Sunday, January 26, 2020

Poppers Theory Of Falsifiability And Kuhns Theory Of Paradigms Philosophy Essay

Poppers Theory Of Falsifiability And Kuhns Theory Of Paradigms Philosophy Essay Compare and contrast Poppers Theory of Falsifiability and Kuhns Theory of Paradigms. What are the implications of each for the conduct of Social Science? Poppers theory of falsifiability and Kuhns theory of paradigms have some significant differences, although they both argue for falsification as the general research method for all scientific disciplines. Accordingly, the consequences for the approach in the Social Sciences differ as well. The overall statement of this essay will be that Poppers theory allows a more aim-oriented research, which means that one has (theoretically) the chance to solve social problems intentionally. The scientist has the opportunity to gather objective knowledge about the equally objective social reality. In Kuhns view this is not possible, since any research and knowledge is subjective, it is influenced by the scientists paradigm. But here, a scientist can interpret social behaviour on a large scale and from within a specific world view, a way that is not open for Popper. The opportunity to find the truth about social reality comes at the expense of explanatory power. In order to show these implications it is necessary to point out the aspects of both theories relevant for this analysis, contrasting their common starting point and highlighting the differences that are substantial for the analysis of their application in the Social Sciences. Possibilities and Limits for Scientists in Kuhns and Poppers Theories The relevant aspects for this comparison of Poppers and Kuhns theories are best displayed if they are contrasted within the categories of ontology, epistemology and methodology. Since both of the theories are highly comprehensive, a more detailed division would probably not do them justice. But these broad categories allow a sufficient contrast for the proposed argument and lead up to the necessary insights about the notions of scientific progress that the theorists have respectively. For Popper, an objective reality exists that can be observed (Popper 1963: 226). As a scientist with the proper understanding of science though it is never possible to be absolutely certain that one has definitely found this reality, this absolute truth (Popper 2002 : 24). Most of the scientific statements are relative; they constitute hypotheses, and are therefore by their very form not expressions of absolute truth (Popper 1962: 221). Likewise, Kuhn is convinced of the existence of an objective reality, a truth, but unlike Popper he does not believe in the possibility to describe it, to discover it at all. Any knowledge about this reality is subjective, is shaped by the social context, by the individual socialisation of the scientist (Kuhn 1963: 120). It is already at this point that Kuhns idea of paradigms has to be introduced, which emphasizes the centrality of this notion for the entire theory. Kuhns paradigm is a vague concept; it can best be described as covering a range of fa ctors in scientific development including or somehow involving laws and theories, models, standards, and methods (both theoretical and instrumental), vague intuitions, explicit or implicit metaphysical beliefs (or prejudices). In short, anything that allows science to accomplish anything can be a part of (or somehow involved in) a paradigm. (Shapere 1980: 29) It is a deeply psychological concept with a highly unconscious nature which explains the difficulty defining it, let alone in analyzing its impact on science. For Kuhn, these paradigms are the beginning of what he calls normal science (Kuhn 1963: 42f.). It is only with such a paradigm that a scientist has enough fundamental orientation in his discipline to begin real scientific work (Kuhn 1963: 79). It cannot be emphasized enough that the scientists are unaware of having these paradigms. It is not something that they deliberately chose, rather it is something they acquired through a process of socialization (Kuhn 1963: 47f.). This clearly describes the communal nature of a paradigm (original italics, Eckberg and Hill 1980: 122). Therefore, a scientist will always see the objective reality through the subjective glasses of his paradigm. As to the epistemology, the pure method of falsification faces the problem of an infinite regress; if falsification is applied to every scientific statement, the research would not lead anywhere. Popper and Kuhn both carry on the tradition of science as it has been established by Positivism. Nevertheless, they are also aware of the question about theory-neutrality in research and the said problem of infinite regress, but they give different answers to this dilemma. Popper introduces the notion of background knowledge (Popper 2002: 25), which is such basic knowledge without which the scientist would not be able to conduct research in his discipline. Nevertheless, it is as provisional as any knowledge, and is potentially falsifiable just as any scientific statement that deserves the name (Popper 2002: 65). The basic knowledge is therefore an individual, subjective choice made by the scientist, but it is a deliberate and conscious one (Lakatos 1970: 105; Popper 2002: 85; Popper 1963: 24 5) which cannot be said about the paradigm. This does equally provide a useful solution to the problem of an infinite falsification, but one that is adopted unconsciously, since it is linked so closely to the actual conception of reality shared by the scientific community. A deliberate commitment to basic knowledge contrasts an involuntary commitment to a paradigm (Kuhn 1963: 97). In this regard, the incommensurability of paradigms has to be mentioned (Smith 1998: 195; Lakatos 1970: 93). Paradigms can be compared to a religious belief held by scientists, and its psychological nature does not allow holding two paradigms simultaneously (Keat and Urry 1982: 62; Kuhn 1963: 93; 151). It is no exaggeration that the process of a paradigm change is described as revolutionary (Kuhn 1963: 91ff.). We therefore have the result of a socialization process against an individual, conscious choice. Kuhn as well as à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã… ¾emphasize [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] the intimate and inevitable entanglement o f scientific observation with scientific theory (Kuhn 1970: 2). But whereas in Poppers belief this entanglement can be influenced by the scientist, it is determined and beyond any deliberate change intended by an individual in Kuhns world. With regard to the methodology, Popper emphasizes the logic of science, that science and specifically social science is defined by the chosen method, and not by its results (Popper 1962: 218). Falsification is applied to the theory or rather the hypotheses to be tested, not to the background knowledge (for the time being). The choice is subjective (and is therefore reflecting values), but it is deliberate and rational and therefore acceptable. In Kuhns theory however, paradigms provide the research frame, and falsification works within it but is never applied to this frame (Kuhn 1963: 80). Successful falsification provides problems to be solved within the paradigm; they are like pieces to a puzzle which is in its entirety unknown (Wolin 1980: 170). According to Kuhn, there is no logic of science (Shapere1980: 30), only interpretation within a given paradigm is possible. If there is no paradigm, the scientists work on establishing one, so as to start with normal science. During a cris is that leads to a paradigm change, contradicting facts and the new paradigm are developed simultaneously (Kuhn 1963: 96, 140; Kuhn 1970: 10). The results of such a falsification process within the paradigm therefore is exactly what Popper calls the sociology of knowledge (Popper 1962: 220), a socially constructed and determined knowledge, precisely what he tries to evade. These aspects of ontology, epistemology and methodology lead to the notions about the possible progress that science can achieve. For Popper, knowledge is cumulative, since falsification is also a method that helps to refine theories (Popper 2002: 24). Whether it is the adjustment or reformulation of a theory after a successful falsification, or the resistance of a theory to the tests, both results are considered to be an improvement (Popper 1963: 245). Although the theory in the latter case might not be true, it is scientifically superior to those already falsified. The continuous formulation and rejection of theories as well as the work on new problems with reformulated theories is all considered to be a (cumulative) development of knowledge (Popper 1963: 215, 222; Popper 1962: 221). For Kuhn on the other hand, there is no general progress of cumulative knowledge, only a change of paradigms over time (Kuhn 1963: 156). New paradigms are adopted because the scientific community consi ders it to have greater potential for the new (albeit only vague, in their entirety unknown) problems to be solved. They have an essentially rational factor, and seem to be more useful for future research (Keat and Urry 1982: 169). But paradigms are exclusive, not derived from one another (Smith 1998: 195). Since knowledge is so closely connected to them, any growth of knowledge cannot objectively be ascertained (Kuhn 1970: 20f.). At the most, a form of progress can be observed within the workings of normal science, during the process of puzzle-solving (Dogan 2001: 11025). But there is no progress in the sense of coming closer to the truth (Keat and Urry 1982: 169). Different Connections between Theory and Observation: Consequences for the Social Sciences This contrast highlights the most important aspects of Kuhns and Poppers theories that are relevant to analyze the consequences that both approaches have for the Social Sciences respectively. Both imply individual restrictions as well as possibilities for them and in Poppers case the theory imposes even a normative duty on the scientist. He argues for a unity of science concerning the methods, which means that the procedure of formulating hypotheses and subjecting them to tests of falsification should be applied in the Social Sciences just as in any other (Stokes 1997: 58). It is a method that best supports the aim of objective research, trying to prevent the scientist from adopting a narrow, selective perception that only discerns proofs for the own theory but not its failures. All Science is fundamentally characterized by the method applied (Popper 2002: 29). But for Popper, Social Science specifically should be characterized by something else; by the ethical awareness every research project ought to have (Stokes 1997: 69). Before this is explained in greater detail however, it must be emphasized that such a normative component is of course not derivable from the objective facts describing Poppers theory. No normative responsibility can be derived from an actual condition. But Poppers theory allows it, and the cons equences from his falsificationist approach for the Social Sciences are largely dominated by this obligation. Apart from the question whether one agrees with him, his argument also points out the consequences for the Social Sciences and his theory in general, and it is an essential part of his approach. Popper demands a fundamentally practical orientation in the Social Sciences, any research project should contribute to the solution of social problems of their time. He also argues for more ethical awareness in the Social Sciences; in this case he is a child of his time. This attitude comes from experiences with totalitarianism and fascism (Stokes 1997: 57). But what is important in this context is that Popper therefore agues for the individual influence of scientific as well as extra-scientific values: His argument is that the individual choice of the scientist does not only expand on values such as scientific precision or intersubjectivity of research findings, as it is reflected by the choice for falsification as a method and by the choice for falsifiable, but for now untested background knowledge. It also applies to the scientists aims, to the problems he chooses to investigate. Broadly speaking, any research should eventually try to reduce human suffering (Stokes 1997: 60). Even if one does not agree with Poppers demand here, it highlights the opportunities open to a scientists according to his theory. Knowledge is cumulative, so the scientist has the possibility to take a conscious part in this accumulation of knowledge about the (objective) social reality (Popper 1962: 221). This objective reality can be the focus of research since it is possible to gather knowledge about it. Even the most fundamental assumptions or convictions, the background knowledge, can be questioned and altered. Any social influence on our knowledge can eventually be evaded, indirectly, by the choice of falsification as a method and by unconventional or for its time unusual choice of research topics. The scientist has not only the opportunity to discover the objective social reality, he can (and in Poppers view must) also endeavour to define the social problems of his time and propose solutions for it. This emphasis on the objective social reality as the focus and the denial of any socially constructed limits of the research has even further implications. There are abstract as well as tangible objects in Social Science. Its scientists are engaged in analyzing social problems, general phenomenons or dynamics, things that have an undeniably abstract nature. On the other hand though it is the individual who is identified as the causal unity of these phenomenons, it is the objective, observable reality which has to be the center for any hypotheses or theory that fulfills the criteria of falsifiability. A theory that has a holistic character and applies to the abstract objects of social reality itself cannot meet the standards for intersubjective testing, for an experiment to be repeated and tested over and over again (Popper 1962: 218). So while the eventual aim is of course to understand the dynamics and causes of abstract constructs in social reality, its research is restricted to th e individual. On the one hand, Poppers scientist can therefore consciously choose his object of research, can be specifically aim-oriented, and is therefore not limited to a purely explanatory role. On the other hand, it is impossible for him to consciously work within a specific, personal belief about the social reality that he never questions during his research (Popper 1962: 212). Explanations within the belief systems like Marxism or elitism that intend to explain social reality within this frame are therefore not possible, since these beliefs do not fulfill the standards of permissible background knowledge. A last remark has to be made on Poppers view about the Social Sciences. It is exactly against the perceived dangers of such social frames that he argues for the publicity of Science (Stokes 1997: 74; Popper 1962: 217f.). To complete the standards of critical research, to guarantee that intersubjectivity and falsifiability are adhered to the results (and the method) of research have to be published. The critical appraisal by other scientists is needed to establish the highest possible objectivity. The strength of Poppers approach lies therefore in the fact that the scientist has more free will in choosing his objectives, and that this choice also implies a normative choice. This is the consequence of Poppers particular connection between theory and observation, that science is not value-free, neither on the level of aims nor when it comes to its method, but these values are acceptable as long as they are a conscious choice. For a scientist in Kuhns approach though this choice is made for him by the paradigm. In the case that there is no paradigm yet, scientists have not even entered the stage of real scientific progress of their discipline; they have not yet started with normal science (Kuhn 1963: 79). According to Kuhn, this is exactly the case for the Social Sciences (Kuhn 1970: 6; Wolin 1980: 169). But even if the Social Sciences had already acquired a paradigm in Kuhns definition, such aim-oriented research like Popper proposes it would not be possible. The scientist would of course have an objective for his research, but he cannot claim to have chosen it objectively, let alone having done so out of the normative conviction to ultimately discover and evade any social aspect to his research and knowledge. This social influence that the scientist is unaware of is but the starting point for real research, also in the Social Sciences. Some consider the different schools within Social Sciences as paradigms, although this contradicts the unconscious character of a paradigm according to Kuhns interpretation. It is argued that overarching concepts such as paradigms built on more solid ground in the natural sciences than in the social sciences, because in the former truth is universal, in the latter, contextual. (Dogan 2001: 11026) If paradigms are going to appear in the Social Sciences, they will only be realized in the narrow form of different schools that are not characterized by incommensurability, but by mutual avoidance (Dogan 2001: 11024). Even though this idea does not realize all characteristics of a paradigm, its example is most useful here. The Scientist does of course not enjoy the freedom that he has in Poppers view. He is exposed to the norms of his school and he has to realize that even an approach that he considers to be most revolutionary and unconventional is probably still within the boundaries of th is school. For the rare case that such deviant behavior should happen despite the deep socialization of the individual scientist, then the paradigmatic community will not tolerate it and most likely simply ignore his findings (Wolin 1980: 167f.). It is not possible for an individual to deliberately convince all the members of this specific attitude to change it radically. Such change is incremental and therefore happens only gradually (Wolin 1980: 175). But then he can explain the social reality from this particular point or belief system. He has possibilities for explanation that are unavailable for a scientist in Poppers theory. It is not without coincidence that Marxism is considered to be such a powerful school in Social Science that it comes close to what Kuhn describes as a paradigm (Dogan 2001: 11026), a school that is given as one of the typical examples (Popper 1962: 212) of the social bias and subjectivity that has to be avoided according to Popper. Intersubjectivity is a therefore an important value for Kuhn as well as for Popper, but whereas this scientific value only applies within the paradigmatic community for Kuhn, for Popper it is precisely the means to evade such influence. The social reality that is always perceived subjectively can therefore be thoroughly explained and described from within these world views, and the progress scientists make with this kind of research is relatively substantial, since they can accept more easily the findings of their colleagues. They can interpret behavior, specific social rules, and are not restricted to describe individual behavior like Popper. But this advantage in explaining social phenomena therefore comes at the price of aim-oriented research such as it is possible in Poppers view. The puzzle-solving process during normal science is after all defined by the fact that the bigger picture of the puzzle is unknown (Wolin 1980: 170). Accepting a paradigm and work within its boundaries is compared to a kind of religious change (Lakatos 1970: 93). The scientist cannot make its structures visible, not on purpose at least. He has to rely on the intangible dynamic that characterizes normal science. He has only the possibil ity to choose scientific values, and even that only to a limited extent (Kuhn 1963: 17). He also has to accept that there are possibly some social problems or facts of the objective social reality that does, after all, exist that he does not perceive at all due to his paradigm. And if the Social Science is truly without a paradigm so far, the stage of normal research where a form of progress is finally possible has not even begun. Conclusion Both Poppers theory of falsification and Kuhns theory of paradigms assume the existence of an objective social reality and are convinced of the merits of falsification as the acceptable method for its research. They are equally considering the problem of theory neutrality in the Social Sciences as well as continuing the tradition of Positivism that does not see a fundamental difference for science within its different disciplines. Nevertheless, Kuhn and Popper differ in their opinions about the acceptable solution to this question about theory-neutrality, about the relation between theory and observation. Poppers ontology and epistemology demand potential falsifiability for all scientific statements in order to discover this objective truth and evade the pitfalls of the subjective bias. What he considers to be the absolute fall of science is only its beginning in Kuhns view. Only paradigms, unconscious social frameworks, allow progressive research, and any knowledge about reality mus t be subjective. The consequences of Poppers view for Social Sciences in particular consist in the possibility to deliberately work on the social problems of the time, and in the conviction that the any social fact can eventually be discovered. It comes at a reduced ability to explain social phenomena holistically and from within a specific worldview that cannot be operationalised into falsifiable hypotheses. This is exactly what a researcher in Kuhns world can do, albeit at the expense of the said advantages Poppers scientist has.

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Marianne, by George Sand Essay

And makes one a bard! —that was the situation in which the lovers, Pierre and Marianne found themselves placed at the altar of love. A novel is the mirror of the feelings of the writer’s mind. One may cleverly try to hide and suppress one’s true feelings by super-imposing imaginings. But the authors are bound to reflect something genuine and special about the author’s private life. George Sand is no exception. George Sand (1804-1876) is the Pseudonym of Amandine-Aurore-Lucile Dupin. Compared to the period to which she belonged, her thinking was much advanced. She was a French Romantic writer. She translated fiction-like romances into her actual life. The numerous love-tangles would put any modern socialite into shame. The beginning of most of her love-affairs was at the intellectual level. Perhaps she had experienced every type of love, except true love. Her love-affairs were all motivated for one reason or the other. â€Å"Sand’s early writings show the influence of the writers with whom she was associated. In the 1830s several artists responded to the call of the Comte de Saint-Simon of cure the evils of the new industrial society, among them Franz Listz and Sand who became friends, not lovers. On a personal level, Michel de Bourges, who preached revolution, was more important for her view of society. After de Bourges, came Pierre Leroux, who was against property and supported the equality of women, and wanted to rehabilitate Satan. †(George†¦) In the traditional sense of the term, she lived unhappy married lives. As for the concerns of her writing, she toyed with many novel ideas, like cure the evils of the new industrial society, preached revolution, equality of women, ideals of Socialism, etc. Marianne†¦. Marianne is a peculiar character created by George Sand. She lost her mother at the young age of twenty-two, and if she were an ordinary girl, she would have settled down to marriage. Though many proposals came in her way, George Sand writes, â€Å"Marianne, however, had preferred to remain living alone in the country house of her parents had left her. Occupying a secluded position surrounded by hills and woodland some four kilometers outside La Fille-sur-Gouvre, the house was in excellent condition and very adequately furnished within. †(Sand, 1998, p. 82) The dying declaration is accepted as the true declaration even as evidence in the Court! George Sand wrote the novella in the year of her death, when she was 72. This is the right age when an individual feels the compulsion to tell the truth about one’s life. The plot of the novella is the same old story. It is between him and her—it is between Adam and Eve! Pure love doesn’t differentiate between young and old. It transcends all artificial barriers. Presently, Pierre arrived as a tutor to impart secular education to a shy but wealthy country girl and promised to select reading material for her. He came as protector of her intellectual garrison, but turned into a true, ardent soldier of love. Marianne began to respond favorably in this game of the heart. But the role of Pierre must change—from that of parental feelings to a true lover, who must protect the essential independent dignity of the women, which is part of the genuine love! Marianne illustrates Sand’s philosophy about life by being a strong woman, who is not afraid to swim against the social currents relevant to the era to which she belonged. She doesn’t say about the profound philosophy about the woman’s liberation movement etc. She candidly illustrates a beautiful, soul-stirring love affair transcending age. She cuts across the defined barriers of the society, and beats the conventions. The situation is described with great restraint, without the traces of rebellion. It is molded as an affair between the two intellectual equals. A cursory glance of some of the comments about the personality of George Sand makes an interesting and objective reading! One sees the reflection of Marianne, in those observations: â€Å"She was a thinking bosom and one who overpowered her young lovers†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ,†What a brave man she was, and what a good woman. †,†The most womanly woman,† etc. Marianne, like Sand was a bold individual from the beginning. Marianne, though denied the family support at the very young age, did not rush to marriage, to secure herself. Instead, she decided to face the life squarely and live the life of her choice. So is the case with George Sand, though her familial problems were somewhat different. The very fact that she was able to carry on with so many love affairs, and yet live up to the age of seventy-two to have a go at one more affair, speaks about her relentless grit and determination to do what she considered right in the circumstances then prevailing in her life. â€Å"I am by nature poetic and lot legislative, war-like if necessary, but never parliamentary,† she had written in the late 1830. † Conclusion: The novella is autobiographical, in many of its characteristics. With all the adventures in her life, George Sand was a private person. Hence her description about Marianne that peoples around her thought her to be a ‘difficult’ individual given to eccentricity is to highlight her own self. Sand says, the village community thought strangely about such individuals. So also, the literary world and the Society was not kind to George Sand. At the beginning of the story, Pierre was nearing forty. By that age, his enthusiasm about life and living had waned. By the age of forty, George Sand also suffered many a setbacks and was frustrated in her private life. At the young age, every individual possesses high-pitched ambitions. But time tames one with ups and downs, trials and tribulations. Destiny plays its own part. To have talents is one thing. To get fame and public recognition for the talents is altogether a different issue. Many extraneous factors like patronage, protection count. Also, one needs to have the guts to make the right moves at the right time. On this aspect, the lives of Marianne and George Sand have much in common. To write about such a romance and to experience one in the nineteenth century is great. The comparable life of a Hollywood actress makes kindergarten stuff! She could visualize the modern feminist twist, in the life of Marianne, ipso facto, her own life! She also takes the potshots at the French politics of the era—how it was not possible for a young, talented and ambitious youth to come up in life, without the necessary backup! Was she not complaining about the treatment meted out to her by the Society? References Cited: Article: George Sand. www. kirjasto. sci. fi/gsand. htm – 17k – Cached, Retrieved on February 12, 2008. Sand, George: Book: Marianne Paperback: 176 pages Publisher: Carroll & Graf; Second Edition (February 26, 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 0786705388 ISBN-13: 978-0786705382

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples Guide

Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples Guide The Upside to Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples So while some proponents argue 16 year olds ought to be enfranchised not since they are independent, others argue they ought to be enfranchised since they aren't! At Democratic Audit, we feel that enfranchising 16 and 17 year olds is the best thing to do. At age sixteen, it's only two decades away from eighteen, and that's not a really big of a difference. Because of this the voting age shouldn't be lowered to 16 so long as the huge majority of 16 year olds have not completed basic law, government, and financial courses. The Benefits of Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples Some individuals even advise that the age should be raised. Many children for instance would argue they would like less homework, because it's a hassle. Adults are permitted to punish minors exactly like adults can punish diffe rent adults. Many adults might say that if you are sixteen, many things are happening in your life, and that means you could be too preoccupied to be concerned about politics. Folks that are permitted to drive and ready to be summoned to court should have the ability to vote. The more young people registered, the more the parties must actually awaken and listen to the demands and demands of young individuals. Under 18s can enlist in the united kingdom armed forces but again require parental permission to achieve that. Beside the fundamental need, government not responsive for different individuals. Mandatory voting forces people to visit vote, but some folks just do not care about politics. I believe this is a fantastic thing. In reality, they'd most likely be worse. The truth is it gets very complicated. The newspaper is a critical source that numerous folks use to stay informed about government and politics especially in time of elections. He mentions the notion of the newspaper. At the moment, only people over eighteen are permitted to vote, this is something which each Canadian citizen should know. Getting the general public into the practice of voting is clearly an important part of a solution if we want to raise the numbers of those who take part in elections. In the present political environment, reform advocates should focus their energies particularly on local measures that will boost voter participationas that's where they will probably succeed. She believes her assortment of signatures brings awareness to issues which are important to young men and women, like the environment and education. Compulsory system of voting can address the issue of political legitimacy. Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples Help! It appears only right they sho uld have some type of input into it, he added. Likewise, her usage of inclusive language, we're currently powerless' enables Young to convey the message they aren't alone but that there are lots of other young people around who too are without the ability to vote. The urge for enfranchisement is simple to comprehend. There are lots of factors that give rise to the excuses that citizens make as to why they cannot vote. There are essentially two forms of government, Democracy and Dictatorship. Youth and politics won't ever mix. Also, there are lots of men and women that are not interested in politics, or in some specific elections, especially elections to European Parliament. When they are forced to vote, some of them start to feel responsible for results of elections. The larger turnout rates in countries with CV may not be necessarily great. Additionally, age is only a number. This age is a suitable age to vote as they have fully matured and also developed political discu ssions and duties. Nevertheless, the voting age ought to be lowered. Location of voting centers may also be problematic for citizens which are too far away from them, particularly for the disabled and sick. To do so, they can find out more about the candidates and about voting. Voting is something citizens ought to be proud of doing. Voting is a realistic choice a voter resolves to exercise when it's in their very best interest to achieve that. Ok, I Think I Understand Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples, Now Tell Me About Should the Us Government Lower the Voting Age to 16 Essay Samples! Conclusion There are not any issues that the electoral procedure is an incredibly important purpose of democratic culture. Admittedly, I desire to present on the subject of leadership and ethics. They definitely have knowledge on the matter, and they definitely understand what they're speaking about. It doesn't imply that every citizen takes the law into the ir own hands, but instead that everyone has the responsibility to actively take part in society.

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

The Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman Essay

The Yellow Wallpaper The struggle with Depression In The Yellow Wallpaper, the progressing madness of the protagonist demonstrates loss of self. Charlotte Perkins Gilman published the article on January 1892, this story focuses on the real-life depression and how gender can play a serious role in society. The narrator had many forces that were up against her, from being depressed to having to face the every day fact that she truly not accepted equally along with man. There were many questions in what was the real reason that she was depressed but she wanted to keep the suspense of everything, she wanted to keep the mystery a secret. Many people around the world suffer from depression. Depression is the most common mental health disorder after anxiety disorders(Depression | Resources To Recover.) Depression is a terrible thing to have especially when it makes people have, Major Depressive Disorder, Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia), Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), and Postpartum Depression. Major depressive disorder involves a consistently depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure in normal activities for a period of at least two weeks(Depression | Resources To Recover.). Silas Weir Mitchell invented the rest cure, which was in the late 1800s. the rest cure is the sometimes lasts for six to eight weeks. In the article, it says â€Å"It involved isolation from friends and family. It also enforced bed rest, and nearly constant feeding on a fatty,Show MoreRelatedThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman885 Words   |  4 Pagesbeen a stigma around mental illness and feminism. â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† was written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman in the 1900’s. â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† has many hidden truths within the story. The story was an embellished version her own struggle with what was most likely post-partum depression. As the story progresses, one can see that she is not receiving proper treatment for her depression and thus it is getting worse. Gilman uses the wallpaper and what she sees in it to symbolize her desire to escapeRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman846 Words   |  4 PagesHumans a re flawed individuals. Although flaws can be bad, people learn and grow from the mistakes made. Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story, â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper†, gives one a true look at using flaws to help one grow. Gilman gives her reader’s a glimpse into what her life would have consisted of for a period of time in her life. Women were of little importance other than to clean the house and to reproduce. This story intertwines the reality of what the lives of woman who were considered toRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1362 Words   |  6 Pagesas freaks. In the short story â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, both of these elements are present. Gilman did a wonderful job portraying how women are not taken seriously and how lightly mental illnesses are taken. Gilman had, too, had firsthand experience with the physician in the story. Charlotte Perkins Gilman s believes that there really was no difference in means of way of thinking between men or women is strongly. â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† is a short story about a woman whoRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1547 Words   |  7 PagesCharlotte Perkins Gilman s career as a leading feminists and social activist translated into her writing as did her personal life. Gilman s treatment for her severe depression and feelings of confinement in her marriage were paralleled by the narrator in her shorty story, The Yellow Wallpaper. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was born in 1860 in Hartford, Connecticut. Her parents, Mary Fitch Perkins and Fredrick Beecher Perkins, divorced in 1869. Her dad, a distinguished librarian and magazine editorRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman2032 Words   |  9 Pagesâ€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a poem about women facing unequal marriages, and women not being able to express themselves the way they want too. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was born in 1860, and died in 1935. This poem was written in 1892. When writing this poem, women really had no rights, they were like men’s property. So writing â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† during this time era, was quite shocking and altered society at the time. (Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the Feminization ofRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman904 Words   |  4 Pagescom/us/definiton/americaneglish/rest-cure?q=rest+cure). Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote The Yellow Wallpaper as a reflection of series of events that happened in her own life. Women who fought the urge to be the typical stereotype were seen as having mental instabilities and were considered disobedient. The societal need for women to conform to the standards in the 1800s were very high. They were to cook, clean and teach their daughters how to take care of the men. Gilman grew up without her father and she vowedRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman999 Words   |  4 Pages â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† is a story of a woman s psychological breakdown, which is shown through an imaginative conversation with the wallpaper. The relationship between the female narrator and the wallpaper reveals the inner condition of the narrator and also symbolically shows how women are oppressed in society. The story, read through a feminist lens, reflects a woman s struggle against the patriarchal power structure. In the â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper†, Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses the wallpaperRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman Essay1208 Words   |  5 Pagesthat wallpaper as I did?† the woman behind the pattern was an image of herself. She has been the one â€Å"stooping and creeping.† The Yellow Wallpaper was written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. In the story, three characters are introduced, Jane (the narrator), John, and Jennie. The Yellow Wallpaper is an ironic story that takes us inside the mind and emotions of a woma n suffering a slow mental breakdown. The narrator begins to think that another woman is creeping around the room behind the wallpaper, attemptingRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman846 Words   |  4 PagesThe dignified journey of the admirable story â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† created by Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s, gave the thought whether or not the outcome was influenced by female oppression and feminism. Female oppression and feminist encouraged a series of women to have the freedom to oppose for their equal rights. Signified events in the story â€Å"The Yellow Wallpaper† resulted of inequality justice for women. Charlotte Perkins Gilman gave the reader different literary analysis to join the unjustifiableRead MoreThe Yellow Wallpaper By Charlotte Perkins Gilman1704 Words   |  7 PagesEscaping The Yellow Wallpaper Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935) whom is most acclaimed for her short story The Yellow Wallpaper (1891) was a women’s author that was relatively revolutionary. Gilman makes an appalling picture of captivity and confinement in the short story, outlining a semi-personal photo of a young lady experiencing the rest cure treatment by her spouse, whom in addition to being her husband was also her therapist. Gilman misused the rest cure in The Yellow Wallpaper to alarm other