Cassandra as a Tragic Figure :: essays research papers

Cassandra as a Tragic Figure   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cassandra is a tragic figure in Agamemnon. She is destroyed by a web of circumstances beyond her control, but not beyond her awareness. Cassandra has full knowledge of what is going to happen, yet she cannot change the tragic events. Cassandra’s tragic role is Agamemnon is best filled in three instances: as Cassandra is getting out of the chariot, during her dialogue with the leader of the chorus when she reveals her prophecy, and as she is approaching the doors to face her death.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cassandra is waiting in the chariot and the leader of the chorus persuades her to come out of the chariot. Cassandra is very hesitant to get out of the chariot because she knows what is about to happen: â€Å"God of the long road, Apollo Apollo my destroyer-you destroy me once, destroy me twice-â€Å"(145.1078.1080) Cassandra has already been destroyed by having true prophecy that no one will believe and once again she knows she is going to be destroyed by murder.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cassandra begins to have dialogue with the Leader of the chorus. The Leader does not understand what is being said so Cassandra finally says, â€Å"Agamemnon, you will see him dead.†(153.1259) At this point this Leader says, â€Å"Peace, poor girl! Put those words to sleep.†(153.1260) The Leader thinks that she is just imaging things and that what she says is not possible. Cassandra cannot do a thing to stop what is about to happen, yet she is completely aware of what is going to happen.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Towards the end, Cassandra walks toward the doors of the house to face her fate. She realizes that there is nothing left that she can do: â€Å"Well, I must go in now, mourning Agamemnon’s death and mine. Enough of life!†(157.1335.1337) Cassandra knows her death is closer now than ever before, but she does not try to fight it. She has no control over what happens.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Cassandra is a tragic figure in Agamemnon who is destroyed by a web of circumstances beyond her control, but not beyond her

Julius Caesar Essay: The Development of Mark Antony :: Julius Caesar Essays

Julius Caesar:   The Development of Mark Antony  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚      In the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, the author writes the Character â€Å"Mark Antony† very well. In the beginning of the play Antony is a very good friend of Caesar and watches out for him. He treats Caesar as a father with great respect. Antony is very loyal to Caesar and he does everything in his power to make Caesar happy, for example while he runs the race in the beginning of the play, he touches Caesars wife so that she may be fertilized.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   After Caesar is killed, Antony becomes very mournful and outrage by the treachery of the conspirators that killed Caesar. Antony asks for just to a speech at Caesars funeral and Brutus grants him that one wish. Antony is a very intelligent man and he has the ability to manipulate a crowd with his speeches. For example in Act 3 During Antony speech he says   But Brutus says he was ambitious;   And Brutus is an honourable man.   He hath brought many captives home to Rome   whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:   Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?   When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:   Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:   Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;   And Brutus is a honourable man.      By this it shows that Antony is intelligent and has courage for he mocks Brutus and his accusations. And it shows how he can manipulate the crowd by telling of Caesars wonderful accomplishments.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Antony then shows his anger towards the conspirators by getting the mob to release their anger by rioting and going out and killing the conspirators. Antony then starts a war against the conspirators and when this war starts Antony changes from the people’s hero to just a normal greedy leader. His hate for Brutus grows over time and with that hate grows greed. Antony starts thinking more about his wealth then about the people that he is supposed to be caring for.   In Act 5 Antony expresses his feelings towards Brutus before they go into the battle that will decide who is the rightful ruler of Rome.   Villains, you did not so, when your vile daggers   Hack'd one another in the sides of Caesar:   You show'd your teeth like apes, and fawn'd like hounds,   And bow'd like bondmen, kissing Caesar's feet;   Whilst damned Casca, like a cur, behind   Struck Caesar on the neck.

Just War and Pacifism Essay -- War Pacifism Peace Essays

The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument. Walzer includes self-defense in the just cause section of jus ad bellum. Walzer holds that states have the right of self-defense by making an analogy to individual rights. He contends that individuals have the right to self-defense. From this he infers that states also have that right of self-defense. Walzer's inference is based on the logic that the state is a collection of individuals. He reasons that individuals cannot defend against an invading army, the military is a tool that the state uses to defend itself and it's way of life. The right of self-defense for states also is justified by the premise that it is the duty of the government to protect the people. John Locke'... ...ve for a more perfect world rather than give up and accept hatred and death. Works Consulted Clark, Mark. The Paradox of War and Pacifism. ULeadership. 7 Oct 2002. <www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html> Holmes, Robert. On War and Morality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Moseley, Alex. Just War Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 Oct. 2002. <www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm>. Moseley, Alex. Pacifism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 Oct. 2002. <www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pacifism.htm>. Orend, Brian. War. Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy. 5 Oct 2002. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/> Teichman, Jenny. Pacifism and the Just War. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Just War and Pacifism Essay -- War Pacifism Peace Essays The question "Can war be justified?" plagued mankind since the first war. The Just War Theory holds that war can be just. The theory has evolved for thousands of years and modern theorists, such as Michael Walzer, author of Just and Unjust Wars, puts forth criteria for a just war, such as jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum includes reasons for going to war, and jus in bello deals with the people who wage war. The criteria in jus ad bellum include; just cause, declaration by a proper authority, right intention, a reasonable chance of success, the end proportional to the means, and war as a last resort. Jus in bello includes keeping innocents outside the field of war, and limiting the amount of force used. Just War Theorists hold that all of these criteria must be followed for a war to be just. I will analyze The Just War Theories most debated arguments, self-defense, pre-emptive strikes, and the killing of innocents. In the second half of this paper, I will briefly explain Pacifism, and provide a counter argument for each Just War argument. Walzer includes self-defense in the just cause section of jus ad bellum. Walzer holds that states have the right of self-defense by making an analogy to individual rights. He contends that individuals have the right to self-defense. From this he infers that states also have that right of self-defense. Walzer's inference is based on the logic that the state is a collection of individuals. He reasons that individuals cannot defend against an invading army, the military is a tool that the state uses to defend itself and it's way of life. The right of self-defense for states also is justified by the premise that it is the duty of the government to protect the people. John Locke'... ...ve for a more perfect world rather than give up and accept hatred and death. Works Consulted Clark, Mark. The Paradox of War and Pacifism. ULeadership. 7 Oct 2002. <www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html> Holmes, Robert. On War and Morality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. Moseley, Alex. Just War Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 Oct. 2002. <www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm>. Moseley, Alex. Pacifism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 Oct. 2002. <www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pacifism.htm>. Orend, Brian. War. Stanford Enyclopedia of Philosophy. 5 Oct 2002. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/> Teichman, Jenny. Pacifism and the Just War. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Why Did Charles I Lose the Civil War

Why did Charles I lose the Civil War? The English Civil War was 1642-1651 and was a series of battles and political conspiracies between Oliver Cromwell, the leader of Parliament and King Charles I the leader of the Royalists. The civil war set the supporters of King Charles I against the followers of Parliament, this resulted in the Parliament's victory and the King's execution. Cromwell's army was lead by Sir Thomas Fairfax who was one of the outstanding military commanders of the English Civil War.Fairfax is best remembered as the man who commanded the New Model Army at the Battle of Naseby in June 1645. Whereas, Charles' army was lead by Prince Rupert who was the foremost Royalist military commander in the English Civil War. Prince Rupert was very much a cavalry soldier and the Royalists may have lost the war a lot sooner had it not been for his military ability. Both Parliament and the Royalists had armies with little or no military experience, although Fairfax and Prince Rupert could be classed as professional soldiers.Until Parliament brought in a new creation called the New Model Army which was a military unit that was used to transform the English Civil War and was based on a person's ability rather than their position within society, It was also better trained and well armed, making them more formidable. The first proper use of this army was at the battle of Naseby. This was Parliaments' turning point and after that King Charles was never able to raise an army strong enough to win.Some historians believe that this was the main reason for Parliament winning the civil war. It could be argued, however that one of the other reasons cited for Charles losing the war was the lack of money. This was because the nobles and landowners who had sided with him didn't have any money to give him. With the support of wealthy merchants and traders, the parliamentarians had steady flow of money.Something Charles lacked and because of the lack of money, the King couldn' t buy new men and supplies for his army; therefore the army was smaller and less equipped. One of the biggest mistakes that Charles made was leaving London at the beginning of the civil war. Consequently, Parliament took control and Charles was not able to gain power again, although he tried. This was a big setback as it is hard to rule the country without controlling its' capital.Ultimately, the Royalist forces were extinguished, they had run out of money, they had lost control of the capital and their barely trained, small army meant that they had lost the upper hand that they were dealt many times. Parliament however, was a stronger force and Parliament’s control of the seas and richer areas of England, as well as their creation of a powerful, trained and disciplined New Model Army, meant that they had more power in the end. By Yasmin Rose 8z

Case for critical thinking Essay

1. What elements of the general environment would have most impact on Mercedes cars and Haines Signature boats? The general environments that would have had the most impact on Mercedes cars and Haines Signature boats are the technological and economic changes. As of being companies which sells/produce quality products, which are also expensive, they would struggle to sell is the economy wasn’t rising (ex. with a stronger and bigger middleclass through out the world). Technological conditions also have an impact. Their operating strategies can be different based on changes in the environment. In the manufacturing industry they are dependent on the general state of technology. 2. What do you feel the organisation cultures of these companies would be like? They are both similar. Both companies are very observable and core cultures. The cores at Mercedes Haines Signature are innovation, technical advances and high quality products. This along with the there understanding for their consumers’ needs and the way they are able to meet these. 3. What strategic and dynamic capabilities would you imaging these companies and the band possess in order to keep ahead of the competition and thrive in changing economic environments? The strategic and dynamic capabilities of Mercedes Benz, Haines Signature Boats and AC/DC are they see themselves above competitors. Mercedes and Haines Signature Boats have better technical knowledge, innovation and quality assurance then most other companies. These are their trademarks and are close to impossible for others companies to replicate. Haines Signature  Boats separate themselves from others by having better instruments and nicer aesthetic that have separated them from other boat companies. AC/DC are a global brand and have a trademark sound. They provide entertainment to all ages. 4. Why do you think the food outlets discussed in the case can’t accept that they have to change their staffing practices in the face of the mining boom? Fast food have not changed their staffing practice. They only attempt to attract different workers to suit the company needs. Because fast foods outlets are franchises and don’t need word of mouth recommendation to encourage consumers. It’s accepted in our society to go at a fast food restaurant to enjoy cheap and fast service/supper. It’s therefore smart of them to pursuit school aged students, as this can provide a job for young adults but at the same time keep the wages at a minimum.

Is the United States a melting pot or pluralist society? Essay

The melting pot is usually referred to homogenous groups living together in a way that their cultures and religions are mixed together as ingredients in a pot and lose their dinstict identities to a certain degree giving a final product that has a unique flavor and consistency completely different from its original ingredients. Pluralism does not create a different final product. It is more like a salad bowl where the different ingredients i. e. cultures and ethinicties retain their uniqueness and flavor. Pluralism accepts and affirm diversity of faiths, ideas, opinions of people. Factors such as Globalization, the internet, television, politics and schools have turned US into a melting pot with ethnicities and differences dying out and giving birth to a new breed of Americans. High levels of Immigration by Asians, Non-white Hispanics and Blacks have transformed United Stated from being a majority of European descendent English speaking Americans. California, Texas, Florida and New York have the most immigrants. The melting pot phenomenon also includes an intermarriage of ethnicities. The children of racial and ethnic intermarriages acquire different languages and attain different social, religious and economic backgrounds. These marriages are most common in European descendent groups. The most common are between Whites and Asians, Whites and Hispanics and Whites and African Americans. This is the important sign of assimilation. It is advantageous for the United States to maintain its â€Å"melting pot† status. There is nothing wrong with giving opportunities and a better way of life to life to people belonging to different countries, races and religions. This will lead to a more patriotic and nationalist society. References: Melting pot. (2007, May 4). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 08:31, May 4, 2007, from http://en. wikipedia. org/w/index. php? title=Melting_pot&oldid=128132858.

Critically assess Catholic Church teaching on IVF with particular emphasis on third party involvement

Moral theology includes concerns of a particular or special nature as well as those of a general or fundamental nature. There is thus a two-fold division in moral theology – fundamental moral theology (which we have been doing up to now) and special moral theology. They are intricately related. Special moral theology deals with concrete moral issues that relate to sexuality, medical practice, business relations, social ethics. Fundamental moral theology shows the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ of special issues.Disagreement at the level of concrete issues often can be traced to different understandings of the foundational concerns of morality. One of the most high profile special issues at the present time is Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR). This lecture concerns what is perhaps the most well known technique in the treatment of infertility: In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). The First ‘Test-tube’ Baby On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown was born in Oldh am, England, using IVF. She was the first so-called ‘test-tube’ baby, the culmination of years of pioneering research by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.IVF is a gruelling, though relatively straightforward process. The ovaries are chemically stimulated to produce multiple eggs since pregnancy rates increase with transfer of more than one embryo. The eggs are recovered by laparoscopy, then coincubated with sperm for around 12-18 hours to allow fertilisation to occur. After an additional 48-72 hours, the embryo (or pre-embryo) is transferred to the uterine cavity by a catheter. If successful, implantation will occur in 2-3 days.Success rate is 20-25 per cent – approaches that of the natural process†¦.. much more expensive of course! Standard IVF: This is the simple procedure – sperm and ovum come from husband and wife, and the pre-embryo is implanted in the uterus of the wife. Church Teaching: Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith: â€Å"Instr uction on Respect for Human Life in its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation† (Donum Vitae). 1987. The CDF rejected ‘simple case’ artificial reproduction (AIH and IVF) with the gametes of husband and wife.The analysis that led the congregation to reject IVF is as follows: â€Å"The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative†. The ‘unitive meaning’ refers to the union of two bodies in sexual intercourse; the ‘procreative meaning’ refers to the principle that all acts of sexual intercourse should be open to the possibility of procreation.Both the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act are derived from the natural law. Just as contraception separates the unitive and procreative dimensions of sexual expression, so also, in an analogous way, do technological interventions such as in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by husband (AIH). Some moral theologians, notably Richard A. McCormick SJ, argue against the teaching of the CDF, basing their arguments on the reforms of Vatican II.The argument goes as follows: The centuries-old primacy given to procreation over other meanings of sexual expression was â€Å"publicly and definitively abandoned† by Vatican II. Another principal change is the criterion to be used in judging the rightfulness or wrongfulness of human conduct. The second Vatican Council shifted the criterion of moral judgement away from faculties and their purposes to a strong emphasis on the centrality of the person. It proposed as the criterion not â€Å"the intention of nature inscribed in the organs and their functions but the person integrally and adequately considered†.One must discover what is promotive or destructive of the person. The physical facul ties must not be considered in isolation from the person. McCormick argues that there is â€Å"an evolution of doctrine occurring with regard to the understanding of the unitive and procreative dimensions of sexuality.. †. Development of doctrine usually involves both continuity and change. The thread that yields both continuity and change is the notion of the inseparability of the unitive-procreative dimensions of sexuality.The continuity: the general validity of the insight. The change: a broadened understanding away from an act-analysis of this inseparability. Theologians argue that IVF is not a substitution for sexual intimacy, but a kind of prolongation of it, as well as a perfection of it in that it remedies infertility – it does not involve the total severance of the unitive and the procreative. The natural law principle can be upheld if the spheres of the unitive and the procreative are held together so that there is no procreation apart from marriage i. . , th ere is no procreation apart from the conjugal relationship as opposed to the conjugal act, and no full sexual intimacy apart from a context of responsibility for procreation. The inseparability principle is retained, but such inseparability is something to be realised in the relationship, and not the individual act. It must be stressed, however, that McCormick’s argument is not accepted by the magisterium of the Catholic Church:- cf. Vatican Council 2, Vol. 2, ed. by Austin Flannery (New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1982), p. 98, par. 3. Third party involvement: Third-party involvement in infertility treatment involves donor eggs, donor sperm, donor embryos, donor wombs.Pius XII in 1949 said â€Å"Artificial insemination in marriage with the use of an active element from a third person is †¦.. immoral and as such is to be rejected summarily. Only marriage partners have mutual rights over their bodies for the procreation of new life, and these rights are exclusive, nontransferable and inalienable†. Between the child and at least one rearing parent there is â€Å"no bond of rigin, no moral and juridical bond of procreation†. Karl Rahner agrees: argued that AID fundamentally separates the marital union from the procreation of a new person. Rahner also faults the anonymity of the donor, which represents a refusal of responsibility as father and an infringement of the rights of the child. Does 3rd party involvement (via gametic donation or surrogate gestation) infringe on conjugal exclusivity? Does having a jointly raised child justify such infringement? McCormick answers ‘Yes’ to the first question and ‘No’ to the second.The notion of conjugal exclusivity should include the genetic, gestational and rearing dimensions of parenthood. Separating these dimensions, except through rescue (as in adoption) contains a subtle diminishment of the human person. Where there is donor semen or eggs, there is a genetic asy mmetry in the relationship of husband and wife to the child, with possible damaging psychological effects. Third party involvement separates procreation from marriage in principle – decisively breaks the natural law unitive-procreative principle.The question of the freezing and destruction of embryos, the implanting of multiple embryos with the consequent high possibility of miscarriage and also the carrying out of ‘foetal reduction’. Genetic screening of embryos. The above are further important ethical issues that have arisen due to IVF. Resources: www. google. com Type in ‘Catholic Church teaching on IVF’, and ‘IVF’, etc. Catechism of the Catholic Church: pars. 2373-2379. The Catechism allows that homologous artificial insemination and fertilisation (standard IVF) are â€Å"less reprehensible† than those that involve third party donation of sperm, eggs or uterus.