How might we define the modern state - Free Essay -

How might we define the modern state

The inference that we might be able to define what constitutes a modern state presupposes that it already existed prior to it becoming modern. This is not in doubt. What are task then entails is to illuminate the transition from pre-modern to a modern state, and to distinguish its characteristic features. We shall undertake this task by considering historical changes in how the state legitimises its rule, and the relationship between this rule and subjection. What is more, whilst exploring the relationship between rule and subjection we will pay specific attention to the concept of consent, an idea that was first forwarded by the British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Herein it will be possible to make links to the analysis of political and social theorists such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Emile Durkheim whose concepts of democracy and social organisation have played a major role in how we today define modern states.

To be able to define the state as modern it will be necessary for us to focus our analysis at a time in history when the state, as a political concept, was just beginning to formulate. That is, we will contemplate the structure of the state in the period known as Absolutism, and in particular when this period was drawing to an end between the sixteenth and seventeenth century. ...ruled from his court, not through it.' (Poggi, 1978:70) This was enabled by the In England, Stuart king's attempts to rule and raise taxes without Parliament precipitated the English Revolution of the 1640s.' (Hall, 1990:7) We will now develop the theme of the English civil war, 1642-48, thus making links to Thomas Hobbes political theories of state legitimacy.

The opposing views of Charles I and the parliamentarians, and the pursuing civil war was the accumulation of years of religious and political divide. In 1640, at the height of this divide, and after ruling alone for eleven years Charles I reformed parliament in order to secure funding the Bishop's War in Scotland. This was come to be known as the Short Parliament because it was promptly dissolved again after only three weeks. Still, Charles I did secure the funds he needed, although he was to be unsuccessful in Scotland. Later that year Parliament again was recalled this time being known as the Long Parliament, in contrast to the previous occasion. Nonetheless, the King was now tied to Parliament for future funding, thus giving those who opposed him, such as John Pym, the opportunity to erode his The reforms carried out by the Long Parliament eventually formed the basis of the Restoration Settlement and were important steps towards the constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy of modern Britain.' (Plant, 2004) This is something we shall expand upon further in due course.

It was amid this turmoil that Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) formulised and set out his ideas of an alternative theory for legitimizing the state, other than by divine right, or by theories based on natural law. ...every man is enemy to every man.' What is more, Hobbes held, great Leviathan' or The attaining to the Soveraigne Power, is by two ways. One, by Natural force...The other, is when man agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. . (Hobbes, 1996:121)

In today's language Hobbes Leviathan state may seem to us to be dictatorship whereby its citizens are obliged to conform to the state wishes, and that it is the state that only has rights. But we must understand that his concept was a thought experiment, an exercise in which we should understand the states legitimacy in terms of peoples consent in return for peace and stability. It also offered an alternative, secular, form of state other one based on religious principals or mans natural rights. ...in holding that no such transfer of sovereignty need or should take place: sovereignty not only originates in the people -- it ought to stay there.' (Cranston, 1968:30) This can be seen to be the opposite of Hobbes social contract, based on consent and obligation. Moreover, it illuminates contrasting views of sovereign power either as absolute sovereign, or that of the sovereign people. This latter conception was to influence totalitarian models of democracy throughout twentieth century Europe, notably Communism, and Fascism. Nevertheless, we now turn our focus to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries wherein it will be possible to contrast the above views of state legitimacy, and sovereignty and establish the links to the definition of the modern state.

The state had a responsibility for citizens, for their life and security, for their (national) commercial and industrial enterprises and for the prosperity of the country.' (Torstendahl, 1992:26) With this in mind we shall now consider three of five aspects that are seen to be characteristic of the modern state, bureaucracy, sovereignty, and territory.

First, during the latter part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century Britain witnessed reforms in the civil services. As housing, education and health services improved and grew so too did state bureaucracy. This was necessary for the state as it had to set in place areas of administration that was capable of dealing with public affairs, yet maintaining an impersonal approach. What typically denotes modern bureaucracy is its hierarchical nature, fixed procedures, and technical ability. Thus those who worked within these administrations were come to be known as techno-bureaucrats. Second, in terms of sovereignty, to enforce such legislation was not only the responsibility of the state but was also the states autonomous prerogative. We have chosen legislation on civil service reforms as an example of how sovereignty may be defined on a national level, but when it comes to issues that may be of an international nature then the concept of sovereign power is ambiguous. This is partly to do with the recognition of what constitutes sovereign power, (divine right or the people, for example,) but also there may be disputes over what boundaries a sovereign power may exist within. We can see then that our third characteristic, territory, is crucial to the concept of sovereignty, as it demarcates the boundaries in which its powers lie, yet these may not always be universally accepted. This can be demonstrated by the troubles between Israel and Palestine.

We have seen how the modern state is defined by its ability to set legislation autonomously, within its own territory, and via a bureaucratic system. However, at the core of this definition is a political system that allows the functioning of the above processes. It is to this system now that we will turn our attention as we consider centralisation and constitutionalism as characteristics of the modern state. Moreover, by utilising Emile Durkheim's theories of democracy by way of contrast, we shall endeavour to show how a modern state such as Britain legitimizes its political system.

...comes from the collective mass of society and is diffused throughout that mass -- it is made up of those sentiments, ideals, beliefs that society had worked out collectively...' (Durkheim, 1992:79) According to Durkheim, if the mass of diffused thought was the unconsciousness of society, then the state/ government was the consciousness. It is to these ends that the state is seen as a channel for all of this disparate thought -- moreover, the process by which this is done is by deliberation between state and society, or unwritten' constitution states the supremacy of parliament, and the rule of law, and this is also seen as a characteristic of a modern state.

In sum, our task has been to show how we might define the state as modern. In order to do this we considered the transition from a disjointed Feudal rule to a more unified Absolutist power, a period when the state first became a political concept. The state, as a political concept needs legitimate means of power to be able to function. We illustrated this concept by contrasting both ideas of social contracts as posited by Hobbes and Rousseau, and exploring differing conceptualisations of sovereign rule. Although we can see early characteristics such as unified rule, and sovereign power in earlier states, it not until we reach the nineteenth century that we can start to define them as characteristics of the modern state. As capitalism becomes the dominant mode of production and society is organised around its processes, the state is forced to recognise its responsibility. Herein we define bureaucracy, sovereignty, territory, centralisation, and constitutionalism as characteristics of the modern state. That is, we suggested that Britain, as a modern state, is defined by its political power to set legislation autonomously, within its own territory, and via a bureaucratic system. Moreover, the political system is legitimized through a democratic process based on electoral representation, is centralised, and is seen to be part of a constitution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Birch, A,H. 1993. The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy. London: Routledge.

Cranston, M. 1968. Introduction to J.J. Rousseau's The Social contract. Harmondsworth -- Penguin.

Durkheim, E. 1992. Professional Ethics and Civic Morals. Trans. H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. London: Routledge.

Hall, S. 1990. The Pluralistic State'. The Philosophical review 28 (6): 562-575.

Magee,B. 2001. The Story of Philosophy. London: Dora Kindersley.

The Idea of the Modern State. Buckingham: Open University Press. 1-28.

Held, D. 1989. Political Theory and the Modern State. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Hobbes, T. 1996. Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laski, H,J. 1919. The long Parliament', British Civil Wars, Commonwealth and protectorate 1638-60. Online. Available from: http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/long-parliament.htm [accessed 1/11/04].

Poggi, G. 1978. The development of the Modern State. London: Hutchinson.

Torstendahl, R. 1992. State Theory and State History. London: Sage.

by artd3co at blueyonder dot co dot uk

Read More......

should masia people be allowed to take a lion righ - Free Essay -

should masia people be allowed to take a lion righ

Should Masia people be allowed to take a lions right HI please help me this paper if you have time. iam talking about lions and humans right and that is way i wrote please help me. iam writing philosophy paper.

There are different forms of experimentation on lions with different kinds of effects on humans. The lion is the African animal that Masia kill most. The Kenyan Masai tribe lives outside of cities and continues their traditional way of life alongside lion populations. The Masia are allowed to live anywhere outside of the city as long as they maintain their pastoral lifestyle. The Masai population has increased to more than 40,000 people, and now they can hardly survive on their cattle because the lions kill the cattle. However, the lion population has increased more than the Masai population. There is a lot of interaction between lions and Masai because the lions sometimes hunt cattle, bringing them into direct conflict with the Masai. Any livestock losses have a greater impact than in earlier years, and the Masai do everything they can to destroy the cattle killers. They have the right to kill anyone who chooses to interfere with their rights. Also, some people say Masia killed the lions to make lion skins for clothing not to protect their property. There are two arguments. One of them supports the lions and says lions have the right to kill the Maria's cattle. The other argument is against the lions and says that Masia have the right to protect their cattle and kill anything that tries to take their property.

First, Anthropocentric Individualistic Libertarianism says every person has the right to live as they choose compatibly with the same right of everyone else. This moral theory believes that the Masai should kill the lions if the lion is believed to be a threat to cattle safety. The Masia think that their cattle have the right to wander, run, graze and enjoy the environment without lions eating them; because the cattle are Masia property, they don't allow the lions eat to the cattle. Once the lion is found eating cattle it will be killed because Masia have the right to defend their cattle according to the anthropocentric individualistic Libertarianism. The Masia believe during the last seventeen years lions have also become vivid symbols of the conflicts between people and nature. Long relegated in our minds to the woods and bushes they are now showing up in suburbs, backyards and cattle home grounds. People are understandably concerned. In 1774, one woman died a after lion attack while confirmed deaths and injuries to pets and livestock by have increased significantly. These incidents reawaken the Masai public debate about lion management, including damage permits, hunting and other control measures. Some Masai want a more aggressive policy that removes lions from areas where they pose a danger. Masia have killed the lions in most of Africa and lions kill cows, goats, and other livestock for food. And on rare occasions they kill people. Lion's life is simply not as valuable as human life. Masia are more valuable than lions because a masia life always has far more potential than lions. So people killed lions to protect themselves and their property. The Masai said that lions have a much better chance for survival because there are many reserves where lions may not be shot if they avoid Masia property. The Masai believe the lion tries to avoid contacts with goats when human are around the cattle because whenever lions and Masia come into contact; the lion always loses.

The second argument used by Masia for hunting lion is that it is a great management tool for the lion population. Masai believe they should hunt lion because they think that without lion hunting the lion population grows out of control. This is a disadvantage to humans and to the lion. Masai say overpopulation of lions causes numerous problems to humans. One particular example of lions affecting many Masia lives is lions eating too many cattle everyday. Because of the overpopulation of lions, Masia loose their property. They also hunt the lion to keep it under control makes it less likely lions will destroy the trees and farms. Banbuuri, Kenya, for example, is not well developed and there are only several old farms. For many years, hunting has not been allowed in the area and it is causing many problems. Local residents are complaining because they can't raise their cattle or build farms because of the wild lions. The lion are so desperate for food that they will come right up to the people's farms and eat their cattle or even people. Also, many people in that area likely to raise cattle. There are people normally against hunting but since they are so frightened of the lion they have changed their mind and are willing to have professional hunters hunt the lion. That is how keeping the lion population under control and that helps Masia but it also helps the lion. Looking at Banbuuri, experts have said that the reason lions come up to the farms is because they are starving and there is overpopulation. The lions can't sustain themselves in the woods so they must venture around to find food. Third, Instrumental value states that the earth's resources are a bounty bequeathed to human beings, and those resources have only instrumental value in terms of the satisfaction of human need. Instrumental theory believes its okay for Masia to kill the lions because they have a lot of business incentive to sell lion skins. They were killing the lion because they wanted to make their own clothes. Masai thinks it is perfectly okay to kill lions for their fur and use their skin for clothes to wear. They send some of the fur clothes to the city to make some money. They believe lions provide good fur for clothing during rainy seasons and that makes them interested in hunting lions because they were making a lot of money.

However, anti-anthropocentric holistic Utilitarianism moral theory believes lions have the right to be free from harm by Masia. In particular, they believe that that lion should not be harmed for their skin to made clothing production. This theory supports lions because they believe the lions are living, breathing creatures and given life just as we humans have. This theory said Masai shouldn't be allowed to kill lions because they want to wear their fur skin for clothes. Some lion rights groups argued that there was no practical need for fur anymore. Lion's rights activists believe that fur serves only as a fashion statement, and the demand for it causes unkindness to animals. The lion rights groups their issue it still alive and worthy of debate and they do not think animals should be used for fur purposes. They also want to eliminate hunting and raising animals for their fur. The Moral right of lions is to be treated with respect and without exploitation. Lions are living things like humans, feel cold and rain like humans do, and have value. Everyday more than one hundred lions are killed because Masia blame them for eating their cattle, even though it is natural for lions to eat cattle. The lion supporters say we could look at the historical aspect of the situation and try to determine whether Masia actually have a right to live in the land or if it really does belong to the lion. Anti-anthropocentric holistic Utilitarianism said the lions have the right to live and to survive because Masia took the lions land and hunted the lions food. For example, if the lion can find a deer they wouldn't eat Masia cattle. Thousands of years ago before Masia came to this land it was a lion's land and there were a lot of animals that lions could hunt to survive. However, when the Masia people came to this land they hunted the animal and made some of the lion's animals their own property. Now the lion doesn't have anything to eat for food. The lion became started eating Masia cattle because it was the only way that lions would survive. But there is a large difference between the way lions live and the way the Masia live. The Masia try to have all animals and the land and make lions not to have place to live. According anti-anthropocentric ecosystem there is no way that Masia can take away lion's land and food because in the ecosystem they belong to the lion. Unfortunally, the lion became the first enemy to the Masia because of confusion over whether the lions or the masia right to the land. Lions have to struggle for survival even though the Masia are killing them. They had to fight for their lives and run away when they saw Masia who were trying to kill them. They have to eat Masia cattle as food to survival because it is their property. The lions defend themselves. For example, during the day the lion stay their holes until midnight so Masia will not kill them. After midnight the lions come out of their holes. They went to the Masia houses and eat their cattle because the lions have a right not be starved all night in holes. They have the right to be respected not kept in holes all day, the right not to be used as a tool to advance Masai interest no matter how important those Masai interests are thought to be. They also build their own holes, take care of and protect their life from Masia. The lion stayed in their holes because Masia wouldn't let them go outside to find a food during the day However, the lion is a meat eater and lions cannot live without eating meat. It most prefers to eat zebra and deer the best. But Masia see Zebra and deer's as their animals and lions shouldn't hunt them. The lions hunt mostly at night and Masai make every where light so when the lion saw the light it was afraid then go backing his holes. The lion drinks about three gallons of fresh water a day. If the Masai does not let the lion have enough water, it will dehydrate. After that the lions have to fight the Masia who want to destroy them. The lion usually shelters itself under trees or in the limbs and branches of trees to keep cool and relax. Unfortunally, Masia cut the trees and made their own homes. Since that happened lions started grouping each other and killing any Masai they saw.

I strongly support the lion because the lion is a living thing and it has a value in my side. I believe that lions have basic rights just as human's do. Lions should be allowed to live their lives naturally and without cruelty. Humans do not have the right to dominate or exploit animals for any reason. I believe that animals deserve treatment equal to that of human beings and that it is wrong for human beings to use animals in hunt and killing for fur. They feel pain and emotions just like us humans. When someone violates our rights, we get hurt which often results in some kind of action and fight those who violates our right. However, animals are helpless, they can't take any action because they are less intelligent then humans. However I do believe that humans are the supreme beings on this planet and that we are on the highest evolutionary scale, but still that does not give us the right to commit wrong acts to the animal. Some of the wrong actions that I strongly oppose are to hunt lion, destroying their homes, and not give the lion right to enjoy environment like human does. I believe lion would be free to live their lives; raising their young and enjoying their native environments without any human harm them. The reason I support animal was because when I was grow up my family have different kind of animals such as cat, goat and chicken. I think animal need a friend like my mom who make to her own full time-responsibilities, works with her staff to build waterproof cat houses, buy straw, and make neglected cats comfortable. These cats need their own neighborhood watch; they need someone who asks permission to walk them, makes sure they are all right, even looks out for them in case of a flood or fire, for hideous though that it is, people evacuate during emergencies, leaving their animals.

by laylo_1999 at yahoo.com

Read More......

Kubla Khan and its Relation to Romanticism - Free Essay -

Kubla Khan and its Relation to Romanticism

'Kubla Khan,' by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, is one of the most enigmatic and ambiguous pieces of literature ever written. Allegedly written after a laudanum (an opiate) induced dream, the author claims to have been planning a two hundred to three hundred line poem before he got interrupted by a 'man from Porlock,' after which he had forgotten nearly all of his dream. This may have been merely an excuse, and the poem was scorned at the time for having no poetic value, one critic even going so far as to call it 'more a musical composition than a poem.' This is partly true, as the language seems to strive for an aural beauty more than a literary beauty, although it accomplishes both. Like many great artists, Coleridge has been most appreciated after his death, when his radically different works could be justified, as the ideas presented in his works hadn't been popular during his life. Coleridge's philosophy in life was very romantic, and so nearly all of his poems exemplify the romantic ideal, especially Kubla Khan. This romantic poem uses brilliant imagery and metaphors to contrast the ideals of romantic paganism with often ingratious Christianity.

The vision of paganism is the first idea introduced in the poem. The super-natural reference to 'Alph,' or Alpheus as it is historically known, 'the sacred river, [which] ran/ Through caverns measureless to man/ Down to a sunless sea,' begins this pagan theme by referring to an underground river that passed through dimensions that could not be understood by any man, and then emptying into an underground sea. This also introduces an idea of the lack of human understanding that recurs at the end of the poem, one of the common elements that tie the poem's seemingly two-part separate structure together. Xanadu's walls enclosed 'gardens bright with sinuous rills.' These gardens represent the Garden of Eden, or a natural paradise on Earth. The degree of nature in this paradise is such that, although it is a biblical reference, it is still connected to pagan and romantic ideals. The 'sinuous rills' flowing through this garden can be taken as two different metaphors. The word 'rills' can mean either a stream or a valley on the moon. The moon is seen as the source of all creativity in romantic idealism, and so this first metaphor is significant in the poem. The lunar reference's antithesis comes at the end of the stanza, when it speaks of 'forests ancient as the hills,/ Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.' This reference to the sun contrasts with the valleys on the moon. The second metaphor is that of the snake in the Garden of Eden. The word sinuous implies snakelike, and the connection of these small tributaries to the river Alph shows that they are lustful, tempting, and bring about the destruction of those that offend paradise. These qualities are shared with the Snake from the Garden of Eden and the River Alph (as will soon be seen). The Garden of Eden idea is further shown with the description of the

...deep romantic chasm which slanted

Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!

A savage place! as holy and enchanted

As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted

By woman wailing for her demon lover!

(lines 12-16)

Coleridge uses syntax to exaggerate his emotion in the description of the 'chasm' with his use of an exclamation point in the middle of a sentence in line 14. The author is barely able to contain himself, so 'romantic' this chasm is, and so his sentence climaxes before it is even finished, then climaxes again at the end. This builds intensity until the eruption of the chasm that follows. The woman here is Eve, and she is 'wailing' for the source of her desires, literally her demon lover, but figuratively the apple that got her kicked out of Eden. This connects her to the dome, which is also offending paradise, and this wailing is what seems to set off the chasm and become the dome's and (presumably) her demise. The idea of this material dome of pleasure floating above paradise is reminiscent of a sort of inverted Tower of Babylon, where, instead of building up to reach paradise, the dome, and therefore Kubla Khan, is attempting to reach it from above. Simultaneously, the dome is mocking Heaven, a synonym for paradise, as the dome is a common symbol representing the heavens. This angers nature, and it attacks the dome with the river and the fountain from the chasm. The river Alph is directly related to the Greek god Alpheus, who was the river god. According to Greek mythology, a pagan belief, the god Alpheus had fallen in love with Arethusa, the daughter of Nereus and a Hesperides. The Hesperides' are a type of nymph whom tend to a beautiful garden, or paradise, of unknown location. Alpheus took the nymph to Sicily, where Artemis, the god of childbirth and chastity, turned Arethusa into a fountain, so that the two could make love by mingling their waters. The mingling of their waters is occurring in this chasm, where the 'mighty fountain' of Arethusa is located. To further this image of sex in nature, which Coleridge loved so much and was a large part of the romantic and pagan idea, the chasm is very much likened to a vagina, with its 'cedarn cover' like pubic hair, and its 'romantic' nature, which could mean either relating to romanticism or romance, both of which could have sexual implications. With 'fast thick pants,' the fountain bursts up and the chasm spews out 'dancing rocks' like 'chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail.' Coleridge uses syntax to emphasize the excitement of the climax by not using a comma between the words 'fast' and 'thick.' This speeds up the narration and sends the reader into a state of heart-pounding excitement and elation, showing that the destruction of the dome is a good thing. The choice of diction with the 'dancing rocks' comes to the same effect. These rocks are described as 'chaffy grain,' relating the fragments to the figurative semen, or seed, that the river is spewing out. In this destructive orgy paradise's wrath is invoked upon the dome, which is knocked down into the river and swept into the caves at it's end to rest in the 'lifeless ocean' (line 28). Both the sex in the chasm and the dome entering the caverns before sinking into the sea present the idea of convex and concave. This juxtaposition of a protruding object with a hole or depressed object adds to the two-part structure of the poem, and also lends to the ambiguity that creates complementary opposites in the work. The presence of a material dome and materialistic ruler in a romantic setting is one example of this juxtaposition, as well as the opposite juxtaposition of the immaterial dome and inspired poet with the ignorant Christians in the second half of the poem. Another example of concave and convex is line 36, 'A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!' The juxtaposition here is further dramatized by the combination of the convex with heat and the concave with ice. The materialism of this dome is proven and emphasized when the author writes: 'The shadow of the dome of pleasure/ Floated midway on the waves.' The description of the dome's shadow proves that the dome is material because only those things constructed of real material can cast a shadow. The romantic term 'suspension of disbelief' is shown when Coleridge describes the 'mingled measure/ From the fountain and the caves.' The suspension of disbelief is when an author writes something that is factually impossible, but must simply be read as it was written by the author for the effect of the writing. This ocean was described as being 'silent' at the beginning of the poem, and it was five miles away from the fountain that could be heard from it. This term was originally coined by Coleridge, one year after the poem was published. The number five can be found twice in Kubla Khan, the first time when speaking of Khan's palace of Xanadu. Coleridge goes out of his way to use the number five here, saying 'twice five miles' instead of simply saying ten. The second use of the number five is after the pleasure dome has been subdued by nature's wrath. The significance of the number five is huge in paganism. The number five refers to the fifth element, spirit, which in pagan belief is the source of all magic and life on Earth. The pentacle and pentagram are symbols of the number five, and the space within a pentagram is said to be separate from this plane of existence, much like the pleasure dome in the second part of the poem, and the paradise of Xanadu. This paganism ties in with romanticism, as they both can worship multiple gods and also see nature as living and animate.

After line 36, an abrupt change in subject, writing style, and tone occurs. This marks the shifting from paganism to Christianity in his studies. This is also an example of the idea of convex versus concave, as the first line of the first section is 'In Xanadu did Kubla Khan,' while the first line of the second section is 'A damsel with a dulcimer.' This sharp contrast between the convex Kubla Khan, a male, and the concave damsel, a female, both continues this theme of convex versus concave, emphasizing the change in sections and the difference between paganism and Christianity, as well as continuing Coleridge's obsession with sex in nature. This portrayal of humans having sex in the same poem as the sex occurring in the chasm with the two paganistic gods show the author's desire to connect humanity with nature, a true romantic ideal. The damsel, an Abyssinian (Ethiopian), is the concave force in another relationship, that of her with the 'sunny dome.' The opposite forces of the maid with the dome are further dramatized by the dark and light relationship between them. This clashing of light with dark shows the romantic ideology of the sun versus the moon. In romanticism, sunlight is a harsh, evil force, while moon light is the source of all creativity, and thus good. This is significant, as this maid is Coleridge's muse, his source of creativity. The maid is directly related to night, and the moon, in this poem, and so is pure good. Conversely, the pleasure dome is directly related to the sun, and thus to evil and the opponent to creativity. Much like the paradox of the material dome in the romantic garden, there is another dome in this section, although it is one made from the imagination and brought on by creativity (the maid). This dome represents the true paradise, one that can not be created from materials, and is strongly connected to the pagan pentacle. A pentacle was believed to mark a space that was separated from our plane of existence, much like the paradise created in this second romantic and pagan dome. The dome is juxtaposed with the ignorant christians, who ironically scorn this true paradise, and cry 'Beware! Beware!' Martin Priestman, in an analysis of this pagan romanticism, noted:

We may detect here some of the seeds of Coleridge's idea of a Kubla Khan.'

This lashing out at Christianity and Christians in general may have also been a reaction to his minister father, as the role of the father at the time of Coleridge's childhood was somewhat alienated from the family. The fact that the Christians don't accept this heaven that the speaker has created may also hint that Coleridge believes that the Christian idea of heaven is false. The repetition of the word 'Beware!' is an example of a common device in romantic writing. When an author wanted to stress an image or a feeling that a word was implying, the author would repeat the word, drilling it into the reader's mind. The author desired to emphasize the rejection that the Christians had upon his heaven, and thus on him. This may have been an allegory for the isolation and rejection that he felt at the hands of his critics, who did not appreciate him during his time as much as he deserved. The three circles that they 'weave' around him are both an ancient, superstitious (and thus pagan) ritual to keep an evil spirit at bay, and a reference to the holy trinity (with the number three). This ironic juxtaposition of Christians cursing the speaker with a pagan ritual further displays the ignorance of these fools, and also provides a final connection between the pagan first section and the Christian second. The poem is closed with a description of the gustatory delights of paradise, making a final attempt to lure the probably biased reader into the fruits of this pagan and romantic paradise.

Coleridge did not live in a vacuum, and so he was affected by both past and present while writing this poem. Kubla Khan was inspired by the great Kublai Khan (this is an example of one of the author's numerous spelling errors in this poem). Historically, this thirteenth-century descendant of Genghis Khan had built the palace of K'ai P'ing, which roughly translates to a homophone of Xanadu. Kublai Khan's greatest accomplishment was the conquering of China, and one can think of the 'pleasure dome' that he constructed as his reign over the lands of China, just as his dome floats above the land inside the boundary of his walls, or dominion. Khan's rule was ended in 1368 by the Ming dynasty, in a presumptuously bloody takeover. This is the reason behind the 'ancestral voices prophesying war,' as they are speaking of the Ming that are soon to come. The choice of a military ruler in the poem may have been influenced by the period in which this poem was written: the Napoleonic era. Napoleon was deeply hated by the British, and so warmongering may have been a subject that he had hoped people could relate and thus connect to. It didn't seem to have worked, however, as his work was widely scorned.

Despite this scorning, however, Kubla Khan is a literary work that has stirred more interest than almost any other poem ever written, at least one of such short length. Samuel Taylor Coleridge uses amazingly implicative imagery and allegory to show his romantic ideals of paganism over Christianity. He does this with amazingly complex metaphors and imagery, such that are so ambiguous as to suggest not having a purpose at all. The ambiguousness he creates is a strong example of romanticism, something that is ambiguous in of itself, as one writer said:

Some scholars see romanticism as completely continuous with the present, some

see it as the inaugural moment of modernity, some see it as the beginning of a

tradition of resistance to the Enlightenment, and still others date it firmly to the

direct aftermath of the French Revolution. The topic is complex enough that

most characteristics taken as defining Romanticism have also been taken as its

opposite by different scholars.

(Romanticism)

This ambiguity creates a sort of literary mist, and one can not help but to feel that somewhere underneath this mist, perhaps in a chasm or a cave, is the meaning of life itself. This feeling is what draws so many to Kubla Khan, and it is this unexplainable feeling that keeps such fervid study buzzing about it. Such a feeling can only be created by a True Genius, and Coleridge proves himself to be one in Kubla Khan.

List of Works Cited

Priestman, Martin. Temples and Mysteries in Romantic Infidel Writing. Romanticism On the Net 25 (February 2002): 16 pars.

Romanticism. Wikipedia. 3 Apr. 2005

by wchutlknbout at hotmail dot com

Read More......

The Cambodias Best-Known LiteratureCulture Hero - Free Essay -

The Cambodias Best-Known LiteratureCulture Hero

By Lay Vicheka March 11, 2005

¡§Choun Nat¡¨ is known as the most impressive literature and cultural promoter that Cambodia every produced. Many claim Choun Nat revitalized Cambodian cultural identity. Sadly he is not world-widely recognized as those in the developed countries, due to Cambodia¡¦s immense isolation and misery over the past decades. The purpose of this scope of paper is to awaken the Cambodians and foreigners alike, not to ignore our remarkable role model.

I. Life

Choun Nat was born in the eleventh of March 1883 in Kampong Speu province (Kampong Speu is located in North of Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, about 48 kilometres). He was from agrarian family. His mother¡¦s name was Youk and father¡¦s name was Prom Choun. Choun Nat had only one brother who was Sir. Choun Nut.

Reaching the age of twelve, his parents took him to one Buddhist monastery named Pothiprek, located in Kandal Provice (Kandal Provinnce is located in the south of Phnom Penh, the capital of Cambodia, about 10 kilometres) so that he could be instructed Khmer literature by Keo Morm. When he turned 14 (1897), he became Buddhist monk and took studies in Pothiprek monastery for two years. Then he left for Hounaloum monastery, located in Phnom Penh, close to Royal Palace. Over there, he stayed with master Tep Sao. But he returned to Pothiprek monastery when he was 21.

Choun Nat tirelessly struggled in studying Pali and other languages, especially French. Students in his generation stated that Choun Nat was always the front-runner of all other students and always progressed. Seriousness in every subject he mastered, Choun Nat insightfully understand the grammar of every language -- Sanskrit, Khmer literature (Khmer and Cambodia is used correspondently). Not only grammar, Choun Nat impressively remembered the deep words related to ancient culture. Choun Nat is able to communicate in Thai, Lao, French, Vietnam, and English. He was excellent and unrivalled among the students of his generation in Pali language. In 1913, he contested on ¡§chasing sentence¡¨ in front of king Sisowat, and Choun Nat could chase for four sentences, which was the highest in that era. 1915, Choun Nat ranked number two in the national contest, and was appointed Advanced-Pali language-Professor in Soramrith High School (Soramrith is the father of King Norodom Sihanouk).

Choun Nat had deep understanding of Pali language, he could read or pronounce in accordance to Siri Lanka¡¦s, Burna¡¦s, Mon Khmer¡¦s, Siam¡¦s, and Laos¡¦s accent. 1922 and 1923, he went to studied Sanskrit and archaeology in Hanoi, North Vietnam.

II. Personality

Choun Nat treated everything seriously, from he was young to the age of 86. He sometimes worked the whole night without sleeping. Choun Nat slept only about four to five hours only a day. It was his faculty to tirelessly and continuously work.

Choun Nat was considered highly intellectual, especially in term of quick/focus response and decision. His praying contained the advisory connotations in both holy and unholy knowledge. Most of his praying aimed to instruct everyone the value of industriousness, unity, religion, peace, and the routes to the prosperous future for the laymen. In every praying he did, Choun Nat aimed to insert patriotism into people¡¦s hearts.

Choun Nat had entrepreneurial and leadership spirit, as he could vigorously go everywhere to and understand every situation he attended.

Choun Nat had the personality of ¡§helper¡¨. In every activity he did, Choun Nat aimed to bring prosperity in the present time as well as to the future. These humanitarian activities were called ¡§the intellectual deeds¡¨. Choun Nat had contributed to helping the country since 1920. He bought three hectares of land surrounding the monastery to enlarge the monastery, donate to construct roads, establish concrete vice-Pali shrine, constructed one small and one big bridge, financially support from the low-grade schools to the universities, bought a hectare of land and made it the ownership of the religion¡Ketc.

III. Daily Activities

Choun Nat only regularized one kind of meal, which was lunch, and breakfast was in regular, sometimes he didn¡¦t have it.

When there was guest, he immediately came to hospitalize though he was being hectic with writing. Choun Nat was absolutely careful in using the time everyday, because he had too much to execute. But if he was really free from work, he warmly hospitalized the guest -- explaining the Buddhist philosophy, philosophy for everyday life, which sometimes took 4-5 hours and sometimes for the whole night.

Every day, night and daily, Choun Nat always had work to complete. Choun Nat had the philosophy of ¡§live to work¡¨.

IV. Miracles Before Demise

On 10 September 1969, Choun Nat dreamed about two air- oaring tombs, and those tombs became more and more diminished in size, until it vanished. The image of the dream was positively interpreted. Choun Nat himself, interpreted that his group would achieve their goals.

Another dream happened on the 25th of September 1969 at 20.00 to 22.00 o¡¦clock. This time, he saw the moon, surrounded by red and blue colour. Choun Nat started to be sick on the 23rd of September 1969 at 15.45. French doctor, Mr. Mazo claimed that Choun Nat¡¦s disease was not really serious. However, the ministry for health appointed two doctors for Choun Nat.

Choun Nat died at the age of 86

V. Achievements

,,R 1919: Secretary of Khmer Dictionary Consultancy. ,,R 1925: Member of Alphabet Edition Group. ,,R 1926: Invigilator of grade-eight national examination and French-Khmer advanced grade eight in Phnom Penh. ,,R 1927: Nominated to be the member of final-edition-group of Khmer dictionary. Choun Nat was solely responsible to produce dictionary until the first and second episode of the dictionary were published five times. In the same year, Choun Nat was member of final-year-editor group for the Cambodian library, which is now ¡§The Buddhist Centre of Cambodia¡¨. ,,R 1930: Nominated vice-director of Phnom Penh Pali School. He was, in the same year, nominated Buddhist Koran assistant-member of Buddhist Centre, Phnom Penh. ,,R 1932: Nominated member of vocabulary-selector group of the ancient Khmer writers to insert those terminology into Khmer Dictionary. ,,R 1933: Nominated member of the examination group of the books, published by ministry for education. ,,R 1934: Member of edition group to select Khmer vocabulary to compare with French vocabulary, to use in administrative affairs. ,,R 1935: Professor, teaching Pali, Sanskrit, Khmer literature, Laos language of the top grade in Sisowat High School, Phnom Penh.

Besides these, Choun Nat continuously received national modals -- medal in 1917, 1932, 1937, 1942, 1944, 1948, 1962, 1963 and finally in 1969.

VI. Social Status

,,R 1942: Nominated director of advanced Pali school, Phnom Penh (this school is now called ¡§Preah Soram Rith Buddhist High School). ,,R 1944: Top director of Hou Naloum monastery. ,,R 1945: Advanced Consultative Group for the monk. ,,R 1947: Vice-committee for culture of the national committee for education. ,,R 1948: Director of the Buddhist-etiquette committee, examining on the books for Buddhist rules of Cambodia. ,,R 1950: Appointed the nation¡¦s top president of the monks in Mahayana vehicle (Buddhism is divided between two vehicles -- Mahayana and Theravada). ,,R 1957: Provided the highest status of monk by Burma. ,,R 1961: Director of interview about national literature, to be broadcasted every Friday. ,,R 1963: Norodom Sihanouk appointed him the highest hierarchy of royal monk. ,,R 1964: All the Cambodian writers unanimously appointed him president in writing Khmer literature and distinguished member of Khmer writer association. ,,R 28 May1967: Received Ph. D in national literature from Royal University of Phnom Penh. ,,R 1968: Director of the committee, examining to-be-published Khmer history texts. ,,R 1969: Director of the committee, examining and defining the meanings of Khmer flag.

VII. Obligations Fulfilled Abroad

,,R 1931: Led the delegation of the monk officials to the capital of Laos to participate in the inauguration of the Laos¡¦ Buddhist centre, and to discuss about academics of the vice-Palic school in Laos. ,,R 1933: Led the delegation of Khmer monks to visit all the Khmer pagoda, located in Kampuchea Krom (This territory was once belonged to Cambodia, but the French had transformed it into Vietnamese ownership). ,,R 1939: Led delegation to Laos again. This time was to discuss the affairs of Laos¡¦ Buddhist centre and the academics in the Pali school in Laos, to remind the Laos people to go on the same track as the Buddhist academics in Cambodia. ,,R 1943: Correspondent Member of the French academic centre in the west. 1942: He was appointed distinguished member of this centre. ,,R 1950: Led the delegation to Sri Lanka to establish World Buddhist Association. ,,R 1953: Led the delegation to Burma. ,,R 1954: Led the delegation to the Capital of Burma again. ,,R 1955: Led the delegation to Burma again to finalize the annual meeting. ,,R 1959: Led the delegation to attend Visak Bochea Festival. And more¡K

VII. Conclusion

What Choun Nat had done, is beyond the capacity of human kind! A whole of his life was to donate to revitalize the cultural identity of Cambodia. Knowledge about Choun Nat life would be of great model for the next generation -- how could Choun Nat delegate the enormous obligations? Anyone ignore Choun Nat would lose great intellectual wealth. Choun Nat¡¦s biography is classified into the cultural heritage of Cambodia, and Cambodia must preserve this cultural heritage. Lay Vicheka

by vichekalay at yahoo dot com

Read More......

Philosophy of life

This Essay shows how I think people should live, and the Necessities to do so. This quote is from Buddha “Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment”. I think this a good quote that shows how I and other people should live, because if you dwell in the past on relationships, or things that you did for too long you won’t be able to move forward in life which is needed if you want to make new relationships, and if you dream of what the future will bring to you too often you’ll forget what is at hand, it’s best to focus on what you are doing. I think that People need 5 things to live a happy and successful life. The first thing that people need is Common sense so that they can know what’s right and wrong. Common sense is an important thing because it is what we use to make good decisions. The second thing that people need to live a good life is support from others because it helps you get through hard times in life. Without it you’ll have a hard times and nobody to help you through them. The third thing I thing people need is a good attitude so that they can get along with others. This will help you gat somewhere by being nice to others, because if you’re always being negative, nobody will want to be around you which can cause a hard time at getting a job, which will keep you from being successful. The fourth thing people need is a basic knowledge so that you can get a diploma, go to college and get a high end job and become successful and wealthy in life. Without a basic education the colleges you want to go to won’t want you because you don’t have the requirements. The fifth, and final thing people need is love because it is what drives us to do everything we do. People need this most so that they have something to help them get through life. But love is much more important then just having others support you. It shows someone personally cares for you. These 5 things are what I think are needed the most to live a life successfully and be happy. I believe people should live doing what makes them and others happy and allows you to enjoy your life. The reason why people should live like this is that if you have a job or do something that you like you wont end up turning to alcohol or drugs to feel good about yourself. But when you are doing something you don’t enjoy and you’re unhappy you could eventually turn to using drugs and alcohol which can end with you jail or even dead. If you do something that you like to do and are good at it you will eventually be able to enjoy your life and be wealthy. When people do something for a career and they really don’t like the way they are going they eventually turn to drugs or alcohol so that they can forget about it. When people waste money on drugs and become addicted they will sooner or later have to increase how much they use to just be normal, which will cause psychological problems. These are the reasons why people should live doing what brings them and others happiness, and allows them to enjoy life. With these things in mind I can make sure that I live a happy and successful life.

by Anonymous Student

Read More......

Philosophy - Free Essay -

Philosophy

Philosophy is a general overview of how our society functions by how we think and the many ways in which we act. It can also be described as the love of wisdom. As individuals, we are introduced to ideas that test our knowledge of the different concepts of life, with questions such as, Who are we? and Why are we put here? Philosophy and our daily lives are closely linked together. At work and or school, we are sometimes bombarded with question that may occasionally affect our way of thinking, and in some cases our moral beliefs. In the community, we are subjected to things that become integrated into our lives, and we are left with the agony of trying to figure out the right or wrong answers to the questions which was brought forward.

Philosophy is life. Without it we would not be able to ask the questions which are associated with the whole idea of philosophy; such as, Is there a God? Morally, we are brought up to believe that God truly exists through religion, but how can we be so sure? It has been said that philosophy does not have a right or wrong answer, but could it be that we as a community did not search hard enough for the answer? And can we use logic as a tool for answering philosophical questions? Philosophy has existed sine the beginning and it has begun to open our minds to new and different perspectives. To continue this process of intellectual thinking, we must first be open-minded and willing to accept change. The real question however, is whether or not society can accept the change that philosophical thinking can bring.

Read More......

The Philosophy of Visual Disability

The Philosophy of Visual Disability

Visual Disability, the Philosophy of

Preamble:

The greatest expression of the ultimate timeless civilisation of mankind, is the embodiment of unfeigned, absolute, active altruistic reverence for the universal equality, dignity and sanctity of humanity; the inability to perceive the declivity from behind an acclivity, or rather, the proclivity to infer the depth of a river from its breath is, no less, the antithesis, for verisimilitude isn’t proof, but verisimilitude. To be or not to be then, being is but a metaphysical idiom with a being, whose interpretation bears no physical traits that bears not a being, much the same as the paradoxical question of visual disability: a metaphysical idiom with a physical configuration that is, however, open to misconstruction; by which misconstruction merely a scratch of the surface to whose bottom can be at the bottom of its sophistication; upon which sophistication its decipherment is bound to bring man to labour under a misapprehension; a misapprehension from which only appreciating the objective for the objective and the subjective for the subjective, can deliver us; a deliverance that can howsoever, never be granted by sweeping the objective under the subjective carpet; under which selfsame carpet the efficacious spearheads for the reclamation of the birthright of persons with visual disability lies ensnared, grimed with the ignorance, intolerance and indifference of man. Better be it that one be one’s own worst enemy than to bear a lifelong imputation to elsewhere; by which reason I am not to draw in my horns from meeting head-on the reality; the reality I believe, forasmuch as there is no land that is no-man’s-land, its disclosure will be worth the weight of persons with visual disability in gold.

Expounding, then, the metaphysical correlation between the variant sociological and psychological make-up of human societies and the individuals of the societies respectively, vis-à-vis the idiosyncratic perceptions and conceptions on the relative universal identity and equality of humanity, hence the ideological heterogeneity or otherwise incongruity in relation to the nitty-gritty of visual disability, is a sine qua non inasmuch as it is obligatorily imperative for the explicit crystallisation of a clear-cut, utilitarian and epoch-making expedient, well geared towards the universal transpiration of a modernistic, cosmopolitan ideology apropos of visual disability, well-tailored for the far-reaching amelioration of the status quo anent the plight of persons with visual disability, and well-defined for the effective harmonisation of the relative social standing of visually handicapped persons, pursuant to the universally veritable social, cultural and economic well-being of humanity. In virtue of this a fortiori virtue of necessity, it is a profound ethical suasion and a sound social obligation for me to enlighten in my expatiatory, a posteriori exposition – the Philosophy of Visual Disability.

The Philosophy:

Behind any course that we may pursue in quest of our bequeathed legacy, are enchanted lands – uncharted, and futile wastelands beyond – unforeseen; an unnerving fateful pursuit that, long since, begets, disconcertingly, a confounding impasse, crestfallen men of yore lethargically learnt to rationalise dogmatically in a lead balloon as nothing, but a wild-goose chase. Yet, hitherto, we still fail, warped within the obscurity of the absurdity of this twilit ground, to realise that: by giving in our insight ignorantly to that which visually we do perceive, or intolerantly to that which insularly we do conceive, verily, we lose virtually all that which we were to, but definitely will not see elementally. So much the better if we can think twice and strive to read between the lines, having a single-track mind and conscientiousness of a funambulist, only can our percipience transcend our primitive purview and descry from beyond the back of beyond, the unveiled philosophies of being, so plain as a pikestaff, along with the merged fragments of one of the segments of the assembled jigsaw puzzle of being engraved: “Denounce only the paradox of my disability to renounce umpteen blessings of humanity.”

The ideal art of mankind, though subtly je ne sais quoi, is graphically modelled by man’s spontaneous, continuous impulsion to interpret his conscious, continuous sensual experiences; thence by an inherent compulsion to be sentient of the essence of his personal world’s continuous physical experiences relative to the external world within which he abides, as a prescriptive requisite towards the imperative consolidation of a mutually interactive correlation. The intrinsic existence of, particularly, a visual sensory entity – the eye – a biological decoder that actively deciphers the dimensional chromatic information world into a systematic dimensionless information world (visible to the mind) – which is the elemental medium of sight – the pro-informative faculty, act or instance of the (spontaneous ocular) capturing of the extrinsic dimensional and chromatic configuration of the objective world; wielded by the hypostatically inherent, integral virtual vision framework of cognitively coordinated, integrated dimensionless configurations of the very same dimensional and chromatic objective world – that is, the sense of sight; emphatically substantiates, implicitly, the authenticity of the afore-professed hypothesis: a seeming obligation for man to perceive, and an oblique compulsion by man to conceive. Irrespective of the natural complexity of the continuous optical catalysis of dimensional chromatic information into dimensionless data – inclusively involving: the spontaneous accommodation mechanics; the involuntary integration of the continuous, invariably 2-D visual sensory data from the screen of the retina (isochronously along with the synchronous, continuous tactual, lingual, aural and nasal sensory nerve impulses) by the thalamus; the ensuing unconscious registration of the integrated sensations, the subsequent subjective resolution of solidity and profundity entailing the cognitive realisation of a virtual 3-D impression of the dimensional objective world, the cognitive appreciation and assimilation of the dimensionless data, and the consequent initiation of voluntary muscular activity towards the dimensional world, a well-nigh split-second’s activity - all in the celebral cortex; the spontaneous muscular coordination by the cerebellum and brainstem; and the relative evocation of emotions by the limbic system; which is, all-inclusively, a sequentially consolidated macrocosm of the phenomenon of sight, the twain to which the invariable mechanics of the eye, per se, are a microcosm of - the eye, howsoever, retains its sole raison d’etre as the liaising interface of the twain: dimensional and dimensionless, objective and subjective worlds; wherefore the extrinsic configuration of the eye elementally lies beyond the purview of the eye itself!

In the nature of the vicissitudes of being, the physical, chemical, mechanical, biochemical and biological (inc. genetic and pathological) vitiation of visual acuity – the intrinsic relative ease of ocular appreciation of the extrinsic objective configurations – which culminates to the involuntary (and oft-unbidden) detriment of the liaison between the objective and cognitive worlds, that is visual disability, predicates the latter, visual disability, as a physically, chemically, mechanically, genetically, biochemically and pathologically effected condition or situation of the relative ocular miscarriage of relative absolute reciprocity between the ever-active dimensionally expressive, chromatic objective world and the then quasi-passive dimensionless visual sensory cognitive world – nothing more, nothing less; a contingent natural phenomenon whose ultimate incidence, nevertheless, neither cuts a swath through one’s sense of sight, nor does it present insuperable barricades towards one’s inherent cognitive capacity to appreciate the configurations of the objective world, but only calls for the complementary substitution or harmonisation of the impaired ocular liaison by dint of the transcendent consolidation of the tremendous abilities of the complementary senses, particularly, the tactile, olfactory and auditory senses.

Everyone has no less than two strings to one’s bow. What though the ocular string be slacken, one can nevertheless strike out on one’s own. The shoe pinches not on the miss of the optical arrow fired from the ocular string, but on the ease of the cognitive intelligibility of the dimensions of the chromatic target; the selfsame optical target whereunto cognitively propelled (and technologically steered) tactual and auditory arrows, let fly from the complementary tactile and aural strings, will still strike. Cognitive sight having precedence over ocular sight, it stands to reason beyond a shadow of doubt that it is not because of one’s blindness to the wider society that one is blind, but the wider society’s blindness to the striking shadow cast at length by the be-all and end-all dried-in-grain sense of sight of persons with visual disability, for we see not with the eyes, but the mind; our eyes – the elemental leverage of optical sensation, much the same as an oarlock, at most, puts a premium on the rowing of the mind’s eye within the invariable expanse of dimensions; in the default of which nothing can defy one from having recourse to paddling, yet effectuating the very effect: the cognitive appreciation and assimilation of the acquired dimensionless information which, otherwise, effectuates the propulsion of motive/impulse driven impetus/stimuli towards the dimensional world.

This universal ability of any person to paddle one’s own canoe, subversively insinuates the semantic obliquity, hence the vacuity of the terms blind/blindness, conventionally adopted in popular parlance as naturalistic fallacies of the homologous, but subtly non-homogeneous terms: vision or visual disability/ handicap/ impairment, which, prima facie, shades an illusive nuance of the irreconcilability of the objective and cognitive worlds; intimating, ipso facto, that the former terms are, literally speaking, monstrous misnomers and hence are of nominal import only. Thereupon, the deliberate, inveterate, arbitrary, colloquial, or rather, the conscious or unconscious usage of the terms blind/blindness, ignorantly, indifferently, intolerantly, otherwise unless upon the foundation of literal specification or bona fide emphasis, is, off the grounds of euphemism, grotesque solecism, objectionable, deplorable, an implicit debasement of the dignity of humanity, and to crown it all, explicitly betokens one’s own intrinsic blindness. All and above, the cultural and/or religious astringent manipulation of visual disability as an instrument of, inter alia, stigmatisation, discrimination, social stratification and occultism, is profoundly eloquent of objectivistically and dogmatically bridled cold feet dragging along a yellow streak towards reaching out for universal, modernistic, complementary (technological) frontiers.

Constituting visual disability is, essentially, the surmountable dimensional-dimensionless information divide and, trivially, the comparative pluckable thorn that, as likely as not, impales through one’s flesh. The former, a recondite verity, is a virtual chasm that can be spanned integrally by the systematic harmonisation of physiological sensory substitution systems along with adaptive/assistive electronic and communication systems; and the later, a microcosm of the former, is a dispensable sensation that can extensively be suppressed following psychological recuperation through effective psychological rehabilitation – if need be. If then the dimensional configuration of the objective chromatic world can take shape cognitively through this potent line of least resistance – technology – which, to all intents and purposes, redresses the balance and thus answers the purpose as the crow flies, what can preclude one from being entitled the king of the Jungle, if one can evince the heart of a lion? All roads lead to Rome! On what grounds can one stand and impugn this verity? The end specifies not the means; it anyhow justifies the means, regardless of how mean the means might be, for just as the innate buoyancy of driftwood, devoid of all conceivable will, and seemingly of no great shakes on the face of it, all the same wafts it ashore!

Apt to be riveted by the heterogeneity of the fashions of sensation, we are prone to be distracted from perceiving the homogeneity nature of perception – the cognitive conscious appreciation of the objective sensual impressions. To see is to perceive and to perceive is to see! No one is thus, literally speaking, blind, for we all are capable of perceiving; the means, justified by the perception, is what masquerades boldly without wings as a verisimilitude of dissimilitude, when, in actual fact, the similitude of the ultimate perception starkly stares us in the face. The ‘Night Writing System’, from which the conventional ‘Braille System’ was innovated, never was dreamt up with persons with visual disability in mind. Why would the soldiers opt then to adopt this system extensively, yet beyond the shadow of this brain child, were capable of perceiving with the eyes? Think it over! What lies behind the keen perception of nocturnal mammals or the practical phenomenon of dead reckoning? Ocular sensation, an elemental species of perception, is, thus, not such significant nor is it streets ahead of auditory, olfactory, tactual or lingual sensations, elemental species of perception as well, that it should draw a veil over the equal capacities of the latter, irrespective of its elemental capacity to ride runs round the latter in relation to the perception of the dimensional and chromatic configurations of the objective world, insomuch as the supplementary coordination of the latter can equally substitute it.

It only costs a rather supplementary refinement of man’s logic, and a transcendental situational scrutiny upon a non-objectivistic, impartial coign of vantage for man to dawn upon the fact that: “ Blindness exists not in man’s very eyes, but in the veriest eyes of ignorance”; the very eyes of ignorance that, in virtue of man’s partiality towards objectivism; man’s propensity towards needlessly depicting himself in effigy; man’s frivolity towards being diverted by the widow’s peak for the head of hair; and man’s proclivity towards underlining what extrinsically he can perceive for what intrinsically he cannot conceive, undermines the impalpable innate attributes inherent in the profundities of the intrinsic being: the intrinsic being that, nonetheless, fashions the extrinsic being and pro-actively influences the mutuality between the extrinsic being and the extrinsic objective world. A nigger in the woodpile then it is, that befogs the woods for the trees; a bed of quicksand so it seems, that like a whirlpool, swallows up whole the chrysalises for the cocoons; and with the acute ‘identity crisis’ of a homing pigeon, divested of its wild life to assume, in servility, the sway of man, so is the fundamental nature of the blindness of man’s ignorance that, despite it being disparate from the putative blindness of the eyes of man, sophistically assumes a feigned appearance as the fundamental nature of visual disability.

Iridescent then; visual disability isn’t what we do perceive it as being that it is what it is, but that which we do conceive it as being that it is what it seems; insomuch as the sociological form of the social matrix within which we do culturally and socially fabricate visual disability to be, so is the psychological form of which visual disability does sentimentally manifests to one as being; wherefore the flaw of human sentiment is with impunity and substantial ethical immunity to the detriment of the de facto and de jure dignity and sanctity of persons with visual disability. In line with this last straw that breaks the camel’s back, is the existence of innumerable societies of man, whose rationale for the relative characteristic attitudes within the societies towards persons with disabilities are variant and significantly incoherent. By virtue of the ease of one to conform with, and adhere to the (time-honoured) customs and/or the (orthodox) beliefs of one’s culture/religion respectively, it is, therefore, not uncommon that one is disposed to ignorantly give credence to bigoted customs and beliefs as regards persons with visual disability, so customary is it that one is inclined to contemplate one’s navel apropos of visual disability; no wonder, in oblivion to our liability for the so reputed realities underlying visual disability and our accountability for the desecration of the sanctity of humanity, we fail to realise… As a complement to the debt of nature, every man is born to be great, endowed with equitable talents and abilities, along with the inalienable faculties of will and consciousness. This greatness, however, blossoms to culmination if one can realise one’s abilities and wield one’s will with diligence, patience, persistence and perseverance within an enabling and an empowering sociological milieu, and a psychological climate of unbounded self-assurance and unrestrained self-motivation, A needle in a haystack, as it might be to the benighted; idealism, as it might sound to the sceptics and cynics who may, as well, take this axiom with a pinch of salt, it is, empirically, a fiat of fate that ultimately vindicates the absolute dispensability of the question of visual disability – a sociologically induced, psychological virtual scarecrow simulation on the threshold of one’s excellence and eminence – amid one’s pursuit of excellence and/or one’s quest of eminence , if only one, in one’s realism, can be conscious of existentialism and resolutely exercise one’s will-power and one’s staying power collaterally by valiantly bearing the patience to persist and persevere with one’s diligence over one’s abilities, within a socially, culturally and economically inclusive society - thereby treading triumphantly upon the scarecrow.

Nevertheless, swathed in oblivion beneath the inexorable shrouding murk of man’s very ignorance, lies a priceless treasure trove of multifarious untapped superlative latent talents and abilities, above rubies, under the façade of visual disability, bursting at the seams of dreams unborn, borne with prodigies, geniuses and virtuosi – unrecognised; untold Keplers, Goethes and Aristotles – unsung; one great hope fountain of white hopes – unhoped-for, oft-brought to nought down the drain, to hope against hope in dire strangulation betwixt the stifling stiff jaws of a mummified ogre, wrought of prejudices, myths and fallacies; intolerantly enshrined, with indifference, within a consecrated frigid abyss of objectivism, fraught with stereotypes and inundated with a deluge of discrimination and marginalisation; one great pedigree of entitled legatees whose bequeathed legacy, hitherto, lies at stake on the verge of a stereotyped precipice, imminently to the prejudice of their rosy morrow in the wake of a recondite cause – the ‘disability of the societies’

In full view of this disability of the societies, in the least, the inability of able societies to be universally socio-economically inclusive, the subsequent inability of any individual within any society to implicitly cherish visual disability as, ironically, a crystal-clear paradigm of the essence of an ideogram, or explicitly as one of the greatest nature’s finest ironies, inductively authenticates that visual disability is, to outward seeming, a phenomenal, delusive skin-deep verisimilitude of the objective visual sensory world’s irreconcilability with the subjective visual sensation world; the universal psychological and sociological cradle of the wider society’s monstrous impressions of the relative inability and relative inferiority of persons with visual disability, actively fortifying the involuntary impairment of one’s proclivity towards the crystallisation of one’s latent abilities, the actualisation of one’s utmost capacity and the consolidation of one’s de facto integrity; consequently effectuating, more often than not, the pro-active inhibition of the extensive recognition of one’s de jure dignity, relative equality, social mobility, and the full realisation, thereof, by the wider society.

Translucent! Being a psychological legacy of objectivism, impregnated within the imagination through comparative perception, fostered by the wider society’s nescience of the ironical essence of existence and callously immolated in its infancy as an oblation to cultural and religious intolerance, the run-of-the-mill prima facie impression of visual disability – an a priori arrant travesty of the capacity of persons with disabilities, en masse, bears a substratum of grotesque ideological grave misrepresentations of the destiny of persons with visual disability – the root cause of unfavourable presuppositions and unbefitting predispositions by the wider society towards visually handicapped persons which relatively rubs salt in their wound insofar as taking the wind out of their sails.

These sophistic, erroneous ex parte impressions and implications of visual disability are but mirage phenomena diffracted at the cognitive interface of the physical and the metaphysical, that by virtue of the wider society’s susceptibility to the pervasive influence of the withering cultural and religious indoctrination, absurdly predicated upon mere conjectural speculation and/or upon the materialisation of self-fulfilling prophesies, artfully sculptured and principally fostered into transpiration, particularly, in consequence of the ideological apotheosis of an idealised extrinsic being (as the basis of, inter alia, the societies’ individualistic ideologies), hence otherwise by the upholding and cushioning of the spirituality of disability, en bloc, {which ultimately papers over the cracks and upon which the spacious convictions that attributes the phenomenon of disability as of supernatural causality, that is, inter alia, as manifesting an imprecation, infliction or a repercussion for some past (lineal) transgression(s) }; simulates a semblance of intricacy and delicacy, and thus broods a hoodwinking mentality of the inscrutability of the question of visual disability that belies its insuperability, effectually spurring the indiscriminate and indelicate assimilation of superficial, larger-than-life non sequiturs refutable by reductio ad absurdum; thence engendering a nodding acquaintance which eventually conduces to the proliferation and ossification of hives of abysmal ignorance that resonates cognitive dissonance upon the wider society’s revelation to the nitty-gritty of visual disability.

Though we cannot wave aside the possible relative contributory ignorance and/or pessimism by the individual, this cumulative preponderance of the disability of the societies over the façade of visual disability makes it rather insignificant, hence making the contributory social, cultural and religious ignorance, intolerance and indifference too far-fetched an extraneous nuisance value to be overlooked. Not to put too fine a point on it, the pith of disability underlying the predominant idée recue anent visual disability is, substantially, psychological and is substantially psychological and sociological in nature, rather than being, practically, a physical or physiological condition. That is, it has a psychological and sociological foundation and not just is it of biological, physical chemical or mechanical causality. It is notably a cognitive phenomenon, (the Cognitive Theory of Virtual Disability – Gary Ngara), that is, however, ignorantly generalised sweepingly as being an objective phenomenon, (the Objective Theory of Literal Disability – Gary Ngara). The latter, literal visual disability, (oft-passive), which is the apparent disability as perceived by the wider society, entails the former, virtual disability, (oft-active), which encompasses the subjective acquiescence by one to intra-psychological frustrations in virtue of one’s literal visual disability – (Intrinsic Impairment of one’s Competence) – which, for the most part, is an upshot of the influence of the sociological generation, implantation/instillation and fortification of the fallacious and delusive sense of the relative incompetence of persons with disabilities, en bloc, by virtue of the society’s culture(s) and religion(s) – (Extrinsic Impairment of one’s Competence). In the nature of the case, the synergy of the mutually inclusive – literal and virtual disability – gives rise to an abstract phenomenon of infused literal disability – (the Abstract theory of Conjugate Disability – Gary Ngara) – the nub of the question of disability; hence, the absence of only a dual-pronged approach towards the twain phenomena in brazening out the question of visual disability, accounts for its ostensible complexity and formidability, (the Fundamental theory of the Duality of Disability – Gary Ngara).

Virtual disability – a sociological taint and a psychological trait governing human misery – refers to the voluntary or involuntary, conscious or unconscious inability of one to avail oneself of one’s abilities. Thus, anyone can disable oneself or can extrinsically be disabled, consciously or unconsciously by being, voluntarily or involuntarily unable to actualise oneself with what one is capable of, or by being, voluntarily or involuntarily, unable to effectively utilise one’s abilities; to wit, the failure of one to apply oneself to one’s abilities, or the deflection of one from capitalising on one’s abilities, voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously, is manifestly symptomatic of virtual disability. Virtual disability, which is out of all proportion to literal disability, is a universal trait, common to every human being, for as long as our societies shall not epitomise Utopia.

As a species of self-efficacy, it is mercurial and hence a continuous variable, whose degree is fostered or repressed both by the social environment within which one is enculturated, physically and cognitively develops; and by oneself, owing to the extent of one’s self-assurance and self-motivation. However, although the degree of virtual disability is somewhat inappreciable in most individuals of the society, owing, in the main to the sociological flexibility of the compensation psychological defence mechanism, its impact is rather more pronounced in situations where the sense of relative deprivation prevails; those governed, chiefly, by the wider society’s ignorance, indifference and intolerance; those characterised by, inter alia, stigmatisation, marginalisation and hence discrimination – which is largely attributed to the underprivileged vulnerable groups within the societies viz. persons with literal disabilities, women, children, the minority groups and the destitute.

This virtual disability, a phenomenon wrapped in mystery, is, principally, the essence of ‘’infused literal disability’’, that accentuates as good as it distorts the prima facie perception of literal and hence visual disability, by which same brush the wider society tars visual disability. The stigmatisation by the wider society which follows and, on the whole, reflects upon and decries the relative competence of persons with literal visual disability, thereby defying the unsnarling of the resultant Gordian knot, fuels their stratification, more often than not, to the lower social strata, where they are prone to sustain undue privations, in particular, the deprivation of de facto social recognition and acceptance. This sociological catalysis of the psychological metamorphosis of the fundamental conviction of the sublimity of the abilities of persons with literal visual disability into the absurd impression or supposition of their mediocrity effectually sparks intra-psychological approach-avoidance conflicts – one’s feelings of ambivalence towards one’s ability to avail oneself of one’s abilities – and thus triggers off a psychological warfare between the "need for achievement" and the "fear of success", which, ultimately, can leave one who knows not to shrink from succumbing to the compelling sociological sterilisations and demoralisations, on the brink of the jeopardy of the crystallisation and/or realisation of one’s (latent) abilities, hence also the fruition of one’s self-actualisation, ipso facto, intensifying one’s virtual disability, and thus one’s infused literal disability.

Buttressed by the extrinsic impairment of one’s competence, it paradoxically follows therefore syllogistically that: one’s abstract disability ain’t a matter of one’s literal visual disability, neither is it of one’s virtual disability, but the disabilities of one’s society – the inability of an able society to be universally inclusive; its reluctance to facilitate the social mobility of persons with literal disabilities; its imperviousness to their cries and grievances; its insensitiveness to sympathise and empathise with their plight; its unawareness to the superb latent abilities endowed to persons with literal disabilities; and its unconsciousness to the power of empowerment and equal-status interaction as the efficacious antidotes for the repression of virtual disability, dissolution of the significance of literal disability and the obliteration of its own disability.

Nevertheless, it is a moral certainty that visual disability is not the last extremity on humanity for it never predestines the futility of the fertility of one’s latent abilities. Lo and behold, notwithstanding his blindness, the quintessence of fortitude, Eric Weihenmayer, made it to the top of the world by climbing to the summit of the world’s topmost mountain – Mt. Everest (8848) – a phenomenal expedition dreaded by many: accomplished by a few; the awe-inspiring Kent Cullers (PhD), a physicist and an astronomer, is going strong; Dean Du Plessis is an international cricket analyst; Peter Torpey (PhD) is an engineering physicist; Amy Bower (PhD) is a research oceanographer; David Hartman (PhD) is a psychiatrist; the charismatic chemist, Judy Summers-Gates, is specialising in colour analysis; the inspirational Hein Wagner, is a motorist; the astrophysicist, David Mehringer (PhD) writes astronomical software; Joseph Monks, is a movie director; Pete Eckert, is a photographer; Michael Borgonia (Dr) is a medical transcriptionist.

There are economists, advocates, mathematicians, to mention but just a few of the very many self-willed paragons of excellence from all walks of life, who never hitched their wagons to the stars, but under the moral courage of their solemn convictions, extricated themselves from the dragnet of stereotypes; valiantly stood up, head over heels, to the scourge of swimming with the stream against their better judgement; feeling their way clear, put their best foot forward and took in their stride, straining every nerve shoreward; high-flyingly going great guns with a stiff upper lip from strength to strength in the wind’s eye, but on the scent, and made their way into the world to their hearts’ content ,only to be attestations to the fact that: visual disability, per se, is by no manner of means an impediment to one’s self-actualisation; on no account does it govern one’s level of intelligence; not in the slightest does it guarantee the curtailment of the ultimate degree of one’s competence; and thus therefore, in no wise does visual disability encumber one from attaining one’s beau ideal, or rather, ne plus ultra excellence – but the disabilities of one’s society.

Born visually impaired with only two percent (2%) sight, an exceptional electronic engineer of eminent ingenuity who blossomed out to be the father of, inter alia, the Galarneau Braille Computer and Printer – Ronald Galarneau (Engr.)(Canada); the kindered spirits, uncrowned Queens of determination, twin incarnations of tenacity and sagacity, famed poets, writers and lecturers who all died in the last ditch striking blows for the ultimate inclusion of persons with literal disabilities – Tilly Aston (Australia) and Helen Adams Keller (PhD)(US); Zimbabwe’s very own unprecedented touchstone who set the Thames on fire as the first Zimbabwean visually disabled advocate, lecturer and, among other things, professor (of Law) – Pearson Nherere (Prof.); the legendary Louis Braille (France); Bob Artkinson (US); Robert Irwin (US), and many others beyond mention, godsend, set no one on their pedestal, but with the will of their own, squared up to winning their spurs up their solid resolution: never to stop short of taking the (reputed) bull by the horns, and of course, on a winning streak, as anticipated, found a niche for themselves in the temple of fame, coming into prominence as icons of the cardinal virtues – truly, idols of an era, today’s era and the untold eras to come!

Although they lived as visually handicapped, they are today ’living lighthouses’. Some enlightened upon issues that, for long, had been held in obscurity; others dazzled the entire world with their second-to-none capacity; others blazed the trails and set the trend, which the forthcoming generations shall still follow. The selfsame spirit is still existent and shall forever be, since everyone is destined to flourish in one-way or the other, profitable to one’s society and the world at large. Thus, the indifference and intolerance by the wider society towards persons with visual disability on the strength of adhering to the ethos of one’s society, or under the banner of cultural fundamentalism or religious conformism, is not braced by rationalism, pragmatism or utilitarianism; neither is it logically vindicable, nor is it ethically creditable, but a grave act of undermining the tower of strength for the progressive sustainable, social, cultural, economic and political reformation of our societies into Utopia!

We need, then not to culturally standardise humanity unless otherwise we standardise the cultures of humanity. In other words, that standard which best stands up for the standards of each and everyone as individuals is the best standard that stands out best. Subservient to the ultimate realisation of this standard – individualism, if only we can learn to dignify and sanctify mankind veritably with a common resonant heart of impartiality and benignity, and consensually strike a blow for the intensive adoption of the principle of egalitarianism, that seeks to, inter alia, give prominence to the de facto and de jure respect for, observance of, protection and promotion of the fundamental rights, freedoms and privileges of persons with visual disability; profusely staff the pro-social behaviour cushion of the norms of altruism and humanitarianism (inc. social responsibility); supplant any obscurantist feelings of pessimism or negativism by subversively inculcating the reality of the very same relative great potential of visually handicapped persons, viva voce and by actively advocating for equal-status contact; stipulate for the streamlining of their independence and self-help socio-economic endeavours by dint of the mobilisation of sufficient efficient (assistive and adaptive) technical resources; and fully integrate persons with visual disability into the mainstream of the society’s social, cultural, economic and political activities seeing to it that the contact between the wider society and persons with visual disability is on a fifty-fifty footing, in whatsoever situation and under whatsoever circumstances…

… Definitely, persons with visual disabilities will arise, en bloc, by leaps and bonds from their misconceptualised level of mediocrity with the ethereal effulgence of unfathomable self-efficacy, ultimately immune from any dissuasions and disparagements, overwhelmingly shining with an empyrean resplendence to excellence, eminence and prominence as the diadem of their societies, never to be eclipsed again by the disability of the societies – if ever it shall be prevailing. It is not a prophecy, but philosophy. The incredible is to the incredulous, but it shall never be too late to mend.

It is an ill wind that blows no good. Verily, there is more in persons with visual disability than meets the eye. A modicum of sight that man may recognise in visual disability is but a tip of the iceberg, the thin end of a wedge, and a drop in the ocean of sight that lies behind the eyes. Verisimilitude is no proof, but verisimilitude. The only proof of the pudding lies in the eating. Why then prejudge one’s paces if we are capable of putting one through one’s paces?

The so purported ‘able-bodied’ are not the only pebbles on the beach. There is absolutely nothing to choose between man, neither is there a logical ground upon which we should make a difference between man. For how long, then, shall we keep on rubbernecking relentlessly to the warbles of winchers on the wing, hither and tether, yet deliberately impervious to the whimper of that wincing within the clutch of our very hands? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!

Visual disability is not what it is!

by Gary Ngara, garyngara at yahoo dot com, proximaxentauri at yahoo dot co dot uk

Read More......

The Life & Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - Free Essay -

The Life & Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche

TIMELINE

• Born: 1844. Rocken, Germany
• Died: 1900. Weimar, Germany
• Major Works: The Gay Science (1882),
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885),
• Beyond Good & Evil (1886),
• On the Genealogy of Morals (1887),

MAJOR IDEAS

Self deception is a particularly destructive characteristic of West Culture.

Life is The Will To Power; our natural desire is to dominate and reshape the world to fit our own preferences and assert our personal strength to the fullest degree possible.

Struggle, through which individuals achieve a degree of power commensurate with their abilities, is the basic fact of human existence. Ideals of human equality perpetuate mediocrity -- a truth that has been distorted and concealed by modern value systems.

Christian morality, which identifies goodness with meekness and servility is the prime culprit in creating a cultural climate that thwarts the drive for excellence and self realization God is dead; a new era of human creativity and achievement is at hand. -- Great Thinkers In The Western World. By: Ian P. McGreal, 1992

PREFACE

Much information is available on Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche, including many books that he wrote himself, during his philosophical career. I took this as a good sign I would find a fountain of enlightened material produced by the man. I've had to go through a bit of my own philosophical meditations to put my own value judgements aside, and truly look for the contributions Nietzsche gave to philosophy. Much of my understanding came only after I had a grasp of Neitzsche's history; therefore, I encourage you to read-up on his history before diving into his philosophy (see Appendix I). The modern Westerner might disagree with every aspect of his philosophy, but there are many things one must unfortunately admit are true (only if you put your morality aside). So, from here, I will present his contributions to philosophy, and do my best to delete my own opinions, other than to say that he was not the chosen topic of this paper out of any admiration.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

Sometimes philosophy is called "timeless," implying that it's lessons are of value to any generation. This may be hard to see in Nietzsche's work; but, we are assured that it was appropriate thought for his time. However, even Nietzsche's critics admit that his words hold an undeniable truth, as hard as it is to accept. Perhaps this is why his work is timeless, and has survived 150 years in print.

Christianity "God is Dead!" announced Zarathustra (better known as Zoroaster), in Neitzsche's proudest book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885). Unlike many philosophers, Nietzsche never tried to prove or disprove the existence of God, just that belief in God can create sickness; and to convince that highest achievements in human life depend on elimination of God. Whether God existed had no relevance in his goal. Proclamation of the death of God was a fundamental ingredient in the revaluation of values Nietzsche advocated.

"Nothing has done more than Christianity to entrench the morality of mediocrity in human consciousness."

"Christian love extols qualities of weakness; it causes guilt. Charity is just teaching hatred and revenge directed toward nobility."

"Belief in God is a tool to bring submission to the individual of noble character."

-- F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Hero Morality Nietzsche had an ideal world in mind, with an ideal government and an ideal God: the "Overman" or "Superman." These Gods were a product of natural selection, or social Darwinism. He felt, very strongly, that any kind of moral limitations upon man would only stand in the way of The Overman. "The Will To Power," his strongest teaching, meant that The Overman should and would do anything possible to gain power, control and strength. If one showed the smallest bit of weakness or morality, he would be killed by the stronger Overman, and taken over. Thus, the advancement of The Master Race (Nietzsche's "Master Race" will be discussed later).

"Not mankind, but superman is the goal. The very last thing a sensible man would undertake would be to improve mankind: mankind does not improve, it doesn't even exist - - it is an abstraction."

"... his superman as the individual rising precariously out of the mire of mass mediocrity, and owing his existence more to deliberate breeding and careful nurture than to the hazards of natural selection."

Master Race Nietzsche is often referred to as a pre-Nazi thinker, by his idealism of The Master Race. He was, in fact, a prime influence on the writing of Hitler's highest men, and quoted in Hitler's speeches. But, his writings were mostly taken out of context, because he was very open about his distaste for "those anti-semites." If one is able to come from a more intelligent place, regarding the breeding of best-fit humans, Nietzsche was far beyond Hitler. Nietzsche understood the necessity for variation in a population, and especially was able to appreciate the contributions of other races and cultures. His ideal society would be a race that included select bits from many races/cultures. The only culture that he seemed to have a special appreciation for were the Polish. He wrote, "The Poles, I consider the most gifted and gallant among Slavic people..." Still, he wrote about his value for the Jews, as response to the growing anti-semite culture in Germany during his time:

"The whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation though a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred. In almost all contemporary nations, therefore -- in direct proportion to the degree which they act up nationalistically -- the literary obscenity of leading the Jews to slaughter as scapegoats of every conceivable public and internal misfortune is spreading. As soon as it is no longer a matter of preserving nations, but of producing the strongest possible Euro-Mixed race, the Jew is just as useful and desirable as ingredient as any other national remnant."

War Mentality Nietzsche had an incredible infatuation with evil and violence. He did so much to find evil and cruelty in the world, that he seemed to have a sadistic pleasure in celebrating it; "man is the cruelest animal," he states in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In his book, Beyond Good and Evil, he really aims at changing the reader's opinion as to what is good and what is evil, but professes, except at moments, to be raising what is "evil" and decrying what is "good." It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. "Everything that pampers, that softens, and that brings the 'people' or 'woman' to the front, operates in favor of universal suffrage -- that is to say, the dominion of 'inferior' men."

Women and The Family

This brings us to Nietzsche's view of women. At this point, I believe it's important to note Nietzsche's experience with women, because his writings about them seemed to begin closely after being rejected by the only woman he admitted to love. She rejected him as he asked her hand in marriage.

"Men shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior. All else is folly."

"The patriotic member of a militant society will look upon bravery and strength as the highest virtues of a man; upon obedience as the highest virtue of the citizen; and upon silent submission to multiple motherhood as the highest virtue of woman."

"Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip."

From Nietzsche's experience with women, as author Betrand Russell said, "Nine out of ten women would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." Many of his comments toward women reflected what a lonely and unloved person he was. In some poems he wrote after his prospective wife left him, he wrote this lonely line: "I could sing a song, and I will sing it, although I am alone in an empty house and must sing it to mine own ears." So, he added appropriately to his beliefs the following:

"How absurd it is, after all, to let higher individuals marry for love -- heroes with servant girls and geniuses with seamstresses! When a man is in love he should not be permitted to make decisions affecting his entire life. We should declare invalid the vows of lovers and should make love a legal impediment to marriage."

The Aristocracy Nietzsche loved his aristocratic anarchism, and had such a hate for democracy, that it consumes nearly every bit of his philosophy. His ideal society was divided into three classes: producers (farmers, merchants, business men), officials (soldiers and government), and rulers. The latter would rule, but they would not officiate in government; the actual government is a menial task. The rulers would be philosopher-statesmen rather than office- holders. Their power will rest on the control of credit and the army; but they would live more like the proud-soldier than like the financier.

Nietzsche believed that some people were inherently more important than others; their happiness or unhappiness counted for more than the happiness of average people. He dismissed John Stuart Mill as a "blockhead" for the presupposition that everyone was equal. He wrote about Mill:

"I abhor the man's vulgarity when he says "what is right for one man is right for another. Such principals wild fain establish the whole of human traffic upon mutual services, so every action would appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The hypothesis here is ignoble to the last degree; it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine."

Nietzsche, as I said before, hated democracy, but he recognized Christianity as a greater risk. Perhaps this was because people are always more loyal to their god, than their government. He felt that democracy began with Christianity: "...holy epileptics like saint Paul, who had no honesty. The new testament is the gospel of a completely ignoble species of man. Christianity is the most fatal and seductive lie that ever existed." So, before stripping people of their choice and equality, their God had to be taken first, then the government.

"Consequently, the road to the superman must lie through aristocracy. Democracy - - this manner for counting noses -- must be eradicated before it is too late. The first step here is the destruction of Christianity so far as all higher men are concerned."

Conclusion

As Will Durant stated Nietzsche's faults so eloquently, "we can see him suffering at every line, and we must love him even where we question him," I couldn't agree more. I always ask the supremacist the question, "why do you support a supremacist government that would probably reject you into it's lower class?" I have no doubt, that if Nietzsche lived in his ideal society, he would have no honor, as he misses every requirement, being a sickly man who was rejected from the army, and lacking the strength to compete with his own.

Read More......