Philosophy

Even though the word “greed” has a bad connotation, sometimes it’s good to be greedy. Gordon Gekko thinks so, at least. In his famous “Greed is Good” speech, Gekko says, “greed, in all its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind.” Greed can be a motivator, which in turn can help save a company or even a country.

For Gekko, his love of money can push him to save Teldar Paper; he’ll make a lot of money on the deal, and it will even benefit others in the company like the shareholders. So now his greed is doing good by benefiting others, although that wasn’t his main intention. His priority is still to make money for himself, but because others are benefiting, his greed is doing good. In an interview with Milton Friedman about greed, he states that greed is what runs so many countries. “Tell me, is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed?” Friedman makes us question whether certain people and events would have ever happened if it weren’t for greed.

And he also says “of course none of us are greedy, it’s always the other guy,” which shows that being called “greedy” is seen as insulting, and many won’t own up to being greedy. However, a lot of what is considered greedy is simply when an individual pursues something to make money, or have more knowledge. When looking at it from that perspective, greed can be good. From an article on Reason.com questioning whether or not greed is good, a blogger named Sally Kohn asks, “We all have a little greed in us. The question is, what values do we hold alongside greed as a society … so that we operate for the better good of everyone?”

Many people believe that having greed can be a good thing, as long as it creates good for more than just oneself. I have to agree with Gordon Gekko as well as many others in believing that greed can be good. It pushes us to pursue something, whereas we would otherwise be sitting back idly watching as someone else did it (or sitting back while nothing happens at all). Do any successful people exist who aren’t greedy in some way? I don’t think so. If it weren’t for greed, who knows how far advanced we would be as a civilization? With greed, we do seem to always put ourselves first in terms of whatever we are pursuing. But I believe as long as we use our greed for good, such as considering the rest of a group of people and not solely ourselves, I don’t think the term “greed” should be used as an insulting word.

In Henry David Thoreaus infamous novel Walden, we are shown endless paradoxes that stem from the authors deep and insightful views into natures universal connections with the human race. Thoreau makes himself a quest of finding the meaning to our existence by investigating nature from different perspectives that our preoccupied society constantly overlooks. Two of these perspectives are of viewing nature from a mountaintop or panoramic view and the other being from our own earthly foundations. At other times watching from an observatory of some cliff or tree, to telegraph any new arrival; or waiting at evening on the hill-tops for the sky to fall, that I might catch something, though never caught much, and that, mannawise, would dissolve again in the sun. In this passage, Thoreau tells us that he is searching for something but he is not sure of what it is exactly. He states that he has taken refuge plenty of times at sites that are at high altitudes to try to see more clearly so that the answers of life can become more apparent. He says he waits for the sky to fall, which of course it cant, but this tells me that he is looking for the unexpected or what hasnt been seen yet.

The word mannawise is a Thoreau original word. I know, by my own knowledge, that manna is another word or prefix for earth, so when he says that the mannawise, would dissolve again in the sun, I believe he is saying that his search has hit another rut without answers and so the sun sets and so does the earths responses of wisdom. Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New Yor and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say. This is, and no mistake; and then begin. This is one of Thoreaus strongest statements using the perspective of burrowing down to our own roots to find the buried treasures of life. He tells us to forget everything we have learned and start all over with a fresh and clean state of mind. Once we do this we can experience true reality and not what society has handed us to believe in. To work our way down through all we have been taught by man and to find the real answers in ourselves and nature and if we do this, only then shall we live and be. To my imagination it retained throughout the day more or less of this auroral character, reminding me of a certain house on a mountain which I had visited the year before. This was an airy and unplastered cabin, fit to entertain a travelling god, and where a goddess might trail her garments. The winds which passed over my dwelling were such as sweep over the ridges of mountains, bearing the broken strains, or celestial parts only, of terrestrial music Olympus is but the outside of the earth every where.

In this passage, Thoreau gives us another panoramic view of being on a mountaintop where a house is, with a sight so beautiful and magical, that its only comparison would be of Olympus, home of the Greek gods. He gives us a past description of what he remembers about a rundown cabin and even though it was a decaying site, its towering position made it god worthy. Thoreau starts by stating that his present house looked like an auroral character, setting an analogy of the sun shining all around his residence reminding him of the Olympus site. This godlike place on the mountain has natures own music playing by the ways of the wind passing through the holes and hollows of earths landscapes. He uses the metaphor of Greek Mythology to give us a grandeur view of the earth so that we may see clearly and truly to find our real selves and world. Though the view from my door was still more contracted, I did not feel crowded or confined in the least. There was pasture enough for my imagination. This is another statement which Thoreau uses the perspective of the ground and foundation to explain his point of view. I have this mental picture of Thoreau sitting in his doorway of the small cabin facing Walden Pond, making his fascinating inquiries and writing steadily as they come to him. This cabin was supposedly small by the measurements Thoreau gives earlier on, and so someone, like me, might take it that such a confined space may take away from the imagination rather than ignite it. But as Thoreau points out, sitting in his doorway, staring out at all of the inhabitants and land, that he has no feelings of imaginative solitude since there was enough pasture (land) for my imagination.

This is a very important point even though it only consists of one short sentence. Thoreau is reminding us that our imagination lies within us and that no matter what circumstances we are in, it is there and always accessible. So does this mean that our imagination is the lost treasure I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion. These lines have been read by millions of people since they were published and have shaped many lives into personal happiness. This is another burrowing perspective but this time the burrowing is done inside of our own lives with the imagery of using our own bodies. Thoreau gives us his thesis statement of why he moved to Walden and what he hoped to find. Cutting our images and lives down to the core, reaching the depths of ones soul, starting over again with just the essentials of the mind is how he will find this lost treasure that so many of us have lost. These passages remind me of a warriors speech before going to battle (like a Spartan! ) in the epic tales, or like the quests for the Holy Grail, stating that if he does not find the meaning of life so obviously then he will continue his search relentlessly making this his human goal. In my opinion, this man really lived with wonderful awareness, taking every hour of being as a gift and savoring everything that life, not society, had to offer.

Religion vs. Cult Both religions and cults exist in society today. When we look at both, in general, both are poorly the come definition wot the two are completely different times of arcing and have different backgrounds, different beliefs, different origins, and different purposes. Although many people ma disagree, in general religions are seen as productive, while cults are seen as counterproductive. The definition of religion is an “organized system of beliefs and rituals centering on a supernatural defined as “a system or community of religious worship” or “a creed or sect” The two words are synonymous by definition, but the ways in which they are used contrast because of the different word cult is often used to express disapproval of a scorned religion different from one s . Society alone has defined these connotative differences between religion and cult . There are similarities in religions a both religious and cuff rituals The spirits areidentifed why megan campracticed in use candles , bells , crosses , prayers and baptism , while are all elements of Catholicism . Some rituals are performed by someone called a priest or pre less. Also, both religions and cults collect money. Cults demand money, while religions collect donations. Many people disagree with the aspects of religions and cults. Instead of believing in God or some other kind of higher power many choose to believe in the Darwin Theory or the Big Bang Theory. instances in which hate crimes have been committed against religions, such as when a church or cot on fire Non-religious people are doubtful of both religions and cults because there is no scientific proof that any of their beliefs are true. But many religious leaders and leaders of cults advice is to ” have faith . “

The concept of religions or cults is difficult for some to understand because there are many different religions and so many different cults, it is difficult to believe one is right. el less afraid of death because in the them a sense of well being and security . It m brainwash unsuspecting people and lead them to a dull life of unhappiness and insecurity. Religions are open – minded . Most religions encourage their members to explore other religions so that the member can see which religion he or she thinks is the best fit for the individual s needs. Cults people who are looking for a place to belong and something to believe in. People who belong to cults are usually insecure and afraid to leave , even if they ev it’s to reconnect with the meeting amarcosmeme nsion of the self and the cosmos Although both religions and cults exist in modern society, for many people today religions and cults meaning in various forms of cultural pursuits . This lack of interest could also be due to the importance of science, where the universe is explained without a spiritual explanation. Many people consider religions and cults a prescientific form of superstitious thinking. Remarkably, with the increased scientific knowledge, cults and religions have not disappeared, and in many places thrive.

I qualify Anna Quindlin’s “A Quilt of a Country”, supporting her key ideas of the “mongrel nation” and unity with tragedy. Quindlin defines the United States first as a nation “held together by…the notion that all men are created equal, though everyone knows that most men consider themselves better than someone [else)” (par. 1). A multicultural state like the US does not only uphold that standard, but also a variety of other things: John Locke’s social contract and the principles of democracy, for instance. Also, the idea of equality in the world is so convoluted that superiority of a few is inevitable; America only upholds equality because it was a means to maintain security from European despotism. In another facet of her argument, Quindlin discusses the ills of the nation: “The reality is often quite different, a great national striving consisting frequently of failure. Many of the oft-told stories of the most pluralistic nation on earth are stories not of tolerance, but of bigotry” (par. 2). Her tone develops as critical with these statements, influenced mainly by the recent 9/11 attacks.

Perhaps she uses her pessimistic language to say how, as a whole, America can come together despite these setbacks. This would suggest that the ideas of equality and unity are stronger in the United States than in other countries. Quite suddenly, her paper turns from hopeless moaning to a call to rally Americans against the new threat of terrorism. Citing the attacks directly, she states that “terrorism has led to devastation–and unity” (par.5). There is both historical and logical proof for this; the Cold War brought Americans together in fear of nuclear war, and similar-species organisms stay together in fear of predators. Born out of high emotions and an overpowering sense of nationalism, Quindlin’s article critically analyzes America and its components like an antiquarian examines an ancient quilt. But perhaps that is one way to view the quilt of Quindlin’s article.

Works Cited

1. Quindlen, Anna. “A Quilt of a Country.” Newsweek 26 Sept. 2001: n. pag. Thedailybeast.com.Newsweek. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

From Emerson’s “Nature:“ “The hunger for wealth, which reduces the planet to a garden…the ends of nature so great and cogent as to exact this immense sacrifice of men?” (180- 131). Emerson says here that the pursuit of wealth with the end of being able to think in a more comfortable environment is natural, The problem, he argues, is that people become so engrossed in getting rid of discomfort that they lose the time to think, They live their lives comfortably but no longer have any circumstances for which comfort is required for the betterment thereof. Thus, the poor have the intellect but usually lack the environment, while the rich conversely have the environment but usually lack the intellect and ideas, There seems to be no middle ground. Cities and governments are run by the rich, so as to reduce both discomfort and the flow of ideas.

Concurrently, the ideas are existent but remain hidden in the indigent masses. All life becomes meaningless and always wanting. To fully understand this argument, a detailed analysis of the devices used by Emerson is in order. His initial statement is mixed with a metaphor comparing the reduced world to a garden. This indicates that everything is so cultured and refined to make it appear beautiful, but the actual meaning extends no further. The beauty is only there to please the observer and does nothing to foster thoughts and ideas but instead subverts them. Emerson describes wealth as, among other things, an appeasement to “animal cravings.” That diction indicates that he thinks, to an extent, wealth is necessary to foster purely human thoughts and ideas.

The remaining words of the sentence set a genial atmosphere. The subsequent sentences show that that atmosphere is often not established. “Headache“ and “wet feet” are marks of uncomfortableness, but not basic pains like hunger or chill, In effect, Emerson is describing that the discomfort never goes completely away, This is contrary to what the wealthy person has been told: money will make them comfortable. So they work until they have removed all “friction,” Emerson asserts that it is not just a removal of friction from the physical world, but also a removal of the friction between the potential thoughts and ideas. All of the person’s time is spent making the atmosphere—attempting to get it to an impossible level—that no time is spent actually using it.

Of course, the irony is, as Emerson puts it, “that they arrive with pains and sweat and fury nowheret” In other words, in order to get to such a high level of comfort, a person must work to a degree that is uncomfortable. Thus, not only have they lost the initial end, but also the one which they have made for themselves They are always living in a state of stupid discontent. The subsequent simile ties this all together: “They are like one who has interrupted the conversation of a company to make his speech, and now has forgotten what he went to say,” When one makes a speech, his main goal initially is to present his ideas to the audience As the speech approaches, the speaker realizes the honor he has been given, and views it more as a performance, In forgetting the speech, the speaker has failed to achieve either of his ends.

He has also wasted the time of his entire audience. He is left with nothing. The final question both reifies a general abstraction of nature into some immensely powerful force and personifies it. These two devices, along with the word “sacrifice,” makes nature seem like a god. Though rhetorical, it is an open-ended question the answer to which could refute the entirety of the preceding passage. If this meaninglessness is the honest work of nature, is it not natural? If it is natural, does that mean that nature is not always inherently good? Emerson’s final question could precipitate volumes.

Plot consists of “everything visibly and audibly present” shown on the screen which Is also known as mils-en-scene (Borrowed & Thompson, 2010, p. 80). This includes Endicott materials, such as a series of shots that are presented outside the narration (e. G a flashback) and also music, that does not affect the characters in the film as they cannot hear or see them. What is the benefit of making a distinction between story and plot? The distinction between story and plot occurs because the plot consists only of explicitly presented events.

Off-screen activity Is not a part of the film’s plot – this content belongs to the story alone. From this we can see hat explicitly presented events are common to both the story and the plot. However, plot can present Endicott material such as images and sound, can further assist the viewer in developing an understanding of the plot and therefore the story. For example, in Shadow of a Doubt the repeated images of a dance scene set to the Merry Widows Waltz, is neither heard nor seen by the characters in the film.

It is intellect. This distinction gives us the tools to analysis what the narrative is doing with time, specifically order (chronology, flashbacks, flash forwards), duration (length f time) and the frequency (how often event Is revisited In the plot). What Is the relationship between the story and the plot in this film? What does the difference between them tell us? How are order, duration and frequency used in the narrative to manipulate time? In Shadow off Doubt the events are organized in chronological order.

The story begins in Philadelphia and then travels to Santa Rosa where it remains for the duration of the film. The opening scene puts the viewer In the middle of the action but deliberately keeps them In the dark about the Vat’ and Why of the scene. Information presented in the plot is deliberate to give the audience enough information to guess the beginning of the story. Only the Endicott material, the images of the dancers are presented to us out of sequence. These images may be a flashback to uncle Charlie’s life or they may be purely Endicott.

The viewer is never told If there is any physical connection with these and Uncle Charlie, however the viewer can conclude that from the evidence presented that this Is where the most recent murder took place. The duration of the film Is separated Into three segments; the story duration, the plot duration and the screen duration. The duration for the story and the plot in Shadow of a Doubt are quite different. The story takes place over several months or possibly several years. There are a range of inferred events which the viewer never witnesses.

The murders of the wealthy widows occur earlier in the story, before we first meet uncle Charlie; however they incrimination of Uncle Charlie by his niece. Out of this week, only portions are shown to make up the total screen duration which lasts 108 minutes. 2. Opening and Closing Scenes What expectations are set up in the opening scene of this film? How is character established? Shadow of a doubt opens with the credits rolling over a ballroom scene which will play an important role throughout the film.

The audience is brought into the story Just as a series of events is initiated, to create interest. The audience expectations are set from the opening scenes. Whilst relaxing, Uncle Charlie is informed that two men are looking for him. Proving to be quick witted he gives them the slip, before arranging to leave town. At this point the audience expects that Uncle Charlie might have been wrongly accused of a crime and is being chased by police. Uncle Charlie, as a character, creates a rather smooth enigma to which the audience is drawn, making them hesitant to incriminate him.

So far his main goal appears to be escaping the two men. The reaction from young Charlie and her family to her uncle coming to visit is very positive, setting the expectation that this visit is going to be a wonderful break from the humdrum everyday life. How are characters established in the opening scene? This opening scene establishes Uncle Charlie as an inscrutable character. He first appears lying in a rather Drachma like position on his bed in what can be described as lower-class surroundings. The appearance and bearing rather out of place with his working-class setting.

The miss-en-scene adds to his mysterious enigma, particularly the lighting, with the shadows from the windows resembling prison bars. The discarded notes scattered on the floor and nightstand carries certain contempt for money whilst his violent reaction to the news that he is being followed, raises the question that he may belong to the criminal underworld. Young Charlie is introduced lying on her bed in the same manner; however her settings could not be more different. The camera shots of her house and suburb, place her in an upper middle class setting.

The lighting is brighter and the quaint girlishness of the room’s dcord implies a young innocent girl, lost in the world of wishful thinking. Her posture is more open and thoughtful, with her mind being rather taken with the idea of idealistic world that Uncle Charlie would help create. Her thoughts seem to mirror Uncle Charlie’s when she shows contempt for money. Looking at the closing scene, how have the elements established in the opening scene been transformed into a new or different situation?

The development of the characters from the opening scene is cleverly played with Uncle Charlie’s figure developing from mysterious business man into a full blown murdering sociopath. This darker side of him is triggered through the actions of Young Charlie who, through a series of events, finds out the truth about her beloved uncle. Throughout the movie we see less and less from Uncle Charlie’s point of view, narrowing his knowledge of occurring events. His dangerous side edges closer to the surface as he loses control over his persona.

As Young Charlie dissolves the enigma around her uncle she realizes that her idealistic roll does not exist, as everyone has a dark side including her. This said it is easy to see that young Charlie and Uncle Charlie are portrayed as total opposites. The closing scene is an expansion on this with Uncle Charlie and Young Charlie ironically transformation is exceptionally clear in young Charlie from a naive, idealistic girl to a more sensible intelligent woman. 3. Range and Depth of Information How does narration function in terms of range and depth of information in your film?

The narration of this film is arranged so that the plot implies the events that occurred t the beginning of the story. The range of knowledge given is mainly restricted to young Charlie and what she sees, hears and feels. This is done to engage the audience and to ensure they care about her, so a bigger impact is created when something happens to her. Some times the audience knows something before young Charlie, for example when Uncle Charlie gives her an engraved ring, the dance scene follows, leading the viewer to infer that it belonged to one of the dancing ladies, possibly murdered by Uncle Charlie.

The film also goes into the depths of the characters psychological states. We learn that young Charlie does not want the truth about her uncle to come out because of the effect it might have on her mother. Also Uncle Charlie’s mental state is linked back to a childhood accident, and leaves that audience wondering if it was the reason that he is a sociopath. In general do you consider the plot to be withholding information for the sake of curiosity or surprise, or supplying information in such a way as to increase suspense (or, perhaps, both)?

In Shadow of a Doubt the plot both withholds information for the sake of curiosity and supplies certain information to increase suspense. For example, when Uncle Charlie rips out a newspaper article we do not see what it is that he is trying to hide. It is not until Charlie goes to the library that it is revealed to be about the Merry Widow Murderer’s latest victim. This drawn-out event maintains the curiosity of the viewer by withholding information. The plot also supplies information to create suspense. The audience sees Uncle Charlie turning on the motor and taking the key of the car.

Then when he sends Young Charlie to the garage and locks her in, we see her struggle to turn of the motor before succumbing to the fumes, whilst in the souse Uncle Charlie is delaying the departure of the family. To increase suspense, we do not see what is happening to young Charlie until she is rescued. Where does the film sit in terms of the continuum between unrestricted and restricted narration? The style of the film leans more towards restricted narration. Before Uncle Charlie arrives in Santa Rosa we get a few shots into his previous activity but the scenes concentrate particularly on the family and in particular young Charlie.

At this point the audience knows a bit more about her uncle than she does. For example, we suspect that he possibly being chased by the police but we do not know what they are investigating. Later Uncle Charlie hides a newspaper story but we do not see what it was about until young Charlie, curious about his odd behavior, finds it. Thereafter, the narration is restricted to young Charlie, limiting the audience to what she finds out. An exception to this is the garage scene where we see Uncle Charlie starting the car and taking the key, making the audience aware of the trap to create suspense.

Where does the depth of story information sit in terms of the continuum teen objectivity and subjectivity? Shadow of a Doubt uses subjectivity with great affect concerning the depth of story information supplied. One particular scene is where the camera slowly zooms in on Uncle Charlie’s face during his rant about greedy widows. The camera is positioned from young Charlie’s point of view so we point Young Charlie interjects off screen, at which Uncle Charlie turns and speaks straight into the camera. Hitchcock purpose here was to engage the audience’s minds and emotions to further draw them to the story.

Uncle Charlie is treated with objectivity to create a more intense enigma. We do not find out why he feels hatred towards rich widows, nor do we experience anything from his point of view. This objectivity is to encourage the viewers to side with young Charlie. 4. Causality How does causality (cause and effect) operate in two or three other scenes (besides the Opening and Closing scenes discussed earlier) in your film? The transformation of Charlie as she realizes her uncle is a sociopath, is initiated from the moment the detective tells her that Uncle Charlie may be a murderer. One of young Charlie’s raids is noticing things no one else does.

She notes Uncle Charlie’s hiding of the news story and also the engagement inside the ring. Seemingly insignificant at the time, the ring links through a series of scenes to determine the finale out come of the movie. Young Charlie’s transformation from naive child in to knowledgeable women directly affects the motive of the narrative. This change begins and ends with the detective, Jack, who first plants the seeds of suspicion in her mind. Thinking through earlier events young Charlie concludes that all is not right with her uncle, therefore tenting a chain of events in motion.

She finds the newspaper article and links it to the engagement on her ring convincing her that Uncle Charlie is the murderer. This leads to her outburst at her uncle, who, realizing he has been discovered, takes back the ring. He then threatens and attempts to kill his niece to hide his secret. After his second failed attempt at killing young Charlie, she retrieves the ring. In a clever shot by Hitchcock, young Charlie enters down a staircase as her uncle is making a toast. He stops, taken aback and the camera tracks in on the ring on young Charlie’s finger.

After Jobs’ death (201 1), the video of his speech turned on the internet, gaining millions of views. On Twitter and Backbone, people quoted pieces of the speech, and one of the cost highly circulated quotes was his last line: “Stay hungry, stay foolish. “. Steve Jobs’ powerful speech consisted of three stories from his life. The first story, which he calls “connecting the dots”, touches upon his early life and how it all affected the inception and development of his company and career.

The second story, about “love and loss”, reveals how he pursued what he loved, and the twists and turns in that pursuit, and his eventual success and attainment of happiness (American dream). The third story he speaks about relates his feelings of being at the end of the road, and how facing death every day inspired him to work and live as if it were his last day (Carper diem theme).

This speech is more Interesting because It is full of rhetorical, philosophical messages and figures, there are the recurring themes of birth, death, rebirth, love, and determination. Indubitably, Jobs has struck a core with the American Dream: “Sometimes life hits you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith. ” and “Don’t settle. ” , a few of his aphorisms for the young students are determined to Join the workforce, pursue their livelihoods, start their families, and achieve their “Dream”.

While It may seem plausible and appealing to “stay hungry, stay foolish” for one person, It may seem unreasonable and Inauspicious to another. The reference about the “Instinct” that for Jobs prevails over the “reason” creates divergent opinions as also the history has shown through the thinking of some philosophers Like B. Pascal, S. Segregated, F. Nietzsche or rationalist philosophers Like D. Home or R. Descartes. Finally, there are many other Ideas and Items that come out of this discourse, where the pathos always wins the audience.