Do You Agree with the View That in the Years 1515-1525...

Do you agree with the view that in the years 1515-1525 Henry VIII wholly surrendered power in government to Cardinal Wolsey? To a certain extent within †¨Source 4 (by J.J. Scarisbrick 1968) supports the idea that possibly Henry VIII actually did surrender power over to Wolsey. The evidence within the source that suggests this possibly for being the truth is ‘a self-indulgent King had wholly surrendered the cares of the state into the Cardinals hands’. To further support this case, it is clear that Wolsey was extremely powerful, he had vast amounts of bishoprics (Archbishop of Canterbury, Tournai, Durham just to name a few) and was the head of things such as the Star Chamber where Wolsey got himself heavily involved with. This is shown†¦show more content†¦However, Source 5 written in 1994 by John Lotherington, appears to disagree with that of the view of source 4. In parts it appears to actually agree with source 4, ‘Wolsey held a dominant position in government and controlled the distribution of patronage’ but then the source continues to say, ‘And of course t he ultimate source of all power was the King’. This quote can be proven true with examples of Henry preventing Wolsey from doing something, such as in 1523 when Wolsey launched a sea attack upon the French without the kings permission, this led to Wolsey having to apologize for his actions. This shows that Henry still had control over Wolsey and that he couldn’t get away with something so easily. Also even though source 4 claims that Wolsey had very strong control, that even with this power he couldn’t prevent such things like The Amicable Grant of 1525 from being a disaster, and without aids from The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk it could have been an even more disastrous, this proves Henry was more in control than Wolsey because the Dukes only subdued the rebellions on Henry’s behalf, not Wolsey’s. This is showing how Henry had not wholly surrendered his government power, and could still contest Wolsey’s decisions and problems. The source w as also written in 1994, therefore the historians view is likely to be more factual rather than written in the period and being more biased, as can be the case, especially if that figure in

A Day at the Races Essay Example For Students

A Day at the Races Essay My family and I were sitting in our car, on our way to the horse racing as we did every year. My mum was dressed up in her finest clothes for the event. We were listening to the radio and on nearly every channel there was something on to do with the races, looking outside my window all I could see was the shuffling of people on the busy streets, going this way and that way. We werent far away from the RDS only about twenty minutes with the traffic. My dad was getting impatient with how slow the traffic was moving, as he did every year. When we get to the RDS it was about half past twelve and the races were just starting. The entire arena was packed full of men, women and children, all of which were dressed in their best clothes, we were not an exception. My father and brother walked up to the window to place his bet, while my mother dragged me over to the stalls to look at boots, jewelry and hats. My dad soon came over to say that the races would be restarting. I always loved the races, from the hectic, colorful environment to the beautifully groomed horses. My father asked which horse I would like to place a small bet on. I picked a horse named Diamond. When my father showed me the horse I picked out, I saw the most beautiful horse Ive ever seen, prettier then every horse that was at this years race and every years before that. She was a dark brown color and her coat was so shiny, it was almost reflective. Her mane was an amazing platinum color and it was braided. My father bet 100/1 on that horse. Everybody was excited when the races started, my horse had a bad start but soon made a great recovery and was coming up to first place, she passed the first horse just as it was about to cross the finish line, and came in first. All of my family cheered for the horse and we went up to the stall to collect our reward, we won two hundred Euros and my mother and father said that we could get some food a one of the stalls. We went up to one of the food stalls and ordered some fish and chips and a can of coke each. When we were finished eating my brother and father took some of the winning to buy something for themselves, while me and my mother went over to the same stalls that she was looking at earlier and picked out a pretty necklace for herself and I picked out a blue bracelet for myself. My mother and i continued to shop picking out clothes, shoes and jewelry for awhile, but then went back to meet my father and my brother to see one last race before it was time to go home. After the race was over, me and the rest of my family left the arena and walked back to the car. When we got home we were all exhausted and ready to fall asleep on our beds, but we were still a little excited because of the event of the day.

Winter Girl and Maureen free essay sample

Claudia and Frieda envy Maureen, but then they also adore her because of her beauty. They thought she was so perfect that they â€Å"looked hard for flaws to restore their equilibrium†. 6 3) When they found out Maureen was born with six fingers on e ach hand, and had a dog tooth they smiled. â€Å"We took what we could get-snickering behind her back and calling her Six-finger-dog-tooth-meringue-pie. But we had to do it alone, for none of the others girls would cooperate with our hostility†. (63) When Frieda, Claudia and Maureen see a group of boys in a circle. They see the boys (Bay Boy, Woodrow Cain, Buddy Wilson, Junie Bug) harassing Pecola. As they harass Pecola they chant â€Å"Black e mo. Black e mo. Yadaddsleepsnekked. Black e mo black e mo ya dadd sleeps nekked. Black e mo †(65) Frieda breaks up the harassing circle of boys by dropping her books down on Woodrow Cain’s head and threatening to reveals one of his secrets. We will write a custom essay sample on Winter: Girl and Maureen or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page When Maureen appears in front of the boys, the boys stop immediately as if they were put into a trance by her springtime eyes. â€Å"They buckled in confusion, not willing to beat up three girls under her watchful gaze. †(65) The boys leave. The boys’ chant shows me self-hatred in them. They consider themselves black and ugly too. Instead of them showing their ugliness, they keep it inside of them and cause pain to others. â€Å"It was their contempt for their own blackness that gave the first insult its teeth. They seemed to have taken all of their smoothly cultivated ignorance, their exquisitely learned self-hatred, their elaborately designed hopelessness and sucked it up into a fiery cone of scorn that had burned for ages in the hollows of their minds†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (65) Claudia and Frieda begin to accept Maureen when they see Maureen friendliness towards Pecola and when she offers to buy her ice cream. When it comes clear to Claudia that Maureen isn’t offering her or Frieda ice cream, she quickly tries to hide the fact that she â€Å"fully expected Maureen to buy her and Frieda some ice cream, that for the past 120 seconds she had been selecting the flavor, and that she didn’t have a penny. †(69) Maureen offers Pecola ice cream to be nice because of the harassing boys. The girls’ fascination with pop culture represents the beauty they want to have. Ladies like Betty Grable’s appearance at the Dreamland Theater (69) is mentioned, as well as Hedy Lamarr’s whom Claudia mentions. Mr. Henry uses the names of Ginger Rogers and Greta Garbo as pet names for Claudia and Frieda, as if being called by the names of these famous white beauties would be perceived as a great compliment. Pecola is referenced to a mulatto girl in the movie Imitation of Life. The girls talk about Hedy Lamarr and how â€Å"she doesn’t even menstrate yet, and she’s sixteen year’s old. (70) She goes on to ask Pecola if she menstruates yet, and as we all know she is. Maureen reveals that she is too, and she has been for the last two months. â€Å"Do you know what it is for? † Pecola asked. For babies. † Maureen raised two pencil-stroke eyebrows at the obviousness of the question. â€Å"Did you ever see a naked man? †(71) This starts the whole confrontation between the girls and Maureen. As the girls are walking home Maureen keeps harassing Pecola about if she has ever seen her daddy naked? Pecola blinked, then looked away. â€Å"No. Even when Pecola s ays no, Maureen keeps on pounding the question on her trying to get it out of her. Frieda and Claudia can’t withstand the peer pressure over Pecola anymore and come to her rescue by confronting Maureen. You stop talking bout her daddy. †(72) â€Å"What do I care about her old black daddy? † asked Maureen. When you hear this from Maureen you get the sense that she knows she is better than the other girls because of her fascinating beauty. Frieda doesn’t want to go to Isaley’s because she say’s â€Å"suppose Meringue Pie (Maureen) is hanging around. You want to run into her, Claudia. †(76) So they go to Miss Bertha’s. When the girls return home from Miss Bertha’s, instead of seeing their mother they see Mr. Henry and two women. Mr. Henry is sucking the finger of one of the women. The girls quickly identify these women as China, and the Maginot Line two whores, whom Mama and Big Mama hated. â€Å"Back already? †(78) This is what Mr. Henry say’s as the girls return home. Frieda ask Mr. Henry who were the two women in the house? Mr. Henry replies by saying they are member of his bible class, and they came over to read with him today. â€Å"Bed† not mention it to your mother. She don’t take to so much Bible study and don’t like me having visitors’ even if they good Christians. †(79) The girls agree so they don’t have to hear their mother’s mouth.

The Question Concerning Technology Essay

The Question Concerning Technology Essay The aim of this essay is to provide a critical analysis of the reading ‘The Question Concerning Technology’. The author argues that the most important concepts brought about by Heidegger in his critically acclaimed essay are bringing forth, gestell and challenging forth. With this background, the following sections analyses the possibilities buried in these bringing forth, and succeeds the analysis with an assessment of technology through the eyes of Heidegger. The paper is divided into several parts, with the first being a summary of the question concerning technology in simpler terms than those of the original author. The second section is a commentary that includes an understanding of the concept of bringing forth, whereas the third section is the discussion of the relevance of the Question Concerning Technology. Summary of ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ Whereas most papers written about technology normally orientate themselves towards practical issues that cloud the implementation of given technologies, Heidegger chooses to narrow his scope on the school of thought that drives technology. Heidegger (1977, p. 3) argues that humans form a certain level of friendship with technology the moment they understand this school of thought. Firstly, Heidegger dismisses the apparent attribute that technology has been accorded, which implies that it is just a means to an end, and brings to his reader an analogy of the craftsmanship. Here, his opinion is that in the ancient times, craftsmanship occurred in four distinct causes, namely, efficient, final, formal and material. From the face value, it is not unusual to consider the most important of the four causes as the efficient cause of craftsmanship. On the contrary, the craftsman understands that none of the four causes is more glorified over the other, and, as such, they are all considered equ ally during the process of meditation and artistry of uniting them together into one item. It is while at this point that Heidegger reiterates, ‘The four ways of being responsible bring something into appearance. They let it come forth into presencing’ (1977, p. 9). He further comes up with a most-befitting term for the process, which he names bringing-forth, which is not simply a descriptive genre under which the four causes are considered, but a cohesive progression, ‘a single leading-forth to which [each of the causes] is indebted’ (Lovitt, 1972, p. 46). He further notes that bringing-forth ‘comes to pass only insofar as something concealed comes into unconcealment’ (1977, p. 11). His meaning here is that, rather than the craftsman claiming that he/she has created the item of art, he/she has only just revealed that which was concealed – a point which Heidegger elaborates in ‘The Thing’ with the making of a jug. Putting his analogy into context, Heidegger argues that modern technology uses the technique of challenging forth to reveal that which is hidden. The difference between challenging forth and the prior concept is that it involves the artist invoking both a sense of order and rapacity. This is to say that, while humans were one important element of the process of production, they now assume the role of control in production during challenging forth. Another most important component of challenging forth is efficiency, which is exemplified by the by the earth being set upon to produce the most quantity of or using the least amount of effort. In essence, challenging forth alters the view with which one envisions the world because it enables one ‘to be capable of transforming a forest into packaging for cheeseburgers, man must see the forest not as a display of the miracle of life, but as raw material, pure and simple’ (Zimmerman, 1977, p. 79). In challenging forth, production process brings to light those items which otherwise would have remained standing reserve following their being reduced to disposability. Disposability here comes in two dimensions, the first of is a technical application, implying that they are arranged and ordered with ease, like logs that are made from the chaos of a forest, which are now weighed, counted, shipped and piled. The second implication is that they are disposable in the original sense of the word, like razors and diapers that are replaced without a pine of pain for they are of little value. It is not unusual for one to wonder what push humans into challenging forth, an act which in itself is not laudable for the most part. Heidegger, pondering on this line of thought, postulates that there exists a phenomenon that ‘sets upon man to order the real as standing-reserve’ (1977, p. 19). The term he uses to define this phenomenon is enframing (Ge-stell in German). ‘Ge-stell’ is a word that combines definitions from the -stellen family of German verbs, which include entrapped (nachstellen), commanded (bestellen), and ordered (bestellen) (Harries 1994, p. 229). According to Heidegger, the default state of humans is being trapped by Ge-stell; which is what he means when he notes that ‘as the one who is challenged forth in this way, man stands within the essential realm of [Ge-stell]. He can never take up a relationship to it only subsequently’ (1977, p. 24; Sallis, 1971, p. 162). For Heidegger (1997, p. 25), human beings have different ‘ordainings of destining’, the default of which is that of Ge-stell, though there is also a possibility that one might choose a different road. In his argument, Heidegger notes that a special role as been granted humans, known b the name ‘Shepherds of Being’ (Ballard, 1971, p. 60). However, within the Ge-stell trap, we have the option of revealing things by way of bringing forth, which is why Hedegger makes the comment, ‘Placed between these possibilities, man is endangered from out of destining’ (1977, p. 26). Humans then clutch the ‘saving power’, with which they realise that, being the ‘shepherds of being’, they can bring forth rather than challenge forth. This implies that, if humans understand the school of thought behind technology, they get he freedom of choosing their fate – ‘we are already sojourning in the open space of destining’ (He idegger, 1977, p. 26). Critical Commentary on ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ Bringing forth If one were to draw conclusions about Plato and Aristotle solely from Heidegger’s remarks in ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, one would think that craftsmanship was a central issue for both of these ancient thinkers. Furthermore, from the warm light in which Heidegger bathes the craftsman, one might also come to believe that Plato and Aristotle have a certain reverence for craftsmen and the process of craftsmanship. Plato and Aristotle’s attitudes toward craftsmanship, however, can (at best) be described as ambivalent. In the Politics, Aristotle remarks, ‘†¦ no man can practice excellence who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer’ (1995, 1278a20). Craftsmen and craftsmanship receive a more favorable treatment in Plato, but Plato still makes the following unfriendly remark: If an offspring of [the guardians] should be found to have a mixture of iron or bronze, they must not pity him in any way, but give him the rank appropriate to his nature and drive him out to join the craftsmen and farmers. (1997, 415bc) A more serious problem with the notion of bringing-forth concerns the idea of revealing/unconcealment. Recall Heidegger’s comment in ‘The Thing’: The jug is not a vessel because it was made; rather, the jug had to be made because it is this holding vessel. The making †¦ lets the jug come into its own. But that which in the jug’s nature is its own is never brought about by its making. (1971, p. 168). Clearly, there is some sort of Platonic pre-existence at work here- the jug, apparently, pre-exists as concealed and is revealed through the co-responsible action of the four causes. The Overall Impact of ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ In general, it remains noteworthy that most documentations on technology deal only with pieces of it. While they are valuable in that they underline the functionalities of technology and their possible future direction, they leave out a very significant dimension of technology, which then goes unnoticed. This is the way of thinking that lies behind the creation and use of technology, in which most commentators might have discovered exiting new pathways of their thinking, had they been able to wade through ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, and other works of Heidegger, some of which also relate to environmental ethics. Had there been some dignity intricate in all living things, then there would be need to give more respect to the world, and this is the case. If the world continues to undergo destruction in the hands of humans by their entrapment in challenging forth, there is need to make systematic steps of freeing people from their ideological prison. One way in which this can be achieved is altering some vital components of the education system. One big success factor for ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ is its shift away from individual components of technology towards the school of thought behind it. There, nevertheless, exists a danger in this success, which is that it may turn the focus on the school of thought that lies behind technology so much as to obscure the meaningful distinction in the world. In a remark that was originally a part of ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, but was later excised (Harries, 1994, p. 233), this danger manifests itself: Agriculture is now a motorized food industry- in essence the same as the anufacture of corpses in the gas chambers and extermination campus, the same as the blockading and starvation of nations, the same as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs. (Ferry Renaut, 1990, p. 71) (Schirmacher, 1983, p. 25) In the statement above, what Heidegger is pointing out is that concentration camps and modern agriculture are already implementing the process of challenging forth into standing reserve. Clearly, however, to say that modern agriculture and the death camps are ‘in essence the same’ obviates meaningful empirical distinctions and trivializes the significance of the extermination camps. Rorty notes, ‘Heidegger needed to see everything in our century other than its technologism as mere transitory appearance’ (1994, p. 36). Heidegger’s philosophy also fails on the account that it fails to acknowledge the benefits of technology. For instance, it would be worthy to note that lives of people are greatly improved by the presence of the hydroelectric dam across the Rhine and, as Rorty (1977, p. 302) notes, the multiplication of technology across the earth has in itself prevented large numbers of people from starving to death. Note worthily, however, despite his lack of acknowledgment for the significance of technology, Heidegger never urges humans to give it up. This leaves humans with the ultimate option of saying yes to the unavoidable use of technology, and at the same time saying no to technological confusion, and wastage would engulf and destroy our existence (1966, p. 54). This brings to mind the clichà © of having one’s cake and eating it too, which is what humans try to do when they try to conveniently say ‘yes’ to the modern technologies that make our lives so comfortable , while somehow apparently saying ‘no’ to them as well. The greatest difficulties with ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, however, are technical rather than ideological. Conclusion To conclude, it is worth noting that the ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ is a set of very important tools, namely, bringing-forth, challenging-forth to standing-reserve, and Ge-stell, all of which are very useful. As such, their proper use can unlock the keys to repairing the broken relationship that exist between the world and humans. In Republic Plato (1997) notes that ‘†¦ if it is appropriate for anyone to use falsehoods for the good of the city †¦ it is the rulers’ (398b). While others might suggest that harbingers of indoctrination (the Platonic view that serves to tell the noble, educational lie to the masses) are what precede the defence of Heidegger, having based his arguments on the grounds of usefulness. Perhaps, however, a time has come when philosophers need not apologize for advocating the noble lie; the elites have already told the people a plethora of lies, most of which are ignoble.

Duramold - Fairchild - Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose

Duramold - Fairchild - Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose In the late 1930s, aircraft of composite materials began to appear made of plastic-impregnated wood materials called duramold. The most famous and largest aircraft of duramold construction was the eight-engine Howard Hughes flying boat dubbed the Spruce Goose. Sherman Mills Fairchild According to the Fairchild Corporation, In the mid-1930s, Fairchild pioneered the application of composite structures to airframe design and production - duramold. The adhesive bonding processes and techniques are still followed in the manufacture of composite structures today. Fairchild also developed the first nine-lens mapping camera for the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1936. Duramold Aircraft Spruce Goose The Spruce Goose was not the first airplane to use duramold material. Many small planes had been built using duramold during the early thirties by the Fairchild Aviation. The Spruce Goose was originally conceived by Henry J. Kaiser, a steel maker and builder of Liberty ships. The aircraft was designed, constructed, and engineered by Howard Hughes and his staff. The Spruce Gooses exterior was created with material using the duramold process of laminating plywood and it was the largest plane ever to fly. In 1947, Millionaire Howard Hughes became the first person to pilot the Spruce Goose. Spruce Goose Howard Hughes Becomes The First Person To Fly The Spruce Goose In 1905, Howard Hughes was born in Houston, Texas. Hughes inherited the patent rights to an oil tool drill made by the Hughes Tool Company. A millionaire, Howard Hughes both inherited and made his own money. An adventurous soul, he formed the Hughes Aircraft Corporation and loved to pilot planes and break aviation records. After flying across America, Howard Hughes turned to movie making and formed his own motion picture studio.

Automotive Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Automotive - Assignment Example The rate of motor vehicles deregistration stands at 20% yearly. However, the owners of the abandoned motor vehicles are not easily traced. The New Zealand authorities always try to locate the owners of the abandoned vehicles. Their search at times pays. The authorities are able to locate about 35% of the abandoned car owner. However, this rate is minimal compared to the rate of vehicles which are being abandoned yearly (Kenny, 2001). New Zealand had a total of 1.5 million passengers’ cars in the year 1986. This number considerably increased to 2.5 million in the year 2004. The approximated value of used cars that are being imported to the country stands at 70%. Most of these used cars are abandoned by their owners on both private and public properties. The abandonment of these used cars possessed a lot of environmental concerns. This has prompted the motor vehicle industry to come up with policies that reduce the pollution caused. Some of these policies are removal of operating fluids, battery, LPG tanks, tires, CFCs present in the air conditioning units, and defusing of air bags and seat-belts. New Zealand authorities therefore, need to benchmark with Western Europe countries so as to solve their motor vehicle abandonment practices. This is because Western Europe currently leads the world in the management of used motor vehicles. Some of the laid down approaches for proper motor vehicle management are th e use of the EU Directive. This directive on motor vehicles was adopted in the year 2000 (Cassells, 2004). EU directive takes into consideration the extended manufacturer responsibility. The directive has also set reuse and various recovery targets. The success of this directive cannot be easily determined at the moment. However, other member countries like the Netherlands and Germany has taken the lead in the implementation of this policy. These two countries have successfully been able to recycle used motor vehicles within their territory. Sweden being

Chemistry Tasks Scholarship Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Chemistry Tasks - Scholarship Essay Example 6. A conjugate acid base pair are the compounds formed by the removal or addition of a proton from the original compound. In the question, only H3O+ and OH- are not a conjugate acid base pair as there is a difference of 2 protons. 9. The aqueous solution of a salt would be acidic if the salt consists of the conjugate base of a strong acid and conjugate acid of a weak base. Therefore the aqueous solution of NH4F would result in a acidic solution. 12. The aqueous solution of a salt would be basic if the salt consists of the conjugate base of a weak acid and conjugate acid of a strong base. Therefore the aqueous solution of NaCH3CO2 would result in a basic solution as NaOH is a strong base and CH3COOH is a weak acid. 13. Arrhenius base is the substance that when added to water increases the concentration of OH- ions present in the solution. NH3 when added to water does not increase the concentration of OH- ions therefore it is not an Arrhenius base. 14. Arrhenius acid is the substance that when added to water increases the concentration of H+ ions present in the solution. Addition of FeCl3 to water would not increase the concentration of H+ ions in the solution, so it is not a Arrhenius acid. From this it is clear that the reaction moves in the forward direction, which means that HNO2 gets converted to NO2- and CH3COO- gets converted to CH3COOH. Therefore it is clear that CH3COOH is a weaker acid compared to HNO2. So for this reaction CH3COOH is the weakest acid. 17. We know that pH = -log[H+] therefore if the pH increases by 1. The H+ concentration would decrease exponentially by a factor of 10. 18. Molecular weight of Ba(OH)2 is 171.34 g/mole. Therefore the moles of Ba(OH)2 added would be (5/171.34) = 0.029 moles. Each mole of Ba(OH)2 would dissociate to give 2 moles of OH- ions. So, we have