Cousin free essay sample

The tears cover my face. I attempt to wipe them away however they continue streaming. â€Å"Are you serious?† I said. I tossed a seat over the room as tears dribbled down my cheeks. It was the most exceedingly terrible call of my life. It wasn’t a sweetheart who calls to clarify the dramatization at school; it wasn’t grandmother educating you concerning the days of yore, in light of the fact that she’s got jolts free. The call was from my mother. She sounded more troubled than a lamenting spouse. â€Å"Chris I have something to tell you.† â€Å"Mom what is happening? For what reason do you sound like your crying?† â€Å"Chris†¦Ã¢â‚¬  â€Å"Yeah?† â€Å"I’m sorry, however Bob has been shot.† Bob is my cousin. His original name is Robert Remmel. He is a sergeant in the U.S. Armed force. He is my closest companion. My first idea was that my closest companion has quite recently been murdered while serving his nation in Afghanistan. We will compose a custom paper test on Cousin or on the other hand any comparable theme explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page I’m simply dreaming. It’s only a fantasy. My body shook as tears continuously floated down my face. This was not a fantasy. The news transformed me. In the event that my cousin could get shot when he is 20-years of age, what is he passing up, what hasn’t he finished with his life? What have I not finished with my life? Would it be a good idea for me to begin my fantasies, in the event that this may transpire? Truly. Sway didn't pass on. He experienced numerous unbearable medical procedures, and is doing fine. What befell him transformed me. Bounce is as of now situated in Italy, on his third arrangement. I consider him consistently, and trust the good luck for him.

Research Paper on William James and Functionalism

PSY 101 4/7/13 â€Å"William James and Functionalism† I. Presentation William James (January 11, 1842 †August 26, 1910) was an American logician and therapist who had prepared as a doctor. He was the principal instructor to offer a brain research course in the United States. James composed compelling books on sober mindedness, brain science, instructive brain science, the brain science of strict experience, and mystery. He was the sibling of writer Henry James and of diarist Alice James. In the late spring of 1878, William James wedded Alice Gibbens. William James was conceived at the Astor House in New York City.He was the child of Henry James Sr. , a prominent and autonomously rich scholar all around familiar with the artistic and scholarly elites of his day. The scholarly brightness of the James family milieu and the exceptional epistolary abilities of a few of its individuals have made them a subject of proceeding with enthusiasm to students of history, biographers, a nd pundits. James additionally took a shot at numerous hypotheses included functionalism which is the second worldview in Psychology. As indicated by William James, functionalism accepted that the human psyche served a versatile role.It investigated the capacity of contemplations and practices. II. What is functionalism in Psychology? Functionalism is a hypothesis of the brain in contemporary brain research, grew generally as an option in contrast to both the character hypothesis of psyche and behaviorism. This hypothesis is based on the reason that human mental states (convictions, wants, torment, and so on ) are established exclusively by their useful job †that is, they are causal relations to other mental states, tactile data sources, and conduct yields . Functionalism is a hypothetical level between physical usage and conduct output.Therefore, it is unique in relation to its ancestors of Cartesian dualism (pushing discrete mental and physical substances) and Skinnerian beha viorism and physicalism (announcing just physical substances): It is just worried about the compelling elements of the mind. Since mental states are distinguished by an utilitarian job, they are supposed to be acknowledged on various levels. At the end of the day, they can be showed in different frameworks as long as the framework plays out the fitting capacities. While PCs are physical gadgets with electronic substrate that perform omputations on contributions to give yields, our cerebrums likewise go about as physical gadgets with neural substrate that perform calculations on inputs which produce practices. â€Å"The Principles of Psychology† is a momentous book throughout the entire existence of brain research, composed by William James and distributed in 1890. James' brain research included four techniques: investigation (I. e. , the intelligent analysis of forerunner and contemporary perspectives on the brain), contemplation (I. e. , the analyst's investigation of his ow n perspectives), explore (e. g. , in spellbinding or nervous system science), and correlation (I. . , the utilization of measurable intends to recognize standards from abnormalities). III. The worldview of functionalism The topic of brain research: Psychology is the investigation of mental action (e. g. observation, memory, creative mind, feeling, judgment). Mental action is to be assessed as far as how it serves the living being in adjusting to its condition. The strategies for brain science: Mental acts can be concentrated through contemplation, the utilization of instruments to record and measure; and target signs of psyche, through the investigation of its reations and items, and through the investigation of life systems and physiology. The functionalists would in general utilize the term ‘function' rather freely. The term is utilized in at any rate two unique ways. It can allude to the investigation of how a psychological procedure works. This is a significant takeoff fro m the investigation of the structure of a psychological procedure, the contrast between halting a train to destroy it to examine its parts (structuralism), and taking a gander at how the frameworks cooperate while it is running (functionalism). The term ‘function' can likewise allude to how the psychological procedure works in the volution of the species, what versatile property it gives that would make it be chosen through advancement. Functionalism never truly passed on, it turned out to be a piece of the standard of brain science. The significance of taking a gander at process instead of structure is a typical trait of present day brain science. As an individual methodology it came up short on an unmistakable detailing and acquired the issues of the structuralist dependence on thoughtfulness. IV. William James’ approach on functionalism Unlike Many Psychologist who were intrigued on structuralism (structures of the brain), WilliamJames rather was keen on cognizance a nd how it works in people, particularly comparable to conduct. James’s brain science tries different things with his understudies would in general be progressively inquisitive undertakings in awareness and viable application. James instructed at Harvard University from 1878-1890. During this time, he finished his eminent mental work: â€Å"The Principles of Psychology† in which he explained his functionalist knowledge into such subjects as awareness, propensity, and feeling. He was additionally got over soaked with the subject of functionalism and psychologyV. Functionalism versus Structuralism As soon as brain research began to increase logical pertinence, so began the discussion once again how it was generally suitable to depict conduct and the human psyche. Structuralism was first presented by Wilhelm Wundt. It was then officially named and set up by one of his understudies named Edward B. Tichener who split away from a considerable lot of the past thoughts set forw ard by Wundt. Structuralism means to depict the structure of the brain as far as the most crude components of mental experience. It concentrated on the separating of the cerebrums mental rocesses into its essential parts. These fundamental parts were then endeavored to be found by a strategy known as contemplation. Thoughtfulness can be characterized as the assessment or perception of one’s own psychological and passionate procedures. Structuralism depends on the thought tha t the point of brain research is to examine how the components are identify with one another which is finished by the investigation into sensations, pictures and emotions. Functionalism was planned as a response to structuralism and expects to clarify mental procedures in a more exact way than structuralism.It does this by concentrating on the motivation behind awareness and conduct. It was presented by William James (1842-1910) and was gotten from the hypothesis of common determination made by Darwin whi ch recommends that except if qualities of an animal varieties, remembering the procedures for the cerebrum, filled a type of need they would not be chosen after some time essentially and would not have endure. There are shortcomings to the two methodologies. Structuralism was condemned for lacking unwavering quality in its outcomes because of the investigation of the structure of the psyche being excessively abstract. Others contend that it was oo worried about inside conduct that can't be effectively watched and along these lines not handily estimated. It could likewise be contended that regular mental issues can't be unraveled by taking a gander at the vibes of only them and the psychological activities that are elevated by functionalism must be thought of. VI. Determination Functionalism framed as a response to the structuralism and was vigorously impacted by crafted by William James and the transformative hypothesis of Charles Darwin. Functionalists tried to clarify the psycholo gical procedures in a more precise and exact manner.Rather than concentrating on the components of awareness, functionalists concentrated on the motivation behind cognizance and conduct. Functionalism likewise underlined singular contrasts, which profoundly affected training. Work Cited: * James, William. The standard of Psychology. Vol. 1 and 2. 1890. Dover distributions 1950. * James, William. Brain research (Briefer Course) (1892) University of Notre Dame Press 1985: Dover Publications 2001. * Wade, Carole. Tavris, Carole. Brain science Tenth Edition. Upper Saddle River. Pearson Education 2011, 2008, 2006. * http://en. wikipedia. organization/wiki/William_James

The Great Gatsby Dreams Essays - The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan

The Great Gatsby Dreams Essays - The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan The Great Gatsby Dreams The Great Gatsby Dreams The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, is a novel about the American Dream. In the Great Gatsby, the fantasy is that one can procure joy through riches and influence. To get his bliss Jay endeavors to reacquire the affection for his lost darling, Daisy. The primary issue with Jays dream is that Daisy is all prepared wedded. Gatsby's own fantasy represents the bigger American Dream The quest for bliss. Jay Gatsby aches for the past. Shockingly he commits his grown-up life attempting to recover it and bites the dust in its interest. Previously, Jay had an affection illicit relationship with a youthful rich young lady, Daisy. Daisy and Jay had experienced passionate feelings for one another despite realizing that they couldn't wed due to the distinction in their societal position. Without precedent for Jays life he was genuinely glad. During their romance, Jay was sent off to war. After coming back from the war, Jay discovered that Daisy had hitched a rich man by the name of Tom Buchannon. Jay at that point consumes his time on earth getting riches to contact her financial norms, with the expectation that he can wed her and revive the satisfaction that he once had. His affection for Daisy was incomprehensible in the public eye since he was at present a poor youngster without a pasthe had no agreeable family remaining behind him (156). Gatsby experiences his fantasy of adoration now of his life. He realized that around then a relationship of adoration was unimaginable with Daisy because of his low social standing. Gatsby got resolved to break that hole between them so as to have a caring relationship with Daisy. He reached the physical conditions important to adore her, yet he had concentrated a lot on cash and force the past five years of his life. He needed his affection with Daisy to thrive. Shockingly, he had lost the capacity to adore. He not, at this point had moral respectability or the capacity to deal with a relationship. Society is frequently separated into various social gatherings by their monetary status. Those of lower classes accept that their issues will leave in the event that they can increase enough riches to arrive at the high society. Numerous individuals accept that the American Dream is this joining of the high society, and once arriving at that point, not being worried about cash by any means. The rationale behind this is being poor shields individuals from being glad, and once you become rich, you don't need to battle with the issues of life, and can along these lines be upbeat. The Great Gatsby takes this conviction, and shows its defects through the lives of Jay, Tom and Daisy. Truth be told, the entirety of the characters in the story are influenced somehow or another by the lives of these three characters. Gatsby makes turning into a high society resident his need. The life of the privileged thusly, makes the obtaining of riches their need. Riches becomes Jays vehicle as he continued looking for his essential objective, Daisy. In Gatsby's ascent to influence ethical quality is yielded so as to achieve riches. While the story doesn't broadly expound with regards to how Gatsbys riches was aggregated, it can without much of a stretch be seen that his undertakings were obscure, best case scenario. Gatsby's fantasy was bound to disappointment due to his absence of standards. This shows a significant imperfection of the American Dream theory, much the same as the pyramid schemes of today, Jay is attempting to purchase Daisys love, not gain it. Scratch endeavors to disclose to Jay that his fantasy is trivial by saying that the past can't be remembered. Jay immediately told Nick, Yes you can, old game. This shows the certainty that Jay has in satisfying his American Dream, and his duty to it. Tom Buchanan, Daisys spouse, was a man from a massively well off family. Scratch, depicted Tom's physical properties as having a hard mouth and a scornful mannerarrogant eyes had built up strength over his facealways inclining forcefully forwarda merciless bodyhis talking voiceadded to the impression of touchiness he passed on (11). The riches Tom has acquired makes him become self-important and deigning to other people. Tom accepted that

Cause of Action Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Reason for Action - Essay Example Ransack and Bunny Sherman and the tort law is by all accounts one of the most fundamental laws concerning the individual injury endured by Rob Jr. As Mr. Rabbit needs to bring suit against the Church of the Divine Light which caused individual injury his child by deliberate torts, bogus detainment and so on of Rob Jr., the best lawful move will be in this line. There is fundamental proof about Rob Jr. being deceived, erroneously detained, intellectually compromised, mentally abused, and illicitly constrained to request cash from his folks. Every one of these disturbances and mental just as close to home injury endured by plaintiff’s child show the chance of making common move on the law of tort, undue impact, pressure, holding an individual without wanting to and so on. Additionally, lawful move can be made, on master suggestion, against the Church of the Divine Light which isn't a composed or enrolled church. The reason for activity in the given body of evidence incorporates suing against Mr. Tom Marsden who was liable for the common bad behavior against the plaintiff’s child and the law of torts serves best for this situation. The case being talked about gives reason for activity identifying with law of tort, particularly, deliberate tort. â€Å"An purposeful tort is any intentional impedance with a lawfully perceived intrigue, for example, the rights to substantial uprightness, enthusiastic serenity, domain over property, separation from open examination, and opportunity from imprisonment or trickiness. These interests are damaged by the deliberate torts of ambush, battery, trespass, bogus detainment, intrusion of protection, change, distortion, and fraud.† (Tort Law) http://legitimate dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tort+Law Significantly, four targets are served by this law of torts. Consequently, Mr. Ransack can look for pay for the wounds his child has endured by the punishable activity of the litigant.

Modern and Contemporary Essay Example for Free

Current and Contemporary Essay This paper manages two things according to polytheism: initial a couple of tests of the contemporary writing, which contend next to no and unpersuasively, However, two significant recorded scholars of polytheism, Spinoza and his later supporter, Schelling, serve to save the hypothesis and spot it on a firmer, progressively logical ground. Polytheism has taken numerous structures since its commencement, and nobody definition will get the job done to take in every single specific indication of this marvel. One of the fundamental separates concerning polytheism as a metaphysics is to what degree Pantheism can be known as a religion: this is the main problem. The cutting edge, contemporary polytheists appear to have no religion at all: no God, no regulation. The contemporary readings on this inquiry appear to â€Å"socialize† the ambiguous â€Å"interconnections of every single living thing. † (Russell, 2008, 2). To just join an ambiguous sentiment of the â€Å"sacred† to an absolutely mainstream perspective on regular interconnections isn't to make a religion. What's more, thus, the issue. One may take the view that there are commonly two types of polytheism after some time: the modish, stylish rendition that tries to sacralize the mainstream wonder of nature, and an unmistakably increasingly advanced type of polytheism put on the map by Baruch Spinoza and his later student (of sorts) Friedrich Schelling. Both of these inquiries will be managed in this paper. To start with, we will manage the contemporary readings regarding this matter, and afterward, the unmistakably increasingly generous inquiries of polytheism raised by the Dutch savant. Remaining in the Light is a book that says practically nothing. It is overwhelming in unclear emotive connectiveness, light on definition and philosophy. At last, the â€Å"light† is anything you desire it to be: it very well may be a strict figure, a philosophical thought or just an inclination, subsequently diminishing it to nothingness by endeavoring to cover each emotive response (Russell, 2008, 3-4). In this view, she tries to rethink secularism (cf page 4) as a view where the â€Å"universe† is viewed as not sacrosanct. However, since the idea of the holy is rarely characterized, there are no agnostics. Or then again, better, that this foul perspective on polytheism, which is decreased to a sentiment of amazement even with nature (as speaking to both great and insidiousness, as she holds, 87ff), is itself secularism in that there is no God, yet there is a wonder despite nature’s glory. Hardly any agnostics would withdraw at wonderment when taking a gander at nature. In this equivalent vein lies crafted by Paul Harrison (2004). Once more (35), he holds that â€Å"nature is to be worshipped. † It is muddled whether he considers nature â€Å"god,† since god is a versatile term that covers the object of one’s amazement or regard. His abstaining from philosophical thoroughness is encapsulated in his control of Anselm’s celebrated ontological contention for god’s presence. In Harrison’s case, he ravages it to the point of being unrecognizable. The first contention was, to sum up, that god is that about which nothing more noteworthy can be considered. In any case, since this article must have presence (since to have presence is to be more prominent) god must exist, since that would be the best thing conceptualizable. Harrison doesn't appear to comprehend the idea of this dubious view. He expect (Harrison, 36) that nature is the best thing that can be considered, and consequently, is god. This makes little difference to the contention attributed to Anselm of Canterbury. He additionally appears to totally misconstrue Aristotle’s contention from causality. On page 38, Harrison holds that the â€Å"skeptical† answer dismisses the need of a first reason, there is no requirement for one. In the event that one can envision a boundless future, one can envision a boundless past. Since nobody can envision or picture a â€Å"limitless† future, the equivalent may be said of the past. Harrison appears to set a real strict component to polytheism in that it holds that issue is interminable, ever existing, continually changing, and thus, it is a conviction to be accepted without any doubt, and consequently, strict. A somewhat intriguing contention is his way of thinking of history. He holds that history contains three developments: the tracker gatherer stage, horticultural and innovative (Harrison, 50-53). It goes this way: at once, man lived in full agreement with nature as hunter’s and gatherers. At that point he chose to get settled. This was the incredible fiendishness: settled horticulture places man as ace of nature. Just in the mechanical stage was nature reintroduced, allowing a discerning eco-moderate to revamp our planet. Understanding this contention is troublesome: there are a few fallicies: first, that the tracker gatherer lives as per nature. He appears to have the concealed reason that everything crude must be eco-accommodating. Second, that agribusiness implies that man experts nature. This appears to be difficult to accept, since the agrarian brain, up until the twentieth century, functioned as an accomplice of nature, not its lord. The express Baconian thought of commanding nature is decisively the beginnings of the mechanical transformation. The contention is that when individuals not, at this point had any association with nature, not, at this point lived off the land, they could then romanticize nature, and subsequently, see it â€Å"for its own sake† (Harrison, 52). At the end of the day, when the mechanical unrest made urbanization and assault the scene, the now distanced urbanite could make of nature of object of sentimental dedication. It is exactly in the leaving of the land that one would then be able to consider it to be a tasteful article. Finally, the creator will not manage the subject of determinism (60). The polytheist determinism contention may resemble this: everything is interconnected, the power, the solidarity of the interconnection is â€Å"divine,† people are a piece of this celestial interconnection and consequently, to close, people are dictated by these associations. It is hard to squirm out of this contention, a contention that isn't found in Harrison’s book, however excused in any case. In the event that opportunity exists, it can't be material. In the event that it isn't material, it is soul. In the event that it is soul, at that point it must have a reason. In any case, the idea of polytheism introduced by Harrison sets no reason. Thus, people are simply judgments of material reality and henceforth decided. Harrison denies that people are resolved, however doesn't clarify how one can escape the polytheist contention, except if one posit’s individuals as, somewhat profound creatures and subsequently outside of the normal, widespread causal chains that are so suggestive of love. This is another genuine defect. Next, we have the short piece by Wood (2005). Wood isn't such a great amount of contending here for polytheism with respect to advancement, whereupon every contemporary hypothesis of polytheism appear to rest. This piece is essentially an assault on fundamentalism, which is characterized as that conviction framework that rejects development in that it dismisses the standard of progress characteristic no matter what. Polytheism has no conviction framework, just transformative biology. One need not be a polytheist to acknowledge everything that Wood says, it is a non-philosophical piece. Unmistakably increasingly generous is that work by Steinhart (2004) on the subject of cosmology. This is a fascinating study piece managing the idea of polytheism from the perspective of realism, Platonism and Pythagoreanism. In any case, similarly as fascinating is his concept of the idea of god: God, in customary religious philosophy must be: heavenly, complex (in the feeling of maximal inclusivity), God must speak to Himself to man, and God must be blessed (Steinhart, 2004, 65-66). Obviously a large portion of these can be tested. In Christianity, for instance, God isn't mind boggling, he is straightforward. He isn't simply heavenly, yet exists inside nature as its planner and guide (thought this is never an ontological association). By the by, the way in to the contention is most extreme inclusivity, which isn't a quality of God in customary philosophy in the sense Steinhart implies it, and it is question asking regarding polytheism, since the contention introduced her is that the nature lord of the polytheists is by definition comprehensive, and thus, comes nearest to the â€Å"traditional† thought of God. He appears to participate in indistinguishable consistent deceptions from Harrison. Steinhart flops on a few levels. First he neglects to clarify how the realist entire can be â€Å"holy,† in any sense. Second, he neglects to show how the incorporeal types of Plato can be related with polytheism in the definition he gives. Indeed, the connection between the structures and matter is exactly Plato’s dismissal of prior Greek polytheism (referenced by Russell, 2008) and, all the more critically, is about indistinguishable with the early Christian and Augustinian perspective on the connection among God and creation. God is related to nature as its guide and maker, yet isn't related to nature simpliciter. This is a serious consistent defect. He has better karma with Pythagoras, however it is conceivable to see a comparative complaint emerging. In any case, it remains the case that this work additionally neglects to do equity to polytheism. The best and most fascinating way to deal with polytheism is the formation of Baruch de Spinoza. Here is a canny, sensible and incredibly fascinating of the thought. About all the works studied reference him, yet just for a brief timeframe, as plainly not many of the above creators have invested the huge measure of energy important to ace the troublesome arrangement of the Dutch metaphysician. Spinoza is the best and most smart sign of the Pantheist thought, and consequently, ought to be treated finally. Spinoza starts with the idea of Substance, which is to be related to god. Substance is simply the â€Å"in. † That is, it is something that characterizes both insistence, since confirmation requires nullification (Parkinson, 1977, 451). Substance has gone past affirmat

Pride And Prejudice A Masterpiece Of English Classics - Free Essay Example

Pride and Prejudice is a masterpiece of English classics. The depth of the plot, the relatability of events and the soul of reality which the author, Jane Austen, has injected in it is mesmerizing. It is not just another story to pass your time, but it is writing to live hand-in-hand with. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin is an amazing contribution to the development of social realism all the way from the 17th century to this era. Pride and Prejudice is a story of love and life of English landed gentry during 17th century. Head of the family is Mr. Bennet, an English gentleman living with his overbearing wife Hertfordshire. The couple has 5 daughters; the beautiful Jane, the clever Elizabeth, the bookish Mary, the immature Kitty, and the wild Lydia. According to the law of the time, after the death of Mr. Bennet, the girls will not get anything from the property of their father, so good future of Bennets will be contingent upon their daughters making good marriages. Story of the Novel starts with the arrival of Mr. Bingley in the neighboring estate. Mr. Bingleyrs sister and a friend of him Mr. Dracy also comes to live with them. Love is soon in the air for one of the Bennet sisters, while another may have jumped to a hasty prejudgment. For the Bennet sisters, many trials and tribulations stand between them and their happiness, including class, gossip, and scandal. Jane Austen in her novel Pride and prejudice carves out a private space for the reader. Like most of the other authors and even her own other novels too, she doesnt limit a reader to the events of the story, but she has left a window open in every turning point to let her reader indulge fantasies and work over their own moral dilemmas through the activates of the characters. A critic, David Gallop, once discussing the plot of Pride and Prejudice, said, In Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen is an ironist rather than a didactic writer. Her readers are less often told what to think than left to draw their conclusions. Jane Austen is unsurpassed as a creator of dialogue, her narrative voice admittedly tells us far more about her characters, and her attitudes to them, than their words alone would convey. This story portrays some of the most delicious effects by placing words or thoughts in reported speech, thus filtering them through the narratorrs ironic perspective. This novel combines social realism with certain moral seriousness. The activities of her characters are the activities of normal daily life, not the story of an abnormal abandoned baby who gets kidnapped, sent to seas, join a party of pirates and adventures he went through which are non-realistic. Pride and prejudice is a beautifully decorated story with interesting, entertaining and amusing events, other relatable things like falling in love, the relationship between parents and children, getting on with neighbors and trying to work out what means us well and what is not the ordinary morality of life. She only touched those areas of life which we people can relate in our everyday life, where the most important things for the girls were How to dress up for the upcoming ball? How to make someone fall for her? Look for any minor reason to hold a ball etc. Jane Austen was not describing a fractional distillation of her society but something obvious to think of. A reader of any time can recognize her characters as people all around. In the story, along with all the events going on, Austen chooses the mentality of Elizabeth as the depiction of her own thoughts. All the girls in the society were expected to be multi-talented and somehow a perfect partner. She should be a keen reader, intelligent, smart, must have superficial manners and have the attractive personality to find a good match but the man should have to be just a man to marry a girl with all good habits. Elizabeth finds this to be quite weird and question herself. Jane Austen paved her way to the match of souls, match of the line of thoughts should be a perfect reason to fall in love and to go for good marriage rather than the wealth of one and persona of other. Only virtuous friendship could do that, but vice prevents both recognizing and attracting virtuous friends. Falling in love, though, as suggested by Jane Austen in Pride and Prejudice, provides our perception flexibility that facilitates character improvement, and the rarity of an appropriate spouse can motivate its accomplishment.(Erin Stackle) Pride and prejudice also give us the picture of limited freedom of women in the 17th century. But if we think we will come to know that no one in this world has complete freedom. We always have someone to watch us. This also introduces another perspective of this story; that is the culture of gossip and judgment of folks around. The story of pride and prejudice is sometimes criticized for being very much like typical Jane Austen writings; People percept it as an exaggeration of traditional and class-conscious life of 17th century. Being the reader of the 21st century, we may find it an amplification, but she was not a historian, she was not looking back at the past, she was living in crux of that era. We cannot discredit the plot of the novel as a mere historianrs nostalgic exaggeration, rather absorbing it as sensitive observation of the writerrs surrounding who is incorporated very much related to her characters. Thus, it will not be misleading to say that the world we see in Pride and prejudice is the core of values of her time which consequently leads to the modern world. It presents precisely the conservative moral core of her class. I return to the observation that love in Pride and prejudice is a form of friendship and that friendship is an essentially communal relation. It is often said that comic plots involve the reconciliation of communal and erotic energies, the implication being that the two are necessarily in tension. Austen goes beyond this; for her, the two are one. Friendship steps in as the essential middle term, mediating between marriage and community both as a social form and as a type of feeling, permitting the flow of energy between all three, single elemental energy that infuses all human bonding. (William Deresiewicz) Gallop, David. Jane Austen and the Aristotelian Ethic. Philosophy and Literature, Johns Hopkins University Press volume 23 no. 1, 1999, pp. 96-109 Erin Stackle, Jane Austens Aristotelian Proposal Philosophy and Literature Johns Hopkins University Press Volume 41, Number 1A, July 2017 pp. 195-212 Deresiewicz, William. Community and Cognition in Pride and Prejudice. ELH, Johns Hopkinss University Press, vol. 64 no. 2, 1997, pp. 503-535

Boundaries Set for Women in Arthurian Romance Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot - Literature Essay Samples

In Sir Thomas Mallory’s, Le Morte dArthur, the majority of the characters face serious conflicts with chivalry and romance. This essay however will analyze female characters and their roles in Mallory’s rendition of Le Morte dArthur and how these female characters handle the pressures and restrictions placed on them as women. Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot represent the ideals of women in Arthurian romance; both Guinevere and Elaine are beautiful, Arthurian, aristocratic ladies that love hard and are willing to put everything they care about on the line for the sake of their love and their lover. Although Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot are both considered ideal lovers by Mallory, their gender reveals the boundaries set for women in chivalry and romance through their similar struggles with the patriarchy and their differences in how they express their love. The similarities between Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot follow a common theme of women being controlled or repressed by men. We see this in many examples with Guinevere because she is constantly being accused of some kind of heinous crime and then needs to be defended by a man, specifically Lancelot. She can never defend herself; she always needs a man to do it, even when she uses her words to try and defend herself she more or less gets nowhere with Arthur’s court because she is a woman and her words are considered meaningless. Which is why a man, or Lancelot, has to come in and fight on her behalf and save the day. Here we see Guinevere trying to explain herself for the mysterious death of a knight who happened to die after eating a dinner she had prepared: â€Å"‘I made this dinner for a good intent, and never for no evil; so Almighty Jesu me help in my right, as I was never purposed to do such evil deeds, and that I report me unto God’† (Mallory, 407). She really could not have been any clearer in what she was trying to saying to defend herself against the accusations the court was rising against her. Yet a few lines later we see Arthur dismissing what she says and asking where Lancelot is to defend her word. Why does she need a man to defend her word? This proves that judicial outcomes in Camelot and within Arthurian romance are only considered just or truthful when a man is defending the case or issue. â€Å"‘Where is Sir Lancelot?’ Said King Arthur. ‘And he were here he would not grudge to do battle for you’† (Mallory, 407). This is a perfect example of how Guinevere is put down by a patriarchal society, and although she is an ideal lover and even though she is a member of high society, her opinion is still regarded as unimportant or less important than a man’s opinion. However, Guinevere is not the only female character who gets ignored and abused by the patriarchy. Elaine of Ascolot, another female character, is again described as an ideal lover: â€Å"So this maiden Elaine never went from Sir Lancelot, but watched him day and night, and did such attendance to him that the French book saith there was never woman did never more kindlier for man† (Mallory, 427). Elaine is described as ideal; however, even though she is described as the most kind and loving woman, she still gets taken advantage of when it comes to romance and chivalry. As the tale continues, poor Elaine gets completely manipulated and used by Lancelot; her good nature and his selfishness creates a toxic combination and ends up getting her heartbroken and ultimately results in her death. We see in many examples with Elaine, how she is confined to a certain feminine role because of her gender. An example of this inequality would be when Lancelot tells Elaine and her family that he has to leave to go back to Camelot. Lancelot explains that he has no intentions of marrying Elai ne even though he had led her on by wearing her sleeve to a tournament which is an obvious symbol of love in Arthurian romance and he also expressed his fondness of her earlier when she nursed him back to health. However the scene continues and we see clear sexist gender roles when Elaine’s brother, Sir Lavain, professes his love for Lancelot also and says he wants to stay with him and understands why his sister wants to kill herself if she looses Lancelot. Lancelot says, â€Å"Father,’ †¦ ‘I dare make good she is a clean maiden as for my lord Sir Lancelot; but she doth as I do, for sithen I saw first my lord Sir Lancelot, I could never depart from him, nor nought I will and I may follow him† (Mallory, 433). This quotation shows how a man can do something a woman cannot in Arthurian romance. Elaine wants to stay with Lancelot and be with him forever, but she cannot, because she is a woman. However, her brother, because he is a man, can be made a knigh t and follow Lancelot and be with him forever. Even though Elaine saved Lancelot and nurses him back to health and had a very active feminine role, she still cannot be made a knight and as a result she can never stay or be with Lancelot. The only way Elaine could still be with Lancelot would be if she was his lover or his wife, both possibilities were rejected by Lancelot. Although Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot are described as ideal lovers, they do express their love differently. While Queen Guinevere has a more demanding approach to how she handles her love with Lancelot, Elaine has a generous or endowing way of expressing her love. While Lancelot rejects Elaine and serves Guinevere, the issue at hand is still gender. Elaine’s love is not seen as legitimate to Lancelot because she is not his lover, therefore a woman’s love is only considered valuable if she is his lover, which is a double-standard within Arthurian society. Queen Guinevere tends to be considered the perfect Arthurian lady and lover; she is beautiful, graceful, and puts her love for Lancelot above all, she truly believes and inflicts all the ideals of romance and chivalry, as does Elaine. However, Guinevere tends to be more taxing and demands Lancelot’s full attention and devotion, if he does not comply with her demands or expectations Guinevere will think that he does not love her because he is not demonstrating the ideals of chivalry. An example of Guinevere’s overdramatic expectations would be in the very beginning of The Tale of Sir Lancelot and Queen Guinevere, a few lines in we see Guinevere scolding Lancelot for his lack of attention: â€Å"Sir Lancelot, I see and feel daily that thy love beginneth to slacken, for ye have no joy to be in my presence, but ever ye are out of this court. And quarrels and matters ye have nowadays for ladies, maidens, and gentlewomen, more than ever ye were wont to have beforehand† (Mallory, 403). These idealistic attributes that Guinevere lives up to and strives to achieve are simply expected of her, they are expected of her because she is a beautiful woman. If Guinevere were a peasant, or a less attractive woman, such strict ideals would not be as critical to her life. Therefore proving that these dramatic ideals and rules she expects from herself and Lancelot are just implemented in her by the patriarchal society she lives in. However, the debate is not about class or beauty, because Elaine was also an aristocrat and she was also very beautiful, the point is that women can only be loved by a man if she is his lover. A woman who is not his lover, such as Elaine, is considered meaningless, and her love and feelings are disregarded because she is a woman who he is not in a relationship with. As for Elaine of Ascolot, her approach to loving Lancelot differs from Guinevere’s in the sense that she does still believe in the ideals of romance but she executes them differently. Guinevere shows her belief in chivalrous ideals by expecting perfection and expecting the ideals of romance to be executed fully. While Guinevere demands perfection from Lancelot and waits for him to make a change, Elaine takes a more active approach and instead of demanding Lancelot’s attention she provides attention and care towards him, such as when she rode out in the middle of the night to find him or when she nursed him back to health after he was wounded in the tournament. Guinevere never took that kind approach to loving Lancelot, she simply called for him and he would come and do her bidding. If Elaine felt she needed to see Lancelot she would go and find him herself and take on a more progressive feminist role, she does in fact bend gender roles in many scenes such as when she go es to find Lancelot. Eventually Elaine becomes the martyr for women in romance as a whole because she is so wronged by the romantic ideals she believed in so much at the beginning of the tale. After Lancelot breaks Elaine’s heart by selfishly leading her on and then leaving her and telling her that he will never marry her, but will instead pay her off every year after she does find a husband, Elaine sees the serious flaws within romance and the roles women have in it. Elaine has an awakening and she decides that without Lancelot, and because of the way he has hurt her and shattered her dreams, that she will kill herself as a martyr and take control of the situation to prove a point about how women are being mistreated by men. Elaine starves herself and sends her dead body down a river to Camelot with a letter attached to her body for Arthur’s court to read. A section of her letter stated: â€Å"Therefore unto all ladies I make my moan; yet for my soul ye pray and bury me at the least, and offer ye my masspenny, this is my last request. And a clean maiden I died, I take God to witness. And pray for my soul, Sir Lancelot, as thou art peerless† (Mallory, 435). Her letter is directly calling on women to see the flaws in the romantic society they are forced into, she asks them to pray for her soul and also calls out Lancelot for hurting her and altering her view of romance. She is trying to warn and advocate for all the women who have been mistreated by men in romance. Overall Elaine takes a much more active role than Guinevere because she not only actively pursues Lancelot and has a much more generous attitude towards romance, she also literally kills herself for the cause of women being treated unfairly in romance. Elaine dies for the ideals of chivalry and romance, whereas Guinevere suffers with self pity and guilt after the fall of Camelot and ultimately believes that the ideals of romance are flawed themselves, while Elaine believes that men are just not living up to the standard that ideal romanticism requires which is why she made herself a martyr after Lancelot left her. Although Queen Guinevere and Elaine of Ascolot are both considered ideal lovers, their gender reveals the boundaries set for women in chivalry and romance through their similar struggles with the patriarchy and their differences in how they express their love. Elaine expresses the boundaries set for women in romance by making herself a martyr for the cause and recognizes that there are aspects of her society that limit her opportunities because she is a woman. Queen Guinevere on the other hand, is still also considered an ideal and true lover, but she takes on a less active role when it comes to loving Lancelot and demands more of the romantic expectations she had been taught to care about by the patriarchal society she lives in. Overall, both female characters roles are key to showing the boundaries set for women in Arthurian society and romance.