Revise @morelikeewlevels - Tumblr Blog

Environmental Ethics

What is environmental ethics?

Environmental ethics are concerned with the ethical relationship between humans and the natural world

Should we continue to cut down trees for human consumption?

Should we continue with harmful methods when friendlier methods are available I.e electric vs petrol cars.

What, if any, are out environmental obligations to future generations?

The rapid growth of knowledge on what is good and bad for out world means we can now make more informed choices about how we interact with the environment.

The problem is there is no agreed ethical theory/approach to the environment.

Some people believe the earth will adjust to the conditions which we have forced upon her. The traditional approaches are anthropocentric, meaning they put human interests above all else.

Religious Approaches to Environmental Ethics

The foundation of the Christian approach is based on the bible. From this, some have concluded that humans have dominion over the natural world. This is the Judeo-Christian belief that humans have a special place in the natural world and have responsibility for it. It says that humans are the only morally important members of the world, although it doesn't rule out concern for the natural world, it just says that it must be related to human well being, like not cutting down trees bc we need them to absorb CO2.

Peter Singer that the teahings of Aristole influence Aquinas and continued to view humans as the only morally important beings. They taught that there was no intrinsic value in the natural world. To have intrinsic value is to be valued for yourself, not for a quality or skill you posses.

The value of creation

God seems to value the natural world 'God saw that is was good' Genesis 1: 10 and he gave the blessing to 'Be fruitful and multiply' Genesis 1:22

God is shown to have concern about his creation 'Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even the hairs on your head are all counted. So do not be afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows.' Matthew 10:29 ➡️ suggests nothing happens without God's knowledge and approval**, and so he cares about every one of His creations, but humans are more important.

This contrasts the idea that God has a special place for humans: we are made in Gods image. 'So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them' Genesis 1:27 We are given dominion '...Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds if the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth' Genesis 1:26

This may be viewed as backing up Singers view of anthropocentricism in biblical texts

St Francis of Assisi understood that God communicates to us through the natural world. He believed the natural world is inherently good and it's a sign of God's goodness, and so it is our purpose to inspire respect and love. He believed all creatures have the ability and duty to worship God.

Stewardship

Singer believes dominion is the root of our environmental problems.

Genesis 2:15 says 'The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it' ➡️ our purpose is to look after God's creation.

This version support the idea that we have a role of stewardship

#environmental ethics #religous eithcs #arne naess #a levels

Aspects of IR Timeline

Emergence of the Superpowers 1945 - 62 Bay of Pigs 1961 Yalta - 1945Potsdam - 1945Korean War ends - 1953Warsaw Pact - 1955 Khrushchev demands the allies leave Berlin - 19581946 - March: Churchill's Iron Curtain speech and Kennan's Long Telegram1947 - Jan: Bizonia created by Britain and US March: Truman Doctrine announce June: Marshall Plan announced Dec: London Conference1948 - Feb: Final communist regime established in Eastern Europe once Czechoslovakia is forced to accept Communism March: Treaty of Brussels June: Berlin Blockade begins1949 - Jan: Comecon set up April: NATO set up May: Berlin blockade lifted Sept: West Germany established Oct: East Germany set up 1950 - Jan: Truman announces plan to build Hydrogen Bomb June: Korean War begins1951 - April: Beginnings of the European Union with formation of the European Coal and Steel Communist Treaty (ECSC)1952 - March: Stalin proposes a neutral united Germany. The West ignored it May: European Defence Community established 1953 - March: Stalin dies July: Korean War ends Aug: USSR explodes the Hydrogen Bomb 1954 - Jan-Feb: Austrian State Treaty Sep/Oct: Khrushchev 1955 - May: Warsaw Pact created July: Geneva Summit 1956 - Feb: Khrushchev criticises Stalin at the 20th Party Congress Jul: Suez Crisis Oct-Nov: Revolution in Hungary brutally suppressed by the USSR 1957 - Mar: Treaty of Rome sets up the European Economics Community EEC Oct: Sputnik launch1958 - Nov: Khrushchev demands the allies leave Berlin1959 - Sep: Khrushchev visits the US withdraws Berlin demands 1960 - May: U2 spy plane shot down over USSR June: Relations between China and USSR begin to collapse 1961 - April - US back Cuban exiles in at the Bay of Pigs June - Kennedy and Khrushchev meet in Vietnam Khrushchev demands the demilitarisation of Berlin Aug: Berlin Wall built 1962 - Oct/Nov: Cuban Missile Crisis

#aspects of international relations #A Level History #international relations #cuban missile crisis #and other stuff #9/11 #bay of bigs

Free Will and Determinism

How free are we to choose? Why does it matter?

What is free will?

David Hume - the power of acting or not acting according to the determination of the will. If we choose to remain at rest, we may and if we choose to move, we also may

Thomas Hobbes - no external constraints stopping you from making a free

Limitations to free will

Family expectations

Societal expectations

Possible repercussions

Lack of motivation

Laws of physics and the land

Genetics

Moral responsibility implies you have responsibility for your actions Praise for good actions and punishment for bad actions No freedom = no moral accountability

Hard determinism - everything has a cause and freedom is an illusion

Soft determinism/compatibilism - something's are determined but not reason

Libertarianism - choice is real and we are actually free

Determinism

we're puppets of cause and effect. No act can be originated. Everything is a result of cause and effect

Philosophical Determinism

Baron d'Holbach

Pg 198 - the fly on the cabbage

Freedom is an illusion, and we're carried along by the forces of the universe i.e. nature

John Locke

Man is a locked room.

We are able to act when we act when we can translate mental choice into doing or not doing something Freedom is a further power to perform the actions we chooseHuman freedom is a capacity to act even when our wills have been determined In the end Locke Seems to imply tust free will and determinism can co exist But our choices are determined, so no real freedom

Baruch Spinoza

'In the mind, there is no absolute free will, but the mind is determined to wish this or that by a cause, which is also been determined by another cause. And this last by another cause, and so on to infinity'

Ted Honderich

If everything is determined, then the Emoiricist conclusion is accurate

There is no self which is the origin of your actions

The mind a by product of brain activity causd by psychoneural events

There is no actual moral responsibility

There is no freedom, soul, or afterlife

'There can be no such hope if all the future is just an effect of effects'

'States of the brain are, in the first place, the effects of other physical states...all actions are movement caused by states of the brain' ---- Essays on Freedom of Action

Science and Determinism

The world works according to physicals laws that we can understand on the basis of physics, laws that we can understand on the basis of experimental evidence

So everything that happens is the results of cause and a effect

So there is no real freedom

Isaac Newton

The world is like a mechanism

It's workings are understood in the terms of the laws of nature

Newton was not necessarily a determinist, but he was very important in setting up the model of cause and effect)

‌Laplace and Determinism

Laplace's daemon: a hypothetical (imaginary) daemon

It knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe

It can use deterministic principles to reveal the entire cause of cosmic events, past present and future

If one could know all the causes of operations in the world

Then having known one single event it would be possible to demonstrate everything that had taken place before it, and everything that would take place after it

We have no free choice because we are part of matter, and everything made of matter is a result of cause and effect

The Nature of the Mind

Is the mind part of the physical world?

If my mind is related to my brain, then electrical impulses in my brain are part of a closed mechanical system

Psychology and Determinism

Nature versus Nurture

All human behaviour, thoughts and feelings, are the inevitable outcome of complex psychological laws

Influencing factors:

Hereditary - Genes - Biology

Upbringing

Environment

Clarence Darrow

- Defended two men on trial for murder, reducing their sentence from death to like- Punishment as punishment is not admissible unless the offender had the free will to select his course: he argued they had no free will

John B Watson

Behaviour can be predicted and controlled - psychological behaviourism

All actions, including ethical decisions, are controlled by prior causes

Behaviour was determined by three things:

Heredity

Nature

Environment

Ivan Pavlov

Conducted experiments with dogs and bells

Showed that simple behaviour can be controlled by behaviour

Sophisticated behaviour can be controlled by sophisticated conditioning

B.F Skinner

Worked in operant conditioning

This looked at behaviour in terms of psychological responses to external stimuli

Shows that actions are conditioned in that we have no free will

Behaviourism and Psychology

Freud and Laplace were hard determinists - will and conscience come from our upbringing

Skinner argues we are conditioned to behave by experiences (Pavlov's dog). So we can condition new types of behaviour

JB Watson argues that if we can change their behaviour

Biological Determinism GeneticsRichard Dawkins

Emotions such as anger, sympathy and love all have a biological basis

Moral reasoning is a result of natural selection

Libertarianism aka Incompatibilism

Free will has to mean real choice

We have real choices to make

We are morally responsible for our actions

In response to Darrow

Blaming external forces for our actions is regret

We may not make ourselves, but we do make our actions

Human decisions cannot be proven to all be caused

Incompatibilism

Reason gives us freedom - we have the ability to reason, and that gives us freedom

If we can make a rational choice, we must be free

This means our decisions are not determined

Peter Van Inwagen

The Garden if Forking Paths

If I deny I have free will, I give up the struggle I often face when seeing two paths diverging ahead. Saying you have no free will denies you the whole experience of choice

Life is a journey

Determinists claim that there are no branches on th road. There is only one set path for each person

Libertarians claim that there are branches and we make choices

Jean-Paul Satre Existentialist

A choice is free if it could have been other than it is - if we could have taken a different path the choice is free. The possibility of doing more than one action makes it a choice

Freedom is the goal and measure of our lives

From nothing, man makes himself what he chooses

It does not matter what a man does with him freedom, so long as he acts freely - freedom is an end in itself

To do otherwise is to conform to the will of others

'To be free is to be condemned to be free'

Soft Determinism // Compatibilism

Some things are determined, but not reason

David Hume

A voluntary action is free

Every act has to be caused, otherwise it's chance not freedom - I had to be in school until sixteen, then had the choice to carry in and do A Levels

Immanuel Kant

Determinism applies to everything which is the object of knowledge, but not to the arts of the will

Two types of reason:

Pure reason - how we perceive the world with our sense. For Kant, this is determined (and theoretical)

Practical reason - our inner understanding

Practical reason concerns actions, the will and the way we see ourselves

Freedom is a postulate of practical reason

Our own self-awareness, without which the world would not make sense to us, forces on us the idea that we are free

We cannot abolish freedom without ceasing to see ourselves as the originator of our actions

Christianity and Determinism Predestination

Based on the idea of God determining everything because He is the ultimate cause of everything

The Christian idea that salvation and damnation are predetermined by God

This is not in the scriptures, but it is based on the interpretation of revelation

Traditional View

In Judeo-Christianity, humans are free and autonomous

Seen in age sis where Adam and Eve exercise free will in housing to eat forbidden fruit

They're held responsible for their actions by God and are punished

Augustine

After the fall, we are inclined to do evil

We need to turn to God for help

Compatibilist

It is not by our own merit that achieve salvation, but by the grace of God

Note God's intervention in the ministries of Moses and St. Paul

Aquinas

Humans are free to choose good or sin

Reward = heaven

"Man chooses not of necessity but freely"

Belief in reason

Libertarian

Man has free will otherwise counsel, exhortations, commands, prohibitins, rewards and punishments would be in vain

Something's act without judgement as a stone as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge and reason

As brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgement, because it judges not from reason but from natural instinct

But man act from judgement , he judges that something should be avoided or sought...as man is rational, it is necessary that he has free will

Pelagius

Pelagius - free will is the highest human attribute

Arminius - God freely chooses to restrict his power so that we have free will

Boethius - God's foreknowledge is outside of time. Gods omniscience is beyond the confines of this linear knowledge

Predestination Determinism

Held by some Protestants

Idea that God has already decided who to save and who not

Comes from Bible - St. Paul who said "for those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son"

Calvin

God is all powerful and all knowing

God already knows who will be welcomed into heaven

"The eternal decree of God... He does not create everyone in the same condition

Implies God decides this at creation

"Eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one of the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined to life or death

God vs Freedom

Doctrine of omniscience means God knows everything

Tension between God who knows everything and freedom

Problem of whether if event 'x' occurs, then God knows about it or if the action happens because God made it happen

The latter restricts freedom and thus moral responsibility

‘By showing the dream of the characters alongside their inability to live in the present, playwrights are able to explore the destructive force of self-deception’. How far is this true of Miller’s ‘Death of a Salesman’ and Williams’ ‘The Glass Menagerie’?

Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller explore the ‘destructive force of self-deception’ in their plays ‘Death of a Salesman’ and ‘The Glass Menagerie’ through manipulating their characters. By using relatable characters, Miller and Williams entered the hearts and minds of the average American, thus increasing the impact of the plays. ‘Death of a Salesman’ was greatly successful due to Miller’s utilising ‘Loman's disillusionment with his life and career as a means to measure the sizable gap between the American Dream's promise of eventual success and the devastating reality of one's concrete failure’. This seems a valid assessment in light of how Willy committing suicide under the illusion that it will allow his children to realise the American Dream. However, it is also important to consider that Willy never considered himself a failure. From his perspective, he won because committing would make Biff ‘worship’ him. By critiquing American Society in the form of a play, their audiences were able to view themselves on stage, thus be exposed to the potential danger of the lives they were leading.

For Tennessee Williams, ‘The Glass Menagerie’ was an opportunity for atonement, self-judgement and depreciation. As his memory play, ‘The Glass Menagerie’ was influenced by real events in Williams’ life, particularly the institutionalisation of his sister into a mental health facility after he abandoned the family. There are parallels between the play and Williams’ early life, with the most prominent ones being Tom’s poor relationship with his mother, his sister being disabled and living in a small apartment after being abandoned by their father. The autobiographical influences on ‘The Glass Menagerie’ makes the play a lot more personal and real. One critic wrote ‘you could even call memory the protagonist here: it’s what causes Tom to stumble into the past and back into the story that he hates to tell but has to’. It is true that and a guilty conscience plays a large part in Williams having to write the play, it is a way for Williams to relive his guilt and perhaps ease his conscience. Unlike Williams, there seem to be no parallels between Miller’s life and the events in “Death of a Salesman”. Instead, Miller appeared to be criticising the society of his time and its values. Miller was highly critical of the capitalist, consumerist nature of American Society and how people seemed to be so engrossed by it; he was highly critical of the American Dream. By creating Willy Loman, who is ‘a dime a dozen’, Miller was able to show members of his audience how ludicrous blind faith in the American Dream was, and the cost at which it came. By naming the play ‘Death of ‘a’ Salesman’, Miller effectively reveals that Willy was one of the many who fell for the lies of the American Dream: the title ‘declares the significance of a salesman’s death and finds value in its ordinary anonymity’. This is represented by his use of ‘a’, as opposed to something like ‘the’, which would suggest it was a singular incident.

As a “larger than life matriarch with a delusional memory of her upbringing in the American South”, Amanda’s inability to live in the present leads her to continue living the life of a Southern Belle in Blue Mountain. When she instructs Laura to ‘stay fresh and pretty - for the gentlemen callers’, her values and beliefs are made apparent. To a 1940s audience, her beliefs and values may not be as shocking as some people still followed that ‘tradition’ that it is a woman’s duty to marry, be a good wife and produce children for her husband. However, to a modern audience, this may be the point at which they begin to dislike Amanda for various reasons. Firstly, with the rise of feminism and women’s rights, a modern audience may criticise her for imposing her beliefs on her daughter. Amanda’s self-deception lies in the fact that she believes that all women want the same thing: the husband, the big house, two kids and a dog, as is the American ideal. In this way, she is similar to Willy, who believes that Biff wants to follow in his footsteps to become a salesman and is yet another victim of the Dream.

In ‘Death of a Salesman’, Willy’s inability to live in the present costs him his job, a healthy relationship with his family, and, ultimately, his life. In Willy being ‘never as happy as when he is looking forward to something’, Miller is showing the extent to which Willy does not live in the present. He is always looking to what the future has to offer, consequently missing what is happening in his life at present. Willy’s inability to live in the present is also shown through montages, when Miller interweaves the time periods of Willy’s life – the play ‘explode[d] the watch and the calendar’. Miller reveals the destructive force of self-deception in Willy by making him the average man – who he believed also live in a state of self-deception – and letting his own actions destroy his life. During the 1940s family values were mostly superficial, and primarily involved having the materialistic things in life. By making Willy lose his job, Miller showed that the destructive force of self-deception went beyond the personal life – it could also affect one’s professional life. Willy always thought of himself as being ‘very well liked’, and, in his belief, that is the biggest key to success. It is likely that many members of Miller’s original audience were in similar positions with Willy, and the fact that nobody attended his funeral service reveals that people are wasting their time trying to please people who do not care for them, and ignoring those who do. This is solidified by the fact that only Willy’s family and Charley attended his ‘nice’ funeral, not the colleagues he had anticipated. By making Willy lose everything he worked for in a matter of minutes, Miller is criticising the uniformity of the American Dream and how it does not value individuality. The fact that Willy is told ‘business is business’ when he is being let go from a job he’s had for decades shows how people hold no value but instead are just a means to an end for another person to achieve their dream.

By her own admission, Amanda ‘received – seventeen! – gentleman callers’ and ‘sometimes there weren’t chairs enough to accommodate them all’. The delivering of the lines shows Amanda’s immense pride, symbolised by the use of hyphens, an exclamation mark and the italicisation of ‘seventeen’, in that she was able to attract that many people. Williams’ mockery of Amanda in thiscan be better understood by a modern audience as they are less likely to be impressed by how many potential suitors she had: women’s lives no longer revolve around finding a husband. They are more likely to recognise the sense of irony in that Amanda ‘chose’ a man who ended up abandoning her.Williams wrote of women like Amanda in one of his other plays, ‘A Street Car Named Desire’, where Blanche DuBois is like Amanda: a ‘classic Williams woman, tethered to a beautiful past and struggling to stay on her feet in the ugly present’. In this, Williams and Miller are similar in that they are both making a criticising their characters for bowing to societal pressures and standards.

While neither Williams nor Miller offer overly flattering portrayals of women, Williams is kinder to women than Miller. Believing ‘Linda is the only one in the Loman family who recognises that the Loman family lives in denial’ may cause her to be criticised by the audience, as they may begin to judge her for allowing Willy to destroy her family. Similarly, the women Biff and Happy meet at the restaurant and the married women Happy has affairs with show that Miller thought the American Dream created a male dominated society where women were either the neglected wife and mother, or the tart. If a woman tried to work, her integrity would be questioned as she would be asked if she’s “Workin’? Or still honest?”. Linda does not exist independent of Willy and her children. The fact that she ‘doesn’t react’ to people addressing her at Willy’s funeral supports the view that she is nothing outside of Willy’s wife, she is not her own person. However, Williams’ women are stronger and more admirable than Millers. Amanda works hard to provide for her family despite life’s many setbacks.Although he is rather critical of her it is clear Williams did not consider his mother to be a weak woman as he said of her ‘only four foot seven she conquered my father…and drove him out of the house’. Laura, although being disabled, tries to live her quiet life. The ending of the play implies that Laura did not have a bright future, and so both writers agree that the Dream was not kind to women. This is deception in that women are either made to doubt their self-worth, or believe that they have equal opportunities in a very male-dominated society.

As Williams’ play is his memory, his relation with his characters is a lot more personal than Miller’s with his. This is revealed through Williams’ use of stagecraft – his use of lighting is almost likepathetic fallacy: when he tells Laura to ‘blow out [her] candles’, it is as if by leaving, Tom is leaving Laura in darkness; ‘this play deals with a man’s guilt as he follows his own path’, whereas ‘Death of a Salesman’ is an objective critique of American Values. In ‘The Glass Menagerie’, Williams was exploring the destructive force of self-deception on his relationship with Amanda. By allowing himself to be trapped in such an unhappy environment, living with his mother, Tom strains his already poor relationship with his mother. By forcing himself to stay, work a job he despises, and therefore be forced to escape to the movies, Tom is deceiving himself into thinking he can have a healthy relationship with his mother. This is similar to Biff trying to maintain a relationship with Willy, although he knows it cannot realistically happen until they address The Woman. The motif of escape is present in both plays as the Fire Escape and Tom being dressed as a ‘merchant sailor’ shows that the potential is always there, as is in ‘Death of a Salesman’, where the Midwest represents Biff’s escape.

Another character who suffers self-deception themselves is Happy. When he confesses that ‘[his lifeis] what I always wanted. My own apartment, a car, and plenty of women. And still, goddammit, I’m lonely’. Miller used Happy to reveal how superficial the American Dream is, showing that material possessions and happiness are not synonymous. The use of ‘lonely’ reveals this. The destructive force of self-deception is explored in Happy in that he lies to himself, so much so that he believes he can continue to live that way and be happy. Happy is, ironically, the younger version of his father. Willy also lied to himself about what he had accomplished and where he was headed in life; Happy lying about his position at work is an example. In this way, Happy is a direct contrast to Tom who is fully aware that what he is doing is not good enough for him, but he does it for the sake of his family.

Happy and Jim are similar in that they both bow to the pressures and expectations of society. It is clear that Jim is attracted to Laura, but she is ‘unsuitable’ wife material, and so he chooses the safe option, the ‘girl [he’s] going steady with’, can provide him with the wife that society tells him he needs in order to be successful in life. The use of ‘steady’ when he speaks of Betty implies he is marrying her because she can provide him with just that, not because of mutual attraction. Similarly, Happy sacrifices his happiness for the sake of a system which does not value individuals. Willy says ‘a man is not a bird, to come and go with the springtime’, and this embodies the pack uniformity that the American Dream instils in people. The allegorical statement from Willy reveals that Miller himself did not possess those views: he was in fact saying the opposite and encouraging his audience to allow themselves to be ‘as free as a bird’ and embrace life, a principle Miller followed in his own life: he was once part of a communist movement at a time when the US government was trying very hard to destroy communism. By deceiving themselves, these characters are limiting their opportunities in life and their chances at finding happiness. It is could be argued that Jim is living in past because he may be relying on the popularity he had in High School to carry him in life, but Jim is willing to work hard to get what he wants, unlike Willy who expects Biff to make his way through life by being ‘well liked’. While Happy’s success is not based on his childhood successful, the fact that he being rewarded for living such a dishonest life is testament to how the American Dream does not promote good values. Jim and Biff are similar in that they a similar past: Jim admits that he ‘hoped when [he] was going through high school that [he] would be further along’ in life and that people believed he ‘was bound to succeed in anything he went into’. At the same time, Biff believes he ‘never got anywhere because [Willy] blew [Biff] so full of hot air I could never stand taking orders from somebody!’. They are both defined by their past failures and successes, and both are determined not to allow them to limit their chances at achieving their dreams.

In both plays, abandonment in the past led to the characters not being able to live in the present, and therefore live in a state of self-deception. Growing up without a male role model left Willy feeling inadequate, and impacted the relationship he has with his children. When he admits that he ‘still feel – kind of temporary about [himself]’ reveals the impact that abandonment had on him. The use of the word ‘still’ suggests that he has felt that for a long time. This reveals vulnerability in Willy Loman, which could cause some members of the audience to warm to him. However, some members of the audience may criticise him for this; he is repeating the same mistakes with his own children. Willy’s imaginary relationship with his brother reveals that he has not let go of his past. The working title of ‘Death of a Salesman’ was ‘In His Head’, as the all Willy’s problems are in his head. The fact that he cannot get Ben’s approval even in his head is saddening as it reveals how lowly he thinks himself. Being abandoned left Amanda unable to face reality and caused her to live a lie.

Arguably, Amanda handles being abandoned with more grace than Willy does. All Amanda has left of Mr Wingfield is his children and the ‘larger-than-life’ picture they have of him in their ‘hive-like…living unit’. Growing up in the South, Amanda never really expected to be a single mother forced to live in a small apartment in St. Louis. She was meant to live a pampered life with a maid to do the housework, a husband to provide for her, and her only worry should have been to have an active social life. Amanda took this abandonment in her stride, as she picks herself up and carries on with her life, doing her best to provide for her children and secure them good futures. Also, unlike Willy and Linda, Amanda does not show clear favourite with her children. Though it may seem as if she favours Laura, it is in fact her upbringing and her beliefs that women are weak and need to be taken care of that causes her to push Laura to get a husband, though it is clear that she loves both her‘precious children’ dearly. Willy and Amanda are similar in that they are both failed sales people for a living. Being abandoned by Ben has caused Willy to ignore the fact that his life his falling apart, and Amanda is, to some, ‘too nostalgically myopic...and too hopelessly dazzled by [self-deception’s] glamour to admit its destructive potential’. It is unjust to call Amanda ‘myopic’ due to how she tried to plan for her children’s futures. Her trying to set Laura up for a future where she can survive alone without having to rely on anyone shows that she has learnt from her mistakes and wants her children to avoid making those mistakes, but the same cannot be said for Willy, who pushes his children down the treacherous path he took. Miller is showing how easy it is for generations to fall for the lie of the American dream, signified by Happy choosing to follow Willy’s footsteps, and Williams is showing that it is possible to break away from this cycle.

Self-Deception also impacts parent and child relationships in the play. Willy and Linda allow it to affect their relationship with their children Willy neglects Happy in a bid for Biff’s approval, and damages his relationship with Biff because he refuses to speak of The Woman. While it may seemAmanda pays Laura more attention, she is just more sensitive to their individual needs and tries to cater to them, though her lack of understanding of her children limits her ability to do this.

The US Declaration of Independence states ‘all men are created equal’ with the right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’, and it is from this that the American Dream is rooted.. In ‘Death of a Salesman’, Miller was criticising what he believed to be the lie of the American Dream. One once said ‘it’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it’ The fact that so many people spend their lives chasing a dream that is unachievable is something Miller meant to highlight and criticise in writing the play. Willy is just another victim of the American; he lost his life because ‘he had the wrong dream’. Both plays show the cost of self-deception and the impact they can have on the average man. While self-deception has its drawbacks, it allows the characters to face life. If Amanda were to accept reality, she would be forced to accept that her husband abandoned her and that she is bound to fail as a single mother. However, by refusing to face to truth, Amanda is able to carry on living her life trying to provide for her children. Similarly, self-deception allows Willy to have hope that his life will get better. If he were to accept that he is a failure of a Salesman, the one thing he has confidence in, then he would feel like even more of a failure and be unable to face life. By showing the dream of the characters alongside their inability to live in the present, Miller and Williams do indeed show the destructive force of self-deception, but they also show that sometimes it is necessary to live in a state of self-deception in order to face the world.

Yo, this is my final A Level English Literature coursework on ‘Death of a Salesman’ and ‘The Glass Menegarie’ - i still can’t spell it - and it scored me a solid ‘B’ in coursework,and my exam was also a B overall = I got a ‘B’ in A Level English

#english literature #a level english #a levels #tennessee williams #arthur miller #death of a salesman #The Glass Menagerie #coursework

Meta Ethics

What is meta ethics?

An analysis of ethical language

Explores the meaning of words used in ethical statements

What do mean mean when we call something good or bad?

Not 'what is a moral action?', but what is morality

Meta = beyond/about/external assessment

It is not the study of ethics, about the study about ethics

What does good mean?

Is it something I approve of? e.g. recycling

Is it something that fulfils its purpose? e.g. a knife that cuts

Is it someone or something that has moral worth e.g. MLK Jr

Is it my own opinion? e.g. I like TTS

Is it what God says we should do? e.g. 10 Commandments

Is it something I like? e.g. KStew

How many different kinds of sentences can you do with good in?

Normative Ethics

Ethics branch into meta and normative

Normative decides which things are good and bad and gives a guide for moral behaviour - all ethical theories are normative --> Natural Law, Kantian Ethics, Virtue ethics etc

You can apply them to a situation and work out what's right or wrong

Objective

Ethical values exist independently - they can be observed from the outside

Based on facts and true for everyone e.g. water is wet

Some actions are intrinsically good

Subjective

Each person's values are relative to that person, so they cannot be judged by anyone

Based on personal emotion or feeling

KStew is the best person ever (she is)

My foot hurts

Whether an action is good or bad depends on one's opinion

Cognitive - Objective

Moral facts can be known objective

Moral statements can have a true meaning

They are based on facts

There is such a thing as good and bad

A moral quality such as kind is just real as a physical quality such as smooth

Non-Cognitive - Subjective

Moral statements are subjective

Moral statements are descriptive

They are describing feelings telling people what to do

They are not true or false

Ethical Naturalism

You can actually define what 'good' is

Ethical statements can be proven true or false

Ethical statements are based on evidence - they are factual

You can use evidence to prove or disprove ethical statements. it is cognitivist and objective

Genetic research is right

Euthanasia is wrong

We need to protect the environment

It is wrong to cheat on your partner

Normative and Meta Ethics

All Normative ethics are based on Ethical Naturalism

Good can be defined

Ethical statements are based on statements

Good can be known through reason

It is not just a feeling or opinion

Ethical Non-naturalism

There is such a thing as good, but it cannot be defined

You can use 'good' to describe and object or an action

It has a meaning and is not subjective

However, it is not empirically measurable

Ethics branch into two sections - Normative and Meta Ethics. Normative Ethics decide what is good and bad, whereas Meta Ethics takes an observatory seat and question the decisions and stipulations made by normative ethics. Normative ethics consists of ethical theories like Kant's, Situation, Natural Law etc, which all offer set rules for what is right and wrong. Normative ethics would look at, for example, Natural Law and question it. It would ask what exactly makes following our purpose 'good'? What is good? What is our purpose? In short, Normative ethics tell us what to do, while Meta Ethics question what we are told to do.

Cognitive approaches to Meta Ethics

Intuitionism

GE Moore

Non-naturalist

Non-emperical BUT ethical language is meaningful, just no factual

'I don't need to observe a murder to know that killing someone id wrong, I just know it is' It's called intuition

We have an infallible intuitive knowledge of good things

Good is a a quality that things posses but it cannot be defined

We naturally recognise and understand it

Moral judgement are self-evident

A comparison is made with the colour yellow. You can see it, but you can't define it. Good like that

When making a moral decision, we're simply choosing the outcome which will bring about these good things

Is-Ought Gap

How do we get from 'murder is killing' to 'murder is wrong'

'Is' is factual; 'ought' is moral judgement

The problem with ethical naturalists is that they make a leap from FACT (is) to a MORAL JUDGEMENT (ought)

Euthanasia is mercy killing -- is . It is kind to euthanise people -- ought ---> how did we make the jump from i to ought?

People who do this are guilty of naturalistic fallacy

Naturalistic Fallacy

Fallacy = an incorrect argument in logic

The jump from an ought to an is, from fact to judgement

Simple vs Complex

Complex - a 'horse' can be described by breaking it down into:

Animal

Mamman

Has four legs (quadruped)

Equine

Simple - 'yellow' we can't break it down any further

'If I am asked 'what is good?', my answer is good is good, and that is the end of the matter'

A.J 'Freddie' Ayer Emotivism

Also called the Boo-Hurrah Theory

Influenced by a group of philosophers called logical positivists

Vienna Circle

Based at Vienna University

Believed empirical science was the main source of knowledge

A statement is only meaningful if you can verify it

Analytical - statements are true by definition. By analysing the constituent parts we know they are true

A spinster is an unmarried woman

All triangles have three sides

Synthetic - observations of the world gathered through our sense and science

It's snowing outside

There's a squirrel in a tree

Moral statements cannot be verified synethitically or analytically, therefore they are meaningless

Capital punishment is wrong

Stealing is bad

Emotivism - when we say something is wrong, we are merely. Expressing an emotional reaction to a certain set of events or fact

Gay people ought to be allowed to marry = gay marriage Hurrah

Abortion is morally wrong = abortion Boo

NON-COGNITIVE

Moral statements are no different from expressing our liking or disliking for something

C.L Stevenson

Emotivist

Expressing an emotion

Expressing an attire rude based on personal beliefs and trying to influence others

#meta etics #religious ethics

Aristotle’s Four Causes

The four causes exist to answer the question of why things change and why things progress in four categories.

"we do not have knowledge of a thing until we have grasped its why, that is to say, its cause"

The material cause is the material from which the thing is made for example a book paper, table wood And a bottle glass or plastic

The formal cause is what makes something physically recognisable for example you can tell a statue is a statue because it's in the shape of a statue and tell a human is a human being because they have a body

The efficient cause of something is what makes it or brings it to being sample the efficient cause every person is their parents efficient cause of an book is the author and the efficient cause other statue is a Mason

The final cause is the end towards all things direct, it is their purpose. It is concerned with the reason why something is the way it is. It is concerned with the function of an object. For example, the point of a book being printed and bound in a certain order is so it is legible and makes sense. The final cause is teleological - it's concerned with the purpose of something. Aristotle was not saying there is a purpose of design of anything in nature, but that everything within nature is as it is for a certain reason.

Marble StatueMaterial Cause: it's made of marbleFormal Cause: it is in the shape of a statueEfficient Cause: a mason made itFinal Cause: it's function is to be beautiful/honour the person it remembers

Contextually, the word 'cause' means responsible. Aristotle used it to show how something came about.

The Concept of the Prime Mover

Aristotle observed that everything was in a constant state of movement and/or change. For example, the ever varying weather, nature changing and people growing.

Aristotle believed that all movement depended upon their being something or someone to move it. Movement means getting from A to B, changing, growing, melting, cooling etc

Aristotle, like his predecessor Heraclitus, realised everything was in a constant state of movement. He thought there must be a series of events behind the movement we see. He thought this was started by something which he said moved things without actually moving itself. He called this the Prime Mover

In his book 'Metaphysics ', Aristotle calls the Prime Mover the source of all movement. The Prime Mover is not the efficient but the final cause.

He observed four things:

The physical world was in a constant state of motion and change.

The planets seemed to be moving eternally

Change or motion is always caused by something

Objects in the physical world were in a state of actuality and potentiality

From this, Aristotle concluded that there must exist something which causes this motion without being moved and is eternal. He reached this conclusion by realising that if something can change, and has the potential to become an 'actual' state, and one 'potential' state. For example, a cow has the potential to become a roast dinner and a pair of leather shoes; a child has the potential to become an adult etc. He realised that if something came into existence, it must have been caused by something else. This led him to ask: what is the cause of motion and change in the universe? He is not asking what knocked down the first domino, but instead what continues to sustain the motion and change in the world? He reached the conclusion that there must be a prime or first mover, who is moving them eternally.

The characteristics of the Prime Mover

According to Aristole, the Prime Mover is a necessary being - the PM could not fail to exist.

The PM is not capable of change, and so Aristole says it is pure actuality by nature: its nature is good. This is bc a lack of goodness means the PM could do better, therefore that it can change, and the PM is already perfect

The Prime Mover is the final cause: it is the ultimate explanation of why things exist

#aristotle #four causes #Philosophy of Religion

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Aka First Cause Argument This argues that because the universe exists it must have a cause or creator and that creator is God. The contingency argument argues that a contingent thing may or may not exist and the universe is a contingency however God is a necessary being. The difference between contingency and necessity is that a contingent existence has to have A causes, where is a necessary being like God does not. Premise 1: the universe existsPremise 2: everything. That exist has a creatorConclusion: that creator is God The argument is that all things which have a beginning have to have a cause. While some have raised the question of what caused God to exist this has been answered by calling God uncaused cause and the prime mover. This means that that God is the only thing in the world without a cause he is the Alpha and omega he caused Everything to be. The argument is said to have first been to put forward by Saint Thomas Aquinas however there is evidence of it going back as far as Plato. Aquinas argued that the proof of gods existence is the universe. He said the universe had to had a cause for something cannot come from nothing.

#aquinas #aristotle #cosmological argument #philosophy #a levels

‘Rather than making the role of the UN easier, the Cold War simply deepened its problems’. Assess the validity of this view. (45) Plan

‘Rather than making the role of the UN easier, the Cold War simply deepened its problems’. Assess the validity of this view. (45)

Argument:- Overall, UN’s problems and weaknesses were highlighted by the Cold War. The crises revealed in the CW show many short coming of the UN. The UN was ineffective and only had minor successes

Introduction

· Created October 1945 to act as an international governing body, so at to prevent anything like WWII happening again

· UN was seen as a Western organisation created in favour of the West, esp. the US

· Each member of the security council had one vote – caused problems in that other countries could veto the motions of countries they don’t like i.e. US v Russia

· CW limited effectiveness of UN as a peacekeeping organisation – Korean War, Vietnam War and Afghanistan all happened while the UN existed, and the UN only intervened 12 times 1948 to 1978; CW paralysed UN intervention bc it could only happen with consent of all parties

UN and End of the CW

· 1988 Gorbachev announces new relationship w/ UN. He was commited to changing the USSR – the UN offered the Soviets a way out of Afganistand

· Post CW cooperation was between Russia, US and UN. Break up of USSR and Yugoslavia created 20 new states. The New World order was complicated by rise of terrorism i.e. Al-Qaeda

· Gulf War 1191 Resolution 678 allowed the UN yo use force to remove Iraw from Kuwait with the help of 28 countries but dominated by US and for their interests. Funded by Saudis and the UN was seen as a tool of the US

Somalia 1992 - 96

· Country disintegrated into factional chaos led by local war lords. A third of population was suffering from starvation. UN and NGO struggled to help. Operation Restore Hope ran by 27,000 US troops provided humanitarian aid. Peace keeping was not possible as there was an anti-American sentiment in Somalia à wasn’t really their fault: Somalis didn’t want their help

Rwandan Genocide 1994 and Sierra Leone 1999 to presemt

· Resulted in death of 800,000 due to UN being indecisive and inadequate. There was a lack of interest from international powers esp. the US. Limited humanitarian aid, and even than was from the US.

· Troops were not equipped or mandated to intervene

· Sierra Leone Civil War in 1991 and UN arrived in 1998 but withdrew when fighting intensifies. Returned ’99 with a larger, more proactive military force that took forceful action to keep the peace

Conclusion:

· UN was only effective when the superpowers were willing to cooperate and help i.e. Kuwait vs. Rwanda.

· UN viewed as ‘reluctant sheriff’ of the world by Richard Haass

· CW meant UN didn’t have much practical used in its early years. The end of the CW saw a new world order, where the US was the only remaining dominant power, and w/out it’s backing, UN was irrelevant. Growing anti-American sentiment sometimes made its job harder (Somalia) and nature of bureaucracy also contributed to the UN being useless

to be written in timed conditions first lesson tomorrow. wish me luck x_x

Critically assess the view that Utilitarianism is of no use when making decisions about sexual ethics.

Sexual Ethics is a difficult topic to discuss due to the fact that there are no accepted code of Ethics when it comes to sex due to the fact people have different preferences in, what some consider to be, such a personal matter. Utilitarianism is concerned with establish the usefulness, the utility, of the subject in question. The utility of utilitarianism in regard to Sexual Ethics is ultimately down the evaluation of the people engaging in the act to decide. It is untrue to say that utilitarianism is ‘of no use’, as it does offer some advice and some do find it useful. However, it is can be argued that there are other Ethical Theories which offer a more clear cut approach to Sexual Ethics, like Natural Law and Christian Ethics.

The basis of utilitarianism, especially according to Mill, is to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, not forgetting the minority. This applies to Sexual Ethics, too; a utilitarian approach to sex would be to aim to maximise the pleasure and happiness gained, while minimising the hurt. This could be viewed as strength for utilitarianism for it allows people to gain happiness and pleasure from sex, without hurting others. In addition, the idea of ‘free love’ in utilitarianism does not mean to have reckless sex as that can result in unwanted pregnancies and the transmission of diseases and infection. From this, it can be concluded that utilitarianism promotes safe sex and the use of contraception.

Other ethical theories can be viewed as being more useful than Utilitarianism in regard to establishing the purpose of sex. Natural Law and Christian Ethics both make it clear that procreation, the unity of a man and his wife and the continuation of humanity is the purpose of sex. This conclusion can be reached by reading the Book of Genesis where it says [Adam and Eve] became one’ Genesis 2:12. However, after The Fall of Man, it is said that sex became a sin, which is a necessary evil for the continuation of humanity, but that it must never be enjoyed. In this way, utilitarianism is of more use that Christian Ethics and Natural Law in that is more applicable to twenty-first century life: Jeremy Bentham thought, provided there was mutual consent, sex cannot be wrong. This is especially wrong in today’s world where people have different preferences for what they like. To illustrate, the BDSM (abusive) acts carried out in the blockbuster ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ can be viewed by some as wrong as it teaches and encourages abuse in relationships, Bentham would argue that it is not wrong provided both parties are enjoying the act and are consenting.

In regard to contraception, it would of more use than other ethical theories because it, again, teaches that provided that no one is being harmed, it is acceptable to use contraception. This especially true in comparison to ethical theories like Natural Law, which teaches that the use of contraception is wrong because it goes against God’s plan and His will. However, utilitarianism would be more useful in that it would prevent unplanned pregnancies – and therefore less orphans, abortions and unwanted children – where as Natural Law would allow the potential for those things to happen. The usefulness of utilitarianism where contraception is concerned is further demonstrated in that the use of contraception can help prevent and/or limit the spread of disease. Furthermore, utilitarianism is more practical for today’s world, where it is unrealistic to ask people to abstain from sex, and to only engage in it for the purpose of procreation.

With regard to homosexuality, utilitarianism is more useful than most, thought it can be criticised on its approach. Utilitarianism teaches that homosexuality is acceptable, but it does not encourage it for it says that, should homosexuality to universalised, it would be harmful for humanity. This can be seen as a weakness in that it is not fully accepting of homosexuality: homosexuality can be universalised because people can now reproduce artificially and no longer need to be in heterosexual relationships in order to have children. A further criticism could be that homosexuals often adopt children, and the universalisation of homosexuality might result in a rise in adoption, thus decreasing the number of orphans in the world.

Weaknesses of utilitarianism lie in that it does not establish exactly what it means to give consent. For example, is a fifteen year old capable of making the decision to give consent to their twenty year old sexual partner? Would statutory rape be a crime in the eyes of a utilitarian? In accordance to Mill’s harm principle, would this be a harmful act or not? Furthermore, is an pleasurable act okay if it breaks the law of the land – statutory rape – and has legal repercussion? These are all questions which undermine the usefulness of utilitarianism when making decisions about sexual ethics.

Overall, the usefulness of utilitarianism is, as aforementioned, subject to opinion. I would argue that due to the nature of Western Society, it is a lot more useful than most alternatives, namely Christian Ethics. It teaches acceptance and the practise of safe sex and, most importantly when it comes to sex, consent. As a result, I would disagree with the statement.

#essay #a2 #ethics #a2 ethics #Utilitarianism #jeremy bentham #john stuart mill #and the other guy #???

Miracles as proof for the existence of God

Aquinas - Miracles are whatever has a divine cause Problems We don’t know what God caused God can cause seemingly bad things i.e war+poverty Favours some people over others i.e Israelites over Egyptians Hume - violations of the laws of nature Against miracles. Call miracle believers ignorant and uneducated Problems What are the laws of nature? Swinburne questions Hume’s definition of educated people. Hume’s Theory of Inductive Knowledge - bottom top logic. Collecting evidence to come to a conclusion Argues against First Cause Argument - because we observe causes in this world, it doesn’t mean the same happens outside our world Inductive Knowledge: having lots of evidence to prove something true IK says we’d need to know all dead people in the world to prove Hume right, but we can’t so he’s not Hume assumes that dead people die and never comes back to life. He also believes laws of nature are fixed and never changing. For Hume, there’s a scientific explanation for everything. The strongest certainty for anything has to be scientific. In doing this, Hume unknowingly contradicted himself. Deductive Knowledge - bottom down logic. Having a conclusion then supporting it with evidence

#A2 #miracles #Philosophy of religion #david hume #richard swinburne

the glass menagerie fire escape

The Fire Escape represents, for Tom, the proximity of escape and a yet life, and yet the impossibility of achieving it. The fact that escape is always within reach, as is signified by the fire escape, and yet Tom cannot bring himself to leave until the end of the play is a source of frustration for some members of the audience as well as Tom. Tom’s desire to escape is signified with him entering the play for the first time ‘dressed as a merchant sailor’. The Fire escape offers Tom a chance to escape from the life with which he is unhappy. It’s presence throughout the play, as well as its inability to use it taunts Tom for the duration of the play. The Fire Escape also represents escape for other characters, namely Laura and Amanda. With the arrival of a the gentleman caller, Laura goes onto the Fire Escape trying - and failing - to escape the situation she was pushed into. Similarly, it is on the Fire Escape that Amanda mentally escapes the harsh realities of life, and wishes for ‘Success and happiness for [her] precious children’. Unlike his mother and sister, Tom’s constant visits to the Fire Escape to smoke show anticipation for his impending get away. The Fire Escape, for Tom, represents the bridge from his dreams to a very possible reality. At the same time, it also represents his abandonment of his mother and sister, leaving them in a vulnerable position. As a result, it is both a negative and positive symbol.

#A2 #the glass menagerie #Tennessee Williams #a #english literature

Discuss, with close reference to the play ‘Death of a Salesman’, how Miller presents the character of Willy in Act 1. Arthur Miller’s presentation of Willy Loman - the protagonist in his play ‘Death of a Salesman’ - is crucial to the interpretation of the play, and, ultimately, its success. In ‘Death of a Salesman’, Miller is trying to convey a message about 1940s American Society, its values, about how superficial it all is. Miller was writing at a time where American Society was booming, as a result of the World War Two, and her capitalist and consumerist ideals were shaping society in a way Miller saw to be negative. Miller himself was the child of Jewish immigrants who found success in America: it is possible that his parents believed in the American Dream. Miller tried to deride the American Dream, to expose it’s fragility, how much the faith placed on the American Dream will cost the American Everyman, like William Loman. Miller’s disdain towards the American Dream and American Society subsequently makes him present Willy in a negative light, one through which it is difficult for the audience to connect with Willy, at least a connection which can lead to their liking him. Miller’s presentation of Willy in Act 1 reveals the flaws the American Everyman, and thus of American Society. A way Miller allowed his audience to see Willy Loman is through showing the ways he interacts with and treats his family. Willy’s relationship with Linda is particularly important in understanding him. From the beginning of the play, Miller makes it difficult for the audience to positively engage with Willy, at least for a modern audience to do to. Willy is rude, demanding, and shows his wife little respect. He is sexist, and starts arguments over the most petty of issues. When he says to Linda ‘Why am I always being contradicted?’, after she told him she bought a different type cheese, it is as if he is saying that, as the man of the house, his word is law. Contextually, this may have been true that the man decides what happens in his household, especially in the 1940s, although people were becoming more liberal. However, as the woman of the house, the Kitchen was - stereotypically - Linda’s territory, and so she should be in charge of the shopping. Most members of the audience would agree that the type cheese is not something worth start an argument over. This is the first glance the audience gets of Willy unnecessarily overreacting and ‘make mountains out of molehills’. Willy’s abuse of his wife is further seen in the way he constantly disregards her input and opinions. On multiple occasions, Willy accuses Linda of ‘interrupting’ him, when he is, in fact, the one doing the interrupting. When Willy is speaking with children - thought it could be argued that he is only paying attention to Bifff - that he is especially unkind to his wife. The structure of the conversation makes it clear that Willy is the one doing the interruptions, not Linda: when Willy is done talking, it is signified by a full stop. However, when Linda is talking and Willy interrupts her, Miller used hyphens to show that she was not done talking. This creates the impression that Willy is sexist, as an aura of a ‘boys only’ conversation, where Linda’s input is neither wanted nor welcome, is created. This is supported by Biff’s statement of Willy never having ‘an ounce of respect’ for his wife. This makes the audience withdraw from Willy further. Alternately, and audience of Willy’s time with more conservative values may believe that it is not Linda’s place to speak out of turn, that she should do as her husband says. They may condemn Biff for speaking up for his mother, against his father, and admire Willy’s work ethic. A modern audience will likely be outraged by Willy’s treatment of his wife. THe way he shows his wife no respect and/or gratitude makes Willy unlikable. Miller’s disapproval of Willy’s treatment of Linda is present in his stage directions of Willy ‘going right through [Linda’s] speech’. The words ‘right through’ demonstrate Miller’s disapproval because they imply a lack of acknowledgement of Linda even speaking. It is as if, to Willy, she is not there, as if she serves no purpose outside of being a homemaker. Furthermore, Willy’s infidelity is Miller’s way of highlighting the negativity of the American Dream and how it teaches no values, how people will never be satisfied with what they have: he is also criticising consumerism. Linda is a loyal wife, who has stayed in an abusive marriage, with a man most women would not have had the heart to put up with. The fact that she loves him, despite the fact that he has ‘never made a lot of money. His name was never in the paper. He's not the finest character that ever lived’, and he still cheated on her shows how The American Dream, coupled with the consumeristic nature of American Society means that they are always seeking bigger, better and more exciting things: that they are never satisfied with what they have. THe way he treats Linda after he has been unfaithful may suggest that he is not remorseful. If he was truly sorry for what he did, one might think he would kind to her, treat her with the respect she deserves. However, the way he treats her like a pariah suggests he does not feel sorry for cheating, but rather for the fact that his son caught, and what that says about him as a man. Similarly, while some may interpret his reaction to Linda mending the stockings as a sign of remorse, it is also likely that he reacts ‘angrily’ because it reminds him how much of a failure he is, unable to provide for his wife, but doing so for his mistress. He is angry because it makes him feel bad, because it reminds him how much of a failure he is, not because he feels sorry for being unfaithful to Linda: Willy’s feels for willy, and no one else. In allowing the audience to see Willy interacting with his children, Miller shows a different side to Willy Loman. In comparison to the way he is with his wife and at work, Willy Loman as a father. The faith Willy has in his children is enough to make many members of the audience thaw towards him, though his obvious favouritism to Biff may also be a repellent. Willy’s dreams for his children - his dreams for Biff - are for him to succeed in ways he never did. He shares this quality with Amanda, who wished for ‘success and happiness for [her] precious children’, although both fail to recognise that their childrens’ definition of success differs to theirs. Fatherhood is yet another way Willy Loman is a failure. His devotion and pure faith in the American Dream means he has adopted rigid values and boundaries of what it means to be successful. As a result, he fails to recognise that Biff is happy with his life in the MidWest, even if he is not a salesman. Equally, having Biff as his sole focus means he does not pay his younger son, Happ, the attention he craves and deserves. Happy has always been second best to both his parents, and the fact that they do not pay attention to him when he mentions that he is to be married shows their lack of care for him. This yet another way Miller shows the cost of the American Dream. Miller presents Willy to be a very confused man. It is expected that when a man gets to Willy’s age, they would be established, settled and looking forward to their retirement. However, Willy’s life is not going the way the life of a ‘well liked’ man like Willy’s should going. The fact he feels ‘kinda temporary’ about himself at his age will evoke sympathy from from many members of the audience, and be the reason why ‘Death of a Salesman’, to critic Giles Harvey a ‘A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Mediocrity’ because, try as he may to stand out, Willy Loman is nothing special. Miller emphasises his ordinarity by stressing the fact that not everyone is destined for greatness, that not everyone wants the American Dream. Finally, Miller presents Willy’s mission to achieve the American Dream having taken a toll on his mental state. Not only is his deteriorating state of mind ‘embarrassing’, but it also creates a danger to his livelihood. Willy loses his job, refuses a job opportunity and is therefore unable to provide for his family because mental state. His inability to cope with situations which are not working in his favour can be interpreted as him being so caught up in the past - where his chances of achieving the dream were stronger - that he is unable to live life in the present. Miller’s presentation of Willy is a representation of his views about the lie that is the American Dream. Willy Loman is an average, 1940s salesman, who is hardworking and ‘well liked’ failing to achieved the dream that is promised to him. He compares to those who did not buy into the American Dream and found success; Willy’s brother, father and son all went and did their own things, where they found happiness. Miller stresses the importance of not having the ‘wrong dream’, and conforming the societal pressures and expectations. He presents Willy as a failure because he has failed to be true to himself, and in turn let his wife and children down. Miller wanted to show the dangers of blind faith in Willy Loman, how much the average American Man sacrificed in order to gain the impossible American Dream. I got 53/80 for this

#Death of a salesman #arthur miller #willy loman #english literature

Personal Statement

UCAS deadline Janury 15 is about a week away. If you haven't already sent off your applications, God help you, and I thought I might post my personal statement to help anyone who might need it. Needless to say, it's not worth copying. You will only harm yourself. This personal statement is written for Economics and International Relations.

I applied to

The University of Aberdeen - Economics and IR

The University of Dundee - Economics and IR

The University of East Anglia - Politics and IR

The University of Kent - Politics and IR

Nottingham Trent University - Politics and IR

Bear in mind, it took 10+ tries to finally get to a point where I was ready for it to represent me in 4000 characters.

Allow me to introduce myself. I am a confident, ambitious girl with a profound interest in the running of state on an international level and where economic policies factor into the global distribution of wealth. I am fascinated by where morality comes into global politics and why the general consensus seems to be that might equals right. I'm keen to learn about how trivial choices made on a daily basis have a global impact. Is there an ethical way to deal with conflict? Is world peace achievable? How is the emergence of China as a superpower going affect the future? These are all questions I hope to wrestle with while studying my degree.

My fascination with International Relations stems from when I first watched 'Hotel Rwanda', where I was appalled to think that race would be an obstacle in helping people in need. This is similar to the Ebola crisis: I feel the West didn’t care until it started to directly affect us. My passion for International Relations is complemented my keen interest in Economics, born of my studies at GCSE in Business Studies and Geography where I thoroughly enjoyed learning about globalisation, how it changes people, their cultures and lifestyles. I actively follow the news and have a genuine interest in the Arab Spring and Middle Eastern Politics.

The injustice of a system where wealth distribution is so grossly unfair irks me. In July 2014, I spent two weeks volunteering in India, working at an Orphanage and a Women's Empowerment Project. While there, the difference between the rich and the poor astounded me: in a world with enough resources to go around, it's unacceptable that poverty exists. I don't find it fair that people, myself included, are able to eat in excess of three meals a day while there's someone, somewhere who doesn't know where their next meal will come from. The idea of a greater understanding of macroeconomics appeals to me and I'll revel in the opportunity to learn more. I’m determined to use my degree working with organisations like the UN, helping bridge the gap between the rich and poor.

I'm currently reading Brown and Ainsley's 'Understanding International Relations', which is really helping my understanding of International Relations, both in theory and practice. Studying History at A Level has been an excellent taster into the fickle world of Global Politics; in Philosophy and Ethics I have examined many ethical theories and have been exposed to ideas which make me re-evaluate my values. English has served to improve my ability to express myself. All my subjects have taught me to be a critical and analytical thinker, qualities which will be undoubtedly useful when studying at university.

I love to learn. I love to learn about people, their cultures, experiences in life, how they differ from mine and how we can learn from one another. I also love to travel. I'm fortunate enough that my family is able to visit different places, where I've been exposed to different standards of life and consequently appreciate what I have more. At school, I'm a prefect, form representative, I'm on the student council and I started a debate club. These roles of responsibility clearly demonstrate my peers and teachers' trust in me, the ability to manage my time well and be an active member of the community. I'm fluent in English and my native tongues of Shona and Ndebele. I plan on learning a language during my time at university allowing myself to more opportunities to interact with people from around the world. I'm passionate about global development, especially the advancement and education of young girls and the liberation of oppressed people; I consider myself a feminist. I strive to bridge the gap between the spectra of society so as to live in a just world. Social Injustice is something I struggle to accept; I look to partake in its abolition in the near future, studying International Relations and Economics will equip me with the necessary skills to do so.

#personal statement #ucas #economics and international relations #politics and international relations #university of aberdeen #university of dundee #university of east anglia #university of kent #nottingham trent university #plaigarism #will only harm #you #good luck!#arnoldis #zimbabwe

calcdonia

I don’t know about you guys but I am psyched to get an education, woo. This year is a hella important year for me because if I don’t finish this school year with five As then I am a dead man walking, you get me? So this started off as a collection to help me get those fabulous As but I thought, what the hell? I’ll share this perfection with everyone else because sharing is caring. Anyways, down to the nitty gritty

calcdonia

001. CALEDONIA’S DECLASSIFIED SCHOOL SURVIVAL GUIDE

advice for college

how to survive in college

how to survive freshmen year of high school

college packing list

alternative to buying expensive textbooks

dorm room survival

free online college courses

002. WRITE LIKE A FUCKING ANGEL

the ultimate guide to writing

how to write good

how to write an essay

how to write a good essay

the five paragraph essay

deadly sins checklist

formatting your paper

tips on getting started

seven tips to become a better writer (stephen king)

four ways to have confidence in your writing

seven ways to speed up your writing

five ways to add sparkle to your writing

how to finish what you started: a five step plan for writers

thirty-one ways to find inspiration for your writing

tips for dealing with writer’s block

003. READING ISN’T ONLY FOR NERDS AND FANGIRLS

how to take care of your books

how to read shakespeare

no fear shakespeare (i found this incredibly useful when studying macbeth!)

one hundred most read books

how to read difficult books

how to read faster

books made into movies

books made into tv shows

350+ free ebooks

004. STUDY MOTHER FUCKER

studying tips

studying techniques

how to pull an all-night and still have a successful exam result

how to get motivated to study

tips to help you concentrate

time management tips

chrome site blocker

005. LEARNING SHIT

solve any maths equations: 1, 2.

when your teacher says not to use wikipedia (an alternative)

square root calculator, cube root calculator

for when you can’t do your homework

chemical equation balancer (what got me through chemistry last year)

cliffnotes, sparknotes

college courses

how to: multiply big numbers

crash courses (youtube)

teaches you everything

006. PRESENTING YOUR BEAUTIFUL SCHOOL WORK AY

free powerpoint (prezi)

free powerpoint presentations on anything

help with presentations

007. USEFUL WEBSITES BECAUSE THE INTERNET IS A WONDERFUL PLACE /SOMETIMES/

TED (basically gods gift)

challenge your brain

feed the hungry and up your vocabulary game

free online textbooks

final grade calculator

a whole page dedicated to studying and organising

008. MUSIC TO CALM DOWN UR SCHOOL DAY BLUES YO

a really chill playist

coffee shop blues

coffee shop sounds

calm nature sounds

concentration/focus playlist

relaxation is key

four hours of classical music

playlists to listen to: xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx.

009. ALL THIS STUDYING??? YOU NEED A BREAK, MY FRIEND.

watch a cute ass dog lick your screen

one hundred thousand stars

movies masterpost

foreign movies

gay movies

lesbian movies you should definitely watch

broadway musicals

LGBT+ books

download free books

read any book

the best masterpost ever if you’re bored

010. TIPS FOR SCHOOL N STUFF BCUS I WANTED TEN BITS

try your best. not everyone can get all As, and getting all As does not make you better than everyone else. just do the best you can and be the best person you can be.

don’t sleep in class! i know it seems so so tempting but slept my way through geography last year and i got a C in my exam instead of the expected A so…

Don’t tick off your teacher, follow the rules to an extent, get to class on time, respect your classmates and teachers. you know, just be a decent person.

be positive!!! and not just for the first week or so, keep the positivity going throughout the whole school year. if you don’t believe in yourself then why should anyone else?

"you can do it, wildcat, i believe in u" — something troy bolton said one time probably definitely

A2 HISTORY COURSEWORK - THE CRUSADES: THIRD CRUSADE

October 1187:- Pope Gregory VIII issues Audita Tremendi

November 1187:- Richard the Lionheart took the cross

January 1188: - Henry II of England, Richard’s father and Philip II of France took the cross

March 1188:- Frederick Barbarossa, HRE, took the cross

July 1189: Henry II dies; Richard I becomes king

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Journey to the Holy Land~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May 1189:- Frederick and left Germany and began the overland journey to the Holy Land

June 1189:- Saladin released Guy, King of Jerusalem, from prison. In August, Guy began the siege of Acre, which lasted two years

10 June 1190:- Frederick Barbarossa drowned: some of his army returned to HRE, others kept going

July 1190:- Philip and Richard set out for the Holy Land from Vezelay in France

September 1190:- Richard reached Sicily and decided to wait until the following spring to sail to the Holy Land

April 1191:- On his way to the Holy Land, Richard took the opportunity to invade Cyprus

8 June 1991:- Richard arrived in the Holy Land

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Crusader Successes~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

12 July 1191:- Richard and Philip captured the port of Acre, a major boost for the crusaders

3 August 1991:- Philip abandoned the Third Crusade and returned to France

20 August 1191:- Richard ordered the massacre of the Muslim prisoners of Acre

25 August 1191:- Richard led the crusading army from Acre down the coast to Jaffa

7 September 1191: Richard’s army defeated Saladin’s forces at the Battle of Arsuf, an important victory for the crusaders

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Attempts of Jerusalem~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

October 1191 to January 1192:- The Crusaders attempt to take Jerusalem

June to July 1192: The Crusaders made a second attempt to take Jerusalem, but retreated

1 August 1192:- Saladin attacked Jaffa, but was defeated by the Crusaders. This resulted in a stalemate (a situation in which no one can win)

2 September 1192:- The treaty of Jaffa was signed bringing an end to the Third Crusade, there was no clear victor

9 October 1192:- Richard I left the Holy Land

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Key Events~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Acre

Saladin’s political and military might began to decline after his victories at Hattin

Division in the Muslim world began to resurface and Saladin was struggling to take control of the remaining crusader states

Winter 1187 - 88 Saldain attacked Tyre, but it was successfully defended by Conrad of Montferrat, an Italian noble man

Guy was released from prison in June 1189 and, by August, he was attacking attacking the Muslim port of Acre

The siege took place for two years, winters were harsh and both sides were weakened by disease. The city resisted the siege.

8 June 1191 Richard I arrived in Acre, and Philip shortly after

Both kings wanted to settle matters diplomatically with Saladin

A battle over Acre ended up happening instead of diplomacy

12 July 1191 Muslims surrendered Acre into Christian hands in return for the preservation of Muslim lives in Acre

Saladin wasn’t holding up his side of the surrender, to pay ransom and release Richard’s prisoners, so Richard slaughtered 2700 Muslims in Acre as a warning to Saladin (19th August)

Jaffa

Richard marched his men to Jaffa after his victory at Acre. Attacking Jaffa would have cut off Saladin’s military trade link to and from Egypt to Jerusalem

By 22 August, Richard had gathered 15,000 of his troops and marched for Jaffa

THe army face terrible conditions all through their journey: the summer was extremely hot, they under constant attack from Saladin’s army

Richard strategically organised his army so the useful members were not as threatened as the less useful member of his troops.

Arsuf

By 7 September, the crusaders were 25 miles from Jaffa; Saladin was determined to stop them before they got closer because if they captured Jaffa so soon after Acre, the consequences for him would be horrendous: the Muslim hold over southern Palestine would be threatened and Saladin’s reputation damaged

Saladin ordered his army of 30, 000 to attack the crusaders. Richard's priority was to keep his formation intact, but some men started to flee so he countered the Muslim attack, and Saladin’s army retreated.

Some historians say the success at Arsuf was a turning point in the crusade

First Attempt on Jerusalem

Internal battles in the Ricardian troops meant action was temporarily stalled. Saladin took this opportunity to destroy networks the crusaders had built

29 October 1191, the Crusaders left Jaffa for Jerusalem; they were under constant attack from Saladin’s army

It took nearly two months to reach Beit Nuba, twelve miles outside Jerusalem. They feared supplies would be cut off by Muslims, and that they didn’t have the sufficient manpower to hold Jerusalem, should they take it.

13 January 1192 Richard gave order to withdraw, which crushed the morale of the Crusaders

Richard moved his armies to Ascalon where they rebuilt the walls of the city which had been torn down by Saladin

Second Attempt on Jerusalem June - July 1192

Spring 1192, Richard faced increasing pressures from within and outside the Holy Land

Division was increased by Conrad of Montferrat openly challenged Guy’s authority as King of Jerusalem

Richard abandons Guy in support of Conrad

28 April 1192 Conrad is assassinated - there were rumours that Ricard ordered this

In England, Richard’s brother, Prince John, had been exiled and William Longchamp had attempted a coup

Richard’s lands in Angevin were threatened when he heard Philip was working with Longchamp; Richard fell into depression. 31 May he was overtaken by events when leading nobles decided on a second march on Jerusalem

Saladin heard of this, and he started to reassemble his armies. His belief in Jihad was stronger, but not his armies; his finances were overstretched; there were signs of disloyalty in his family and divisions within his army

June 1192 Saladin’s priority was to retain Jerusalem, despite suffering from an illness at the same time

10 June Crusaders reach Beit Nuba. Tipped off by local spies, they were able to attack a caravan taking supplies to Jerusalem

Morale was boosted by discovery of another piece of the true cross

Inside the Holy City, Saladin was in despair. It is said that, when his was praying, Saladin’s tears fell onto his rug and, later that evening, he received news that the Crusaders were retreating.

There were internal debates amongst crusaders as to whether or not an attack would be a success: Richard argues that the vulnerability of the supply line back in Jaffa, the lack of water and Jerusalem’s fearful defense system made success highly unlikely. He was supported by the majority of the Crusading Leaders

4 July 1192 the Third Crusade collapsed.

Truce

End of July 1992 Saladin took advantage of crusader’s retreat from Jerusalem by launching a lightning attack on Jaffa

When Richard heard of this, he returned to Jaffa by sea to launch a counterattack, upon arrival, he realised his men were heavily outnumbered but he ordered them to attack anyway

The surprise attack gave the Crusaders an unlikely victory. THis showed his strength as a military leader, as well as Saladin’s inability to drive Crusaders out of southern Palestine: negotiation was the only suitable option

The Treaty of Jaffa was agreed on 2 September 1192

Saladin was to retain control of Jerusalem

Ascalon’s fortifications were once again to be destroyed

THe crusaders were allowed to keep the conquests of Acre + Jaffa and the coastal strip between the towns

Christian pilgrims were allowed access to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

Analysis of the Third Crusade

Were Pope Gregory VIII’s wishes carried out?

So he captured Cyprus, against what Gregory sai

Did not recapture Jerusalem

Got Jaffa and Acre

Christians were allowed to go to Church of Holy Sepulchre

Mostly men and knights went

What were the similarities between it and the previous two Crusades?

W/ Second Crusade: ultimately unsuccessful

Not everyone went for religious reasons

Internal rivalry caused delayed action and worked against Christians

Led by Kings

Promise of indulgence

All launched by Papal Bull

Same aim as First Crusade

Initial successes which helped boost moral

What were the key differences?

Muslim world was united and strong

Christians in Third Crusade were united and strong

Third Crusade had superior leadership and tactics

Richard had a military army, unlike the First and Second Crusades where pretty much anyone went

Christians equaled, if not bettered, Muslim military strength

First Crusade was a success

Diplomatic relations between Crusaders and Muslim leaders

Ended peacefully - truce

Death of 2700 Muslims showed brutality

Thomas Madden argues that the Third Crusade was ‘a highly successful expedition’. What evidence do you think he uses to back this up? Do you agree?

Evidence

Crusade resulted in a truce rather than a defeat for the Christians showing that they posed a challenge to the Christians

Got Jaffa and Acre

Most Saladin’s victories after Hattin were wiped out

Crusader Kingdoms healed of divisions

Restoration of coastal cities

Secured peace with Saladin

Levant (eastern Mediterranean) back on its feet again

Crusaders were organised and strategic

Do I agree? Depends on his definition of successful

If he was going by military strength, resolve and perseverance shown by Richard and his troops, then definately

If he was going by the ultimate definition of success: recapturing Jerusalem, then no.

orkidian

When you’re writing aND YOU CAN’T FIND THE RIGHT WORD

notclarandtwelve-deactivated201

http://chir.ag/projects/tip-of-my-tongue/

you’re welcome

whatafirefeelslike

oh-wikipedia

*reblogs for later reference*

Firstly, how many people made it past AS'?!!?!? If so, well done!! If not, chin up! It's really no the end of the world!!

Secondly, how many of us will be doing the dreaded personal statement soon?? What courses are y'all applying for and where??

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Revise