm of mystical. It is something that is transcendental. The third chapter ‘The Tractatus and Logical Positivism’ says about the influence of Tractatus over logical positivism. The author divided this chapter into four parts. The first part comments on logical positivist’s conception of philosophy. For them, â€Å"the task of philosophy †¦is simply to clarify the meaning of such [philosoph ical] problems and propositions† (p. 6). It has nothing to do in providing information about reality. A better understanding of the meaning of propositions can be ascertained through ‘verification principle’—one understands the meaning of a proposition only of one knows how it could be verified. For example, the statement ‘It is raining’ can be verified. But there are some other propositions that can’t be verified and it is called as ‘pseudo propositions’ similar to Wittgenstein’s ‘mystical’. In the following parts of the third chapter, the author discusses how the logical positivism differs from the ideas of Wittgenstein.It is believed by the positivist that Wittgenstein was the first one who had proposed the verification principle. Wittgenstein accepted the mystical propositions as genuine along with the empirical propositions. But positivists denied the assumption that mystical propositions are genuine for they cannot accept anything other than that is empirical. â€Å"†¦what cannot be said, and therefore cannot be thought, is not an expression of the limits of language. The reason for being silent is that there is nothing to speak about† (p. 55). The fourth chapter holds the same title, ‘The Philosophical Investigations’, of his second known book.This chapter speaks on the summary of Wittgenstein’s Investigations. This book is not a continuation of his own ‘Tractatus’; rather it is the repudiation of his views in ‘Tractatus’. The author explains its importance as: What gives the importance is that it contains the mature philosophy of Wittgenstein. It introduces a new chapter in the history of philosophy. It is not just a continuation or development of the thought of others. It is something wholly original (p. 62-63). The Investigations had a reference to St. Augustine’s Confessions. â€Å"St.Augustine fancied, acc ording to Wittgenstein, that he had discovered what was essential to all languages, namely that all words should have a meaning and that the meaning of each was what it stood for† (p. 65). Augustine conceived of it as a ‘naming-game’, that is, as a language mastered by learning the names of different things. But Wittgenstein couldn’t approve this ‘naming-game’ and with a slight difference he introduced ‘language-game’ which had its foundation on the sense that the meaning of a word is its use in the language. He thought that in language we are playing with words.As we can’t find any resemblance in different games though they possess some similarities and relationships, we can’t find resemblance in our multiple ways of language use. Hartnack discusses: Language, no longer a picture of reality, is now seen as a tool†¦with variety of uses. Different words are like different tools in the toolbox. And just as there is no one use which is the essential use of all tools, there is no one essential use for words and sentences. (p. 75) Different language-games show a family resemblance as like the members of a family share many similar features, such as eye colour, hair, facial structure, etc,.However, there will be no one particular feature that they all share in common. So the different language-games are related to one another in many different ways. In Investigations, Wittgenstein made a gradual transition on the aim of philosophy. With a new view, philosophy aims at complete clarity. â€Å"[And] this complete clarity does not lead to the solution of problem, but to its disappearance† (p. 82). Why is to say that the problem disappear? It is because the origin of the philosophical perplexity is an error, or rather a misunderstanding—a misunderstanding of the logical grammar of the sentences concerned.When it has been healed, the source of the problem has not been ‘solvedâ€℠¢, it has vanished. The role of philosophy is to show the path of liberation to the fly trapped in the fly bottle. In the last chapter ‘Contemporary Philosophical Investigations’, Hartnack says something about the philosophers who were very much influenced by Wittgenstein. He also tried to give a brief note on the papers and books published by those philosophers. Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept of Mind is the first book to be dealt with.It was published in 1949, four years before the Investigations, and it is not Wittgenstein in style, although there is no conflict on essential points; â€Å"but it is typically Wittgensteinian in that it treats philosophical problems as the consequence of the misunderstanding of the logic of concepts† (p. 119). Besides giving a short description, the author has not tried to go deep into the text. Following Ryle’s The Concept of Mind, Hartnack makes a brief study on Peter Strawson’s paper ‘On Referringâ€℠¢, where Strawson is attacking what he believes to be a mistaken conception of meaning. Strawson’s paper is Wittgensteinian in the sense that it argues that the meaning of a sentence is not what it refers to, but the rules for its correct use† (p. 121). He rejected Russell’s claim that every sentence must be true or false or meaningless. For Strawson, â€Å"a sentence is meaningful if there are rules for its use as an assertion† (p. 126). In the following two parts of the last chapter, author summarises ‘The Ascription of Responsibility and Rights’, the defense paper of Professor H. L. A. Hart and ‘On Grading’, the paper presented by the Oxford philosopher J.O. Urmson. The former is dealt with morality and jurisprudence. Here Hart made some similarities of the problems in philosophy and legal concepts. The latter studies the use of sentences that function as evaluations. Urmson works from the simple and homely example of grading a pples. An apple can be graded either as good or as bad, based on its empirical properties. But â€Å"the logical structure of the sentence ‘This is good’ is quite distinct from any question about the validity or relevance of any criterion that may be invoked in support of it† (p. 42). The validity of the statement is not proved in this kind of evaluations. The book Wittgenstein and Modern Philosophy is really an excellent interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical works—Tractatus and Investigations. Hartnack had made a genuine effort to make this book marvelous. Though this book contributes nothing new to the world of philosophy, it shows a great honour to Wittgenstein. Hartnack was successful in giving appropriate footnotes in places where the reader needs clarifications.But it is sorry to say that this book lacks index and the last chapter of this book is so vague. The author would have to pay a little more attention to these drawbacks. Excluding these drawbacks, this book is an awesome work. This book will be very useful to the philosophy students especially those who are making study exclusively on Wittgenstein. Even the translator re-produced the book in a simple and eloquent language. This book review will be incomplete unless I mention that the author showed justice to the works of Wittgenstein and even to the readers.

Herbert Mead. Analysis Is Mind, Self, Society

Sarah Kuntz 10/4/12 Essay 2: Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society Herbert Gilbert Mead, the author of Mind, Self, and Society, is introduced by Charles w. Morris which gives a perspective to Mead before the accumulation of his essays. Mead was influenced by Charles Darwin and Watson’s behaviorism however he was greatly tilted to Watson’s behaviorism. Although he considered Watson’s views â€Å"oversimplified† he did refer himself to be a behaviorist. Mead goes further to mention, â€Å"the denial of the private nor the neglect of consciousness, but the approach to all experience in terms of conduct. In his essay the Mind, Mead simplifies the approach to understanding the mind in simple building blocks of gestures, symbols and language. Mead was trying to answer the age old question of how the mind arises. His answer was that the, â€Å"Mind arises through communication by a conversion of gestures in a social process or context of experience-not communic ation through mind† (p 50). These specific gestures then become the symbols and are communicated to others in an idea. Due to this communication is a constant adjustment to others and to their reactions.The future communication becomes more eminent in the beginning of actions and reactions constantly occurring. In the essay the Self, the mind gives way (in the actions and reactions) to language and symbols which then possible for development. This development is our self and reference point for certain events in our lives, emotions and different sensations (p. 136). Mead goes on to discuss how the self does arise, â€Å"it arises through play, and games and the idea of generalized other. That organized community gives the individual his â€Å"unity of self† and the attitude of generalized other is that of the whole community† (p. 155).Mead is explaining that our entire self reflects the tweaking of our self to match society. Furthermore, the final essay the Socie ty, he brings accumulation of ideas of the mind and the self to relate it to society. Mead mentions that insects base their societies on physiological differences unlike the man who bases society on those around him. Man is seen to constantly change his environment by the way he uses it and create a community by a common language. What one does is defined by others, such as religion or economics. Both of these call for enormous amounts of identification and needs an audience to acknowledge this identification.So as far as he is a self, and part of a community and his contribution is must be social (p. 324). Personally I understand Mead’s views on how the mind can be somewhat defined by behaviors into chain reactions. However this leaves the concept of deception and lying in behaviors. At times there is more to what meets the eye, and what is said and understood has multiple meanings. The human mind is so complex and defining it to just one behavior would still be simplifying the concept. I do agree with Mead on the concept of society. Society plays a very important role which man will always for the most part, mirror his actions.

What is the significance of Platos choice of the dialogue form Essay Example

What is the significance of Platos choice of the dialogue form Essay Example What is the significance of Platos choice of the dialogue form Paper What is the significance of Platos choice of the dialogue form Paper Plato is known throughout history as the author of some of the most poetic, lively, interesting and probing dialogues ever written. Not only are they crucial in the philosophical development of the western world, they are also literary classics in their own right. But, to what extent was this success dependent on the form in which Plato chose to convey his teachings: the dialogue form? Why did Plato use the dialogue form rather than straight poetry or prose like his contemporaries? The central character in Platos dialogues was usually Socrates. Despite knowing very little factually about the historical Socrates, academics are largely agreed that he did actually exist. Socrates was a historical figure, famously put to death by the Athenian State for corrupting the young and for trying to introduce new Gods. Although these were the official reasons for his death, it is likely that the real reason was political, due to his relationship with the Oligarchy Party. Even before falling foul of the Athenian State, Socrates was never a popular figure due to his annoying habit of stopping people in the street to question them in detail about philosophy in a style similar to that depicted in Platos dialogues. Socrates himself never wrote a word; however, the philosophy of the historical Socrates seems to have been centred on a search for a definition, particularly in ethical terms, as it was ethics and to some extent language that chiefly occupied the historical Socrates. This tendency to explore philosophy in search of a definition is certainly one that is reflected in Platos early dialogues such as Gorgias or Protagoras. As we have no documented evidence from Socrates himself, when we read the words of Platos character of Socrates, are we reading words said by the historical figure or merely those put into the characters mouth by Plato? Apart from what we can gather from Platos dialogues, which are preserved in their entirety, we know very little of the history of Platos literary career. His purpose in publishing his dialogues is unknown, as well as the dates of both the writing and publication of each of the dialogues. Despite this, scholars have grouped Platos works into those written in the early, middle and late periods of his philosophical career which is thought to have started soon after the death of the historical Socrates, continuing until his death aged around 80 in approximately 348BC1. It is largely in the early and middle dialogues that the influence of the thoughts of historical Socrates can be seen. It is in Platos most famous work the Republic that critics begin to attribute the philosophical ideas to Plato himself rather than to Socrates. Book one of the Republic varies in both style and ideas from the last nine books, leading scholars to suppose it was written separately as an earlier dialogue. It shows Plato to have reached a point in his philosophical career where his use and the scope of the Socratic dialogue style reached an end. Book one is deliberately set up to be unsatisfactory to show this. Plato is using it as a tool to allow him to progress from the early Socratic dialogues into the deeper discussions we see in the latter half of the Republic, particularly in the extended metaphor of the cave, and in the later dialogues such as Parmenides. The dialogue form allows Plato to abandon old ideas in favour of new ones, regardless of their contradictory nature, as his theories change and develop. The historical Socrates held many radical ideas, notably those in favour of totalitarianism and against the Athenian democracy of the time. These views made Socrates unpopular during his life and probably contributed to his death. By using a dialogue form and exploiting irony fully, Plato the author was able to distance himself personally from the views held by his character of Socrates. This was important not only for Platos own safety, but also for the development of his philosophy. Despite distancing himself slightly from the views of Socrates, the character usually suggests ideas that Plato was thought to be personally sympathetic with. It has been suggested that Platos dialogues, due to their form, allowed Plato to argue through and test his arguments in favour of his philosophical theories. This explains why the character of Socrates is occasionally defeated in the debate, showing areas in which Platos philosophical argument was not fully developed. The dialogue, with its account of an open and free debate is a more democratic writing style, which acts as a contrast for the totalitarian views of Socrates. It is less focussed around one person than straight prose. The style in which the dialogues were conducted assumed that there was a higher authority, which was capable of imparting a deeper understanding and knowledge of the absolute truth, and that this authority is equally accessible to all. Knowledge is not elitist if sought in the correct manner2. Another implication of the dialogue form and its inherent democracy is that it allows Socrates a certain element of humbleness. The emphasis is taken away from him directly, allowing the discussions to be more accessible both for the characters present at the discussion and also for the reader. One of the most important reasons behind Platos choice of the dialogue form relates to his ideas about teaching and learning. Plato did not see lecturing as either proper or effective teaching. His pupils, readers and followers were not vessels to be filled with information3. They Socratic Method of dialectic used in his dialogues is concerned with leading the mind to self-discovery and self-realisation. This was supposed to produce students who would be able to continue their pursuit of the philosophical truth on their own, without reliance on their teacher4. In the dialogues, especially the Meno, Plato explains his theory of learning and recollection. The character of Socrates in this dialogue makes his apparently unsupported claim that the soul is immortal and that there is a cyclic reincarnation and rebirth. He claims that in our previous lives and in the other world where our soul is in-between bodies, we have learnt everything there is to know. This is often referred to as the Platonic Theory of Recall. Learning and seeking knowledge are both merely recollection. Socrates counters Menos paradox with his Lazy Argument: we do not have to earn anything new; it is only a matter of stirring old knowledge into recollection. For Plato then, the role of the teacher is not to impart new knowledge, as we already know everything, but instead to ask the appropriate questions to catalyse this recollection of previous knowledge. With his use of the dialogue form, Plato aimed to ask his reader such questions as would stir in them this recollection. He is encouraging the participation and intellectual development of his reader as well as Socrates and his interlocutors. The character of Socrates often considers himself to be like a midwife. Just as a good midwife coaches a pregnant mother on giving birth to her baby on her own, Socrates drew out what was already inside someone in an under developed state. The participation of the reader is therefore crucial to the purpose of both Plato and his mouthpiece, Socrates. Platos desire to involve his reader in the action of the debates can be seen in his use of the dialogue form. Dialogues, if written well as Platos were, can be immensely dramatic. They are staged interactions in which reader and listener like the dialogical participants themselves become immersed, and absorbed in the scene5. Readers and critics throughout history have been unable to prevent themselves from taking sides in the debate. This potential for reader involvement and participation makes the dialogue form so ideal for Platos purpose. In addition, the dramatised and often humorous nature of the dialogues captures the creative, fun side of philosophy, making it attractive for future newcomers to the discipline. The philosophy of the historical Socrates was often concerned with the quest for a definition, be it of Justice, Virtue or Happiness. The quest for a definition of Justice is pursued in several of Platos dialogues. The whole of Republic was written to continue this quest. Consequently, few of the dialogues are brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The dialogue form is flexible in that it allows him to do this without the dialogue seeming incomplete. Platos intension with his dialogues is that he is not only teaching others his philosophical ideas, but also that he equips them with enough knowledge through experience of Socrates questioning method of how to explore and discuss, that they are able to carry on the quest themselves. As David Fortunoff says, the philosopher-teacher has to model for the interlocutor the process of learning in the exhibitive or active mode of judgement, respectively6. He considers it an education in a way of life (agi gi ) for the student, and not only in acquiring specific knowledge7. In addition, due to the dramatic and absorbent nature of the dialogues, the readers interest is excited and maintained throughout. By bringing the dialogues to an unsatisfactory conclusion, Platos aim is to motivate the reader to continue the search alone; giving them the facilities to do so is of no benefit, if he cannot motivate his audience. Socrates uses a similar form of motivation for individual participation in his discussions with his interlocutors. As part of his Socratic dialogue method, Socrates reduces his interlocutors to a state of aporia, or confusion through removing the false beliefs they previously held by exposing the inconsistencies and inadequate nature of their argument. Socrates has been accused of leaving them in this state; however, Plato gives his readers, clues as to how we might continue the search ourselves. In Meno, Socrates explains the importance of this phase in his philosophical teaching8. At the start of the experiment with the slave boy, he was certain that he knew the answer, but he was wrong. With Socrates instruction, by the end, he knew that he was wrong. Initially, he was not perplexed, but he was in fact wrong. By the end of the dialogue, he may be perplexed, but he does not hold any incorrect ideas. He is in a better state than he was before Socrates reduced him to the state of aporia. In addition, he is now motivated to pursue the answer on his own because he now knows that he doesnt already know it. Socrates reduction of both his interlocutors and his readers to perplexity is a crucial tool of Platos to involve them in the debate and most importantly, to give them the motivation to realise what they dont know and to seek to fill the void. Above all, Platos reason for writing his dialogues as he did was to allow him to do philosophy with us, the unknown reader. The dialogue form allows him great flexibility as it leaves the debates open to interpretation. None of the dialogues are closed; there is always the possibility of further debate at a later date. This is important because it makes allowance so that every time you pick up Platos work, it will be different. All the dialogues rely heavily on personal participation and interpretation. These depend on and will change according to a persons experiences, moods, opinions and beliefs. As a persons perspective will never be the same at any two separate points in time, your experience of Platos work and philosophy will change. For Plato, this was crucial. Socrates produced no writings of his own and Plato, despite writing his many dialogues was suspicious of writing to say the least. At the end of the Phi drus, Plato discusses the inferiority of books and writing in general to pure thought9. From 274ff. , Plato explains the history of writing and Theuths story. He argues that writing doesnt help memory or learning, it will only remind people. It is a few sections later on in the Phi drus that Plato explains his main objection to books and to the art of writing: words cant answer your questions, they will always say the same things; with written words; they seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, But if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever10. By using the dialogue form, Plato is trying to overcome this problem. Due to the many interpretations possibly and their flexible nature, the dialogue form has more potential to be able to answer questions or at least instruct the student on how to answer the questions themselves than standard inflexible prose. Despite this, a book will never be able to defend itself or provide further arguments in favour of its point. In the VIIth Letter, Plato expresses views even more anti writing. In section 341c-e, he claims that writers of philosophy can have no real knowledge of the subject. He then goes on to say that; I certainly have composed no work in regard to it, nor shall I ever do so in future, for there is no way of putting it in words like other studies. Acquaintance with it must come rather after a long period of attendance on instruction in the subject itself and of close companionship, when, suddenly, like a blaze kindled by a leaping spark, it is generated in the soul and at once becomes self-sustaining11. Due to the lack of historical evidence ab out Platos writing, it is hard to tell what he meant when he said he had written nothing on the subject of philosophy. Suzanne suggests that it is possible that he wrote all of his dialogues after this letter, in the last ten years of his life12. Regardless of this, it is clear that Platos choice of the dialogue form is closely linked to his mistrust for writing and books that were intended to teach and lecture. Another of Platos objections to the art of writing is that it cannot choose who reads it. For Plato, not everyone was equally fit to do philosophy. Educating the unfit about philosophy would only lead to some unjustified contempt in a thoroughly offensive fashion13. In the Phi drus, as part of his critique of the art of writing, Plato complains that Once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesnt know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong14. However, the dialogue form, although it allows the author to overcome many of what he considers problems in writing standard prose, cannot prevent the wrong people from reading it. It is for this reason that Plato and particularly both the historical Socrates, and his character in Platos dialogues would argue that the only true way to do philosophy is on a one-to-one basis. This method of doing philosophy, used by Plato, his character Socrates, and also by the historical Socrates, was often known as elenchus. It involves a one-to-one debate consisting of questions and answers with the debaters not moving on until they have reached an agreement, which if both are intelligent people, should be the truth. The aim of this is for both of them to work together to achieve the truth through agreement. Usually, the questioner has more knowledge than the person being questioned does, and in Platos dialogues, Socrates usually takes this role. The dialogue form is a more accurate way of recording the questions and answers in their entirety, and communicating every stage of the discussion without impeding either its flow or its clarity or its meaning. The dialogue form allowed Plato to show the movement of the discussion and of the human interactions that put it in context. The exact representation of events in the dialogues is perfect to not only show, but also to teach the art of dialectic. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defined Dialectic as most fundamentally, the process of reasoning to obtain truth and knowledge on any topic In the middle dialogues of Plato however, it becomes the total process of enlightenment, whereby the philosopher is educated so as to achieve knowledge of the supreme good15. Thus, dialectic is a very important technique and skill for Plato and his students. Due to its nature, the best way to teach it is through example. It is only due to the dialogue from chosen by Plato that future students see this successfully illustrated. The character of Socrates was accused by interlocutors of using dialectic and manipulating what he was saying to try to outwit them. Indeed, Socrates used irony on a daily basis. Before Platos Socrates, irony was understood as mere mockery and deception. Socrates unique use of irony altered this. It became a tool of the educated and knowledgeable. Irony requires thought and intellect to be both used and understood successfully. For Socrates, this ensured that his interlocutors were worthy of his philosophical teachings. It also provokes discussion and creates interest in pursuit of knowledge. One of the many reasons why the historical Socrates was perceived as irritating by many in Athens was due to his frequent use of irony, which after a while becomes annoying, as many of his interlocutors and readers alike have since discovered. By not stating something clearly, people must come to their own conclusions as to what was meant. This not only means that different people will arrive at different answers, but also that the same person at different times will arrive at different answers. This was a tool used by Plato not only to increase the flexibility of his writing, but also to distance himself from the radical views of the historical Socrates. Socrates had many enemies and Plato was able to use irony to water down his beliefs and merely hint at them rather than stating them openly. In this way, the dialogue form goes hand in hand with Platos use of irony and its political implications. Plato clearly chose the dialogue form carefully and for many reasons. With his great suspicion of writing and books in general, it is almost surprising that he did not follow his mentor Socrates and not write a word. However, of all forms in which to write, the dialogue is without doubt the most successful in conveying his philosophy and his teachings in a manner which is not self-contradictory. The use of the dialogue form significantly has links with, and refers to many areas of his philosophy, particularly those relating to learning and recollection, teaching and the ways in which to conduct philosophy.

Free Essays on Neil Abercrombie

Neil Abercrombie Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic congressmen, who represents the first district of Honolulu, Hawaii in the House of Representatives. He have been involved in the political circuit since the 1970’s. This paper will give a brief Biography of Congressmen Abercrombie as well as a look into what he does for his constituents and how he gets his campaign finances. Congressman Neil Abercrombie was born in Erie County, buffalo New York on June 26, 1938. he graduated from Williamsville High School. Congressman Abercrombie received a B.A. degree in Sociology from Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. He also received a Masters degree in Sociology and a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Hawaii. Abercrombie began his political career in the Hawaii State House of Representatives in 1974. After two terms in the State House, he was elected to the State Senate in 1978. After serving for eight years in the State Senate, Congressmen Abercrombie was elected, as a Democrat, to the Ninety-ninth Congress in 1986. He was elected to Congress in a special election to fill the open seat caused by the resignation of Representative Cecil Heftel. Abercrombie was unsuccessful in reelection to the One Hundredth congress, but returned in 1990 to the Hundredth second, and has remained their ever since. Congressmen Abercrombie represents his constituents of Honolulu’s first district through his service on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, as well as the Readiness and Projection Forces Subcommittees. He also serves on the Committee of Resources and its Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. Abercrombie's community activities include service on the boards of the Nuuanu YMCA, the Hawaii Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the Life Foundation/AIDS Foundation of Hawaii and Amnesty International. Representative Abercrombie, on avera... Free Essays on Neil Abercrombie Free Essays on Neil Abercrombie Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic congressmen, who represents the first district of Honolulu, Hawaii in the House of Representatives. He have been involved in the political circuit since the 1970’s. This paper will give a brief Biography of Congressmen Abercrombie as well as a look into what he does for his constituents and how he gets his campaign finances. Congressman Neil Abercrombie was born in Erie County, buffalo New York on June 26, 1938. he graduated from Williamsville High School. Congressman Abercrombie received a B.A. degree in Sociology from Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. He also received a Masters degree in Sociology and a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Hawaii. Abercrombie began his political career in the Hawaii State House of Representatives in 1974. After two terms in the State House, he was elected to the State Senate in 1978. After serving for eight years in the State Senate, Congressmen Abercrombie was elected, as a Democrat, to the Ninety-ninth Congress in 1986. He was elected to Congress in a special election to fill the open seat caused by the resignation of Representative Cecil Heftel. Abercrombie was unsuccessful in reelection to the One Hundredth congress, but returned in 1990 to the Hundredth second, and has remained their ever since. Congressmen Abercrombie represents his constituents of Honolulu’s first district through his service on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, as well as the Readiness and Projection Forces Subcommittees. He also serves on the Committee of Resources and its Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. Abercrombie's community activities include service on the boards of the Nuuanu YMCA, the Hawaii Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the Life Foundation/AIDS Foundation of Hawaii and Amnesty International. Representative Abercrombie, on average, spends about five ... Free Essays on Neil Abercrombie Neil Abercrombie Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic congressmen, who represents the first district of Honolulu, Hawaii in the House of Representatives. He have been involved in the political circuit since the 1970’s. This paper will give a brief Biography of Congressmen Abercrombie as well as a look into what he does for his constituents and how he gets his campaign finances. Congressman Neil Abercrombie was born in Erie County, buffalo New York on June 26, 1938. he graduated from Williamsville High School. Congressman Abercrombie received a B.A. degree in Sociology from Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. He also received a Masters degree in Sociology and a Ph.D. in American Studies from the University of Hawaii. Abercrombie began his political career in the Hawaii State House of Representatives in 1974. After two terms in the State House, he was elected to the State Senate in 1978. After serving for eight years in the State Senate, Congressmen Abercrombie was elected, as a Democrat, to the Ninety-ninth Congress in 1986. He was elected to Congress in a special election to fill the open seat caused by the resignation of Representative Cecil Heftel. Abercrombie was unsuccessful in reelection to the One Hundredth congress, but returned in 1990 to the Hundredth second, and has remained their ever since. Congressmen Abercrombie represents his constituents of Honolulu’s first district through his service on the Armed Services Committee and on the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, as well as the Readiness and Projection Forces Subcommittees. He also serves on the Committee of Resources and its Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans. Abercrombie's community activities include service on the boards of the Nuuanu YMCA, the Hawaii Special Olympics, the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the Life Foundation/AIDS Foundation of Hawaii and Amnesty International. Representative Abercrombie, on avera...