Morality and Religion Essay Example for Free

Morality and Religion Essay There is a close relationship between morality and ethics but they do not mean the same thing. On the other hand, anti-morality and anti-nature are aspects, which negate vital instincts. Friedrich Nietzsche is a renowned philosopher who criticized social laws, religion, and honorable in a radical manner. Nietzsche argues that, â€Å"anti-nature refers to the idea of allowing human beings to coerce others into adopting their beliefs and morals† (Friedrich 404). Friedrich Nietzsche had a personal belief that morality is anti-nature. In fact, Nietzsche states that, â€Å"Every naturalism in morality-that is every health morality-is dominated by an instinct of life† (349). Indeed, Nietzsche helps us to define the idea of anti-nature by asserting that a human being is seemingly refuting the reality by denying their personal passion. In fact, according to Nietzsche and his moral philosophy, the healthiest moralities accommodate natural aspects while the unhealthy moralities negate nature. Nature derives human desires, which consequently define individual personality and how human beings behave. Nietzsche observes that human beings should have the free will to choose what they want without coercion from any external forces. He further quotes that, â€Å"Anti-natural molarity-that is almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached-turns conversely against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts† (349). He also disputes the common notion that religions like Christianity drive human life and consequently asserts that religion and dominance of morality inhibits human nature. In this context, Nietzsche argues that ardent followers of a certain religion ignore the nature of humanity since religion forces individuals to behave in a manner that will please the supreme ruler of the reference religion. Friedrich Nietzsche holds that religion especially Christianity opposes human nature because it gives a leeway to individuals to adopt religious doctrines about human life hence limiting individuals from celebrating nature. Indeed, Nietzsche states that the most general foundation of every religion and morality is, â€Å"Do this and that, refrain from this and that,-then you will be happy† (352)! He uses this explanation to support the concept of anti-nature in morality. Notably, Nietzsche refers to morality as anti-nature by asserting that human desires control what individuals do, do not do, and confirms that morality draws away the course of nature. Nevertheless, various philosophers identify with the fact that nature generates human desires that consequently define human personality and morality. However, I strongly oppose Nietzsche’s notion that human nature is prone to alternation by both morality and religion. Most specifically, I note that Nietzsche depicts religious people like Christians as hypocrites who can do anything to please God at the expense of altering their human nature. Ideally, Christians are rational beings who do not have such morality. Indeed, very few Christians would identify with Nietzsche’s argument since his ideas discourage Christians from following their religion. Notably, Nietzsche’s argument that religion alters human nature by allowing Christians to adopt different aspects of life that prevent them from celebrating life is misguided. This is because Christians have morals that allow them to enjoy their lives just like any other person. In fact, his argument is not universal since it only addresses Christians thus leaving a significant population out. Assuredly, Nietzsche discourages people from adopting religion’s doctrines that alter human passions but encourages people to follow their human desires (Jacobus 67). I also oppose Nietzsche’s argument since it does not support religion and thus discourages many Christians from adopting his views. In fact, I will compare Nietzsche’s moral philosophy with Iris Murdoch’s philosophy with a view of disregarding the assertions of Nietzsche’s reference to morality as anti-nature. Notably, Iris Murdoch addresses the concept of morality where she incorporates religion in addressing morality. In fact, her argument does not discourage the adoption of religious doctrines in morality thus attracting the attention of Christians and other religious people. Unlike, Nietzsche who blames religion for altering human nature and passions, Murdoch believes that religion affects morality in a positive manner. Nietzsche uses the naturalistic perspective to support his argument where the naturalistic perspective on religion contradicts with the idea of human beings by taking the responsibility of controlling their given passions and nature. More so, Nietzsche’s criticism on the effects of religion on human morality does not correlate with any religious, philosophical, social, or historical example and hence its irrationality. As such, Nietzsche’s argument lacks logic to me. On the other hand, Nietzsche does not incorporate the idea of human responsibility, which every human being should adopt. In fact, the act of satisfying individual responsibility is a moral behavior that resides outside the premises of religion. Actually, some philosophers like Murdoch claims that religion improves right morals by instilling a conviction and belief of doing the right things while out of control. Indeed, religion plays a noble role of encouraging humans to abide by the code of ethics set by the government or any relevant institution. In fact, Murdoch asserts that religion plays a huge role in generating someone’s morals by instilling the urge to remain focused on individual objectives. She further confirms that human nature accommodates the aspect of fulfilling one’s responsibility. With this argument, we can derive that religion does not alter human nature and that responsibilities propel human beings to decide and behave in a certain manner. Again, this assertion is stronger than that of Nietzsche, which claims that religion inhibits human nature. Michael Gazzaniga seemingly opposes Nietzsche ideologies in some way. According to Gazzaniga, people who believe in religion would only be classified under Nietzsche ideology of anti-nature if they allowed religion to take over their life (Jacobus 415-420). It is agreeable that some religion fanatics have taken religion to control everything in their life. Therefore, such people would simply be anti-nature as argued by Nietzsche. However, the majorities of religious people have not gone to the extremities of religion and therefore, according to Gazzaniga, they are living normal lives naturally. Nietzsche limits discussions and contributions of other philosophers and commands the audience to believe in his beliefs. Indeed, Nietzsche is an anti-realist about morality. This is because he does not abhor his positive views on morality and equally refutes all criticism against his views. In fact, he disregards any opinion that contradicts his own and thus his rhetoric character on morality. Indeed, he denies the objective of morality by believing that human beings have the responsibility of determining their morality, a fact Gazzaniga negates when he says that those who have control of religion have control of nature and morality as well (Jacobus 415-420). At the same time, Nietzsche’s argument lacks the support of any political philosophy since his views lack a systematic approach about the society. On the other hand, Murdoch does not speak with finality, encourages the participation of other philosophers, and accords the audiences’ free will to accept his argument. Such a leeway only allows individuals to buy Murdoch’s argument with a view of improving it and rejecting Nietzsche’s argument since it is discouraging to Christians and is seemingly irrational. Moreover, Nietzsche’s argument only presents what is wrong but does not present what is right while Murdoch helps us to derive the difference between right and wrong morals. Notably, Nietzsche argues that human beings cannot redeem themselves after neglecting their nature desires. This assertion is wrong since human beings always have a desire to fix their wrongs with a view of becoming better people in the society. Moreover, contrary to Nietzsche’s argument, it is factual that individuals can only achieve their goals by following their convictions and beliefs and denying their human desires, which mostly lead to immorality. Notably, religion derives this conviction, which encourages followers to adopt good morals and avoid sin as it leads to punishment. This negates Nietzsche’s claim that religion alters human nature and that human desires define morality. As such, I dispute Nietzsche’s views, which discourage religion from instilling the right morals and consequently identify with the idea that humans have the capacity to define their morals naturally. I agree that our morals depend on our conviction and not our desires as Nietzsche claims. Additionally, I disagree with Nietzsche’s idea that nature plays no role in defining our morals since nature plays a significant role in determining our behaviors. As such, I reject Friedrich Nietzsche’s assumption that morality is anti-nature. Works Cited Friedrich, Nietzsche. The Selected Writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. Lanham: Start Publishing LLC, 2013. Internet resource. Jacobus, Lee. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich. â€Å"Morality as Anti-Nature. † 347-356. Murdoch, Iris, â€Å"Morality and religion. † Jacobus 363-371 Gazzaniga, Michael. â€Å"Toward a Universal Ethics. † Jacobus 419-431.

Waiting for Godot and Dumbwaiter Comparison

Waiting for Godot and Dumbwaiter Comparison Among the best plays which can be compared to one another in different ways are Waiting for Godot written by Samuel Beckett and The Dumb Waiter written by Harold Pinter. One of the common elements the two plays share is the waiting factor which leads the few characters of both plays to do many absurd activities to fill the passing of time. Pinter has used many of the characteristics of Waiting for Godot in his own play showing the absurdity of the world through an absurd waiting for someone or something that never arrives. In this short essay these two plays are compared focusing on the waiting factor shared by the two. Examples are also provided from both plays in a comparison table on page 8 to 11, on the factors that result to the absurdity. Plots The plot in Waiting for Godot is a desert with a tree in the middle and the characters come to the scene at the beginning and leave at the end of each day. The scene is one location and it doesnt change throughout the play. This resembles the small world we are living at and it means we are all trapped in a cage like prisoners that we either cannot leave or are afraid to do so as a result the only thing we do is to wait for someone dominant and powerful to help us who never arrives so the waiting goes on. Plot in The Dumbwaiter is a basement room with two beds, flat against the back wall, a serving hatch, closed, between the beds. Also a door to the kitchen and lavatory, left and a door to a passage, right. Many of Pinters plays, as in Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot, take place in one location. The single location again takes on the form of a prison for the characters, a space from which they either cannot leave or are afraid to do so. Rather than bore the audience with lack of variation, the repetitive actions that come along with the single space generally constitute one of Pinters (and Becketts) main themes. The environment also assumes attributes beyond its scope. The serving hatch, for instance, becomes a symbolic channel to a higher power, or God, whom Ben fears, while the bathroom develops into a place of mundane repetition for Gus. The basement also functions as part of the mystery and betrayal of the Dumb Waiter. It makes us to think who owns the building? Is it still a ca fà ©? Is Wilson inside? (4) American Heritage Britannica concise Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Pinter http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/iacd_2003S/c_pm_lit/dumbwaiter.htm Characters Waiting for Godot has five characters as Estragon, Vladimir, Pozzo, Lucky and a messenger boy. The Dumbwaiter has two characters named Gus and Ben. As with Godot, in The Dumbwaiter the two characters are one dominant, one submissive, who share the amount of letters and syllables in their names (although Pinters Gus and Ben are simpler names-and simpler characters-than Becketts Vladimir and Estragon). Guss difficulty in putting on his shoe corresponds to a similar problem with a boot in Becketts play. In both plays, moreover, the characters have been stranded in one place with an unclear purpose, at least from the audiences perspective (1). In both plays, characters have not got any good communication. In Waiting for Godot plot is static. There is a lot of repetition, stability and progress. In The Dumb Waiter dialogues are non-sense of conversation. We see the scene as a room is his view of world. It is identical with Becketts view of the world. The world is going down, the drain. We see the toilet which smells very bad, dirty. And the feet of Vladimir and the breath of Estragon are stinky (2). In Waiting for Godot, the two characters are not satisfied and they both are waiting but in The Dumbwaiter, Ben is hopeful and satisfied with the world which is the room, while Gus is questioning everything and is not satisfied. Figure of Power (the Godlike) Pinters opinion of god is the man upstairs. He is the boss. He is the ruler, master. He is the figure of power. He comes with them and leaves. He doesnt get in touch. It could be anytime. This is direct influence of Beckett on Pinter with the idea of Godot who lives somewhere else nearby. In both plays the Godlike character is away and uses messengers to contact the characters on the scene. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett uses a boy as the messenger with the difference that in The Dumbwaiter Pinter uses the dumbwaiter as the messenger for Wilson (the figure of power). Central Action (Theme) Like a lot of theaters of the absurd, both plays are tragic and comic in nature. The plays are therefore referred to as a tragicomedy, or black comedy. As the very titles of the plays reveals their central action, in both of them people are waiting. And the major theme is the act of waiting for someone or something that never arrives. Because they have nothing to do in the meantime, time is a dreaded barrier, a test of their ability to endure (3). Because they repeat the same actions every day, time is cyclical. And time loses meaning when the actions of one day have no relevance or certainty on the next. http://www.archive.org/stream/pinteracriticale007278mbp/pinteracriticale007278mbp_djvu.txt http://www.soundofevil.com/ingilizce-hikaye-roman-kitap/14138-waiting-godot-amp-dumb-waiter-amp-end-game-samuel-beckett-harold-ingilizce-kitap-ozeti.html http://www.shmoop.com/waiting-for-godot/time-theme.html The Waiting In both plays the people are waiting for off-stage characters who exercise a powerful, god-like influence over the on-stage characters. No acceptable path existed for them to end their waiting and, therefore, they were forced to wait. Through this, the play showed that there are things for which one must wait and that no amount of initiative will end this waiting (1). Their situation, then, is that of people waiting for nothing much, in a universe that has nothing much to offer. As they wait, and we watch, we learn something about how man behaves under such circumstances. We see them devising, with diminishing success, games to play to pass the time; we see them try again and again to understand the unintelligible; we see them discuss committing suicide, but never without finding an excuse to put it off; we see them cling to each other for company while continually bickering and talking about how much better off they would be apart (specially in Becketts). Time Time in both plays is a dreaded barrier, a test for their abilities to endure. It is also cyclical and loses meaning when actions of one day have no relevance or certainty on the next. We see in Waiting for Godot that the characters even cannot tell the time of the year or the day. And also in The Dumbwaiter the room does not have a window so they guess the time and there are no words of a watch or looking at a clock in the play. Ben intentionally does not remember the emotional subjects and the times they spend together before or a fun they had and when Gus brings them up Ben tells him not to talk or asks him to do something or changes the subject so nothing stop him from what Wilson has asked him to do which is murdering Gus which happens at the end of the play. The time factor has relation to the next part which is Repetition as it is well explained as follows. And as Velissariou indicates: When reality is not measured by time and is not limited by spatial boundaries but lies in a n infinite time and an abstract space, then words can never be definite about a meaning which must perpetually elude them. (2) Repetition The repetition in the plays provides further evidence of the unimportance of time for Vladimir and Estragon and also for Ben and Gus. Both acts are identical excluding a few small deviations. With one day after another being basically the same during their wait, it is no wonder that Vladimir and Estragon had trouble telling one day from the next and that they had trouble remembering what happened during each day. Because of this lack of significant change, time had no meaning for them, and therein lays the larger theme that these scenes help to convey. If the day before was meaningless and if most of the periods before this were meaningless, time itself was meaningless for them as well. As Estragon said at the beginning of the second day in reference to that day, For me its over and done with, no matter what happens, which suggested his own realization of the meaninglessness of that day and of time itself. An example of a clearly cyclical pattern in Waiting for Godot that well introduces the repetition is when Estragon sings a song as follows: A dog came in the kitchen And stole a crust of bread, Then cook up with a ladle And beat him till he was dead. Then all the dogs came running And dug the dog a tomb And wrote upon the tombstone For the eyes of dogs to come: A dog came in the kitchen . . . . Questions while Waiting Estragon: (anxious). And we? Where do we come in? Estragons question is left unanswered by Vladimir. Note that these questions seem to bring pain or anxiety to Estragon. Beckett conveys a universal message that pondering the impossible questions that arise from waiting, cause pain, anxiety, inactivity and destroy people from within. Note that both Vladimir and Estragon ponder suicide, by hanging themselves from the tree, but are unable to act through to anxiety, as Estragon states, Dont lets do anything. Its safer (1). And also in the case of The Dumbwaiter whenever Gus tries to bring up something emotional, and to ask questions, Ben refuses to speak with him. This disconnection is the essence of their relationship. They do not speak with, but to each other. Silences and Pauses Both plays are filled with silences and pauses during the waiting. In theater of the absurd silences and pauses have three different applications. Either the characters are in a state of shock, or they are making time pass or they are hiding information from one another. Silences and pauses do carry meaning in these kinds of plays as if they are the same as using words to convey meaning. In Waiting for Godot, the silences are as a result of not having much to do trying to pass time until Godot comes and also lack of good communication. In the Dumbwaiter, silences and pauses are as a result of hiding information from Gus who will be the victim of the day at the end of the play when Ben shots him and the secrets are revealed. It is worth to mention Velissarious point of silences in Waiting for Godot here as: The silences in the play effectively Becket the terms an audience might adopt in order to understand them; the meaning is communicated by the intervals between words. In Didi and Gogos dialogue about the dead voices the silences are evenly distributed, atomizing the exchange into fragments of cross-talk. The empty stage is filled for a moment with the presence of dead people, worn out voices, fragmented whispers, murmurs and rustlings, and this sudden proliferation of the thoughts, speech, and noises of dead people suffocates Didi and Gogo because they themselves are emblematic of that dead humanity. Beckett stages the sounds of silence, the other side of language, and Didi and Gogo, in their yearning for authenticity, aspire to the point of overlap, to the zero, to the point where all difference is obliterated. It is a form of death-wish. The dead voices are heard inside their silences talking of the past, of dreams and hopes; presence is once again commensurate with absence. (1) Universality of the Waiting As human beings were all clinging to the hope of some kind of salvation, some kind of Godot to come and save us from our intolerable suffering, our poverty, our disease, our boredom, our quiet desperation (2) or a kind of Wilson to instruct us through our life. This hoping, this waiting, removes us from the potentially liberating awareness that the moment were actually suspended in, this moment between birth and death that glows so briefly, is ultimately more important than any vague better future we might desire. Life is a lengthy period of waiting, during which the passage of time has little importance. Each day the characters wait for the savior, and, if he doesnt come that day they will continue to wait. The amount of time that they had already spent doing this and the amount of time that would do so in the future is unknown, but neither is important because time is meaningless for them. Each day they would continue to wait for the unknown savior until he either came or time ended through their death. Sum up The plays confront the absurdity of existence and challenge us to figure out who we are and what were doing here. In this random universe, where everything who lives and who dies, whos up and whos down, is a matter of pure chance, and the odds arent necessarily in our favor, what do we do? Whats our purpose? The Dumbwaiter shows the same waiting as in Waiting for Godot with the difference that there is a more violent atmosphere which gives the sense of deceiving and murder. So Waiting for Godot and the Dumbwaiter are plays about waiting, about the repetition, the meaninglessness, the absurdity of waiting, of feeling (and being) suspended in time instead of moving forward in a meaningful direction and for the possibility of a better future that we are not quite fully convinced will ever arrive. You can find the comparison table with examples provided based on the factors mentioned above from the two plays as follows: EXAMPLES Factors Waiting for Godot Repeating actions VLADIMIR: Theres man all over for you, blaming on his boots the faults of his feet. ( He takes off his hat again, peers inside it, feels about inside it, knocks on the crown, blows into it, puts it on again.) POZZO: (He puts the pipe in his pocket, takes out a little vaporiser and sprays his throat, puts back the vaporiser in his pocket, clears his throat, spits, takes out the vaporiser again, sprays his throat again, puts back the vaporiser in his pocket.) Repeating words Nothing to be done ESTRAGON: Why doesnt he put down his bags? POZZO: I too would be happy to meet him. The more people I meet the happier I become. From the meanest creature one departs wiser, richer, more conscious of ones blessings. Even you . . . (he looks at them ostentatiously in turn to make it clear they are both meant) . . . even you, who knows, will have added to my store. ESTRAGON: Why doesnt he put down  his bags? Killing Time VLADIMIR: That passed the time. ESTRAGON: It would have passed in  any case. VLADIMIR: Yes, but not so rapidly. VLADIMIR: Shall I tell it to you? ESTRAGON: No. VLADIMIR: Itll pass the time. (Pause.) Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our Saviour. Silence POZZO: (Silence.) Its the nicotine, one absorbs it in spite of ones precautions. (Sighs.) You know how it is. (Silence.) But perhaps you dont smoke? Yes? No? Its of no importance. (Silence.) But how am I to sit down now, without affectation, now that I have risen? Without appearing to -how shall I say- without appearing to falter. (To Vladimir.) I beg your pardon? (Silence.) Perhaps you didnt speak? (Silence.) Its of no importance. Giving irrelevant answers to the other person POZZO: True. (He sits down. To Estragon.) What is your name? ESTRAGON: Adam. POZZO: (who hasnt listened). Ah yes! The night. (He raises his head.) But be a little more attentive, for pitys sake, otherwise well never get anywhere. Not knowing the time the Godlike comes or sends message He said Saturday. (Pause.) I think. ESTRAGON: You think. VLADIMIR: I must have made a note of it. (He fumbles in his pockets, bursting with miscellaneous rubbish.) ESTRAGON: (very insidious). But what Saturday? And is it Saturday? Is it not rather Sunday? (Pause.) Or Monday? (Pause.) Or Friday? VLADIMIR: (looking wildly about him, as though the date was inscribed in the landscape). Its not possible! ESTRAGON: Or Thursday? Got used to waiting VLADIMIR: No further need to worry. ESTRAGON: Simply wait. VLADIMIR: Were used to it. Not doing what they say they would ESTRAGON: Well, shall we go? VLADIMIR: Yes, lets go. (They do not move). ESTRAGON: Then adieu. POZZO: Adieu. VLADIMIR: Adieu. POZZO: Adieu. (Silence. No one moves). VLADIMIR: (to Estragon). Give him his hat. ESTRAGON: Me! After what he did to me! Neve! VLADIMIR: Ill give it to him. (He does not move). Being promised that the master will come BOY: (in a rush). Mr. Godot told me to tell you he wont come this evening but surely tomorrow. Not remembering (or not wanting to Remember) the past Vladimir mentioned the time that he and Estragon had spent in Macon country picking grapes. Estragon did not remember this period, and even Vladimir has trouble remembering details of their time there, such as the name of the man for whom they worked. They couldnt remember the day before or even if it was the same place they were waiting for Godot Not knowing the time POZZO: What time is it? VLADIMIR: (inspecting the sky). Seven oclock . . . eight oclock . . . ESTRAGON: That depends what time of year it is. POZZO: Is it evening?

What The Dsm Attempts To Do Psychology Essay

What The Dsm Attempts To Do Psychology Essay DSM-IV is a classification of mental disorders that was developed for use in clinical, educational, and research settings. American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR, 2000 What the DSM attempts to do is have specific criteria for specific disorders, but at the same time, not have the manual be used in a cookbook fashion. Meaning that the specific diagnostic criteria in the DSM are meant to serve as guidelines concurrently with clinical judgment. As we all know, each disorder included in the DSM has a set of diagnostic criteria that signify what symptoms must be present in order to meet the criteria for a diagnosis. Conversely, there are some disorders where there are symptoms that must not be present in order for an individual to be eligible for the diagnosis. A strong point of this particular set-up of the DSM manual makes finding the disorder and its diagnostic criteria easier because of its conciseness. The use of the DSM diagnostic criteria to diagnose has been shown to increase diagnostic reliability (Mezzich, 2002). As noted above, the DSM-IV is a manual that helps outline mental disorders. A major strength is that healthcare professionals such as physicians, psychologist, psychiatrists, and others combined their resources and knowledge to create a universal manual (Well in the US anyways) (Speigel, January 3, 2005). Also, the DSM is used for appropriate coding for billing and insurance purposes which, for most psychologists, is imperative in order to receive reimbursement for treatment. Another strength of the DSM is that it allows researchers to gather a group of patients who meet the described criteria for the disorder, try different treatments, and compare the results. For example, a percentage of patients with social phobia might be helped by placebo, and if a greater number will be helped by a psycholeptic, or psychotherapy, or whatever the treatment is in their design, then one of these treatments can be found valuable. This is important because the idea of evidence based treatment appeal s to the general public, to the field, and is just common sense. Therefore, it is known that empirical data is more useful than untested theories and endless debates that are not proven by research. One weakness that I have found is the reoccurrence of including the social effects of disorders in the criteria by which the same disorders are identified (Widiger Sankis, 2000). It has been argued that when a person meets or exceeds the criteria for a disorder, the DSM does not satisfactorily take into account the context in which a person is living, and to what degree there is a disorder of an individual versus a psychological response to their negative environment (Chodoff, 2005). Therefore, should someone who is in a very poor living situation (emotional or physical abuse, in poverty, ect) these may be the sole factor for some their symptoms, so should it still be assessed in the criteria? Sometimes, an individuals quantity of impairment is often not correlated with symptom counts, and can stem from various individual and social factors, the DSMs standard of distress or disability can often produce false positives (Spitzer R.L., Wakefield J.C., 1999). However, the reality still is that some individuals who dont meet all the symptom criteria may still experience similar suffering or dysfunction in their life. The DSM-IV is practically known as a categorical classification system. The categories are models, and a patient with a high relation to the model is said to have that disorder. The DSM-IV (2000) states, à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"there is no assumption each category of mental disorder is a completely discrete entity with absolute boundariesà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ã‚  At the same time, unique, mild, or non-criterion symptoms are not given any importance in the diagnosis (Maser, JD., Patterson, T., 2002). On the other hand, qualifiers are sometimes used when explaining the level of disorder; for example: mild, moderate or severe forms. For many the disorders, symptoms must be adequate to cause à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. (APA, DSM-IV-TR, 2000) It has been said that ever since the DSM was created, it has been argued that its system of classification makes indiscrete categ orical distinctions between disorders, and uses somewhat random cut-offs between normal and abnormal (Widiger Coker, 2003, p. 3). I agree that the cut-offs seem a bit arbitrary, and though it is not always voiced, my professors seem to silently have the same opinion. It has been argued that rather than using a categorical approach, a fully dimensional or continuum approach may enhanced the diagnosis people and make it more individualized. (Dalal P.K., Sivakumar T., (2009). What I feel would make the next version DSM superior comes from a suggestion by Dr. Kraemer at the American Psychiatric Association 2007 Annual Meeting, in San Diego, California. (Busko, June 14, 2007) She stated that the purpose of a diagnostic system of mental health disorders, such as the DSM, is not to say what is normal or acceptable but to describe the presentation of a person who comes to get clinical help. The point being made is when a healthcare professional uses the DSM they have to answer this question,Does the patient fit this mental disorder category? Right now, there are only 2 options: Yes or No, which makes the DSM very categorical. However, a dimensional diagnosis, would give us 3 or more potential values that can be ordered. An example, provided by Dr. Kraemer was: While I think that having more than a binary option is a good idea, I am not sure about this Absolutely Sure or Unsure categorization that is presented. Yes, the diagnostic classification should lead to a diagnosis that is reliable and valid, but it should also trust in the professionals life experiences and knowledge in determining how any one disorder is presented in an individual. At the same time, I am cautious about having a classification system that starts running into subclinical diagnosis. I feel that this would lead into everyone leaving a psychologists or psychiatrists office with a disorder. One side note I would like to add, is that as it has been presented by the APA, the DSM-5 is leaning towards making Aspergers Syndrome a combined disorder with Autism Spectrum Disorder. As a person who has a brother with Aspeger and having worked with the general Autistic community, I feel abhorred that such a thing would be considered. They are similar, but not the same thing. Especi ally when we are discussing an individuals ability to live independently and function in their community. For me, this would be like combining Schizoid personality disorder and Schizotypal personality disorder. Well, I will just stop my rambling for now. Hello Ms. XD, I hope you are doing well. After our evaluation and my consultation with my supervisor, we have determined that you have Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. Within Panic Disorder, you can have panic attacks. A panic attack can described as an event of very intense fear or uneasiness that comes on rather quickly. People can experience Panic Disorder in different ways, but some of the symptoms are: chest pain, feeling like you are choking, a feeling like you might be dying, feeling like you may have not control of your emotions. You can also have hot flashes, chills, nausea, numbness, shortness of breath, sweating. fast heartbeat, or you may start shaking. Once again, these symptoms can start all of a sudden and usually gets more intense as time goes on, but these feelings usually peak within 10 minutes. You also have Agoraphobia along with your Panic Disorder. This means that you may have a strong fear of being in a difficult or embarrassing situation that you cannot escape from. Some people who have severe agoraphobia may not want leave home. There may be certain locations or situations that may make you concerned that you will have a panic attack. These feelings can have a big impact on your social, work, or educational life. It may make it difficult for you to be around others because you may be concerned that you will have another panic attack. Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia is one of the most common anxiety disorders. Approximately 1-2% of the general public have this disorder. Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia can start at anytime during someones life, but it usually starts in adolescence and mid 30s. It is rare to have Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia over the age of 45. So you fit the within common age range of occurrence. Also, with Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, females are 3 times more likely than males to have it. If someone in your immediate family also has this disorder, you are 8 times more likely to get it. Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia is generally considered chronic. This means that it is not likely to go away in the near future. However, the severity can go from very low to very high while you have Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia. You may eventually stop having panic attacks, but it is common to still have the symptoms of agoraphobia. There are many reasons on how Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia happens, but there is no one direct cause. Some think there is only a genetic reason why this happens. That means that it is in your genes that were transferred on from your parents. It is also believed that panic disorder may be a learned behavioral response to stressful situations. This means that you may have learned at some point during your life that, maybe unconsciously, it was okay for you to react in a certain way and that is what has lead you to have panic attacks. It is also thought that some peoples brains are wired in a way that makes it easier and more common for them to have a panic attack. These are all possibly reasons why you have Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia, but the important thing now is to look into what the best way to treat it. There are many different options. For medications, there are a variety to choose from, but the most common medicine to use is called an SSRI. Some medicines that you have h eard of before, such as Prozac and Zoloft, are SSRIs. You have about a 60% chance of being panic attack free if you stick with your meds. However, if you dont, it is very likely that you will have more panic attacks. Another choice is using a specific kind of psychotherapy called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. CBT is a type of therapy that helps you focus on how you think about things and how you behave. Within CBT is something called Panic Control Treatment. This would meant that you would experience the symptoms of a panic attack in a safe environment. Along with this you would learn deep breathing and relaxation. I highly recommend that you go with this therapy. Therapy and medicine can be combined, but that is up to your physician or psychiatrist to decide. Ms. XD, I hope the best for you and please let me know you if you have an issues or concerns.

The Conclusions Drawn By The National Reading Panels Study On Effective Reading :: essays papers

The Conclusions Drawn By The National Reading Panel's Study On Effective Reading Ever since the signing of the Declaration of Independence the United Sates has strived for the betterment of its society on a whole. This effort can be seen through not only the push for higher education, but also in the standards set in the curriculum for all students. Even though there is such a push for educating the students in America, it becomes surprising that certain simple aspects of education can be almost shaded by or lost under the bigger picture. One such aspect is trying to maintain reading levels, and keeping them up to speed with the corresponding grade levels. With reading levels seemingly on a steady descending scale, it has become necessary for certain actions to take place in hopes of finding ways to bring the levels back up to par. One course of action is conducting research on the manner resulting in the suggestions of possible solutions to the reading problem. Of multiple studies conducted on the matter, one that stands out to be both direct and promising is th e study conducted by the National Reading Panel. â€Å"The main goal of more formal educational research is to test theory and to advance scientific knowledge† (Samuels & Farstrup, 1992, p 5). As a result of the noticeable failing reading levels, Congress took it into their own hands to help solve the matter. â€Å"Congress directed the creation of the National Reading Panel to reevaluate educational research and give teachers and schools a roadmap to address this problem† (National Reading Panel, 2000 (NRP)). The panel was appointed in 1997, and used numerous studies and research that, once analyzed, was focused into certain areas that need to be incorporated in reading instruction. The areas that were highlighted in the resulting study were phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension (Manzo, 2000, p 1). These areas can be examined more closely in order to gain insight and information into their beneficial effects on effective reading instruction. Phonemic awareness is first on the study’s list of things that need to be taught in order for students to become better readers. This aspect of the report is based on the idea that students need the ability to manipulate the sounds that make up the spoken language. â€Å"If the children cannot perceive these sound segments they will encounter difficulty when trying to sound words out in both reading and writing† (Samuels & Farstrup, 1992, p 108).

Honda Cars :: essays research papers fc

Racial Riots in America   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Over the past century, beginning before World War I, many incidents have occurred involving white mob assaults against entire black communities. In most of the cases these white mobs attacked the black neighborhoods, beating and killing the residents in many numbers. They also set fire and destroyed the blacks property. This was the result of the white society trying to maintain their superiority over the black communities, keeping them as the minority. These brutal confrontations are mostly referred to as race riots. Out of the many and many of these race riots that have been committed over the years, I have chosen a few to talk about in my paper.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In September of 1906, in Atlanta, Georgia, months of fury had broken out of race hatred. The newspapers had begun to treat black crime, mostly rape and assault, in an inflammatory manner. It had been reported that twelve white females had been raped in on week. The impression was given that it was black males who had been doing this. That began the riot. Mobs of whites murdered blacks, also destroying and looting their homes and places of work. This came with little help from the local authorities. The blacks attempted to resist the whites, but were too outnumbered. Some blacks armed themselves in self-defense, but were arrested. After the rioting went on for four days, two whites and ten blacks were dead with hundreds injured, and over a thousand had left the city. In 1917, in East St. Louis, many white working men felt that blacks were threatening their political and social status. After workers of a labor union at an aluminum plant went on strike in April of 1917, the plant hired blacks to do the work. When a militia, of both white and black, destroyed the strike the whites blamed the blacks for the defeat of the strike. A rioted was started, when whites began to burn and demolish black’s buildings. Many blacks were also beaten, and the only thing that the police did was to take the injured to the hospital. On July 1, a few whites in a Ford car drove down streets in a major Negro part of town. They shoot into many homes and buildings. After this the blacks armed themselves, so when the police came to investigate, who also were driving in a Ford, the blacks fired upon them, killing two police men.

A Comparison of The Crucible and Nazi Germany :: comparison compare contrast essays

The Crucible and Nazi Germany Arthur Miller's portrayal of Salem, Massachusetts can be juxtaposed with Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. While the motivations differ, societal similarities exist and both teach us that when a whole society of people have a fear so great that it can be used against them, the society will try to do anything and everything in their power to prevent this from happening. Even when the means of prevention involves innocent people dieing and the judiciary system becoming corrupt, the society will act upon this fear of wickedness and the devil. When one group or individual has so much power and influence to lead or sentence someone to death, then there is something to worry about. In The Crucible, Abigail has the quality of speaking and always being heard, "I saw Goody Sibber with the Devil!"(Miller 48) After she says this, Thomas Putnam immediately calls the marshal to hand out warrants to the accused. A functional society can't exist without a balance in power. Even in today's society, there is a balance in power to keep the country calm. If the president had all the power, then he would be able to pass whatever ludicrous laws he wanted and basically do anything to benefit himself. Abigail had enough power, not to pass laws, but to testify and decide who should receive a warrant for witchery. When a little, irresponsible, whore of a girl has enough power to do this, she will definitely take advantage of it, and she did. Reverend John Hale also believes that the chaos in Salem can be directed towards Abigail as he said in Act II, "The world goes mad, and it profit nothing you should lay the cause to the vengeance of a little girl."(79) Throughout time, history has proven that through conflict and poor living conditions, it can be quite simple and painless to put all the blame on someone. Adolf Hitler was able to blame people such as the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, mentally ill, etc. This seemed like an easy answer. All the problems in the world were the result of these types of people. Once Hitler was able to persuade the majority of Germany that this racist thought was true and that they should be afraid and very concerned about being taken over by these people.

The Influence of Rationalism on the French Revolution

Ben Jorgensen Professor Wakefield English 5 3 April 2013 The Influence of Rationalism on the French Revolution What was the driving force behind the French Revolution? Many people may say it was financial, or political, and while I would agree that these things were part of the force that propelled the French Revolution, I would assert that the philosophies of the Enlightenment were the dominant force that blasted late eighteenth century France into revolution .In his article, â€Å"The French Revolution: Ideas and Ideologies â€Å"Maurice Cranston of History Today articulates that the Enlightenment philosophies were pivotal in the revolutions inception. He writes that: â€Å"The philosophes undoubtedly provided the ideas. † Cranston goes on to write that: â€Å"†¦the unfolding of the Revolution, what was thought, what was said, and what was advocated, was expressed in terms and categories that came from political theorists of the Enlightenment. While many of the Enlig htenment concepts contributed to the revolution, I would propose that the philosophy of rationalism was foundational to the French Revolution because of its reliance on reason, and its opposition to superstition. Rationalism in its epistemology is defined by the Online Oxford Dictionary as: â€Å"A belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. The Online Encyclopedia Britannica adds: â€Å"Holding that reality itself has an inherently logical structure, the rationalist asserts that a class of truths exists that the intellect can grasp directly. † There are many types and expressions of rationalism, but the most influential expressions of rationalism pertaining to the French Revolution were in ethics and metaphysics. The first modern rationalist philosopher was Rene Descartes (1596-1650).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that: â€Å"Descartes is known as the father of mod ern philosophy precisely because he initiated the so-called epistemological turn that is with us still. † Descartes interest in philosophy stemmed from a fascination with the question of whether humans could know anything for certain. Descartes desired to create a philosophy that was as solid as say the concepts of algebra, or geometry, a philosophy based purely on quantifiable reason and logic.In this way, Rene Descartes laid the foundation for philosophies built on reason as opposed to superstition, chief among them: rationalism. While Rene Descartes defined the terms and laid down the agenda for the philosophy of rationalism, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) completed the triad for the chief philosophers of rationalism. Spinoza and Leibniz took the terms and agenda of Descartes philosophy of rationalism, and developed their own views on rationalism, both publishing a number of books, and journals on their rationalist philosophies.Although these e arly modern philosophers of rationalism did not directly influence the French Revolution, it cannot be doubted that their general epistemological philosophy of rationalism helped create a new way of thinking in which man was not ordained by God to rule over other men, but that it was through reason of the mind that man chose to be ruler or subject. The French Revolution began between the years 1787 and 1789.It is no wonder that the revolution occurred at this time when the Enlightenment was in its prime, shining light onto the social and political issues of the day with new philosophies like rationalism that challenged the old feudalistic and monarchist regimes of Europe that were built on irrationality and superstition. William Doyle, in his book, â€Å"The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction,† conveys that the French Revolution was: â€Å"†¦triggered by King Louis XVI’s attempt to avoid bankruptcy. (19) However, while the trigger was financial, the soc ial and political rumblings of the Third estate is what shook, and toppled the old regime under Louis XVI, afterword which came to be called the ancien regime by the French people. Author William Doyle says that: â€Å"In political terms pre-revolutionary France was an absolute monarchy. The King shared his powers with nobody, and was answerable for its exercise to nobody but God. (21) The ancien regime government lacked reason, but was bursting with more than its fair share of divine laws and rights that the â€Å"creator† had set in place in order to insure social stability. In fact, as Doyle points out in his book, this concept that God had set forth a divine law to be followed was directly stated in a document that parliament wrote: â€Å"This social order is not only essential to the practice of every sound government: it has its origin in divine law. (24) The document goes on to say that: â€Å"The infinite and immutable wisdom in the plan of the universe established an unequal distribution of strength and character, necessarily resulting in inequality in the conditions of men within the civil order†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (24) This document summed up the ancien regimes ideology: God has placed the king the clergy, and aristocracy above the common people and that is how it is, because that is how it has been.The words irrational, divine, and superstitious come up many times when describing the ancien regimes government and society; in fact, these things were actually integral to the maintenance of government and society in France during the ancien regime. Indeed, you could not have this form of government without divine law, irrational organization, and superstitious beliefs. The rumblings of the French Revolution began as rates of literacy increased.With the rise in literacy, the French people demanded more newspapers, and books, and as much as the aristocracy and Church tried to filter what the public read, the French people began to read the writings of philosophers like, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Voltaire, and Montesquieu. With this increase in literacy, and thus knowledge, the French people became more involved in politics than they originally had been. Now Louis the XVI was scrutinized for his actions, for his mishandling of his citizens finances.Now the people of France came to expect their King to act for his people in observance of laws, as a representative of the people, instead of a man who had divine superiority over them. William Doyle writes that: â€Å" in the eighteenth century these expectations were reinforced by the widespread conviction that since nature had herself (as Isaac Newton had shown) worked by invariable laws and not divine caprice, human affairs should also be conducted so far as was possible according to fixed and regular principles, rooted in rationality, in which the scope of arbitrariness was reduced to a minimum. To have a government and society â€Å"Rooted in rationality† was what th e French revolutionaries so passionately fought to attain. In his book Europe in Retrospect, Raymond F. Betts writes that â€Å"It must be remembered that the French Revolution was the first major social revolution, of far greater dimensions and of deeper purpose than the American Revolution that had preceded it. Betts continues to explain in his book that the ideology of the French Revolution was unique for its time in what it sought to accomplish, and what it stood for: â€Å"To sweep away the old and begin the new was the liberal solution; it was predicated upon the assumption that human nature was essentially good, mankind essentially rational, and the purpose of life the ‘pursuit of earthly happiness. † The assumption that humankind was rational was a belief that the revolutionaries espoused, but I would also say that the French Revolution was built on a belief that government, society, and the individual were all capable of thriving on reason, in part on the phil osophy of rationalism. Although many events that took place during the French Revolution were controversial, and at times the actions taken by the revolutionaries were irrational, the French Revolution originated from a place of enlightenment.Indeed, more specifically, from the philosophies of the Enlightenment, and while many of the philosophies of the Enlightenment contributed to the inception of the French Revolution, the philosophy of rationalism contradicted so much of pre-r revolutionary French society that to subscribe to rationalism at that time was a revolution in itself. Steven Kreis of The History Guide. com summarizes the eventual results of the Revolution eloquently stating that: â€Å"Man had entered a stage in human history characterized by his emancipation from superstition, prejudice, cruelty and enthusiasm.Liberty had triumphed over tyranny. New institutions were created on the foundations of reason and justice and not authority or blind faith. The barriers to fre edom, liberty, equality and brotherhood were torn down. Man had been released from otherworldly torment and was now making history! † Works Cited Cranston, Maurice. â€Å"The French Revolution: Ideas and Ideologies. † History Today. History Today, 1989. Web. 2 Apr. 2013. Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: New York, 2001. Print.Kreis, Steven. â€Å"Lecture 11: The Origins of the French Revolution. † Lecture 11: The Origins of the French Revolution. The History Guide. com, 30 Oct. 2006. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. Lennon, Thomas M. , and Shannon Dea. â€Å"Continental Rationalism. † The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2012 ed. N. d. Web. â€Å"Rationalism Definition. † Oxford Dictionaries Online (US). N. p. , n. d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013. â€Å"Rationalism†. Encyclop? dia Britannica. Encyclop? dia Britannica Online. Encyclop? dia Britannica Inc. , 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2013