Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric Free Essays

Aristotle defines the fine art of persuasion. A rhetorician pursues witnesses, contracts, and the like in his pursuit of presenting an argument. However, not all forms of persuasion are rhetoric in nature. We will write a custom essay sample on Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is through persuasion that many arguments are won or lost. Aristotle talks in depth about what is right and what is wrong. He has meticulously defined terms like good, goodwill, judge, judgment, and litigation that form a crucial part of any judicial process. The reason is, according to Aristotle, laws are made after long consideration. On the other hand, decisions in the courts are given at a short notice. This makes it hard for those who try to present an argument and win the case based on the decision of the lawgiver. It is important that the lawgiver does not get influenced by matters of friendship or hatred, and lose vision of the truth. This paper will outline Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric and identify the role rhetoric plays in the judicial process. Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric Aristotle equivalents rhetoric to a formal system of reasoning that strives to arrive at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments. Argument is the key to the art of persuasion. A rhetorician will be able to convince a person by persuasion. People use rhetoric â€Å"either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. † That is, while some speakers succeed to persuade through practice, others achieve it spontaneously. Aristotle closely relates rhetoric to dialectic. Both rhetoric and dialectic deal with arguments from accepted hypotheses. A rhetoric person can use dialectic tools in defense of his arguments. While dialectic is useful for arguments relating to private or academic matters, rhetoric is for arguments relating to public matters. This is because rhetoric considers that the opponents are intellectuals or persons who are familiar with the subject being argued about. Dialectic is concerned with general questions that apply to â€Å"untrained thinkers† (Rhetoric I. 2). In rhetoric, three things comprise an argument—first is the speaker (ethos), second is the listener (pathos), and the third is the argument itself (logos). (Rhetoric I. 2). First, the audience will give importance to an argument if the speaker is a trustworthy person. The speaker must display practical wisdom and should be able to reason logically. He or she should have an upright character and goodness in its various forms, and should possess the good will to understand emotions. Second, the emotional state of the audience is important in the interpretation of the argument. If the listener is in a good or bad mood, then the argument takes the shade of his mood. The speaker should be persuasive enough to motivate and arouse the right mood in the listener. Third, the speaker persuades by the argument itself. There are two types of arguments: induction and deduction. An inductive argument in rhetoric argues with an example. It takes a statement and shows other statements that are similar to it. A deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme, which is an argument achieved by proof or demonstration. Speeches that rely on examples are persuasive in nature; however, those that rely on enthymemes induce applause from the audience. Determined by the class of listeners, rhetoric falls into three divisions. It is the listener who determines the objects of the speaker and the speech. The listener may either be a judge, who takes a decision of things past or future, or a mere observer. A jury member decides on future events and the man who waits on the jury decides on past events. Observers are people who merely decide based upon the orator’s skill. From this idea branches the three divisions of oratory—political, forensic, and the ceremonial oratory of display. A good orator must have the appropriate prepositions at his commands. The prepositions of rhetoric are complete proofs, probabilities, and signs. According to Alain Lempereur, â€Å"today, it is necessary to circumscribe the respective fields of logic and rhetoric in the language of law, while showing how they are sometimes complementary in the resolution of legal problems. † The Role of Rhetoric in the Judicial Process Rhetoric is a faculty used for providing judgment. Every man should comply with the rules of the law, and the law varies with each form of government. Hence, one of the important qualifications for a good judge is that he or she should understand all forms of government, since the interest of men lies in the maintenance of the established order. According to Aristotle, the supreme right to judge always remains â€Å"with either a part or the whole of one or other of the(se) governing powers† (Rhetoric I. 8). So it is important that the judge should be a man of good intellect. The four forms of government are democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and tyranny. The ends of each of these governments vary. For example, â€Å"The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant† (Rhetoric 1. 8). Rhetorical persuasion is not only obtained by demonstrative but also by ethical argument. Hence it is important for a rhetorician to understand the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government. Since a legal verdict is a decision, it is particularly important for a political speaker to maintain integrity of his character in the interest of his audience. He should entertain the right feelings and he should, in turn, induce the right feelings in his audience. In delivering judgment, rhetoric seeks the use of ethos and pathos, in addition to logical proofs. John Rainold, in Oxford Lectures on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, states that as far as possible what is good or bad â€Å"must be settled by the ruling of the Lawgiver, since it is easier [to find] one man [of good sense capable of framing laws and pronouncing judgments] than many men. † Law is either special or general in nature. A special law is a written law, one that regulates the life of a particular community or the law of a state. A general law is an unwritten law, the principles that are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere or the universal law. Individuals or an entire community may affected by the law. A wrongdoer either understands and intends the action, or does it without an understanding. Aristotle defines that there are seven causes of human action that the law has to consider. They are involuntary actions like chance, nature, and compulsion, and voluntary actions like habit, reasoning, anger, and appetite. Aristotle describes accusation and defense in detail in Book I, Chapter 10 of Rhetoric. He describes that â€Å"wrong-doing† is an injury that one person voluntarily inflicts on another contrary to law. There are three things that a prosecutor should ascertain: â€Å"first, the nature and number of the incentives to wrong-doing; second, the state of mind of wrongdoers; third, the kind of persons who are wronged, and their condition† (Rhetoric I. 10). Judgment can happen in two senses—broad and narrow. In its broad sense, it involves decisions that one takes in everyday activities, wherever there is more than one possibility. In its narrow sense, it involves judgment taken in assemblies and law courts. Judging involves two people—the one who speaks and persuades, and the other who listens and judges. It also involves two mutually contradictory arguments that the judge has to listen and judge. A judge should be prudent in judging whether something is important or unimportant, or just or unjust. They should never take instructions from the petitioners and should decide for themselves. Aristotle emphasizes that â€Å"the whole business of rhetoric is with opinion† (Rhetoric, III. 1). Similarly, a litigant should show that the alleged fact is so or is not so and that it has happened or has not happened. The duty of argument is to challenge conclusive proofs. An argument in forensic oratory can be categorized as the fact, the amount of injury, the existence of injury, and the justification. An argument in ceremonial oratory is taken on the basis of trust and the speaker will maintain the nobility of the actions in question. An argument in political oratory presents if something is possible or impossible, just or unjust, good or bad as the orator thinks. The general lines of argument common to all oratory are: the possible and the impossible, past fact, future fact, and degree. The possible and impossible considers that any two contraries are equally possible. Aristotle says that â€Å"if a man can be cured, he can also fall ill; for any two contraries are equally possible, in so far as they are contraries† (Rhetoric, II. 19). Past fact argues that in two things, if one of the less likely things has happened, then there is a possibility that the more likely thing should also have happened. For example, if a man has forgotten a thing, then it is likely that he has once learnt it. Future fact considers that a thing will be done if there is the power and wish to do it. If the means to the end has happened, then the end will soon follow. For example, if there is a foundation, there will be a house. Degree considers the greatness and smallness of things. One has to apply prudence in judgment since there is also a flip side to rhetoric. People might use their persuasive skills in making the judge believe in what is wrong and they might use it for unjust reasons. Aristotle comforts by telling that it is easier to prove and believe in things that are true. And, every virtue has its negative side. It is left to the individual to either benefit by using them right or to inflict great injuries by using them wrong. References 1. Alain Lempereur, in his paper presented at the International Symposium â€Å"Argumentation, Logic and Cognition,† Ghent University, 6–8 December 1989. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qv8722r647546mv2/ 2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ 3. John Rainold’s Oxford Lectures on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, by John Rainolds, Lawrence D. http://books.google.com/books?id=77RPL09TOTICpg=PA137lpg=PA137dq=aristotle’s+rhetoric+in+the+judicial+process;source=web;ots=vDL0uMCFaz;sig=e9RjGNwjy64EDGfMrfSSvt9P-RU;hl=en;sa=X;oi=book_result;resnum=2;ct=result#PPA129,M1 How to cite Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric, Papers

Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric Free Essays

Aristotle defines the fine art of persuasion. A rhetorician pursues witnesses, contracts, and the like in his pursuit of presenting an argument. However, not all forms of persuasion are rhetoric in nature. We will write a custom essay sample on Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric or any similar topic only for you Order Now It is through persuasion that many arguments are won or lost. Aristotle talks in depth about what is right and what is wrong. He has meticulously defined terms like good, goodwill, judge, judgment, and litigation that form a crucial part of any judicial process. The reason is, according to Aristotle, laws are made after long consideration. On the other hand, decisions in the courts are given at a short notice. This makes it hard for those who try to present an argument and win the case based on the decision of the lawgiver. It is important that the lawgiver does not get influenced by matters of friendship or hatred, and lose vision of the truth. This paper will outline Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric and identify the role rhetoric plays in the judicial process. Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric Aristotle equivalents rhetoric to a formal system of reasoning that strives to arrive at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments. Argument is the key to the art of persuasion. A rhetorician will be able to convince a person by persuasion. People use rhetoric â€Å"either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. † That is, while some speakers succeed to persuade through practice, others achieve it spontaneously. Aristotle closely relates rhetoric to dialectic. Both rhetoric and dialectic deal with arguments from accepted hypotheses. A rhetoric person can use dialectic tools in defense of his arguments. While dialectic is useful for arguments relating to private or academic matters, rhetoric is for arguments relating to public matters. This is because rhetoric considers that the opponents are intellectuals or persons who are familiar with the subject being argued about. Dialectic is concerned with general questions that apply to â€Å"untrained thinkers† (Rhetoric I. 2). In rhetoric, three things comprise an argument—first is the speaker (ethos), second is the listener (pathos), and the third is the argument itself (logos). (Rhetoric I. 2). First, the audience will give importance to an argument if the speaker is a trustworthy person. The speaker must display practical wisdom and should be able to reason logically. He or she should have an upright character and goodness in its various forms, and should possess the good will to understand emotions. Second, the emotional state of the audience is important in the interpretation of the argument. If the listener is in a good or bad mood, then the argument takes the shade of his mood. The speaker should be persuasive enough to motivate and arouse the right mood in the listener. Third, the speaker persuades by the argument itself. There are two types of arguments: induction and deduction. An inductive argument in rhetoric argues with an example. It takes a statement and shows other statements that are similar to it. A deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme, which is an argument achieved by proof or demonstration. Speeches that rely on examples are persuasive in nature; however, those that rely on enthymemes induce applause from the audience. Determined by the class of listeners, rhetoric falls into three divisions. It is the listener who determines the objects of the speaker and the speech. The listener may either be a judge, who takes a decision of things past or future, or a mere observer. A jury member decides on future events and the man who waits on the jury decides on past events. Observers are people who merely decide based upon the orator’s skill. From this idea branches the three divisions of oratory—political, forensic, and the ceremonial oratory of display. A good orator must have the appropriate prepositions at his commands. The prepositions of rhetoric are complete proofs, probabilities, and signs. According to Alain Lempereur, â€Å"today, it is necessary to circumscribe the respective fields of logic and rhetoric in the language of law, while showing how they are sometimes complementary in the resolution of legal problems. † The Role of Rhetoric in the Judicial Process Rhetoric is a faculty used for providing judgment. Every man should comply with the rules of the law, and the law varies with each form of government. Hence, one of the important qualifications for a good judge is that he or she should understand all forms of government, since the interest of men lies in the maintenance of the established order. According to Aristotle, the supreme right to judge always remains â€Å"with either a part or the whole of one or other of the(se) governing powers† (Rhetoric I. 8). So it is important that the judge should be a man of good intellect. The four forms of government are democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, and tyranny. The ends of each of these governments vary. For example, â€Å"The end of democracy is freedom; of oligarchy, wealth; of aristocracy, the maintenance of education and national institutions; of tyranny, the protection of the tyrant† (Rhetoric 1. 8). Rhetorical persuasion is not only obtained by demonstrative but also by ethical argument. Hence it is important for a rhetorician to understand the moral qualities characteristic of each form of government. Since a legal verdict is a decision, it is particularly important for a political speaker to maintain integrity of his character in the interest of his audience. He should entertain the right feelings and he should, in turn, induce the right feelings in his audience. In delivering judgment, rhetoric seeks the use of ethos and pathos, in addition to logical proofs. John Rainold, in Oxford Lectures on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, states that as far as possible what is good or bad â€Å"must be settled by the ruling of the Lawgiver, since it is easier [to find] one man [of good sense capable of framing laws and pronouncing judgments] than many men. † Law is either special or general in nature. A special law is a written law, one that regulates the life of a particular community or the law of a state. A general law is an unwritten law, the principles that are supposed to be acknowledged everywhere or the universal law. Individuals or an entire community may affected by the law. A wrongdoer either understands and intends the action, or does it without an understanding. Aristotle defines that there are seven causes of human action that the law has to consider. They are involuntary actions like chance, nature, and compulsion, and voluntary actions like habit, reasoning, anger, and appetite. Aristotle describes accusation and defense in detail in Book I, Chapter 10 of Rhetoric. He describes that â€Å"wrong-doing† is an injury that one person voluntarily inflicts on another contrary to law. There are three things that a prosecutor should ascertain: â€Å"first, the nature and number of the incentives to wrong-doing; second, the state of mind of wrongdoers; third, the kind of persons who are wronged, and their condition† (Rhetoric I. 10). Judgment can happen in two senses—broad and narrow. In its broad sense, it involves decisions that one takes in everyday activities, wherever there is more than one possibility. In its narrow sense, it involves judgment taken in assemblies and law courts. Judging involves two people—the one who speaks and persuades, and the other who listens and judges. It also involves two mutually contradictory arguments that the judge has to listen and judge. A judge should be prudent in judging whether something is important or unimportant, or just or unjust. They should never take instructions from the petitioners and should decide for themselves. Aristotle emphasizes that â€Å"the whole business of rhetoric is with opinion† (Rhetoric, III. 1). Similarly, a litigant should show that the alleged fact is so or is not so and that it has happened or has not happened. The duty of argument is to challenge conclusive proofs. An argument in forensic oratory can be categorized as the fact, the amount of injury, the existence of injury, and the justification. An argument in ceremonial oratory is taken on the basis of trust and the speaker will maintain the nobility of the actions in question. An argument in political oratory presents if something is possible or impossible, just or unjust, good or bad as the orator thinks. The general lines of argument common to all oratory are: the possible and the impossible, past fact, future fact, and degree. The possible and impossible considers that any two contraries are equally possible. Aristotle says that â€Å"if a man can be cured, he can also fall ill; for any two contraries are equally possible, in so far as they are contraries† (Rhetoric, II. 19). Past fact argues that in two things, if one of the less likely things has happened, then there is a possibility that the more likely thing should also have happened. For example, if a man has forgotten a thing, then it is likely that he has once learnt it. Future fact considers that a thing will be done if there is the power and wish to do it. If the means to the end has happened, then the end will soon follow. For example, if there is a foundation, there will be a house. Degree considers the greatness and smallness of things. One has to apply prudence in judgment since there is also a flip side to rhetoric. People might use their persuasive skills in making the judge believe in what is wrong and they might use it for unjust reasons. Aristotle comforts by telling that it is easier to prove and believe in things that are true. And, every virtue has its negative side. It is left to the individual to either benefit by using them right or to inflict great injuries by using them wrong. References 1. Alain Lempereur, in his paper presented at the International Symposium â€Å"Argumentation, Logic and Cognition,† Ghent University, 6–8 December 1989. http://www.springerlink.com/content/qv8722r647546mv2/ 2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ 3. John Rainold’s Oxford Lectures on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, by John Rainolds, Lawrence D. http://books.google.com/books?id=77RPL09TOTICpg=PA137lpg=PA137dq=aristotle’s+rhetoric+in+the+judicial+process;source=web;ots=vDL0uMCFaz;sig=e9RjGNwjy64EDGfMrfSSvt9P-RU;hl=en;sa=X;oi=book_result;resnum=2;ct=result#PPA129,M1 How to cite Aristotle’s Definition of Rhetoric, Papers

Endurance in A Thousand Splendid Suns free essay sample

Violence, war, discrimination, and poverty: these issues have long been a part of Afghanistan’s history. Even though things in Afghanistan are getting better, war fills the country, and women and children have to learn to endure abuse, caused by men and the Taliban; they also learn to endure poverty. Considering this, it is no wonder why Afghanistan is in the terrible position it is in now. Many Afghan cities like Kabul are filled with things like violence and discrimination, and the book A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini takes place in Kabul. This book follows the lives of two Afghani women, Mariam and Laila, as they suffer pain and discrimination received from the Taliban and their husband, Rasheed. The women are forced to clean, cook, wear veils outside of the house, and have to take care of the children on a daily basis. Throughout the book, Mariam and Laila, as well as other characters, learn to endure all these hardships in their lives. We will write a custom essay sample on Endurance in A Thousand Splendid Suns or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page To endure is the ability to bear with or tolerate something without fighting back, but the more someone has to endure, the more they change as a character. Thus forcing one to choose to act out in physical and verbal violence, and making poor decisions in their life. People who are able to endure will go farther in life than those who cannot because they do not fight back. In the story, Mariam must learn to endure when she lives with someone like Rasheed and her father. However, the longer she endures she begins to not tolerate things as easy and begins to fight back and rebel. First, after being married to Rasheed, Jalil begins to try and make Mariam feel better and says he will visit her, but Mariam said â€Å"Don’t come. I won’t see you. Don’t you come. I don’t want to hear from you. Ever. Ever. †, â€Å"It ends here for you and me. Say your good-byes† (Hosseini 55). Based on Mariam’s reaction, she is fed up with her father and is tired of listening to his lies and does not want to see him ever again. By Mariam telling Jalil she never wants to see him again reveals that she is very mad at him for having to endure everything like leaving her to live with Nana in the kolba, her mother’s death, and being abandoned by Jalil himself, and now he is sending her away. Therefore Mariam tells him to not visit her and say good-bye because she hates him for what he is doing. As a result of Mariam’s anger, she decides to go with Rasheed to Kabul, and leave her hometown. Mariam decides to do this because she is tired of taking sweat from her father, and tolerating all of his lies, and thinks leaving Herat is good for herself. Second, Mariam was in the kitchen looking for the wooden spoon when Laila walked in and Mariam began to call Laila a â€Å"whore. A whore and a dozd. A thieving whore, that’s what you are! † (Hosseini 233). Mariam’s outburst suggests that Mariam hates Laila, and is tired of doing all the work around the house like cleaning and cooking. She is also tired of seeing Laila doing nothing around the house and seeing Rasheed always be nice to her. Mariam shows she does not like Laila because she keeps calling Laila a whore and a thief. In a country where the woman do all the housework and cooking, and men go to work, Mariam does not like seeing Laila do nothing around the house while she does everything. This perspective causes Mariam to act out and creates higher tension in their home, which ultimately makes both their lives tougher than they already are. Third, Rasheed was very angry at Laila for hanging out with Tariq, and began to strangle Laila almost to the point of death when Mariam picked up a shovel and â€Å"she hit him across the temple. The bow knocked him off Laila†¦She turned it so the sharp edge was vertical, and, as she did, it occurred to her that this was the first time she was deciding the course of her own life. And, with that, Mariam brought down the shovel. This time, she gave it everything she had† (Hosseini 348-349). Mariam’s action indicates that her anger towards Rasheed increased more and more as she suffered through all the abuse and work he gave her. By beating Rasheed with a shovel and killing him with it, Mariam reveals that she has finally decided to stand up to Rasheed for Laila and herself. Because Mariam stood up to Rasheed and killed him, now Mariam and Laila have lifted a huge burden off their shoulders and Laila can live with Tariq and her children. Mariam learns that if she wants to be happier in life she has to make her own decisions, like killing Rasheed. If she had not defended Laila, Rasheed could have killed Laila, and Mariam would have continued to live a stressful life. Throughout the book, Miriam endures on-going violence and abuse and she begins to make poor choices; she also begins to act out violently as means of learning to cope with her surroundings. Her actions drastically changed the course of her life for herself as well as others for worse and for better. Laila also has to endure many hardships in life, like her family’s death, Tariq leaving, and living with Rasheed. All these factors start to break her and she becomes more depressed and starts making bad decisions. First, Laila survived injuries from a nuclear rocket explosion after being saved by Mariam and Rasheed (Hosseini 193-200). This explosion killed both of her parents forcing Laila to alter her plans for the future. After Laila moves in with Rasheed and Mariam, Rasheed tells Mariam about how he wants to propose to Laila and â€Å"Later, in the dark, Mariam told the girl. For a long time, the girl said nothing. He wants an answer by this morning. Mariam said. He can have it now, the girl said. My answer is yes† (Hosseini 216). Laila accepting Rasheed’s proposal suggests she married him because she has nowhere to go because everyone who she loves is gone. Having to endure all the pain of her parent’s death has caused her to make this decision to marry Rasheed because she is by herself. While it seems like Laila could be better off now that she is by herself, she in fact is not, because women in Afghanistan have little to no rights and she would not be able to support herself. She marries Rasheed because she has no other choice. This decision will very much have an impact in her life. Second, Rasheed was very angry at Mariam because he believed she was teaching Laila to deny him, and started to beat her with belt when â€Å"The girl [Laila] lunged at him. She grabbed his arm with both hands and tried to drag him down, but she could do no more than dangle from it† (Hosseini 241). Laila’s actions reveal that she is tired of dealing with Rasheed’s violence towards Mariam and wants to stand up to Rasheed and stop him. By Laila lunging and pulling on Rasheed’s arm reveals that she cares for Mariam because she risked herself getting beaten by Rasheed, but since she is done tolerating Rasheed’s violence, she decides to act out. Because Laila acts this way she has made Rasheed very mad, and now he is keeping a close eye on her. If she had not done what she had did, than she would not have Rasheed angry with her and she could continue to lie low and let Rasheed be angry at Mariam. Third, Aziza, Laila’s daughter, was put into an orphanage because they could no longer take care of her, and Rasheed would not take Laila to visit her so she said â€Å"I’ll go by myself† and the Taliban often gave Laila â€Å"a tongue-lashing or a single kick to the rear, a shove in the back as she was not accompanied by a male. Other times, she met with assortments of wooden clubs, fresh tree branches, short whips, slaps, often fists† (Hosseini 320-321). Based on what Laila is doing suggests that Laila does not care about the Taliban’s rule, and is angry that she can’t see her daughter because Rasheed put her in the orphanage and he won’t take her visit Aziza, but she goes to see Aziza anyways because she loves her. By Laila going to visit Aziza even though she is getting kicked, and slapped, and beaten shows how much she cares for her daughter, also Laila telling Rasheed she’ll go visit Aziza anyways shows she won’t give in to Rasheed, and she controls her own life. Because Laila pushes through the beatings, she is able to visit her daughter, but also risks her life. If she would have stayed home, and not have tried to leave the house by herself, she would have saved herself from the beatings of the Taliban. Laila makes some decisions that are very dangerous ones, and ones that really affect her life, but she does them because she is done having to endure things, like her parent’s death, Rasheed’s violence, and Rasheed restricting her from her own daughter. Rasheed, even though he seems like he does not have to endure anything, he does because he gets tired of his wives disobeying him; he is also tired of his wives not doing what he asks. These things cause him to act out in violence. First, Mariam and Rasheed had not been doing well together especially because Mariam kept miscarrying, but then one day Mariam made him bad rice and he â€Å"shoved two fingers into her mouth and pried it open, then forced the cold, hard pebbles into it†, then Rasheed said â€Å"Now you know what your rice tastes like. Now you know what you’ve given me in this marriage. Bad food, and nothing else† (Hosseini 104). Rasheed’s actions suggest that his anger with Mariam will get worse as she keeps feeding him bad food, and miscarrying. By forcing Mariam to chew pebbles shows that he is mad and tired of Mariam not giving him what he wants, causing him to be violent towards her. Rasheed’s actions are not right because it is not Mariam’s fault that she keeps miscarrying, and Rasheed has no reason to act like that. As a result of Mariam not being able to give him a child, Rasheed continues to act in anger. Second, Mariam was lying on her bed one night when she heard Rasheed shouting. â€Å"The girl’s voice, underneath his, was tentative and shrill†, then Rasheed came bursting into Mariam’s room â€Å"It’s your doing. I know it is†¦. Rasheed raised the belt and this time came at Mariam† (Hosseini 240-241). While yelling at Miriam, Rasheed is attempting to make his point, it’s your doing, it’s Mariam’s fault that Laila is acting out and arguing with him. By Rasheed bursting into Mariam’s room and beating her with a belt proves he thinks Mariam is the reason for Laila’s actions because before Rasheed and Laila were having no problems, but as soon as Mariam and Laila began hanging out together, Laila began to fight back at Rasheed. Since Rasheed thinks this he acts violently and beats Mariam with a belt to show how he is tired of Mariam poisoning Laila’s mind. Because Rasheed blamed Mariam for Lails’s actions she has to suffer yet another beating and now Rasheed is watching her more closely. While Rasheed’s opinion that Mariam is responsible for Laila’s actions, it shows how he really likes Laila because he does not blame her for her own outbursts. Third, Rasheed had come home from work and asked Zalmai what his mother was doing today, â€Å"She was†¦She was downstairs talking to that man [Tariq]†, he said (Hosseini 344). Right after that Rasheed locked Zalmai upstairs and came back downstairs with a belt, beating Laila, and then he â€Å"wrapped his hands around Laila’s neck†¦He meant to suffocate her, and there was nothing either of them could do about it† (Hosseini 347). Rasheed acts like this because he does not like seeing Laila hanging out with Tariq all the time, because Laila is his wife and Laila and Tariq used to be really close to each other. Rasheed is trying to show Laila how angry he is at her because he was willing to suffocate her for her actions. Rasheed illustrates that he does not tolerate people who disobey him, and anyone who does not obey him will receive a consequence. Rasheed acts out violently a lot because he does not like having to endure people not listening to him and people rebelling against him, like Mariam and Laila. It is important to know that all the characters act out like they do because of having to endure something so painful in their life, which they could not handle anymore, ultimately causing them to have an outburst and or make impulsive choices. Their choices and actions had a long lasting impact on their lives, because their actions changed the way someone viewed them as a person, and caused someone to react back to them. If the character’s had just kept enduring, instead of fighting back, it could have ultimately changed their lives because they would not be in the position they are in now. For instance, if Mariam had not killed Rasheed, and instead just sat there and endured the pain of watching him strangle Laila, she would not have been sent to jail, and executed by the Taliban. It is important to be careful and think before acting as your choices and actions can dramatically change your life forever. In this book, the character’s lives might not have resulted in tragedy had they not fought back and endured the life they had been given.

Israfel By Poe Essays - Poetry By Edgar Allan Poe,

Israfel By Poe Israfel: An Analysis Israfel is a mesmerizing poem, the beginning of which was first set down by Poe during his days at West Point College.(Allen 233) The poem itself is a direct contrast to Poe's usual poetry, which usually deal with death and dark thoughts or other melancholy, Gothic ideas. Poe's idea of the death of beautiful woman being the most poetical of all topics is here, nowhere to be found. This proves that Poe, when so inclined, could indeed write about something other than opium induced nightmares and paranoid grieving men who are frightened to death by sarcastic,talkative, ravens. Besides Israfel, Poe's other poetry, To Helen, as well as Annabel Lee and others, are virtually unrecognizable to the everyday reader as being works by Edgar Allan Poe. His name is usually associated with his tales of horror and the macabre. His one poem, The Raven, a work which deals with a mans steady decline into madness, is probably his most recognizable piece of poetry. A situation, which I feel is unfortunat e, considering that the aforementioned are in most cases the equal to The Raven. Scholars have bestowed upon Edgar Allan Poe, the mantle of horror writer a crown which does him a great injustice considering the great variety of works that he wrote and the passion which drove him during his writing. It is this passion that is evident in Israfel. The Poem itself draws heavily on Arabian and Oriental literature, subjects which fascinated Poe.(Allen 249) Supernatural elements, which are strong in all of Poe's works and a basic concept of all the Romantics, are represented here, as well as heaven itself. The poem is mystical in nature and a praise of inspiration, which is represented by the angel Israfel, who dwells in heaven and sings so beautifully that the stars themselves have to stop and listen. Poe's note on the text itself is taken from The Koran and reads as this: And the angel Israfel, whose heartstrings are a lute , and who has the sweetest voice of all God's creatures.?Koran. Coleridge's, Kubla Khan, in British literature , is similar to Israfel, in that they both offer a heavenly place of the ideal. Israfel seems to represent a muse, of some sort, to Poe. He sits in heaven strumming his lyre and the over abundance of his voice carries over to earth, where Poe sits awaiting the stirring of emotion. Poetry is the evidence of Israfel's existence. Who does Israfel represent? Is it Poe himself ? It is easy to think that, considering the arrogance of Poe. I'm sure he especially would have liked to think this, that he was Israfel the angel, baring his soul to the creatures of earth, human and all,exalting himself as the best poet of all the other angels, so great that they must set down their own attempts of singing and poetry and listen to his. Poe saying to Emerson, Thoreau, and the like, Listen to me! Look upon the truth of the human heart in my works, ye mighty and despair! Is Poe Israfel? In a way, yes I would say he is. I believe it is what lies within Poe's heart and therefore a part of him. His inspiration, if you like. An inspiration which urges him onward in his poetry as well as frustrates him, in that he is the only one to hear the angels music. How could they know, these heavy sleepers, these solemn memorizers of the banalities of textbooks?that in their midst, brooding over them in the long hours of the night, sat a spirit whose song was sweeter and clearer than that of all the archangels of God! How human and earthy, and how comforting to his own feelings it was, to imagine that even in heaven his voice would be heard above all others, and be found more acceptable. (Allen 233) The first seven lines concern the singing of Israfel who, as I have mentioned, sits in heaven and sings in such away that none of the other angels may surpass him. Whose heart strings are a lute, Poe writes of Israfel in the second line of the poem which he directly quotes from the Koran. He sings

How to Write an Autobiography

How to Write an AutobiographyAn autobiography is like any other paper and can be used to write an essay in its own right. It can be used as a guide, to help readers in a particular topic, by being able to give them an overview of that topic and then giving some advice that may help them along the way to completing the project. Writing an autobiography is a time consuming job, but it does not have to be one that is neglected. There are some steps you can take that will make the process easier on yourself and make the autobiography writing process less stressful.The first step when writing an autobiography is to choose the autobiography essay sample that you want to use. These are usually available from many sources, but you can also find many of them on the Internet. This will allow you to choose something that you know well and is something that you will like well.The next step is to read the sample. You can do this online or in person, but it is best if you do it online. This will a llow you to be able to go back over your work at a later time and make any mistakes that you may have made.Then you need to decide which parts of the book you're going to use. It will help if you have all of the details of the story or life of the author and the reasons why they want to write the biography. That will make the autobiography easier to follow.Next you will need to write down the things that you want to say in your biography. You can do this by thinking about the things that interest you and the things that will make you interesting to readers. Do not forget to also talk about the people who will be interested in your biography.Another important step is to ensure that you select a good autobiography essay sample. This means that it should be a reliable source that you trust, and that it contains a wealth of information that you can work with. You can usually ask for samples before you purchase one of these, so that you know that it contains everything that you will need to create the memoir.When you have your essay sample ready you should start writing it. Do not begin with a lot of information that you know nothing about. In fact you should have to familiarize yourself with the general ideas that you will be working with.When you have a complete draft of the essay, you should then practice it. A good thing to do is to take it out of the general essay format and break it up into sections. Try to incorporate some of the material from your biography and some new material. Doing this will help you practice your own skills and will allow you to see if you have understood the material properly.

How to Make Game of Thrones Wildfire

How to Make Game of Thrones Wildfire Wildfire is the fictional green green substance used in  George R. R. Martin’s epic fantasy world to immolate foes when dragon fire isnt handy and swords just arent enough. According to the HBO Game of Thrones series, the liquid burns in the presence of urine and burns so hot it melts  wood,  stone... even  steel... and, of course, flesh! Oh, and it burns with an emerald green flame. In the television series and Martins A Song of Ice and Fire novel, the secret of wildfire was pyromancer magic, but we all know the best magic is simply science that isnt well-understood, right? Martins fictional goo resembles modern napalm (except for the green color) and Greek fire, a real-life weapon used during the Byzantine era (also, probably not green). Make (a Safer) Wildfire This wildfire recipe wont be of much use if you want to melt stone, but it makes nice ambiance lighting when youre reading Martins books or need to find your way back to the kitchen for a snack during Game of Thrones. You end up with a green liquid that burns bright, vivid green. It spreads out nicely, like pyromancer wildfire, but it doesnt burn as long or as a brightly. Wildfire Materials Borax  Green Food ColoringMethanol (Methyl alcohol is available as Heet fuel treatment or as a lab chemical.)Hand Sanitizer Gel (The alcohol-based stuff is what you want. You only need this if youre making the gel.)Heat-safe container.   You can get a similar result using high proof grain alcohol or rubbing alcohol and copper(II) sulfate (usually sold as an algicide) if borax is unavailable. Its not as good as the borax-methanol mixture, though, so dont substitute if you dont have to do so. Lets Make Wildfire Pour a bit of methanol into your container. You dont need a lot. Dont taste it (youll get a headache or go blind if you drink enough) and dont splash around in it (its absorbed through your skin). There are warnings on the label youd do well to read. Oh, and its flammable, but thats kind of the whole point.Stir in a drop of green food coloring. Pretty right?Break up any clumps in your borax and stir a spoonful into the liquid. You dont need an exact measurement. It only takes a small amount to get green flames. If you add too much, youll have white sediment in the bottom of your container.Light your creation and admire the pretty green fire. If you do this indoors, be advised your smoke alarm likely will sound (mine did). Blow out the flames when youre sufficiently amused.Now, if you want to make a gel out of this, you can stir in hand sanitizer until you get the consistency you want. Hand sanitizer is a mixture of water and ethyl alcohol. Because there is ethanol in it, you can mix it in with the methanol without too much trouble. Adding the water also means you have a chance to add powdered copper(II) sulfate, which dissolves in water, but not so well in alcohol. You dont need to add copper sulfate... Im just throwing it out there as an option. Ignite the gel. Still green, but not quite as bright, right?If you want to try again, all you need to do is add more methanol. It is important you only add more fuel after the flames have been extinguished. Use common sense. You can blow out the flames. You can also extinguish the fire with water, but then you wont be able to re-light it. Safety Considerations Yes, this is a real fire. Yes, it can burn you or ignite your hair or clothing if you spill it while its lit, just like any other type of alcohol lamp. Responsible adult supervision is required. Responsible is the keyword. Dont play pyromancer. Wildfire, Greek Fire, and Burning on Water Although it wasnt green, Greek fire or sea fire was a real incendiary weapon used in naval battles from around 672 onward into the 12th century. Its formulation is unknown but may have included ingredients such as pine resin, calcium phosphide, naphtha, niter, quicklime, and sulfur. It was almost certainly a mixture based on bitumen, petroleum, or sulfur. While the mixture floated on water, its unclear whether or not it could actually be ignited by water. An Italian recipe from the 16th century that supposedly burns underwater is made from willow coal, sulfur, wool, camphor, incense, alcohol and some sort of burning salt and pergola. You can try to decipher the Italian text, or just rely on modern chemistry to ignite a green flame with a drop of water.

Patterns of Similarity in English and Spanish Vocabulary

Patterns of Similarity in English and Spanish Vocabulary One key to expanding your Spanish vocabulary quickly, especially when youre new to the language, is learning to recognize the word patterns seen in many English-Spanish cognates. In a sense, English and Spanish are cousins, as they have a common ancestor, known as Indo-European. And sometimes, English and Spanish can seem even closer than cousins, because English has adopted many words from French, a sister language to Spanish. As you learn the following word patterns, remember that in some cases the meanings of the words have changed over the centuries. Sometimes the English and Spanish meanings can overlap; for example, while a discusià ³n in Spanish can refer to a discussion, it often refers to an argument. But an argumento in Spanish can refer to the plot of the story. Words that are alike or similar in the two languages but have different meanings are known as false friends. As you learn Spanish, here are some of the more common patterns of similarity youll come across: Similarities in Word Endings nation, nacià ³nstation, estacià ³nfraction, fraccià ³nperforaction, perforacià ³npublication, publicacià ³n Words that end in -ty in English often end in -dad in Spanish: fidelity, fidelidadfelicity, felicidadfaculty, facultadliberty, libertadauthority, autoridad Names of occupations that end in -ist in English sometimes have a Spanish equivalent ending in -ista (although other endings also are used): dentist, dentistaartist, artistaorthopedist, ortopedistaphlebotomist, flebotomista Names of fields of study that end in -ology often have a Spanish cognate ending in -ologà ­a: geology, geologà ­aecology, ecologà ­aarchaeology, arqueologà ­a Adjectives that end in -ous may have a Spanish equivalent ending in -oso: famous, famosonervous, nerviosofibrous, fibrosoprecious, precioso Words ending in -cy often have an equivalent ending in -cia: democracy, democraciaredundancy, redundanciaclemency, clemencia English words ending in -ism often have an equivalent ending in -ismo: communism, comunismocapitalism, capitalismoatheism, ateà ­smohedonism, hedonismosolecism, solecismo English words ending in -ture often have an equivalent ending in -tura. caricature, caricaturaaperture, aperturaculture, culturarupture, ruptura English words ending in -is often have Spanish equivalents with the same ending. symbiosis, simbiosispelvis, pelviscrisis, crisis Similarities in Word Beginnings Nearly all the common prefixes are the same or similar in the two languages. Prefixes used in the following words make far from a complete list: antipathy, antipatà ­aautonomy, autonomà ­abilingual, bilingà ¼eexportation, exportacià ³ncounterattack, contraataquecontend, contenderdisobedience, desobedienciahomosexual, homosexualparamedic, paramà ©dicopolygamy, poligamiaprefix, prefijopseudoscience, seudoscienciasupermarket, supermercadounilateral, unilateral Some words that begin with an s followed by a consonant in English start with an es in Spanish: stereo, està ©reospecial, especialsnob, esnob Many words ending in ble in English have Spanish equivalents that are identical or very similar: applicable, aplicablecomparable, comparabledivisible, divisiblemalleable, maleableterrible, terrible Some English words that start with a silent letter omit that letter in the Spanish equivalent: psalm, salmoptomaine, tomaà ­napsychology, sicologà ­a Patterns in Spelling Many English words that have a ph in them have an f in the Spanish version: photo, fotometamorphosis, metamorfosisgraph, grfica A few words in English that have a th in them have a Spanish equivalent with a t: empathy, empatà ­atheater, teatrotheory, teorà ­a Some English words that have double letters have a Spanish equivalent without the letter doubled (although words with rr may have an rr equivalent in Spanish, as in correspond, corresponder): difficulty, dificultadessence, esenciacollaborate, colaborarcommon, comà ºn Some English words that have a ch pronounced as k have Spanish equivalents that use a qu or a c, depending on the letter that follows: architecture, arquitecturachemical, quà ­micocharisma, carismaecho, ecotechnology, tecnologà ­achaos, caos Other Word Patterns Adverbs that end in -ly in English sometimes have a Spanish equivalent ending in -mente: rapidly, rpidamenteprofusely, profusamenteprudently, prudentemente Final Advice Despite the numerous similarities between English and Spanish, youre probably best off to avoid coining Spanish words - not all words work in the above way, and you may find yourself in an embarrassing situation. Youre a bit safer following these patterns in reverse, however (because youll know if the resulting English word doesnt make sense), and using these patterns as a reminder. As you learn Spanish, youll also come across numerous other word patterns, some of them more subtle than those above.