The key features of situation ethics Essay Example for Free

The key features of situation ethics Essay Examine the key features of situation ethics. Then outline the main weaknesses of situation ethics. How far do these lead to a rejection of the theory? Despite the view of Kant, and many Christian people, that it is not ethical to only act after assessing the implications of a moral action, since the 1960s a view that situation ethics is an effective way to judge an action and its consequences has emerged in the secular community. However, it is also necessary to acknowledge the Christian ethos in order to fully make a decision on the ethical viability of something in such an ephemeral world. Situation ethics is a theory most commonly associated with the work of Joseph Fletcher, an American professor and one of the key pioneers in bioethics, and J.A.T. Robinson, a New Testament scholar, author and a former Anglican bishop of Woolwich. Fletcher wrote a book called Situation Ethics, which was published in 1966, a time when the ephemeral nature of the country was highly accentuated by political matters; Women were more commonly going to work, following the suffrage movement before the war and their valued contribution to the war effort during it, President John F. Kennedy of the United States had been assassinated and there was a large amount of shock and horror surrounding the brutal Vietnam war. Furthermore, Martin Luther King had left his legacy at this time, even though it would be many years before the divisive pre-civil rights attitudes and laws were truly shaken off, and the sexual revolution that occurred in the 1960s, where the invention of the pill came about, and sexual promiscuity was finally accepted. Also, the emergence of the teenager, a concept that had not been acknowledge before as a type of person with his or her own music, fashion and politics, the consequential growing power of the student movement and the rebellious spirit of the rock and roll culture that went hand in hand with the aforementioned new young adults power, when combined with the other reasons mentioned above, all meant that the scene was set for a radical shift in the social power base. The church, in particular, did not see this impending shift in power as an appealing prospect. The British Council of Churches in 1964 appointed a Working Party that set out to Prepare a Statement of the Christian case for abstinence from sexual intercourse before marriage and faithfulness within marriageand to suggest means whereby the Christian position may be effectively presented to the various sections of the community. They wanted to convey a sane and responsible attitude towards love and marriage in the face of the misleading suggestions conveyed by much popular literature, entertainment and advertising. They also observed that a widespread feeling, especially among Christian people, that recent years have witnessed a general lowering of moral standards, and that this is particularly evident in the realm of sexual behaviour. The Church put much emphasis on a report called The Sexual Behaviour of Young People by Michael Schofield, saying that they wanted to reassess where Christian moral truth lay. The report was conducted in 1965, and concluded that in the 1960s young people were exposed to these factors; greater independence; more money in their pockets and purses; the weakening of family bonds and religious influences; the development of earlier maturity physically, emotionally and mentally; the impact of modern books, television, periodicals. 1963 saw the publication of an extremely controversial book that threw the Church into disarray and disagreement. J.A.T. Robinsons Honest to God is a theological text in which the author challenges the traditional view that God is watching over the world as a supreme power in a three-storied universe, instead suggesting, in conjunction with Paul Tillich, a German-American theologian and Christian existentialist philosopher, that God should be understood as the ground of our being as opposed to a deux ex machine, a phenomenon that cannot be explained, which influences and interferes with the world while remaining detached from it. This book was also in support of the new morality outlined in Joseph Fletchers article The New Look at Christian Ethics published in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin before the more famous Situation Ethics book. Fletcher had written in this that Christian ethics is not a scheme of codified conduct. It is a purposive effort to relate love to a world of relativities through a casuistry obedient to love. In other words, the new Christian morality for man come of age, a phrase coined from Dietrich Bonheoffer, was not based on law, or rather, perhaps, on one law only: the law of love. To illustrate their beliefs on new morality over old, both Fletcher and Robinson cited the examples of Jesus and the Pharisees, which were meant to exemplify new morality and old morality respectively. Whilst the Pharisees elaborated the Torah to accommodate every possible situation, the example of Jesus say You who are not guilty of sin may cast the first stone in John 8:2-11, after a woman who had been caught in adultery was sentenced to stoning. This is an example of Jesus demonstrating love, passion and integrity and showing the weakness of using absolute laws as a meaning of judging individual moral cases. Fletcher further observed that Bultmann [A German theologian] was correct is saying that Jesus had no ethics if we accept, as I do not, that his definition of ethics was a system of values and rules intelligible for all men. This gives the implication that a system of moral codes is unnecessary. Both Fletcher and Robinson acknowledged that the shift from a supranaturalist view of ethics to a situationalist or existentialist view of ethics would not be universally popular. This was shown as early as 1956 when the Pope Pius XII anticipated this, and consequentially banned the view from all seminaries. Protestants, however, were equally suspicious, as they realised it meant that nothing can be labelled as universally good or bad. However, Robinson argued the only way to deal with situations was situationally, not prescriptively. He said Whatever the pointers of the law to the demands of love, there can for the Christian be no packaged moral judgements for persons are more important even than standards. Robinson argued that a situationalist view should be applied to divorce law. Questioning the conservative view that marriage created a supernatural, unbreakable bond between two people, he argues that the metaphysical bond that binds two people in marriage can be broken through divorce depending on the situation surrounding it. In the book Honest To God, Robinson wrote It is not a question of Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder: no man could if he tried. For marriage is not merely indissoluble: it is indelible. He believed that it was potentially damaging and out-dating to believe that divorce was an impossibility. He thought it was time for humans to seek liberty from such supernaturalism thinking, and be ready to leave behind the restrictions of the old moral law if love was best served by so doing. Fletcher and Robinson identified agape love, a term used to distinguish the different types of love known as agape, philia, storge and eros, as the only intrinsically good thing, and it was defined by William Barclay as unconquerable good will; it is the determination to seek the other mans highest good, no matter what he does to you. Insult, injury, indifference it does not matter; nothing but good will. It has been defined as purpose, not passion. It is an attitude to the other person. This kind of love is highly demanding or, as Barclay suggested, a highly intelligent thing. It is not random, fatalistic, romantic love that cannot be demanded. Rather, agape love is required of one human being to another, and demands that the whole personality be involved in a deliberate directing the will, heart and mind. To employ agape, it is conceivable that laws must be put aside, although this may leave many legalists and supernaturalisms without a reliable foundation on which to maintain their position of moral superiority. Fletcher wrote If the emotional and spiritual welfare of both parents and children in a particular family can be served best by a divorce, wrong and cheapjack as divorce commonly is, then love requires it. Joseph Fletcher identified three approaches to morality: Legalism, a conservative, rule-based morality like that of the Pharisees, or as Fletcher said, a morality in which Solutions are preset, and you can look them up in a book a Bible or a confessors manual; Antinomianism, the polar opposite of legalism which means that no rules or maxims can be applied to a moral situation; and situationism, a midway decision between the other two positions, or, as stated in Situation Ethics, The situationist enters into every decision-masking situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect Just the same he is prepared in any situation to compromise them or set them aside in the situation if love seems better served by doing so. Fletcher developed his theory by drawing on a wide range of cases that could not be resolved by applying fixed rules and principles; for instance, the famous case of Mrs Bergmeier who deliberately asked a Russian prison camp guard to make her pregnant so she could be released to return to her family in Germany. Furthermore, Fletcher even developed four presuppositions of situation ethics: Pragmatism, which demands that a proposed course of action should work, and that its success or failure should be judged according to the principle; Relativism, which rejects such absolutes as never, always, perfect, and complete; Positivism, a concept which recognizes that love is the most important criterion of all; and finally personalism, a concept which demands that people should be put first. He then went on, developing his opinion on how agape love should be understood conceptually, and how it should be applied as a theory in situation ethics. He said that not only is love always good, but that it was the only norm, appealing to Jesuss teaching in Mark 12:33 that the most important commandment is to love God and love your neighbour. Hr also said that love and justice are the same, and love is justice distributed, that love is not liking and always wills the neighbours good and that situation ethics is a teleological theory that identifies the ends or the outcome of the actions as the means of assessing its moral worth. Finally, he said that because there is no way of knowing in advance whether something is right or wrong because every situation is different, the situationist must be prepared to make every moral decision afresh. Some believers believe that morality consists of obeying the commands of God as directly revealed by him through scripture and the Church. They believe that what is morally good and what is morally bad is pre-determined by what God has said through scripture and other means, and that to contradict the views of God is to be immoral and bad. This view was backed up by Kant in his deontological approach to ethics, as he said that moral rules are good in themselves and should be obeyed irrespective of the consequences. Professor Gordon Dunstan also agreed with this, saying It is possible, though not easy, to forgive Professor [Joseph] Fletcher for writing this book, for he is a generous and loveable man. It is harder to forgive the SCM Press for publishing it. In contrast to Fletcher, William Barclay adopted a conservative view on Christian ethics, challenging the so named new morality of Fletcher on several grounds. He argued that it is highly improbable for someone to be presented with the extreme circumstances presented by Fletcher, so it is not reasonable to base the principle of situation ethics on these such matters. He wrote in Ethics in a Permissive Society, It is much easier to agree that extraordinary situations need extraordinary measures than to think that there are no laws for ordinary everyday life. He also suggests that Fletcher overestimates the value of being free from rules and the constant decision-making processes that this forces humans into. If it were the case that agape could always be fairly and accurately dealt out, then laws would be redundant. As it is, there are no such guarantees, and so a degree of law is necessary for human survival. Barclay believes that law is essential for a variety of reasons: because it clarifies experience; because it is the means by which society determines what a reasonable life is; because it defines crime; because it has a deterrent value, and because it protects society. He also says that Fletcher was unrealistic in his observation on how truly free humans are to make decisions and judge the moral worth of something when not shackled by any laws. Barclay particularly emphasises that law ensures that humans do not make an artificial distinction between public and private morality, and was quoted as saying A man can live his own life, but when he begins deliberately to alter the lives of others, then a real problem arises, on which we cannot simply turn out backs, and in which there is a place for law as the encourager of morality. In summary, Barclay criticised Fletcher for his miscalculated optimism about the ability of humans to be morally good while remaining free of personal prefere nce and consequential bias. How can we arbitrate a case in which two people reach different conclusions about an action, yet both claim to be acting in the interests of love? In the same year that the scandalous Honest to God by J. A. T. Robinson came into publication, Susan Howatch composed a novel named Scandalous Risks in which a number of characters face moral dilemmas, and attempt to examine each of these while conceptually following situation ethics. In one scene we see a character called Venetia seeking the help of another called Father Darrow in an attempt to understand the way in which her romantic friend rationalises and conducts their relationship along the lines of situation ethics. The, so to speak, moral, of this story is that situation ethics is idealistic and cannot work, despite its obvious theoretical benefits. Rarely do our real-life situations conform to the neat solutions that would apparently be available to us if we applied the principles of ethical theory. An overall conclusion must be drawn from both parts a) and b) of this essay collectively. It seems that the argument is relatively balanced debating the validity of Robinsons and Fletchers approach to moral-decision making. It is commonplace to strive for the freedom to make choices situationally, whether or not it be within the framework of agape, although this is constrained by not only the law, but also by the moral judgment of others. In this age, when we might suppose that secularism and liberalism would have a stronger hold on religions than previously, organizations such as Silver Ring Thing and True Love Waits are encouraging young people to take a vow of celibacy, which infers a return to traditional sexual ethics. Perhaps, instead of offering a realistic answer to morally-challenging situations, situation ethics offers a tantalising alternative to structured and relatively inflexible law-based morality.

Sir Jaso and the Giant :: English Literature Essays

Sir Jaso and the Giant Sir Jaso turned his head in the direction of the woman’s gaze and there before him stood the giant that he had heard so much about during the past few days. It stood almost 20 feet off the ground and carried a club bigger than Sir Jaso himself. The stench of rotting human corpses emanated from its disgusting body and insects of every sort imaginable crawled freely through its hair and under its skin. Sir Jaso stood motionless, stunned for a moment by the unbelievable hideousness of the creature. "How could a God who created the beauty of things such as the forests and mountains also be responsible for creating such filth?" thought Sir Jaso. He then put his hand on his sword and grasped it tightly. Was this giant more than he could handle? Would his pride and honor lead him to his death? If Merlin was right, and God was not on his side, how could he expect to win this fight? Sir Jaso’s stomach began to churn as all these thoughts flew through his mind and he clenched Cal adbolg even tighter. The giant was carrying the bodies of twelve peasants on its back. The sight of the dead men and women the giant had so mercilessly killed enraged Sir Jaso. This beast would pay dearly for its crimes if he had anything to do with it. "May great God in heaven, who rules the world, give you a short life and shameful death! Surely you are the foulest fiend that was ever formed! Guard yourself, you dog, and prepare to die, for this day my hands will kill you!" exclaimed Sir Jaso. The giant answered Sir Jaso by raising its massive club and swinging it at him. Sir Jaso could feel a gust of wind blow against him as the tree-sized club whipped through the air towards him. He raised his shield with his head covered in an attempt to block the giant’s blow. This was the worst part of fighting for Sir Jaso, not being able to see what was happening, he would have to leave his fate up to God. The blow came quickly, completely jolting and stunning Sir Jaso and shattering his shield into sawdust, but at least he was still alive. If God was to forsake him, today was not the day He did so. Sir Jaso’s strength and confidence grew after he survived the first blow for he believed God would protect him tonight.

Chronology in ‘A Rose for Emily’ Essay

William Faulkner takes into account the ever-complicated concept of time in â€Å"A Rose for Emily†. It is a manifestation his contemplation on the nature of time. It lacks a standard chronology. Faulkner ensnare almost three quarters of century in a few page story. He does it superbly by avoiding a proper chronological order. Faulkner skillfully put the story up to demonstrate the indefinable and intangible character of time. He constructs it in such a subtle manner that it is hard to detect any chronological order of the plot. Time does not flow in a linear direction but take a circular direction with the progress of story. Fault consciously or unconsciously does not concern himself with specific dates. A handful of explicit dates are cited in the story. But these indications reveal as plenty of information about the linear chronology of the vents. For example, it is quite clear that remittance of Emily’s taxes by Colonel Sartoris takes place in 1894. It is further provided that he is dead for the last ten years and this the time Emily meets the new aldermen. Story further discloses that Emily died at 74. This hint capacitates us to construct a linear chronology of the events. The linear sequence of events in Emily’s life is as follow; Section 4 illustrates her birth during civil war. Section 2 describes a joint ride with her father in an old wagon. Her father dies. Homer Barron appears on the scene and an amorous affairs starts with Emily in section 3. She purchases male lavatory set and outfits for him in section 4. We are again forced to revert back to section 3 when town people degrade him and reverted back and summon her cousin. Section 4 is marked with the arrival of cousins and departure of Homer from the town. He returns back after the exit of her cousins. We again slip back to section 3 where Emily purchase poison from a local vendor and Homer disappears in the next section. Section 2 illustrate stink from her house indicating his death and four aldermen are shown sprinkling water on her grave. Faulkner has used a novel narrative technique as story starts with Emily’s funeral (the end) and concludes with the finding of Homer’s rotten dead body. Faulkner’s concept of time and its effective utilization does not weaken the story but it is the most obvious strength of its plot, construction and thematic expressions. Although presentation of time in this manner is mostly related is subject to philosophical orientation of the author but it had deep impact on the plot. He merges past into present and present into past and this feature of the story captivates the reader. â€Å"Faulkner gives the story a chronology, but as with so many of his stories, we have to sort it out† (McGlynn 461); Furthermore, it hinders the formulation of reader’s judgment about Emily till the end. The effects of this non-linear chronology on the story are beautifully summed up by McGlynn (1969). He says that â€Å"A chronology of ‘A Rose for Emily’ is useful for at least two reasons: it makes the plot more easily comprehensible, and it helps clarify the function of time in the story† (461). By evading a clear and linear chronological order of events, Faulkner attempts to provide his reader a riddle comprised of various bits. However, he provides clues to facilitate this puzzle-solving. The motive behind this exercise seems to involve his reader more deeply in the story. So above-mentioned arguments and supported evidence clearly suggest that time is not present in a simple chronological way in the story but it is manifested in random manner and plot flows with the flow of the consciousness of the narrator and does not follow the rules and principle of chronological time. Works Cited Faulkner, William. 1970. A rose for Emily. Columbus; Merrill. McGlynn, Paul D. 1969. William Faulkner: An Interpretation; â€Å"The Chronology of ‘A Rose for Emily,†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ Studies in Short Fiction. 6.

Pork Barrel

Pork barrel literally takes the meaning of setting apart budgets, which initially were taken from the people's money, for the realization of the proposed development projects of the members of the Congress of the Philippines. It usually is intended to benefit a group of citizens of a certain politician in return of their political support, which were either in the form of campaigning or in the voting process. To have these purposes be done neatly is a challenge for every politician.The temptation gets the otter of them at times, and this heads into the downside of having a pork barrel. Normally, in the English language, either addition or omission of words or letters always brings about another meaning into a word/group of words. Just like when pork barrel and scam meets halfway, its result you would never want to hear. But if every politician Just works with conscience, then we won't have any fear in mind regarding the collision of the words. But if otherwise, then it would not prod uce good feedbacks from the people.The Idea of whether or not to abolish the pork barrel is too hard to decide. But if I were to, I would have chosen not to take it away from the system of government. Yes, I may have stated downfalls In some parts of this essay, but I have a larger picture captured in mind. The outcome of abolishing this system I would always fear. What would happen to the Filipino people if the pork barrel for the betterment of the nation Is abolished? Every people must remember this system had its ups In terms of building roads and bridges, program for farmers, scholarships or deserving people, among others.Now, if the pork barrel Is to be scrapped, then It should be a challenge to the government to ensure that those who benefit from the program will not be affected. And that Is exactly what would happen If It Is abolished, there will be no guarantee that these people will continue their education and receive other significant assistance. Thus, the solution for It shall not be termination, but to have a greater commitment and accountability In Its utilization. Pork Barrel A cure, a treat, an alliance, a devastation or just a play. What do we really know about that so called Pork Barrel? All nation introduce to there governance the power of pork barrel stating that it’s a program serving righteous benefits for the society that concentrates on the people’s cost. But as a result of what they said Pork Barrel, I, you, we can’t see a single glimpse of faith brought by them. How can we say were free when we know that our hands and feet are tightly chained, how can we say were free when we know that were controlled by our very own governance who have no pardon for any citizens that relives faith in there own way.Why do Australia, Germany, United Kingdom, Eastern and Central Europe stated that they walk in on the path of righteousness, do that show that we have a bunch of prod, foolish and culprits in our public officials. It’s stated that the government is our government so how the government is working to help people over come co mplex problem if there the one who giving them and courses them in the path of lies and faults. A very good example is The Intriguing Controversy of the Year, The Pork Barrel Scam of Mrs.Janet Lim Napoles whom to be the brains of the lost of more than 10 Billion pesos in the funding of the Nation. And not only she is involve there’s still senators and congressman involve, how can they hold on trough this even then there are peoples supporting and trusting them all the way. Upon all happenings, evidence and controversies Mrs. Janet Lim Napoles can be voted not guilty, what is this happenings do our government just playing and fooling around to this crisis.Majority of the people is grieving for the lost wealth and opportunities just imagine all that money can do, it can feed million of people, can give hundred of thousand opportunities, can build off thousands of houses, can heal hundreds of illnesses, and help our only one nation from devastation. Now knowing these possibiliti es that can do so much, who can upholds this kind of cruel and unjustified act. After they say it’s for our own good how come they manage to control everything? How can we make an act if they have all the choices in life?But then I manage to conquer that after all that mischief I still need to thanks Mrs. Janet Lim Napoles not because of her cruelty and unjustified act people in the world won’t know the alliance and power of the whole Filipino people by means of the abuse of one. Now this day we should do what we know is right and stand on our two very own feet, we should know the path of what is fair and what is not because in the end were still humans and we can’t do every thing. So now a question will be leaven â€Å"Should you fight for what is right or stay on what you know is vogue? †

Definition and Examples of Paralepsis in Rhetoric

Definition and Examples of Paralepsis in Rhetoric Paralepsis  (also spelled paralipsis) is the rhetorical strategy (and logical fallacy) of emphasizing a point by seeming to pass over it. Adjective: paraleptic or paraliptic. Similar to apophasis and praeteritio. In The English Academy (1677), John Newton defined paralepsis as a kind of irony, by which we seem to pass by, or take no notice of such things which yet we strictly observe and remember. Etymology From the Greek  para-  beside   leipein  to leave Pronunciation:  pa-ra-LEP-sis Examples Lets pass swiftly over the vicars predilection for cream cakes. Lets not dwell on his fetish for Dolly Mixture. Lets not even mention his rapidly increasing girth. No, no- let us instead turn directly to his recent work on self-control and abstinence.(Tom Coates, Plasticbag.org, Apr. 5, 2003)The music, the service at the feast,The noble gifts for the great and small,The rich adornment of Theseuss palace . . .All these things I do not mention now.(Chaucer, The Knights Tale, The Canterbury Tales)We get [in Oprah by Kitty Kelley] the obligatory discussion of whether or not Oprah and Gayle King, her best friend of thirty-four years, are lesbians. There was no foundation for the rumors of a lesbian relationship, except for their constant togetherness and Oprahs bizarre teasing of the subject, Kelley writes, and then, like a conspiracy theorist squinting to see the pyramids on dollar bills, trots out unconvincing insinuations.(Lauren Collins, Celebrity Smackdown. The New Yorker, April 19, 2010) Mark Antonys Paralepsis But heres a parchment, with the seal of Caesar;I found it in his closet; tis his will:Let but the commons hear this testament- Which, pardon me, I do not mean to read . . ..Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it.It is not meet you know how Caesar lovd you.You are not wood, you are not stones, but men;And, being men, hearing the will of Caesar,It will inflame you, it will make you mad:Tis good you know not that you are his heirs;For if you should, oh, what would come of it!(Mark Antony in William Shakespeares Julius Caesar, Act III, scene two) A Form of Irony Paralipsis: a form of irony in which one gets ones message across by suggesting the outlines of the message that one is struggling to suppress. We are not going to say that paralipsis is . . . the habitual refuge of the courtroom mechanic, who abuses it in order to suggest to the jury what he can very well deny to the judge ever having said.(L. Bridges and W. Rickenbacker, The Art of Persuasion, 1991) The Paraleptic Strike-Through The so-called strike through mode of type has come into its own as a standard device in opinion journalismeven in print. . . .As New York Times blogger Noam Cohen commented a while back, [I]n Internet culture, the strike-through has already taken on an ironic function, as a ham-fisted way of having it both ways in type a witty way of simultaneously commenting on your prose as you create it. And when this device appears in print, its being used exclusively for this kind of ironic effect. . . .The paradox is that crossing something out highlights it. The ancient Greek rhetoricians had a whole vocabulary of terms to refer to different forms of mentioning by not mentioning.(Ruth Walker, Highlight Your Errors: The Paradox of the Strike Through Mode. The Christian Science Monitor, July 9, 2010) Political Paralepsis Obama characterized Clintons remarks as tired Washington politicians and the games they play.She made an unfortunate remark about Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, he said. I havent remarked on it. And she offended some folks who thought she diminished the role about King and the civil rights movement. The notion that this is our doing is ludicrous.Obama went on to criticize Clintons interview, saying that she spent an hour focused on attacking him rather than telling people about her positive vision for America.(Domenico Montanaro, Obama: Clinton MLK Comments Ludicrous, NBC First Read, Jan. 13, 2008) Paralepsis (or Omission), 1823 Paralepsis, or Omission, is a figure by which the orator pretends to conceal or pass by what he really means to declare and strongly to enforce.Whatever we seem to give up, as a matter of small consequence, we generally pronounce in a higher and softer tone of voice than the rest: this is accompanied with an air of indifference that seems to make light of what we mention, and this indifference generally leads us to end the particulars with the suspension of voice, properly called the rising inflection. Thus Cicero, in his defense of Sextius, introduces his character in the following manner, with a design of recommending him to the favour of the judges: I might say many things of his liberality, kindness to his domestics, his command in the army, and moderation during his office in the province; but the honour of the state presents itself to my view, and calling me to it, advises me to omit these lesser matters. The first part of this sentence should be spoken in a soft high tone of voice, with an air of indifference, as if waving the advantages arising from his clients character; but the latter part assumes a lower and firmer tone, which greatly enforces and sets off the former.(John Walker, A Rhetorical Grammar, 1823)

Verbal Noun - Definition and Examples

Verbal Noun s A noun that is derived from a verb (usually by adding the suffix -ing) and that exhibits the ordinary properties of a noun. For example, in the sentence His firing of William was a mistake, the word firing functions as a verbal noun (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 1985). As Sidney Greenbaum notes in The Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992), Verbal nouns contrast with deverbal nouns, that is, other kinds of nouns derived from verbs, such as attempt, destruction, and including nouns ending in -ing that do not have verbal force: building in The building was empty. They also contrast with the gerund, which also ends in -ing, but is syntactically a verb.In traditional grammar, the expression verbal noun has often been treated as a synonym for gerund, but both terms are out of favour among some modern grammarians (Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar, 2014). Examples and Observations: The atmosphere at home had become difficult as we approached our opening of the Shrew.(Sian Phillips, Public Places. Faber Faber, 2003)His acting  the part of Othello was distinguished by a breadth and grandeur that placed it far beyond the efforts of other actors.Even in fiction, the Joads misery is best captured in vignettes: Mas colloquies with Rose of Sharon, the rollicking dance at the government camp, Uncle Johns sending the dead baby down the river, images easily translated into film.  (Susan Shillinglaw, Introduction to A Russian Journal by John Steinbeck. Penguin, 1999)Margureitte Radcliffes afternoon testimony was taken up with her typing of the confession, the choice of paper, the crossed-out portions, the manner in which she had inserted the paper into the typewriterall questions from Andy Weathers.  (Ann Rule, Everything She Ever Wanted. Simon Schuster, 1992)The building of the British Empire may be said to have begun with the ascent of Queen Elizabeth to the thr one.   The dead might as well try to speak to the living as the old to the young.  (Willa Cather, One of Ours, 1922) Nominal Qualities of Verbal Nouns Though derived from a verb, a verbal noun is strictly a noun, and it exhibits nominal properties: it takes determiners like the and this, it permits adjectives (but not adverbs), it permits following prepositional phrases (but not objects), and it can even be pluralized if the sense permits. Example: In football, the deliberate tripping of an opponent is a foul. Here the verbal noun tripping takes the determiner the, the adjective deliberate and the prepositional phrase of an opponent, but it exhibits no verbal properties at all. In other words, tripping, in this case, is a perfectly ordinary noun, behaving just like any other noun, with no verbal properties in sight. Compare the last example with one involving the unremarkable noun attack: In football, a deliberate attack on an opponent is a foul.  (R.L. Trask, Mind the Gaffe! Harper, 2006) -ing Forms English . . . has a verb plus -ing form, rare in the multiplicity of its functions and in its complexity. No two grammars appear to agree on the appropriate terms for these forms: gerund, verb noun, verbal noun, participial clause, participial adjective, present participle, deverbal adjective, deverbal noun. Moreover, often one or another of its uses is omitted.  (Peter Newmark, Looking at English Words in Translation. Words, Words, Words: The Translator and the Language Learner, ed. by Gunilla M. Anderman and Margaret Rogers. Multilingual Matters, 1996) Gerunds and Verbal Nouns Gerunds are defined by two properties, the first making them verb-like, the second noun-like: (a) A gerund contains (at least) a verb stem and the suffix -ing.(b) A gerund has one of the functions that are characteristic of nounsor rather, . . . a gerund heads a phrase with one of the functions that are characteristic of NPs . . .. The combination of verb-like and noun-like properties given in (a) and (b) underlies the traditional characterisation of gerunds as verbal nouns. Note, however, that this latter term, verbal noun, implies that greater weight is attached to (b) than to (a): a verbal noun is primarily a kind of noun, not a kind of verb.  (Rodney D. Huddleston, Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge University Press, 1984) Possession and Verbal Nouns You are familiar with gerund clauses as in this sentence: 30a We watched Mark winning the race. Compare this sentence: 30b We applauded Marks winning of the race. 30b contains a verbal noun, formed like the gerund by adding -ing to the verb but differing from the gerund in the kind of construction it appears in: the subject of the verbal noun is typically possessive and the object of the verbal noun is preceded by of, as in the example. All verbs form a gerund by adding -ing. . . .The next group of sentences contains verbal noun clauses in subject and object positions. As the examples show, when the verb requires a preposition before an object, the verbal noun keeps that preposition but if the verb does not have a preposition, the verbal noun inserts of. 31 I enjoyed our conversation. (We conversed.)32 Your response to that question was brilliant. (You responded to that question.)33 The companys employment of many people has added to our local economy. (The company employs many people.)34 The president will soon announce her selection of a new cabinet officer. (The president selects a new cabinet officer.) If the verb has an overt subject, that subject becomes a possessive form before a verbal noun, as shown. If there is no overt subject, the verbal noun is preceded by the.​  (Charles W. Kreidler, Introducing English Semantics, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2014) Also Known As: -ing noun

Critically evaluate Hegel's teleological account of history Essay

Critically evaluate Hegel's teleological account of history - Essay Example Engels criticized such formulation of the question. He was sure the highest generalizing idea, approached by the natural sciences of that period, was the idea of expediency of established order in nature, flat Wolf’s teleology, according to which, cats were created in order to devour the mice, mice – to be devoured by cats, and everything in nature was created to prove the wisdom of the Lord (Carlton, 1975). There is no argument that it was a great merit of that period philosophy, that despite the limitations of its current scientific knowledge, it was not thrown off, and it, starting with Spinoza and ending with the great French materialists, persistently tried to explain the world, providing a detailed justification of the science of the future. In the German classical philosophy, the problem of teleology, as well as a number of other important philosophical questions, was put in a new way, and there was some new movement of thought towards the dialectics on the relat ively high level. This movement goes back to Kant. He was the first who raised a new issue of teleology. However, these Kantian formulations of the question are not directly related to that turn, made by Hegel in the sphere of teleology (Bristow, 2007). Concrete analysis of the dialectics of human toil takes Hegel’s antinomian opposition between causality and teleology, showing what specific place is occupied by conscious human purposefulness in general causation, not destroying, and not stepping over it, without appealing to any transcendental principle, that was very typical for prior thinkers - without losing work-specific definitions of goal-setting. Hegelian discovery in teleology is quite simple: every working man instinctively knows that he, when having the means and the subject of labor, can not do anything that is beyond the objective laws of these subjects and their combinations, and that the process of labor, therefore, can never go beyond the causal relations of t hings. And every human discovery can nest in the disclosure of objective causal relations and in involving them into the workflow. And as it was rightly noted by Marx and Hegel, the specific nature of goal setting is in the notion of goal exists until the process of labor set in motion, and the process of labor exists to achieve this goal through increasingly deep causal links to objective reality (Frederick Beiser, 2007). The very fact that goal-setting itself is causal, this also drew so much attention of Spinoza, is correct and goes without saying, but , as Spinoza thought, it does not mean that the specific nature of the teleological connection is disregarded. On the contrary, this knowledge gives us the opportunity to reveal the dialectical unity of the principle of causality and goal of labor more clearly. And this knowledge was not lost on Hegel. In accordance with his philosophy, various needs of people were the engine of progress and, thus, an impetus for civilization devel opment in the course of history (Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy, 1825). Hegel was the ideologue of a particular revolutionary period - the period of revolutionary constitution of a large modern nation. Hegel portrayed this process as progressive rightly. In the historical dialectic of this process, which repeatedly played out in the form of major wars, Hegel saw the state of nature, in which the spirit makes its way to the top stage