The argument from religious experience for the existence of God Essay Example for Free

The argument from religious experience for the existence of God Essay Examine the argument from religious experience for the existence of God. To what extent does it support the probability of God? Richard Swinburne summarises religious experience for many by saying, experience of God or some other supernatural thing. Others would state that it is simply an experience of something beyond themselves. On the other hand, William Jamess focus is on the individual, taking the route of a psychologist to determine the validity of an experience. However it is defined, the topic of religious experience has been under scrutiny for centuries, with records of experiences dating back to before Christ; for example the burning bush in the Bible. However the evidence in place from those times appears to be on the same level as it is today. So are religious experiences real, and do they support the idea of God? The two main types of religious experience are special revelation and general revelation. Special being when people think/feel that God has made Himself known to them directly, perhaps through visions, dreams, prayer, miraculous healing, conversion or charismatic phenomena. General revelation is where people think/feel that God is revealing Himself indirectly to them. This is normally through the beauty of nature, although it could also be through things like religious writings and moreover in other people. This is basically seeing God through Gods creations, such as you can see the wonder of an artist through his fine artwork. Reports of religious experiences have tended to exhibit similar characteristics. For example many who have undergone near death experiences claim to have seen their lives flashing before their eyes before seeing a bright white light. In fact these scenes are so common; they have become the stereotype for film depictions of near death experiences. Many would argue that if so many people have experienced comparable sightings, then is there some truth to be found in this? Psychologists may argue that since one or two have announced this, others may have simply conjured a similar image from their brain as they believe that that is what the experience should appear as. There are four classifications of religious experience, which were formulated by William James in 1902. The first of these is Ineffability; which is a state of experience that is difficult to describe as it is unlike any other. The second being Noetic Quality; which is said to be where the experience reveals insights that are beyond the scope of normal human reason. The third classification is Transciency. This is said to not last very long, and are vaguely remembered. The final classification is Passivity, which is described as the person having a profound sense of being taken over. Also, whilst undergoing the experience they are said to lose control to a more powerful being, namely God. This experience can also be described as being beyond human control. When he formulated these classifications, James was trying to create a classic description of religious experience, and identified the four key features that they tended to have. However, there are faults with each classification. The fault with ineffability is that if an experience is ineffable, then it is hard to examine because you wouldnt know what you were examining. The problem with the second classification is if it is Noetic then any truth gained from the experience cannot be subjected to reason, as you cant verify it (apart from by other people who have had one). Thirdly, if an experience is transcient then it cannot be tested. With the forth classification, James has jumped to an assumption, because even if passivity may indicate the presence of another being it does not have to be God. As just explained religious experiences tend to be out of the ordinary as people describe being in the presence of an awesome power. Religious experiences more often have positive feedback, encouraging people to better themselves as theyve had an awakening past the realms of our material world. Being a very individual and personal experience which seems to be somewhat unique for everyone, it is difficult for the individual to explain the experience. This leads to difficulties in checking the validity of the experience. With these ideas in mind we can now discuss the argument that religious experiences can be used as evidence for the existence of God. This topic has been debated for centuries, gathering attention from many philosophers whose views I will be using to support both sides of this argument. Supporters of this argument include Brian Davies and Richard Swinburne. Davies approaches this argument very open mindedly, with the view that the claim might be correct, so it is at least possible. Swinburnes approach is very much more one sided, should accept unless one has some reason to question. Like the majority of ethical theories, there are more objectors than supporters. Some of these being C.R. Davies and, from a different perspective, Feuerbach, Freud and Marx. C.R. Davies says that people who claim to have had a religious experience may be unreliable, and on the basis that they may be either lying or were hallucinating due to drugs or alcohol. Freud believes that supposed religious experiences are just wishful thinking brought about by personal beliefs, normally as a way to deal with fears or desires. Feuerbach and Marx also take a psychological approach. My personal opinion, tends to side with Feuerbach when he says, It fails to make a distinction between feeling that I am right and actually being right. There is most probably a psychological explanation for what the person has experienced, and as there is no conclusive evidence that the experience did in fact happen, one should not make blind leaps into falsities. The argument from religious experience has been criticised on many grounds, such as that the proof it is based on (religious experiences) is not actually valid evidence. One of the top issues is that there so many different religious around the world, each of which claims to have religious experiences of their particular deity. The fact that the being revealed is almost always the God of the believed faith seems to be stigmata. However, a response to this is that yes, even if the God that is revealing itself to them is claimed to be a different one through the different religions, it doesnt make the experience less real to the person. Examples of this are Buddhas enlightenment, Saul on the road to Damascus and Guru Nanalis experience of God. Another criticism that people have is that religious experiences are too vague; they are experiences from which inferences are made and assumptions that it was God. In turn, this raises questions about the source of the experience. The response to this is simply then what kind of experiences can we trust? This links us back to transciency, experiences do not last long and are imperfectly remembered, which is a problem when it comes to validating experiences; leading us to believe that we cannot trust any experiences, as we have no way of testing them empirically. Furthermore, psychologists have raised questions by examining the mental explanations to experiencing revelations, etc. The human mind is so powerful that it is possible that one could simply conjure a vision or revelation, and with the knowledge about the human mind increasing all the time, this view is becoming more popular with scientists. Freud shares this view as he feels that religious experiences are illusions associated with repressed sexual memories and interest in religion is a psychological obsession. Whereas Feuerbach feels that people invent religion as a crutch as they are dissatisfied with their actual lives. He also influenced Marx, who had the view that religion is used by the capitalist class to control people and maintain the status quo. He also believes that religious experiences are a persons conscious or unconscious choice that reflects the persons needs or desires. After studying both the strengths and weaknesses of this argument, I have come to the conclusion that religious experiences fail to convince me. As previously stated, they are unable to produce empirical evidence, some are vague, even in classification, and they are unreliable to be tested as they oppose all the rules of nature. The fact that there are more weaknesses than strengths means we cannot reliably validate religious experiences, and therefore they cannot be given as solid valid evidence for the existence of God. Bibliography: * Dialogue Articles * Class Notes * http://www.religion-online.org * http://www.reference.com * http://www.radicalacademy.com

The post washington consensus development

The post washington consensus development There have been several discussions about whether or not the Washington consensus and the post Washington consensus (alos referred to as the new consensus) approach to development are fundamentally different approaches to development. The World Bank and International Monetary fund critics are quick to say both approaches are the same, and that the Washington consensus was just repackaged and given a new brand, name and identity in the Post Washington consensus development approach. Although it is easy to see how it can be assumed that the underlying fundamentals of the Washington consensus and the post Washington consensus are unchanged because the latter still encompasses the principles of the former that was generally a focus on market reform as the approach for growth and development. However, the fact that the post Washington consensus builds on market reform and includes various other elements ignored by the Washington consensus like institutional reform and good governance whic h are elements that extend the goals of the new consensus and enable it to promote ‘sustainable, egalitarian, and democratic development (Stiglitz 2001:17). These additions and extensive goals therefore make both approaches fundamentally different from one another, even though they both advocate market reform (which is where the similarities end). While the Washington consensus focused on the perfection of the market the post Washington consensus does the exact opposite, it points out market limitations and ways of correcting such limitations (Stiglitz 2001). The purpose of this paper is to illustrate just how different both approaches are by looking at the foundational economic theories they are built on, the components of both approaches and their methodology. The Washington consensus is an approach to development that involves various economic policy prescriptions that are designed to move an economy towards economic growth and development when implemented. They include ten basic polices that create a liberal market and economy. According to Williamson who coined the term and the originator of the list, they include: Macroeconomic stability (restoring fiscal discipline by controlling budget deficit) Redirecting expenditure (reduction of government spending) Tax Reform (involved increasing tax and value added tax.) Financial liberalization Unified Exchange rate (to encourage and ease trade) ‘Replacement of quantitative trade restrictions by Tariffs (trade liberalization) Abolishment of Barriers to entry of foreign direct investments (Liberalizes FDI) ‘Privatization of state owned enterprises (reduce government spending) Deregulation (reduce state interference) ‘Legal system should provide secure property rights (Williamson 2005: 35-42) The policies under the Washington consensus are designed to liberalize various sectors of an economy. They are also directed towards increasing market efficiency, productivity and growth. Not all the policies under the consensus are implemented at the same time and in most cases, there is a lot of mixing and matching done by the governments implementing these policies with a few policies being more popular than others. Williamson (2005: 43) notes that ‘(i)n terms of which reform(s) [policies] were most widely implemented, there have been widespread attempts to tighten fiscal policy, introduce extensive financial and trade liberalization, eliminate restrictions on foreign direct investment, and promote privatization and deregulation. These policies have earned the Washington consensus a bad reputation of increasing poverty because ‘adjustment and stabilization policies tend to depress real wages, as control over money wages is combined with devaluation (Stewart 1991:1849), unemployment coupled with other various adverse effects from such policies on the poor in a country lead to social decay. The failures of such policies are evident in various developing countries like Bolivia, Nigeria, and Zambia (discussed in Adefulu, 1991) whose economies after adopting stabilization and adjustment policies experienced stagnant or slow growth. These countries experienced worse situations than they were in before the implementation of the structural adjustment programme under the Washington consensus policies prescribed by the World Bank and the International monetary fund in the 1980s. The failure of this approach to development gave rise to creation of a new development approach know as the Post Washington consensus which also included some of the policies listed above in relation to its market reform component. However, it focused not just on economic growth through market reforms but also included elements to enhance social growth and welfare and thus encourag es sustainable development. It eased and monitored the effects of the market reform policies on the poor by paying attention to social issues and advocating the creation of safety nets. This new approach addressed areas that had been ignored by the Washington consensus and as a result of this, it provides a better-rounded approach to development. Unlike the Washington consensus: It aims at stabilizing the real economy as well as inflation It tries to improve financial sector regulation, rather than assuming that liberalization is the only game in town It includes competition policy It considers various mechanisms of improving government efficiency, rather than seeking to minimize governments role It focuses on improving human capital formation It seeks to increase the transfer of technology to developing countries. (Williamson, 2005:45) Including these accompanying elements to the market reform policies was based on the recognition that ‘[m]aking markets work requires more than just low inflation; it requires sound financial regulation, competition policy, and policies to facilitate the transfer of technology and to encourage transparency, to cite some fundamental issues neglected by the Washington consensus (Stiglitz, 2001:17). The emphasis placed on trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization under the Washington consensus approach often lead policymakers to disregard the importance of various factors like competition, which contribute to the effectiveness of a market economy and which may be just as important as economic success (Stiglitz, 2001:20-21). The Washington consensus and Post-Washington consensus not only differ based on their development goals, the economic theories and principles on which they are based upon are from different schools of thought. The former based on the logic of Keynesian economics of liberalization and the mantra of lazzie faire allows the market to stabilize itself with little or more preferably no government intervention. The Washington consensus therefore was founded on the neo-classical economic theory centered on the idea of instrumental rationality (North 1995). Instrumental rationality implies that individuals in the market make decision in such a way that creates a perfect market. Their decisions are made based on factors that offer them maximum utility. Under instrumental rationality it is assumed that ‘values are accepted and given as constant, objective decision of the world as it is can be postulated and.. decision makers computational powers are unlimited (North, 1995:7) thus when an imperfection arises in the market because of this factors, the market will correct the imperfections itself. Therefore, there is no need for government intervention. Under this approach government, interference is seen to disturb the flow of the market and impede its efficiency and growth of the economy. The Post-Washington consensus is however eclectic, drawing from the logic of different economic principles. It draws from both the principles of the new development economics, and the new institutional economics (NIE) which understand and value the role the state plays in the regulation of market functions. New development economics according to Ben Fine (2006) was created to accommodate the shift towards the post Washington Consensus. It extends beyond only economic principles and includes other fields of study like sociology and non-economic factors. It also places emphasis on market imperfections and asymmetrical information amongst parties in a market. In this theory in ‘contrast to economic approach, institutions, customs, as well as economic and social structures are taken seriously rather than presumed to be equivalent to as an â€Å"as if† market situation (Fine, 2006 :8) NIE advocates the significance of institutions, and their importance in solving the problem of transaction costs that may exists in the market due to asymmetrical information. Institutions are an important aspect because they â€Å"are the rules of the game of a society, or, more formally, are the humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction† (North, 1995: 23). They could be formal in the sense of laws created to govern and informal based on norms. The post- Washington consensus as a development approach recognises the fact that markets in developing countries often carry a high cost of transaction, which deters investment and slows down market productivity. Transaction costs arising from asymmetrical information will often lessen confidence in the market and cause insecurity. To remedy the problem institutions are required because; ‘â€Å"efficient institutions lessen insecurity and thereby increase readiness to invest†'(North,1991 in German Fed Ministry, 2004: 7). ‘Over the long term, dynamic growth processes can only be sustained when institutions exist that encourage the growth of productivity and guarantee a high degree of stability, that is, reduce vulnerability to external shocks. (German Fed Ministry, 2004: 7) Another difference between both development approaches is in relation to their view on state intervention in the market. The Washington consensus approach views government intervention as an interference with â€Å"market perfection†. Under this approach, the market will resolve its problems and set the right price, and government or state intervention disrupts this ability and therefore create imperfections and inefficiency. A good illustration is of African countries like Nigeria and Ghana who after independence interfered with the export markets using commission boards and â€Å"monosponies† (singles buyer where there are many sellers) for their agricultural products (discussed in Bates 1981). The boards had an influence on market prices and could afford to be inefficient because the cost of inefficiency could be easily transferred from the states board to the farmers and consumers (Bates 1981). This supports the Neo-liberal view that when states are involved in mark ets, macroeconomic rationality if foregone for their preference of macroeconomic policy instruments. The Washington consensus follows the policy of a non-interventionist state or one with minimal role in markets. The post Washington consensus however, draws from the example of the East Asian countries miracle (which attributes most of its success to state intervention in markets) and promotes the importance of government intervention because of imperfections that already exist within the market. It advocates that the state regulate the market through the creation of institutions, legal framework, and property rights. All of which will solve the problems that exist in an imperfect market like inadequate flow of information and allow proper contracts to be drawn between transacting partners. The government according to the logic of the post Washington consensus ‘should serve as a compliment to markets, undertaking actions that make markets work better and correcting market failu res (Stiglitz, 2001:41). The Washington consensus approach to development as mentioned previously wanted little or no state intervention and disregarded the role of the state. The post Washington consensus approach however, values state role so much so that the approach includes elements designed to better the governance of a developing state in the form of good governance and democracy. Under this new consensus because the state is seen as an important factor for growth and development, it provides for the reform of the state itself. The post Washington consensus recognises the fact that most developing countries are faced with government inefficiency, corruption and bureaucracy. The approach therefore proposes that states should practice good governance, which entails democracy, transparency, and rule of law to mention a few. The post-Washington consensus approach to development considers the practice of good governance as a pre-requisite for sustainable economic growth and development. Under this approach , states role, efficiency or lack thereof and politics is taken into consideration for development purposes, while the Washington consensus approach lacks this attention to governance issues. The disregard for state issues is due to ‘[n]eo-liberalisms skepticism of the state and autonomous exaltation of individual [and the view that] the stateneeds to be extricated from the marketEconomic reforms accordingly take priority over political reforms and civil liberties (Abrahamsen, 2000:30) under the Washington consensus. The post Washington consensus approach to development considers factors outside of economics for instance education and health care. This is another fundamental difference between it and the Washington consensus. The new consensus values the importance of such elements to the development process unlike the Washington consensus that disregards them. Under the new consensus, there is an understanding that development needs to be sustainable and in this regard, it provides for elements that carry it in that direction. Education allows for the development of human capital and the society. If the people are developed, they can move development along by making valuable contributions in the society. According to Stiglitz (2001:46), ‘promoting human capital isa policy that can help promote economic development, equality, participation and democracy. The East Asian countries for instance Japan (Stiglitz, 2001) placed an emphasis on educating its citizens by making basic education compul sory make viable examples of how educating a countrys citizens can contribute to sustainable economic growth and development. Social aspects like education ignored by the Washington consensus is regarded an important element of the post Washington consensus approach. The post Washington consensus approach to development is created in a way that ensures its effects are long-term on the economy as supposed to the short-term effect of the Washington consensus. It achieves this because of its broader goal and dedication to issues outside the realm of economics and the market. According to Stiglitz (2001:68) ‘The new development strategy takes as its core objective development, the transformation of society, this fact and its inclusion of social factors as part of the development agenda ensures that it encourages sustainable development and not only the growth of gross domestic product (GDP). Participation and sense of ownership is another aspect in which both approaches to development have fundamental differences. The Washington consensus approach pays little or no attention to fostering the sense of owner ship instead it reduced state ownership through the heavy promotion of instant privatization. The post Washington consensus on the other hand recognizes that fostering a sense of ownership and participation of developing country governments and its people has an effect on how effective the programs being adopted will be. The government has to implement the development programs that have been recommended by international institutions and if the developing country feel like they are in control and have an opinion about the changes going on in their country they might ensure that the programmes are implemented effectively and not on a superficial level. Lack of proper implementation on part of developing nations government is one explanation offered by the World Bank as a reason for the failure of the structural adjustment programs under the Washington consensus. By including a sense of ownership and encouraging participation, the post Washington agenda ensures that the new approach to development does not face the same problem. The differences between both approaches also extend to how their various components are implemented. For instance, privatization, which is an element of both development strategies as a part of the market reform component of the Washington and Post Washington consensus, has been implemented and understood differently under both approaches. The concept of privatization under the Washington Consensus was to reduce government spending and deficit while removing inefficient state enterprises and creating economic stability. Sale of state owned companies would create revenue and competition between private owners would make enterprises more efficient and more productive therefore it had to be immediate. The post Washington consensus however views privatization as something that has to occur gradually, most importantly after the necessary institutions that would enhance competition has been put in place and not before. The premise for this is that just because public enterprises are made p rivate does not guarantee their efficiency because if the proper institutions were not in place to encourage their efficiency they would not be as productive as expected. The post Washington consensus is however not against privatization, as Stiglitz (2001:38) comments: ‘The Washington consensus is right- privatization is important. The government needs to devote its scarce resources to areas where private sector does not and is not likely to enter. The new consensus is in support of privatizing public enterprises that are unnecessary and can be undertaken by the private sector with institutions to aid its efficiency already in place. Nonetheless, the approaches to privatization under both development programs are different. Both approaches though having a common goal, which is to bring about growth and development, go about it in different ways and have different fundamentals. The Washington consensus approach to development places emphasis on economic growth through increase in GDP levels and market reform. Its fundamental objective is to make market forces more efficient and increase productivity within the economy. This approach is a strong advocate for policies involving deregulation, privatization and stabilization. The post- Washington consensus approach (devised after failure of the previous consensus) on the other hand focuses on development through societal transformation. This approach goes beyond the market approach of the Washington consensus to include broader goals and social factors like health care and education. The new consensus core objective is a more equal, egalitarian and democratic type of development (Stiglitz, 2001:17). The broader goals and objectives pursued under the post-Was hington consensus makes it fundamentally different from the Washington Consensus approach to development. Bibliography Abrahamsen, Rita (2000). Disciplining democracy: development discourse and good governance in Africa. London: Zed books. p23-65. Adefulu, R. A. (1991). African Debt Crisis and the IMF Adjustment Programmes: the Experiences of Ghana, Nigeria and Zambia. In: Renee Prendergast and H.W. Singer Development Perspectives for the 1990s (pp. 37-58). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ajit Singh. (1998). Competitive Markets and Economic Development: A commentary on World Bank analyses. In: Phillip Arestis and Malcom Swayer The Polictical Economy of Economic Policies. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.. 60-105. Bates H. Robert. (1981). Polices Towards Cash Crops for Exports. In: Barry and Popkin Markets and states in Tropical Africa: the political basis of agricultural policies. Berkeley: University of California Press. 11-29. Brohman J. (1995). Economism and critical silences in Development Studies: A theoretical critique of neo-liberalism. Third World Quarterly. 16 (2), p297-318. Cammack, Paul. (2004). What the World Bank means by Poverty Reduction. New Left Review. 9 (2), 189-104 Fine, Ben. (2006). The new development economics. In: Ben Fine, Jomo K. S. The new development economics: after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books. p1-20. Fine, Ben. (2001). Neither the Washington nor post Washington consensus: introduction. In: Ben Fine, Costas Lapavitsas, Jonathan Pincus Development policy in the twenty-first century: beyond the post-Washington. New York: Routledge. p4-15. German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Post-Washington-Consensus- A Few Thoughts. Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEDS05/Resources/PostWashingtonConsensus-englisch-04-2004.pdf. Last accessed 15 January 2010. Gore Charles. (2000). The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries. World Development. 28 (5), p789-804. Lal Deepak. (1995). Misconceptions of. In: Corbridge, S Development Studies. New York: Arnold. 56-63. Moseley P.. (1991). World Development and International Finanace since 1970. In: Moseley P, J Toye, and Harrigan J Aid and power: the World Bank and policy-based lending. London: Routledge. p3-25. North Douglass. (1995). The new institutional economics and Third World development. In: John Harriss, Janet Hunter, Colin M. Lewis The new institutional economics and Third World development. London: Routledge. p17-26. Stewart Frances. (1991). The Many Faces of Adjustment. World Development. 19 (12), p1847-1864. Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving Toward the Post-Washington Consensus. In: Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: the rebel within. 1st ed. New York: Anthem. p17-56. Stiglitz, Joseph. (2001). Towards a new Paradgim for Development:Strategies, Policies, and processes. In: Ha-Joon Chang Joseph Stiglitz and the World Bank: the rebel within. 2nd ed. New York: Anthem. p57-93. Tornquist, O. (2001). The Primacy of Institutions. In: Tornquist Olle Politics and Development. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. p86-102. Van Wayenburg Elisa. (2006). From Washington to post washington: illusion of development. In: Ben Fine, Jomo K. S. The new development economics: after the Washington Consensus. 2nd ed. London: Zed Books. p21-45. Williamson, John. (2005). The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development. In: Timothy BESLEY Roberto Zagha Development Challenges in the 1990s. WashingtonDC: World Bank Oxford University press. 31-57. Williamson J. (1993). Democracy and the Washington Consensus. World Development. 21 (8), p1329-1336. World Bank. (1997). Fostering Markets:Liberalization, Regulation, and Industrial Policy. In: World Bank World Development Report: the state in a changing world. New York: Oxford University Press. p61-75. World Bank. (1994). Moving Towards sound Macro economic policies. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 43-59 World Bank. (1994). Reforming the Public Sector. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 99-125 World Bank. (1994). The Road Ahead for Adjustment. In: World Bank Adjustment in Africa: Reforms, Results, and the Road Ahead. New York: Oxford University Press. 181-219.

Ernest Hemingways Indian Camp Essay -- Ernest Hemingway, Indian Camp

Ernest Hemingway Indian Camp From a fishing trip the local doctor is summoned to an Indian village to assist a woman in labour. With him are his young son and an older male relative. Although all women helped the pregnant Indian woman, the men "moved off up the road". They want not to hear her screaming. The men are fed up with it. Maybe it is also an Indian ritual that only women are allowed to see the woman being in labour. The Indians are not interest in the childbirth. Hemingway brought a metaphor in: "dark". It shows that all is very hard and not allowed to see, that there are secrets maybe. So you see that the Indian men distance up from the pregnant woman making such big noise. They want silence and that everything is over now. In opposite to it the doctor, Nick's father, says:" But her screams are not important. I don't hear them because they are not important." It depend on his job. Probably he hears everyday such screams and it is nothing new to him, it is only the noise concerning the birth. So he does not care about it. Nick asks his father:" Oh, Daddy cannot you give her something to make her stop screaming?" Of course, the screams are no good and I think, Nick also cares about her and want that she has no much pain. But he understands what his father says and try to ignore it. Nick is a little boy who does not no how the pain of a labour is, so it is understandable. The physician assesses the situation in the closed, pungent hut and determines that his only option is section-with a pen knife and fishing leader as his instruments, and no anaesthesia for the Indian woman. It is the most primitive way of operation, you see. But the Indian woman has to grateful to have such big help by the ... ...e. When he saw the "throat" that "had been cut from ear to ear" he wants that Nick is going out, but he saw everything. The father was of course proud to have a baby with his wife, he loved, but the pain and the shame to know that he could not help was definitely to much for him. It is hard to judge about it, if it was okay to bring Nick with to the Indians. Of course it was a special event in his life. First he saw how life is born and how fast life is over. So he asked also "Is dying hard, Daddy?" The reader notice that the boy is thinking about it and want to get a satisfying answer. In this time being in the hut he saw a lot and I think that Nick needs time to digest it and realize it as well. The father thought that it was mistake, but maybe for the future is was not wrong to see the circle of life. And "he felt quite sure that he would never die".

Church and Teens :: essays research papers

We all know the horror stories about being forced to go to church each and ever Sunday, and there are so many teens that see going to church as an inconvenience, but why do we look at it that way? Could it be because we don’t understand the concept? Maybe it’s because we think Sunday is our â€Å"sleep day† to catch up on the loss of sleep from the rest of the week. There are a lot of teens that enjoy church because they understand the concept, or because that is the only place they feel that they can be themselves. I can honestly say that I have been on both sides of this spectrum. I was once a teen who decided that every Sunday would be a day to sleep instead of a day to worship. Now, however, Sunday’s are the days that I get up out of bed at 8:00 and I go to church. I’m sure you’re thinking, why on earth would she want to get up so early just to go to church to sing some stupid songs and listen to some boring man preach? Well, for me†¦ it’s therapy for my soul and for my life.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Things have a weird way of happening to me when I least expect them, and this whole church thing is definitely one of those weird things. I came to a point in my life about 4 months ago where everything was going wrong and I wasn’t sure what to do. My friendships were fading, my personal life wasn’t the best it could have been, and I definitely needed to reevaluate my lifestyle. Just when I thought that nothing could go right, along came this boy that changed me more than anyone has ever been able to. Although I didn’t expect it then, and I really didn’t notice until recently, he has made me a better person.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One day we were driving and he asked me if I wanted to go to church with him. A little skeptical at first, I agreed and that’s what started it all. Since that Sunday, I have been regularly attending Wesley Free Methodist Church and I can honestly say that I love it. The sermons are directed toward the entire congregation and not just towards one group, and they are definitely well thought out and well preached.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The best part about this church is that the youth group plays a big part in all that we do.

The Metamorphosises of Dantes in The Count of Monte Cristo :: Monte Cristo

The Metamorphosises of Dantes in The Count of Monte Cristo  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      In Alexandre Dumas's The Count of Monte Cristo the main character, Edmond Dantes, takes on various identities. Some people have even argued that his continuing metamorphosises verge on Multiple Personality Disorder. Those people are wrong. Though he does exhibit similiar symptoms, Dantes differs from MPD sufferers in that he is fully conscious of the new identities he takes on. In fact, he does changes intentionally. His purpose in taking on new identities is to seek vengeance on his enemies while maintaining the innocence of Edmond Dantes.    Edmond Dantes a successful, happy, young sailor was wrongfully imprisoned on September 15, 1815. He was sent there by four men, each of whom had a different reason to be hungry for his downfall. Caderousse was guilty because of his drunken stupidity, Fernand because of his lustful envy, Danglars because of his treacherous greed, and finally Villefort because of the terrible lengths he would go to in order to protect his name. When Dantes entered prison he was a nineteen-year-old boy with a kind and pure soul. After learning about the conspiracy to ruin his life, however, he became obsessed with gettting vengeance. Upon his escape from the Chateau d'If, he set out on a journey to reward those who had been good to him and to set right the wrongs that had been done to him.    Dantes was initially successful at his attempt. The first person from his past whom he encountered was Monsiuer Caderousse. He went to Caderousse's inn dressed as Abbe Faria and was told what had become of the three men most responsible for his imprisonment. Caderousse had no idea that the man he was talking to was Edmond Dantes. There was one person, however, that recognized him immediately. Mercedes, his former fiance, had never forgotten Dantes or the young love that they once shared. One of the reasons that Mercedes had loved him so much was the great admiration she had for him. She considered Dantes a sweet, honest, fair, and forgiving man. Dantes wore disguises because he did not want her to know that he had turned into a vengeful, angry, and uncaring person.    Eventually, however, he gave up this aspiration because he had failed to fool her. No one else guessed Dantes' true identity.

Central Locking System Essay

Power door locks (also known as electric door locks or central locking) allow the driver or front passenger to simultaneously lock or unlock all the doors of an automobile or truck, by pressing a button or flipping a switch. Power door locks were introduced on the luxury Scripps-Booth in 1914, but were not common on luxury cars until Packard reintroduced them in 1956. Nearly every car model today offers this feature as at least optional equipment. Early systems locked and unlocked only the car doors. Many cars today also feature systems which can unlock such things as the luggage compartment or fuel filler cap door. It is also common on modern cars for the locks to activate automatically when the car is put into gear or reaches a certain speed. Remote and handsfree In 1980, Ford Motor Company introduced an external keypad-type keyless entry system, wherein the driver entered a numeric combination —either pre-programmed at the factory or one programmed by the owner— to unlock the car without the key. Early- to mid-1980s Nissan Maximas could also be installed with a keypad, which would also retract the windows and moonroof once the car was successfully unlocked by pushing a specific button on the keypad. During the 1990s the Subaru Legacy could also be opened by pulling the drivers external door handle a specific number of times to enter a passcode number that would unlock the driver’s door only. Today, many cars with power door locks also have a radio frequency remote keyless system, which allows a person to press a button on a remote control key fob, the first being available on the French made Renault Fuego in 1982. [1] Currently, many luxury makers also allow the windows to be opened or closed by pressing and holding a button on the remote control key fob, or by inserting the ignition key and holding it in the lock or unlock osition in the external driver’s door lock. The remote locking system confirms successful locking and unlocking through either a light or a horn signal, and usually offers an option to switch easily between these two variants. Both provide almost the same functionality, though light signals are more discreet while horn signals might create a nuisance in residential neighborhoods and other busy parking areas (e. g. short-term parking lots). Some manufacturers offer the ability to adjust the horn signal volume. Other cars have a proximity system that is triggered if a keylike transducer (Advanced Key or handsfree) is within a certain distance of the car. How Stuff Works Between the keypads, keyless entry systems and conventional locks, some cars today have four or five different ways to unlock the doors. How do cars keep track of all those different methods, and what exactly happens when the doors unlock? The mechanism that unlocks your car doors is actually quite interesting. It has to be very reliable because it is going to unlock your doors tens of thousands of times over the life of your car. In this edition of HowStuffWorks, we’ll learn just what’s inside your door that makes it unlock. We’ll take apart the actuator that does the work, and then we’ll learn how the lock can be forced open. But first, let’s see how the car keeps all its signals straight. Locking and Unlocking Here are some of the ways that you can unlock cardoors: †¢ With a key †¢ By pressing the unlock button inside the car †¢ By using the combination lock on the outside of the door †¢ By pulling up the knob on the inside of the door †¢ With a keyless-entry remote control †¢ By a signal from a control center In some cars that have power door locks, the lock/unlock switch actually sends power to the actuators that unlock the door. But in more complicated systems that have several ways to lock and unlock the doors, the body controller decides when to do the unlocking. The body controller is a computer in your car. It takes care of a lot of the little things that make your car friendlier — for instance, it makes sure the interior lights stay on until you start the car, and it beeps at you if you leave your headlights on or leave the keys in the ignition. In the case of power door locks, the body controller monitors all of the possible sources of an â€Å"unlock† or â€Å"lock† signal. It monitors a door-mounted touchpad and unlocks the doors when the correct code is entered. It monitors a radio frequency and unlocks the doors when it receives the correct digital code from the radio transmitter in your key fob, and also monitors the switches inside the car. When it receives a signal from any of these sources, it provides power to the actuator that unlocks or locks the doors. Now, let’s take a look inside an actual car door and see how everything is hooked up. Inside a Car Door In this car, the power-door-lock actuator is positioned below the latch. A rod connects the actuator to the latch, and another rod connects the latch to the knob that sticks up out of the top of the door. When the actuator moves the latch up, it connects the outside door handle to the opening mechanism. When the latch is down, the outside door handle is disconnected from the mechanism so that it cannot be opened. To unlock the door, the body controller supplies power to the door-lock actuator for a timed interval. Let’s take a look inside the actuator. Inside the Actuator The power-door-lock actuator is a pretty straightforward device. [pic] Inside the power-door-lock actuator This system is quite simple. A smallelectric motor turns a series of spur gears that serve as a gear reduction. The last gear drives a rack-and-pinion gearset that is connected to the actuator rod. The rack converts therotational motion of the motor into the linear motion needed to move the lock. One interesting thing about this mechanism is that while the motor can turn the gears and move the latch, if you move the latch it will not turn the motor. This is accomplished by a neatcentrifugal clutch that is connected to the gear and engaged by the motor. [pic] Centrifugal clutch on the drive gear When the motor spins the gear, the clutch swings out and locks the small metal gear to the larger plastic gear, allowing the motor to drive the door latch. If you move the door latch yourself, all of the gears will turn except for the plastic gear with the clutch on it. Forcing the Lock If you have ever locked yourself out of your car and called the police or AAA to help you get back in, you know that the tool used is a thin metal strip with a flat hook on it. From this article you can now see how this strip works. A simple vertical motion from either the knob on the door or the power-lock actuator is all that’s needed to turn the lock and open the door. What the officer is doing with the metal strip is fishing around until he or she hooks onto the point that the knob and actuator connect to. A quick pull on this point and the door is unlocked! For more information on power door locks and related topics, see the links on the next page.

Japanese Pearl Harbour Bombing

By the end of WWI, Japan had emerged as a global superpower gaining recognition from Western Powers like the British and Americans. Japan’s influence in the Asia Pacific region during WWII was of particular concern to the Americans and European powers especially in regards to Japan’s imperialistic activities. With growing opposition from the US who were against Japan’s policies of nationalism, militarism, and imperialism, tension built up to a Pacific war. In response to a series of US foreign policies and the breakdown of international diplomacy, the Japanese decided to attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour Hawaii on December 7th 1941. The Japanese hoped that this surprise attack would prevent war with the US for at least two years, allowing time to conquer the Asia Pacific. Ultimately, the bombing of Pearl Harbour is a result of the growing tension in Japanese – American relations due to conflicting interests, and triggered when a compromise between these countries could not be agreed upon. One significant factor that led to the bombing of Pearl Harbour is the Nationalistic and militaristic attitudes of the Japanese. Japans desire for recognition as a strong military power saw the implementation of many aggressive foreign policies. The outbreak of WWII provided an opportunity for Japan to conquer Eastern Asia since the European powers were focused on war with Germany, leaving the USA as the only country that could thwart Japanese goals. Along with adopting nationalistic policies, Japan also saw that militaristic policies were needed to maintain its power status. The militaristic nationalists rise to power in the 1930s like PM Tojo, saw Japan inclination towards military action should there be conflict in the Pacific, and this inclination was enhanced by the rivalry between the Army and the Navy. The Navy wished to match the glory of the Army who succeeded in many military campaigns, which eventually led to the bombing Pearl Harbour, a plan developed by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. Finally, Japan sought to end the restrictions placed on their navy at the Washington Conference in 1922 and entered the Tripartite agreement with Germany and Italy which increased tension with the US and Allies. Thus based on these policies, when Japan implemented martial law in 1938 the militarists and nationalists who supported Japanese expansion urged an attack on Pearl Harbour to increase Japanese world status and maintain colonial interests. Japan’s introduction of imperialism in the late 1800s stemmed for the Japanese sense of nationalism and desire to build empires like the West is the driving factor that resulted in the Pearl Harbour attack. The main imperialistic aim was to create the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere. This was to end Western influence in Asia but was in fact an excuse to conquer Asia and facilitate the growth of the Japanese empire. Japan’s invasion of China and Indo-China resulted in the establishment of embargoes and economic sanctions by the US. With little resources left because of these sanctions, Japan began preparing for Pacific war. Peace talks failed and the Japanese now certain that the US would enter the war wanted to achieve their imperial aims of conquering the resourceful lands of Malaya and Dutch East Indies before the Americans intervened. This lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbour to destroy the US Pacific Fleet in order to postpone American interference with Japanese imperial expansion. Knowing that the US would recover within two years the Japanese believed that they would have conquered South East Asia by then, obtaining resources like rubber and oil for war, and a strategic position to fight the US. Ultimately, the attack on Pearl Harbour was a tactic used by the Japanese to postpone war with the US as to achieve imperial aims. After WWI, the US attempted to remain neutral to international conflicts that did not concern them under their Isolationism policy. This policy allowed the Japanese to expand their empire without American intervention and also led to the Pearl Harbour attack. Despite the isolationist stance many including President Roosevelt wanted to intervene, as Japan’s invasion of China violated America’s Open Door policy whereby China was to be left independent so that trade was to be left unimpeded by other dominant powers. Since Japan’s resources came mainly from America, the US implemented a series of sanctions and embargoes, attempting to pressure the Japanese into stopping their expansionist activities. This began in 1938 with the ‘moral’ embargo to restrict aircraft support. By 1941 all Japanese assets in US were frozen and oil exports reduced by 90%. Having lost their primary supplier of war resources and left with a minimal amount of resource, Japan had to make a decision of whether to give in to American demands or conquer South East Asia for its resources. The militaristic Japanese government decided to respond to these US policies bombing of Pearl Harbour, hoping to prevent the US from thwarting their imperialistic goals. By the time the Americans recovered, Japan hoped to have gained a large empire and resources thus no longer requiring American trade and hoped that the Americans would realise war would be to costly. Reaching the height of tension between the Japanese and Americans diplomatic dialogue may have prevented the bombing of Pearl Harbour and thus preventing a Pacific war. However in 1933, Japan left the League of Nations thus destroying any platform for international dialogue to resolve disputes. With the establishment of the American embargoes, the Japanese took a dual approach on the situation. This was to negotiate with the Americans for peace agreements whilst preparing for war. The Japanese High Command offered to withdraw from Indo-China and in exchange they would maintain control of the Chinese regions they have conquered and America would reopen trade and unfreeze assets. The American Secretary of State Cordell Hull refused this offer, stating that trade and unfreezing assets would only happen if Japan left Indo-China and China and abiding the US Open Door Policy in China. Feeling unsatisfied, the High command of Japan rejected this offer on December 1st 1941 during the Imperial conference and so proceeded to bomb Pearl Harbour on December 7th. As mentioned, this was a dual approach; the breakdown of international diplomacy triggered the Japanese Navy to proceed with the bombing of Pearl Harbour hoping that this surprise attack would prevent the Americans from entering war before Japan could conquer South East Asia. Governed by a nationalistic and militaristic government that focused on the imperialism, tension between Japan and the US accumulated during the 1930s. The outbreak of WWII saw Japan’s desire to conquer South East Asia for resources. To accomplish this the Japan needed a tactic to prevent US intervention with their expansion for two years and this attack on the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbour was a reasonable plan. While many argue that the US government’s foreign policy forced the Japanese to attack as an excuse to go to war, ultimately the build up of tension between the two countries due to conflicting interests based on nationalism, militarism and imperialism and the inability to reach a compromise due to lack of diplomacy is what caused the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941.