Piaget and Vygotsky Essay Example for Free

Piaget and Vygotsky Essay In this Essay I will compare and contrast the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky. They both were influential in forming a more scientific approach to analyzing the cognitive processes of the child active construction of knowledge. They both developed their own ideas of child development and they believed cognitive development in children took place in stages. However they were distinguished by different styles of thinking. Piaget thought that children actively construct their own cognitive worlds and they adapt their thinking to include new ideas because additional information furthers understanding. He stressed that to make sense of our world we organize our Schemata or experiences. We connect one idea to another. We also adopt new ideas. Adaptation is by assimilation, which occurs when individuals incorporate new information into their existing knowledge into an existing pattern of behavior of schemata (example). Piaget refers to Schemata or schemas to the way we organize our knowledge. We can think our knowledge as units and each of them related to aspects of the world including actions, objects etc. (referencing ) Accommodation occurs when individuals adjust to new information. Piaget thought that equilibrium occurs when is a balance between assimilation and accommodation. He believed equilibrium schema is both the category of knowledge as well as the process of acquiring that knowledge. As experiences happen and new information is presented, new schemas are developed and old schemas are changed or modified. An example is, say a child sees a crow and a pigeon in the sky, and is told that they are birds. The child then forms a bird schema defined as something that flies. The next day, he goes out and sees a seagull, which easily fits into his existing bird schema. This is called assimilation, when we take new experiences/knowledge and put them in our existing schemas (or categories). The next day, a child goes out and sees a plane in the sky. Whilst this fits the definition of something that flies, it seems to be quite different than the other birds he has seen, and he is told that this is not a bird. To explain this, the child forms one large category of flying things, with two sub-categories; birds and planes. This process is called accommodation, where we change our existing knowledge structures to account for new information that doesnt fit. Piaget also believed that we go thought four stages in understanding the world. Each stage is aged related and consist of a distinct way of thinking, a different way of understanding the world. This theory is known as Piaget’s Stage Theory because it deals with four stages of development, which are sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational and formal operational. ( referencing ) On the other hand, Vygotsky believed that children actively construct their knowledge. He gave social interaction and culture far more important roles in cognitive development than Piaget did. Vygotsky socio cultural cognitive theory emphasizes how cultural and social interactions guide cognitive development. He portrayed the child development as inseparable from social and cultural activities. Vygotsky argued, learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized, specifically human psychological function (1978, p. 90). In other words, social learning tends to precede development. He believed that the development of memory, attention and reasoning involves learning to use the inventions of society, such as language, mathematical systems and memory strategies.( referencing) Piaget believed that development had to come before learning; Vygotsky believed that development and learning worked together though socialization and language. Vygotsky gave language a huge role in development. For vygotsky Language plays two critical roles in cognitive development. First language is the main means by which adults transmit information to children. Secondly, Language itself it is a very powerful tool of intellectual adaptation. Vygotsky believed that language develops from social interactions, for communication purposes. Later language ability becomes internalized as thought and â€Å"inner speech†. Thought is the result of language. Piaget thought that there was a connection between biological and cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that knowledge from social interactions spurred cognitive growth and development. Even they had really big differences; they both believed that social interactions played an irreplaceable role in cognitive development. Piaget thought that cognitive development is influenced by social transmission (learning from others). Vygotsky believed that social interactions were an instrument in development and that it heavily influenced thoughts and language. Piaget strongly considered that the developmental ages of students determined where they should be in the learning process. Vygotsky took that idea further by comparing the learner’s actual development to their potential development. He called this area of â€Å" zone of proximal development. ZPD is the range of tasks that one cannot yet perform independently, but can accomplish with the help of a more competent individual. For example, a child might not be able to walk across a balance beam on her own, but she can do so while holding her mothers hand. Since children are always learning new things, the ZPD changes as new skills are acquired. Piaget stages are hierarchical. Each of Piaget’s stages must be complete before moving to the next one. Vygotsky’s theory does not depend on time. Piaget stages imply that children cognitively develop on their own, without the help of someone or something. Vygotsky concentrates more on social interactions and aide given to a child when develops. Vygotsky Scaffolding is the kind of help, assistance and support that enables a child to do a task which they cannot quite manage yet alone and which it will help them in the future to be able to make that task or similar on their own. For example: In a school laboratory science class, a teacher might provide scaffolding by first giving students detailed guides to carrying out experiments, then giving them brief outlines that they might use to structure experiments, and finally asking them to set up experiments entirely on their own. ‘What the child can do with assistance today she will be able to do by herself tomorrow’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p.87). Both these educators contributed to the present day ideas of constructivist learning. Both offer some incredible insight into possible ways children learn and byusing there theories it is possible to create a more conductive learning environment for the child.

Human Cloning and the Future Essay Example for Free

Human Cloning and the Future Essay In his work from 2002 â€Å"Religion and Human Cloning: An Exploratory Analysis of the First Available Opinion Data†, John Evans proudly states a few possible benefits, or advantages, of human ‘therapeutic’ cloning. While talking about embryonic stem cells, he states â€Å"these cells can eventually be used to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and kidney failure, to name but a few†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (748). These possibilities have mostly been confirmed since the publishing of Evans’ piece and other more incredible possibilities have come about. The benefits of both reproductive and therapeutic cloning are endless, yet many still disagree. They say that cloning is dangerous and that it would end human evolution and bring disaster to society as we know it (Mautner, 68). Do most people really think this is true? Or is modern society simply scared of the unknown and not ready for change? Many scientists and authors constantly debate the ethics and possibilities of human cloning, both for reproductive use and therapeutic use. A couple of possible risks would accompany the beginning of human cloning, however the benefits are legitimate, and we as a species should reconsider. It is common knowledge that mother and father love one another. And it’s the classic ideal for a family to begin, in the act of spousal love through sexual reproduction. Alix Magney, in his work â€Å"Cloning Me, Cloning You: Reflections on the Ethics of Cloning for Individuals, Families and Society†, argues that since human cloning would cause childbearing to lose its proper origins as an act of spousal love, it â€Å"†¦plainly poses a threat to the dignity and equality of women†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (25). I don’t think this is true at all, as adopting a child has been practiced for thousands of years and in vitro fertilization was invented in 1978. In vitro fertilization is where an egg is fertilized by sperm outside the female body and then inserted into the uterus for maturation only once the egg is fertilized. Sperm donors have been used for decades, completely negating any ‘spousal love’ from the equation that is reproduction. While people continue to fight over equality for women, which has been true since the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, other people continue to debate greater concerns about cloning. I have always heard it said ‘You’re special’, or ‘Just be yourself’, and these are sayings of encouragement to develop your own identity, not to follow others when unnecessary, and to accept that everyone is different. Giovanni Berlucchi, in his work â€Å"The Myth of the Clonable Human Brain†, states that â€Å"†¦most human values are corollaries of the concept that each person is unique and identical to himself or herself through space and time. (160) and â€Å"†¦that this kind of genetic manipulation may interfere with psychological and biological diversity, and therefore with the distinctiveness and autonomy of the individual† (160). I do think that the overuse of a single genetic identity for reproductive cloning would cause a disruption in the common value of individuality, but only in that physical aspect of things. Th e benefits of reproductive cloning and the possibilities of advancing the individual through therapeutic cloning could greatly outweigh any disruptions. Berlucchi continues, â€Å"Nature has, of course, been producing genetically identical humans from time immemorial†¦ in trifling pairs of monozygotic twins, and even less frequently in batches of monozygotic triplets†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (160). Prenatal uterine environment differences, along with other environmental differences post-conception, can significantly affect the psychological outcome of the child and is a main reason for psychological differences between monozygotic twins. The concept of environmental determinism dispels the myth that cloning humans would eliminate the core value of individuality. The controversy over abortion is one of the biggest issues for politicians and the rest of society alike. The debate over whether or not an embryo is to be considered a human being with rights is a ‘hot topic’ among the public and continues to be an important argument for almost everyone. In his aforementioned piece â€Å"Religion and Human Cloning†¦Ã¢â‚¬ , John Evans says that the Roman Catholic Church has the most clear-cut position against cloning, simply based on the status they give to a human embryo. They believe embryos are equivalent to fully grown humans: â€Å"Embryos are to be treated the same as born persons and therefore cannot be used as means toward an end. Most obviously, they cannot be destroyed to benefit others† (748). The church also opposes cloning because it â€Å"†¦severs human reproduction from sexuality† (748). If a couple is attempting to have a kid with each other, by any means, they are more than likely sexually active with one another, and therefore cloning doesn’t remove the sexuality from the overall situation, even if it is not directly involved with the contraception. Also, new technology has been developed since the writing of this article, and it is now possible to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. You can take a single stem cell, or blastomere, and coax it to become an endlessly proliferating stem cell. Although these cells cant form embryos, they can form major types of human tissue just as any embryonic stem cells do. So, therapeutic cloning is possible without the destruction of embryos. Other people fear the end of what Charles Darwin so valiantly discovered and explained to us all over 150 years ago – human evolution. Michael Mautner, in his piece â€Å"Will Cloning End Human Evolution? †, argues that a result of human cloning would be the end of human evolution. He states â€Å"Cloning will, in contrast, reproduce the same genetic makeup of an existing individual. There is no room for new traits to arise†¦ The result: Human evolution is halted† (68). Only an insane situation where cloning was the only method for reproduction and the same genetic makeup was used over and over again would lead to the end of human evolution. This is an extreme situation and would almost definitely never happen. New science behind non-embryonic stem cell research has shown incredible potential for stem cells in general, as embryonic stem cells show significantly more potential than stem cells extracted from other parts of the human body, like the yellow bone marrow. Stem cells are beginning to be used to regrow hair, teeth and cartilage in damaged joints. Since the procedures and research are incredibly expensive, treatment is limited to those wealthy enough. Professional North-American athletes have led the way, being human guinea pigs for the non-invasive procedures in hopes of returning their bodies to their prime, pre-injury, form. Stem cell treatments are growing in popularity and legitimacy, and the use of embryonic stem cells shouldn’t be limited as it can only advance our species. Scientific tests and studies have proven limitless benefits to stem cell transplants, yet ethical concerns and moral-based laws are constraining what could be groundbreaking and life-saving science. There is possible potential for embryonic stem cells to be grown into whole, functional, organs or entire limbs of the human body. The uses could range from a ounded amputee war veteran in need of a new leg, or an elderly woman in need of a new kidney as hers is failing, and the possibilities are endless. Human fear of the unknown is instinctual, but as the realm of the previously impossible comes more into the lights of reality, we need to change our minds on the practicality and usefulness of cloning and embryonic stem cells. For our ailing parents, for our children, and our children’s children, we need to advance as a society, and take hold of the opportunities and benefits sitting right in front of us.

Is Pop Art Celebration Or Critique Film Studies Essay

Is Pop Art Celebration Or Critique Film Studies Essay Pop-art was an art movement that emerged in America and Britain in the mid 50s and culminated between 1960 and 1965. Pop art was a result of a post war era and a sudden influx of mass production and popular culture. Pop art included images from popular culture such as consumer goods, magazines and advertisements as opposed to more serious elitist culture art like abstract expressionism. It was used as a bridge between contemporary life and art, often using found images/objects and a tendency toward using mechanical rendering/production techniques. In Britain:- Independent group In 1952, a collection of artists in London by the name of the Independent Group began to meet regularly to discuss topics such as the found object, science and technology and mass cultures place in fine art. Members in the group were,  Eduardo Paolozzi,  Richard Hamilton, architects  Alison  and  Peter Smithson, and critics Lawrence Alloway and Reyner Banham. In the early 1950s Britain was still escaping the austerity of the post-war years, and the British citizens were dubious about American popular culture. Although the group was suspicious of the American commercial character, they were still enthusiastic and excited about the fruitful world popular culture seemed to promise for the future. The material, mainly in images they discussed at length were of that found in Western movies, comic books, science fiction, automobile design, billboards, and rock and roll music. Richard Hamilton Richard Hamilton was a big name in pop art in Britain, with his famous collage just what is it that makes todays homes so different, so appealing which was produced for ThisIsTomorrows catalogue. Richard was part of the Independent Group that had sensed post war culture would be democratically inclusive and accessible and argued that art should follow suit. The independent group also aimed toward removing the academia behind modern art such as high art like Rothkos light red over black and toward a more figurative, unambiguous language of art portrayed in the transparent language of advertising and iconography. This new art didnt need particularly skilled or difficult process to be produced and tried to link the realms of art and everyday life. The interchange-ability between advertising and art allowed Richard to show viewers that modern art repeatedly celebrated physical pleasure and inspiration was often gathered from previous movements. Hamilton stated that this New art, should be: Popular, transient, expendable, low cost, mass produced, young, witty, sexy, gimmicky, glamorous and big business! this subsequently laid down the path for the movement Just What is it That Makes Todays Homes so Different, So Appealing? In this piece Richard Hamilton used popular images and symbols as a gateway or library to explore the interior of a house of that time and to comment on the swift and important change in the way of everyday life.  Just what is it that makes todays homes so different, so appealing?  Is so iconic because it was created during an era in which all people internationally and worldwide became leisure shoppers, watchers of television, drivers of cars, and disposable buyers. At the same time, the boundaries between old world civilizations and of international politics were disintegrated by capitalism; a few countries made the choice to adopt the trimmings of that economic system without inviting its basic values of competition, efficiency, legitimacy of profit, which all ultimately make the consumerist structure work and mature properly. The travesty of Westernized ideas of an effective business conduct is interpreted in this collage by the excess of items obtained through conspicuous consumption. They are shown as symbols of leisure. And the observer is reminded of how quickly that people forget about the consequences of irresponsible spending, since the buy, buy, buy lifestyle continues at a continuingly faster rate, even after the nations of the world were warped as a result of the economic disasters in 1929. This is evident in the technological advancements that have permeated into this skewed interior, with a television playing an advertisement of a lady talking on the telephone, the vague cube-like recording device on the floor, the fanciness and glamour related to the theatre past the lounges window, and the ornament of a Ford hood bejewelled on the lampshade. Apart from the subject matter related to financial history, Hamilton also recognises the presence of Communism portrayed as a crescent of a planet which also acts as the houses ceiling. This segment of the globe is inconspicuously there, looming over and haunting the American homeowners with the vague signifier of all that was unfamiliar during the 1950s: communism. The reference to planets and space begins to attract attention to the informal Space Race between Russia and America, an important rivalry that would supposedly declare the more proficient country to be the symbolic leader of the world. Modernity, material comfort, and desirability present in Hamiltons labour were icons that undoubtedly have broadened the potential of Pop Art by promising an ideal kingdom of the imminent buyers paradise, while conveying a doubtful and ironic tone articulating the mode of sheer parody. This piece is therefore not only a creative playing field aesthetically, but also a milestone in the history of the art world and in the context of social critique. Eduardo Paolozzi Dr. Pepper Eduardo Paolozzi was like Richard Hamilton a member of the Independent Group, who brought a lart Brut perspective to things, which means he brought an outsiders perspective, supposedly because of his connections to dada and surrealism. This piece is made up of images from American magazines that he had obtained from American people in Paris. It is hard to understand why Paolozzi mustve been sucked into the exotic society portrayed in American magazines having been in poverty himself due to the Second World War. In dr pepper there are happy and healthy people surrounded by an abundance of food and automobiles, this all portraying a Wealthy life, with happiness being the key here. Paolozzi wasnt just attracted to the material value or message of consumerism or happiness. Paolozzi genuinely believed these images from advertisements to be artistically wealthy and an icon of the modern world. Paolozzi had once said in his opinion of American Popular images where the event of selling tinned pears was transformed into multi-coloured dreams, where sensuality and virility combined to form, in our view, an art form more subtle and fulfilling than the orthodox choice of either the Tate Gallery or the Royal Academy (Eduardo Paolozzi, Retrospective statements in Robbins, p.192). This new outlook was soon to be embraced on an international scale as this work is actually a predecessor to Pop Art and wasnt actually part of the movement. Paolozzi was trying to respond to dada-ism and surrealism although his work is almost ingenious in seeing the future of art. In America:- It seemed that the American dream was no longer defined by political freedom, but instead was measured by the number of commodities a citizen could acquire. America was consuming popular magazines, cinema and television, pop music and rock n roll, automobiles and domestic appliances in steadily increasing numbers. They were encouraged to spend by a vast advertising sector that deliberately interpreted consumption as a measure of ones financial success and psychological wellbeing. American Pop Art was a very unified, more organised movement than the British. There were more obvious common characteristics such as the contemporary imagery, the obscurity of surface, and bold, strong colours. As opposed to the British also, American artists had a tendency to be more ambiguous and less like the transparent communication through British pop art. Many of the American artists suggested with humour that art was like any other consumer product that could be marketed. Andy Warhol Andy Warhol is probably the most famous pop artist and one of the most well-known artists in the west, with his work being placed on t-shirts and mugs and any other sort of merchandise. Known best for his Campbell soup cans, marylin Monroe prints and velvet underground album cover, in all of these pieces hes used bold bright colours, quite a common character within American pop art. Most of, if not all of his Pop Art work was screen printed, this semi mechanized way of producing works further pronounced the new era mass production, Andy Warhol was so fond of this whole idea that he dubbed his studio the Factory. Campbells Soup Cans Warhol had a more creative and positive view on ordinary culture than most and felt that abstract expressionists had gone out of their way to discern the wonder of modernity. The Campbell Soup Cans as well as his other series were the ideal opportunity to express this view on modern culture. However, Warhols blank manner laboured to be empty of emotional content and unable to be commented on on a social level. In fact the work was designed to be with the least amount of emotion or individual expression. According to Marcel Duchamp if you take a Campbells Soup can and repeat it fifty times, you are not interested in the retinal image. The depictions of the multiple cans are almost an abstraction in themselves with attention focused on the panorama rather than the individual cans and their details.it could be said that the symbolic identity of the multiple can depictions (freedom of choice, mass production etc.) became more important than the individual symbols. Warhol had a big interest in in factory like production in his early days of pop art which was mistaken by fine artists in general as their value system disagreed with mechanization. To further resonate the message of consumerism and mass production behind his art along with the silk screen printing, naming his studio the factory and creating series, he also took on a pop persona as he and his work became more noticed by the media.He began to adopt the image of a teenager of the time, engaging himself in pop culture like rock shows, so much so that he produced an album cover for the velvet underground and had famous friends hangout in his factory. I shop therefore I am Barbara Kruger I shop therefore I am is a print of a hand holding a red card with white lettering, by photographer Barbara Kruger.   It is a bold statement about Western culture and consumerism and is great in how implicates viewers by giving no clear notion of who is speaking, so it could be personal to her, personal from someone else, or relative to everyone, sucking the viewer in and making them think about the art on a more personal level. The message behind the piece is saying that we dont just shop for the things we need.   We shop to obtain an identity, persona and certain status and we do this so that we feel that we fit in and belong to a certain group in society. Conclusion Pop Art was evidently considerably different between America and Britain with the rest of Europe not quite producing fully fledged pop art works or taking the movement so seriously. Britain was quite clearly optimistic for the future of consumerism although it had undertones of concern and fear of the unknown as you would expect. In my opinion, the reason why the two natures were different is that America had evolved from the war economy before Britain so the advertisements being filtered through to Britain seemed alien and astounding, hence the large numbers of cut-outs being the primary base of pop art in Britain. America then acknowledged the movement and kept quite an intellectual spin on it all, with ambiguity present and narratives, part of what the British independent group was against, trying to keep the art open and objective rather than subjective and could be called the peoples art an art for everyone that requires no preliminary knowledge or particular understanding. The American pop art was a mixed movement with Andy Warhol producing the Campbell soup cans as a statement of mass production and consumerism but also as a statement that there is freedom and opportunity to choose what you want, almost as an echo of individuality which was very welcome and fantasized about. Although this is one of the more noticeable works of American pop art this should not be seen to represent all of American work, Barbara Krugers work is of a different style again. Krugers work was mainly made up of found black and white photographs with bold white lettering on a red background. Each of her works had a bold statement on the photograph, encouraging the viewer to think more about it, the statement, usually an ambiguous one would be based on society and topical. I shop therefore I am doesnt say who its referring to and has a message behind it rather than being obvious and clear of its nature. This evidence amongst many other American works further perpetuates my opin ion that American work is more ambiguous and therefore more intellectual rather than pure aesthetic information. Therefore my answer to the question is pop art a celebration or critique of consumer culture is that in the beginnings consumerism was heavily welcomed and a great relief celebrated by many, but still with some sceptical artists stating that consuming was becoming a reliance and for obvious reasons people worry when they have to rely on things. Pop art in Britain was much more hedonistic, optimistic and transparent, probably as a notion of hope to cling on to as they emerged out from austerity. Pop art in America could be more pessimistic at times and narrated with hidden messages having to be prized from the works, but as with Britain I think the idea was still celebratory although there was a little more critique from America than Britain, this would only be expected though as America being much larger would have more of a variation in opinion.

Philosophical Aspects of Literary Objectiveness :: Philosophy Philosophical Papers

Philosophical Aspects of Literary Objectiveness ABSTRACT: Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy avoids the problem of literary objectiveness altogether. His approach witnesses the general fact that an indifference towards literary objectiveness in particular, leads to a peculiar neglect of par excellence literariness as such. It seems obvious, however, that the constitutive aspects of the crisis of literary objectiveness cannot be shown to contain the underlying intention of bringing about this situation. At this point, one can identify what could probably be the most important element in a definition of literary objectiveness. In contrast to ‘natural’ objectiveness and objectiveness based on various societal conventions, the legitimacy of a literary work is solely guaranteed by its elements being organized in accordance with the rules of literary objectiveness. Thus when the crisis of literary objectiveness intensifies, literariness will also find itself in a crisis. This crisis detaches new, quasi-literary formati ons from various definitions of literariness. When literary objectiveness ceases, however, to be understood as a system constituted by various objective formations aiming to correspond in one way or another to the ‘world’, scientific analysis of literary objectiveness will be rendered impossible. The crisis of literary objectiveness thus brings about the crisis of the theory of literature and the philosophy of art. Gadamer explicitly argues that the scientific approach proves to be inadequate in the analysis of artistic experience. This attitude results in the categorical rejection of a scientific orientation (and so in a complete indifference towards literary objectiveness), but he seems to overemphasize an otherwise correct thesis on the non-reflexive character of artistic experience. It is the anti-mimetic and Platonic character of Gadamer’s aesthetic hermeneutics that determines the status of literary (artistic) objectiveness in his system of thought. What is of crucial importance, however, is to point out that this aesthetics entails a fundamental reduction of the significance of literary objectiveness. As soon as the essence of aesthetic object-constitution is taken to be re-cognition (plus the emanating aesthetic possibilities), the absolutely natural interest in the original object represented by a work of art.Undoubtedly, Gadamer’s conception answers a number of questions that tend to be ignored by other theories. It is just as obvious, however, that Gadamer completes here the aesthetic devaluation of the objective domain. It is not the characteristics of the ‘original’ that constitute the image, but in effect the image turns the original into an original. Paraphrasing this claim one arrives at a near paradox: not objectiveness makes a work of art possible, but a work of art lends objects their objectiveness.

Arthur Kornberg :: essays research papers

A. Personal Information Arthur Kornberg (1918-), American biochemist and physician, claims he has never met â€Å"a dull enzyme.† He has devoted his life to pursuing and purifying these critical protein molecules. His love of science did not spring from a family history rooted in science. He was born on March 3rd, 1918, the son of a sewing machine operator in the sweatshops of the Lower East Side of New York City. His parents, Joseph Aaron Kornberg and Lena Rachel Katz, were immigrant Jews who made great sacrifices to ensure the safety of their family. They had fled Poland, for if they had stayed, they would have been murdered in a German concentration camp. His grandfather had abandoned the paternal family name Queller, of Spanish origin. This was done to escape the fate of the army draft; he had taken the name of Kornberg, a man who had already done his service. His father used their meager earnings to bring and settle his family in New York City and was thrust into the sweatshops as a sewing machi ne operator. He, along with his brother Martin, 13 years older and sister Ella, nine years older, was encouraged by loving parents to obtain a good education. The public school reinforced this ideal. Education was the road of opportunity for social and economic mobility out of the sweatshops. His early education in grade school and Abraham Lincoln High School in Brooklyn was distinguished only by his â€Å"skipping † several grades. There was nothing inspirational about his courses except the teachers’ encouragement to get good grades. When he received a grade of 100 in the New York State Regents Examination, his chemistry teacher glowed with pride. It was the first time in over twenty years of teaching that a student of his had gotten a perfect grade. Arthur was a brilliant student who graduated from high school at the age of fifteen. He enrolled in City College in uptown Manhattan. Competition among a large body of bright and highly motivated students was fierce in all subjects. His high school interest in chemistry carried over into college. After receiving his B.S. degree in biology and chemistry in 1937, and since City College offered no graduate studies or research laboratories at that time, he became one of two hundred pre-med students at the Universi ty of Rochester. All through college he worked as a salesman in his parents’ furnishing store, and earned about $14 a week.

Computer Programming :: essays research papers fc

Computer Programming Choosing to do a research on a career can be a little easier to do when you have some or a general knowledge a particular field of work. There are many different types of jobs one can decide to undertake, one of which is in the most popular line of work today: Computer Programming. Although this line of work might seem a little tiresome but you might find it enjoyable by people with lots of patience and the will to do long and tidious work. Most programmers in large corporations work in teams, with each person focusing on a specific aspect of the total project(AOL). Programmers write the detailed instructions for a computer to follow. A computer programmer carefully studies the program that best suits the employer needs. They may also work for a large computer corporation developing new software and/or improving older versions of these programs. Programmers write specific programs by breaking down each step into a logical series of hours of writing programs, the programmer must follow. After long hours of writing programs, the programmer must thoroughly testing and revising it. Generally, programmers create software by using the following a basic step-by-step development process: (1) Define the scope of the program by outlining exactly what the program will do. (2) Plan the sequence of computer operations, usually by developing a flowchart (a diagram showing the order of computer actions and data flow). (3) Write the code--the program instructions encoded in a particular programming language. (4) Test the program. (5) Debug the program (eliminate problems in program logic and correct incorrect usage of the programming language). (6) Submit the program for beta testing, in which users test the program extensively under real-life conditions to see whether it performs correctly(AOL) Programmers are grouped into two types: Application programmers and systems programmers. These programmers write the software that changes a basic machine into a personal tool that not only is useful for increasing productivity but also be fun and entertain the user. Applications programmers write commercial programs to be used by businesses, in scientific research centers, and in the home. Systems programmers write the complex programs that control the inner-workings of the computer. Application programmers are focused primarily on business, engineering, or science tasks, such as writing a program to direct the guidance system of a missile to its target (Information Finder). A systems programmer maintains the software that controls the operation of the entire computer system. They make changes to the instructions that controls the central processing unit, in turn, controls the computers hardware itself(FL View #475). They also help application programmers determine the source of problems that may occur with their programs. Computer Programming :: essays research papers fc Computer Programming Choosing to do a research on a career can be a little easier to do when you have some or a general knowledge a particular field of work. There are many different types of jobs one can decide to undertake, one of which is in the most popular line of work today: Computer Programming. Although this line of work might seem a little tiresome but you might find it enjoyable by people with lots of patience and the will to do long and tidious work. Most programmers in large corporations work in teams, with each person focusing on a specific aspect of the total project(AOL). Programmers write the detailed instructions for a computer to follow. A computer programmer carefully studies the program that best suits the employer needs. They may also work for a large computer corporation developing new software and/or improving older versions of these programs. Programmers write specific programs by breaking down each step into a logical series of hours of writing programs, the programmer must follow. After long hours of writing programs, the programmer must thoroughly testing and revising it. Generally, programmers create software by using the following a basic step-by-step development process: (1) Define the scope of the program by outlining exactly what the program will do. (2) Plan the sequence of computer operations, usually by developing a flowchart (a diagram showing the order of computer actions and data flow). (3) Write the code--the program instructions encoded in a particular programming language. (4) Test the program. (5) Debug the program (eliminate problems in program logic and correct incorrect usage of the programming language). (6) Submit the program for beta testing, in which users test the program extensively under real-life conditions to see whether it performs correctly(AOL) Programmers are grouped into two types: Application programmers and systems programmers. These programmers write the software that changes a basic machine into a personal tool that not only is useful for increasing productivity but also be fun and entertain the user. Applications programmers write commercial programs to be used by businesses, in scientific research centers, and in the home. Systems programmers write the complex programs that control the inner-workings of the computer. Application programmers are focused primarily on business, engineering, or science tasks, such as writing a program to direct the guidance system of a missile to its target (Information Finder). A systems programmer maintains the software that controls the operation of the entire computer system. They make changes to the instructions that controls the central processing unit, in turn, controls the computers hardware itself(FL View #475). They also help application programmers determine the source of problems that may occur with their programs.

Plato’s Republic

Thrasymachus takes the cynical but honest view, that there is more benefit in plainly appearing just than there is in actual being just. He does not necessarily refer to hypocritical villains, those who deliberately nurture a veneer of a socially just man in order to reap personal benefit. He could also be referring to those who have convinced themselves that they are good, apart from society recognizing them as good. As an example of the first we could take Moliere’s Tartuffe. He has entered the household of Orgon with deliberate intent to appropriate for himself the property of his landlord. He takes note of the superficial natures of Orgon and his mother, both of them who are fond of shows of piety and uttering platitudes. He tailors his conduct exactly to please these two. He makes sure that religion is always pouring from his lips. His conduct is always immaculate in the presence of them, and he is never short of advice to the others, who hold him is various degrees of suspicion, regarding the pious and just life. Tartuffe is not only a hypocrite but also a calculating villain. He is the sort that works his way to social standing and privilege by express knowledge that the larger part of society is weak to such charms. It is easy to see that anyone in Tartuffe’s position would lose out by trying to be really just to those he encounters. The counter argument to this is that villains like Tartuffe are usually found out in the end, and therefore suffer in the long run, at the hands of the same society. For example, Tartuffe overreaches himself when he tries to seduce the wife of Orgon, while at the same time courting their daughter. When he is found out he loses the favor of Orgon, after which point he resorts to outright villainy. But when Thrasymachus argues for the appearance of virtue he also has the example of Orgon in mind. For Orgon, and even more so for his mother, the appearance of virtue is the most important thing. So important is it to them that they do not realize that they a dealing with appearances. They believe themselves to be virtuous because they abide by the rules of conventional virtue and piety. Orgon is a wealthy man, and it is clear that his wealth is derived through his ability to adapt. He has no concern whether justice is really done, but only that it should appear to be done. He is so blinded by the show of virtue of Tartuffe that he does not even suspect ulterior motives in his lodger wanting to wed his daughter. When the daughter complains he signs away his property to the lodger in a show of defiance. Of course, his blindness is the cause of his ruin in the end, which is shown for dramatic purposes. But the general argument remains, which is that the likes of Orgon prosper is society. He does enquire into true justice, and any effort in this direction would disrupt his social standing from the root. The likes of Orgon happily give charity to murderers. The vanity of giving blinds them to all other considerations. The mistake of Thrasymachus is that he considers contingent benefits and fails to arrive at a comprehensive account. To provide such an account is extremely difficult, and part of the difficulty is that the listener must have an open and enquiring mind to be able to grasp the subtleties of it. This is why Socrates (Plato) provides three different explanations of why the just life is preferable to the unjust one, and the three responses are suited to the three different attitudes of the questioners. The rich Cephalus is smug in his righteousness that he repays his debts, and that he gives to charity. He is confrontational, and therefore it is only possible to contradict his smug assertions bluntly. This is why Socrates merely asks him to consider whether the returning of a weapon to its rightful owner, a murderer, is justice. Thrasymachus is more constructive. He claims that justice is merely what the powerful impose on the weak. To this Socrates argues that all constructive activity has the powerful acting in favor of the weak, not the other way round, as Thrasymachus contends. If justice be admitted to be constructive then Thrasymachus’ is plainly wrong. The more subtle argument concerning harmony is reserved for the honest enquiries of Adeimantus and Glaucon. Justice is introduced now as a harmony in a body, where the ruling part subdues and controls the rest of the body, so that no part is in discord with another. The final notion is not easy to grasp, for it seems to imply that rulers must have complete wisdom in order to rule, for only with complete wisdom will they be infused with the sense of harmony that is required to effect justice. As a first example we take a football team. The manager of the team is the ruling part of this body. If he can effect harmony here, between all the players, and each of them with himself, then the team will win consistently. But this very success is bound to bring problems. If the team is so good that it never loses, then after a point the players lose motivation, they become complacent. Only after a few bad losses are they able to regain their efficient level again. Complacency, however, is the least evil. Success brings in its train a plethora of evils, all capable of disrupting the harmony. The players begin to nurture big egos and there are personality clashes. In dire circumstances they had all stuck together; but with success even the manager is not beyond reproach anymore. Faced with all these problems the manager becomes more and more dictatorial rather than wise, and this in itself is a cause for disruption. The same is true of any organization. A company starting from scratch is fired with a zeal that is conducive to harmony amongst its employees. But we cannot call such a company absolutely harmonious before it begins to reap enormous profits, because harmony must be equated with success. We are applying the word â€Å"harmony† in the strict sense here, meaning that something in harmony cannot have discordant parts. A company that in unprofitable is not in harmony. Only when it has reached the very top of the field can we begin to harbor such notions as perfect harmony. Then again, the higher is aspires the less and less is management able to maintain harmony. Managers themselves start to look after their own instead of the interests of the business. And so we observe in real life that managers award themselves huge pay packets even when the business is floundering. The arguments of Socrates are always in favor of universals and opposed to particulars. Particular justice, or particular virtue, will not always make sense, but this is only because the all-encompassing or universal picture evades us. Socrates confesses that he does not know what justice is, or what virtue is, or what truth is. To know these would mean having a universal idea in the mind, which is not possible. If the arguments of Socrates mean anything, they are means by which one comes to believe in the universal ideal, becomes convinced that it exists. And so one must not despair if injustice or untruth appears to have the upper hand. Skeptics may easily cast doubt on the existence of universals. They might argue along the lines that we have no experience of universals. That all experience is particular and contingent, and that it is pedantic to introduce the notion of universals. They might say that all justice is merely a point of view. Different cultures evolve with different notions of justice, and this is the principle reason why nations go to war with each other, to fight for a particular notion of justice, or for certain ideas about beauty. The skeptics might argue that if there was a universal idea of justice then it would have been discovered by now and nations would live in peace. In response to such arguments Plato would emphasize existence. For example, people use the word â€Å"table† in everyday discourse. It doesn’t seem to spread confusion, but instead facilitates understanding. But this is strange, because there is no standard table in the world. All tables are different from each other. This difference is a source of confusion. And yet people from diverse cultures and diverse walks of life get away by simply mentioning the word â€Å"table†, and things are immediately clear to all parties as to what is being said. Such fluent communication would be impossible if not every mention of â€Å"table† was referring to a standard. And if this standard does not exist in the material world, then it surely exists transcendentally, something which Plato calls the world of ideals. We could not imagine the ideal table, for every effort in this direction would spring up a particular table. But it is an overwhelming certainty that we have language and communication, in the place of confusion and chaos. This is how Plato confirms the existence of universals. What is true of the word â€Å"table† is also true of the notions of justice, virtue and beauty. People hold relative notions of these, not only between cultures, but also between individuals of the same culture. The skeptics point to a cacophony in such matters, but they can never identify chaos. If difference was the norm, and no standard had ever prevailed, we must judge that there has been time enough for all structure to break down. But what we see in human society is miraculous as it is. The most miraculous structure of them all is the Republic. People can always find fault in the way the state is run. But if they could see things plainly, free from every sort of bias, they could not help marvel at the very existence of the Republic. It is a place where individuals meet with common notions of justice, virtue and beauty. So the existence of the state is a testimony that universal justice exists, as do universal virtue and universal beauty. Plato uses the existence of the Republic to prove that universal justice exists, and that the just life is preferable to the unjust one. Plato’s Republic Thrasymachus takes the cynical but honest view, that there is more benefit in plainly appearing just than there is in actual being just. He does not necessarily refer to hypocritical villains, those who deliberately nurture a veneer of a socially just man in order to reap personal benefit. He could also be referring to those who have convinced themselves that they are good, apart from society recognizing them as good. As an example of the first we could take Moliere’s Tartuffe. He has entered the household of Orgon with deliberate intent to appropriate for himself the property of his landlord. He takes note of the superficial natures of Orgon and his mother, both of them who are fond of shows of piety and uttering platitudes. He tailors his conduct exactly to please these two. He makes sure that religion is always pouring from his lips. His conduct is always immaculate in the presence of them, and he is never short of advice to the others, who hold him is various degrees of suspicion, regarding the pious and just life. Tartuffe is not only a hypocrite but also a calculating villain. He is the sort that works his way to social standing and privilege by express knowledge that the larger part of society is weak to such charms. It is easy to see that anyone in Tartuffe’s position would lose out by trying to be really just to those he encounters. The counter argument to this is that villains like Tartuffe are usually found out in the end, and therefore suffer in the long run, at the hands of the same society. For example, Tartuffe overreaches himself when he tries to seduce the wife of Orgon, while at the same time courting their daughter. When he is found out he loses the favor of Orgon, after which point he resorts to outright villainy. But when Thrasymachus argues for the appearance of virtue he also has the example of Orgon in mind. For Orgon, and even more so for his mother, the appearance of virtue is the most important thing. So important is it to them that they do not realize that they a dealing with appearances. They believe themselves to be virtuous because they abide by the rules of conventional virtue and piety. Orgon is a wealthy man, and it is clear that his wealth is derived through his ability to adapt. He has no concern whether justice is really done, but only that it should appear to be done. He is so blinded by the show of virtue of Tartuffe that he does not even suspect ulterior motives in his lodger wanting to wed his daughter. When the daughter complains he signs away his property to the lodger in a show of defiance. Of course, his blindness is the cause of his ruin in the end, which is shown for dramatic purposes. But the general argument remains, which is that the likes of Orgon prosper is society. He does enquire into true justice, and any effort in this direction would disrupt his social standing from the root. The likes of Orgon happily give charity to murderers. The vanity of giving blinds them to all other considerations. The mistake of Thrasymachus is that he considers contingent benefits and fails to arrive at a comprehensive account. To provide such an account is extremely difficult, and part of the difficulty is that the listener must have an open and enquiring mind to be able to grasp the subtleties of it. This is why Socrates (Plato) provides three different explanations of why the just life is preferable to the unjust one, and the three responses are suited to the three different attitudes of the questioners. The rich Cephalus is smug in his righteousness that he repays his debts, and that he gives to charity. He is confrontational, and therefore it is only possible to contradict his smug assertions bluntly. This is why Socrates merely asks him to consider whether the returning of a weapon to its rightful owner, a murderer, is justice. Thrasymachus is more constructive. He claims that justice is merely what the powerful impose on the weak. To this Socrates argues that all constructive activity has the powerful acting in favor of the weak, not the other way round, as Thrasymachus contends. If justice be admitted to be constructive then Thrasymachus’ is plainly wrong. The more subtle argument concerning harmony is reserved for the honest enquiries of Adeimantus and Glaucon. Justice is introduced now as a harmony in a body, where the ruling part subdues and controls the rest of the body, so that no part is in discord with another. The final notion is not easy to grasp, for it seems to imply that rulers must have complete wisdom in order to rule, for only with complete wisdom will they be infused with the sense of harmony that is required to effect justice. As a first example we take a football team. The manager of the team is the ruling part of this body. If he can effect harmony here, between all the players, and each of them with himself, then the team will win consistently. But this very success is bound to bring problems. If the team is so good that it never loses, then after a point the players lose motivation, they become complacent. Only after a few bad losses are they able to regain their efficient level again. Complacency, however, is the least evil. Success brings in its train a plethora of evils, all capable of disrupting the harmony. The players begin to nurture big egos and there are personality clashes. In dire circumstances they had all stuck together; but with success even the manager is not beyond reproach anymore. Faced with all these problems the manager becomes more and more dictatorial rather than wise, and this in itself is a cause for disruption. The same is true of any organization. A company starting from scratch is fired with a zeal that is conducive to harmony amongst its employees. But we cannot call such a company absolutely harmonious before it begins to reap enormous profits, because harmony must be equated with success. We are applying the word â€Å"harmony† in the strict sense here, meaning that something in harmony cannot have discordant parts. A company that in unprofitable is not in harmony. Only when it has reached the very top of the field can we begin to harbor such notions as perfect harmony. Then again, the higher is aspires the less and less is management able to maintain harmony. Managers themselves start to look after their own instead of the interests of the business. And so we observe in real life that managers award themselves huge pay packets even when the business is floundering. The arguments of Socrates are always in favor of universals and opposed to particulars. Particular justice, or particular virtue, will not always make sense, but this is only because the all-encompassing or universal picture evades us. Socrates confesses that he does not know what justice is, or what virtue is, or what truth is. To know these would mean having a universal idea in the mind, which is not possible. If the arguments of Socrates mean anything, they are means by which one comes to believe in the universal ideal, becomes convinced that it exists. And so one must not despair if injustice or untruth appears to have the upper hand. Skeptics may easily cast doubt on the existence of universals. They might argue along the lines that we have no experience of universals. That all experience is particular and contingent, and that it is pedantic to introduce the notion of universals. They might say that all justice is merely a point of view. Different cultures evolve with different notions of justice, and this is the principle reason why nations go to war with each other, to fight for a particular notion of justice, or for certain ideas about beauty. The skeptics might argue that if there was a universal idea of justice then it would have been discovered by now and nations would live in peace. In response to such arguments Plato would emphasize existence. For example, people use the word â€Å"table† in everyday discourse. It doesn’t seem to spread confusion, but instead facilitates understanding. But this is strange, because there is no standard table in the world. All tables are different from each other. This difference is a source of confusion. And yet people from diverse cultures and diverse walks of life get away by simply mentioning the word â€Å"table†, and things are immediately clear to all parties as to what is being said. Such fluent communication would be impossible if not every mention of â€Å"table† was referring to a standard. And if this standard does not exist in the material world, then it surely exists transcendentally, something which Plato calls the world of ideals. We could not imagine the ideal table, for every effort in this direction would spring up a particular table. But it is an overwhelming certainty that we have language and communication, in the place of confusion and chaos. This is how Plato confirms the existence of universals. What is true of the word â€Å"table† is also true of the notions of justice, virtue and beauty. People hold relative notions of these, not only between cultures, but also between individuals of the same culture. The skeptics point to a cacophony in such matters, but they can never identify chaos. If difference was the norm, and no standard had ever prevailed, we must judge that there has been time enough for all structure to break down. But what we see in human society is miraculous as it is. The most miraculous structure of them all is the Republic. People can always find fault in the way the state is run. But if they could see things plainly, free from every sort of bias, they could not help marvel at the very existence of the Republic. It is a place where individuals meet with common notions of justice, virtue and beauty. So the existence of the state is a testimony that universal justice exists, as do universal virtue and universal beauty. Plato uses the existence of the Republic to prove that universal justice exists, and that the just life is preferable to the unjust one.