Marriage Traditions- Indian, Chinese Cultures Essay

Marriage Traditions- Indian, Chinese Cultures - Essay Example Stated another way, it is an eye to the culturally relativistic foundations of marriage traditions in Chinese and Indian cultures that a proper perspective of the marriage traditions in those two cultures can be properly had. It is not absolutist in that it does not try to judge the ethics and morals of the marriage traditions of the two cultures, but views them from the standards and principles within the cultures that gave rise to and which continue to promote the marriage traditions (Fluehr-Lobban, 1995; Geertz, 1984; Donnelly, 1984; Hodes, 1985; Polisi, 2003; Moschetti, 2005). In. China the major form of marriage is one where families gave away their female children for marriage to other families when the girl comes to marrying age, usually as early as at puberty, and the girl then goes on to live in the husband’s family home, to then become a part of that family. To fill that gap left by the married girl, the family then made space for when one of their sons took wives. T his is the fundamental marriage arrangement that allowed for the addition and subtraction of members of households based on time-honored traditions in Chinese culture, and certainly prior to China turning Communist, under the old dynasties. On the other hand, the literatrure also notes that some alternate forms of marriage also formed part of the marriage traditions of China, and those include marriage arrangements where a girl is given up for adoption at birth or at a very early age, to a family.

Abraham Lincoln - Symbol of the unlimited possibilities Essay Example for Free

Abraham Lincoln Symbol of the unlimited possibilities Essay There are few men whose characters are so extraordinary that they can be credited with saving a nation. The 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln was one such man. More than one hundred years after his assassination, ‘Honest Abe as he has become known, shows no signs of losing his touch. He sits enshrined in his own monument with his famous words etched in stone around him. He commands respect, honour and the everlasting thanks of the American people. More than a thousand books have been published on his life and deeds. This is the man who not only freed the slaves but who held the nation together through the terror of the Civil War. His bloody assassination has become the nightmare scenario of legend. The myths that make up the story of Abraham Lincoln have been re-told many times. At their root is the story about the boy born into the Kentucky wilderness, who had less than a year in total of formal schooling. That same boy went on to become Americas most famous President. Lincolns rise from a poor pioneer family who taught himself to become a lawyer is the story of the American dream. From state legislator to his nomination as Presidential candidate that dream is the stuff of legends. He has become a symbol of the unlimited possibilities of American life. To appreciate the bravery and the courage that Lincoln undoubtedly showed, it is not enough to say that he saved the Union. Neither is it enough to say that he braved his critics to bring in emancipation and to end the appalling slave trade. To fully understand Lincolns achievements, is to try and gain an insight into American society of that time. The republic was only a matter of a few decades old. In this melting pot of nationhood and states, political feelings ran high. Lincoln, above all, saw himself and his countrymen as inheritors of a sacred trust. He believed that democracy was entrusted into his hands and those of his countryme n. He was prepared to stand up and fight for those beliefs. The fact is as laudable as these sentiments were, there could not possibly have been a more difficult time to try and put them into practice. The issue of slavery above all others dominated the day. It would split both politics and the country as a whole. Abraham Lincoln was not in two minds about slavery. He found it abhorrent. The fact is that many states, primarily in the North, stood against slavery. Many in the South did not. They were afraid that a Republican President effectively from the North would try and abolish slavery throughout the nation. Lincoln was elected President for his first term in 1860 at the point when a huge part of the Union, threatened to break away over the issue of slavery. The situation was for Lincoln neither a reason for secession nor Civil War. In his inaugural address he spoke about the need to find a peaceful way forwards. In spite of Lincolns plea, the Confederacy broke away and on March 4 1861 and the country erupted into the Civil War he had feared above all else. That scenario was a nightmare of complications and strategies that had to be won inside a cauldron of dissent. There was no road map. There were no precedents for dealing with states that had succeeded. Lincoln was at heart and by trade, a lawyer. He was not a soldier. However he did not flinch from his duty, or from the task in front of him. Where lesser men might have lost heart, Lincoln began the long struggle towards unity and reunification. When he judged that the time was right, he announced the abolition of the slave trade, issuing the emancipation proclamation on January 1st 1863. The war took a heavy toll. Lincoln mourned the tragedy of lives lost on the battlefield. His speech after the battle of Gettysburg on November 19th 1863 is one of the most moving and famous of all elegies for fallen soldiers. In spite of high casualties and falling morale, when Atlanta finally fell to the Union, Lincoln was re-elected for a second term. Lincolns second inaugural address is according to some, one of the greatest of all his speeches. In it, he looks forwards not only to the coming end of the war but also towards the future. His plea should never be forgotten, Malice towards none: Charity towards all. Part of Abraham Lincolns legacy is the fact that he was very much a human figure. We know many details of his life including that of his courtship and quiet marriage to Mary Todd. Theirs was tender and loving relationship scarred by loss and tragedy. Of the four sons born to them, only one grew into adulthood. The quiet and loving home life the president enjoyed was in stark contrast to the violence and hatred that was tearing the nation apart. After the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomatox on April 9 1865, a weary nation waited to see what Lincolns response would be. An expectant crowd gathered outside the White House. Lincoln addressed them for the last time. In his speech he tackled the thorny issues of reuniting a country split by war. In that same speech he talked about the rights of freed slaves. He now talked openly about black suffrage. Listening in that crowd was one John Wilkes Booth, a racist and a Confederate who vowed that this would be Lincolns last speech. Indeed it was. Booth assassinated the President on April 14th 1865. Mary his wife was sitting beside her husband as they watched a play. She was holding his hand as he was shot. She never recovered fully from his death. It was a death that Lincoln himself had reportedly foreseen in a dream some three days earlier. The assassination of Lincoln stunned the nation. His body was mourned for three weeks at it was toured through the cities of the North. Public grief was immense for perhaps the most extraordinary figure in political history. Today the image of the gaunt tall and severe man is as familiar to us as our own fathers. Indeed to many, Abraham is the Father figure of America. We can only hope, like so many before us that we too can live up to the vision and the dreams that he left for us. Behind his statue lie the famous words of the Gettysburg address, in which the president extolled, That this nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall never perish from the earth. They are words that are as relevant to us today as the day on which they were first spoken. How ironic then that in the same speech the President said that the words spoken there would not long be remembered. Fortunately, for every US citizen, he was wrong! His words, his deeds and his hopes, like those of any father, are his legacy to all his children. Sources used in this speech and related information Abraham Lincoln Birthplace http://lincoln.hodgenville.net/lincoln/ Abraham Lincoln On-line http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm CV for Abraham Lincoln http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~sldavis/firstsite/index.htm

Atom And Qi :: essays research papers

Atom & Qi The atom is the smallest portion of a substance that is not perceivable by human senses. The notion of atoms was conceived by ancient Greeks and was developed over thousands of years of scientific inquiry. The concept of qi as the most basic substance of which the world (everything) is comprised, was understood by the ancient Chinese. Both  ¡Ã‚ ¥atom ¡Ã‚ ¦ and  ¡Ã‚ ¥qi ¡Ã‚ ¦ are believed to exist by human beings and both are considered to be unseen objects (until we could see atoms recently). However, they lead to different interpretations of natural phenomena: the concept of the atom was developed in relation to  ¡Ã‚ ¥materiality ¡Ã‚ ¦, whereas qi is relavant to  ¡Ã‚ ¥spirituality ¡Ã‚ ¦. The historical progression towards a belief in atoms promoted the deduction of atoms throughout centuries. Nowadays, the atom is universally believed by people to exist as the result of scientific evidence. In contrast,  ¡Ã‚ ¥qi ¡Ã‚ ¦ is not believed to be a scientific phenomena and is considered a religious or superstitious belief. As a result, in order to demonstrate the existence of  ¡Ã‚ ¥qi ¡Ã‚ ¦ and make it conceivable by modern physicists, the use of the scientific method becomes the qi researchers ¡Ã‚ ¦ best tool. In addition, while qi and the atom were both conceived by ancient philosophers, the notion of the atom was better developed by scientists than the idea of qi. Therefore, by looking back at the historical progression towards a belief in atoms and the deduction of their structure, we know how scientists built up the atomic theory. Consequently, the concept of historical progression will help us understand why the notion of qi is hard to define by physicists, and how it could be developed into a scientific theory. HISTORICAL PROGRESSION TOWARDS A BELIEF IN ATOMS   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The concept of the atom originated in Greek philosophy around six hundred B.C. with the question:  ¡Ã‚ §What is the world made of ? ¡Ã‚ ¨ (Sachs, 9). Thales first suggested that  ¡Ã‚ §water [is] the basic building block of the world ¡Ã‚ ¨, and air, sand, and stone could be different forms of one fundamental substance (web page). Yet, Anoimenes believed  ¡Ã‚ §mist or air was the cornerstone of matter ¡Ã‚ ¨ (Clagett, 49). These ancient thinkers made simple and direct assertions about matter. Later, the idea of the atom was conceived and developed by Leucippus and Democritus in the fifth century B.C. and concluded that there must be  ¡Ã‚ §parts which are partless ¡Ã‚ ¨ such as sand, stone, water, or even a  ¡Ã‚ ¥void ¡Ã‚ ¦ which have the continuous and coherent appearance of a pure object though are not  ¡Ã‚ ¥true ¡Ã‚ ¦ structures (Young, 18).

The Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe and Eveline by James Joyce Essay

The Tell Tale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe and Eveline by James Joyce 'The Tell Tale Heart' and 'Eveline' are stories based around the circumstances, which surround a central character. Both protagonists are portrayed in totally different ways. The characters in both stories are quite different. Eveline is the image of a girl's failure to become a woman. She tells herself that "she would not be treated as her mother had been," but she isn't aware that "such treatment offers her the only kind of security she knows". She has had to endure violence at the hand of her father, and she has let herself believe that she is in love with Frank when she isn't really. In 'The Tell Tale Heart', the story contains a nameless narrator who is the central character of the story. The narrator may be male or female because Poe uses only "I" and "Me" in reference to this character. Most readers may assume that the narrator is male because it is written in first person by a male author but the story can also be plausible if the narrator was a woman. In the times Poe was writing, he would be creating a story whose impact would be changed simply by imagining this horrendous deed being committed by a woman. In 'The Tell Tale Heart', the story covers a period of eight days where any important action usually occurs around midnight. This period of time is relevant to the story as it makes the reader more curious about the narrator's ordeal. The readers are deliberately not informed about the illness that the narrator had, and they are left to wonder whether the 'evil eye' is truly evil. The eight day period limits what the reader knows because they don't know what happened before. The narrator may have an extremely genuine reason... ...to people of the early 1900's. 'Eveline' was also written in the early 1900's and in that time it would have been Eveline's duty to look after her father rather than be in love. So the time in which the story was written would have really affected the way in which the story was perceived, as people in the early 1900's were less tolerant of behaviour written in the stories. James Joyce's portrayal of Eveline is very believable because many of the readers may be able to relate to the character as she lives an ordinary life. The narrator in "The Tell Tale Heart", is not very believable because it is not often that readers hear about someone killing a person because they have a "vulture eye", it's just unrealistic, but the story has a pull to it that makes readers want to read it because it is exciting and there is suspense, something which "Eveline" lacks.

Concept of Love Essay

Love is a complex emotion of attachment and sometimes obsession. It cannot be classified so easily, though; it cannot be stuffed into a social concept and left there. Some people search for what seems their whole lifetime for love, whereas others may seem to fall in and out of love on a regular basis. Of course, people can love many things, but the love between two people is unique and special. It is a feeling of trust and wholeness. Love is rarely defined because everyone experiences it differently. What one person thinks is love, another may think is craze or vice versa. How does one know he or she is in love? How is it possible to distinguish between the love of romance and the love shared between friends? In order to understand love, people need to first understand the two major types of love which can be described as romantic love and friendship love. People often define romantic love based on its difference from friendship love. Would you kiss your best friend? Perhaps, but it is not necessarily the things you do with your romantic partner that makes your love spark. Romantic lovers are usually on each other’s minds all the time. Couples make large life decisions based on their romantic partners because they cannot imagine life without those people. Romantic love guides a person’s mind and can sometimes cloud it as to what the right decisions might be. After all, romantic love can be extremely selfless. Friendship love can often turn into romantic love, as it has many times throughout history, but the birth of romantic love between friends will often kill the love of friendship. In other words, friends who become romantic lovers rarely can go back to being â€Å"just friends. Why is it that romantic love is so overpowering? The love of friendship can be very strong, but it is the emotional intensity of romantic love that forever changes the simplicity of the love between friends. Friendship love does not have all the same guidelines that romantic love seems to have. Each friend couple may have a unique kind of love between each other. Friendship love is best described as a warm feeling between people. Girlfriends may have different friendship love for each other than a male and female friend pair may have; the same for male friends. Male and Female friends may sometimes undergo a lot of pressure from other friends and family to turn their friendship love into romantic love, which doesn’t always work. There is a line that friends may cross over, and to know that line is to know the difference between romantic and friendship love. Friends have complete trust for someone and naturally want to be around him/her. People who love each other want to make each other happy; they want to be there as confidants, helpers, and company. Friendship love is often compared to the love between siblings as well. In many cases, a sibling is just as good a friend as any. Society will not accept romantic love between relatives, but friendship love is encouraged and an amazing aspect to have. Everybody experiences love in a different way and may not agree with the concepts that it is dealt with. In the end, it does not matter whether or not the kind of love someone feels fits into any category. Love is personal, and the important thing is, is that it makes people happy and feels cared for. Whether people have romantic or friendship love, love is meant to mean that it is an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment, and a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection.

The Issues of Women Characters in Miriam Tlalis.

The Issues of Women Characters in Miriam Tlalis. The Issues of Women Characters in Miriam Tlali'sMuriel at MetropolitanA South Africa writer, Pamala Ryan, provides an interesting analysis of Miriam Tlali's Muriel at Metropolitan by arguing that: "[...] black women do not have time to dream" (95). The lives of black women are besieged with restraints and conflicts. Black women in South Africa do not have the "complete peace inside" (Ryan 95); they strive against racial discrimination and injustice to claim their freedom. The struggle gives black women the consciousness of self and the consciousness of a black society. Tlali's novel Muriel at Metropolitan is about the relationship between struggle and change, and the pain of black women's lives. In the novel, the struggles that the main character, Muriel, undertakes are against racism and social classes; her fight to claim her freedom of voice leads to Muriel's self-growth.The main element that Muriel fights against is racism.Muriel Barbery"Racism is the only evil that affects black women" (Christian, Concept 80). Clearly, racial discrimination is in the system of societal and psychological restrictions that have critically affected the lives of South African women. A scholar, Barbara Christian, argues that because of racism and social restrictions, black women lost their womanly nature.Because black women were, by nature of their race, conceived of as lower class, they could hardly approximate the norm of womanhood. They had to work; most could not be ornamental or withdrawn from the world; and, according to the aesthetics of [South Africa], they were not beautiful. [...] Any aggressiveness or intelligence on their part, qualities necessary for participation in the work world, were construed as unwomanly and tasteless. On one hand, they could not achieve the standard of womanhood; on the other hand, they were biologically females, with all the societal restrictions associated with...

Altruism and Kin Selection Essays

Altruism and Kin Selection Essays Altruism and Kin Selection Essay Altruism and Kin Selection Essay Within nature Darwin has proposed the notion of natural selection as the driving force of evolution. Individuals acquiring traits solely designed for their survival and reproductive fitness. Accordingly, animals act selfishly to survive and pass along their genes to future generations. Since then, controversy has circled around the idea of organisms acting out in a selfless manor decreasing their fitness for the success of another member’s fitness. Its puzzling to assume individuals will sacrifice themselves for the benefit of another member when Darwin’s assumptions were predominately associated with the survival of the fittest. Explanations to this issue have been observed amongst kin where family members will help the survival of its relatives in order to increase the success of the group; this is otherwise known as kin selection and is one explanation of altruism. Similarly, cooperation in nature has been viewed as a form of altruism where collaborative efforts will benefit the survival of the species versus selfish actions. A study done by Mr. Allee found planarian worms likely to survive 1. 5 times longer if they grouped together under intense conditions versus groups who exhibited no grouping. Favoring kin selection and cooperation altruism enhances survival of the group level in turn leaving better fitness rates rather than individualistic behavior. But does each theory demonstrate true altruism in nature? In this paper I will present two opposing theories on true altruistic behavior in nature, one based upon alternative explanations for altruistic actions, while the other emphasizes selfish behavior induced for survival and proves altruism to be based on selfish implications too. What is altruism? Altruism is defined as a social behavior that decreases the fitness of the actor in turn increasing the fitness of the recipient. (West). While Darwin believed in natural selection he was also aware of many functional help services amongst animals. Therefore, Darwin presumed natural selection to favor socially interactive animals by enabling advantageous traits that indirectly benefit the species at the group level. According to Mr. Domondon’s review, Darwin presented a theoretical species where some monkeys will inherit a gene that permits alarm singling when predators are spotted, while others will not. Essentially the species that contain monkeys with this trait will sacrifice themselves, or engage in costly behavior causing a greater amount of its group members to survive and pass down the alarm-signaling gene. If such genes are generating a higher reproductive success then groups who do not possess the gene, then this altruistic trait will become inherited; fundamentally causing more altruistically modified individuals. Hamilton presented kin selection as an alternative solution to altruism. Behaviors operating between close relatives where an individual will act in a manor costly to oneself in order to help its kin. This is otherwise known as inclusive fitness, consists of both the actors fitness in addition to the fitness of each group member. (West). Inclusive fitness will be highest amongst closer related members in turn creating stronger kin selection. Such instances can be observed where sibling allomothers sacrifice time and effort to care for the offspring of a mother, greatly increasing the survival of the infant; given that the offspring shares a third of the genes of the sibling allomothers, this will increase their inclusive fitness. Simply put, kin selection will succeed if the indirect benefits outweigh the direct cost inflicted upon the actor. So, species displaying altruistic behavior to help their relatives will increase the survival of the community. Furthermore, reciprocal altruism additionally gives resolution to the issue of altruism. It is associated with individuals beneficially providing services toward members while accepting costs and expecting this treatment in return later. This can develop into long lasting relationships between individuals where benefits will be higher than temporary costs as the behavior is returned in a tit for tat sense (Silk 2007). Also, game theories provide insight into this behavior; for example, the Prisoner dilemma involves two unrelated individuals in a situation given the opportunity to cooperate with one another to gain a beneficial outcome. On the other hand one may act selfishly to gain individual benefits and the other will acquire the costs entirety. The idea is to achieve equal cooperation and to obtain maximum fitness benefits to each participator. For example, if two monkeys come across a predator they are given two opportunities, flee and leave the other monkey as prey, or jump the leopard in an attempt to overpower the leopard and equally flee. At this point the monkeys will have to decide the best method that will likely be at the individuals best interest. However if both monkeys jump the leopard and survive, it is likely that this trait will be passed down. Hence, cooperation and reciprocal altruism may deem some costs but again benefits outweigh the costs and greatly provide better fitness. Does true altruism exist in nature? Altruism fundamentally presumes an individual to be sacrificing its own time and resources to benefit another member’s success, posing a huge problem in evolution. Individuals gain beneficial traits by natural selection for the selfish purpose of enhancing their own survival rate. Also, evolution acting at the individual level allows genetic traits unfit for survival to die out. If deleterious genes cause a mutation within a species, perhaps a discoloration unpleasing to the opposite sex, this individual is likely to have a lower fitness, and natural selection will weed this trait out. Thus, animals with successful traits that increase reproductive fitness and survival will continue passing down so that they will surpass proximate competitive species or conditions benefiting the survival of its kind. Mr. Allee has suggested altruistic genes to act selfishly throughout a community, in this case the species should be equally cooperating and engaging in selfless behavior benefiting the species as a whole. However, scientists have brought forth notions of potential cheaters, individuals who will receive benefits from actors and will not return the benefits and or will not display a case of altruism toward individuals. In this case selfish genes will return to the population weeding out altruistic genes. Above all, individuals acting selfishly will gain higher benefits toward their own survival without adhering to any costs. Moreover, while many examples provide solutions to the issues pertaining to altruism it can be argued altruism simply acts in the interest of the actor not solely the recipient. In kin selection the actor is behaving to increase the fitness of its kin by decreasing its own fitness, however it can be argued that the actor is acting selfishly to increase his own genetic heritability. It would be smart to sacrifice myself to save 4 brothers and sisters or ten cousins, thereby increasing a greater amount of genetic fitness embedded in our relatives. Moreover, the acts of altruism are associated only within kin selective communities fundamentally assuming every costly action benefiting a group member will in fact still benefit the actor’s genotypic construction and ultimately fitness. Although kin selection poses a relationship where the actor engaging to benefit another while accepting costly sacrifices, the actor also maintains motives to increase his own genetic survival. In spite of this, kin selection is not a supporter of true altruism. Ordinarily if true altruism were to exist in nature this would profoundly require only the interests of the recipient, rather than an individuals own. However, kin selection theory explains altruistic behavior as a strategy devised by selfish genes, increasing the reproductive success of the recipient. Yet, the genes of the benefiting member from the act of altruism are indirectly benefiting the genetic survival of the actor. Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to contradict the idea of behaving selfless, when the actor is expecting the behavior in return; this is merely delayed selfishness. Although, interestingly enough altruistic traits may attribute at a group level, however this will still drive individual selfishness; an individual acting selfishly will still benefit at a higher level than those altruistically taking costs, and in turn will reintroduce the selfish behavior back into the population. So does altruism exist in nature? Yes there are forms of altruistic behavior were individuals will help others improve their fitness will succumbing to costs of their own, however these acts are not done selflessly. Therefore, true altruism does not exist in nature. True altruism are acts that do not require benefits back toward the actor, instead only choose to behave supportively with no gains, and this does not exist in nature.