Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Proposal for a National Bank Essay Example for Free
Proposal for a National Bank Essay Before Alexanders proposal for a National Bank, the United States had no place where to store and save their money. The country didnt have a stable economy and needed improvemt in handling the financial business of the United States. By establishing a national bank, the country woould be able to establish financial order, clarity and precedence in and of the newly formed Unted States. It will also establish credidt, both in country and overseas, for the new nation. And finally it was to resolve the issue of the flat currency, which was issued by the Continental congress immediatley prior to and during the United States Revolutionary War. Although he saw a good future with having a National Bank, Jefferson disagreed completly. The secretary of StateThomas Jefferson and Representative James Madison we opposed, in which they claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it only benefited merchants and investores at the expense of the majority of the population. Like most Southern members of Congress, they believed that it would only benefit business interest in the commercial north, not the southern agricultural interest. Also they stated that the creation of a bank violated the Constitution, which specifically stated that the congress was to regulate weights and measures and issue coined money, instead of bills of credit. A strict interpretation of the constitution states that the government those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution, and a loose interpretation of the constitution positis that the government powers that are not specifically denied to it by the constituion. Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution while Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution. The chartering of the First Bank of the United States by the U.S Congress was indeed constitional since it depends on how you interpreate the Constitution. Hamiltons propostition is to create a national bank for the well being of the conutry. He states that in the constitution that they can tax the people and the safest place to put the money they collect is in a bank and in which they are able to take out from. (Doc.A Art l, Sect Vlll, para.18) Also he disliked or disagreeded with the idea of only a specific party can chose the idea for a bank for them and believes that the federal government should be supreme over state government.(Doc.B) There are many adavntages of having a national bank. Some advantages if having a bank is government can loan money to people,they can take money from the bank to use for emergancies and they can store their money as well as the advantage that they can print money.(Doc.D) Congress can chose any means not specifically prohibited by the constitution to achieve a constitution end. If the end is constitution and the means is not unconstitutional then the means is also constitutional. (Doc.F)Hamiltons had a clear idea of how he saw the country after having a national bank and saw the future of the country in a capable stand. In the other hand, Thomas Jefferson had acomplete view of how the country might fall into complee disaster if he allows a national bank. He states that he would accepted the idea of a bank but the problem is that he only wants to have gold and silver as coins to pay with but not other types of moniatry. He also says that it is not in the constitutiton that the federalist can create banks so he says that only the state can He also states that it shold be up to the people to decide if they want a bank or not.(Doc.A Art.l, Sec.X, para.l) As well as this he believes that it shows that they are giving all nthe power to someone if they create a bank, that it will ruin state government and that he has the support of the South and West since they are as well farmers. He believes that the North has factories so they had to ask loans from the bank. Also Jefferson feared that the bank would give loans to the merchants in the North instead of giving it to the farmers. (Doc.C) He views that the manufactures might make banking as a business and take adavntage of th famers and lower classess(Doc. E) This does not only worried Thomas Jefferson but James Madison as well. He is really worried about that it will interfer with state bank. As well believes that if the farmers need money, they might not be able to get that help(Doc.G). Both Believe that this change in the country will hurt the greatly and they dont want to be regreating later on when there might not be a possible to change it or even fix it a little. The reason why the chartering of the First Bank of the United States by the U.S Congress was constitutional is beacause it is just pure common sense to have a secure place to keep and hold their money. They couldnt just keep hiding their money under there beds or even in pots since everyone did it in the same place, roberes would know exactly where it is. It is nescecary to have a bank so they ahve a place where to keep it. Also the idea that the federal government is supreme over the state government is key. I agree with the idea of creating a national bank but i believe that it should be up to the poeple if they would like to have one or not. They are they ones who will be living it day by day and with either take adavantage or miss the opprtunity of a life time. Althought Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson disagreed in many occasions and for many reasons, both were looking in to the well being of the country and thats what counts the most. Not only because either of them say so but because in the constitution it states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This e=means that it should be up to the state ot people to decide so what better way than to have the people decide if wheter or not they believe they should have on. Their opinon is what counts the most since it is stated in the Constitution, Freedom of Speach.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Grading System Reform Essay example -- Argumentative Persuasive Educat
Grading System Reform Teachers have always used grades to measure the amount a student has learned. This practice is becoming ineffective. Many students have a wide range of grades, which show that grades may not show what a student really knows. Therefore, the standard grading system should be replaced. Some reasons why grades should be replaced are bad grades can hinder a child’s performance, grades define who a student is in the classroom, and grades are not an effective way to see if students have learned the material. The current grading system should be upgraded and every school should incorporate the plus/minus system in their method of grading. The public high schools began a grading system as a way of telling an individual how they were performing. There was no interest by the public in reporting the school’s progress at teaching. Teachers, in an effort to recognize outstanding performers, looked for a way of rewarding hard-working students for their efforts The grading structure changed from superior and excellent to A’s and B’s. This placed much of the burden of recognizing academic talent on the high schools. Hindering a student’s performance with a bad grade in the middle of the year can make them give up for the rest of the year. Once a student has received a bad grade they might lose faith in their academic ability. By giving up a student does not reflect their academic ability and their bad grades are not based on what they learned. Students are... Grading System Reform Essay example -- Argumentative Persuasive Educat Grading System Reform Teachers have always used grades to measure the amount a student has learned. This practice is becoming ineffective. Many students have a wide range of grades, which show that grades may not show what a student really knows. Therefore, the standard grading system should be replaced. Some reasons why grades should be replaced are bad grades can hinder a child’s performance, grades define who a student is in the classroom, and grades are not an effective way to see if students have learned the material. The current grading system should be upgraded and every school should incorporate the plus/minus system in their method of grading. The public high schools began a grading system as a way of telling an individual how they were performing. There was no interest by the public in reporting the school’s progress at teaching. Teachers, in an effort to recognize outstanding performers, looked for a way of rewarding hard-working students for their efforts The grading structure changed from superior and excellent to A’s and B’s. This placed much of the burden of recognizing academic talent on the high schools. Hindering a student’s performance with a bad grade in the middle of the year can make them give up for the rest of the year. Once a student has received a bad grade they might lose faith in their academic ability. By giving up a student does not reflect their academic ability and their bad grades are not based on what they learned. Students are...
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Hamlet and Othello Essay
The two plays by William Shakespeare, Hamlet and Othello, reflect the Renaissance philosophy, with its most important schools- Platonism, Aristotelianism and Humanism, especially in their treatment of human nature and human condition. The works of the two philosophers – Plato and Aristotle, which formed the basis of the two movements that took the names of their initiators, were reinterpreted by many scholars of the Medieval and Renaissance period, and of the later periods. Platonism and Aristotelianism were opposed philosophies in their first articulation. The Platonists believed that there is a world of abstractions, the pure world of ideas. The characteristics of the material objects, formed an abstract world, which was moreover, the true word. For example, the Platonist school of thought implied that the material world was only a reflection of the perfect world of ideas, that is, a beautiful object is only the reflection of the idea of beauty. Aristotle revised these ideas that Plato had first initiated, and proposed an opposed view, which was based on an empirical way of knowing the world, and which constituted the first step towards natural science. The two doctrines referred obviously to both ontological and epistemological facts about the world. On the other hand, the Renaissance humanism which was actually the most characteristic philosophy for this period, emphasized the nobility of human nature, and the powers of human intellect and spirit, while joining the two main philosophies – Platonism and Aristotelianism. As Brian Copenhaver and Charles Schmitt observed in their Renaissance Philosophy, both Platonism and Aristotelianism presented many problems for the humanists and for the theologians as well, like, for instance the transmigration of souls and other beliefs which seemed incompatible with Christianity: â€Å"Why should an upwardly mobile scholar or bureaucrat sympathize with Plato’s elitism? Were humanists not troubled by his scorn for poets and rhetoricians? Plato’s advocacy of communism and advertisement of homosexuality invited political and social complaint. Even his renowned piety seemed out of tune with a philosophy that made matter eternal, the human soul preexistent and migratory, and the gods and demons many, powerful, and worthy of worship. As the Renaissance came to know Plato better, discussion of his thought could not have been other than complex and divided, and the controversy had been prepared by an anti-Platonic tradition long sustained by pagans and Christians alike. As early modern thinkers developed new modes of reading unknown to antiquity and the Middle Ages, Plato’s compatibility with Christianity remained the leading question. â€Å"(Copenhaver, 129) However, many of the ideas of the two philosophies were either kept or reinterpreted as the main philosophical views at the time of Renaissance, and this is very well reflected in the plays of William Shakespeare. In Hamlet, which is one of Shakespeare’s plays that most approaches a metaphysical view of human nature seems to waver in its essential purport upon the edge separating Platonism from Aristotelianism. One of the greatest dilemmas in Hamlet is that of individual action. Shakespeare’s prince of Denmark is called upon to revenge the murder of his father. As critics have observed repeatedly, on of the most essential and telling things in the play is Hamlet hesitation when he has to take definite action against the murderer. One of the essential differences between the humanists who advocated Plato’s theory and the ones who adopted Aristotelianism, was that between the contemplative life that was characteristic of the Platonic movement and that of active life as presented by Aristotle. Various philosophers of the Renaissance took up one or the other of the two doctrines, and encouraged either contemplation or action: â€Å"Ficino’s work (†¦) also glorified the contemplative life and professed an ascetic contempt for the material world not in keeping with the pragmatic interests of the civic humanists. But to see the Aristotelian Argyropoulos as champion of the active life and the Platonist Ficino as prophet of contemplative quietism is too simple. For one thing, Argyropoulos seems to have intended no activist propaganda in his teaching, and, even more important, Ficino’s theory of the contemplative life kept his philosophy attractive to the politically and economically vigorous Florentines who supported him. Always urging the ascent of the soul, Ficino presented the contemplative life as the final step in a hierarchy of human action that led people to surpass the active life without utterly denying it; lived well, the active life becomes a step on the way to escaping matter and uniting with God. It was the genius of Neoplatonism to open channels between the divine and the mundane that transcended the world while preserving it as a platform for ascent to the godhead.†(Copenhaver, 144) Hamlet seems to be a contemplative character altogether, for whom the ideal world of abstract moral values constitutes the guiding principle. When he is faced with the baseness of the many crimes that occur in his own family, he postpones taking action and revenging his father. Moreover, the revenge takes place almost accidentally at the end of the play.            His hesitation in front of these â€Å"material†problems is relevant for his Neo- Platonic frame of thought:            â€Å"How all occasions do inform against me,            And spur my dull revenge. What is a man            If his chief good and market if his time            Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.            Sure he that made us with such large discourse,            Looking before and after, gave us not            That capability and godlike reason            To fust in us unus’d. [†¦]†(Ham. IV. 4. 32-39) It becomes obvious from Hamlet’s speech that his reflections regarding human condition and human nature are based on main principles of both Humanism and Platonic thinking: man is seen alternately by Hamlet as a superior being endowed with â€Å"godlike reason†and a beast, whose main concerns are its primary needs. That is, Hamlet’s own ideas about the world and about man, which are essentially idealistic and Platonist, meet with an obvious obstacle in the material world, where he sees the baseness of character of both his uncle and his mother. An even more poignant example of how he is repelled by the idea of a purely material world in which the spiritual realities he believes in are hardly perceptible is his unjust condemnation of Ophelia, whom he blames without proof for the frailty he sees in his own mother. Hamlet ponders himself on his own hesitation in when he is supposed to take action, and realizes that his wavering comes from what he calls â€Å"thinking too precisely on the event†( Ham. IV. 4. 41), that is to say, his own contemplative nature and the need to understand first and meditate on the event, as well as to judge it, prevent him from taking action. At the end of the monologue however, he determines that his â€Å"thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth†( Ham. IV. 4. 66), that is, he chooses action over contemplation, as he feels he is compelled by the events to mend things and do justice to his father’s death. Thus, it can be said that Hamlet has to take action and reestablish the ethical order in the world, which had been so terribly disturbed by the crimes which took place in his family. This structuring of the events reflects the Renaissance philosophical context, which blended Platonism with Aristotelianism and Humanism. First of all, according to the Platonists man should tend to contemplation of the ideal world, and live in the purer world of the spirit, not be limited to the material one. The protagonists in Hamlet, that is the king and the queen, have sinned against these precepts by giving in to desire of power and to lust. The fact that Hamlet feels that he needs to take action is in tuning with the humanist idea that man can reestablish the divine order and that, in order to do that, he must play the part that is required of him in the material world. Thus, the two worlds- the material and transcendental are not completely separate, and the Renaissance man believed that the spiritual perfection can be reached through action as well, insofar as this would imply reestablishing the divine order. In Othello, similar ideas appear about individual action. Othello too is called upon to take action against what he believes was the betrayal of his wife Desdemona. However, the first significant difference between Hamlet and Othello is that the latter is a moor, that is a colored man, of a different race and religion. The Renaissance views on the subject of race are very significant in the context of the play, and are reflected especially in Othello’s character, which appears to be the very opposite of that of Hamlet. If Hamlet is of a contemplative nature, given to musings about the nature of man and his place in the world, Othello is a rough, impulsive man who acts without hesitation, but also, acts when he shouldn’t. He is easily deceived by Iago and therefore he believes him when he tries to inflict him with false ideas about Desdemona’s love. Thus, Othello, who like Hamlet, can be said to perform an act of revenge, actually does something which is useless and, moreover, unjust. Othello’s character is also evident at the end of the play, after he kills Desdemona and confesses the manner in which he loved her: â€Å"one that loved not wisely, but too well†(V.2.340). Thus, his own statement reveals the nature of his impulsive and tempestuous character and emotions: he was capable of true and strong love, although he did not love â€Å"wisely†. This proves essentially that Hamlet and Othello are two opposite characters, both acting in the name of revenge, although for different reasons, Hamlet in his attempt at reestablishing the moral order and Othello in the name of love. However, if Hamlet hesitates to take action for most of the play, and moreover, chooses the device of the staged play to commence his revenge, that is, another intellectual, contemplative device, Othello takes action without judging the events for himself, but being merely influenced by what Iago was telling him. Othello is a military character in a way, who is prone to take action and fight:            â€Å"Farewell the tranquil mind! farewell content! Farewell the plumed troops, and the big wars That makes ambition virtue! 0, farewell![†¦] The royal banner, and all quality, Pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war! And O you mortal engines, whose rude throats Th’ immortal Jove’s dread clamors counterfeit, Farewell! Othello’s occupation’s gone. ( Othello, 3.3.347-57) It is interesting to notice that both Othello and Hamlet may be paralleled to Cervantes’ Don Quixote. Hamlet lives interiorly in a Platonic world, which could be likened to Don Quixote’s confusion of the books of romance with actual reality. Don Quixote lives in the world of the stories he has read, and moreover, those stories are chivalric romances, that is stories of quest and exemplary deeds which aim at mending the world and which are always fraught with symbolic meaning. But, he needs to accomplish the deeds that fill his fantasy, and although it can’t be said that he does so, he does act. In Don Quixote thus, action is itself unreal, since his chivalric deeds are not what he believes they are: â€Å"Were those mud walls in thy fantasy, Sancho,’ quoth Don Quixote, ‘where or thorough which thou sawest that never-enough-praised gentleness and beauty? They were not so, but galleries, walks, or goodly stone pavementsâ€â€or how call ye ‘em?â€â€of rich and royal palaces.†(Cervantes II, 489) The chivalric romances which are Don Quixote’s faith are also that of Othello in a way, because of the latter’s military character, and his search for adventures. Othello’s love for Desdemona also has something of the chivalric about it. Thus, all the three characters, Hamlet, Othello and Don Quixote evince the same Platonist and Aristotelian dilemmas of contemplation and the spiritual versus action and the material.
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Evolution of Stone Tools Grahame Clarks Lithic Modes
The making of stone tools is a characteristic that archaeologists use to define what is human. Simply using an object to assist with some task indicates a progression of conscious thought, but actually making a custom tool to perform that task is the great leap forward. The tools that survive down to today were made of stone. There may have been tools made of bone or other organic materials before the appearance of stone tools--certainly, many primates use those today--but no evidence for that survives in the archaeological record. The oldest stone tools that we have evidence for are from the earliest sites dated to the Lower Paleolithic--which shouldnt come as a surprise since the term Paleolithic means Old Stone and the definition of the beginning of the Lower Paleolithic period is when stone tools were first made. Those tools are believed to have been made by Homo habilis, in Africa, about 2.6 million years ago, and are typically called Oldowan Tradition. The next major leap forward originated in Africa about 1.4 million years ago, with the Acheulean tradition of biface reduction and the famous Acheulean handaxe spread out into the world with the movement of H. erectus. Levallois and Stone Making The next broad leap forward recognized in stone tool technology was the Levallois technique, a stone tool making process that involved a planned and sequenced pattern of removing stone flakes from a prepared core (called bifacial reduction sequence). Traditionally, Levallois was considered an invention of archaic modern humans about 300,000 years ago, thought to be spread outside of Africa with the spread of humans. However, recent investigations at the site of Nor Geghi in Armenia (Adler et al. 2014) recovered evidence for an obsidian stone tool assemblage with Levallois characteristics firmly dated to Marine Isotope Stage 9e, about 330,000-350,000 years ago, earlier than the presumed human exit from Africa. This discovery, in combination with other similarly dated discoveries throughout Europe and Asia, suggests that the technological development of the Levallois technique was not a single invention, but rather a logical outgrowth of the well-established Acheulean biface tradition. Grahame Clarks Lithic Modes Scholars have wrestled with identifying a progression of stone tool technology since the Stone Age was first proposed by C.J. Thomsen back in the early 19th century. Cambridge archaeologist Grahame Clark, [1907-1995] came up with a workable system in 1969, when he published a progressive mode of tool types, a classification system that is still in use today. Mode 1: Pebble cores and flake tools, early Lower Paleolithic, Chellean, Tayacian, Clactonian, OldowanMode 2: Large bifacial cutting tools made from flakes and cores such as Acheulean handaxes, cleavers, and picks, later Lower Paleolithic, Abbevillian, Acheulean. Developed in Africa, ~1.75 million years ago and spread into Eurasia with H. erectus about 900,000 years ago.Mode 3: Flake tools struck from prepared cores, with an overlapping sequence of flake removal (sometimes referred to as faà §onnage) system - including the Levallois technology, Middle Paleolithic, Levallois, Mousterian, arose during the Late Acheulean at the onset of the Middle Stone Age/Middle Paleolithic, about 300,000 years ago.Mode 4: Punch-struck prismatic blades retouched into various specialized forms such as endscrapers, burins, backed blades and points, Upper Paleolithic, Aurignacian, Gravettian, SolutreanMode 5: Retouched microliths and other retouched components of composite tools, Later Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, Magdalenian, Azilian, Maglemosian, Sauveterrian, Tardenoisan John Shea: Modes A through I John J. Shea (2013, 2014, 2016), arguing that long-standing named stone tool industries are proving obstacles to understanding evolutionary relationships among Pleistocene hominids, has proposed a more nuanced set of lithic modes. Sheas matrix has yet to be broadly adopted, but in my opinion, it is an enlightening way to think about the progression of the complexity of stone tool making. Mode A: Stone percussors; pebbles, cobbles or rock fragments which have been damaged by repeated percussion. Hammerstones, pestles, anvilsMode B: Bipolar cores; rock fragments which have been broken by setting the core on a hard surface and striking it with a hammerstoneMode C: Pebble cores / non-hierarchical cores; rock fragments from which flakes have been removed by percussionMode D: Retouched flakes; flakes that have had a series of cone and bending fractures removed from their edges; includes retouched cutting-edge flakes (D1), backed/truncated flakes (D2), burins (D3), and retouched microliths (D4)Mode E: Elongated core tools; roughly symmetrically worked objects that are longer than wide, known as bifaces, and include large cutting tools (10 cm in length) such as Acheulean handaxes and picks (E1), thinned bifaces (E2); bifacial core tools with notches such as tanged points (E3), celts (E4)Mode F: Bifacial hierarchical cores; a clear relationship between the first and subsequen t fractures, includes preferential bifacial hierarchical cores, with at least one flake detached (F1) and recurrent, which includes faà §onnage stoneworking (F2)Mode G: Unifacial hierarchical cores; with a roughly planar striking platform at a right angle to the flake release surface; including platform cores (G1) and blade cores (G2)Mode H: Edge-ground tools; tools in which the edge was created by grinding and polishing, celts, knives, adzes, etcMode I: Groundstone tools; made by cycles of percussion and abrasion Sources Adler DS, Wilkinson KN, Blockley SM, Mark DF, Pinhasi R, Schmidt-Magee BA, Nahapetyan S, Mallol D, Berna F, Glauberman PJ et al.. 2014. Early Levallois technology and the Lower to Middle Paleolithic transition in the Southern Caucasus. Science 345(6204):1609-1613. Clark, G. 1969. World Prehistory: A New Synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shea, John J. Lithic Modes A–I: A New Framework for Describing Global-Scale Variation in Stone Tool Technology Illustrated with Evidence from the East Mediterranean Levant. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 20, Issue 1, SpringerLink, March 2013. Shea JJ. 2014. Sink the Mousterian? Named stone tool industries (NASTIES) as obstacles to investigating hominin evolutionary relationships in the Later Middle Paleolithic Levant. Quaternary International 350(0):169-179. Shea JJ. 2016. Stone Tools in Human Evolution: Behavioral Differences among Technological Primates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)