Anthropology Reading Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Human sciences Reading Analysis - Essay Example In Anne Fausot-Sterling's article, â€Å"The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are not Enough,† Ann sums up her feelings why the two predominant sex characters, which are socially, and medicinally acknowledged are not satisfactory in grouping each sexual orientation. Most present day social orders acknowledge the two evident genders: male, distinguished by having balls and a penis and a Y-chromosome, and female, recognized as having a clitoris and vagina, created bosoms, and lacking a Y-chromosome. Despite the fact that the two sexual orientations referenced above are without a doubt the prevailing sex gatherings, Fausto-Sterling keeps up that there are a lot increasingly intersexual existing in social orders worldwide for them to be accepted as being unusual rates of nature. In an offer to strengthen her case, Ann implies Johns Hopkins University therapist John Money, who proposed the likelihood that intersexual may comprise as much as 4 percent of the complete births. Contendi ng from a world’s perspective, taking the world's all out populace to be 7 billion, this would infer that there might be upwards of 280 million intersexual on the planet. The creator additionally characterized the contemplations of her five-sex characterization framework. We initially have the notable male and female, and afterward we have three other lesser-known gatherings. These incorporate, however not constrained to bisexuals, having one testis and furthermore one ovary, male pseudo bisexuals, having certain highlights of the female genitalia and testicles, yet no ovaries, and female pseudo bisexuals, having a few highlights of male genitalia and ovaries, yet without testicles. Today’s Society keeps on being male controlled. Likewise, logical terms mirror a macho society. In her article, â€Å"The Egg and the Sperm: How Science has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles,† Martin keeps up that Scientific composing has endeavored to in troduce the egg and the sperm with ladylike and manly attributes separately. This shows the sperm as the definitive attacker while the egg accept a powerless position. This viewpoint as indicated by Martin is affected by social generalizations. As of late, the scientists Johns Hopkins University inferred that the sperm and egg draw in together as a result of cement particles on each surface. The egg traps the sperm and keeps on squirming incapably. Be that as it may, this new record of the job of the sperm and the egg did little to help change the generalization adventure. Specialists the greater part of whom made the revelations kept on failing in their old representation of the sperm being the dynamic part which infiltrates the egg. Taking everything into account, Martin forces us to address one’s considering the study of one’s proliferation. Being cognizant not to extend generalized social symbolism into studies will help improve one’s capacity in getting nat ure and keep away from hurt brought about by sexual orientation inclination in the public arena. M. Miedzien’s expectation of composing this article, â€Å"Real men, weaklings, and one’s national security was to address the pending issue that inability to furnish young men with manly qualities will bring about raising innocuous male who will effectively stay away from viciousness and war. As per a few, this may advance national debacle since different countries train their men prepared to battle at the smallest incitement. The pragmatists will say one’s national security is at stake.† He needed to settle this complaint, however his expectation changed when he started his

Achieving Parallel Structure in Sentences with Parenthesis

Accomplishing Parallel Structure in Sentences with Parenthesis Accomplishing Parallel Structure in Sentences with Parenthesis Accomplishing Parallel Structure in Sentences with Parenthesis By Mark Nichol At the point when a sentence incorporates a type of enclosure a word, expression, or proviso encircled by a couple of commas, runs, or brackets essayists must take care that the announcement encompassing the contribution is fundamentally substantial so that if the discretionary bracket is overlooked, the rest of the wording is as yet intelligent. To test whether the sentence’s piece is finished, briefly preclude the interposition, at that point fix any linguistic and syntactic issues that show themselves before restoring (or repeating) the bracket. 1. He is viewed as one of, if not the, deadliest professional killer in the domain. This sentence, without the enclosure, is â€Å"He is viewed as one of deadliest professional killer in the empire.† This flawed development exhibits that the article the must show up in the principle provision before the interposition to shape a total sentence, and professional killer must be in plural structure to compare with the altering expression â€Å"one of the† (â€Å"He is viewed as probably the deadliest professional killer in the empire†); likewise, a redundancy of deadliest must be embedded into the bracket to frame a total idea: â€Å"He is viewed as perhaps the deadliest professional killer, if not the deadliest, in the empire.† (The incidental â€Å"to be† has been erased also.) 2. Viable hazard the board can help anticipate and forestall significant execution issues from happening. For this situation, the wording that remaining parts after the enclosure is extracted â€Å"Effective hazard the board can help foresee significant usage issues from occurring†-is linguistically imperfect, in light of the fact that â€Å"from occurring† alters forestall however not anticipate. For the sentence to bode well, that expression ought to be embedded into the interposition: â€Å"Effective hazard the board can help anticipate and keep from happening significant usage problems.† Better yet, coordinate the addition (with a pronoun subbing for a rehash of â€Å"major execution problems†) into the fundamental condition: â€Å"Effective hazard the executives can help foresee significant execution issues and keep them from occurring.† 3. This has not (and ought not) keep keen organizations from exploiting advancement. With the enclosure in this sentence evacuated, the rest of the announcement is â€Å"This has not keep savvy organizations from exploiting innovation.† Because â€Å"has not† and â€Å"should not† must be joined by contrasting types of forestall, the two types of the action word, one in the fundamental statement and one in the bracket, ought to be utilized: â€Å"This has not forestalled (and ought not forestall) shrewd organizations from exploiting innovation.† Note that the three types of accentuation are tradable, in spite of the fact that their capacities differ marginally: Commas are nonpartisan, brackets recommend that the data is coincidental, and runs signal data that is dissimilar or surprising. Need to improve your English in a short time a day? Get a membership and begin getting our composing tips and activities day by day! Continue learning! Peruse the Style class, check our well known posts, or pick a related post below:Good At, Good In, and Good With26 Feel-Good WordsSit versus Set

An Analysis of Motifs in A Room With a View - Literature Essay Samples

â€Å"For a moment [George] contemplated her, as one who had fallen out of heaven. He saw radiant joy in her face, he saw the flowers beat against her dress in blue waves. The bushes above them closed. He stepped quickly forward and kissed her† (Forster 55). This scene from E. M. Forster’s Room with a View triggers a profound internal struggle within Lucy Honeychurch, the novel’s protagonist, initiating her quest for true passion and independence. Indeed, this scene exemplifies how Forster uses motifsincluding light vs. dark and outside spaces vs. inside spacesto develop the novel’s themes. Throughout A Room with a View, the author employs the motifs of outdoor vs. indoor places, light vs. dark and Renaissance vs. Medieval to illustrate the themes of freedom from social conventions, the value of honesty, and the contrast between Victorian and Edwardian social ideas. Forster uses the motif of indoor vs. outdoor places, or rooms vs. views, to exemplify the shift from traditional Victorian ideals to Edwardian values and to demonstrate the beauty of finding freedom from social restrictions. From the beginning of the novel, the narrator associates progressive-minded characters with â€Å"views.† For instance, the first words uttered by Mr. Emerson in the novel are, â€Å"I have a view, I have a view,† meaning that Emerson’s room at the Pension Bertolini has a picturesque view (Forster 4). When Lucy Honeychurch enters her room, she opens the window and breathes the â€Å"clean night air,† but when Miss Bartlett enters a room, she immediately fastens the shutters and locks the door (Forster 11). By associating modern, progressive characters with views and more traditional characters with rooms early in the novel, Forster indicates that indoor spaces symbolize restrictive social conventions, while wide, outdoor spaces and vie ws reflect open-mindedness and innovative ideas. This motif takes on further significance in light of England’s passage in the early 20th century from traditional Victorian society into the more modern, Edwardian culture. Hence, throughout the novel, the contrast between outdoor and indoor spaces parallels the contrast between socially conservative, older characters such as Miss Bartlett and Mrs. Honeychurch and forward-minded, Edwardian-era characters such as George and Mr. Emerson. The motif of rooms vs. views also accentuates the value of freedom from social conventions. Cecil, the embodiment of upper-class snobbery and petty societal values, is compared to a â€Å"drawing-room† with no view (Forster 86). In contrast, during one of the most refreshing scenes in the novel, George, Freddy and Mr. Beebe romp in the outdoors near the Sacred Lake, a place symbolic of freedom from social conventions (Forster 106). When the three strip off their clothes, they cast off the burden of social conventions, and their joy in romping around the lake exemplifies the bliss found in liberation from the norm. Hence, the motif of outdoors vs. indoors enables Forster to contrast Victorian ideas with Edwardian ones, and to emphasize how freedom from social conventions can bring true joy. Besides using this motif, Forster also uses the motif of light vs. dark to communicate his theme of honesty vs. deception. One of the clearest examples of this motif occurs when George first kisses Lucy amid a sea of violets: â€Å"light and beauty† enveloped Lucy and â€Å"radiant joy† was in her face (Forster 55). Similarly, after George confronts Lucy about Cecil’s hard-heartedness, â€Å"the scales† fall from Lucy’s eyes and she beholds the truth about Cecil (Forster 138). Though this does not mention light directly, the image of scales brings to mind the biblical story of the Apostle Paul’s encounter with a blinding light on the road to Damascus. Thus, both of these examples illustrate how Forster associates light with beauty and honesty. Conversely, darkness comes when Lucy tries to deceive others and to deny her passionate love for George. After Lucy pretends that she does not love George, she enters the â€Å"vast armies of the benig hted†; the night envelops her in its grim embrace (Forster 143). This image of night symbolizes Lucy’s own intellectual darkness and confusion. Night also has connotations of evil; the reader anticipates that some devilish misfortune will fall upon Lucy if she continues her web of lies. Through this motif of light vs. dark, Forster draws upon biblical undertones and literature’s tradition of associating these images with good and evil. Hence, the author communicates that deceiving oneself, as illustrated by Lucy’s refusal to recognize her love of George, can only lead to painful consequences and to that dreaded â€Å"muddle† described as worse than â€Å"Death and Fate† (Forster 165). Forster thus emphasizes the value of forsaking the darkness of deception and pursuing the purity and beauty of honesty. Clearly, through this motif of light vs. dark, Forster expands his theme of the value of honesty. Forster uses a third motif, Renaissance vs. Medieval, to contrast Victorian and Edwardian views on gender roles and the nature of love. Throughout the novel, â€Å"Medieval† symbolizes Victorian ideas, while â€Å"Renaissance† reflects Edwardian ideas. For instance, Cecil Vyse, â€Å"Gothic† in appearance and ascetic in his tastes, is the archetype of the Medieval man (Forster 71). Indeed, his views on gender roles reflect the ideals of the Victorian age: men should always protect and guide women. In fact, Lucy is merely an object, â€Å"a work of art,† to Cecil (Forster 78). In regards to love, Cecil believes that it should always be delicate, rational, bound to convention. Conversely, the Emersons exude a Renaissance spiritit is no coincidence that the reader is first introduced to them in Florence, the birthplace of the Italian Renaissance. Unlike Cecil’s paternalistic attitude, George Emerson says he wants Lucy to have her own thoughts and have equal status (Forster 136). In addition, George’s father voices a more modern view on love: â€Å"Passion is sanity,† he says to Lucy (Forster 162). The contrasts between the Medieval and the Renaissance, between paternalism and equality, and between reason and passion underscore the shift from Victorian social decorum to the more modern, Edwardian values. Ultimately, Lucy embraces this Edwardian spirit and finds greater satisfaction in the Renaissance man than in the Medieval. Thus, Forster uses the motif of the Renaissance vs. Medieval to accentuate the contrast between Victorian and Edwardian ideas. In short, each of these motifs enables Forster to develop his themes, whether it be the value of freedom from social norms or the need to embrace the truth about oneself. Truly, Forster’s use of imagery, detail and symbolism in these motifs makes the novel’s themes far more enduring than if he had simply relied on other, less vivid means. Renaissance and Medieval, light and dark, a room and a viewthese are the images that will abide in the reader’s mind long after the narrative has ceased. Works Cited Forster, E. M. A Room with a View. Dover Publications, 1995.

Layers of the Atmosphere

Earth is surrounded by its atmosphere, which is the body of air or gases that protects the planet and enables life. Most of our atmosphere is located close to Earths surface, where it is most dense. It has five distinct layers. Lets look at each, from closest to farthest from the Earth. Troposphere The layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth is the troposphere. It begins at the surface of the Earth and extends out to about 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km). This layer is known as the lower atmosphere. Its where weather happens and contains the air humans breathe.  The air of our planet is 79 percent nitrogen and just under 21 percent oxygen; the small amount remaining is composed of carbon dioxide and other gases. The temperature of the troposphere decreases with height. Stratosphere Above the troposphere is the stratosphere, which extends to about 31 miles (50 km) above the Earths surface. This layer is where the ozone layer exists and scientists send weather balloons. Jets fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid turbulence in the troposphere. Temperature rises within the stratosphere but still remains well below freezing. Mesosphere From about 31 to 53 miles (50 to 85 km)  above the surface of the Earth lies the mesosphere, where the air is especially thin and molecules are great distances apart. Temperatures in the mesosphere reach a low of -130 degrees Fahrenheit (-90 C). This layer is difficult to study directly; weather balloons cant reach it, and weather satellites orbit above it. The stratosphere and the mesosphere are known as the middle atmospheres. Thermosphere The thermosphere rises several hundred miles above the  Earths surface, from 56 miles (90 km) up to between 311 and 621 miles (500–1,000 km). Temperature is very much  affected by the sun here; it can be 360 degrees Fahrenheit hotter (500 C) during the day than at night. Temperature increases with height and can rise to as high as 3,600 degrees Fahrenheit (2000 C). Nonetheless, the air would feel cold because the hot molecules are so far apart. This layer is known as the upper atmosphere, and it is where the auroras occur (northern and southern lights). Exosphere Extending from the top of the thermosphere to 6,200 miles (10,000 km) above Earth is the exosphere, where weather satellites are. This layer has very few atmospheric molecules, which can escape into space. Some scientists disagree that the exosphere is a part of the atmosphere and instead classify it actually as a part of outer space. There is no clear upper boundary, as in other layers. Pauses Between each layer of the atmosphere is a boundary. Above the troposphere is the tropopause, above the stratosphere is the stratopause, above the mesosphere is the mesopause, and above the thermosphere is the thermopause. At these pauses, maximum change between the spheres occur. Ionosphere The ionosphere isnt actually a layer of the atmosphere but regions in the layers where there are ionized particles (electrically charged ions and free electrons), especially located in the mesosphere and thermosphere. The altitude of the ionospheres layers changes during the day and from one season to another.

Juveniles The Criminal Justice System - 1777 Words

Juveniles in the Criminal Justice System Introduction In the United States, juveniles have always known to cause trouble in the community. In recent times, many individuals have the perception that juvenile crimes are on the rise and that these offenders are getting younger. Charging juveniles as adult has always been a debate, because of their thinking process and protecting their rights. There are many cases that regard juveniles that have changed the policies of this nation. Also for those juveniles that are convicted as adults, there are many challenges that correctional officials have when housing them. Waivering juveniles to adult court has many factors to it and whether or not juveniles age thirteen and fourteen should be†¦show more content†¦In 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed his case and lowered his sentence to life imprisonment since they believed that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a juvenile to death under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. When the state of Missouri appealed this ruling, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear this case. This hearing overturned a 1989 decision (Stanford v. Kentucky) in which it was suitable for sentence sixteen and seventeen years old to capital punishment (Roper v. Simmons, 2005). Graham v. Florida (2010) In 2003, Terrace Graham, who was sixteen at the time, was arrested for armed burglary with assault or battery and attempted armed-robbery. Graham pleaded guilty to both charges under a plea agreement. He wrote a letter to the trial court expressing his remorse and promises to turn his life around. The trial court agreed to his plea agreement and sentenced him to 3 years of probation, the first year being in a county jail. Graham was released on June 25, 2004. In December 2004, Graham was again arrested for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. Since he violated probation, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment for the armed burglary and fifteen years for the attempted robbery. Graham, then filed a motion because he believed that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment. The First District Court of Appeal of Florida did not think

Moral Destruction In The Great Gatsby Essay Example For Students

Moral Destruction In The Great Gatsby Essay The Great Gatsby: The Destruction of MoralsIn The Great Gatsby, the author F. Scott Fitzgerald shows the destruction of morals in society. The characters in this novel, all lose their morals in attempt to find their desired place in the social world. They trade their beliefs for the hope of being acceptance. Myrtle believes she can scorn her true social class in an attempt to be accepted into Tons, Jay Gatsby who bases his whole life on buying love with wealth, and Daisy, who instead of marrying the man she truly loves, marries someone with wealth. The romance of money lures the characters in The Great Gatsby into surrendering their values, but in the end, the streets paved with gold led to a dead end (Vogue, December 1999). The first example of a character whose morals are destroyed is Myrtle. Myrtles attempt to enter into the group to which the Buchanans belong is doomed to fail. She enters the affair with Tom, hoping to adopt his way of life and be accepted into his class to escape from her own. Her class is that of the middle class. Her husband, Wilson, owns a gas station, making an honest living and trying his best to succeed in a world where everything revolves around material possessions. With her involvement in Toms class, she only becomes vulgar and corrupt like the rich. She loses all sense of morality by hurting others in her futile attempt to join the ranks of Toms social class. In doing so, she is leaving behind her husband who loves her. Myrtle believes he is no longer good enough for her. I married him because I thought he was a gentleman. She said finally. I thought he knew something about breeding but he wasnt fit enough to lick my shoe.' (Fitzgerald, 39). With the hope of being accepted into an upper social class, Myrtles morals and prior beliefs are gone, being replaced by the false impression that by betraying her loving husband, this new social world will embrace her. A second character that falls victim to the destruction of their morals, is Jay Gatsby. Gatsby is the supposed hero of this novel who believes that the riches he traded for honor can buy love and happiness and bring back the past(Vogue, December 1999). He too abandons his morals; illegally earning the money that he believes will win back the heart of his lost love Daisy. When they had a love affair long ago, she wouldnt marry him because of his financial standing. The details of his business are sketchy, when asked he usually ignores the question. Tom though, after some investigating finds the true nature of his profession. I found out what your drug stores were. He turned to us and spoke rapidly. He and this Wolfshiem bought up a lot of side-street drug stores here and in Chicago and sold grain alcohol over the counter. Thats one of his little stunts, I picked him for a bootlegger the first time I saw him and I wasnt far wrong.' (Fitzgerald, 141). Gatsby makes it his lifes mission t o become rich, thinking this will be sure to win Daisy over. Daisy is married though, and his lifes ambition of having Daisy fails. Gatsby surrenders his morals by breaking the law to earn the riches he thinks will buy her love but it is done for nothing, Daisy was not won over with his new wealth. A final character that succumbs to the lure of wealth and discards their morals is Daisy. Daisy is involved in a marriage with a man she is unsure of her love for. Tom is unfaithful, and has been involved in several affairs, yet Daisy remains married to him. Long ago when she was involved with Gatsby, she had ended the relationship because he was not of her social standing and was therefore unfit to marry her. Instead she married the wealthy Tom Buchanan. In June she married Tom Buchanan of Chicago with more pomp and circumstance then Louisville ever knew before. He came down with a hundred people in four private cars and hired a whole floor of the Seelbach Hotel, and the day before the wedding he gave her a string of pearls valued at three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. (Fitzgerald, 80)Right from the beginning Daisy had already had second thoughts about the marriage, getting completely drunk the night before and crying, but she went through with the marriage regardless. By not following her heart and marrying her true love, she abandoned her morals and married a man based on his wealth. In F. Scott Fitzgeralds novel The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald shows how the morals of society have been destroyed. The different characters each through their actions betray their morals to achieve a different status in society. Myrtle, a middle class, married woman, becomes immoral by having an affair in an attempt to join an upper social class. Jay Gatsby, a wealthy young man who has earned his wealth through breaking the law as an effort to win back a lost love. And Finally Daisy, a woman who marries a man only because of his enormous wealth instead of a poorer man she truly loves. In the end, giving up their morals is useless, they each fail at achieving the status they desire. .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .postImageUrl , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:hover , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:visited , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:active { border:0!important; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:active , .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284 .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u691cf5293301223149424288a5e6f284:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: A Nobel Writing Style Reviewed EssayCategory: English

Concept of God According to Descartes Essay Example

Concept of God According to Descartes Essay The concept of God according to Descartes and the so called antitheist position of Descartes Philomon Kani   Ã‚   Rene Descartes is often credited with being the â€Å"Father of Modern Philosophy. † This title is justified due both to his break with the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian philosophy prevalent at his time and to his development and promotion of the new, mechanistic sciences. His fundamental break with Scholastic philosophy was twofold. First, Descartes thought that the Scholastics’ method was prone to doubt given their reliance on sensation as the source for all knowledge. Second, he wanted to replace their final causal model of scientific explanation with the more modern, mechanistic model. Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This â€Å"hyperbolic doubt† then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that â€Å"I exist† is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Descartes was a rationalist philosopher. The rationalists wanted to prove everything by reason alone, because they thought that the senses were unreliable. The difference between analytic statements or synthetic statements was not yet clear at that moment. We will write a custom essay sample on Concept of God According to Descartes specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Concept of God According to Descartes specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Concept of God According to Descartes specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We think that God exists can only be proven by using both senses and reason, but Descartes proved the existence of God with reason alone. At the outset of the Third Meditation, Descartes tried to use this first truth as the paradigm for his general account of the possibilities for achieving human knowledge. In the cogito, awareness of myself, of thinking, and of existence are somehow combined in such a way as to result in an intuitive grasp of a truth that cannot be doubted. Perhaps we can find in other cases the same grounds for indubitable truth. But what is it? The answer lies in Descartess theory of ideas. Considered formally, as the content of my thinking activity, the ideas involved in the cogito are unusually clear and distinct. (Med. III) But ideas may also be considered objectively, as the mental representatives of things that really exist. According to a representative realist like Descartes, then, the connections among our ideas yield truth only when they correspond to the way the world really is. But it is not obvious that our clear and distinct ideas do correspond to the reality of things, since we suppose that there may be an omnipotent deceiver. In some measure, the reliability of our ideas may depend on the source from which they are derived. Descartes held that there are only three possibilities: all of our ideas are either adventitious (entering the mind from the outside world) or factitious (manufactured by the mind itself) or innate (inscribed on the mind by God). (Med. III) But I dont yet know that there is an outside world, and I can imagine almost anything, so everything depends on whether God exists and deceives me. The next step in the pursuit of knowledge, then, is to prove that God does indeed exist. Descartess starting point for such a proof is the principle that the cause of any idea must have at least as much reality as the content of the idea itself. But since my idea of God has an absolutely unlimited content, the cause of this idea must itself be infinite, and only the truly existing God is that. In other words, my idea of God cannot be either adventitious or factitious (since I could neither experience God directly nor discover the concept of perfection in myself), so it must be innately provided by God. Therefore, God exists. (Med. III) As a backup to this argument, Descartes offered a traditional version of the cosmological argument for Gods existence. From the cogito I know that I exist, and since I am not perfect in every way, I cannot have caused myself. So something else must have caused my existence, and no matter what that something is (my parents? ), we could ask what caused it to exist. The chain of causes must end eventually, and that will be with the ultimate, perfect, self-caused being, or God. As Antoine Arnauld pointed out in an Objection published along with the Meditations themselves, there is a problem with this reasoning. Since Descartes will use the existence (and veracity) of God to prove the reliability of clear and distinct ideas in Meditation Four, his use of clear and distinct ideas to prove the existence of God in Meditation Three is an example of circular reasoning. Descartes replied that his argument is not circular because intuitive reasoning in the proof of God as in the cogito—requires no further support in the moment of its conception. We must rely on a non-deceiving God only as the guarantor of veridical memory, when a demonstrative argument involves too many steps to be held in the mind at once. But this response is not entirely convincing. The problem is a significant one, since the proof of Gods existence is not only the first attempt to establish the reality of something outside the self but also the foundation for every further attempt to do so. If this proof fails, then Descartess hopes for human knowledge are severely curtailed, and we are stuck in solipsism, unable to be perfectly certain of anything more than our own existence as a thinking thing. With this reservation in mind, well continue through the Meditations, seeing how Descartes tried to dismantle his own reasons for doubt. The proof of Gods existence actually makes the hypothetical doubt of the First Meditation a little worse: I now know that there really is a being powerful enough to deceive me at every turn. But Descartes argued that since all perfections naturally go together, and since deception is invariably the product of imperfection, it follows that the truly omnipotent being has no reason or motive for deception. God does not deceive, and doubt of the deepest sort may be abandoned forever. (Med. IV) It follows that the simple natures and the truths of mathematics are now secure. In fact, Descartes maintained, I can now live in perfect confidence that my intellectual faculties, bestowed on me by a veracious God, are properly designed for the apprehension of truth. But this seems to imply too much: if I have a divinely-endowed capacity for discovering the truth, then why dont I always achieve it? The problem is not that I lack knowledge of some things; that only means that I am limited. Rather, the question is why I so often make mistakes, believing what is false despite my possession of God-given mental abilities. Descartess answer derives from an analysis of the nature of human cognition generally. Every mental act of judgment, Descartes held, is the product of two distinct faculties: the understanding, which merely observes or perceives, and the will, which assents to the belief in question. Considered separately, the understanding (although limited in scope) is adequate for human needs, since it comprehends completely everything for which it has clear and distinct ideas. Similarly, the will as an independent faculty is perfect, since it (like the will of God) is perfectly free in every respect. Thus, God has benevolently provided me with two faculties, neither of which is designed to produce error instead of true belief. Yet I do make mistakes, by misusing my free will to assent on occasions for which my understanding does not have clear and distinct ideas. (Med. IV) For Descartes, error is virtually a moral failing, the willful exercise of my powers of believing in excess of my ability to perceive the truth. To put it in simple term this is how Descartes proof about the existence of God unfolds: 1. I exist (Axiom). 2. I have in my mind the notion of a perfect being (Axiom, partly based on 1) 3. An imperfect being, like myself, cannot think up the notion of a perfect being (Axiom) 4. Therefore the notion of a perfect being must have originated from the perfect being himself (from 2 3)  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   5. A perfect being would not be perfect if it did not exist (Axiom) 6. Therefore a perfect being must exist (from 4 5) Descartes proof about the existence of God has been criticized by many for its simplicity and on the grounds that not everyone has the idea of God in his mind. Even some Christians lack the idea of God. Descartes still defended his stand on the existence of God. But the funniest of all things to happen is the condemnation of Descartes work by the then Catholic Church. One can ascribe the condemnation to his break from the traditionalist scholastic Aristotelian philosophy but the widely accepted reason for his condemnation according to C. F. Fowler is that Descartes in his meditation has failed to prove the immortality of the Soul. Descartes argues that mind and body are really distinct in two places in the  Sixth Meditation. The first argument is that he has a clear and distinct understanding of the mind as a thinking, non-extended thing and of the body as an extended, non-thinking thing. So these respective ideas are clearly and distinctly understood to be opposite from one another and, therefore, each can be understood all by itself without the other. Two points should be mentioned here. First, Descartes’ claim that these perceptions are clear and distinct indicates that the mind cannot help but believe them true, and so they must be true for otherwise God would be a deceiver, which is impossible. So the premises of this argument are firmly rooted in his foundation for absolutely certain knowledge. Second, this indicates further that he knows that God can create mind and body in the way that they are being clearly and distinctly understood. Therefore, the mind can exist without the body and vice versa. On this account, the mind is an entirely immaterial thing without any extension in it whatsoever; and, conversely, the body is an entirely material thing without any thinking in it at all. After looking into the concept of God and Soul according to Descartes, it is important to ask the question is the concept of immortality really a Christian concept and is the condemnation of Descartes justified in any way by the Catholic Church. Many people think the Bible says we have an immortal soul destined, at death, for heaven, hell or purgatory. What does the Bible say? What happens to us after we die? Where are our loved ones who have passed on? Will we ever see them again? Everyone needs to know that life has purpose, that death isnt the permanent end of our existence. The most common Christian belief regarding the afterlife is that people possess souls and at death their consciousness in the form of that soul departs from the body and heads for heaven or hell. Most religions teach some form of life after death. The ancient Egyptians, for example, practiced elaborate ceremonies to prepare the pharaohs for their next life. They constructed massive pyramids and other elaborate tombs filled with luxuries the deceased were assumed to need in the hereafter. In some civilizations when a ruler died others who had accompanied and served him in his life were put to death so they could immediately serve him in the afterlife. Wives and other relatives, servants, sometimes even household pets joined him in death and a supposed entrance into a new life on the other side. Belief in the immortality of the soul was an important aspect of ancient thought espoused by the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Plato, in Phaedo, presents Socrates explanation of death: Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and body is released from the soul, what is this but death? (Five Great Dialogues, Classics Club edition, 1969, p. 93). Socrates explained that the immortal soul, once freed from the body, is rewarded according to good deeds or punished for evil. Socrates lived ca. 470-399 B. C. , so his view of the soul predated Christianity. Plato (ca. 428-348 B. C. ) saw mans existence as divided into the material and spiritual, or Ideal, realms. Plato reasoned that the soul, being eternal, must have had a pre-existence in the ideal world where it learned about the eternal Ideals (William S. Sahakian, History of Philosophy, 1968, p. 56). In Platos reasoning, man is meant to attain goodness and return to the Ideal through the experiences of the transmigration of the soul. Thus secular philosophies sanction the idea of the immortal soul, even though the Bible does not. Believe it or not, Gods Word teaches something entirely different. History of a Controversial Teaching The doctrine of the immortal soul caused much controversy in the early Catholic Church. Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first person to attempt to organize Christian doctrine into a systematic theology. He was an admirer of Plato and believed in the immortality of the soul and that it would depart to an everlasting reward or everlasting punishment at death. In Origen De Principiis he wrote: The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240). Origen taught that human souls existed before the body but is imprisoned in the physical world as a form of punishment. Physical life, he reasoned, is a purification process to return humans to a spiritual state. Later Augustine (354-430) tackled the problem of the immortality of the soul and death. For Augustine death meant the destruction of the body, but the conscious soul would continue to live in either a blissful state with God or an agonizing state of separation from God. In The City of God he wrote that the soul is therefore called immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul, takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, 1995, p. 245. ) The influences of pagan Platonic philosophy on Origen and Augustine are profound. Richard Tarnas, in his best-seller The Passion of the Western Mind, points to this influence: It was Augustines formulation of Christian Platonism that was to permeate virtually all of medieval Christian thought in the West. So enthusiastic was the Christian integration of the Greek spirit that Socrates and Plato were frequently regarded as divinely inspired pre-Christian saints (1991, p. 103). Centuries later Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274) crystallized the doctrine of the immortal soul in The Summa Theologica. He taught that the soul is a conscious intellect and will and cannot be destroyed. A few centuries later the leaders of the Protestant Reformation generally accepted these traditional views, so they became entrenched in traditional Prot estant teaching. The immortality of the soul is foundational in Western thought, both philosophical and religious. Belief in going to heaven or hell depends on it. But does the Bible teach that death is the separation of body and soul or that the soul is immortal? Hebrew Understanding of the Soul The Hebrew word translated soul in the Old Testament is nephesh, which simply means a breathing creature. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines nephesh as the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath The problem with the English term soul is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it is represented in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew system of thought does not include the combination or opposition of he body and soul which are really Greek and Latin in origin. The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible makes this comment on nephesh: The word soul in English, though it has to some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom, frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism) and from Orphism and Gnosticism which are absent in nephesh. In the Old Testamen t it never means the immortal soul, but it is essentially the life principle, or the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite, and emotion, occasionally of volition. That nephesh doesnt refer to an immortal soul can be seen in the way the word is used in the Old Testament. It is translated soul or being in reference to man in Genesis 2:7, but also to animals by being translated creature in Genesis 1:24. Nephesh is translated body in Leviticus 21:11 in reference to a human corpse. The Hebrew Scriptures state plainly that, rather than possess immortality, the soul can and does die. The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). The Old Testament describes the dead as going to sheol, translated into English as hell, pit or grave. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 describes sheol as a place of unconsciousness: For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished King David laments that death extinguishes a relationship with God. For in death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave who will give You thanks ? (Psalm 6:5). The immortal-soul concept isnt part of the Old Testament, but it began to make inroads into Jewish thought as Jews came in contact with Greek culture. In the first century the Jewish philosopher Philo taught a Platonic concept: The death of a man is the separation of his soul from his body (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge, 1993, p. 37). Philo followed the Hellenistic view that the soul is freed upon death to an everlasting life of virtue or evil. In the New Testament the Greek word translated soul is psuche, which is also translated life.   Ã‚  Ã‚   In Psalm 16:10 David uses nephesh (soul) to claim that the Holy One, or Messiah, wouldnt be left in sheol, the grave. Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:27, using the Greek psuche for the Hebrew nephesh (notice verses 25-31). Like nephesh, psuche refers to human souls (Acts 2:41) and for animals (it is translated life in the King James Version of Revelation 8:9 and 16:3). Jesus declared that God can destroy mans psuche, or soul (Matthew 10:28). If the Old Testament describes death as an unconscious state, how does the New Testament describe it? No one wrote more about this subject than the apostle Paul. He describes death as sleep (1 Corinthians 15:51-58; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Many people are surprised to find that the term immortal soul appears nowhere in the Bible. However, though the Scriptures do not speak of the soul as being immortal, they have much to say about immortality. For example: You know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15). Paul told the members of the congregation in Rome to seek immortality (Romans 2:5-7). He taught Christians at Corinth that they must be changed and put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-55). Paul proclaimed that only God and His Son possess immortality (1 Timothy 6:12-16) and that eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 6:23). The most powerful words come from Jesus Himself: And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40). True Origin of Immortal-soul Teaching Weve seen in this brief look at the supposedly immortal soul that the Bible teaches no such concept. The idea filtered into Western thought through Greek philosophy. Its origins are older than Athens, in fact as old as man. The concept of the immortal soul was introduced into mans thinking at the earliest beginnings of human history. God told the first human beings, Adam and Eve, that if they sinned they would die and return to the dust from which He had created them (Genesis 2:17; 3:19). Satan, the embodiment of evil, the powerful entity who opposes God, assured them they wouldnt die (verses 1-5). Satan slyly injected into Eves consciousness the notion that God was lying and that she and her husband would not die, thus ingraining the unscriptural teaching of the immortality of the soul into human thought. Satan has since deceived the world on this important understanding as well as many other biblical truths (Revelation 12:9). Much f the world, including millions of people in religions outside of traditional Christianity, are convinced they have—or are—immortal souls and hope they will go to a happy place or state of being immediately after they die. Soul/Nephesh According to Judaism The Hebrew word for soul, nephesh, does not mean what you say it does, if you want to use Judaica as an original sou rce. The foundation of Judaism, according to Judaism, is Kabbalah. The Kabbalistic meaning of nephesh/soul is that the one soul of the Creator that has been divided into many parts among mankind and awaits its reunification in the final correction. This is actually the root of our belief that all souls will be eternally okay, in the end. The Biblical Answer to Death Yet the Bible plainly teaches that the dead lie in the grave and know nothing, think no thoughts, have no emotions, possess no consciousness. Does this mean death, the cessation of life, is final, the end of everything? The Bible answers this question too. Although mankind is physical, subject to death, the good news is that God promises a resurrection to eternal life to everyone who repents, worships God and accepts Jesus as the Messiah and His sacrifice. The first resurrection to immortality will take place when Christ returns to establish Gods Kingdom on this earth. Later will come another resurrection—to physical life—for people who had never had a relationship with the Father and Jesus Christ. They, too, will gain the opportunity for immortality. The true final answer is not death but resurrection. From the above it is clear that the concept of immortality of Soul is actually not a Christian concept and there is no reference to it in the Holy Bible. Even if one does not want to rely too much on the above view of the Biblical verse, still one can say that immortality of Soul cannot be a Christian concept because according to Christian belief, the God is the Supreme commander and if our souls were immortal then there would not be any difference between the earthly human beings and the Divine God. And for human beings to be at par with the Supreme Commander is impossible. If one does not want to take this argument also then and stick to the belief that immortality of the soul is actually a Christian concept and Descartes has not proved it according to C. F. Fowler in his book, â€Å"Descartes on the human soul: philosophy and the demands of Christian doctrine,† from Descartes writing it is understood that the Soul is immaterial as against the body which is material. And if the Soul is immaterial then it cannot be put to death from this one can say that Descartes has proved the immortality of the Soul. So either way one can succeed in defending Descartes and say that the Catholic Church made a mistake by condemning Descartes writings.