Our Previous Samples

If science had the facts to prove all religions to be false, would people still believe? Does there have to be truth and facts behind every religion? Is truth a vital and necessary part of every religion? The answer to all of those questions is no. “Without risk there is no faith...If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I do not cannot do this I must believe.” (Objective and Subjective Reflection, Soren Kierkegaard).

Some say that religion is a part of human nature, and the same can be said about questioning religion. Non-believers, whether scientists or not, may believe that “...science and learning will banish religion” with religion being “...no more than a tissue of illusions” (E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature, page 1). In a way they believe that facts will trump what one may feel in their heart or spirit. Although for some that may be true, others are content with their beliefs regardless of the facts they learn. Before science gained the knowledge it has today, people were fine with their beliefs and their way of life. Are the two not able to co-exist?

They also forget about the relativity of truth. Usually the truth is black and white; either it is true or it is not. In relations to something like religion, it is more complicated because what is true to one may not be true to another. For example, In Christianity, Jesus is believed to have been the Messiah. That is a Christian’s truth. Yet to others this is not the case; Judaism, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus was not the Messiah. Therefore, the truth is relative in relation to religion.

On another note, the facts science brings can make a believer’s faith stronger. For example, when scientists discovered that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and was famous for performing miracles. Surely believers were ecstatic about that. Or when it was discovered that the great flood in the story of Noah’s Ark did happen. Findings like these do the exact opposite of “banishing religion”.

Although, just as science can aid in the strengthening of religion, it can also bring clarity to things that don't make sense. The book of Genesis has always been a very important to the science vs. religion argument. Jeff Randall explains:

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

“On day three we see that land has been created, and plant life has arisen on this land. This despite the fact that plant life as it exists on earth requires energy, which comes from the sun.”

The atmosphere was created after the Earth, plants were created before the sun, and the earth was created six-thousand years ago. We all know that the Earth is over three billion years old. Even if one is a Christian, they would have to admit that it doesn't make sense. So after this information was brought to light, did Christians lose their faith? Not at all. Religion doesn't need truth behind it for people to believe. Christianity is not only a religion, but an institution that controlled some of the most historical countries known to man. It would take a lot more than that to banish it, as can be said of all religions deep rooted in society.

For a religion to be popular, or widely practiced, science is not needed to back it up at all. Religions that were created by works of fiction are a perfect example. A few that have become extremely popular in the past twenty plus years are Jediism, The Elvin, and Church of All Worlds.

Firstly, Jediism did of course come from the famous movie series Star Wars. Although they like to separate themselves from it. Unlike the big three religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the beliefs of Jedi’s would not have to worry about whether science could prove them wrong. They do not believe in cruelty, or discrimination, they believe in exploring your spirituality, expression, and self-determination. Do they believe they can move objects with their minds? No it is a bigger picture than that. Jediism’s popularity is fast growing. Secondly, The Elvin, they “...share a belief that they are the reincarnated souls of beings commonly found in one of Tolkien’s works of fiction: elves and dragons and the like. They speak of “the Yearning,” in which there is a pervasive feeling that they are not of this world and belong someplace else.” (10 Religions Spawned by Works of Fiction). Lastly, the Church of All Worlds. Their mission is to “evolve a network of information, mythology, and experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaia and reuniting Her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship and the evolution of consciousness” (10 Religions Spawned By Works Of Fiction).Can scientists prove that the practices or beliefs of these religions are false. It is not likely they can.

“Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world...Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities” (National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine). One may question why scientists seem to have such an agenda towards religion. It seems that they cannot accept that people can believe in something that they have no proof of, something that they cannot explain, something that feel in their soul or heart and not feeling the need for an explanation for it. The definition of a scientist is “studying or has an expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences” (Google). Of course they would want to analyze a (supernatural) subject like religion.

It is definitely human nature to have questions about life and why Earth, plants, animals, and mankind have been able to progress as they have. Yet is it impossible for religion and science to co-exist? It could, if people respected other’s beliefs and did not try to discredit others for their way of life. For example, when evolution was starting to become a part of basic curriculum in many public schools, many religious people had major issues with that. Their children had been taught that God created man separate from animals, not that mankind came from primates. That was their truth. They did not want their children to be exposed to any other explanation. As if believers were afraid of “the truth” presented by science. Peter M. J. Hess notes:

“These are complex issues, and deserve thoughtful consideration before a decision is made. Theologians, clergy, scientists, and others belonging to many religious traditions have concluded that their religious views are compatible with evolution, and are even enhanced by the knowledge of nature that science provides. Just as vigorously, other theologians, clergy, and members of other religious traditions reject evolution as contradictory to and thus incompatible with their faith positions. And some non-believers argue that the methodology and findings of science are philosophically incompatible with any meaningful form of faith. Passions often run high on all sides.”

The solution to this issue is accepting that science and religion can run hand-in-hand. Many findings in science are compatible with the stories of some religions. Science can tell us how, but they cannot tell us why, and many scientists practice religion, they do not have to be separate. One can be religious and recognize that science is vital to our understanding, and one can be a scientist, with expert knowledge and all, and still be religious. Joseph Campbell stated: “... half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result, we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.” (Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor). It is not a questions of who is right and who is wrong. Science and religion can co-exist by helping each other, or by staying separate.

The Roman poet Horace once said “adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which in prosperous circumstances would have lain dormant”. And on the surface, there are numerous examples that support this statement: our founding fathers, Martin Luther King Jr., and even our current president Barack Obama. But for every George Washington who exits out of such a situation are thousands who do not receive the opportunity to escape hardship and stay unprosperous and untalented. Therefore, I disagree with Horace’s statement in that adversity creates talent; it is only opportunity that allows you to develop talent. This statement can be defended with a definition of talent, the movie “Stand and Deliver” and the comparison of opportunities between developed and underdeveloped countries.

Talent is defined as “the natural ability to be superior in some quality”. Talent flourishes under a stable environment, with time to practice and perfect it. How can one have the time to polish their talent if they are under adversity- where they must spend their time worrying and working hard for the bare necessities? Although skills such as organization and responsibility can develop under tribulations, talents such as sports and arts can not be grown with such a situation. Talent is innate, and does not discriminate between the wealthy and the poor. The opportunity to have a chance to develop talents is what fosters its progress, not adversity.

For example, the movie “Stand and Deliver” projects this concept perfectly. Taking place in the ghetto of Los Angeles, Garfield High School was full of slacking, disinterested students. However, Jaime Escalante enters the school as a teacher and transforms these poverty-stricken kids into a class with a 100% pass rate in AP Calculus. The students in Garfield High did not have the chance to supplement their mathematical talents prior. Although each student went through adversity in the movie, they did not blossom in it until Jaime Escalante taught them. Escalante was the opportunity given to the students to illicit their talents. Without Escalante, the students would have continued disregarding their schoolwork and would have never discovered their aptitude for mathematics. Therefore, it is opportunity, not adversity that grows talents.

The idea that adversity doesn’t illicit talent can even be seen in a larger scale. If this statement was true, then underdeveloped, which has the largest amount of hardships, would also be the most talented. This is not the case, because top athletes, artists and geniuses also originate from industrialized nations who are prosperous in nature. However, every nation has a population that faces adversity, racially, economically or otherwise. For example, many Americans also face hardship. Although they are initially facing hard times, they are given more opportunities to escape it- such as sponsorships, scholarships and talent-seeking institutions. The poorest of Americans have more opportunities compared to an underdeveloped nation such as North Korea. Even though North Koreans face a staggering amount of hardship, there is no opportunity to develop a talent such as leadership to inspire change. Because of their adversity,their potential talent laid dormant in this unprosperous circumstance. Once again, it is opportunity that nurtures talent, not adversity.

Works Cited

1. Bakan, J. (Director). (1988). Stand and deliver [Motion picture]. Warner Bros.
2. International Monetary Fund. (2021). World Economic Outlook Database. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database
3. King, M. L., Jr. (1963). I have a dream [Speech]. Retrieved from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/i-have-dream-address-delivered-march-washington-jobs-and-freedom
4. O'Donnell, L. (2010). Barack Obama: The first African-American president. The Rosen Publishing Group.
5. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
6. United Nations Development Programme. (2021). Human Development Index (HDI).
7. Washington, G. (1783). Farewell address. Retrieved from https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/washingtons-farewell-address/
8. World Bank. (2021). World Development Indicators.

Within Margaret Thatcher’s argument, lie many different flaws, which both limit the study of sociology, as well as the concept of simple logic. Sociology, the study of human society and social interaction, represents everything that Thatcher disagrees with. To Thatcher, it seems as if the population of England is no more than a socially alienated group where one seeks only his/her own interests, and has no relation to any other people.

This clearly embodies Thatcher’s lack of sociological imagination, as she clearly either does not want to acknowledge the presence of societies, or cannot. If she cannot, it is somewhat understandable. She’s a conservative. Thus with lack of society that is recognized and can be studied, to Margaret Thatcher, there is neither point nor reason to bother with sociology as a scientific study.

Even within the definition of society, which states that a society likely “is subject to the same political authority”, Margaret Thatcher still refuses to acknowledge even her own party as a society, making the English government the bane of sociological studies for eleven years, seven months, and twenty four days. However, any person, even those closest to Thatcher or those who are governed by Thatcher, can see a clear relationships between themselves and the people that they associate with.

Assuming that Margaret Thatcher was not simply given the right to act as Prime Minister, it is further impossible to claim that there is no such thing as society. Comparing England’s political scene to that of Chimpanzee Politics, and not claiming that Thatcher solves problems with feces, it’s seen that the power struggle of chimpanzees is highly similar to the political scenes, where there is a constant struggle for power, and usually the alpha male is challenged by a single new candidate.

On many ways, their political process also highly resembles the modern day campaigning process in the sense that they have to seek the approvals of others in order to assume the position of power, much how Luit must seek the approval of others before the overthrow of Yeroen. Just like how the chimpanzee struggle ends “before the conflict”, modern politics act in much the same ways, with a certain candidate in mind for each loyalty, despite any other advice or confrontations.

Ironically, Margaret Thatcher as the former Prime Minister of England (which itself is a status, another sociology term), essentially has executive power to preside over the populace. However in her statement where she disregards the concept of society, she also shows one of her largest faults. The position of Prime Minister, no one would logically claim that she rules over Jim, Bob, Robert, Eric, and Martin as individuals, but as a society as a whole.

Furthermore, given that she hails from England’s conservative party, it is seriously unlikely that she claims to represent the conservative interests of Jim, Bob, Robert, Eric, and Martin as individuals, but as the conservative party as a whole. It is physically and mentally impossible to cater to everyone’s personal needs, so while Thatcher relies on the suggestions of a society, she claims that such society does not exist. Regarding a specific word in her quote, by claiming “families” exist but society doesn’t, goes against basic Oxford English. Without even regarding sociology, the definition “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community” already points that a family is a form of society.

Margaret Thatcher’s claim that England is essentially a jumble of individuals, who have no social sense or tying, unintentionally portrays the masses that she governs as a compilation of people who live without friction and whom she governs for thus, no apparent reason.

Many parents swear by spanking their children, saying it corrects bad behavior and teaches children right and wrong. However, is it really healthy for a parent to spank their child? The Natural Child Project says no.

Punishment interferes with the bond between parent and child, as it is not human nature to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. The true spirit of cooperation which every parent desires can arise only through a strong bond based on mutual feelings of love and respect. Punishment, even when it appears to work, can produce only superficially good behavior based on fear, which can only take place until the child is old enough to resist. In contrast, cooperation based on respect will last permanently, bringing many years of mutual happiness as the child and parent grow older.

It is true that building relationships with people who hurt us is not natural, and when it does happen it is considered unhealthy. So why are we encouraging our children to enter these kinds of relationships? The Natural Child Project also states, “If a child receives little parental attention except when being punished, this will further merge the concepts of pain and pleasure in the child’s mind. A child in this situation will have little self-esteem, believing he deserves nothing better.” This is a very sad situation to put a child in. They have done nothing wrong; they are children and they will act out. It is the parent’s job to guide the child peacefully in a positive direction to build a strong character and healthy view of right and wrong.

Not only can spanking your children lead to twisted views of reality, but it can cause behavioral problems later in life as well. Eric P. Slade assistant professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health states, “Spanking children under the age of 2 puts those children into a higher risk group for behavioral problems later.” This particular study took survey results of 1,966 children nationwide from ethnically diverse households. The mothers were asked about any behavior problems their children were having.

Researchers were surprised to find that of those with behavioral problems, 39 percent of all children younger than 2 had been spanked at least once in the previous week. Many studies have found this connection linking spanking to behavioral problems in children. So if the behavior is what we are trying to fix, why are we spanking these children? There are many alternatives to spanking which have proven to be much more effective. Positive Parenting suggests, “Use Logical Consequences. Consequences that are logically related to the behavior help teach children responsibility.” Positive Parenting gives this example, “a child who breaks a neighbor’s window and his parent says, “I see you’ve broken the window, what will you do to repair it?” using a kind but firm tone of voice. The child decides to mow the neighbor’s lawn and wash his car several times to repay the cost of breaking the window. What does the child learn in this situation? That mistakes are an inevitable part of life and it isn’t so important that he made the mistake but that he takes responsibility to repair the mistake.”

In conclusion, spanking children has been proven to not only hurt the child, but promote bad behavior later on in life when good behavior is much more important. On top of this, the relationship between the child and parent is often damaged and I simply don’t see the point of risking all of this when there are many calmer, more effective alternatives.

Works Cited

1. Positive Parenting. (n.d.). Alternatives to spanking. Positive Parenting. https://www.positiveparenting.com/alternatives-to-spanking/.
2. Slade, E. P. (2008). Spanking in early childhood and later behavior problems: A prospective study of infants and young toddlers. Pediatrics, 121(5), e1313-e1320. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2254
3. The Natural Child Project. (n.d.). The effects of punishment on children. The Natural Child Project. http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/punishment.html.

There is a debate on whether the NCAA basketball tournament should be expanded, contracted or left the same. In making our decisions, we need to make sure that we do the whole lot of possible things to understanding ourselves and what the future would hold for basketball tournaments. This essay is an explanation of my stance against the idea that the NCAA basketball tournament should be expanded. It also elaborates my standpoint against the thought that a major league player who uses steroids on baseball need to be acceptable into the hall of fame.

We should not expand the NCAA basketball tournament since the competition is perfect in its present state. The number of teams should not be added. Expanding the number of teams would be like aiming a fire horse at a glass of Dom. It would make it dilute beyond recognition. Implementing the decision of expanding the teams would just ruin the basketball tournament.

Coaches may push for the idea of the basketball tournament to be expanded for their hidden agenda. They love expansion since it gives them an easier path to the tournament. With an increase in the number of tournament appearance, the coaches will be sure of job security and that is their happiness. Players on the other side would get an opportunity to extend their seasons. But from a practical standpoint, the existing format in the tournament is nearly flawless. What is perfect should not be interfered with, and there is no need to use a jackhammer when a small chisel would do.

On the financial side, the NCAA should always sell high, not low. The NCAA needs to understand the value of its product, wait until the economic timing is right and also consult financial experts. Expanding the tournament would be like deciding to offer one of a kind oceanfront property on the cheap.

A major league player who apparently uses steroids or bets on baseball should not be allowed into the hall of fame. First of all, they should follow the baseball rules that may allow them for reinstatement after some time. The major league players should not be allowed into the hall of fame until they spend some time outside the tournaments. Spending time outside the hall of fame would allow them to rehabilitate and learn to work with the rules governing baseball game. In case the league players fail to apply for reinstatement after the designated period, they should forever not be allowed into the hall of fame for failure to operate under instructions.

Being involved in the use of steroids or bets is an activity that stains the game and the major league players involved must not be allowed into the hall of fame. They must be able to live with the consequences of their acts. In fact, the major league players should voluntarily withdraw to avoid further punishment. The major league players who are proved to be engaged in the use of steroids or bets should be banned from the hall of fame so as to uphold the integrity of the game. The major league players who have been banned for life from the hall of fame will act as an example to other players who most probably will fear getting involved in the activities. The banning will therefore, play a crucial role in putting on integrity in the game.

In conclusion, an expanded tournament would dilute the achievements of national champions. Moreover, there is nothing not to love about the current version of the sport. The basketball game has a set of rules that every player has to observe. The rules must be followed by every player despite their position in the league and upon breaking the law; the law must be followed without fear or favor.

Table of contents

1. Arguments in Favor of the Powers
2. Arguments Against the Powers
3. Conclusion

Black magic is the power behind the many supernatural phenomena that are at times witnessed among the lives of the Africans. It is the preserve of the blacks only and seems to affect them alone. Some of these magical powers serve a good course such as disciplining offenders while others are used to cause harm to innocent people. Not anyone can perform this magic. It is only a designated few, to whom the gift flows in their family line. Magical powers are highly feared and revered by the blacks.

Arguments in Favor of the Powers

Magical powers among the Africans and other forms of superstition performed by them are all appropriate for their living. Black magic helps them to counter evils that face them. In Africa, offenders in the name of murderers and thieves are best-tamed and punished using black magic. Black magic has for long served as a fair system of justice among the Africans (Salaam, 2002). The number of offenders has always been encouragingly low courtesy of the reign of black magic. What gives it legitimacy is the fact that the art is accepted, recognized, and approved by all among the Africans. Black magic also helps in addressing natural calamities such as drought and famine. Using black magic, the Africans have been able to address and reverse bad situations that nature at times put them in. For instance, using black magic, they are able to invoke rain and cast away drought. Black magic has always gone beyond the comprehension and imagination of ordinary humans.

For instance, in the event of a land dispute, the magicians can instruct lightning to divide the land into a fair manner, which happens just like that. The people also recognize and give allegiance to the magicians to treat them in the event of a disease that herbalists cannot handle. The limit of black magic on what it can do cannot be underestimated. Black Magic reigns high and can offer treatment solutions for virtually every disease that ails the human race. Herbalists and other traditional healers recognize the surpassing power of the magicians when it comes to treating ailments. All difficult cases that exceed their abilities are referred to the magicians for consideration, which they successfully manage to treat.

Arguments Against the Powers

Black magic is mostly abused and used to harm people who are in most cases innocent. Most people use the option of black magic to punish and revenge on fellow humans. The frequencies with which people seek the services of these magicians have made these magicians commercialize their services. The money motive has also attracted cone artists to the field who in return have capitalized on exploiting the innocent people. Black magicians have also gone against the expectations that people initially had on them. Some of them deliberately harm people through sorcery and witchcraft activities. Christianity and other faiths do not recognize this practice. This hampers its acceptability in the modern society.

Conclusion

Black magic is still sound in most parts of Africa. It is applicable in solving the many daily problems that people in this part of the world face. The use of black magic addresses both superstitious issues as well as issues to do with the property, land, and even medical problems. The limit to which this art can extend to is limitless. Despite the fact that several contemporaries have opposed its viability, its applicability is there for all to see. It is within this premise that the author in Black Renaissance is on point to hold the opinion asserted by the thesis statement.

In Sum Res Volans: The Centrality of Willing for Descartes, Andreea Mihali challenges the standard interpretation of Descartes’ work. Many commentators interpret Descartes’ arguments in the Meditations to “mean that the essence of the mind is constituted by thoughts as objects of awareness” (Mihali 149). Instead, Mihali argues that “willing is as much part of the essence of the Cartesian meditating mind as awareness” (Mihali 150). Mihali’s interpretation, while it may very well be accurate in that willing is as central to thought as awareness, is nevertheless a dubious interpretation of Descartes’ Meditations. There is substantial doubt that Mihali’s interpretive claim can be made regarding Descartes’ philosophy and his discourse on thoughts and ideas.

Mihali argues that “will is prominent as assent, as focus, and as attention” (Mihali 152) for the pre-doubt and post-doubt ordinary person. The author argues that “the pre and post doubt person has desires that he acts on” (Mihali 152). Moreover, “assent is paramount in such circumstances, for a disengaged attitude is difficult to attain” (Mihali 152). In other words, Mihali argues that the will is active in thought because people, to a however slight degree, direct their thoughts. Willing clearly plays a part in judgement and decision making as peoples’ opinions are often driven and directed by their will. Beyond such complex thoughts however, there seems to be a volitional aspect to brief ideas and images that come to mind. Every time an individual glances at an object or hears a specific sound, there is volitional aspect directing the senses and processing the information one is being exposed to, no matter how brief and fleeting the thought the sensory information triggers may be. Therefore, after recognizing that “for Descartes, we become aware of a thought by directly perceiving its form, what Descartes calls an ‘idea’” (Mihali 153), Mihali argues that “intentionality and awareness are characteristic of all thoughts” (Mihali 153). In this way, the view that willing is central to thought seems quite plausible. However, Mihali fails to clearly demonstrate that this is true within the context of Descartes’ arguments. Furthermore, Descartes’ arguments and distinctions Descartes makes regarding thought seem to disagree with Mihali’s view.

In the third book of the Meditations, Descartes draws a distinction between judgements and momentary thoughts. “Some of these thoughts are like images of things” (Descartes 48) while for “other thoughts that take different forms…I embrace in my thought something more than the likeness of that thing” (Descartes 48). The ‘first tier’ of thought refers to momentary objects of awareness. In other words, he refers to thoughts, such as mental images, that are triggered by sensory information gained ‘by chance’. For example, the mental image that is triggered when seeing a car parked on the street. The ‘second tier’ of thought “are called volitions or affects, while others are called judgments” (Descartes 48). These are the thoughts that come about when an individual chooses to use mental images to form a judgement or opinion, using such ideas in deeper thought processing. For example, if one uses the mental image of the car to develop a judgement or other more complex thought. It appears that Descartes ascribes the will, as a central feature, to the ‘second tier’ of thought while downplaying its importance for the ‘first tier’.

Descartes implication that will does not play a prominent, if any, role in the ‘first tier’ of thought (momentary objects of awareness) may or may not be right. That, however, is not the issue Mihali approached in the thesis. Mihali argues against the standard interpretation of the Meditations. This standard interpretation seems to be in accord with Descartes’ own words. Moreover, if Descartes’ distinctions are accepted as part of the proper interpretation of the Cartesian meditating mind, then Mihali’s interpretive claim that “will is as much a part of the essence of the Cartesian meditating mind as awareness” is false. Again, Mihali may very well be right that, in general, willing is central to thought. However, as an interpretive claim regarding Descartes’ Meditations, Mihali seems to be ignoring distinctions delineated by Descartes’ himself.

In all fairness, Mihali focuses on the centrality of willing as it regards to the ‘second tier’ of thought—judgements and opinions. In this respect, Mihali is correct in asserting that willing plays a prominent role in thought as such ‘second-tier’ thoughts are even referred to as “volitional” (Mihali 153). As a matter of fact, Mihali covers five major concepts that are discussed in detail in the Meditations and in which willing plays a prominent role: “the cogito, clarity and distinctness, the arguments for the existence of God, the arguments for the existence of material things, and the light of nature view as instinct can be seen to depend on the will” (Mihali 150). All of these topics require the will in order for the mind to process and formulate an opinion and judgement of them. However, asserting that willing has a crucial role in judgement and in contemplative thought is not a new nor challenging assertion regarding Descartes’ Meditations. It seems as if Mihali seemingly ignored Descartes’ distinction between momentary objects of awareness and using those objects of awareness to formulate an opinion or a judgement.

Mihali’s overview of the Meditations clearly demonstrates a mastery of many Cartesian concepts and arguments. The paper, however, challenges a well founded interpretive claim regarding Descartes’ Meditations, where a philosophical challenge against Descartes’ work itself may have been more appropriate. Mihali, in challenging the interpretation that solely awareness is central to thought according to Descartes, ignores the distinctions and implications Descartes’ himself makes. The standard interpretation, without making a claim to the accurateness of Descartes’ argument and distinctions themselves, is far more faithful to the text and intended meaning of the Meditations. Willing is certainly a crucial part of the decision-making process and, thereby, the thought making process. It may, very well, be a central feature of all thoughts. Mihali’s assertion that willing is as central to thought as awareness is certainty a convincing and plausible philosophical claim, however, as an interpretive claim regarding Descartes’ work it falls far beneath the mark and remains unsubstantiated.

Education has been crucial in the formation of our society, and so has homework. Homework has been around since public schooling was invented, and thus, it’s a rarely questioned practice. However, homework has fallen under extreme controversy in the recent years, with some talking about the extreme stress homework causes, and the countless negative downsides, with others firing back retorts primarily related to homeworks supposed benefit. Do the pros of homework outweigh the cons? Simply put, no. Homework should be banned because of the extreme stress it causes, the little benefit it provides, and the excessive amount given.

A common use for homework is to attempt to boost students grades. But does the amount of homework a student does per night really affect academic performance? A study was done by Adam Maltese (assistant professor of science education at Indiana University), Robert H. Tai (associate professor of science education at the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education) and Xitao Fan (dean of education at the University of Macau), and they “found no substantive difference in grades between students who complete homework and those who do not” (“Homework Doesn’t”). This shows homework is a waste of time, as it provides no academic benefit. Nothing should be done without purpose, yet students still are doing an average of 3.5 hours of homework per night. This needs to stop, as homework is causing extreme

Best Places to Study and Do Your Homework

Peck 2

Stress with no benefit. The opposition may try to claim that even though it doesn’t affect grades, it still helps students build strong study habits and discipline. However, they fail to realize that it’s never been proven homework does either of those. If homework isn’t helping students academically, not helping them build study habits, and not helping them build discipline, why is homework still being done?

A common complaint you’ll hear from students is the extreme amount homework they get, and for good reason. According to Karin Klein of Los Angeles Times, “Students get approximately 3.5 hours of homework a night” (“Klein”). The average school day is approximately 6.5 hours (“Average Number”) , so with homework, students work longer than the average working American (7.8 hours a day for adults compared to 10 hours a day for teens) This shows the overabundance of homework given, and how it has little effectiveness in terms of teaching our youth. Putting such a high amount of unnecessary stress on students at such a young age is unnecessary and cruel. Giving students less, or no homework at all, can eliminate all of these issues we have. Why should students be given such a large amount of homework if it won’t even help them?

With so much homework given, homework can cause major harm, both mentally and physically. The harm can include sleep deprivation, isolation from friends, and abstaining from participating in hobbies. Not participating in hobbies can be detrimental to the social development of a teen. Homework needs to be given in much smaller quantities in comparison to the average of 3.5 hours, or it needs to not be given at all. Critics may claim that the stress is worth it because it’ll improve the student’s grades, however they fail to realize that no study has

Peck 3

Ever proven that claim. The stress isn’t worth the non existent reward.

Homework should be removed because of the unnecessary stress it causes, the small benefit it gives, and the extreme amount given. The cons significantly outweigh the pros for homework, and therefore, homework should be banned. It’s time we stop focusing on the supposed benefit homework gives, and instead focus on the benefit of not giving homework.

Works Cited

1. Cooper, H. (2007). The Battle Over Homework: Common Ground for Administrators, Teachers, and Parents. Corwin Press.
2. Kohn, A. (2006). The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of a Bad Thing. Da Capo Lifelong Books.
3. Corno, L. (2000). Looking at Homework Differently. Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 529-548.
4. Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2004). Villains, Victims, and the Virtuous in the Homework Debates. Theory into Practice, 43(3), 200-206.
5. Epstein, J. L., & Van Voorhis, F. L. (2001). More Than Minutes: Teachers' Roles in Designing Homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3), 181-193.
6. Horsley, M., & Walker, R. (2013). Homework and the Student Experience: Perspectives from Secondary School Students. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 225-240.
7. Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001). The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning. Beacon Press.
8. Pope, D., & Moller, N. (2015). Rethinking Homework: Best Practices That Support Diverse Needs. Harvard Education Press.
9. Trautwein, U. (2007). The Homework-Achievement Relation Reconsidered: Differentiating Homework Time, Homework Frequency, and Homework Effort. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 372-388.
10. Xu, J. (2011). Homework Completion and Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Secondary School Students. Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 297-311.

After a series of confrontations with North Vietnam in 1964, called the Tonkin Gulf Incident, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided to forgo his previous plans for no hostility negotiations with North Vietnam. And on On March 8, 1965, Johnson sent 3,500 ground troops into Vietnam to defend airbases that were constantly being attacked by Vietnamese soldiers. Some skeptics argue that Johnson was unjustified in sending troops into Vietnam, and aborting his campaign promises of peace; however, President Johnson was left with no choice because after continuous attacks on American air bases, he was forced to retaliate.

President Johnson was slow to go back on his campaign promises of peace; he ignored the first few selective attacks on ally installments in Saigon. But Johnson was eventually forced to retaliate after it became more apparent that ARVN forces were not up to the task of defending themselves, due to their weakened economic and political. By 1965 it was more than obvious that military intervention was the only way to accomplish a favorable outcome in Vietnam for the United States; alternatively, if they hesitated, PLAF would completely control all of Vietnam, and the United States would have no chance of installing some kind non-communist government. Therefore, President Johnson had no other choice but to abort his campaign promises and take up arms in Vietnam.

Originally President Johnson seemed to have no intention of starting a full-scale conflict with the Viet Kong. This notion further became obvious when he was forced to send ground troops into Vietnam because instead of giving them approval to go on the offensive, Johnson strictly ordered all ground troops to remain focused on defending the airbases, instead of engaging enemy units. Eventually, when more Viet Cong troops had entered into South Vietnam, Johnson was once again forced to send more American soldiers and hesitatingly allow the troops to go on the defensive as a show of strength.

Most critics argue that that Johnson had been too aggressive ordering the bombings of North Vietnam air bases; however, he was only doing what he thought was necessary to defend U.S. interests. “Lyndon Johnson was gambling that once Hanoi recognized the extent of his determination to avoid defeat in South Vietnam, it would be willing to negotiate a settlement on U.S terms.” (Duiker 173). However, this did not turn out to be an effective means of ending conflict, and the war continued to escalate. But the point of this is, however ineffective the bombing might of been doesn’t matter; President Johnson believed wholeheartedly that he was doing the best thing for the people of AMerica and Vietnam, instead of simply ignoring his campaign promises and wishing to escalate the violence in Vietnam.

Although Johnson’s bombing plan might have seemed aggressive to some, it was an honest choice that Johnson felt he was forced to do to protect American interests in Vietnam. The bombing may not have been as effective as Johnson hoped, but it did send a message to the Viet Cong that America was not going to back down. And if Johnson had truly not cared about his campaign promises, he would have immediately escalated the conflict as soon as he got into office instead of waiting as long as he could until he was forced to respond to the threat that was the Viet Cong.

Table of contents

1. Abstract
2. An Analysis of Dissociative Identity Disorder
3. Historical Trends
4. Childhood Trauma
5. A Misdiagnosis
6. Evaluating Claims of DID Supporters
7. Conclusion

Abstract

This essay contends that Dissociative Identity Disorder, or DID, is fictitious. It first analyzes historical trends from the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, demonstrating the influence of sensationalism on this condition. In the following section, the essay utilizes credible articles and quotes from a variety of knowledgeable individuals to maintain that the accepted source of DID, childhood trauma, is not a valid cause of the disorder. Through a logical appeal, the paper concludes that the lack of a definitive, factual source of DID furthers the assertion that the condition is fabricated.

Moreover, it states that medical professionals’ subjective diagnosis tools could result in a misdiagnosis of DID. For this reason, DID may simply be a misdiagnosis of other, more credible, mental health issues; the paper evaluates a legitimate diagnosis report and college counselors’ expert opinions to bolster these assertions. Finally, the article counters two common rationales DID advocates utilize to maintain that this condition is scientifically-based. Again, the paper reveals that Dissociative Identity Disorder is a fabricated condition through historical trends, the discreditation of childhood trauma as a source of this disorder, and the analysis of faulty diagnosis tools.

An Analysis of Dissociative Identity Disorder

The year 1976 marks a turning point in the field of psychiatry. A nonfiction miniseries, Sybil, was televised during this period of time, depicting patient Sybil Dorsett’s constant struggle against a medical disorder. This condition, Dissociative Identity Disorder, is mainly defined by the development of multiple psyches within one individual, generally aiding him or her to cope with past childhood abuse. The show’s odd plot focused on Sybil’s sixteen different personalities, gaining a wide viewership while educating the public on this condition.

In fact, the number of reported cases of Dissociative Identity Disorder skyrocketed over the following decades, growing from less than a hundred cases per year to thousands. Presently, as increasingly more patients are being diagnosed with DID, one must ensure that this disorder is a scientifically-based condition. Indeed, an acute analysis of DID reveals its fictitious nature. Thus, as illustrated through historical trends, a lack of factual information on the causes of the condition, and a possible misdiagnosis due to faulty procedures, Dissociative Identity Disorder is a fabricated affliction.

Historical Trends

Since the symptoms associated with DID were less theatrical before the launch of Sybil, historical trends expose this condition’s spurious essence. In the recently-added introduction to the primary source “Psychological Consultation Report: Mrs. White and Miss Black” (2006), psychiatrists Corbett Thigpen and Hervey Cleckley provide a brief overview of DID’s history. They state that the first known case was reported during the year 1791, in which psychologist Eberhardt Gmelin described a young German woman who imitated a French aristocrat (para. 10).

This female patient reveals the most commonly accepted symptoms of DID during the eighteenth century, merely containing two psyches of the same gender and age. Similarly, within the article “Essay Review: Multiplying the Multiplicity…,” professors Ivan Leudar and Wes Sharrock (1999) describe patient Mary Reynolds, who was diagnosed with DID during the year 1815. Reynolds tended to alternate between a pious, timid psyche and a more outgoing, childish personality (para. 3).

Evidently, during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, patients with DID generally contained two separate personalities of a consistent sex and age. These signs were much less severe than the symptoms associated with Sybil, who contained sixteen varying personalities. Since the indications of DID dramatically differ in intensity between Sybil and the previous cases, the condition is faulty overall.

Due to the currently augmented potency of DID’s symptoms, especially after the release of Sybil, historical trends continue to reveal the fictitious elements of the condition. Soon after this show’s first appearance, patients diagnosed with DID began to suffer from symptoms that matched those of Sybil. Five years after the miniseries was first released, patient Billy Milligan was diagnosed with DID, containing twenty different psyches of varying ages, genders, and sexual tendencies (Leudar & Sharrock, 1999, para. 5).

Milligan’s DID symptoms were incredibly intense, being more dramatic than any other case documented before the release of Sybil. Hence, the sensationalism surrounding DID influenced Milligan’s diagnosis, proving the condition is fictitious. Likewise, in the late 1990’s, patient Kim Noble was found to maintain nearly one hundred separate psyches (Leudar & Sharrock, 1999, para. 5).

As highlighted through Noble’s severe diagnosis amidst the controversy and fame of Sybil, the currently intense symptoms associated with DID simply stem from sensationalism. Therefore, the crippling symptoms reported after the release of the Sybil film, as illustrated by patients Milligan and Noble, expose the fabricated basis of this condition. In addition to historical trends, an analysis of the proclaimed causes of DID also reveals the fictitious nature of this disorder.

Childhood Trauma

Since the established source of DID, a history of childhood abuse, fails to parallel the signs of the condition, this inability to delineate an accurate cause further exposes the disorder’s fabricated core. Supposedly, a patient develops numerous personalities to cope with painful memories of adolescent maltreatment. However, as the article “Remembrance of Traumas Past” (2017) maintains, past studies of individuals who have “endured prolonged trauma consistently show their distress stems from being unable to forget, not being unable to remember” (para. 8).

Hence, previously experienced abuse generally results in the incapacity of the victim to obliterate these painful recollections. Consequently, childhood trauma could not logically induce DID, in which patients are unable to recall their allegedly traumatic experiences unless properly treated, illustrating the disorder’s spurious core. Moreover, victims of childhood abuse tend to experience a wide range of symptoms, including physical and mental health complications (“Remembrance of Traumas Past,” 2017, para. 23).

However, the symptoms associated with DID tend to remain constant, including a splitting of the consciousness and the development of multiple personalities. Thus, it is unlikely that victims of childhood abuse are especially susceptible to DID, revealing the generally fictitious elements of the disorder. In general, since childhood trauma is not a probable source of DID and the accepted source of this condition is unknown, the entire disorder is fabricated.

In fact, the inability to delineate a valid cause of DID results in the fear that memories of childhood abuse stem from treatment sessions, emphasizing the condition’s fabricated basis. During the broadcast “Real 'Sybil' Admits Multiple Personalities Were Fake” (2011), author Debbie Nathan bolsters the assertion that agonizing memories of childhood abuse are generated during treatment sessions. Nathan specifically mentions Sybil, who confessed to fabricating her traumatic childhood and DID symptoms early in the therapy process.

However, after months of hypnosis and sodium pentothal injections, which increase an individual’s susceptibility to suggestions, the therapist’s constant discussion of traumatic experiences persuaded Sybil to remember these events (para. 6). Thus, Sybil exemplifies the ability of therapeutic methods to produce false memories of childhood trauma in the treated patients, substantiating the theory that recollections of adolescent abuse are not the source of DID and that the entire disorder is fabricated. Similarly, after nine years of therapy, DID patient Cathy Kezelman developed traumatic memories of being “raped and tortured by a cult led by her grandmother” (Remembrance of Traumas Past, 2017, para. 28).

Kezelman’s inability to recall such abhorrent memories before undergoing therapy implicates that the numerous sessions of hypnosis and drug treatment generated these recollections, maintaining the assertion that DID is fictitious. Accordingly, both Sybil and Kezelman’s therapy-generated memories demonstrate that the supposed source of DID, memories of childhood trauma, arise through treatment. Since the generally accepted source of DID is false, the overall disorder of DID appears to be fabricated.

A Misdiagnosis

Due to the subjective tools utilized to diagnose a patient with DID, this disorder may simply be a misdiagnosis of other medical issues, demonstrating the condition’s fictitious nature. In the primary source, “Psychological Consultation Report: Mrs. White and Miss Black” (2006), psychologist Leopold Winter delineates the equipment he utilizes to properly diagnose a patient with DID. Winter assumes that an IQ test, which is administered to each of the delineated personalities within an individual, coupled with basic observations can accurately determine if the person suffers from DID (para. 10).

Both IQ tests and basic observations are incredibly subjective and, therefore, are unable to definitively prove that a patient has this disorder. The subject, for instance, could simply become disinterested while completing a second IQ examination, resulting in a lesser score than achieved during the first test. This variation in grades could be falsely interpreted as proof that a patient contains multiple personalities.

Ergo, the subjective tools utilized could provoke the misdiagnosis of an individual with DID, illustrating the disorder’s fabricated basis. Unfortunately, more recently developed diagnosis tools fail to eliminate the subjectiveness of DID examinations. In fact, college counselors Benjamin Levy and Janine Swanson (2008) discuss these advancements in the article “Clinical Assessment of Dissociative Identity Disorder Among College Counseling Clients.” The counselors assert that the commonly implemented Dissociative Experiences Scale, or DES, is unable to distinguish between the symptoms of DID and PTSD (para. 4-9).

Thus, the modern DES tool could induce a misdiagnosis of DID by misinterpreting the genuine mental health issue of PTSD. This incertitude corroborates the contention that DID is nonexistent, simply being the misdiagnosis of other conditions. Again, college counselors Levy and Swanson (2008) directly maintain that the accepted symptoms of PTSD match the signs of DID (para. 12). Due to the extreme similarities between DID and PTSD, one could argue that the former is simply the technologically-based misdiagnosis of the latter. Therefore, faulty IQ tests, subjective observations, and the unreliable DES could result in the misdiagnosis of DID in place of other medical conditions, implying that DID is spurious.

Evaluating Claims of DID Supporters

Despite the claims of some therapists, who maintain that DID’s placement in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health, or DSM, validates the authenticity of the condition, the medical community’s general disapproval of DID invalidates this belief. In the introduction of the article “Remembrance of Traumas Past” (2017), the anonymous author refers to the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation’s 2015 convention. During this meeting, keynote speaker Peter McClellan declares that DID’s credibility is evident through its placement in the DSM (para. 13).

McClellan illustrates a common assumption held by supporters of DID, specifically that the condition is corroborated through its inclusion in the diagnosis “bible” of psychologists. However, during the broadcast “Therapists Split on Multiple Personalities” (2009), psychiatrist Dr. Numan Gharaibeh utilizes a previously conducted study to justify his argumentative points on DID. He proclaims that merely twenty-one percent of the three hundred board certified psychiatrist surveyed believed in the existence of DID (para. 6).

Hence, despite DID’s placement in the DSM, most psychiatrists continue to view this disorder as being scientifically invalid. Consequently, based on the numerous professionals who consider DID to be a fabricated condition, the inclusion of DID in the DSM fails to disprove the fictitious essence of this mental illness. Nevertheless, supporters of DID continue to validate the disorder through other means.

Although advocates of DID utilize reports of successful patient treatments to ascertain this disorder’s existence, all of these favorable outcomes are announced by the therapist and not the patient and are, therefore, undependable. During the broadcast “Exploring Multiple Personalities in ‘Sybil Exposed’” (2011), professor Bethany Brand, a supporter of DID, and author Debbie Nathan, an opponent of DID, debate the existence of this disorder. Brand first cites a study, during which 280 selected patients diagnosed with DID achieved significant improvements in all aspects of life through therapy (para. 32).

Brand utilizes this statistic to substantiate the claim that DID is a treatable, real condition that can be aided through treatment sessions. In response, Nathan maintains that, regardless of the diagnosis, all individuals who undergo therapy tend to improve (“Exploring Multiple Personalities in ‘Sybil Exposed,’” 2011, para. 33).

Through this statement, Nathan implies that correctly diagnosing the 280 patients did not directly result in their improvements; instead, the generally utilized therapeutic methods included in the experimental treatment sessions induced advancements in the tested areas. Hence, Nathan rebuttals the belief that a patient must be correctly diagnosed to improve through therapy, maintaining that DID is fictitious in nature. Later on in the broadcast, professor Paul McHugh contributes to the discussion. McHugh proclaims, “All these reports of so-called successful treatment to DID are always being done by believers in DID” (“Exploring Multiple Personalities in ‘Sybil Exposed,’” 2011, para. 41).

McHugh implies that the recorded cases of effective DID treatments lack credibility, being reported by therapists who are exclusively biased in favor of this disorder’s existence. Since there are no plausible methods to validate these reports, which are conducted by a partial examiner, these accounts fail to prove that DID is a credible disorder.

Overall, although some psychologists believe that DID’s credibility is illustrated through patient success stories, these biased reports fail to demonstrate a direct, causational relationship between a proper diagnosis and psychological improvements. Thus, despite reports of patient advancements through therapy, DID’s fictitious core remains evident.

Conclusion

The Sybil miniseries forever altered the views of society. This show sensationalized Dissociative Identity Disorder, augmenting the number of cases reported each year. Presently, in order to ensure that these patients are being properly diagnosed with a valid condition, enabling their improvements in mental health areas, an in depth analysis of this condition is required. Unfortunately, this investigation raises questions over the disorder’s authenticity.

Firstly, an evaluation of historical trends reveals a shift in the severity of DID symptoms after the release of Sybil. This correlation discredits the disorder’s existence. Moreover, the erroneous belief that childhood trauma induces DID illustrates the absence of information on a legitimate source of this condition, expanding the ambiguity surrounding the disorder. Likewise, the subjective tools therapists implement to diagnose a patient with DID implicates that this condition is simply the misdiagnosis of other medical health issues, emphasizing DID’s fictitious essence. Nevertheless, one could attempt to validate DID through its placement in the DSM or through reported cases of successful treatments.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Although, the numerous professionals who consider DID to be fabricated, as well as the inability to establish a direct connection between a factual diagnosis and patient improvements, demonstrate the inaccuracies involved in validating a condition based on these justification; DID’s fabricated core is not disproved through these rationales. Hence, as revealed through historical trends, this condition’s unsubstantiated cause of childhood abuse, and a probable misdiagnosis due to subjective tools, Dissociative Identity Disorder is a fabricated mental illness.