The three most inportant gifts i ever received are Essay

The three most inportant gifts i ever received are - Essay Example When I was young I always had the capability to come out as a leader in my class. I used to be the class representative at an age when my group mates were hesitant to come in front of the teacher. I have learned to lead from the front and guide my class mates through everything that they face. The leadership skills I believe have been gifted to me by God himself. Similarly I have also been gifted the capability of being determined in life. Determination is yet another god gifted capability for which I did not have to do much in my life. From an early age I always had this determination in achieving my goals when I set them up. I wanted to clear the subject of mathematics with a good grade and with the right determination and struggle I was able to do so. I believe that this determination would also help me in the future. Determination is the most important gift I ever received from God as I believe that I can be able to achieve almost anything that I require in this world. Starting from my very early life I received a lot of presents from my family members on my birthday but one special gift that I still remember as the best from my childhood was when my grandfather gifted me a watch. A watch seems too ordinary for an important gift but the timing of the gift matters most to me. While gifting me the watch my grandfather said â€Å"Son, always be particular about your timings†. Ever since I used that watch to make sure that I was particular about my timings and this has helped me greatly in life. These three gifts have helped me to become a better man in my life. I believe that with these gifts I can make out something good of my life and can achieve anything that I require. Being particular about my timings can help me to set an example for others and the capability to lead can help me to lead other people. Similarly with the determination of my sort I think that I can be able to achieve almost any

Traditional Love VS Contemporary Love Essay Example for Free

Traditional Love VS Contemporary Love Essay Love refers to an ineffable and strong feeling towards another human being. It encompasses very many different feelings ranging from nonsexual feelings to passionate desire and intimacy associated with romantic love. Cancian (2000) explains that, Love has many forms which acts as main facilitator of interpersonal relationships and because of its psychological importance, love is one of the mostly used theme in the creative arts. All that we hear and see explains that romantic love is one of the greatest ideal, we all have to fall in love at one point and should stay in love.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The traditional perspective on marriage and love was a very great sense of commitment, fidelity and loyalty while the contemporary love is full of good feelings and emotional highs. Contemporary love is full of romance which is a decorated or exaggerated way of expressing love while the traditional love emphasized on true love which contained fidelity, loyalty and commitment. Romance and commitment really spice up a relationship but romance alone can not be defined as love since one can be very romantic with someone while their hearts and love are very far. Cancian (2000) urges that, Others just get romantic with people of the opposite sex just to satisfy their sexual desires with no feelings of love to the partner. On the other hand, commitment is accompanied with love since there is no way one can decide to be loyal, faithful and committed to someone without that strong feeling of love. Faithfulness, loyalty and commitment are fruits of strong and true love but this doesnt mean romance is not important, it spices up a relationship.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The modern romantic love is the personal freedom we have of expressing our feelings of love together with our feelings of how we would want the special person we love and care about feel us and see us. It is more of a modern touch to relationships and it is like an addiction. A relationship becomes more exciting if it has traditional love toped up with romantic love. Traditional love gives the durability aspect while the contemporary love gives the emotional aspect. Traditional love wins over contemporary love for being very solid, resilient and lasting, whereas contemporary love tends to last for a very short period of time as proved by many marriages in United states that has only lasted for a very short time. Romantic love is like fire which burns brightly for a short period and then it goes off. It is very easy to be faithful, loyal and committed to a partner that you love which makes relationships based on traditional love permanent. However without romance love lacks taste and excitement and it just become a routine. It is therefore very important to keep a balance of the two because when one truly loves, respect, faithfulness, commitment and loyalty to the partner becomes the fruits of love and at the same time the element of joy that is as a result of romance should be present. The human heart takes care of the contemporary love while the mind takes care of the traditional love.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Love has no limits and is very free, one has only to give it generously to others and will have more coming back. Both the traditional love and contemporary love are important because they compliment each other. Contemporary love gives the joy of being in a relationship while the traditional love gives fidelity, commitment and loyalty. For any relationship to last long and for it to be full of joy, both traditional and contemporary love should be emphasized.

Socrates Philosophical Teachings And Corruption Philosophy Essay

Socrates Philosophical Teachings And Corruption Philosophy Essay In works of Ancient Greek thinkers many great problems which and direct today development of psychological ideas are opened. In their explanations of genesis and soul structure three directions on which there was a search of those big spheres independent of the individual just like which it was treated microspace individual human soul are found out. The son of the sculptor and the midwife, Socrates, having got the general for Athenians of that time education, became the philosopher discussing problems of the theory of knowledge, ethics, a policy, pedagogics with any person, who agreed to his questions in any place in the street, on the market area, at any time. Socrates, unlike sophists, did not take money for philosophising, and among his listeners there were people of the most various property status, formation, political convictions, an ideological and moral warehouse. The sense of activity of Socrates (it has received the name dialectics a finding of true by means of conversation) consisted in, that with the help of definitely picked up questions to help the interlocutor to find the true answer (so-called Ñ Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒ Ã‚ ºÃƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒ Ã‚ ¸Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬ ¡Ãƒ Ã‚ µÃƒâ€˜Ã‚ Ãƒ Ã‚ ºÃƒ Ã‚ ¸Ãƒ Ã‚ ¹ a method) and by that at its message from uncertain representations to logically clear knowledge of di scussed subjects. To discussion the extensive circle of everyday concepts about justice was exposed, to injustice, good, beauty, courage etc. Socrates considered as the debt to accept active participation in a public life of Athens. Thus he far not always agreed with opinion of the majority in national meeting and in a jury that demanded considerable courage, especially in board thirty tyrants. Not the consent with the majority Socrates considered the as result, that he always aspired to observance of laws and justice of which the majority of people not always cares. He has been accused that does not honour gods and corrupts youth, and is sentenced to death by 361 voice from 500 judges. Socrates has courageously accepted a sentence, having drunk poison and having rejected plans of the pupils about runaway as rescue. Socrates did not write down the reasonings, considering, that only the live conversation leads to the necessary result to education of the person. Therefore it is difficult to reconstruct completely its sights about which we know from three basic sources of comedies by Aristophan, memories of Xenophont and Platons compositions. All these authors underline, what exactly Socrates considered for the first time soul first of all as a source of morals of the person, instead of as a source of activity of a body (as it was accepted in theories Geraclit and Democrit). Socrates said that soul the mental quality of the individual peculiar to it as a reasonable being, operating according to moral ideals. Such approach to soul could not start with thought on its materiality that is why simultaneously with occurrence of a sight at communication of soul with morals there is also a new sight at it which has been developed by Socratess pupil Platon later. Speaking about morals, Socrates connected it with behaviour of the person. The morals are the blessing realized in acts of people. However to estimate this or that act as moral, it is necessary to know preliminary, that such blessing. Therefore Socrates connected morals with reason, considering, that virtue consists in knowledge of good and in operation according to this knowledge. For example, that person who knows how it is necessary to behave in danger is brave, and arrives according to the knowledge. Therefore first of all it is necessary to train people, to show them a difference between good and bad, and then already to estimate them on conducting. Learning a difference between good and harm, the person starts to learn and itself. Thus, Socrates comes to the major position of the sights connected with carrying over of the centre of research interests from the surrounding validity on, the person. Socratess motto said: Learn yourself. By yourself Socrates understood Under knowledge not the reference inside to own experiences and consciousness conditions (the concept about consciousness was not isolated by then yet), and the analysis of acts and relations to them, moral estimations and norms of human behaviour in various vital situations. It conducted to new understanding of essence of soul. If sophists have accepted for a starting point the relation of the person not to the nature, and to other people for Socrates the relation of the person to as to the carrier of intellectual and moral qualities becomes the major. Subsequently even said, that Socrates was the pioneer of psychotherapy, trying by means of a word to bare that is hidden behind external displays of work of mind. Anyway, in his methodics the ideas which have played in many centuries a key role in psychological researches of thinking were concealed. First, thought work was put in dependence on a problem creating an obstacle for its habitual current. Such problem was the system of questions which Socrates brought down on the interlocutor, clearing up that its intellectual activity. Secondly, this activity initially had character of dialogue. Both signs: the orientation of thought created by a problem, and dialogics, assuming, that knowledge initially socially as roots in dialogue of subjects, steels in the XX-th century the main reference points of experimental psychology of thinking. About this philosopher who has become for all centuries by an ideal of unselfishness, honesty, independence of thought, we know according to his pupils. He never wrote nothing and considered itself not as the teacher of wisdom, and the person who is clearing up in others aspiration to true. After Socrates, in which centre of interests there was mainly a cerebration (its products and values) the individual subject, the concept about a soul was filled with the new subject maintenance. It made absolutely special essence which the physical nature does not know. The Socratess dialogic-dialectic method assumes freedom of the person and is based on democratic idea that the person is a being responsible, capable to learn true and to make the decision on own fear and risk. By means of test by irony Socrates exposed superficial claims for pansophy and infallibility, subverting all imaginary, pseudo-serious and any false authorities. The Socratess irony is search true and positive, an appeal to originally serious and considerable, to their constant test. Socratess irony results from love to wisdom and is directed on excitation of this love as to the higher value. Socrates believed, that the reason is poured on all Universe, that the human reason makes only insignificant share of the general reason. As proof of life of the higher Reason Socrates referred on the order in the Universe, to conformity of human sense organs to natural phenomena: eyes are created for sight, ears for hearing and so on, and so on. Unlike sophists, Socrates did not show the superiority over associates; he aspired to learn to distinguish them under a mask of pansophy ignorance. He considered training of the person thinking, ability to find the main task of the life in itself (himself) the deep spiritual beginning. By his own words, he has been put to the Athenian people as a gadfly to a horse that that did not forget to think of the soul. The method, which Socrates has selected for the decision of this uneasy problem, the irony releasing the person from self-confidence, from noncritical acceptance of anothers opinion. In the beginning Socrates as though models initial opposition: admits own ignorance and gives the chance to the interlocutor to affirm as the belief. Then by means of smart questions brings the interlocutor to opposite representation that that has seen Socrates spiritual superiority and own ignorance. The irony purpose not destruction of moral principles; on the contrary, as a result of the ironical relation to all external, to prejudiced opinions the person develops the general representation about that spiritual beginning which lays in each person. The way of independent opening of true person Socrates named maietics (literally birth art). Maietics is  «soul childbirth, instead of bodies », it is a way of true births on which there is a person by means of the teacher. The philosophy should become the doctrine how the person to live, the philosophy develops the general concept about things, finds out a uniform basis existing which for human reason appears the blessing the prime target. The uniform basis of a human life does not exist in a separation from spiritual efforts of the person, it not the indifferent natural beginning. Only when Uniform becomes the purpose of the person, it will be presented in the form of concept, it will make his happiness. Such rapprochement of knowledge and morals has caused many objections of thinkers of the subsequent epoch. However Socrates ethical rationalism, not clear to the modern person, was rather pertinent during an epoch of destruction of the patriarchal communal relationship, traditional religion. The person of the sociality which has not got stronger yet without the aid of sophists remained in loneliness, became the captive of the passions, began to be afraid of himself. As it is shown in  «Criton », motives of refusal of runaway follow from Socrates ethical doctrine and are reduced to that  «the unfair act is angrily and a shame for making it, and besides in all cases » (Platon. Criton.49 b). Therefore, contrary to public opinion,  «it is not necessary neither to answer injustice with injustice, nor to do to somebody harms even if it would be necessary to suffer from someone » (In the same place. 49 à Ã‚ °-Ñ ). Especially it is impossible to make injustice concerning domestic laws for only thanking it there is a state, thanking it Socrates was born from a legal marriage, has received education ordered by them and became the citizen of Athens which have allocated with its every possible blessings. Being the citizen, he was obliged to support, instead of to undermine laws of the fatherland. As against the father and mother, and the it is more against the state and its laws is inadmissible to make violence even if you test from the m injustice, including such not deserved penalty, as condemnation on death. The first of the specified arguments is reduced to that the runaway Socrates wishes to ruin laws and the state for they cannot exist if the decisions which have been taken out by court, at will of private persons are not carried out, cancelled and become void (Criton. 50 à Ã‚ °-Ñ ). Socrates considers possible to challenge this argument, having referred that  «the state has arrived with us has unfairly and incorrectly solved business » (In the same place. 50). Criton catches at this objection as it is meant, that Socrates has the right to arrive unfairly concerning the state which has arrived unfairly in relation to it. Therefore default of an unfair sentence of court by Socrates will lead to death not of the state and its laws, and only to cancellation of a wrong sentence. However Criton forgets, that earlier he has agreed with Socrates ethical principle, that (contrary to opinion of the majority expressing a traditional ethical standard) it is not necessary to arrive u nfairly even if with you have arrived so, and it is not necessary to answer with harm (49 b-d). Instead of specifying to Criton in this contradiction, Socrates (become to the place of Criton in dialogue with Laws) results possible counter objection of Laws: Laws agreed with citizens of the policy (city-state) not that they, citizens, will submit and execute only those judgements which are represented to them fair but only that separate persons should carry out all and any judgements which have been taken out by the State (50). The second argument says that Socrates is in relation to the State and Laws in the same dependence as the slave before the owner and as the child before the parents their relations are unequal, therefore Socrates should obey to the court decision (50 d-51). The state has found fair to sentence Socrates to a death penalty. Hence, Socrates attempt will escape the life unfair act. Further, in considered argument the analogy between parents and the child, and also between the mister and the slave is spent, however in other places of dialogue about children is spoken as about timid and inconsistent silly little chaps (46 with, 49 b), and about slaves as about contemptible beings (52 d; see also 53). Following this analogy, it is possible to prove, that if Socrates, contrary to will of the State, will make runaway from prison, he will assimilate to the child or the slave; But as Socrates does not want it, he will not make runaway, will not break the obligations to the State which generat ed and has brought up him. However all sense of analyzed argument just in that also consists what to be the unequal child or the slave not too badly that Socrates opposed such state of affairs: he should aspire to accept the restrictions following from its position. All it, are noticed by G.Young, is a stretch, if not obvious inconsistency which forces to think of, whether the second argument is so convincing, to what he it is represented at first sight (Young. P. 18). The third argument, concerning the agreement concluded between Socrates and Laws (50), consists that any of the Athenian citizens, knowing a decision-making and business management order in the State, nevertheless does not leave Athens, thereby silently submitting to laws and executing all commands from the State. In  «Criton » we read:  « Who remains, knowing as we judge in our courts and we run in the State other business, we can already assert, that he has in practice agreed to carry out that we (Laws. F. à Ã… ¡) We order; and if he does not obey, we say, that he three times as much breaks justice: that does not obey us Having agreed to us to obey Also does not try to overpersuade us when we do something badly, and though we offer, instead of roughly we order to execute our decisions and we give it on a choice one of two either to overpersuade us, or to execute, he does not do neither that, nor another  »(51 e-52 and; see also 51 b-Ñ ). Attracts attention, that execution of laws is dycon as the obligation (agreement) to carry out the laws, taken on itself the citizen of the state, assumes, that: 1) the citizen has the right to challenge justice of the accepted decisions, possibility to overpersuade the state and to explain, in what justice (In the same place consists. 51 with, 52); 2) acceptance by the citizen on itself of obligations excludes compulsion (###) or a deceit (###) from the state (52; 3) agreement undertaking does not connect the citizen with the state for ever, but gives to each citizen the right to take away the property, to lodge outside of fatherland at own discretion (51 d-e). It is easy to notice, that on conditions of the agreement the state or laws do not guarantee and hardly can guarantee, that they will make in relation to the citizen only the blessing and to do with him only fairly. The only thing, that they promise, is to give to the citizen possibility to overpersuade them, i.e. To listen to arguments of the citizen which he will wish to state, concerning a prospective inaccuracy and injustice taken out by them (laws) of decisions. Strictly speaking, chances of possibility to overpersuade them are represented illusory. After all in practice to convince to (overpersuade) it is necessary the fellow citizens in which person exist and laws function. There is a question and on legitimacy of carrying out of distinction between citizens of the state and laws as the last, wishing to keep the advantage and to save itself from infringements, say, that in case of wrong decisions the citizen will be offended  «not by us, Laws, and people » (54 b). The know n contradiction is observed also between the second argument according to which the citizen obliged by the birth and education to the state, is something like the property or the state slave, and the third argument considerably limiting the rights of the citizen if and not obliging it to voluntary slavery. (The third argument forcing, according to Young, the citizen to voluntary slavery, we consider insufficiently proved, as, however, and its some other statements on which we here will not stop.) anyway, Laws recognize, as we already saw, à Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ µÃƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒ Ã‚ ²Ãƒ Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒ Ã‚ ¿Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â€š ¬Ãƒ Ã‚ °Ãƒ Ã‚ ²Ãƒ Ã‚ ½Ãƒ Ã‚ ¾Ãƒâ€˜Ã‚ Ãƒâ€˜Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€˜Ã…’ the citizen before the state (50). Not only in Apologia, but also in  «Criton » Socrates adheres to the point of view, that a life without philosophy and philosophising is not a life. Therefore in Apologia he is said, that, preferring to obey supreme more, than to people, the death is faster than signs, than will refuse philosophy. In Criton, refusing flight, Socrates refers to this argument not because he has decided to obey people more, than to the god, and for that simple reason, that flight (besides would serve as the indirect demonstration of its fault) did not promise it philosophising possibility on foreign land. [5] here that Laws speak to Socrates:  « If you will go to one of the nearest cities, to Thebes or Megara, after all both these cities cope good laws, that will come there, Socrates, the enemy of their state order: all those to whom of roads their city, on you will be mown, including you by the blighter of laws, and you will strengthen glory as if they have correctly solved your business for y our judges And can be, you are intended to avoid the arranged well states and decent people? But whether in that case it is necessary to you to live? Or you will wish to approach with such people and will not feel ashamed with them to talk? But what to talk about, Socrates? About the same, about what here again what is more expensive to people of all virtue and justice, customs and laws? Really your way it would be worthy Socrates? And after all it would be necessary to think of it  »(Criton. 53 b-d). To Socrates who was teaching, that the main question of a life is a question on good and harm and that the person at all situations can and should choose good, possibility, and on a personal example has been given, to prove practicability of to what he teaches. On court the choice was coming before him: to stop philosophising and to keep a life or on pain of death to continue the activity. For Socrates refusal of the mission was equivalent to refusal of a life, its sense. He has chosen death. For such integral and fair natures as Socrates, other alternative was not. Gegel specified in it still. Gegels point of view was divided by T.Gompertsem (p. 83) and other scientists. It finds supporters and now. Having put cultural wealth in the forefront, Socrates considered their creation by an overall objective of a human life. And as, according to Socrates, the spiritual blessings are not transferred in a ready kind from one person to another, but reveal and got in search, in research itself and others, in  «to care of a soul » so far as refusal of such search is equivalent to refusal of a life. According to Socrates, dialogue and a dialectic (question-answer) method of definition of concepts are necessary conditions of joint search of true.

A NEW TREND IN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT. :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   BY. TJ WHITE What could be more perfect than owning a luxury vacation home at a world class resort and receiving rental income whenever you aren't using it? Condo hotels are the newest trend in vacation home ownership. Live in it when you're there, and rent it out when you are not. So how do condo-hotels differ from owning a traditional condominium or vacation apartment? They aren't your typical second homes. They are beautifully furnished condominium suites in some of the most famous hotels and resorts all around the US. The properties are typically large, high-rise, luxury hotels. Prices can range from $250,000 to over $1 million for prime condo hotel properties. When the owners of condo-hotel units aren't using their units, they have the option of placing their unit into the hotel's rental program. This is what makes the program so attractive. While the developer doesn't guarantee the rental of the unit, by capitalizing on a hotel's name recognition, advertising, national affiliations, centralized reservation system and management expertise, most unit owners typically receive a higher level of rental income than they would from a traditional vacation home. As part of the rental agreement, the hotel pays for most operating expenses such as marketing, housekeeping, and administrative costs. The condo-hotel owner typically pays for insurance, real estate taxes, and capital improvements. Condo-hotels are typically large, high-rise, luxury hotel buildings operated by big names such as Four Seasons, Ritz-Carlton, Sonesta, Starwood, Hilton, Trump and Rosewood. Each condo-hotel unit is sold to individual investors who may use their unit for a specified amount of time, and when not used the investor has the option of placing it into an organized rental program. Rental revenue is shared with the operator and helps defray the unit owner's expenses. Unit owners are more likely to receive a higher level of rental income by being in a rental program with a recognized professional operator because of the hotel's national affiliation, its reservation system, brand recognition, and management expertise. The original developer intends to sell the units. For that reason features are generally added to enhance the appeal of units to potential buyers. These include spas, health and fitness centers, and business centers. Many condo hotels also offer an expanded array of services such as a concierge, valet and maid service. Most condo-hotels are located in seasonal resort areas. South Florida is one of the country's hottest markets with world-famous resorts like the Fontainebleau, the Ritz-Carlton Key Biscayne, Trump International and Four Seasons leading the way.

Arguments on Rules and Justice

In my opinion, Socrates† analysis of human nature is very true as it ultimately brings us his definition of justice. I agree with his theory of human nature but not his social-political theory. In order to understand Plato†s theory of human nature and his social-political theory, we must examine each one of them closely. Plato believed that no one is self-sufficient enough to live individually. Human beings are not created equally; some of us are born wiser then the rest and some of us are just born stronger. For this reason, only the select few (which would be the guardians) among us are supposed to now what is best for the society and therefore becomes the ruler of everyone else. Our reasoning, spirit, and natural wants are all part of human nature. In book 1 of The Republic, Plato had several detailed discussions on the nature of justice with other speakers in a dialogue form. The process of discussion involves Socrates† questioning, arguing against various inadequate theories that attempts to define the true meaning of justice. From the rich old man Cephalus, we learned that justice involves telling the truth and repaying one†s debts. However, Socrates points out that this definition of justice is inadequate because it cannot account for the instances of certain circumstances. The simple example of returning a borrowed weapon to an insane friend who demands the return of his weapon, would be an instance of following the rule but would not seem to be just. Then Polemarchus, Cephalus†s son attempts to define justice by proposing that justice means † one should pay what is owed†. Not returning or refusing to return the borrowed weapon would clearly benefit one†s friend. Socrates said that harming our nemies is only likely to make them even more unjust than they already are and cause them to make more unjust choices. After that, Thrasymachus came up with his own definition of justice which is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger; those in positions of power use law to decide what is right. The kind of justice practiced anywhere depends on the type of government they have in power. Socrates does not disagree with this view if the facts about the society are as Thrasymachus says they are, however, he argues that sometimes rulers make mistakes. In that case obedience to the law maybe leads to its own disadvantage, therefore Thrasymachus†s definition is also inadequate. Furthermore, Socrates says that the best ruler must always know how to rule. They should rule for the art of ruling, but not their own interest alone. Later, Glaucon suggests that human beings, given an opportunity to do injustice without being caught and therefore without suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation, would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests. Glaucons efinition of justice is that it†s an equal contract, an approach between what is the best (doing injustice without paying the penalty) and the worse (suffering injustice without being able to avenge one self). Adieamantus narrows the discussion further by pointing out that to have a good reputation of justice is more important than justice is itself, whether or not that person really does have a good reputation of justice. In an attempt to provide an adequate, satisfying definition of justice, Socrates tries to make an analogy between the justice of individual human beings and of an entire society or city. Since the crucial elements of justice may be easier to observe on the larger scale like a city than on a smaller scale like an individual. Socrates focuses on the perfect city, because the city will represent the human soul. Socrates began with a detailed analysis of the formation, structure, and organization of this ideal city. He argues that since individual human beings are not self-sufficient; no one working alone can acquire all of the necessities of life by themselves. In order to resolve this difficulty, we gather together into society for the mutual achievement of our common goals. If each of us specializes in the practice of a specific art, we can work more efficiently. To make this ideal city healthy (opposite of a feverish city), Socrates states that the fundamental needs of human beings in the society are food, shelter, and clothes. From these fundamental needs, some additional requirements emerge that become necessary only because these needs are a part of the defense of the city against external attacks or internal disputes. Socrates proposed an additional class of citizens, the guardians which are responsible for guarding the city and keeping the city in order. In order to fulfill their proper functions, the guardian then must have a philosophy that gives them the ability to distinguish the true and false, friend and foes, and to avoid turning against their own kind due to external influences. I think Socrates† social-political theory does follow his theory of human nature, he believed that an ideal state, embodying the highest and best capabilities of human social life, could really be achieved, if the right people are put in charge. Since the key to the success of the whole is the wisdom of the rulers who make decisions for the entire city, Plato held hat the perfect society would occur only when kings become philosophers or philosophers are made kings. Guardians would need the virtue of courage to carry out their orders in the face of danger without regard for personal risk. The rest of the people in the city must follow its leaders instead of pursuing their private interests. Plato held that guardians should own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Under this regime, no one will have any corrupt motive for seeking a osition of leadership, and those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state and what is best for all of its citizens. Education in the city is needed to promote the achievement of a proper balance of society. Physical training and musical performance along with basic intellectual development and the ability to get rid of human natural desire would be needed to fill this position as a guardian. On Plato's view, it is vital for a society to exercise strict control over the content of everything that children read, see, or hear. By excluding all the poets and actors, there will be only one stimulation allowed in the city which is education. The highest goal in all of education, he believed, is knowledge of the â€Å"Good†; that is, not merely an awareness of particular benefits and pleasures, but acquaintance with the actual form of â€Å"good† itself. Glaucon and Adeimantus pose some of the arguments against the kind of life style Socrates promotes. They question Guardians† happiness when they are separated from the general public. Socrates said that the happiness of the guardian must be put aside for the sake of the city. However, he points out, the guardian class should be the happiest group under such a system. Socrates† definition of justice is when each of these classes performs its own role appropriately and does not try to take over the function of any other class, Plato believed that the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, exhibiting the harmony that is justice. Then, a human being is only properly said to be just when the three souls perform their proper functions in harmony with each other, working in agreement for the good of the person as a whole. In onclusion, it was found that the education of the guardians was necessary to keep the city running and with their education you must devote their lives to persue the common goals and good of the city. Once the individual and the other individuals in the society or city were working in complete harmony only then would the circle be complete and everything would run smoothly. However, in order to achieve this the guardian had to be trained right and raised accordingly. The people must cooperate. Everyone would reap the benefits from a perfect society.

Enthusiasm and Enthuse

Enthusiasm and Enthuse Enthusiasm and Enthuse Enthusiasm and Enthuse By Maeve Maddox The English word enthusiasm derives from Greek entheos, â€Å"possessed by a god.† A person filled with enthusiasm was filled with a divine frenzy. An early meaning in English was â€Å" poetic or prophetic frenzy.† An â€Å"enthusiastic preacher,† for example, was what a modern speaker might call a â€Å"charismatic speaker.† From describing religious fervor, the use of enthusiasm extended to passionate feelings expressed in other areas, like politics. In the rational 18th century, the word’s religious application acquired the negative connotation of irrational or delusional. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), himself a deeply religious man, was suspicious of people who claimed to be privy to the divine will. In his dictionary, he defined enthusiasm as â€Å"a vain confidence of divine favour or communication.† The meaning he attached to vain was not the one now current; by vain, he meant â€Å"unprofitable, pointless, futile.† In his essay on the poet Abraham Cowley (1616-1667), however, Johnson used the word with the meaning of â€Å"poetic inspiration†: He [Cowley] was the first who imparted to English numbers the enthusiasm of the greater ode, and the gaiety of the less.–Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets. The verb enthuse is documented from 1827. The OED etymological note calls it â€Å"an ignorant back-formation.† Merriam-Webster, as one might expect, is less judgmental: Enthuse is apparently American in origin, although the earliest known example of its use occurs in a letter written in 1827 by a young Scotsman who spent about two years in the Pacific Northwest. It has been disapproved since about 1870. Current evidence shows it to be flourishing nonetheless on both sides of the Atlantic, especially in journalistic prose. As a transitive verb, enthuse is used with the meaning â€Å"to kindle with enthusiasm†: The liveliness of the dance enthused the audience. Used intransitively, enthuse has the meaning â€Å"to grow enthusiastic; to go into ecstasies†: Here I caught up with Parallels chairman David Ciclitura and group managing director Stewart Mison and listened as they enthused about the business potential offered by professional golf tournaments. Flourishing or not, enthuse is a word that continues to raise hackles, so it’s best to avoid its use in a formal context. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Homograph Examples80 Idioms with the Word TimeEbook, eBook, ebook or e-book?