Our Previous Samples

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Comparison of Sounds
3. Comparison of Grammar
4. English Spanish
5. Language and Thought
6. Acquisition
7. Conclusion

Introduction

English is the first language that I learned during my childhood, and it is the only language I acquired natively. I was born and raised in Sherman Oaks, a suburb of Los Angeles located in the San Fernando Valley. Sherman Oaks is primarily an English-speaking neighborhood, so during my early childhood I was exposed mainly to English and was thus able to develop the language natively. In addition, my extended family are all from similar communities around the country (i.e. Edina, a suburb of Minneapolis, and Hastings, a suburb of New York City) in which English is the main language spoken. Therefore, during my early childhood, English was virtually the only language that I was exposed to.

However, as I grew older, I began to venture outside of my neighborhood, either to friend’s houses or even just to restaurants in other cities within the Valley, I started to notice a number of different languages, ranging from Spanish to Hebrew. At first I would just listen to the sounds of the languages, and personally note how they drastically differed from English. But as time passed, I slowly started to pick up words and phrases from such languages simply from my exposure to them. But Hebrew is a language that I have some experience in speaking because during my childhood I attended Hebrew school at my temple, and during these classes I would learn Jewish prayers (which are in Hebrew) and their meanings. So although I was not taught grammar or vocabulary, I did have experience in speaking it within the religious context.

Most of my Hebrew/ Jewish studies took place in elementary and middle school, but ceased once I got to high school. I attended Cleveland High School in Reseda, another neighborhood in the Valley. However, this was much different from my hometown of Sherman Oaks from a linguistic standpoint because it was primarily a Spanish speaking area. And oddly enough, I studied three years of Spanish in high school because it was the only foreign language they offered. These classes however did not really focus on speaking the language, but rather vocabulary and grammar of the written language. Each chapter in the textbook consisted of a set of vocabulary words and a new grammar rule (e.g. the conjugation of the past tense). And once I got to Spanish 3, every week the teacher would have one or two days a week where we were only allowed to speak Spanish to test our knowledge of the language. Unfortunately, I did not retain much of the material because this mundane approach to the subject did not really focus on the most frequent rules and words that people speak on a daily basis, so it was difficult to relate to everyday life.

Comparison of Sounds

Although Spanish and English have virtually the same alphabet, there are various differences not only in the letters themselves, but more importantly in their pronunciations. In both languages there are both voiced and voiceless fricatives, but a major difference is that, unlike English, there are only two voiced alveolar fricatives in the entire Spanish language, [j] as in amarillo and [š] as in vaya. The first can be made by flattening your lips and pushing your tongue to the alveolar ridge, and the second can be made by rounding your lips and also pushing your tongue to the alveolar ridge.

The sound of the Spanish letter “ñ” is another difference in sounds between Spanish in English, as this sound does not exist at all within the English language. This voiced alveolar nasal sound [n] is found in a number of words throughout the Spanish language, such as niño and pequeño. Similar to the alveolar sounds in the previous paragraph, this sound can be made by pushing your tongue to the alveolar ridge and breathing out of your nose simultaneously. And although this sound does not exist in the English language, in my experience I have had no problems with making this sound.

A third example of the differences between the sounds of Spanish and English is the lack of voiced alveopalatal liquid [r] in English. In Spanish, this is a very common sound that is found in word such as perro and carro. In English, we only have the voiced alveolar sound [r], which is found in words such as rope and car. In both cases, the sound is made my slightly unrounding your lips and pushing your tongue to the alveolar ridge. However, in the case for the Spanish sound [r], as the voice is being produced, you must rapidly vibrate your tongue to produce the rolling effect of the sound. This was a sound that initially gave me trouble because there is nothing like it in the English language so I just had to teach myself how to pronounce it and practice it until I got the right sound.

Comparison of Grammar

To begin, Spanish and English are both SVO languages, meaning their term orders in sentences are subject-verb-object. Here’s an example of the SVO sentence structure in both languages.

Bill come la manzana. ‘Bill eats the apple.’

El estudiante va a la biblioteca ‘The student goes to the library.’

If there is a pronoun instead of the object (either direct or indirect) in a sentence, English still maintains the SVO structure. For instance, take the sentence “Carlos ate the oranges,” and then change the object ‘the oranges’ to ‘them’ to produce the sentence “Carlos ate them.” In English, this rule makes perfect sense, however this is not the can in Spanish. If such a change were made in Spanish, the word order would change from SVO to SOV.

Carlos comió las naranjas Carlos las comió.

Carlos ate the oranges Carlos them ate.

The two languages also differ in how they modify nouns. In English, a noun phrase consists of a determiner, an adjective, noun and also an optional prepositional phrase, in that particular order. Therefore, an adjective always comes before the noun, regardless of the circumstance (e.g. big balloon, orange bottle, etc.). In contrast, descriptive modifiers in Spanish precede nouns. This refers to most cases in which the adjective is purely descriptive, however adjectives that describe number or somehow ascribe a subjective emotional aspect in fact follow nouns.

English Spanish

Young man El hombre viejo

Black pants Los pantelones negro

Red apple La manzana roja

*Three computers *Tres computadoras

*This asterisk refers to the fact that this example is the special case in Spanish where the adjective precedes the noun like in English.

Although I now understand this difference between the two languages, it was initially difficult to properly say and write Spanish sentences. With English I no longer have to consciously review the rules of grammar in order to produce a sentence because I learned the language during the “critical age,” and I therefore have all of the rules deeply ingrained in my mind. In contrast, with Spanish I still have to think about the rules before saying or writing a sentence, and often times I still make mistakes by applying English rules to Spanish sentences. For example, just the other day I was describing my “old phone” to my friend in Spanish, and I reverted to the English word order by saying ‘el viejo teléfono’ and opposed to ‘el teléfono viejo.’

Language and Thought

Spanish has two grammatical genders: masculine and feminine. This concept can be seen in many aspects of the Spanish language, especially through nouns. The endings of nouns denote genders, through the use of either –o or –a. The –o ending denotes a masculine noun (ex. niño and teléfono) and –a endings denote feminine nouns (ex. niña and manzana). The articles of nouns in Spanish are also indicators of gender. If a noun is masculine, it is preceded by either ‘el’ or ‘un’ (el/un chico- the/a boy), and if the noun is feminine, it is preceded by either ‘la’ or ‘una’ (la/una chica- the/a girl). However, in Spanish, nouns without any inherent gender classification are also subject to the article rules mentioned above. In other words, in the Spanish language, even nouns that are seemingly gender neutral are also assigned either a masculine (el amor) or feminine (la honestidad) article. This is much different from English because there is no gender classification of nouns, and ‘the’ is the only article.

The Whorfian hypothesis is one of language determinism, stating that the structure of our language determines how we view the world. In other words, it suggests that a language causes its speakers to see the world in a way that speakers of other languages do not see. Based on this, one could assume that native Spanish speakers view the world as a dichotomy due to the fact that all of the objects, ideas and concepts are divided into two categories: masculine or feminine. Therefore, such a theory presents the possibility that Spanish speakers somehow attribute certain qualities to masculinity and femininity, just based on the nouns that fall under each category. On the surface this makes sense, but once closely analyzed it becomes clear that it is subject to the fallacy of circular reasoning. The argument goes as follows: Spanish speakers view the world through a gender lens because they linguistically divide the world into masculine or feminine categories. And the evidence for the fact that Spanish speakers divide the world into gender- specific categories is that they view aspects of the world as either masculine of feminine. Ultimately the use of circular reasoning completely disproves the Whorfian view of language and thought.

Acquisition

Being a native English speaker, I underwent the normal process of language acquisition during the critical age in early childhood. Therefore I speak English fluently and can construct grammatically correct utterances without much conscious thought. However, such is not the case for my Spanish speaking. I have only studied Spanish for a brief while, all of it after the critical age, and therefore I cannot speak it with the same ease that I have with English. Instead, I struggle to produce utterances in a timely fashion, and when I finally do, it is often ungrammatical, or possibly even meaningless! Because Spanish is not my native language, it takes a lot of effort to consciously and carefully construct a grammatical utterance in which all of the terms and tenses are in agreement. Also, even the vocabulary presents numerous problems because there are many instances where there are multiple words with the same meaning, but each of them are used in certain contexts. For example, to this day I often confuse the Spanish words ser and estar, both of which mean “to be.” Although both have the meaning, ser is used for describing people (e.g. physical description) and possession among other things, whereas estar is used to describe location and emotion. This is just one of countless examples of how my acquisition of English will continue to supersede my acquisition of almost any other language.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

Although English and Spanish seem to have quite a few similarities, they still have distinct differences in morphology, syntax and sound. Ultimately, the acquisition of any language for people past the critical age will present problems because most people will never be able to fully synthesize all of the rules and structure of languages aside from their native language.

This paper is in a file format called LaTeX. You can compile it into something that looks good, or you can just read through all the formatting info.

Introduction: Much literary criticism find similarities between two books, merely because they have similar settings or address superficially similar issues. Such is the case with Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Achebe's Things Fall Apart. Although these two books do have much in common, and focus on similar topics, they still have fundamentally different purposes. Thesis statement: Things Fall Apart tries to show that African culture was valuable, not primitive, while Heart of Darkness, strives to ridicule European activity in Africa, not because it was bad for the Africans, but because in many ways it was bad for the Europeans. These differences can be found by examining the various themes that the two books propose, and also are particularly clear after a discussion of the two books' treatment of race. I will address the two books separately before comparing them side-by-side.

Topic sentence: Things Fall Apart tries to show that African culture, despite its weaknesses, was worthwhile. The strongest evidence of this is mere numbers - over three quarters of the book is dedicated to character development, plot, and description of village life, before the white men even enter the story. When the narrator refers to the Europeans as strange men, it is clear that he does so from the point of view of an African. But the rub is in the narrator's treatment of the Africans. The entire book is filled with s such as among these people, a man is judged according to his worth and not according to the worth of his father,' which serve to tell about the Umuofia people.

Certainly the village is not a safe place to live, as is shown by Ezeudu's son's death. Still, Okwonkwo's resulting exile allows Achebe to describe another African village, as well as the principle of  Mother is supreme. In this way is Okwonkwo's exile consistent with the purpose of the book - to show that Umuofian, and, by extension, African, culture was worthwhile. Another, similar, facet is the fashion in which justice is dispatched in the village. The text it do more than just dispatch justice; they serve as the spiritual guides for the village. It is possible that some of the villagers recognize that although the worldly manifestations of the text it are people, their godly representations is necessary to spiritual and civil maintainance of the village. This is expressed by Achebe himself when he writes beginOkwonkwo's wives, and perhaps other women as well, might have noticed the second text it had the springy walk of Okwonkwo.

And they might have noticed that Okwonkwo was not among the titled men and elders who sat behind the row of text it. But if they thought these things they kept them within themselves. This except gives us great insight into the Umuofian culture. Regardless of what it is, the mere fact that it gives us this insight is important, because it shows the true purpose of the book. The text give us great insight into the richness of Umuofian culture, because that is the purpose of the book.

Topic sentence: Despite all the wonderful descriptions of Umuofian culture, Achebe describes its weaknesses as well. Evidence & citing: Of note is the way Nwoye feels that his spiritual needs are not being met, and so joins the Christians. There was a young lad who had been captivated. His name was Nwoye. It was not the mad logic of the Trinity that captivated him. He did not understand it. It was the poetry of the new religion, something felt in the marrow. The hymn about brothers who sat in darkness and in fear seemed to answer a vague and persistent question that haunted his young soul. This also reveals much about Umuofia.

Commentary: In particular, it includes the good with the bad; it shows that despite being a rich and varied spiritual culture, Umuofia also has its deficiencies. Achebe recognizes this, and tells about it alongside descriptions of what is great. More examples can be found in the many cases of spousal and child abuse, and in the way that twins are discarded. Although it is not the goal of this book to give a historically accurate account of the culture, these descriptions of the bad along with the good strengthen the true purpose, because Umuofia's weaknesses make the strong points seem even stronger. purpose of Heart of Darkness. Topic sentence: On the contrary, Heart of Darkness condemns colonialism, not because of the effect it had on Africa, but because of its effect on Europe and Europeans. This is an important contrast, because it is key to so many other analyses that one might do on Heart of Darkness. Evidence & citing: There are many, varied ways that Conrad comes down upon colonialism. Most prominent is the effect that the thirst for ivory has on the Europeans. This is a common subject in the book, starting from the company's doctor measuring Conrad's head, He produced a thing like calipers and got the dimensions back and front and every other way, taking notes carefully.''

Later in the discussion, the doctor comments that The changes take place inside, you know.'' The doctor clearly knows how the Congo changes a man. The word 'ivory' rang in the air, was whispered, was sighed. You would think they were praying to it. A taint of imbecile rapacity blew through it all, like a whiff from some corpse. By Jove! I've never seen anything so unreal in my life. And outside, the silent wilderness surrounding this cleared speck on the earth struck me as something great and invincible, like evil or truth, waiting patiently for the passing away of this fantastic invasion end Marlow's treatment of the people at the inner station is startling. His narration shows that they have lost something - they are actually less fulfilled than when they arrived. This relates to Marlow's repeated use of the image of hollowness with respect to people. There are many hollow people in the book; The theme here is that when the pressures and checks of living in ``civilized'' society are no longer present, we must make use of ``our inborn strength.

Principles won't do.'' This inborn strength is restraint - The restraint that the natives on the steamboat possessed, that Kurtz and the pilgrims lacked. There are many other characters that also meet the hollow description; too many to enumerate. When the constraints of society are removed, one must rely on internal restraint to maintain one's ethics. Without this restraint, varying amounts of disaster ensue, with Kurtz as one extreme example. Does this sound good for Europe? No. This theme clearly shows that exploring the jungle was bad for Europe. One can also discount many other potential purposes for the book, because of the many racial attitudes Marlow takes.

Although it can be argued that Marlow is not Conrad in every way, this is still worth investigating. It's not that Marlow makes racist remarks, but conrad depicts Marlow as not caring about black individuals, or treating them as savages. The first clear example of this is the prisoners. When Marlow states that the prisoners assed with that complete, death-like indifference of unhappy savages, it is in fact Marlow being indifferent and savage. This is ironic, but does not discount the severity of the situation - again and again Marlow discounts the black fellows as savages who are not worth worrying about. He doesn't actually take any action against them, he merely avoids helping them. This seems to not make sense, especially since he calls some of the black fellows a great comfort to look at. But when one considers that the Africans are irrelevant to the purpose of the book, this becomes perfectly clear.

Another way that Conrad condemns colonialism is with his treatment of Europe's past. On several occasions, Marlow refers to Europe as having been a dark place, most notably when he say And this also  has been one of the dark places of the earth. To bring up the roman conquest of England seems rather cryptic, but the reason can be found when one considers what happened to the conquerors - England is a far more powerful country than the remnants of the Roman Empire. The same truth holds for the US, which is presently far more powerful than England. This is another negative effect of colonialism that Marlow points out - that the conquerors don't stay conquerors forever. Thus, the purposes of the two books have been enumerated. Still, it is necessary to discuss the two books side-by-side.

One forum in which to do this is racial imagery. Evidence & citing: Heart of Darkness uses lightness and darkness, but lightness actually refers to blacks and darkness refers to whites. Achebe, on the other hand, uses race only as a physical descriptor, as one might describe an individual's height. Both authors use race in a way that is consistent with their goal. In Heart of Darkness, the Europeans are the ones tainted by darkness. Is it any wonder then that they get the dark imagery? Commentary: Conrad is trying to say that Africa is bad for Europeans. The blacks, who live in Africa, are associated with light, because for them, the jungle is the only way. Things fall apart takes an entirely different attitude; Achebe hardly uses race at all.

Topic sentence: Achebe describes generalizations made on both sides, such as when Mr. Smith is described as seeing things as black and white. And black bad.  Still, these are merely the racial feelings of particular characters. They do not carry over to the book as a whole. The reason that Achebe does not address race much in Things Fall Apart is that the book's purpose - to show that African culture was valuable - is irrelevant to race. Conversely, the reason that Conrad uses racial imagery so much in Heart of Darkness is that the book's purpose relates to colonialism, which is in turn directly tied to race. Race is important, but equally important is the ending. The endings of the two novels probably bear the most in common than anything else. This commonality is superficial at best, however. They also both end with ignorant individuals carrying on the same as before - the Intended in Heart of Darkness, and the District Commissioner in Things Fall Apart.

One contrast, however, is that no one tries to tell the Intended what happened, except Marlow, and he decides not to because it would be too dark, too dark altogether, while the District Commissioner is blind to all that he sees. Both endings are ironic, in a way, as well. Certainly the Commissioner's closing about how he might be able to write a whole paragraph on Okwonkwo is ironic, because we have just experienced 200 pages of character development. To reduce Okwonkwo to a paragraph is as ironic as the Intended's eagerness to accept Marlow's falsehood.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion paragraph: Still, these ironies point out differences in the books' purposes. In the end, the district commissioner represents those who don't think African culture is valuable, possibly out of having not read the book. The intended's irony represents a final falsehood given to the Europeans, because they can't handle the truth. The implication is that the truth, and, by extension, the actual events, would be bad for Europe. So the books' purposes are different. The two books' endings are different. Their treatment of race is different. This is obvious. Fundamentally, the two books are different. What is not obvious is that they serve fundamentally different purposes. It is my hope that this essay has helped to make this idea clear - that the two books, while they address similar topics, are, in fact, dissimilar.

References

1. Roberston, P. J. M. (1980). Things Fall Apart and Heart of Darkness: A Creative Dialogue. International Fiction Review. (https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/IFR/article/view/13449)
2. Tan, C. (2020). An ecofeminist reading of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. International Journal of Language Academy. (http://acikerisim.pau.edu.tr/handle/11499/35373)
3. Tasnia, N. (2022). A critical analysis of Heart of darkness and Things fall apart: successful or unsuccessful counter-discourse of Conrad’s novella? (Doctoral dissertation, Brac University). (http://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/xmlui/handle/10361/17741)
4. Singh, R. B. (2011). The Art of Conversation: How the ‘Subaltern’Speaks in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. In Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (pp. 35-53). Brill. (https://brill.com/display/book/9789401206839/B9789401206839-s004.xml)
5. Merz, J. (2010). Stereotypes in Heart of Darkness and Things Fall Apart. Williams Prize. (https://lsaw.lib.lehigh.edu/index.php/williams/article/view/28/37)

Introduction

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Thesis statement

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

Topic sentence

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

Evidence & citing

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

Commentary

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Conclusion paragraph

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad aboutthe topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

Table of contents

1. Introduction to Thomas Hobbes
Introduction to John Locke
2. Points of Discussion From Both Philosophers
State of Nature by Thomas Hobbes and John LockeBest Type of Government According to Thomas Hobbes and John LockeLiberty of People According to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
3. Conclusion
4. References

Introduction to Thomas Hobbes

“The life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, a quote from the book Leviathan , book I, chapter 13, which wrote by an English philosopher, scientist, and historian, known as Thomas Hobbes, He born in 1588, April 5 at Westport, Wiltshire, England and died in 1679, December 4, at Derbyshire. Hobbes, was by nature a deeply peaceful and cautious man. He hated violence at all time. A disposition that had begun at the age of 4 when his own father, a clergyman was disgraced and abandoned his wife and family after he got a fight with another vicar on the steps of his parish church in a village in Wiltshire. From a history of his life, there is not a coincidence to the pessimistic thinking he have.

Introduction to John Locke

Back to history, there are thinkers and scholars such as Voltaire, Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the American revolutionaries. These groups were influenced by the ideas that Locke brings. The man that now was describes is a very intellectual philosopher, John Locke. The man who was born in 1632 at England laid his ideas on the foundation for classical liberalism which would become increasingly prevalent in western countries. Furthermore, this “Father of Liberalism” was successfully drafted 1677 to 1680, one of his most influential works, the Two Treatises of Government argued for radical limits on the authority of the state limiting the function of government to the narrow protection of people's rights to life liberty and estate.

Points of Discussion From Both Philosophers

State of Nature by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

On the point of state of nature by two philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, I identify there are differences on their understanding according to this area of idea.

According to Thomas Hobbes, state of nature is the condition of people before there was any state or civil society. During that time, all humans are born equal and equally share the right to do what is necessary for their survival. The highlight of state of nature is about nature of man , when Hobbes agree that man is equal in mind and body, while seeing man through his pessimistic view , where man are brutish, egoistic and solitary. Through that’s perspective, Hobbes see man by nature is sort of greedy because they will have similar hopes and desires, and they become enemies when they do not get them. This leads to the condition of man in a state of war, whereby man against every man, force and fraud flourish and there is perpetual fear and strife. They will be in the war all the time since they willing to gain or secure or defend something, wherein they only trying to maintain their reputation at the end.

Hence, there are three psychological causes of quarrel which are competition, diffidence and glory. In the context of competition, must be understood that there is no obligation for people to respect others, no morality in the traditional sense of goodness and justice. In addition, there is none orders to create a peaceful society. That is why if man willing to gain something, they compete by using violence to make themselves masters of everybody such as men’s persons, wives, children and cattle and make everyone fear of them. Moving to the second of psychological cause, which is diffidence. In diffidence, they are trying to defend themselves for safety through provocation at times. Diffidence does not mean always to provoke others, but just an effort to secure own territory and gain some interests. Last in the list of causes of quarrel is glory, wherein mostly about power. It leads to the purpose of invade which is for reputation. Inside of glory, what is being explained is how a man want to gain empowerment as well as gain more power and more and more.

While, according to John Locke, state of nature is the condition of people before there was any government. He argue in the state of nature, people born with natural liberty and have rights through a phrase “'Life, Liberty and Property”. Based on optimistic perspective, Locke states that men is positive recognition as creature of god and living together without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between them. Interestingly, Locke believes God created the earth and he gave it in common to all human beings. For Locke, humans have rights. He successfully influence his ideas in America colonies in founding United States. His relevance idea is about government by imagining what life might be like if people were living in a state of nature without laws and governments.

Thus, he argued that in a state of nature, the society is free, equal and rational. He understands man to be capable individuals, able to think rationally and have desire to coexist peacefully. Each of every person possession alienable with rights to “Life, Liberty, Property”. Property is also heading the meaning of estate. He also said that each person also has the right to punish those who do not follow laws and who do not respect the other’s rights. In addition, Locke says that property is really important, which comes before sovereign and the social contract. Locke wants to say that property is natural and has its origin in the state of nature. Property exists before the state, hence the state is created to protect property. That is fundamentally significant claim, and it is part of Locke's liberal outlook on government.

Furthermore, Locke says that the purpose of state is to protect the rights of people in terms of life, liberty and property. For Locke, humans have rights. They have claims to the things they make and the things they have made out of their labour before the state even exist. The state, in fact, is called into existence in a social contract, in order to protect the claims to oneself, and to one's labour and to the fruits of one's labour. For example, Adira and Lukman arrived in a new world. They find an unclaimed area of land. They begin a process of transforming the land to build a farm. According to John Locke, this labour is how Adira and Lukman acquire rights over the land. Property rights over the product produced on the farm is another important addition. It is because Adira and Lukman have the right to decide how the best to use their outcome products. They can consume it or trade it with other people for other goods and services they might need. These insights about the importance of property rights in ensuring a free and prosperous society are as applicable now as they were when John Locke was writing them originally.

Best Type of Government According to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

I also identify there are differences between two intelligent thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on their thoughts to the idea of best type of government.

Thomas Hobbes believes on absolute monarchy type of government because he said that man desire for power and glory and explicitly state that there is a need for a singular power to rule over the citizen in case of regulation. This is by cause of it can make a man to not break contract or covenant between the subjects and sovereign or subjects to subjects through the social contract. Quoted that, “And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.” (Leviathan, Book II, Chapter 17), which connects to a meaning that Hobbes clearly say that Leviathan as a power that should and can be enforce to all people by a little force or else the contract will lead in vain as people who abandons the contract will have the advantages indivisible. In Hobbes view of the state of nature, individual humans in pursuit of their own self-preservation and their own self-interest will come inevitably into conflict, war, of all against all. The creation of sovereign, the Leviathan, who will establish law is one of the way to escape from this situation. A law that must be obeyed and justice is obedience to this law. People should form a social contract so a monarch can protect them and keep them safe using monarchy system of government. Through monarchy system, the monarch will supervise including the ruler in not to do any excess ruling the society such as violation through law. Law begins only when there is a sovereign, as law is the command of the sovereign. In the context of social contract, there are two condition where sovereign with subjects and subjects with subjects.

Through the condition of sovereign and subjects, probability, there can be three situation which the first one is between the monarch and the rulers and the second one between the rulers and citizens and the third one between the monarch and citizens.

In the first situation, implementation of effective way to prevent the rulers not to be overpower is keep continue to this day which called as limitation of power. Through limitation of power, monarch and rulers will have their own role, scope of job and authority, supposedly rulers should know they cannot be the monarch. Back to Hobbes’s history of life, one of the main reason of the sovereign do not have to divine his absolute power is because he do not want war such as brutal war , English Civil War (1642 - 1651) to happen again. Whilst, in the second situation, which is between the ruler and the citizens, Hobbes believes that citizens should obey any kind of law as long as it does not effects their life and it does not lead them sentenced to death. The ruler is not subject to the law because the ruler who creates the law and apply the law for and to citizens. Moving to the third situation, which is between the monarch and citizens. The interesting part here is, monarch is the only one entity to rule citizens and not subject to the law since it will creates the law.

Through the condition between subjects and subjects, it means within the citizens itself such as Citizen A, Citizen B and Citizen C. Thomas Hobbes once again states about his willing to avoid any war happen within the citizens itself since he experienced such a brutal war, English Civil War (1642- 1651).

While, Locke is contrast and believes the government or even no particular at all more than absolute power at the top of hierarchy. He adds that the king should not hold the absolute power like what Hobbes had said, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a sovereign violated the natural rights, the social contract was broken. Hence , natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king and the people had the right to revolt and establish a new government. In conclusion, back to the state of nature, he concluded that man are naturally rational to understand of how to run the society.

Liberty of People According to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

In the area of idea on liberty of people, it is clearly can be differentiate line of thinking between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

Basically, there are two concepts of liberty, which are positive liberty and negative liberty. The meaning of positive liberty is possession of the capacity to act upon one's free will, while negative liberty means freedom from interference by other people, primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint. Concept of the positive liberty and negative liberty comes from Isaiah Berlin in his 1958 through his essay, which contributes to a revival of interest in political theory in the english speaking world. Proudly, the essay remain as one of the most influential and widely discussed texts in that field. Mostly, it explores about the philosophical nature of freedom the distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty. These two concepts reconnected with those great philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in their thoughts on liberty of people.

According to Thomas Hobbes, he signifies liberty or freedom as “the absence of opposition” or “external impedements” to motion. Through the impedements, a man’s power may be take away as he cannot do what he would, yet it is not a hinder for him to use his own power as his judgement and reason shall dictate to him like what Hobbes say in Leviathan, the right of nature is the liberty each man has to use his own power and preservation of himself, that is to say , oh his own life. Therefore, any consequences of any action he may take, only by his judgement and reason.

Hobbes explicitly differentiate freedom from power. An entity will be said to lack of freedom when the impediments to motion are external, an entity will be said to lack of power or ability when the impediments are internal. It is also stated there is a danger in the liberty of the subjects to challenge the sovereign. For instance, a book on the table cannot move on its own does not mean that it lacks of the freedom to move, yet it lacks the power or ability to move. These thoughts cited Hobbes as philosopher on the formulation of negative liberty, and it proved by how he sees freedom and power.

Contrast to John Locke, he rejected that definition of liberty that Sir Robert Filmer brings, by not mentioning Thomas Hobbes who have the same definition on liberty, who had the same Locke describes freedom as a “two-way” power , which combines two conditional powers we called agents, that is, someone who endowed with a will. This statement shws that his thought is far different than Hobbes that distinguish freedom and power. According to Locke in the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power in the entire surrounding of life. Basically, people are not under the will or law making authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. He asserts that freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. In a simple way of explanation, this can best be described as if the individuals are willing to do something, then they will have power to do so and if the forbear to do that thing then they have power to forbear it.

Even though there is an obvious differences, there is similarity to both argument in terms of self-preservation where they believe people should have their own rights to do the action they might will to do so. In other way of perception, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke can be different to some circumstances. It is because of pessimistic element that drove Thomas Hobbes believed that people or men are selfish creatures while, John Locke, who is an optimistic person that human-being optimistically perceive towards their own action. And this means that they know how to describe the good and evil decision and merely according to their desires.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, the background of anyone would influenced anyone to have some characteristics and way of thinking inside them. Back to both intelligent philosophers, they both have their own history that makes the way they are. For instance, Thomas Hobbes was influenced by the issues of his father and King Charles I, while John Locke was influenced by his experiences along his life such as knowing Lord Ashley, Lord Shaftesbury and many more. We could see how their surrounding in history and current life changes their character and way of thinking until this day. Last but not least, any philosophers normally do not stop to ask as Plato once said “Philosophy begins in wonder”.

References

1. Magee, B. 2016. The story of Philosophy. New York : DK Publishing
2. Simmons, A. J. (1989). Locke's state of nature. Political Theory, 17(3), 449-470.
3. Van Mill, D. (1995). Hobbes's Theories of Freedom. The Journal of Politics, 57(2), 443-459.
4. Michael Green (2014, March 7). Hobbes on Liberty. Retrieved from http://carneades.pomona.edu/2014-SPP/0225-nts.shtml
5. Samuel Rickless (2020).Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Locke on Freedom. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-freedom/
6. George H. Smith (2013, Jan 23). Negative and Positive Liberty: Some Historical Reflections. Retrieved from https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/negative-positive-liberty-some-historical-reflections
7. S. Kingsley Dr (2020). BRIA 20 2 c Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government. Retrieved from https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-2-c-hobbes-locke-montesquieu-and-rousseau-on-government.html
8. https://sites.google.com/site/lockevshobbes1221/home/best-form-of-government

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Summary
3. Comparing King Arthur in Historical Events and King Arthur in Hollywood
4. References

Introduction

The film King Arthur is a narration of the legend who leads the Britons in the fight against invaders from Saxon. The warrior leads the fight against the invaders through the assistant of a powerful sword a magical beard and knights in shining armor. The film is one of a kind as it is the only one to date that has explored the history of the warrior King Arthur. It paints a picture of the historical medieval period that has not been explored by many films. Hollywood has put a lot of effort into promoting the film as the true account of the legendary King Arthur. Many individuals however still believe that the narrative has a lot of myth in it and as such is not the true account of the story.

Summary

Artorious the roman general is in charge of the Sarmatians Calvary that is charged with executing the suicide mission through the order of the Roman government based in Britain. The Romans are almost withdrawing from Britain owing to the pressure mounted on them by the barbarians. The pope, however, sends a bishop to Artorius insisting that the knight have to go on a final mission to rescue the pope’s godson.

Coincidentally, when the order for the last mission came, the Saxon invaders had just landed in Britain in troops of thousands of bloodthirsty men. The battles in the film are quite huge but bloodless. The uniqueness of the film is that it does not include a lot of speeches of freedom and equality required for any historical production in Hollywood. The film essentially tells the tale of a hero that all historians agree that arose during the Dark Age’s period.

King Arthur in the film is represented as a warrior who effortlessly defended democracy and became popular for that. Any keen person in films can easily identify why King Arthur is an interesting subject for exploration by Hollywood filmmakers. King Arthur has been portrayed as a Celtic Folklore but not as a historical figure by many historians. Those who believe the legend of Arthurian, debate strongly about the king stronghold’s whereabouts.

Comparing King Arthur in Historical Events and King Arthur in Hollywood

The film essentially captures important details about King Arthur and his history but on many occasions, there are discrepancies between the history of the king and the tale told by the film. The discrepancies evidenced are what historians describe as details that the film got so wrong about the king Arthur. The film essentially is wrong about London being the main city in Britain as of that time. The Saxon invaders had invaded London and as such the current main city by then was called zirconium in Shropshire. Historians also disagree with the origin of King Arthur as described in the film to be Camelot. The film must have twisted the name to rhyme with the loyal knight to the king in the film.

The film shows King Arthur plucking a sword from the stone an indication that he was the right and deserving King for Britain. The historians argue that there were two swords as opposed to the story in the film that only shows one sword. The first sword is drawn from the stone as indicated in the film. The film, however, fails to tell about the second sword which is Excalibur. The original history of King Arthur tells of how he received the sword from a mysterious creature.

The creature, lady of the lake, hands to the king the Excalibur which enables him to be invincible during the war. During his death, Arthur ordered one of the knights to throw the Excalibur into the nearest lake and when that was done the creature who had given it to him would take it back.

The narrative about the second sword seems to most people unbelievable in all the tales about King Arthur and that may explain why Hollywood found it had to feature it in the film. Throwing the sword into the lake is however in line with the culture of the Britons that was like a rite of passage. When a warrior died, their most prized property was thrown into the lake to a goddess that ensured passage into the next life.

Merlin who in the film is featured as a companion for the king and also a wizard was, by all means, a legend just like the king. The film, however, does not capture the fact that Merlin is a roman warrior who in history possibly advised the king. Historians disagree on the issue of there being an inspiration for the king. The film indicates that there was a figure that inspired the king Arthur in his leadership that was clouded with a lot of democracy. The King who was indeed a legendary leader had no figure to inspire him according to historians who believe that the king was a self-made leader who revolutionized Britain. Historians also disagree with the timing of the period in which the film says the king existed. Characters in the film according to history are older than they are portrayed in the film.

The other controversy between historians and the film, which is less popular, is about the existence of the king. Some historians describe King Arthur's narrative as a myth and fiction. The debate as to whether King Arthur existed or not has been in existence since the first record of the Arthurian legend. King Arthur is described as a leader to the Britons who helped Britain overcome a possible invasion by the Saxons between the 5th and the 6th century.

King Arthur was a leader who embraced unity and unified Britons. Despite his good works and being a democratic leader, King Arthur’s death was tragic. Many historians view the story of the legend as a fiction owing to the many irregularities in the records about the legends. Many films have narrated the story of King Arthur the most popular being king Arthur: the legend of the sword. One of the inaccuracies of the narration in the film King Arthur is the fact that some characters like merlin existed in the 12th century so questions are raised how they featured during the 6th century as those are two very different periods.

The film King Arthur tells of a tale of a round table where the king would gather all the knights to discuss warfare for the Saxon invaders. Historians disagree with the argument of the roundtable saying there was no such thing. The myth from the film may have been taken from the ritual of the King’s men sitting in a circle sharing a meal. The practice was used to portray trust among King Arthur’s men as they ate and drank from a communal cauldron.

To conclude, the film telling the story about the legend that saved the Britons from an invasion by the Saxons has ideally the wrong setting and style of the narration. The film misses quite a lot about the historical setting of the king and that needs to be rectified in future films. Films must use legends and myths in their artistic license but the historical setting, fortifications, costumes, and weapons must not be altered.

References

1. Bryden, I. (2016). Reinventing King Arthur: The Arthurian Legends in Victorian Culture. Routledge.
2. Clarke, D. (2019). Wearing historicity: genre, stardom, and American identity in Hollywood's medieval films, 1949-1956 (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield).
3. Higham, N. J. (2018). King Arthur: The Making of the Legend. Yale Univer

For this paper, I am going to analyze King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail and Lincolns’ Inaugural address and discuss how the two connect but also discuss what separates them. In reading, both I felt that many things connected them and they both shared the same purpose. I thought they were well written, and each had its meaning. Although they did have some connections, some things did separate the two.

In both Lincoln’s Inaugural and Kings, they shared the same purpose and goal. The first thing that connects both was that they emphasized on slavery and segregation. They believed that segregation was wrong, and it was time to end the ongoing problem. They felt it was time to act so they wrote these letters to plead for the rights of the oppressed and end segregation. For this reason, King traveled to Birmingham to speak on behalf of the ones that were being persecuted for their race and states his main reason was that injustice was in Birmingham. He wanted to peacefully negotiate for their rights to live freely together with everyone else. In Lincoln’s letter, he also addresses segregation and pleads for the freedom of the ones being slaved and treated poorly. He wanted to end slavery and segregation and believed that those in slavery were also humans and should be equal. He believed that they shouldn’t be separated just for the color of their skin. Lincoln also believed that their lives had the same value as the ones committing the injustice. I believe this is what connects the two because they both spoke up against segregation and slavery.

The second thing that connects the two was their fight for peace and freedom of the oppressed. They both saw slavery as immoral, wrong and a sin before God and it was time to end it. Lincoln and King wanted to make known the injustice that was going on in the country and the problem of slavery. Lincoln believed in equality and sought to gain equal rights for the oppressed. He talks about how those who were under slavery deserve justice for the poor treatment and malice they had to suffer. In one of his statements, I believe that’s what he’s trying to say. He states “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nation”. He’s asking for peace not just for whites but for all even those of color and pushing for equality. He is asking that everyone be able to live amongst each other, not as enemies or segregated but together as one nation.

Third, they both referenced God and scriptures from the bible in their letters. In King’s address, he compared his reason for coming to Birmingham to speak up against injustice and freedom to that of the prophets and Apostle Paul, “just like the prophets of the eighth century B. C. “thus saith the lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world”. King states in the same way he is compelled to carry the gospel of freedom in his hometown. He is trying to spread awareness of the poor treatment of his people and all the violence that they have endured. Lincoln uses biblical scriptures, sin, redemption, religion, and God to make his letter have meaning. He’s using religion as an example to show how one should act and behave as God would want us to and not act in sin. Lincoln believes that the war was because of the sin of slavery. He described the war as a “scourge of war” and believed that it was divine punishment for the sins of slavery.

One thing that separates the two is that King encouraged those who were being oppressed to stand up and act. He set out to protest not violently but peacefully and wanted others to raise their voices and fight against injustice. King felt the way to get their voices heard was to march and protest peacefully. Lincoln did not encourage war or protest and instead wanted to end the war and come to a peaceful ending on both sides. One thing that stood out for me in Lincolns letter is that he had compassion and cared about gaining justice for African Americans. He believed in doing the right thing and fighting for equal rights and giving them value. In Kings’ letter what stood out to me was his willingness to put his life in jeopardy for others. He stood up for those who couldn’t stand up for themselves and gave them a voice. Knowing everything that his people endured, death, violence, and injustice, King kept it peaceful and did not want violence. He was willing to negotiate even if it cost him his freedom and from a jail cell he pleaded for their freedom. To me, King was a man of honor as was Lincoln two compassionate men fighting for what is right and standing up against the unethical and immoral. Another thing that stood out to me in King’s letter is when he spoke about unjust and just law. I agree with him when he says that a just law is one that uplifts humanity and unjust is when it degrades human life. Segregation is wrong and should never be justified, as King states “it is unjust, and it distorts the soul and damages the personality”. How can one justify imposing segregation on a certain race and believe it’s right? Segregation creates hate, racism, and distrust of a certain race and it makes them feel less than human. It’s degrading and King is justified in acting and fighting against these laws.

The video clip that I feel adds to my perspective was the video on “Letters from Birmingham Jail”. On January 14th, 1963 Governor George Wallace made a public statement that he would enforce segregation. He stated that there would always be segregation, today, tomorrow and forever. You can see by his statements and the acceptance from the crowd that segregation was a huge issue and accepted by many. I believe King had the right to protest segregation and his civil rights movement was justified. King believed that segregation was a corruption of society and the soul. African Americans suffered brutality by police and other citizens. They were subjected to violence and their homes were burned and the law did nothing to protect them. King wanted to negotiate but as he stated “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed (Letters from Birmingham Jail). Only by protest, marches, and speaking up would make a change.

References

1. King. M. L. ( 2017). “Letters from Birmingham Jail. ” The Norton Reader:
2. Letters from Birmingham ( 2013). Retrieved from https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=XIpfCVt2eb4
3. Lincoln. A. ( 2017). “Second Inaugural Address. ” The Norton Reader

It was a time when personal computer was a set consisting of monitor and single choice of technology, but it wasn’t good like using only one thing on technology. And after that was a revolutionary change of different computing devices their design and their available, which are the famous computing devices today – Laptops, tablets, personal computers, and smartphones. Personal computer was the most useful gadget in that moment. But for buyers it was a very difficult choice to choose one of them, not only for usual people and for professional also was like that. The reason why you can’t choose one of them, some of gadgets in group can provide you more productivity, for example it is not surprising an Apple Ipad can be more productive than a gadget with lower index. And also some professional users can be confused with this problem, to compare Laptop, smartphone, personal computer, or tablet.

And to solve this problem we should have a little bit experience about using technology, and we should view from different perspective, such as of portability, cost, quality and brand. Now a day people most people using gadgets than personal computer because it’s comfortable to use, to carry around, And for example for me it’s really comfortable I have personal computer, I have a phone, laptop and the most useful for me it’s my phone. i am using my phone in everywhere in every time because it’s always with me the phone is enough little for put it in my pocket, and also i have a personal computer in my home but it’s not comfortable for carrying around and because of this i am using personal computer only when i am at home. But using personal computer i have more chances to do homework maybe play game because personal computer is more stronger than phone. But with the help of personal computers I have got more opportunities to complete my assignment, play internet games and etc. the reason is computer is more powerful than a smartphone. Another reason why people use personal computer, they can make their project or job more quickly because personal computer has the programs that can do it more effective and more quickly. For example i used my personal computer for Microsoft word, Powerpoint, and something else It’s really comfortable to do it with a personal computer and more effective you can just send it from email for teacher and your homework done. But conclusion I resolve choose smartphone for consuming because it’s really contented and easy for me.

So, evolution can be cruel. But there’s nothing wrong with how laptops have been handling it. They have been getting better as fast as ever, if not even faster recently. It’s the smartphone revolution and the money it’s making that changed the scene. Phones are far easier to carry around and, once technology evolved enough to let them do more than calling, they were always possible to get more courtesy. They have obviously been busy final in on laptops and, with HDMI and wireless connectivity constantly evolving, are becoming more and more of perfectly good alternatives of laptops as the media player bit in a home theater setup. Also, with Bluetooth and USB OTG, smartphones can need the full usual of peripherals to match laptops: keyboards, mice, the lot. Still we can’t see that gap disappearing overall – the monitor scope, a correct keyboard and the production of desktop software can’t be salaried for just yet.

Works Cited

1. Ha, Y. W., & Kim, J. (2019). Consumers’ Preferences for Mobile Devices: An Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(2), 33.
2. Kim, J., Ha, Y. W., & Kim, S. J. (2020). An Analysis of the Impact of Consumer’s Perceived Value on the Purchase Intention of Mobile Devices: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Consumer’s Utilitarian and Hedonic Values. Sustainability, 12(8), 3297.
3. Chinn, D., & Crandall, E. (2019). Personal Computers and Tablets: Useful Tools for Online Learning? Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18(1), 59-80.
4. Wang, Y. S., & Shih, Y. W. (2019). Smartphones as a Computing Platform for Education: A Study of User Satisfaction with Mobile Learning Applications. Sustainability, 11(6), 1676.
5. Kim, J., & Ha, Y. W. (2020). Factors Affecting Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Smartphones: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(1), 8.
6. Moon, J., & Rhee, J. (2018). The Impact of Mobile Devices on the Quality of Life. Sustainability, 10(9), 3251.
7. Muntean, C. H. (2018). Mobile Devices for Learning and Performance: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 1025-1047.
8. Alzahrani, A. I., & El-Henawy, I. M. (2019). Investigating Factors Affecting the Purchase of Smartphones: A Comparative Study between Apple and Samsung Users in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(3), 74.
9. Nie, Y., & Wang, T. (2018). Research on User Adoption and Satisfaction of Mobile Internet: An Empirical Study Based on the UTAUT Model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1422.
10. Zhang, Y., & Wang, C. (2019). Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Smart Wearable Devices: An Empirical Study. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(4), 88.

While analyzing Greek and Roman mythology we can see quite a few similarities, there are very few differences. Throughout much of the Roman mythology we see a heavy influence of Greek Mythology. However when looking further into the mythology we may find a few differences such as how the myths portray the time period, were they made to explain events that had occurred or were they made to glorify the land and happenings? This is what we see through both Greek and Roman mythology. Even after finding small differences in the mythology, it is still very clear just how prevalent the Greek mythology characteristics were within them.

Many Roman gods and goddesses were derived from Greek mythology. Roman gods tended to be anthromophic, however they did not show as much dramatice emotion as the Greek gods did. Roman mythology tends to be made up of stories that paint a grand portrait of how Rome set its foundations. The stories we find in Roman mythology are often centered around politics, and morality. Roman mythology focuses more on ritual, augury, and institutions rather than theology or cosmogony. Roman tradition was to create stories that are full of historical significance, legends, myths, focusing on the rise of Rome. In many works writeen by roman writers we see that they employed Greek beliefs to fill in the gaps that were present in the current Roman traditions. Gods in Roman mythology represented distinctly the practical needs of every day life, also gods whose names were invoked to carry out every day activities like harvesting and more. There are two classes of gods in Roman Mythology, the first is indigetes, and secondly novensiles. Indigetes were gods that were not adopted from other religions. Novensiles were gods that were more obscurely found in other religions, and also applied to Roman gods (“Roman Mythology, Crystalinks,” 2016). A creation story for Roman mythology could not be found, however there were a similar set of beginning brothers by the name of Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.

Greek mythology did not follow events in history to make them fit and to make sense. The myths were not only made to solve problems or make sense of events that were taking place. (Johnston, S.I., 2015. pg. 182). Greek Mytholgy bagan with a story explaining creation, in the beginning Chaos, which was a void that was ruled by the god Eurynome. Eurynome gave birth to Eros after coupling with Ophion, a powerful snake. Also born out of Eurynome, was Gaia, called Earth or Mother Earth. Gaia eventually mated with Uranus and then gave birth to Titans. The most formitable one, Cronus. Cronus eventually had children with his wife Rhea, whom eventually would bear a son that would over come Cronus, this child was Zues, who became the King of all Gods. That is where Greek Mythology begins (“Encyclopedia Mythica: Greek Creation Myths,” 2016).

When looking through the many gods and goddesses that there are between both the Greek and Roman Mythology, it became clear that almost every one of them reflected a counter part in the opposite set of mythology. There are three common gods that initially stuck out, which are the brothers of the Greek mythology known as Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades. Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades are almost mirror images of the Roman Gods called Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto. Zeus’ counterpart would be Jupiter. Zeus was king of all gods he had many magical power such as throwing lightning bolts, he could also create natural phenomena with air and sky, he could create massive storms, thunder and lightning, extreme darkness and much more with just his hands. Zeus also had a flying horse by the name of Pegasus, Zeus would fly on Pegasus and have him hold his lightning bolts, and he would have a trained eagle retrieve these bolts as well. Zeus seemed to represent the major parts of nature that are in balance with one another. Zeus was the ruler over all gods, and in becoming this he ensured that the gods performed actions as they were thought to and any misdeeds would be punished. Zeus also saw over mortals, he would reward mortals when they were kind and fair. He would also punish mortals for any wrong doings as well. Jupiter was also the king of all gods, Jupiter became king of all gods after his father Saturn passed away. Jupiter held many similarities to Zeus, he was also the over seer of all the things that other gods did, and he would make sure they followed what they were supposed to be doing as well, if they did things he disapproved of he would punish them. Jupiter also had a flying horse named Pegasus, he also held the same abilities that Zeus had, he could control elements of the weather, and throw lightning bolts as well. While looking over Jupiter and Zeus however we can find a few differences. The first difference is how these gods can be goverened themselves. Zeus was controlled partly by the Fates, he could have been outed by other gods, but they never did this to him, instead Zues eventually retired from his position. Jupiter however could not be outed by anyone, he was always the most powerful god that reigned supreme above all else and no one tried to knock him from his place of power (“Encyclopedia Mythica: Greek vs. Roman,” 2015). Overall when analyzing Zeus and Jupiter we see so many similarities that it seems as though the god was plucked right from the Greek mythology and simply renamed and placed on the side of Roman mythology under the name of Jupiter.

Secondly analyzing the brother of Zeus, named Poseidon, he also shows many similarities to his counter part Neptune of the Roman mythology. Poseidon was god, or better known as, “Lord of the sea.” Poseidon possesed many magical powers, he could make islands appear, and tidal waves rise. Poseidon also had a trident that was powerful enough to shake the Earth. Poseidon could cause earth quakes, he could also cause tempest, drown lands, he could shatter rocks as well. People that lived inland did not fear Poseidon, however people that lived on the coast line were terrified of what he would do if they displeased him. People built a temple in his honor near the coast line, they would bring presents to this place in hopes of pleasing the god, and convincing him to calm the waters. Neptune was very similar to Poseidon, it was believed he could control the seas and life within it as well. Ancient Romans built temples and brought gifts to please him too. Almost all elements of the two gods are similar, many just consider it to be the same god, with a different name. One difference that was found however was that Poseidon was considered to be one of the twelve Olympic Gods, and Neptune was not (“Greek God: Poseidon (Neptune) The god of the seas and Ocean,” 2014).

The last of the brothers with a very similar counter part was Hades, whos’ counter part was Pluto. Hades chose to rule the underworld when they were dividing up the responsibilities after he, Zues, and Poseidon’s father passed away. Hades was a very dark and gloomy god. Hades was not the lord of death, he did not decide who lived and who died up on earth. However, Hades was greedy, he did favor with people whose actions resulted in death, so that he may have more subjects in the underworld. Hades was responsible to decide however where the people that ended up in the underworld would live once they were down there. Hades, like his brother, was also considered an Olympian. Greeks had a superstition that if they had said his name they would some how be brought closer to death so they refrained from using his actual name, they would refer to him as Plouton, which was derived from the word for wealth, because of the precious metals that could be mined from under ground. Hades never did marry, but he did have a life-long companion, by the name of Cerebus, who was a three-headed dog. Cerebus gaurded the underworld, he allowed the dead to enter, but would not let them back out. Cerebus had three heads, a sepants tail, a mane of snakes, and claws of a lion (“Hades,” 2015). Similarly Pluto also had a three headed companion. The similarities do not end there either, he is also considered the rulder of the underworld, not the god of death (“Pluto: King of the Underworld,” 2016). His job was to rule the underworld and place people where they should live once they were down there as well. He was considered the “Judge of the dead.” Both of these gods were extremely similar beings. They both judged where souls should go once they entered the underworld, yet they were not the gods of death.

There were also similarities among the Greek and Roman Goddesses. One of the first duo’s that reflected each other quite a bit was Hera and Juno. Hera was queen of all gods. Hera was married to Zeus, who also happened to be her brother as well. Hera and Zeus had two children, Ares and Hephaetus. Hera was an extremely jealous, and vengeful goddess. Hera was jealous of the fact that Zeus had children with other women and he also had many affairs. Hera went so far to take revenge on Zeus and his lovers by being mean to their children, and she also attempted to kill Hercules at one point in time as well (“Encyclopedia Mythica: Roman vs. Greek,” 2016). Juno was in a similar position of power as Hera, she happened to be married to Jupiter. She was also considered queen of all gods. Juno was loved and worshiped by all, she was viewed as a housewife, mother, and matron. Juno watched over all women but her main concern was married women (“Juno, Ancient History Encyclopedia,” 2016). A difference in these two Goddesses was that while Hera was concerned with being spiteful, jealous, and focused on revenge, Juno did not have time for that kind of behavior. Juno would not waste time on that, she instead spent most of her time acting as a protector to guard over women. However the similarities between the two are much larger than the differences. They both were worshiped goddesses, it was believed by women that if they worshiped them, it would help them have a successful marriage, and it would also help them successfully bear children as well. Both Hera and Juno were considered goddesses of child birth and marriage (“Hera,” 2016).

Examining how both Greek and Roman Mythology effected the society at the time seemed to have many similarities as well. In Rome individual beliefs were not important, there was a rigid set of rituals that were more important. Cities in Rome would adopt their own deities and perform rituals of their own. These cities would build temples to honor these gods and goddesses. There was cult worship that eventually developed, one of the most influential cults was that of the Imperial Cult, which had the idea of deification of the Emperor Augustus. Augustus resisted to this, but he did however consider himeself a son of a god. Once Augustus passed away the Roman Senate rewarded him with deification (“Roman Religion: Ancient History Encyclopedia,” 2016).

Cities in Greece would devote themselves to particular gods, they would build temples to worship them. They would regularly have festivals to honor their gods. At these gathereings there would be poets reciting and singing about these gods, tellng legends and stories. This is how many greeek s would learn of the gods. An example of this would be Delphi, Delphi was a holy site that was dedicated to Apollo, there was a temple built there to worship him. Ath the temple there was an “Oracle,” who people would go to to ask about the future. Greek mythology really emphasixed that mortals were weak in comparison to the many gods who controlled the different elements of nature (“Greece, A History of Ancient Greece, Mythology,” 2014).

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

While looking at the appearances of the Gods and Goddesses in Roman and Greek mythology, we see many similarities in how they are depicted. When depicted in stone carving the men tend to look stoic, and they stand tall and proud. Their bodies are well scuplted while not being overly muscular (“Theoi Project,” 2000). Looking at the Goddeses they tend to appear softer, and thoughtful. Thir faces seem to reflect as though they are thinkng of something, focusing (“Greek Gods and Goddesses – Facts and information,” 2016).

Similarities between the Odyssey and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"

When it comes to exploring the cultural and moral similarities between ancient literature and modern adaptations, "O Brother Where Art Thou" and The Odyssey are a perfect topic to delve into. The Odyssey has undergone countless translations and interpretations over many centuries, making it sometimes difficult to understand the cultural context of the original text. However, despite the time gap, this epic story still resonates with us and reflects many of the situations we experience in our lives. By comparison of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" to the Odyssey, this essay can examine the similarities between the two works and gain a deeper understanding of their enduring relevance.

The more modern adaptation of the movie “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”. The movie features a good comedic journey of three escaped convicts. Odysseus, the lead hero in The Odyssey, and Ulysses Everett McGill, the leader of the crew of convicts in “O Brother, Where Art Thou? “, both have similar goals and qualities when comparing the two of them. It is interesting to note that Ulysses is the Roman variation of the Greek name Odysseus. Both show signs of leadership and being very goal driven. Yet both can get easily off track and get their eyes off of the main goal, which keeps them further away from their families. Ultimately, the main goals they both have are trying to get home in any way that they can. Both are more goal-driven overall by being able to see their families again. They both experience spiritual growth throughout their travels. When comparing The Odyssey and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”, the journeys that are experienced change their overall perspective of life. They both experience growth in spirit and in character.

With all of the hardships we all experience throughout life, both translations/adaptations show that the mistakes we make don’t define who we are or what we can become. Throughout Odysseus' journey, he commits many careless acts. Through committing adultery, he risks his crew's lives with his reckless plans. He relies on just strength to get him through battles rather than planning or quick thinking. By comparison, Ulysses uses his mind to his advantage. He uses the acts of either lying or conning. With his past criminal history of obtaining fake licenses in order to be successful, shows he does what he feels is necessary to get ahead or get himself out of any situation. Overall, it is shown he does care deeply for his wife and children. Even having to lie to both of his prison buddies about the treasure in order to escape imprisonment and stop his wife from getting remarried. The common plot with both of these stories revolves around the main characters trying to get back to their families after being away for long periods of time. They are both trying to get back home with many obstacles and difficulties blocking their path. They desperately want to return to their normal lives.

I feel throughout both stories, temptations were the majority of what caused the characters to get off track. They always are trying to get to their destinations, but there tend to always be things that misguide them. In The Odyssey, the many temptations Odysseus had happened while he was traveling through distant lands. He was able to find food and gain refuge through livestock and the people who lived there. He and his crew stole anything they felt would be necessary for their trips, like food and supplies. They ultimately did what they had to do to survive. He was very good with building connections and trust with the people around him, which ultimately caused him to get caught up and lose track of time. Sometimes he stayed in one place for too long.

Ulysses and his crew experienced similar situations. They would have to steal food and items they could sell in order to get by on their long journey. Stealing cars, trinkets, and even a pie. When Delmar and Pete were both baptized in the beginning of the movie (as the church members all gathered down by the river to be baptized), it showed they both wanted to put their crooked pasts behind them and start building a better life. Ulysses joked about how foolish this was at times throughout the movie. However in the end, he was almost hanged by the sheriff that had been chasing them since their grand escape.

I enjoyed the O Brother adaptation more as it brings a better comedic personality to the story. Adding in the old folk music that is sung throughout the film makes it more enjoyable. Throughout the movie, we see the struggles these three men have due to their troubling pasts catching up with them. Even at times putting their lives at risk. It can be seen throughout the movie that every similarity with The Odyssey was well thought out and gives good modern references to a great tale. Odysseus was punished by the gods for fighting against the trojans in the trojan war.

With the story of O Brother, them being fugitives makes it much more difficult to get back to a normal life. Having to avoid the law and not wanting to be noticed by others, forces them to have disguises or hide their faces. In the very beginning of the story, they start their rebelling adventure with meeting a blind railroad man. He tells them the prophecy “You seek a great fortune, you three who are now in chains, and you will find a fortune. Though it will not be the fortune you seek. But first, first you must travel a long and difficult road. A road fraught with peril, you shall see things. You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house, and oh so many startlements. I can not say how long this road shall be. But fear not the obstacles in your path, for fate has vouchsafed your reward. Though the road may wind, and your hearts grow weary, still shall you follow the way, even unto your salvation.” (Joel Coen, O Brother Where Art Thou? First scene). With the group never having seen or met this man it startled them. Through the story, they see the treasure that Ulysees allegedly hid during the armored car job he claimed to do. After Ulysees reveals to the group there never was any treasure. The journey they have displayed growth for them. Risking their own lives to save Tommy, their new friend, from almost being killed by the KKK group. When separated from Tommy and Pete, both members of this group, they risked their own lives in order to save people they care about.

Odysseus shows moments of caring for his group. He uses teamwork with his men to outsmart Polyphemus. He understands the risk of having to sacrifice men in order to accomplish the tasks at hand. He shows he cares about the men that he is on this journey with. “My friends! We will not yet go down to Hades, sad though we are, before our fated day. Come on, since we have food and drink on board, let us not starve ourselves; now time to eat!”. This shows him taking a moment to care for the men around him. His leadership qualities show as he takes a moment to make sure his men take a moment to rest and nurture themselves. He has earned their respect to be the leader they feel they need in their eyes. Odysseus has great qualities of short-term memories in battle. He understands losing men and keeping the group focused is one of his main tasks.

Each version of the text allows you to see the different versions of two characters. Both being punished by higher powers for the faults they have done in the past. Odysseus was punished by the gods for fighting on the wrong side in the Trojan War. He is kept away and sent on a spiraling long journey to get back home. Ulysses and his gang are chased for the majority of their long journey by The sheriff and a crew of police. Forcing them to alternate their routes to get to the treasure and have unexpectedly quick escapes. Throughout both stories, they are met with challenges that require them to adjust to the situations.

Both of these stories display great amounts of desire for what the main characters want. Odysseus does have the desire to finally get home to Ithica after being away so long from his family. Ulysses is in the same boat as he is trying desperately to have his wife take him back after being sent away so long. Both of these men show they have great determination. Even with Odysseus gets off track and sometimes stays in one place too long, he does know his true home is Ithica with his wife and his son. Ulysses shows he cares deeply for his children and his wife as well as he will do almost anything imaginable to gain them back.

Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

"O Brother Where Art Thou?" is a great southern tale of the great epic story from the author Homer. The Odyssey shows great lessons of struggle, leadership, courage, and love. With its timeless teachings, it is not hard to believe how the story has stood the test of time and is still relevant in the lives of today.

Can anyone honestly say that they have never benefitted from public transport? Public transport has revolutionised travel since the 19th century (Study.com, 2015). It reduces congestion, makes travelling easier, is better for the environment and continues to get safer and safer. I cannot begin to explain the problems that would occur if the world still used the primitive transport methods used in the past. There is no doubt in my mind that new public transport systems are profoundly superior to old public transport.

The way we travel has progressively gotten easier to use since its establishment 200 hundred years ago. From the new technology that enables us to plan and track the service to the numerous locations that it services, public transport is becoming more user friendly. When I say that old transport was inferior, I mean it. Before public transport, people too poor to own horses had to walk or find sympathetic travellers to take them. Then came public transport, usually uncomfortable and impractical (GOGO Charters, 2017). Furthermore, Melbourne’s earliest trams could only take 20 passengers and made irregular stops (Yarra Trams, 2020). This shows how, public transport from the past was largely inferior to modern methods where the ease of use makes using the service practical and accessible to everyone, regardless of income, location or organisation. While some might say that modern public transport has a long way to go, I strongly believe that the innovation that is seen today is far better than anything from the past. Therefore, innovation in public transport has allowed this day and age to have effortless access to public transport.

In addition, public transport these days is getting consistently more environmentally conscious, unlike the old methods where little information was known about carbon emissions. At the very root of public transport is the ability to create reduce on the planet by moving many people in one vehicle. Did you know that one train in Brisbane can take almost 1000 people at capacity (Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2019)? I think that is amazing, especially with more and more plans to continually reduce the amount of emission produced from the transport we already use. However, in the past, the cable cars, trams and other methods of transport did not even have any indication or idea of what climate change was, as it only began making news about 30 years ago (National Geographic, 2018). It is clear that the earlier modes of public transport were inferior to the newer more sustainable methods that are always improving. So, it is obvious that new public transport is more environmentally conscious than old public transport and therefore, preferable.

Finally, today’s public transport is significantly safer than old public transport. One of the most notable forms of public transport was the cable car which was incredibly dangerous due to the cables being very prone to snapping. A scary example of the just how dangerous public transport was in the past was the 1976 Cavalese cable car disaster where 43 people died after steel support of the car snapped causing it to fall 660 feet to the bottom of the mountain. Unfortunately, this horrific disaster occur again in the same place. I am certain that you would not want to be around when public transport disasters like these were commonplace (World Atlas, 2017). Furthermore, other previous forms of public transport like the horse drawn carts were unbelievably uncomfortable due to the roads still being made of cobble stones (GOGO Charters, 2017). Comparatively, modern public transport is designed to be safe and comfortable for all users and have incorporated ‘help buttons’, CCTV footage and safety offices/guard into all of their platforms, buses, trains and boats (TransLink, 2020). It is obvious that modern transport is better and safer compared to old public transport.

In conclusion, new public transport is significantly better than old public transport in all aspects; including ease of use, environmental awareness and safety. I strongly believe that everyone’s lives would be significantly impacted in a negative way, by changing back to the old modes of public transport. I think that is important that we continue to innovate and create more sophisticated transport that anyone who wishes to use it, can do so.

The technological advancement in the 21st century has brought new life to the world of dating. In the past, setting up a date would require a person to meet a person face to face and set up a date from there, but now everything can be done on a smartphone. While both traditional and online dating have its strengths, online dating offers a better set of advantages over traditional dating.

Nowadays, online dating dominated the dating industry with its convenience, less pressure, and success. Online dating provides convenience in the form of a digital app that anyone can download on their smartphone. The ability to access your account from a variety of devices makes it effortless to connect with people wherever and whenever. Also, this kind of convenience gives people with tight and busy schedules the ability to fit dating into their lives because of its twenty-four-hour accessibility. Another advantage of online dating is it provides users less pressure when it comes to talk with their potential partner. Meeting new people via the internet is great since it alleviates some of the pressure that often comes with traditional dating on the first date. You can seamlessly browse others’ profiles at your own pace without the pressure to go on a date with that person, and no forced interactions that can be painful and awkward. Additionally, online dating proved its effectiveness over traditional dating through its success. According to Hayley Matthews, it is estimated that “1 in 5 relationships and a little more than 1 in 6 marriages begin online”. This shows that online dating does work, many people start their relationships online.

Since the beginning of time, traditional dating offers certain benefits such as instant chemistry, no misrepresentation, and shared values that online dating doesn’t include. While online dating requires a person to interact with their potential partner for a certain amount of time before meeting up in real life, traditional dating will allow you to see what you are getting yourself into right away. In traditional dating, you’re meeting someone for the first time on a date and you haven’t shared a lot of information about each other. That will make your conversations more exciting as you will ask each other questions and you can see if you two are a match right away. Furthermore, traditional dating takes away the potential misrepresentation that one might see via the internet. When you’re meeting with someone for the time without prior conversation, you can immediately ask follow-up questions to see if they’re acting weird or if their stories aren’t adding up. Moreover, traditional dating allows you to spend time with a person who shares your values, religious views, and the way of life. If you’re looking for a potential lifetime partner, you want to make sure that your date is on the same page as you. That will eliminate potential problems and arguments when you’re together in the future.

All in all, online dating has come a long way to offers advantages that rivals traditional dating. While online and traditional dating have their own advantages, online dating still takes the lead with its convenience, less pressure, and success rate. There is no doubt that online dating will improve over time and will be the main way that sparks relationships.

Works Cited

1. Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523-547.
2. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.
3. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66.
4. Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
5. Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013). Online dating & relationships. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
6. Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 415-441.
7. Baker, A., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Shyness and online social networking services. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 873-889.
8. Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). New rules in the digital world: Online dating. Media, Culture & Society, 28(4), 497-520.
9. Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2010). The use of social networking sites in romantic relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511-527.
10. Smith, A. (2016). 5 facts about online dating. Pew Research Center.