100% Secure Payment
© 2025 Copyright:
BoutEssays. All rights reserved
States should be permitted to use military force to end widespread and grave violations of human rights in other states, regardless of whether the state consents, firstly on the grounds that human rights should be prioritised over sovereignty for the sake of justice and fairness and secondly, the issue of abuse which is the second largest form of opposition can be dealt with using strict procedural requirements. Furthermore, although the right has no legal basis thus far, it could still develop through customary international law, as there is some evidence of the opinio juris element developing, and due to the fact that the issue regarding the Security Council veto will not be solved anytime soon, it is possible that more will agree that humanitarian intervention is de lege feranda and the right may become the third exception to the prohibition of the use of force.
Get original essayFirstly, the right to humanitarian intervention without the consent of the state whose territory is crossed should exist despite it’s potential interference with the doctrine of sovereignty, as human rights, the U. N’s second greatest purpose after peace should be prioritised. Although state “sovereignty”, the main form of opposition to the right, is an essential doctrine in international law, granting protection from territorial invasion the protection of human rights is equally, if not more important, especially from the utilitarian perspective considering the current viridity of human rights violations. Examples include North Korea, where there is the torture and imprisonment of political opponents, and Yemen, where there are indiscriminate attacks on civilians by the military. To provide “happiness” for the highest number of people human rights must be protected, as when they are violated it creates the “reverse” pain and unhappiness, which is what utilitarianism seeks to prevent. Despite the U. N’s efforts to fulfil this secondary purpose, through the upholding of the Universal Declaration of Human rights 1948, enforced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and providing aid, the UN cannot claim to be successful. Their clearest failure is the peacekeeping efforts in the two violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention: the genocide in Rwanda (Akayesu) and the genocide in Srebenica, Bosnia (Radislav Krstic) which have made the creation of this right a much more pressing issue.
The U.N is the only body legally allowed to intervene forcefully in accordance with Article 2(4) which has greatly contributed to world peace, and consequently, the U.N also has a responsibility to intervene when states who have consented to be bound by the charter violate it, in accordance with the rule of law. The U.N was therefore declared responsible for allowing the deaths of 800,000 in Rwanda for failing to prevent or mitigate the genocide. The independent report into the Rwandan genocide listed the lack of “political will” from the Security Council allow the use of force and the “chronic lack of resources” as the main causes of the catastrophic failure. Academic Piiparina noted that the UK and the US’s cost-effective approach resulted in “severe shortcomings in equipment, personnel, training, intelligence and planning.” The same mistakes of a lack of arms and political will occurred in Srebenica, Bosnia, a single year later. The lack of “consensus” of the Security Council, which prevents the use of force continues to be an issue, with Russia utilising its veto 14 times since 2011, preventing further action in their ally state Syria, despite over 400,000 deaths. Therefore, whether the U.N permits force or not depends entirely on the “bias” of the particular Member States in the Council at the time, whether they hold “sympathy” for the victims, or sympathy for the oppressors, such as Russia’s relationship with Syria. In order to truly protect human rights, unilateral humanitarian intervention should be permitted, regardless of it’s potential interference with state sovereignty, as interference is justified to prevent pain and save human lives.
In addition, an argument can be made that the creation of a right to humanitarian intervention does not interfere with the doctrine of sovereignty at all, as the sovereignty of a state that attacks its own people should be considered forfeit. According to popular sovereignty in the West “the people rule,” which is the very foundation of democracy. Without the support of the people, a state should not be considered sovereign, as the state is not “legitimate.” Furthermore, a state denying its citizens human rights is not just. Academic Rawls stated that the first principle of justice in society is that “each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties.” A society that denies a minority group, or any law-abiding citizen basic rights can never be considered to be fair. It also cannot be considered fair for a state that refuses to stop or prevent a genocide be protected by sovereignty. Sovereignty prevents outside intervention in situations, despite the fact that there is “no moral difference” between the state where the violations are occurring sending troops, and another state sending them across a border in order to save human lives. Sovereignty is therefore only protecting the oppressor, and any justice that comes after a massacre does not bring justice to those whose deaths could have been prevented had the U.N fulfilled its obligation to protect human rights because the Security Council cannot come to an agreement. There needs to be more focus on the prevention of mass deaths in order for the United Nations to become a body that can truly be considered to protect human rights. Therefore, there should be a right to humanitarian intervention, even when the state does not consent, as human rights should be prioritised over sovereignty.
Secondly, the right to humanitarian intervention should exist as the potential for abuse is believed to be overstated. Many who oppose humanitarian intervention do so based on the perception that “humanitarian intervention will inevitably be abused.” This fear was especially generated after the intervention in Libya, as to many it “demonstrated that the requirement that the resort to force be authorised… is not sufficient to ensure the right of intervention will not be abused by powerful states in pursuit of their own ideological and self-interested objectives.” States are concerned that other powerful states will use the right of humanitarian intervention for economic and political gain, exploiting the country that they have saved. The Russian ambassador in particular emphasised that NATO’s unauthorised intervention created a “dangerous precedent… that could cause acute destabilization…on the… global level.” However, ““it is widely perceived that Russia and China have overstated the danger of abuse and stood in the way of necessary international action” with the pair being “fiercely condemned” for their repeated refusals to allow further humanitarian intervention in Syria, decreasing the credibility of their complaints. The possibility of abuse certainly does exist, but it is believed to have been exaggerated by those who wish to prevent others interfering in their own affairs, such as China’s treatment of the Uighur population.
Furthermore, adopting a model similar to the right of self-defence, which has already been “repeatedly misappropriated” should also prevent and punish abuse. For a State to legally be able to use self-defence, an armed attack and a proportionate response are required. Or, if no attack has yet occurred, the application of the customary Caroline test; “it will be for the government to show a necessity of self-defence instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation… nothing unreasonable or excessive.” The threshold for necessity for humanitarian intervention could be mass human rights violations that the state refuses, or is unable to stop. Utilising the jus ad bellum proportionality principle, “whether the force used is proportionate to the legitimate ends of using that force” ensures that any abuse would be punished, as any time a state has an ulterior motive, the force used is not proportionate. Although ulterior motive is not always obvious, a task force could be assembled each time the right is cited in order to observe the actions of the state as their conduct would display the truth. Abuse would then be punished by the International Court of Justice, just as the abuse of self-defence is, as “justice absolutely demands formal equality” which is provided by the equal application of the law to all states, such as in the case of Nicaragua v The United States. The court found that the U.S violated its customary law obligation not to use force against another state and was ordered to pay reparations. The U.S received no special treatment regardless of its superpower status. Therefore, the issue of abuse can be dealt with using strict procedural requirements, that when breached can be punished by the ICJ, and so abuse does not outright defeat the right of humanitarian intervention.
Although the issues of sovereignty and abuse can be countered, in the lex lata there is no current right to humanitarian intervention and considering the massive majority of states who oppose the right, the Group of 77 and China, it is highly unlikely that one would develop in the immediate future. If the right were to ever develop, it would most likely be through customary international law. There would need to be a “common, consistent and concordant” state practice according to the case of U.K v Iceland 1972, an absence of substantial assent following Nicaragua v. The United States. This practice could arise in future should the Security Council’s veto continue to remain an issue, as there has not been a show of support for the 5 permanent members of the council to not use their veto when faced with mass human rights violations, humanitarian intervention will continue to be de lege feranda as the result of the Security Council’s deadlock, and consequent inaction in the face of humanitarian crises. Furthermore, it is arguable that the required opinio juris outlined in North Sea Continental is already manifesting, as Belgium and the United Kingdom have both already spoken in support of the right. The establishment of jus cogens, making humanitarian intervention a “pre-emptory norm of international law…. Accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole” would ensure this right’s creation. For the right to become a recognised exception to Article 2(4), the Security Council would have to assent to it. This could come about as the result of a resolution passed by the General Assembly, which would provide the political pressure necessary for the Security Council to be forced to accept the right and make it law. Therefore, although humanitarian intervention does not currently stand as its own right, it may, and should do so in the future.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayIn conclusion, on the grounds that human rights should be prioritised over sovereignty to create fairness and justice and that the issue of abuse could be dealt by adopting strict criteria, such as those used by self-defence, the right to humanitarian intervention even without consent should exist. Furthermore, although the right does not currently exist in de lex lata, it is the de lege feranda, and there is the possibility of it coming into existence through customary international law, which would aid in the creation of a just and equal world.
Malouf’s Ransom explores the brutality of war and how this can result in the loss of humanity for some, given that the grief of loss overpowers all other senses. The bloodlust and thirst for vengeance evident in Achilles and Hecuba’s thoughts and actions underscore the ravages of war on the human condition, and particularly for the former, how roles set by a deterministic universe can exacerbate this. However, the novel suggests that inhumanity does not necessarily perpetuate, and the ability for new thoughts give rise to the opportunity to transcend one’s grief, as reflected in Priam’s envisioning of ‘something new’. Consequently, the king’s new experiences with Somax highlight that one’s humanity can be restored through the agency of another. In turn, Priam’s plea to Achilles and their bond in mutual fatherhood despite being traditional adversaries in wartime demonstrates the possibility of unprecedented compassion to exist even in the most uncertain of times.
Get original essayThe reality of war lies with death and the grief that results, which often tends to override one’s capacity for understanding and sympathy. In the ‘rough world of men’ and warfare, the loss of his soul mate Patroclus sees Achilles’ capability for human emotions to be superseded by his desire for revenge. Achilles is thus inclined to view Hector as the ‘implacable enemy’, underscoring his inability to see him as anything else but an object for his reprisal. His role as a warrior influences this as he is traditionally expected to view Hector as nothing but his adversary. Instead of seeing him as a man like himself, Achilles dehumanizes Hector, and consequently, the desecration of the latter’s body surpasses the Greek’s standards, ‘[breaking] every rule they live by’, and thus loses his own humanity. The cyclical nature of the mutilation and then restoration of Hector’s body highlights that Achilles is trapped in a futile search for revenge because of his grief, and despite murdering his enemy this paradoxically results in his own spiritual demise. Similarly, Hecuba’s outpouring of grief through violent gestures reinforces the characters’ tendency for bloodlust in the face of profound grief. Like Achilles, she dehumanizes her enemy by calling him a ‘jackal’, demonstrating her inability to consider Achilles as a man, let alone show a measure of compassion. Though she claims she would ‘tear his heart out and eat it raw’ this only underpins her inability to grieve properly because of her violent inclinations. In this way, the harsh reality of war propels some to express their grief in ways which ultimately cause them to shed their humanity.
Malouf suggests that new thoughts that arise in spite of the traditional conventions during wartime are an opportunity for some to relieve themselves from the grief that has rendered them helpless. Priam, who feels limited by the default inclination to be Achilles’ enemy because he is the leader of the opposing force, subjects himself to something ‘unprecedented’. In ‘wrestling with dark thoughts’, the king challenges his impotency through the envisioning of a ‘blasphemous’ idea which despite being previously unheard of leaves his mind ‘clear’, underscoring that this notion has lifted a metaphorical weight of his shoulders. The king, in embracing chance, has found a new way to think about his enemy: when he projects his desire of ‘the lighter bond of being simply a man’ Priam realises what Hecuba fails to see, that Achilles too must be waiting for ‘the opportunity to act for himself to try something that might force events on a different course’. Thus, by projecting his own feelings onto Achilles the ‘chance to break free of always being the hero’ Priam has taken the bold step of connecting with his enemy as men, which underscores the need for compassion to be liberated from traditional expectations. As Achilles, too, waits for a change, Malouf suggests that thoughts which are mutinous to the conventions of war underpin the ability to have pity for one another and also prompt the realization that as men, our enemies must also yearn for a similar release from the restrictions imposed upon them by their fate.
In recalling his son’s death, the carter displays an ability to consider Beauty’s perspective (she was the agent of his death), reflecting that ‘she had no notion of what she’d done’, before reacting to the situation. His initial inclination to ‘[punch] her where she stood’ reflects the instinctual violent response to loss that overcomes other characters in the text. However, the rhetorical question the carter poses, ‘what would have been the good of that?’ suggests that reflection and understanding can result in a different reaction (‘taking her head in my arms and sobbing’), and Malouf, by juxtaposing this with Hecuba and Achilles’ violent tendencies, underscores that the tolerance of another’s actions has a more peaceful outcome, reinforced by the retention of Somax’s humanity in comparison with Achilles who, after desecrating Hector’s body, is ‘like a dead man feeling nothing’. Away from the world of warfare, Priam witnesses an action that is ‘unprecedented’ and new in light of the customary and violent responses one has in times of grief. His emotional response (‘his eyes moistened’) to the carter’s placidity, in contrast to the ‘rough world’ that he has been subjected to as the king of a warring nation, underscores that Priam has realized the importance of sympathy through the agency of another. In this way, Malouf highlights that despite the brutality of war, one’s insightful actions are able to inspire another’s epiphany.
Consequently, Priam’s appeal to Achilles confronts that traditional notion that they must always consider each other as adversaries. By approaching the warrior as a ‘father’ rather than an antagonist, the king appeals to Achilles as ‘one poor mortal to another’ in an attempt to connect with him outside of their enmity. In doing so, Priam challenges the traditional notion that they must consider each other in terms of winning and losing, but rather should have ‘pity for one another’s losses’, asserting that a mutual understanding can lead to them ‘breaking free of obligation’. Priam’s plea through fatherhood ‘touches a sore spot’ in Achilles, rekindling his humanity and gives rise to the opportunity for the protagonists to be compassionate towards each other in spite of their opposing roles. Though it is a temporary connection, it underscores that though humanity can be lost there is still the possibility for it to be restored in increasing power than before, resting in its ability to challenge the ravages of profound grief. Furthermore, the connection forged through sympathy spurs the protagonists to exercise free will in the face of a deterministic universe in a bid to achieve a measure of control over their fates. The resulting 11 days truce demonstrates a fleeting power over their destinies allows the two protagonists to metaphorically ‘pause’ the inevitable progression of fate, as the Greeks and Trojans to mourn for the dead before the ultimate destiny is fulfilled. Thus, the inexorable destruction of Troy is juxtaposed with the possibility of ‘something new’ and Malouf suggests that the intrusion of the latter on the former is a reflection of the (momentary) ability man has to govern himself, which is achieved by the ability to for one to acknowledge and understand another’s perspective.
Ransom raises the key issue of maintaining the human condition in the face of violence and cruelty that is war. Indeed, the inexorable losses sustained by some can be enough to shed someone’s ability to understand and sympathize for another. However, Malouf asserts that the opportunity to rekindle one’s humanity is more desirable and this restoration can occur in spite of the ravages of war, given that it is the ‘something new’ that allows us to transcend our brutal tendencies.
In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave,Douglass tells many anecdotes to illustrate the horrors of slavery. One of these recounts the murder of his wife's cousin. Douglass uses several strategies to gain our sympathy when describing the incident.
Get original essayFirst, Douglass does not hesitate to voice his disapproval of the whole affair with a very emotionally-charged report. Douglass starts the paragraph by calling Mrs. Hicks’ action “murder.” He then attracts our pity with the phrase “poor girl.” These words clearly distinguish the villain from the victim. Douglass further highlights Mrs. Hicks’ ferocity, saying that the victim was “mangled” in a “horrible” manner. He also uses the words “breaking” and “broke” to emphasize that the slave was shattered brutally. This diction urges us to, like Douglass, become enraged by Mrs. Hicks’ action.
When telling the event, Douglass humbles the girl by leaving her nameless. He refers to her as "my wife's cousin" and "this girl," thus emphasizing her lower status as a slave. Another interpretation of her anonymity is that it allows her to represent other nameless slaves who suffered similar fates. The girl transcends the individual. She died an untimely death just as other black slaves die before and after her.
Since Douglass tells a dead girl’s tale, he is her voice. As such, he graphically enhances the coroner’s report. The coroner simply decided that the girl “had come to her death by severe beating.” Douglass tells the story with exact details. He explains how the girl was tired because she had lost her rest for the previous few nights. Since being tired is a very human flaw, this detail humanizes the girl. As the girl is taking care of the baby, she is shown in a caring and maternal light. On the other hand, the real mother, Mrs. Hicks, is shown to have completely forgotten her baby’s distress as she attacks the girl without delay. Douglass tells how Mrs. Hicks grew angry at the tired girl’s slow reaction to the baby’s crying and “jumped from her bed, seized an oak stick of wood by the fireplace, and with it broke the girl’s nose and breastbone, and thus ended her life.” His parallel structuring of the verbs “jumped,” “seized,” “broke,” and “ended” adds an uncanny rhythm to the story that echoes the sounds of a cruel beating. These verbs also emphasize the monstrosity of Mrs. Hicks’ actions. By linking the girl’s mistake, a normal reaction of a common human symptom, with Mrs. Hick’s over-the-top reaction to a baby’s cry, another common occurrence, Douglass humanizes the victim and dehumanizes Mrs. Hicks. He therefore cleverly bends our sympathies toward the girl.
The specific details that Douglass incorporates into the story make the incident more visual and believable. However, I wonder about their validity. Since the girl died a few hours after she was beaten, she probably did not get a chance to spread her story. The coroner only deciphered the reason of the girl’s death, not the reason of her beating. As such, how did Douglass obtain all the specifics, down to the material and location of the stick that Mrs. Hicks used?
Yet if Douglass does mix fact with fiction, then this paragraph further attests to his intelligence and ability to influence his audience. Despite Douglass’ incorporation of fictitious details, his narrative possesses an honest ring. In fact, his writing strikes us as more believable as a result of these made-up but extremely probable accounts. A possible reason of this paradox could be just as the girl in the paragraph represents not only herself but all the other victimized slaves, this graphic tale of Mrs. Hicks’ atrocity depicts not just Mrs. Hicks’ cruelty but also the cruelty of all the other slave owners. Douglass could very well be using this girl’s situation as a template for a particular beating that he witnessed in a different setting.
While Douglass uses emotionally charged diction and anecdotes, he does not use them frivolously. He carefully masks his own emotions behind his logic during the story-telling. Douglass uses only a few negatively charged simply to guide us toward the victim’s side. By not flooding his account with an excessive amount of his own indignations, he allows the horror of his stories to speak for themselves. Following the tale of the girl’s murder, Douglass simply mentions that Mrs. Hicks was not punished. Douglass does not write out his anger; instead, he leaves us to interpret the situation for ourselves. This way, when we admit the unfairness of the situation, we feel that we arrived at the conclusion through our own reasoning and not because we were told to get angry by Douglass.
Douglass discretely incorporates emotions into his logic so that we would not feel manipulated into agreeing with him. Yet at the same time, he cleverly humanizes the victim so that we cannot help but sympathize with her. Douglass’s vivid telling of this particular incident serves as a fine example of how Douglass uses a few incidences to represent the countless atrocities that he has seen and to protest against the horrors of slavery.
Humanoid robots do not yet have some features of the human body. They include structures with variable flexibility, which provide safety (to the robot itself and to the people), and redundancy of movements, i.e. more degrees of freedom and therefore wide task availability. Although these characteristics are desirable to humanoid robots, they will bring more complexity and new problems to planning and control. The field of whole-body control deals with these issues and addresses the proper coordination of numerous degrees of freedom, e.g. to realize several control tasks simultaneously while following a given order of priority.
Get original essayAnother characteristic of humanoid robots is that they move, gather information (using sensors) on the "real world" and interact with it. They don’t stay still like factory manipulators and other robots that work in highly structured environments. To allow humanoids to move in complex environments, planning and control must focus on self-collision detection, path planning and obstacle avoidance.
To maintain dynamic balance during the walk, a robot needs information about contact force and its current and desired motion.
The stability of walking biped robots on the surface is of great importance. Maintenance of the robot’s center of gravity is the goal of control.
The essential difference between humanoids and other types of robots is that the movement of the robot has to be like that of humans, using legs, especially biped. The ideal planning for humanoid movements during normal walking should result in minimum energy consumption, as it does in the human body.
Pneumatic actuators operate on the basis of gas compressibility. As they are inflated, they expand along the axis, and as they deflate, they contract. If one end is fixed, the other will move in a linear trajectory. These actuators are intended for low speed and low/medium load applications. Between pneumatic actuators there are: cylinders, bellows, pneumatic engines, pneumatic stepper motors and pneumatic artificial muscles.
Ultrasonic actuators are designed to produce movements in a micrometer order at ultrasonic frequencies (over 20 kHz). They are useful for controlling vibration, positioning applications and quick switching.
Piezoelectric actuators generate a small movement with a high force capability when voltage is applied. They can be used for ultra-precise positioning and for generating and handling high forces or pressures in static or dynamic situations.
Hydraulic and electric actuators have a very rigid behavior and can only be made to act in a compliant manner through the use of relatively complex feedback control strategies. While electric coreless motor actuators are better suited for high speed and low load applications, hydraulic ones operate well at low speed and high load applications.
Actuators are responsible for the robot’s movement or locomotion. Mainly, rotary actuators are used to achieve the same effect as humans’ movement. They can be either electric, hydraulic, piezoelectric, ultrasonic or pneumatic. These actuators act as the muscles and joints of the robot, but with the structural arrangement unlike the human body.
Arrangement of tactels, or tactile elements are used to provide data of touch. For instance, The Shadow Hand uses an array alignment of 34 tactels arranged strategically on each fingertip. Vision sensors can also be included under this category. These sensors work in similarity to the human eyes. Most robots are equipped with CCD cameras as vision sensors.
These sensors sense the orientation, position and the speed of the humanoids’ limbs. Humanoids also use accelerometers, from which the velocity can be calculated by integration, tilt sensors to measure inclination, force sensors placed in robot’s limbs to measure contact forces with environment.
Frequently used sensors in robots are proprioceptive sensors and exteroceptive sensors.
Three primitives of robotics are: planning, sensors, and control. Sensors play an important role in robotic paradigms. They can be classified according to the type of information they give as output.
Humanoid robots have been in the headlines since a long time. Many researchers are working on different applications of these robots. Today, a humanoid robot is capable to display only a limited subset of skill. These efforts by the researchers are motivated by the vision to create a general-purpose robot which will work in cooperation with the humans. It is suggested that very advanced robotics will facilitate the enhancement of ordinary human beings, in other words, transhumanism will prevail.
In a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, researchers examined 46 countries. They found that Americans most value freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to use the internet. This illustrates the tension between 'liberty' and 'freedom'. It is clear from this survey that Americans are more inclined towards “freedom”. Some other views were presented in the same study. There are differences of opinion between generations about freedom. 40% of millennials in the US believe that the government should prevent people from making offensive statements against minority groups. While 27% of Generation X approve of government intervention, only 12% of Silent Generations believe that government should intervene. This shows that what people believe about being “free” is changing. , It was restricted to white, landed cis men. Things are quite different today.
Get original essayImagine living in the universe of the Truman Show movie. Everyone lives for you. You are truly free, but your life is a TV show watched by billions of people. Would that make you free? Everyone determines their own identity. Everyone himself knows what is expected of his life. It is packed with enough material to avoid life-cycle boredom. What does freedom mean in such a society? What would freedom be worth in such a situation? Or is it necessary if humanity colonizes Mars and distorts its structure and harmony, forcing its members to make hard choices and reconfigure their lives in accordance with what we call freedom? Was it considered an improvement in their life? Is freedom necessarily a blessing? Or consider a person who has just been fired and their employer says, “You are now free to do whatever you want during the daylight hours.” If that's freedom, what's so good? Is there any virtue in this newfound freedom, unless the job in question is totally intolerable?
The difficulty in defining freedom or understanding whether it is good or bad is because freedom is often a negative concept. Freedom is a reaction to something, and we can only know what it is in a certain context. When a people suffer daily under an oppressive and unreasonable government, or when a teenager suffers the six boring hours of lectures he has to attend, the meaning of the word freedom is clear and it means free. If tax is levied and we pay it reluctantly, tax exemption will be a form of freedom. If we are prevented from speaking our minds and living our religion by state forces, our right to speak and worship becomes freedom. Situations where there is no obvious persecution and obvious suffering, or where there is no clear context and nothing definite to oppose, are much more difficult. Returning to the small village example, it is not at all clear that a happy population will be free if we destroy the life in which its members are happiest. Or, if we wanted to, we could say that the newly fired are free, but the context doesn't really justify this conclusion formed employees did not want to lose their income; there is nothing else they want to do instead. They may have a free wish to the demands of a particular job, but it is not at all clear what they are allowed to be free to do. And simply saying that they are free to do anything does not work.
First, this is clearly wrong. Secondly, it's probably true that the phrase we are free to do anything is a bogus way of talking about not having the slightest idea what to do. order to establish a government for themselves. The unhappy kid in the classroom wants to run away from school to play football, video games, or ride his bike. These two concepts of freedom, freedom to do something and freedom to do something, have been named as negative freedom and positive freedom. Indeed, it is unthinkable for people to overthrow their government, however unbearable it may be, even if they have no idea what to do in its place. And it is inconceivable that the adolescent would desperately want to get out of school if he had no idea, no matter how uncertain he was about doing something else instead. It leads to the fact that freedom can be thought of not only as freedom from some unwanted imposition, force or rule but also as the freedom to do or have something.
People seek to get rid of an oppressive government in order to establish a government for themselves. The unhappy kid in the classroom wants to run away from school to play football, video games, or ride his bike. These two concepts of freedom, freedom to do something and freedom to do something, have been named as negative freedom and positive freedom. One always presupposes the other, even if only one is actually stated. Indeed, it is unthinkable for people to overthrow their government, however unbearable it may be, even if they have no idea what to do in its place. And it is inconceivable that the adolescent would desperately want to get out of school if he had no idea, no matter how uncertain he was about doing something else instead. We see that there are so many different definitions of freedom in politics or history. The civil society libertarian - as in the struggle to get rid of racial or political discrimination - emphasizes the negative concept of freedom, but sometimes does not talk about the positive concept. But leaving out the concept of positive freedom too easily leads to the absurdity of people demanding freedom from everything who doesn't have a positive idea of ?? What do they want that freedom for? And if we only look at negative freedom, independent of the interference of government agencies and other people, it leads us to the absurd conclusion that the freest person is the one who is safely out of range in the middle of the desert. government interference and any restrictions from other people. Of course, we may insist that this person is also free of deprivation, but that is simply to say that he is free to have the harmony necessary for human survival, which for most of us includes human fraternity and an orderly society. Such as food, water, and shelter. The forces we are trying to get rid of are much more obvious to us than our specificity. It's easy to get caught up in fighting for the alternative, something for which what you're fighting for is neglected or reduced to a buzzword like freedom, whose content is never thought of. What makes this particularly difficult is that most of us feel that, no matter what we're fighting against, what we're usually fighting for is in some sense ourselves, a chance to improve ourselves, a chance to become who we want to be.
What one counts as oneself is also not always so clear. If by self we mean an isolated individual self, then freedom will tend to be freedom from other people and society, whatever we want to be free to do. Thus, to find oneself, we often think that freedom is achieved by getting away from everything, or by purely negative freedom. If we understand ourselves as social beings whose existence depends on our relationships with other people, then what counts as freedom will necessarily include our relationships with others, and solitary Whoever is will not be free. not in this sense. If we see the self as an illusion in Buddhists, freedom will tend to mean freedom from that illusion and, as a result, freedom to realize that we are one with all interconnected reality that Mahayana Buddhists call 'Buddha-nature'. If we continue to think of ourselves as essential consciousness, then freedom will tend to mean the development of consciousness - and indeed this is what freedom in our Western tradition most often tends to mean. But even this is very simple because consciousness has many aspects, not all equally in ourselves. For example, suppose we identify ourselves with our feelings about other people, with our social ties, and with our feelings about ourselves as social beings.
Accordingly, our concept of freedom will be such that we are most free when assuming these roles and participating in these relationships. If we are prevented from performing these roles or being with our friends, we will be less free. When people in love are away from their loved ones, they do not feel free no matter what they do, because it is the only relationship that matters to their self-identity. A traveler in a foreign land may be completely free of any expectation or responsibility or interference from other people, but if he identifies with friendship - and there are no friends around - there is no sense in calling that person free.
Freedom, in such an understanding, that the self is social, is the freedom to participate in society and to be free from the factors that hinder it. We can call this social freedom. More generally, we can say that freedom depends on self-identity – that is, aspects of one's self that define and define it. . Consider this alternative view of the self and hence freedom. One thinks of the real self as the rational self. (Plato would be a good example of this.) One acts freely, so whenever one acts logically, after careful thought and deliberation, one does what one decides to do. On the other hand, the same person would accept an action less than free if it was simply a whim or a sudden desire, a burst of emotion, or obedience to the impulses of a friend or authority (that is, assuming that person was less free). has not yet decided that it is reasonable to obey this friend or authority). People with such a rational understanding of themselves will consider action the freest when carefully planned and thought through; The less planning and thinking, the less freedom of action and less expression of one's true self. This is rational freedom. Yet another example would be a person who most identifies with their emotions. Even if in psychological analysis these actions may be called coercive, and to more rational fellows obedience to emotion is the exact antithesis of freedom, people in love considered themselves the freest when they acted out of love. And those who value their feelings so much will not feel free when they have to suppress their intense anger, but when they 'let go' they will feel free. For such people, the expression of feelings - whatever emotion - is freedom; Not being able or allowed to express feelings, even under the guise of respectable “reasonableness,” can seem like a deprivation of liberty. This is emotional freedom. Finally, there is the most surprising example, which Bergmann has discussed at length, based on a very curious character in Dostoevsky's Notes from the Underground. The strange hero of this short novel thinks about freedom.
Now, if we look at the reasons for understanding our two key terms, we can really say that we have free will when and to what extent we can or can do other than ourselves - in a strong sense - will soon be made clear. do or do. The intended reference is to the familiar fact that we are all agents throughout our waking lives, although the extent of this agency varies not only from one person to another but also from time to time in one and the same way. individual - whether in sickness or in health, maturity, or old age. As agents, we can and cannot make choices by necessity. Likewise, as perpetrators, in a sense that needs to be briefly clarified, we could or could have always done, other than what we did or did. What makes the use of the words 'free' and 'free will' misleading here is the logical fact that not all agency is thus and necessarily free agency. The man who receives 'an offer he can't refuse' from his godfather is in a very different situation than the rambunctious mob who gets shot in the back without warning. The latter ceases to live and act at the same time, collapsing into a plethora of his own blood. In that collapse, he is no longer an agent, but a total patient. Compare it to the unfortunate person who, in thirty seconds, is said to have either his signature or his brain on the paper that submitted his thesis: 'Choose now!' Although he is far from being a free agent in this process, he still remains an agent. He remains an agent, because while the signing was certainly not of his own free will, he still had an unexplained choice in more fundamental senses, and he could have done something else. Of course, we're right in the less basic but more common sense of these expressions that people really have no choice or can do nothing but what they're doing; What we believe they do or can do in more fundamental senses is what they could reasonably have in the absence of alternative courses of action open to them—neither descriptive nor prescriptive interpretations of 'expectation'. These correct and idiomatic uses, like the philosophical misuse of the terms 'free' and 'free will', are seriously misleading because they distract our attention from the essentials of the agency.
First, to better understand what these foundations are, we must now turn to the larger section 'On Power' of An Essay on Human Understanding. Even when Hume had this chapter on his mind most, even when he wrote his enormous but not always happily influential work in both the Treatise and the first Inquiry, such a thing could be said to be certain without direct evidence of testimony. 'Necessary Connection Idea' and 'Liberty and Necessity' sections. A critical examination of this seminal chapter in Locke's Essay, together with an equally critical examination of the results of Hume's subsequent meditations, would yield two invaluable prizes. First, our study of these classical sources should suffice to show us at the end. We all have the most immediate and inexplicably certain experience: not only of physical (not logical) necessity and (not logical) physical impossibility, but both, of being able, in some cases, to be able to. other than what we do, and in other cases, we are in a position to not act any other way than we do. Logical necessity and logical impossibility—where physical necessity and physical impossibility are always implicitly or explicitly opposite—can, of course, be defined without direct reference to the non-linguistic world: a proposition follows from the other if and only if by logical necessity to reject one. It would be contradicting yourself when claiming the other person; whereas a proposed project or an assumed situation will be rejected as logically impossible if and only if that proposal or assumption is self-contradictory.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essaySecond, once we have these insights, we must be prepared to accept that creatures who neither enjoy nor suffer from these two opposing kinds of experiences have any corresponding experiences or no way of explaining them to others. concepts. If this claim is indeed true, then it should constitute an overwhelming and clear objection to any universal, physically necessary doctrine of determinism. If it is indeed true, no one can claim that the entire Universe is subject to a universal and inexorable physical necessity without knowing that such a claim cannot be false. For if the ideas of both physical necessity and the ability to do other than do can and can only be obtained by referring to our abundant experience of the two opposite kinds of reality to which these ideas refer; So who other than the most fanatical of behavioral psychologists can continue to insist that even paradigm examples of the latter are hidden cases of the former? Anyone inclined to doubt the first of these two findings, or especially the second, should be compelled to question their own explanation of all the various notions of the elite genre, including the hitherto implicit notion of intellectually indispensable. conditional as opposed to fact. An unrealistic condition is the proposition 'If this had happened (which it actually didn't), then this would have happened'. Such propositions are relevant and of great importance, because nomological (propositions that are thought to constitute laws of nature) can only be distinguished from substantive inferences (statements that state without inference about what might happen, but are actually not only). nonsense). a-factual-this-and-not-that) require factual conditionings according to logical truth.
To define one’s identity is not an easy task. Many people spend most of their lives to figure out who they are and where they belong to. There are many factors in society that could form a person’s identity, leading them to having an identity crisis. This circumstance will be illustrated clearly throughout the short vignettes in the novel The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros, 1984. In this story, Cisneros portrays Esperanza, a young Mexican girl who lives in a traditional and poor Latino neighborhood. She struggles to find her true identity throughout the gender expectations from her culture, the limited of education, and the way other people look on her socio-economic class. It inspires her to create a uniqueness life that only form for her According to the novel, the author conveys the message that observing and being struggled from the society and culture will cause a person to get in trouble finding their own identity.
Get original essayIn The House on Mango Street, the author suggests that to find the sense of identity development, a person needs to perceive the suffering from her old culture. It will impact how a person decides to place their role in life. The first example occurs when Esperanza, the main character once said that “She looked out the window her whole life, the way so many women sit their sadness on an elbow. I wonder if she made the best with what she got or was she sorry because she couldn’t be all the things she wanted to be. Esperanza. I have inherited her name, but I don’t want to inherit her place by the window” (11). Esperanza gets her name from her grandmother, the first woman in the novel who spends the rest of her life to look at the window and think about escaping. Due to Esperanza culture, the women after marriage have to endure their husband’s control. This highlights strongly how suffering it is when women are trapped in their lives. Esperanza understands even at the beginning of her life that she does not want to be the same as her grandmother, making a wrong decision but not able to fight for her freedom. She is afraid of inheriting the sadness life through her name. It sends a message to the reader that … Furthermore, the author emphasizes the weakness and powerlessness of women in Hispanic culture by repeating the same thing with Sally and Rafaela, especially Minerva, a woman who also stays in door for her whole life and wonders about the world outside. After being abused for a long time, Minerva rose to fight back her husband aiming to get herself free. But then, she still end up with “Black and Blue” (85). Nothing has changed in her life even though she fought against it. This suggests that even when Minerva thinks of escaping from the trap, her power does not strong enough to get it. It leads her back to the cycle of marriage, being stuck indoors and endure the oppression from the husband. Otherwise, Esperanza illustrates her depression with the words “There is nothing I can do” reveals that a woman’s abuse must be the old events and feel guilty when she cannot help her friend. This is the moment where Esperanza notices that she will reject her own culture. Therefore, Esperanza’s identity is created through the way she experienced about gender roles in her culture. Esperanza wants to change her fate as well as many other women, who are still enduring their marital hardship, desire to escape from that. Her point of view is made clear that: She wants to be in control of her own life and be more powerful than women living around her. By emphasizing the pain of women in Latino culture, the author conveys a message that the way a person perceives gender norm in their culture affects their view of themselves and their future.
The author Cisneros uses the view of the protagonist to demonstrate that living in a high poverty family and community will leave a person a sense of embarrassment. The first example occurs when Esperanza describes her house on Mango Street. The house is not really the one that she always dream about. She comments: “It’s small and red with tight steps in front and windows so small you’d think they were holding their breath” (4). The window is not supposed to breathe at all. However, the author uses this personification to emphasize how everything in the house is so small making people feel desperate about that. It demonstrates that Esperanza could notice the signs of poverty by observing her house. She feels not belong to this house because it is not the house that she really think of. By focusing on Esperanza’s frustration about her house, the author conveys a message that the way a person observe about poverty around them affect seriously how they feel and think about themselves. Additionally, Cisneros portrays Esperanza’s feelings about poverty more specific when the Nun judges her own house. She says “You live there? The way she said it made me feel nothing. There. I lived there” (5). This means that Esperanza notices how weird the Nun is when she looks at her house. The way Cisneros repeats the word “There” to let the readers imagine what Esperanza house look like making the Nun sounds like nothing exists. And Esperanza knew that, obviously. This highlights the importance of identity through the way other people around sees a person through their class create them a deeper sense of self awareness.
Through the author’s description of poverty, the author suggests that growing up in a community where is low class in the US society brings a person the desire to value themselves by education. Cisneros confirms the painful when a person lives their life with the limit of education. Esperanza demonstrates that through Marin. She states that: “She is the one who told us how Davey the Baby’s sister got pregnant and what cream is best for taking off moustache hair and if you count the white flecks on your fingernails you can know how many boys are thinking of you and lots of other things I can’t remember now” (27). This means that without getting more knowledge from education, a person will only get the information around their society and culture. Marin knows all of that information because it surrounds her life. She does not notice if it is good or bad for her life later. This reinforces the idea that living in a poverty where poverty and gender is outstanding, it will diminish the knowledge of women about their life. Moreover, Esperanza describes her admiration about education by showing Alicia, a strong woman who believes education will get her out of the trap from her culture. Esperanza once states that “Alicia, who inherited her mama’s rolling pin and sleepiness, is young and smart and studies for the first time at the university. Two trains and a bus, because she doesn’t want to spend her whole life in a factory or behind a rolling pin” (31,32). This suggests that Alicia is getting the same place as her mother and other women in her neighbor, a circle of sleeping and getting ready to take care of the family. However, she sacrificed herself to go to school because she wants her life to be different than others. By focusing on Alicia’s desire to change her fate, the author demonstrates how important a person’s life is when they acknowledge the power of education. Finally, it sets Esperanza the understanding about education by showing that she wants to develop her future as a writer . She comments that “One day I will pack my bags of books and paper. One day I will say goodbye to Mango. I am too strong for her to keep me her forever. One day I will go away” (110). This suggests that Esperanza makes sure that education will keep her free. She knows that one day in her life, education will bring her to another place that is better than Mango Street. It also builds up her identity because she knows how education will value herself. By focusing on the importance of education, this conveys the message that if a person struggles with identifying themself, education will have them to figure out that.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayIn conclusion, Negative things happen around one’s community and society affect how that person grows and finds their true self. It may contain many painful events in their life but the result will be paid off positively. Cisneros brings up the idea that culture is the first and biggest problem affect how a person define themselves. Not a lot of people have a fortunate to fit themselves with their culture, most of them have to fight against that. By writing about poverty problem, the author demonstrates that Esperanza’s identity is shaped by the look of her neighborhood on her economic class. But more importantly, Esperanza is reminded by her mom and Alicia that education is very important for her as a young girl who wants to get out of Mango Street. She has learned that one can find their identity through education. In the world, everybody has their own problems related to the way they define themselves. However, it does not mean that a person should give up easily when they are struggling with their identity. The most important thing is to be strong and steady with the goal that a person wants to achieve.
We are in the 4th industrial revolution the Digital Revolution which is causing boundaries between reality and virtual world to become blur. Last month when we played a VR game in Singapore, we couldn’t feel the difference between being in the combat zone to fend off zombies and standing in an air-conditioned room wearing many gadgets. In our country where we have shortage of labour there are high chances, we might see robots in the service industry, maybe within a decade our SIT food court might have of kitchen robots that speak variety of languages, prepare different cuisine food and serve us. Naturally the next question is would robots overtake humans, are we getting dumber or smarter? As of today, we cannot be sure about the answers as it is a big IF – will robots overtake humans or be submissive to the tasks created by humans. Such questions raise a warrant to pen an essay on a comparison between Humans and Robots. In this essay we compare 5 basic characteristics between humans and robots to gauge where we stand as of today.
Get original essay“Positive natural selection, or the tendency of beneficial traits to increase in prevalence (frequency) in a population, is the driving force behind adaptive evolution.” The beauty of any life on the earth is adaptation. We can adapt to different environments or different tasks unlike robots which are made for a predefined setting. A news reading robot might not be able to defend the country in terms of need or go to school to adapt to new skills. This beauty of adaption has made humans survive countless changes in environment and made us build necessities which has been the mother of our survivals. Will robots be able to survive change environments or able to adapt is a question that humans are trying to answer or building AI robots that can learn but still at its infancy.
Humans are logical, we have been taught and trained to be logical but unfortunately, we are also illogical because our logic is impacted and changed by our emotions. A decision can be good or bad, but it becomes great or worst due to the emotions attached to it. When Capitan Sully made a decision to land US Airways Flight 1549 on the Hudson river (index 2) when birds hit the flight, he was a hailed a hero by local media and given a medal but at the initial stage his logic to land on river rather than return to the nearby airport was questioned by National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The decision to land on river was applauded mainly because all the crew and passengers survived making this accident known as miracle of Hudson river in history of aviation. Capitan Sully made this decision as his logic was attached to the emotion of saving lives.
Robots are programmed to be logical; a basic computer became useful and indispensable is due to the lack of emotion and able to do its task based on the logic fed into the system, but this could make it potentially evil too. A robot will be good in selecting candidates by merit as it will have no emotions attached to the personal profile of the candidates. Robots and machines will always be better in executing logic independently of the emotion involved.
This argument is in favour of Robots as they are program to perform at their peak as core potential invariably of what happens. If there is a marathon between humanoid (Human like Robots) and man, most probably humanoids will win hands down as they are not affected by noise, light or other sensory reactions. Quantum supremacy (Index 3) can be achieved only by AI Robots which would have taken more than 10,000 years by other computers. This speed is an argument winner for Robots.
From a young age I wanted to become an engineer and when I heard my Dad speak about his class ambassador stories I was inspired to become one, this planning some time years ahead can be done only by humans, robots lack planning, thinking ahead or decision making skills that can alter the course of pre-programmed thoughts. Mapping out steps to reach a goal or change them to accommodate a situation or event to still reach that goal is the forte of humans. If Robots can do this then we can assume that the difference between Robots and Humans hardly exists.
Recognizing our parents, friends, someone we know and making a connection to establish a context is something Robots are catching up with, Artificial Intelligence (AI) trained models help in recognizing a customer or verify a customer similar to Voice Biometrics setup by DBS bank (index 2), customers can chose the option to verify them in less than 15 seconds by their voice instead of PIN or passcode. Trained models of Robots in form of service chat bots are able to identify emotions or answer queries based on a context. Speech, Voice, Text and Image recognition by Robots has blurred the lines in reality with Humans.
The comparison of 5 qualities are only the tip of the iceberg, there are far many things to consider like creativity, innovation etc. Humans are no match to Robots in terms of speed, logical decision making, accuracy and efficiency but we humans have an advantage in terms of our intellect, re-organizing process, planning, creating, able to forgive and many more, these are hard to quantify. Humans become clear winners in this comparison due their main advantage in curiosity, thinking for necessity and reaction based on instinct. In the coming years, this comparison will come up until one day the argument might tilt in favour of Robots, still continue as life is a cycle and we humans will find ways to survive unless we destroy ourselves before we can evolve again. Until then we can still debate on this comparison!
The trouble with an unreliable narrator often lies in choosing what to believe. In the case of Vladimir Nabokov’s incestuously illicit novel Lolita, it proves to be an intriguing predicament, as the unreliability of narrator Humbert Humbert is unquestionably severe, yet his convincing intellect persuades the reader to at least consider his point of view and reasoning. As one of Humbert’s main goals in his testimony is to persuade his “jury” that he was actually in love with his pre-pubescent stepdaughter – whom he essentially kidnapped and repeatedly took advantage of sexually – he is somehow able to have us consider his disturbing and inconceivable claim as truthful, an indicator of his powerful cogency. So is it possible that this clearly unreliable and heinous pedophile loved Lolita as he says he did? As unlikely of a notion as it is, there are many indications that his feelings were more than carnally driven. He even says to his audience at a point when he has nothing to gain in pleading, “You may jeer at me, and threaten to clear the court, but until I am gagged and half-throttled, I will shout my poor truth. I insist the world know how much I loved my Lolita, this Lolita, pale and polluted, and big with another’s child…but still mine” [Nabokov, 278]. Indeed, there are many signals (such as this) that point to truth behind the pathological pedophile’s claim; in fact, there is enough evidence within his reflection to prove that Humbert did actually love Lolita. Or rather, he loved her in the sense of what he understood love to look like. In conventional terms, Humbert had no right classifying his relationship with Lolita as love, but from the twisted perspective of a man with obvious mental imbalance it was love in the only way that he knew how to express it. As love is a very difficult abstraction to define – the aberrant obsession that Humbert had with Lolita illustrates his personal perception of love, and further allows the audience to probe into the roots and rationale of a disturbed pedophile’s misconception of love.
Get original essayThe unconventional and appalling understanding of love that Humbert holds can only be understood by observing the twisted fate of his childhood. While about the same age as his adored Lolita, he began a relationship with a young girl named Annabel Leigh, which he similarly regarded as love, saying, “All at once we were madly, clumsily, shamelessly, agonizingly in love with each other” [Nabokov, 12]. This infatuation certainly proved to be nothing more than an adolescent crush, which by Humbert’s own account was bent on sexual experimentation. When Annabel tragically died of typhus, just months after Humbert’s second and final chance of “possessing” her, he became trapped within the juvenile understanding of an incredibly powerful emotion. At this early teenage point of Humbert’s life he had already begun to use the term ‘love’ loosely, and his appreciation of the word’s connotation was not fully realized. Through his own account of their relationship it appears that their simple passion for competitive tennis as well as their sexual curiosities were the only shared interests between the two; and because of this premature romance, (her sudden death did not allow it to bloom into something of true endearment), Humbert began to associate love and lust as interchangeable. After her passing, Humbert was never able to shake his unquenchable desire for the young ‘nymphet’ whom he never managed to ‘posses;’ nor was he able to rid his psyche of the fallacious perception of love that had developed within him.
This false sense of love, rooted in both lust and nympholepsy, follows Humbert throughout his life and finally reaches its climax with Lolita. The first few descriptions of his emotions toward Lolita are all physically driven, as he is unable to focus on anything but her ‘honey-hued shoulders,’ or ‘juvenile breasts,’ [Nabokov, 39] and his passion for Lolita seems to parallel his love of Annabel – albeit more extreme. Ironically he even spends a good while trying to teach Lolita how to play tennis competitively, which symbolizes the unrelenting cycle of destruction that his obsession held over him, through its correspondence to his pubescent relationship with Annabel. However, after he has already had sexual relations with Lolita, seen her become pregnant by another man, and gazes upon what he calls “the faint violet whiff and dead leaf echo of the nymphet,” [Nabokov, 277] – it is only then that he finally and completely professes his true love of Lolita. This assertion causes the reader to wonder if he actually did undergo a change – if he did indeed develop a true understanding of love, separate of the juvenile one he had carried with him throughout his life. If he claimed to still have loved her at a point when she was seventeen years old, and carrying the child of another man, it indicates that he had undergone some sort of change, and that his feelings for Lolita were more than a carnal obsession of her youthful appearance.
The transformation of Humbert is undeniable, but does it represent love? The truth is, Humbert was not lying when he said he loved Lolita, because in his mind he did love her to his fullest capacity. The trouble is Humbert did not know what true love meant, and his way of expressing love was appalling. According to the prevailing perception of the word, Humbert did not love Lolita, but despite his despicable demeanor, it is unfair to assume that he did not believe he loved her. Evidently, the debate over whether Humbert actually did love Lolita is not cut and dried; it is a very complex issue. The question that is impossible to ignore presents itself – how can a man who plotted the murder of his own wife in order to have sexual freedom with his twelve-year-old stepdaughter, say he loved her? Further, how can he defend this claim after controlling her, sexually abusing her, and murdering the first man she claimed to have had true feelings for [Nabokov, 279]? Yet what does he have to gain in claiming that he loved her, when his grave fate is already sealed? Nothing. And this more than anything he directly says, proves that he believed he loved her, because he had no reason to lie.
What then did love look like to Humbert Humbert, and how did it differ from the established connotation? Primarily, love as he understood it knew no boundaries. Though he was cognizant of the abnormality and illegality of his desire, he did not consider it off limits. The age disparity between him and his beloved was of no hindrance, as this ordinarily forbidden ‘love’ was not to be deterred. The second and most important component of Humbert’s perception of love was the lack of mutuality that it necessitated for him. That Humbert was able to love without being loved back, as well as the fact that he attempted to extract love out of Lolita, illustrates the radically flawed understanding of endearment that he possessed. Lastly, as previously mentioned, an unhealthy balance of lust and perversion consumed his notion of love, as few details are spared in the chronicling of his sexual desires and ‘accomplishments’ over the young nymphet.
Clearly Humbert’s conception of love was a tragic misunderstanding, but to him, it was love nonetheless. The question should therefore not be whether Humbert loved Lolita; rather it should seek whether Humbert knew what it meant to love when he claimed to have been in love. If he had understood what it meant to truly love, he would have wanted what was best for Lolita – he would have accepted the fact that an illicit relationship was unfair to her (even if she agreed to it,) and he would have loved her as a father figure, in a non-romantic way. Unfortunately, Humbert’s instability made this realization impossible and his fatal delusion overtook him, as his mistaken impression of love caused him to “break her life” [Nabokov, 279], which he finally admits. The sad reality is that the cruel fate of Humbert’s first relationship sent him into a terminal spiral, which he could never recover from. His mental imbalance and pedophilia allowed him to justify all of his disgusting actions in the name of love. Consequently, he was not lying when he claimed to have loved Lolita, he simply loved her in the only way he knew how to, which regrettably was very misconceived.
Bibliography
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayNabokov, Vladimir. The Annotated Lolita. Ed. Alfred Appel, Jr. New York: Vintage, 1991.
In her novel Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen channels many of her perceptions of 18th century English society through both her dominant and smaller characters. Austen uses unfailingly sarcastic Mr. Bennet as a vehicle for the deception and spite rampant in such a community. While Mr. Bennet’s mockery remains amusing and harmless in Volume I, his facetious witticisms turn mean-spirited and heartless in Volume II. Instead of continuing to target foolish, unsuspecting individuals as he had done for his own quiet amusement, Mr. Bennet begins to victimize his own undeserving family members; the comments he only considers to be lighthearted and smile-inducing soon become irrevocably hurtful to his own emotionally-unstable daughters. The book’s heroine, Elizabeth, once appreciative of her father’s humor, is now surprised and offended by his senseless, unsupportive comments, and she begins to question if he is now addressing his duties as a father with the seriousness his role demands. Austen displays Mr. Bennet’s subtle yet undeniable transition from comic teaser to insensitive bully through speech (and lack thereof), structurally simple sentences, and details delineating the repercussions of his actions.
Get original essayAusten uses words, or an absence of words, to shape the interactions of Mr. Bennet with his most intimate relations. Whether the effects of Mr. Bennet’s speech provoke disconcertion or oblivious gratitude, the language he employs strongly conveys his interpretation, and subsequent exploitation, of his associates’ confessions. By using words that perfectly contradict his feelings, he has the ability to use sarcasm to ridicule- if only for his own amusement- the expressions of those with whom he is speaking. Following his wife’s insistence that he call on Mr. Bingley, a young bachelor recently moved into the neighborhood, Mr. Bennet preys upon his wife’s gullibility and conceit by mockingly responding, “You and the girls may go, or you may send them by themselves, which perhaps will be still better, for as you are as handsome as any of them, Mr. Bingley might like you the best of the party.”(ch.1, pg. 6) Mrs. Bennet, reacting exactly as Mr. Bennet had anticipated, concurs with her husband and feigns modesty. Although such an exchange is strictly humorous, the continuation of Mr. Bennet’s sarcastic diction in serious times displays his inability to control the ways he uses his words. Upon the demand of his daughter Lydia to “follow” soldiers to the town of Brighton, Mr. Bennet’s elder daughter Elizabeth runs to her father in protest; such an action, she claims, will enforce her sister’s untamed, immature behavior, thereby putting the entire family’s reputation at risk. In response, Mr. Bennet calmly expresses his inveterate mockery: “We shall have no peace at Longbourn if Lydia does not go to Brighton. Let her go then…She is luckily too poor to be an object of prey to anybody. At Brighton she will be of less importance even as a common flirt than she has been here. The officers will find women better worth their notice…At any rate, she cannot grow many degrees worse, without authorizing us to lock her up for the rest of her life.” (ch. 41, pg. 196) The dry wit implicit in Mr. Bennet’s speech displays his failure to address the situation seriously and reasonably, thereby exposing his inadequacies as a father.
Austen uses sentence structure and complexity to further portray Mr. Bennet as habitually sarcastic and idiosyncrasy-exploiting. Whether Mr. Bennet’s partner in conversation construes his phrases as facetious or insensitive depends entirely on his or her emotional stability, yet the similarities among all of Mr. Bennet’s sentences show his complete disregard of any pain his expressions may cause. Mr. Bennet frequently uses short, simple sentences when the situation demands long and insightful ones, allowing himself to appear ignorant of the issues of his family members at times when they depend on his earnest advice. Following his wife’s hysteric rant that their daughter Elizabeth refuses to engage herself to Mr. Collins, Mr. Bennet calmly simulates complete misunderstanding of anything Mrs. Bennet had just said: “I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Of what are you talking?” (ch. 20, pg. 97) His wife’s ensuing frustration serves as exactly the type of reaction Mr. Bennet both expects and enjoys. In another instance, Mr. Bennet’s derision of his two youngest daughters by using concise, easily understood phrasing causes similar disconcertion: “From all that I can collect by your manner of talking, you must be two of the silliest girls in the country. I have suspected it some time, but now I am convinced.” (ch. 7, pg 26) In a few modest sentences, Mr. Bennet shows his talent for prompting strong emotional responses in others while suffering no guilt for doing so.
In describing the aftermaths of Mr. Bennet’s confusing and insulting expressions, Austen employs generous details to convey the extent to which he affects his peers and family members. Those characters depicted as foolish carry on their lives in ignorance after falling victim to Mr. Bennet’s subtle ridicule; Mrs. Bennet’s agreement that she had seen her days of beauty following her aforementioned exchange with her husband shows her oblivion to what had really passed between them. However, Austen also uses details to describe the distress Elizabeth felt after her father had openly and sarcastically mocked her potential husband: “Elizabeth had never been more at a loss to make her feelings appear what they were not. It was necessary to laugh, when she would rather have cried. Her father had most cruelly mortified her by what he said of Mr. Darcy’s indifference, and she could do nothing but wonder at such a want of penetration, or fear that perhaps instead of his seeing too little, she might have fancied too much.” (ch. 54, pg. 306) In delineating Elizabeth’s subsequent self-doubt and insecurities after her father’s unsympathetic amusement at the concept of her connection to Mr. Darcy, Austen gives her readers a thorough understanding of the magnitude of Mr. Bennet’s abusive statements and implications.
While Austen keeps Mr. Bennet as a bystander to the central events of the novel, the various literary devices she applies to distinguish his character do much to address the ways in which he molds (or fails to mold) the recipients of his simply structured, flippant sarcasm. Although his natural wit instigates reactions in others that seem clearly ludicrous to the reader, Mr. Bennet’s inability to tame such speech ends up damaging the people for whom he should, as a father, have the most respect and sympathy. By portraying not only the ways in which Mr. Bennet expresses his abominably unserious comments but also the products of such comments, Austen paints a vivid picture of the influences of sardonic ideas in 18th century English society.
Humour at workplace goes a long way to release tension among employees, relieve stress, help an employee deal with a bad day and even boost productivity. This humour becomes even more lit when it comes from your boss. S/he creates a relaxed office environment as opposed to the uptight, no nonsense boss who doesn’t joke around. This kind of a boss will make employees coil quietly on their desks appearing to be busy on their computers. To some extend this kind of a boss is perceived to suck all the energy out of the room.
Get original essayAccording to Larry Hughes’ research published on Emerald Insights journal, humor breaks up tedium, eases tension, and helps foster team spirit – and his study also indicate that funny leaders create trust and improve performance among their employees.
However, as much as office humour is the ‘in thing’ in modern office setup, research has shown that bad jokes can have a corrosive effect on the target group. Especially when leader tells bad jokes it is seen to undermine the organization’s objectivity.
Workplaces are bound by rules and expected behaviours and code of conduct. Employees usually do understand what is and what is not permissible from their leaders/managers. When leaders make bad jokes that subvert social norms, it shows that the organization has abandoned the very thing that binds their behavioural norms.
Humour should be in its very sense meant to create light moment, and it is a desirable quality for both men and women, but when not done right can actually land you into a legal tussle. What you may think is funny at workplace may actually be illegal. The law protects minorities, persons with disabilities, women, and all employees from harassment, slander, and discrimination at work.
Suing for harassment is actually very easy because the law doesn’t specify a clear cutline as to what is harassment or inappropriate behaviour at work. According to a professor of Law at UCLA School of Law Eugene Volokh, “even speech can be punished as workplace harassment if it is: "severe or pervasive" enough to create a "hostile or abusive work environment" based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability (including obesity).” Good leaders and colleagues will always shun from uttering jokes such as relating to or having religious connotations, sexual orientation, ageist and sexiest jokes, weight related issues and/or physical appearance, tribal jokes, racial statements among many others.