Quotes From A Passage to India by E.M. Forster

Quotes From A Passage to India by E.M. Forster A Passage to India is a famous modern novel by E.M. Forester. Set during the English colonization of India, the novel dramatically depicts some of the conflicts between the Indian people and the colonial government. Here are a few quotes from A Passage to India. So abased, so monotonous is everything that meets the eye, that when the Ganges comes down it might be expected to wash the excrescence back into the soil. Houses do fall, people are drowned and left rotting, but the general outline of the town persists, welling here, shrinking there, like some low but indestructible form of life.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 1On the second rise is laid out the little civil station, and viewed hence Chandrapore appears to be a totally different place. It is a city of gardens. It is no city, but a forest sparsely scattered with huts. It is a tropical pleasaunce washed by a noble river.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 1They all become exactly the same, not worse, not better. I give any Englishman two years, be he Turton or Burton. It is only the difference of a letter. And I give any English woman six months. All are exactly alike.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2He has found out our dinner hour, thats all, and chooses to inter rupt us every time, in order to show his power.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2 A Mosque by winning his approval let loose his imagination. The temple of another creed, Hindu, Christian, or Greek, would have bored him and failed to awaken his sense of beauty. Here was Islam, his own country, more than a Faith, more than a battle cry, more, much more.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2Islam an attitude towards life both exquisite and durable, where his body and his thoughts found their home.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2That makes no difference. God is here.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2As he strolled down hill beneath the lovely moon, and again saw the lovely mosque, he seemed to own the land as much as anyone who owned it. What did it matter if a few flabby Hindus had preceded him there, and a few chilly English succeeded.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 2I want to see the real India.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 3Come on, Indias not as bad as all that. Other side of the earth, if you like, but we stick to the same o ld moon.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 3 Adventures do occur, but not punctually.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 3In England the moon had seemed dead and alien; here she was caught in the shawl of night together with earth and all other stars. A sudden sense of unity, of kinship with the heavenly bodies, passed into the old woman and out, like water through a tank, leaving a strange freshness behind.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 3It is easy to sympathize at a distance. I value more the kind word that is spoken close to my ear.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 4No, no, this is going to far. We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with nothing.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 4No, it was not picturesque; the East, abandoning its secular magnificence, was descending into a valley whose farther side no man can see.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 5Because India is part of the earth. And God has put us on the earth in order to be pleasant to each other. God is love.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 5 he did not realize that white has no more to do with a colour than God save the King with a god, and that it is the height of impropriety to consider what it does connote.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 7A mystery is only a high sounding term for a muddle. No advantage in stirring it up, in either case. Aziz and I know well that India is a muddle.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 7Aziz was exquisitely dressed, from tie-pin to spats, but he had forgotten his back-collar stud, and there you have the Indian all over; inattention to detail, the fundamental slackness that reveals the race.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 8 Her hand touched his, owing to a jolt, and one of the thrills so frequent in the animal kingdom passed between them, and announced that their difficulties were only a lovers quarrel.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 8And when the whole world behaves as such, there will be no more purdah?- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 11But he [Aziz] himself was rooted in society and Islam. He belonged to a tradition, which bound him, and he had brought children into the world, the society of the future. Though he lived so vaguely in this flimsy bungalow, nevertheless he was placed, placed.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 11All the love he felt for her at the Mosque welled up again, the fresher for forgetfulness.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 13You keep your religion, I mine. That is best. Nothing embraces the whole of India, nothing, nothing and that was Akbars mistake.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 14But suddenly, at the edge of her mind, Religion appeared, po or little talkative Christianity, and she knew that all its divine words from Let there be light to It is finished only amounted to boum.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 14 I have had twenty five years experience of this countryand twenty five years seemed to fill the waiting room with their staleness and ungeneroisityand during those twenty five years, I have never known anything but disaster result when English people and Indians attempt to be intimate socially.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 17They are not to blame, they have not a dogs chancewe should be like them if we settled here.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 18They had started speaking of women and children, that phrase that exempts the male from sanity when it has been repeated a few times.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 20But every humane act in the East is tainted with officialism, and while honoring him they condemned Aziz and India.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 20The sound had spouted after her when she escaped, and was going on still like a river that gradually floods the plain. Only Mrs. Moore could drive it back to its source and seal the broken reserv oir. Evil was loose...she could hear it entering the lives of others.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 22 Her Christian tenderness had gone, or had developed into hardness, a just irritation against the human race; she had taken no interest at the arrest, asked scarcely any questions, and had refused to leave her bed on one awful last night of Mohurram, when an attack was expected on the bungalow.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 22As soon as she landed in India, it seemed to her good, and when she saw the water flowing through the mosque tank, or the Ganges, or the moon caught in the shawl of night with all the other stars, it seemed a beautiful goal and an easy one.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 23by what right did they claim so much importance in the world and assume the title of civilization?- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 24Ronnys religion was of the sterilized Public School brand, which never goes bad, even in the tropics. Wherever he entered, mosque, cave or temple, he retained the spiritual outlook of the fifth form, and condemned as weakening any attempt t o understand them.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 28 The poem for Mr. Bhattacharya never got written, but it had an effect. It led him towards the vague and bulky figure of a mother-land. He was without natural affection for the land of his birth, but the Marabar Hills drove him to it. Half closing his eyes, he attempted to love India.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 30Suspicion in the Oriental is a sort of malignant tumor, a mental malady, that makes him self-conscious and unfriendly suddenly; he trusts and mistrusts at the same time in a way the Westerner can not comprehend. It is his demon, as the Westerners is hypocrisy.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 32Thus Godbole, though she was not important to him, remembered an old woman he had met in Chandrapore days. Chance brought her into his mind while it was in this heated state, he did not select her, she happened to occur among the throng of soliciting images, a tiny splinter, and he impelled her by his spiritual force to that place where completeness can be found.- E.M . Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 33 My heart is for my own people henceforward.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 35Then you are an Oriental.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 36But the horses didnt want it-they swerved apart; the earth didnt want it, sending up rocks through which riders must pass single file; the temples, the tank, the jail, the palace, the birds, the carrion, the Guest House, that came into view as they issued from the gap and saw Mau beneath: they didnt want it, they said in their hundred voices, No, not yet, and the sky said, No, not there.- E.M. Forster, A Passage to India, Ch. 37

Grand Tour of Europe in the 17th and 18th Centuries

Grand Tour of Europe in the 17th and 18th Centuries Young English elites of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often spent two to four years traveling around Europe in an effort to broaden their horizons and learn about language, architecture, geography, and culture in an experience known as the Grand Tour. The Grand Tour began in the sixteenth century and gained popularity during the seventeenth century. Origin of the Grand Tour The term Grand Tour was introduced by Richard Lassels in his 1670 book Voyage to Italy. Additional guidebooks, tour guides, and the tourist industry were developed and grew to meet the needs of the 20-something male and female travelers and their tutors across the European continent. The young tourists were wealthy and could afford the multiple years abroad. They carried letters of reference and introduction with them as they departed from southern England. Dover to Calais The most common crossing of the English Channel (La Manche) was made from Dover to Calais, France (the route of the Channel Tunnel today). A trip from Dover across the Channel to Calais and onto Paris customarily took three days. The crossing of the Channel was not an easy one. There were risks of seasickness, illness, and even shipwreck. Paris, Rome, and Venice Were Not to Be Missed The Grand Tourists were primarily interested in visiting those cities that were considered the major centers of culture at the time - Paris, Rome, and Venice were not to be missed. Florence and Naples were also popular destinations. The Grand Tourist would travel from city to city and usually spend weeks in smaller cities and up to several months in the three key cities. Paris was definitely the most popular city as French was the most common second language of the British elite, the roads to Paris were excellent, and Paris was a most impressive city to the English. Highway Robbers and Letters of Credit A Tourist would not carry much money due to the risk of highway robbers so letters of credit from their London banks were presented at the major cities of the Grand Tour. Many Tourists spent a great deal of money abroad and due to these expenditures outside of England, some English politicians were very much against the institution of the Grand Tour. Paris Apartment and Day Trips Arriving in Paris, a Tourist would usually rent an apartment for weeks to several months. Day trips from Paris to the French countryside or to Versailles (the home of the French monarchy) were quite common. Visiting French and Italian royalty and British envoys was a popular pastime during the Tour. The homes of envoys were often utilized as hotels and food pantries which annoyed the envoys but there wasnt much they could do about such inconveniences brought on by their citizens. While apartments were rented in major cities, in smaller towns the inns were often harsh and dirty. Across the Alps ora Boat on the Mediterranean to Italy From Paris, Tourists would proceed across the Alps or take a boat on the Mediterranean Sea to Italy. For those who made their way across the Alps, Turin was the first Italian city theyd come to and some remained while others simply passed through on their way to Rome or Venice. Rome was initially the southernmost point they would travel. However, when excavations began of Herculaneum (1738) and Pompeii (1748), the two sites became major destinations on the Grand Tour. Other Locations Other locations included as part of some Grand Tours included Spain and Portugal, Germany, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Baltic. However, these other spots lacked the interest and historical appeal of Paris and Italy and had substandard roads that made travel much more difficult so they remained off most itineraries. The Main Activities While the goal of the Grand Tour was educational a great deal of time was spent on more frivolous pursuits such as extensive drinking, gambling, and intimate encounters. The journals and sketches that were supposed to be completed during the Tour were often left quite blank. Upon Return to England Upon their return to England, Tourists were supposedly ready to begin the responsibilities of an aristocrat. The Grand Tour as an institution was ultimately worthwhile for the Tour has been given credit for a dramatic improvement in British architecture and culture. The French Revolution in 1789 marked the end of the Grand Tour for in the early nineteenth century, railroads totally changed the face of tourism and travel across the continent.

China, India and Japan all face significant challenges with regard to Essay

China, India and Japan all face significant challenges with regard to their technological capabilities. What are these challenges and how likely are they to be overcome over the following two decades - Essay Example As such, both China and India need to invest more on R&D to compete at the same level with the developed countries in the next two decades. Conversely, while Japan’s technological capabilities are more advanced compared to China and India, Japan faces a challenge because of its protectionist policies. These policies impact negatively on Japan’s cooperation with other countries in terms of sharing knowledge. In addition, the country is faced with an aging population and thus; there is need for the country to access human capital abroad. This means that, Japan has to open up to the outside world by embracing trade liberalisation (Norma & Danny 2002, p.36). This paper examines the significant challenges faced by China, India and Japan with regard to their technological capabilities. As an emerging economy, the technological capability of China requires a focus on innovations. However, it is emerging that both the state and private sector is not aggressive in terms of improving innovations. A lack of a focus on basic research is an impediment to China’s technological capabilities. Most business enterprises in China do not engage in basic research, and this leads to imitation of foreign products. The country further has a weak system for managing rights related to intellectual property. This creates a situation where piracy is rampant in china, and impacts negatively on the country’s technological capabilities (Andrew 2005, p.16). On another note, since SMEs plays a critical role in advancing innovations, China faces a challenge in the sense that, their SMEs lack adequate funds and human resources to carry out large scale innovations. While China boasts of cheap labour, this is detrimental to its technology in the sense that, this leads to the production of poor quality products that is sold cheaply in the global market. As a result of the rising costs of production

Jersey Shore Reality TV Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Jersey Shore Reality TV Analysis - Essay Example This "Jersey Shore Reality TV Analysis" essay outlines the main problems of Jersey Shore reality TV. Reality TV shows have become a controversial issue. Several scholars have raised questions regarding the deceitful realism depicted in several reality TV shows. Most reality TV shows are characterized by stereotypes and unearned celebrity. To some scholar, using the term â€Å"reality TV† to refer to some shows is misleading since the shows are characterized by fabricated reactions accomplished in contrived situations. Bignell, Fiske, Barnet-Weiser, and Portwood-Stacer feel that reality TV programs should focus on how ordinary people behave without too much exaggeration. In their opinion, reality shows should focus more on passing an ideology and not on the individual taking part in the show. Jersey Shore is a reality TV show that has been debated on my several scholars. Though considered a reality show, Jersey Shore demonstrates promiscuity, stereotyping, and abuse of alcohol. The shore pays more attention to the personal behaviors and opinions of the casts and not on ideologies. This has resulted in a lot of criticism from scholars who feel that the show is unrealistic since it dwells too much on negative aspects. One such negative aspect is the depiction of feminism in the twenty-first Century. Nicole, who is one of the main casts being idolized by several American teenagers, considers herself a modern woman. She considers herself a good example of feminist but engages in endless clubbing and gets drunks often. , gets drunks often, and engages in sexual intercourse with any man. Additionally, she feels that clubbing at night with her male colleagues makes her equal with them. This is a distorted portrayal of equality and it depicts denigration of feminism. This kind of feminism is what Barnet-Weiser and Portwood-Stacer (259) refer as â€Å"as testimony for the collapse of identity with representation.† Although the Jersey shore tries to depict girls as strong and independent, the depiction is erroneous. Barnet-Weiser and Portwood-Stacer would have opposed and criticized such a depiction of feminism. This is because the two believe that such portrayal of feminism is â€Å"a symptom and effect of gender oppression.† In the shore, the male casts underrate the female cast. The female thus engage in activities such as clubbing in an attempt to prove the men wrong (Barnet-Weiser and Portwood-Stacer 260). According to Fiske (5), â€Å"It is by no means natural for television to repr esent reality in the way that it does, just as it is by no means natural for language to do so.† Fiske considers most reality Television to be unrealistic. He claims that all television shows relies on codes to construct reality. In case of Jersey shore, most happenings are idealistic. A good example is the pretense that the casts are of Italian American origin, yet they

During this essay I will be exploring and comparing two of Carol Ann :: English Literature

During this essay I will be exploring and comparing two of Carol Ann Duffy’s poems, Education for Leisure and Stealing Comparison between two of Duffy’s poems. During this essay I will be exploring and comparing two of Carol Ann Duffy’s poems, â€Å"Education for Leisure† and â€Å"Stealing†. In both of these dramatic monologues Duffy clearly portrays a certain persona, the character in â€Å"Education for Leisure† is shown as a young adult, that, because he has been ignored, is trying to find power by killing living things. Similarly the character in the poem â€Å"Stealing† is ignored and friendless and so resorts to stealing just for the thrill of it, often stealing things that aren’t useful to him. The character in the poem Education for Leisure is very egocentric, â€Å"I breathe out talent on the glass to write my name† this shows that he really believes that even the air he exhales is important enough to be classed as talent and he writes his name on it as if it was an autograph. He also says â€Å"I could be anything at all, with half a chance.† This shows that he isn’t given the chance to be anything that he wants to be and that he is quite ignored by others. This helps explain why he goes on his killing spree, its probably because people don’t acknowledge him that he wants that kind of power of someone, or something so he isn’t ignored anymore. The character in the poem â€Å"Stealing† is very lonely, when talking about a snowman he once stole he says â€Å"I wanted him, a mate with a mind as cold as the slice of ice within my brain.† This shows that what he wants is a friend that is just like him, someone he can relate to, because no one else could understand. He also says â€Å"Sometimes I steal things I don’t need† He does this because he got a thrill out of doing it the first time and it gives him a sense of power of who he is stealing from. The quote â€Å"I sigh like this - Aah† shows the satisfaction he gets when he is stealing, and the short sentence â€Å"Mirrors.† show that he likes to see himself, and he sees it as a

Epistemology †empiricism Essay

Principles like those Parmenides assumed are said in contemporary jargon to be a priori principles, or principles of reason, which just means that they are known prior to experience. It is not that we learn these principles first chronologically but rather that our knowledge of them does not depend on our senses. For example, consider the principle â€Å"You can’t make something out of nothing. † If you wished to defend this principle, would you proceed by conducting an experiment in which you tried to make something out of nothing? In fact, you would not. You would base your defense on our inability to conceive of ever making  something out of nothing Everything we know originates from four sources. The first, our senses, can be thought of as our primary source of information. Two other sources, reason and intuition, are derivative in the sense that they produce new facts from data already supplied to our minds. The fourth source, authority (or â€Å"hearsay,† or â€Å"testimony† of others), is by nature secondary, and secondhand fact-claims are always more wiggly and difficult to validate. Other sources of knowledge are commonly claimed, and it is not inconceivable that there might exist other sources; but if they do exist,  knowledge derived from them is problematic, and careful analysis usually finds that they can be subsumed under one or more of the four known sources and must be seriously questioned as legitimate, separate sources of reliable information. In summary, what is the nature of our knowledge about the real world of objects/events? Our knowledge of reality is composed of ideas our minds have created on the basis of our sensory experience. It is a fabric of knowledge woven by the mind. Knowledge is not given to the mind; nothing is â€Å"poured† into it. Rather, the mind manufactures perceptions, concepts, ideas, beliefs, and so forth and holds  them as working hypotheses about external reality. Every idea is a (subjective) working model that enables us to handle real objects/events with some degree of pragmatic efficiency. However persuasive our thoughts and images may be, they are only remote representations of reality; they are tools that enable us to deal with reality. It is as though we draw nondimensional maps to help us understand four-dimensional territory. The semanticists have long reminded us to beware of confusing any sort of map with the real landscape. â€Å"The map,† they say, â€Å"is not the territory. † An abstraction, by definition, is an idea created by the mind to refer to all objects which, possessing certain characteristics in common, are thought of in the same class. The number of objects in the class can range from two to infinity. We can refer to all men, all hurricanes, all books, all energy-forms—all everything. While abstraction-building is an inescapable mental process—in fact it is the first step in the organization of our knowledge of objects/events—a serious problem is inherent in the process. At high levels of abstraction we tend to group together objects that have but a few qualities in common, and our abstractions  may be almost meaningless, without our knowing it. We fall into the habit of using familiar abstractions and fail to realize how empty they are. For example, what do the objects in the following abstractions have in common? All atheists, all Western imperialists, all blacks or all whites (and if you think it’s skin color, think twice), all conservatives, all trees, all French people, all Christians. When we think in such high-level abstractions, it is often the case that we are communicating nothing meaningful at all. â€Å"The individual object or event we are naming, of course, has no name and belongs  to no class until we put it in one. † Going as far back as Plato, philosophers have traditionally defined knowledge as true justified belief. A priori knowledge is knowledge that is justified independently of (or prior to) experience. What kinds of knowledge could be justified without any appeal to experience? Certainly, we can know the truth of definitions and logical truths apart from experience. Hence, definitions and logically necessary truths are examples of a priori knowledge. For example, â€Å"All unicorns are one-horned creatures† is true by definition. Similarly, the following  statement is a sure bet: â€Å"Either my university’s football team will win their next game or they won’t. † Even if they tie or the game is canceled, this would fulfill the â€Å"they won’t win† part of the prediction. Hence, this statement expresses a logically necessary truth about the football team. These two statements are cases of a priori knowledge. Notice that in the particular examples of a priori knowledge I have chosen, they do not give us any real, factual information about the world. Even though the statement about unicorns is true, it does not tell us whether there are any unicorns in the world. Similarly, the football prediction does not tell us the actual outcome of the game. Experience of the world is required to know these things. The second kind of knowledge is a posteriori knowledge, or knowledge that is based on (or posterior to) experience. Similarly, the adjective empirical refers to anything that is based on experience. Any claims based on experience purport to add new information to the subject. Hence, â€Å"Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit† and â€Å"Tadpoles become frogs† would be examples of a posteriori knowledge. We know the freezing point of water and the life cycle of tadpoles through experience. Thus far, most philosophers would agree on these points. The difficult question now arises: Is there any a priori knowledge that does give us knowledge about the real world? What would that be like? It would be knowledge expressible in a statement such that (a) its truth is not determined solely by the meaning of its terms and (b) it does provide information about the way the world is. Furthermore, since it is a priori, it would be knowledge that we could justify through reason, independently of experience. The question, then, is whether or not reason alone can tell us about the ultimate nature of reality. 1. Is it possible to have knowledge at all? 2. Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? 3. Does our knowledge represent reality as it really is? Rationalism claims that reason or the intellect is the primary source of our fundamental knowledge about reality. Nonrationalists agree that we can use reason to draw conclusions from the information provided by sense experience. However, what distinguishes the rationalists is that they claim that reason can give us knowledge apart from experience. For example, the rationalists point out that we can arrive at mathematical truths about circles  or triangles without having to measure, experiment with, or experience circular or triangular objects. We do so by constructing rational, deductive proofs that lead to absolutely indubitable conclusions that are always universally true of the world outside our minds (a priori knowledge about the world). Obviously, the rationalists think the second question should be answered affirmatively. Empiricism is the claim that sense experience is the sole source of our knowledge about the world. Empiricists insist that when we start life, the original equipment of our intellect is a tabula rasa, or blank tablet. Only through experience does that empty mind become filled with content. Various empiricists give different explanations of the nature of logical and mathematical truths. They are all agreed, however, that these truths are not already latent in the mind before we discover them and that there is no genuine a priori knowledge about the nature of reality. The empiricists would respond â€Å"No! † to the second epistemological question. With respect to question 3, both the rationalists and the empiricists think that our knowledge does represent reality as it really is. Constructivism is used in this discussion to refer to the claim that knowledge is neither already in the mind nor passively received from experience, but that the mind constructs knowledge out of the materials of experience. Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, introduced this view. He was influenced by both the rationalists and the empiricists and attempted to reach a compromise between them. While Kant did not agree with the rationalists on everything, he did believe we can have a priori knowledge of the world as we experience it. Although Kant did not use this label, I call his position constructivism  to capture his distinctive account of knowledge. One troubling consequence of his view was that because the mind imposes its own order on experience, we can never know reality as it is in itself. We can only know reality as it appears to us after it has been filtered and processed by our minds. Hence, Kant answers question 3 negatively. Nevertheless, because Kant thought our minds all have the same cognitive structure, he thought we are able to arrive at universal and objective knowledge within the boundaries of the human situation. Before reading further, look at the highway picture for an example of a classic  experiment in perception. Did you get the right answer, or were your eyes fooled? One way that skeptics attack knowledge claims is to point to all the ways in which we have been deceived by illusions. Our experience with perceptual illusions shows that in the past we have been mistaken about what we thought we knew. These mistakes lead, the skeptic claims, to the conclusion that we can never be certain about our beliefs, from which it follows that our beliefs are not justified. Another, similar strategy of the skeptic is to point to the possibility that our apprehension of reality could be systematically flawed in some way. The story of Ludwig, the brain in the vat who experienced a false virtual reality, would be an example of this strategy. Another strategy is to suppose that there is an inherent flaw in human psychology such that our beliefs never correspond to reality. I call these possible scenarios universal belief falsifiers. The characteristics of a universal belief falsifier are (1) it is a theoretically possible state of affairs, (2) we have no way of knowing if this state of affairs is actual or not, and (3) if this state of affairs is actual, we would never be able to distinguish beliefs that are true  from beliefs that seem to be true but are actually false. Note that the skeptic does not need to prove that these possibilities are actual. For example, the skeptic does not have to establish that we really are brains in a vat, but merely that this condition is possible. Furthermore, the skeptic need not claim that all our beliefs are false. The skeptic’s point is simply that we have no fail-safe method for determining when our beliefs are true or false. Given this circumstance, the skeptic will argue that we cannot distinguish the situation of having evidence that leads to true beliefs from the situation of having the same sort of evidence  plus a universal belief falsifier, which leads to false beliefs. Obviously, the skeptic believes that nothing is beyond doubt. For any one of our beliefs, we can imagine a set of circumstances in which it would be false. For example, I believe I was born in Rahway, New Jersey. However, my birth certificate could be inaccurate. Furthermore, for whatever reasons, my parents may have wished to keep the truth from me. I will never know for sure. I also believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Adolf Hitler committed suicide at the close of World War II. However, it could be true (as conspiracy  theorists maintain) that his death was faked and that he lived a long life in South America after the war. The theme of the skeptic is that certainty is necessary for there to be knowledge, and if doubt is possible, then we do not have certainty. We now have the considerations in place that the skeptic uses to make his or her case. There are many varieties of skeptical arguments, each one exploiting some possible flaw in either human cognition or the alleged evidence we use to justify our beliefs. Instead of presenting various specific arguments, we can consider a â€Å"generic skeptical argument. † Generic Skeptical Argument 1. We can find reasons for doubting any one of our beliefs. 2. It follows that we can doubt all our beliefs. 3. If we can doubt all our beliefs, then we cannot be certain of any of them. 4. If we do not have certainty about any of our beliefs, then we do not have knowledge. 5. Therefore, we do not have knowledge. Pyrrho of Elis (360–270 B. C. ), a philosopher in ancient Greece, inspired a skeptical movement that bore his name (Pyrrhonian skepticism). Pyrrho was skeptical concerning sense experience. He argued that for experience to be a source of knowledge, our sense data  must agree with reality. But it is impossible to jump outside our experience to see how it compares with the external world. So, we can never know whether our experience is giving us accurate information about reality. Furthermore, rational argument cannot give us knowledge either, Pyrrho said, because for every argument supporting one side of an issue, another argument can be constructed to prove the opposing case. Hence, the two arguments cancel each other out and they are equally ineffective in leading us to the truth. The followers of Pyrrho stressed that we can make claims only about how things appear to us. You can say, â€Å"The honey appears to me to be sweet† but not, â€Å"The honey is sweet. † The best approach, according to these skeptics, was to suspend judgment whenever possible and make no assumptions at all. They believed that skeptical detachment would lead to serenity. â€Å"Don’t worry about what you cannot know,† they advised. Some skeptics distilled these arguments down into two simple theses. First, nothing is self-evident, for any axiom we start with can be doubted. Second, nothing can be proven, for either we will have an infinite regress of reasons that support our previous  reasons or we will end up assuming what we are trying to prove. Descartes began his quest for knowledge with the assumption that if he had rational certainty concerning his beliefs, he necessarily had knowledge, and if he did not have certainty, he did not have knowledge. The skeptics who came after Descartes agreed with this assumption. However, as we will see in the next section, Descartes argues that there are a number of things of which we can be certain and, hence, we do have knowledge. On the other hand, the skeptics doubt whether Descartes or anyone can achieve such certainty. Lacking any grounds for certainty, the skeptics claim we cannot have knowledge about the real world. Thus, the skeptics think that Descartes’s arguments for skepticism are stronger than his proposed answers. Such a philosopher was David Hume, whom we will encounter later when we examine empir EXAMINING THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF SKEPTICISM Positive Evaluation 1. Weeding a garden is not sufficient to make flowers grow, but it does do something valuable. In what way could the skeptics be viewed as providing a â€Å"philosophical weeding service† by undercutting beliefs that are naively taken for granted? 2. The skeptics are unsettling because they force us to reexamine our most fundamental beliefs. Is it better to live in naive innocence, never questioning anything, or is it sometimes worthwhile to have your beliefs challenged? Negative Evaluation 1. The skeptics make the following claim: â€Å"Knowledge is impossible. † But isn’t this claim itself a knowledge claim that they declare is true? Is the skeptic being inconsistent? 2. The skeptics use the argument from illusion to show that we cannot trust our senses. But could we ever know that there are illusions or that sometimes our senses are deceived  unless there were occasions when our senses weren’t deceived? 3. Some skeptics would have us believe that it is possible that all our beliefs are false. But would the human race have survived if there was never a correspondence between some of our beliefs and the way reality is constituted? We believe that fire burns, water quenches thirst, vegetables nourish us, and eating sand doesn’t. If we didn’t have some sort of built-in mechanism orienting us toward true beliefs, how could we be as successful as we are in dealing with reality? 4. Is skepticism liveable? Try yelling to someone who claims to be a skeptic, â€Å"Watch out  for that falling tree limb! † Why is it that a skeptic will always look up? Think of other ways in which skeptics might demonstrate that they do believe they can find out what is true or false about the world. 5. Is Descartes’s demand for absolute certainty unreasonable? Can’t we have justified beliefs based on inferences to the best explanation, probability, or practical certainty? Does certainty have to be either 100 percent or 0 percent? The answer is that our reason tells us that â€Å"something cannot come from nothing† and â€Å"material objects do not vanish into thin air. † We will distrust our senses before  we will abandon these beliefs. Hence, our reason seems to have veto power over our sense experience. We often trust our reason even in the face of apparently solid, experiential evidence. The rationalists raise this trust in reason into a full-fledged theory of knowledge. Rationalism is a very influential theory about the source and nature of knowledge. This position may be summarized in terms of the three anchor points of rationalism. These three points are responses to the second question of epistemology, Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? Reason Is the Primary or Most Superior Source of Knowledge about Reality According to the rationalist, it is through reason that we truly understand the fundamental truths about reality. For example, most rationalists would say the truths in the following lists are some very basic truths about the world that will never change. Although our experience certainly does illustrate most of these beliefs, our experiences always consist of par-ticular, concrete events. Hence, no experiences of seeing, feeling, hearing, tasting, or touching specific objects can tell us that these statements will always be true for every  future event we encounter. The rationalist claims that the following statements represent a priori truths about the world. They are a priori because they can be known apart from experience, yet they tell us what the world is like. LOGICAL TRUTHS A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time (where A represents some proposition or claim). This truth is called the law of noncontradiction. (For example, the statement â€Å"John is married and John is not married† is necessarily false. ) If the statement X is true and the statement â€Å"If X, then Y† is true, then it necessarily follows that the statement Y is true. MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS. The area of a triangle will always be one-half the length of the base times its height. If X is larger than Y and Y is larger than Z, then X is larger than Z. METAPHYSICAL TRUTHS Every event has a cause. An object with contradictory properties cannot exist. (No matter how long we search, we will never find a round square. ) ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Some basic moral obligations are not optional. It is morally wrong to maliciously torture someone for the fun of it. Sense Experience Is an Unreliable and Inadequate Route to Knowledge Rationalists typically emphasize the fact that sense experience is relative, changing, and often illusory. An object will look one way in artificial light and will look different in sunlight. Our eyes seem to see water on the road on a hot day, but the image is merely an optical illusion. The rationalist claims that we need our reason to sort out what is appearance from what is reality. Although it is obvious that a rationalist could not get through life without some reliance on sense experience, the rationalist denies that sense experience is the only source of knowledge about reality. Furthermore, experience can tell us only about particular things in the world. However, it cannot give us universal, foundational truths  about reality. Sensory experience can tell me about the properties of this ball, but it cannot tell me about the properties of spheres in general. Experience can tell me that when I combine these two oranges with those two oranges, they add up to four oranges. However, only reason can tell me that two plus two will always equal four and that this result will be true not only for these oranges, or all oranges, but for anything whatsoever. The Fundamental Truths about the World Can Be Known A Priori: They Are Either Innate or Self-Evident to Our Minds Innate ideas are ideas that are inborn. They are ideas or principles that the mind already contains prior to experience. The notion of innate ideas is commonly found in rationalistic philosophies, but it is rejected by the empiricists. The theory of innate ideas views the mind like a computer that comes from the factory with numerous programs already loaded on its disk, waiting to be activated. Hence, rationalists say that such ideas as the laws of logic, the concept of justice, or the idea of God are already contained deep within the mind and only need to be brought to the level of conscious awareness. Innate ideas should not be confused with instinct. Instinct is a noncognitive set of mechanical behaviors, such as blinking the eyes when an object approaches them. The theory of innate ideas is one account of how we can have a priori knowledge. Other rationalists believe that if the mind does not already contain these ideas, they are, at least, either self-evident or natural to the mind and the mind has a natural predisposition to recognize them. For example, Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716), a German rationalist, compared the mind to a block of marble that contains veins or natural splitting points that allow only one sort of shape to be formed within it. Thus, the mind, like the marble, has an innate structure that results in â€Å"inclinations, dispositions, habits, or natural capacities† to think in certain ways. In contrast to this view, John Locke (a British empiricist) said: â€Å"There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses. † In response, Leibniz tagged the following rationalistic qualification at the end of Locke’s formula, â€Å"except for the intellect itself. † Obviously, in saying that the mind contains rational ideas or dispositions, the rationalists do not believe a baby is thinking about the theorems of geometry. Instead, they claim  that when a person achieves a certain level of cognitive development, he or she will be capable of realizing the self-evident truth of certain ideas. Leibniz pointed out that there is a difference between the mind containing rational principles and being aware of them. Rationalists give different accounts of how the mind acquired innate ideas in the first place. Socrates and Plato believed that our souls preexisted our current life and received knowledge from a previous form of existence. Theistic rationalists, such as Descartes, tend to believe that God implanted these ideas within us. Others simply claim that these principles or ideas naturally accompany rational minds such as ours. THE RATIONALISTS’ ANSWERS TO THE THREE EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS Section 2. 0 contained three questions concerning knowledge: (1) Is knowledge possible? (2) Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience? and (3) Does our knowledge represent reality as it really is? While differing on the details, all the rationalists give the same answers to these three questions. First, they all believe that knowledge is possible. Generally, we are able to discern that some opinions are better than others. For example, in the discipline of mathematics some answers are true and some are false. We could not know this fact if obtaining knowledge was impossible. Second, the rationalists agree that only through reason can we find an adequate basis for knowledge. For example, in mathematics and logic we are able through reason alone to arrive at truths that are absolutely certain and necessarily true. Third, rationalists agree that beliefs that are based on reason do represent reality as it truly is. In the following sections, I examine three classical rationalists to see how they illustrate the three anchor points of rationalism and  answer the three epistemological questions. Socrates’ answers to the three epistemological questions should be clear. (1) We are able to distinguish true opinions from false ones, so we must know the standards for making this distinction. (2) These standards could not be derived from experience so they must be unpacked through a rational investigation of the reservoir of all truth—the soul. (3) Since our rational knowledge provides us with information that enables us to deal successfully with the world and our own lives, it must be giving us an accurate picture of reality. However, according to Plato, since the  physical world is constantly changing, sense perception gives us only relative and temporary information about changing, particular things. Being a typical rationalist, Plato thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging, and universal. Furthermore, he argued that there is a difference between true opinions and knowledge, for our beliefs must be rationally justified to qualify as knowledge. Finally, Plato believed that the object of knowledge must be something that really exists. Plato and the Role of Reason Do mathematical truths, such as those in the multiplication tables, exist within the mind or do they exist outside the mind? Plato would say both. If mathematical truths exist only in the mind, then why does physical reality conform to these truths? If mathematical truths are only mind-dependent ideas, then why can’t we make the truths about triangles be anything we decide them to be? The world of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland was created in the mind of Lewis Carroll. He could have made the world’s properties be anything he decided. But obviously, we can’t make up such rules for the properties of numbers. We don’t create these truths; we discover them. Thus, Plato would argue, these truths are objective and independent of our minds. But if they are independent of our minds, then they must refer to something that exists in reality. Although the number seven, for example, has objective properties that we discover, these properties are not physical. We do not learn the truths about numbers by seeing, tasting, hearing, smelling, or touching them. From this concept, Plato concludes that the world of mathematics consists of a set of objective, mindindependent truths and a domain of nonphysical reality that we know only through reason. What about justice? What color is it? How tall is it? How much does it weigh? Clearly, these questions can apply to physical things, but it is meaningless to describe justice in terms of observable properties. Furthermore, no society is perfectly just. Hence, we have never seen an example of perfect justice in human history, only frail, human attempts to approximate it. Because reason can contemplate Justice Itself,* we can evaluate the deficient, limited degrees of justice found in particular societies. Particular nations come and go and the degree of justice they manifest can rise or fall. But the objects of genuine knowledge  such as true Justice or true Circularity are eternal and unchanging standards and objects of knowledge. Plato on Universals and the Knowledge of Reality Thus far, Plato has argued that there are some things that we could not know about (Justice, Goodness, Equality) if experience was our only source of knowledge. The soul must have somehow acquired knowledge independently of the senses. But what, exactly, are the objects of this special sort of knowledge? In answering this question, Plato builds on the distinction he has made between the here-and-now realm of sense experience and the unchanging realm of rational knowledge. He says that in the world of sense experience we find that particulars fall into a number of stable, universal categories. Without these categories, we could not identify anything or talk about particulars at all. For example, Tom, Andre, Maria, and Lakatria are all distinct individuals, yet we can use the universal term human being to refer to each of them. In spite of their differences, something about them is the same. Corresponding to each common name (such as â€Å"human,† â€Å"dog,† â€Å"justice†) is a Universal that consists of the essential, common properties of anything within that category. Circular objects (coins, rings, wreathes, planetary orbits) all have the Universal of Circularity in common. Particular objects that are beautiful (roses, seashells, persons, sunsets, paintings) all share the Universal of Beauty. Particulars come into being, change, and pass away but Universals reside in an eternal, unchanging world. The rose grows from a bud, becomes a beautiful flower, and then turns brown and ugly and fades away. Yet the Universal of Beauty (or Beauty Itself ) remains eternally the same. Plato believes that Universals are more than concepts, they are actually the constituents  of reality. Hence, in answer to the third epistemological question, Plato believes that knowledge of Universals provides us with knowledge of the fundamental features of reality, which are nonphysical, eternal, and unchanging. Plato also refers to these Universals as â€Å"Forms. † The following thought experiment will help you appreciate Plato’s emphasis on Universals and universal truth. Descartes on the Possibility of Knowledge Although Descartes was certain he could not be deceived about his own existence, the possibility of a Great Deceiver cast a shadow over all his other beliefs. Unless he could find something external to his mind that would guarantee that the contents of his mind represented reality, there was little hope for having any knowledge other than that of his own existence. Descartes sought this guarantee in an all-powerful, good God. Hence, Descartes says, â€Å"As soon as the opportunity arises I must examine whether there is a God, and, if there is, whether he can be a deceiver. For if I do not know this, it seems that I can never be quite certain about anything else. †12 If Descartes could prove that such a God exists, then he could know that knowledge is possible. But notice how limited are the materials Descartes has at his disposal for proving God’s existence. He cannot employ an empirical argument based on the nature of the external world, for that is an issue that is still in doubt. So, he must construct a rationalistic argument that reasons only from the contents of his own mind. STOP AND THINK Descartes on the Role of Reason In the following passage from Meditation III, Descartes says the â€Å"natural light of reason† shows him that (1) something cannot arise from nothing and (2) there must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect. †¢ What examples does he use to illustrate each of these principles? †¢ How does he apply these two principles to the existence of his own ideas? The argument that Descartes has given us in the previous passages can be summarized in this way: 1. Something cannot be derived from nothing. (In other words, all effects, including ideas, are caused by something. ) 2. There must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect. 3. I have an idea of God (as an infinite and perfect being). 4. The idea of God in my mind is an effect that was caused by something. 5.  I am finite and imperfect, and thus I could not be the cause of the idea of an infinite and perfect God. 6. Only an infinite and perfect being could be the cause of such an idea. 7. Therefore, God (an infinite and perfect being) exists. THE THREE ANCHOR POINTS OF EMPIRICISM The Only Source of Genuine Knowledge Is Sense Experience The empiricists compare the mind to a blank tablet upon which experience makes its marks. Without experience, they claim, we would lack not only knowledge of the specific features of the world, but also the ability even to conceive of qualities such.

Racial Profiling Just Mercy By Bryan Stevenson Essay

Racial Profiling The justice system is one of the most important and critical parts of a government. Laws and regulations in our justice system guarantee our rights and safety. When law enforcement is segregated the safety of people among minorities are in the wrong hands. In the novel, â€Å"Just Mercy† by Bryan Stevenson, he scripts a similar situation where a man named Walter McMillian was a victim of racial profiling. Walter McMillian, an African American man, was convicted of murder of Ronda Morrison a young white woman, because of his race, and white supremacy. â€Å"There was no evidence and connection of Walter to the murder except that he was an African American man involved in an adulterous interracial affair, which meant he was reckless and possibly dangerous, even if he had no prior criminal history and a good reputation† (Stevenson 34). Injustice due to racial profiling seems to be one of the despicable and most associated topic in our society that rises co ncerns among people. America â€Å"The land of Opportunity† is filled with people all around the world, from different religions, ethnic groups, and different geographical background. Despite the laws and regulations passed on behalf of human rights, people from Islamic ethnicity are believed to be racially profiled due to their history of terrorism and geographical background. Among the minorities, people with an Islamic religious viewpoint are treated differently throughout America. A dark day in United States history,Show MoreRelatedRacism In Racism1248 Words   |  5 Pagespenalty, racial profiling, inequality, mental illnese to empathize the correuption many people throughout the united states are either not awareabout or simply turn a blind eye to because they don’t have to face the injustice. When reading this novel my attention was directly drawn to the racism many people go through whe it comes to commiting a crime. Racism is an issue that is still extremely prominent in todays society and sometimes it feels like we are walking backwards in time. Bryan StevensonRead MoreRacial Inequality Remains Visible Within Our Society Essay1257 Words   |  6 PagesRacial inequality remains visible within our society. Although slavery and segregation laws are obsolete, that does not mean racism exists subtly. Throughout the course readings one thing is for sure: the slave trade is the primary cause for racial inequality from 1500 to the present. Slavery is a product of violence and those who are sold into it, are pronounced as property. Moreover, throughout the 15th to mid-18th centuries, slavery caused people to despise those who looked different from themRead MoreSlavery And Its Impact On Society Essay1206 Words   |  5 PagesAlthough slavery and segregation laws are obsolete, racial inequality remains visible within our society. Throughout the course readings, one thing is for sure: the slave trade is the primary cause of racial inequality from 1500 to the present. Those sold into slavery become the property and a product of violence. Moreover, throughout the 15th to mid-18th centuries, slavery caused people to despise those who looked different from them, based on skin color. Slavery has caused numerous gaps among theRead MoreJust Mercy By Bryan Stevenson2043 Words   |  9 PagesThe start of the book, Just Mercy, grabbed me pretty quick, but I was thinking â€Å"why are we reading a book about a lost soul who is going to spend his time with people who are sentenced to die for the horrible crimes they committed?† I soon started to realize the true story was much more than that and I would read a story about right and wrong and receive a message about the goodness and mercy of humans towards each other. The story is told by Bryan Stevenson, the author and a graduate of HarvardRead MoreAnalysis Of Just Mercy By Bryan Stevenson1311 Words   |  6 PagesThe book, â€Å"Just Mercy† by Bryan Stevenson pleas to fix the current unfair and fragmented system of criminal justice and juvenile justice. The book’s plot focuses majority on Stevenson’s work and his clients. The main narrative tackles the story of Walter McMillan, who was accused of killing a white woman, but despite hard evidence that would prove he’s innocent, is disregarded by the court due to his race. The main issue was not even the lack of care for racial equality in this case, but the factRead MoreJust Mercy By Bryan Stevenson1098 Words   |  5 PagesIn the novel, Just Mercy, by Bryan Stevenson, the author depicts his experiences with cases that dealt with racial inequality and unfair convictions. The most prominent case in the novel is about a man named Walter McMillian who was unjustly convicted of a murder charge and sentenced to d eath row. Throughout the story, it is apparent that McMillian’s case was more complicated than just racial profiling because it was entangled with deception. The unlawful behavior executed by law officials: judgesRead MoreAnalysis Of The Book Just Mercy By Bryan Stevenson972 Words   |  4 PagesCaucasian or non-minorities as a whole, which make up a large portion of the United States. Racial discrimination has been a large factor the criminal justice system has been plagued with for many years. In the book Just Mercy, authored by Bryan Stevenson, Stevenson details his life’s work to help those who were wrongfully convicted and biased towards in sentencing. A big part of the book is related to racial discrimination among officers. Analytically I will be looking at the question of whetherRead MoreSocial And Economic Injustices Of America s War On The Public Good Essay2057 Words   |  9 PagesLiving on Almost Nothing in America by Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer, and Bryan Stevenson’s book, Just Mercy: A story of justice and redemption, additionally seek to describe how social injustices and economic issues manifest in America. Together, all three texts use shocking personal accounts from people, community members and onlookers to craft together the narrative of America’s devastating reality. ‘Nobody’, ‘Just Mercy’, and ‘$2.00 a Day’ exposes our society’s shortcomings through their themesRead MoreJust Mercy : A Story Of Justice And Redemption By Bryan Stevenson1959 Words   |  8 PagesIn the book Just Mercy: A story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson, there are several topics discussed regarding the American Justice system. One of those many topics discussed is regarding how a person’s race, social status and income, may influence the outcome of a court trail. In present day America, many years after the era of Jim crow and segregation the Justice system still seems to be more lenient towards white Americans, especially those with high income and a good standing in society