Compare Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller and The Metamorphosis by Essay

Compare Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller and The Metamorphosis by Frank Kafka - Essay Example This occurs as they both spend their lives dedicated to their work and then come to understand their isolation. However, while Gregor’s family manages to find a means of surviving without him, Willy’s family seems headed for disaster by the end of the play. In both stories, the main character remains disconnected with his loved ones because he must work and travel to support them. Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman spends his life traveling from town to town selling and ranking his importance in life to the number of people he knows. However, this gives him little satisfaction and no sense of connection to his family. â€Å"Work a lifetime to pay off a house. You finally own it, and there’s nobody to live in it† (Miller, 1949). This statement reveals the emptiness Willy has found in his effort to provide his family with a home of their own as his sons prepare to leave again. As Linda tries to soothe him, he reminds her â€Å"some people accomplish something† (Miller, 1949). In the same way, it can be argued that Gregor’s transformation in Metamorphosis is a literal indication of his feelings of separation from humanity, including from the members of his own family. Even in his own home, he has taken up the h abit of locking his bedroom doors â€Å"as if in a hotel† (16) and he continues to follow the rules and regulations set forth by his father even though he is the sole breadwinner of the family. In both stories, the main character’s isolation is brought forward as a result of this occupational need. As Willy travels through his territory, he evidently makes numerous friends, as he boasts to his boys in the play’s many flashbacks. However, at the present time in the play, none of these friends seem available and even his family has retreated from him to the point that his wife must remind their son, â€Å"He’s the dearest man in the world to me, and I won’t have anyone making

Why the Labour Party Won the Election in 1945 Essays -- Papers

Why the Labour Party Won the Election in 1945 The Labour Party won the general election in 1945, with Clement Attlee returning as Prime Minister. The state of play was that Labour has won 314 seats, the Conservatives 294. Socialism was not widely recognised until 1945. The majority of people were almost frightened by it. This was because Russia was a socialist state, promoting communism. When Russia proved to be a reliable alley during the war, socialism became less strange and was more approved of. The middle class citizens now started to vote socialism, they saw it as respectable. This therefore increased to amount of votes for labour. After the war, there was a mood for social change. This was because soldiers who came home from serving in the War came back to unemployment. They were promised a land fit for hero’s but instead came back to a depression. The 1930’s depression caused poverty in Britain and many citizens lost their job and became unemployed, the British public did not want to have go through this again. This caused for a change in government to see what a different party would offer the nation, to improve its chances of recovering now the war was over. The labour slogan was â€Å"Let us face to the future†, this slogan prompted forward thinking. Labour promoted the welfare state; this was made by written in the Beveridge report and labour made it specific in its manifesto. This meant families could receive the Allowances Act which would provide a regular sum for second and subsequent children to be paid to the mother. The National Health Service Act in order to provide a free and fully comprehensive health se... ...o† in power. This was the internal security police of Nazi Germany. The Nazis established the Gestapo in order to monitor and stamp out any political opposition to the Hitler regime. Under Heinrich Himmler, the Gestapo's powers became brutal and far-reaching in ferreting out Jews, Marxists, and even moderate critics of the regime. By referring the labour party to such a brutal regime it was not approved upon and lost creditability for the conservatives. Overall the actions of Winston Churchill and his decisions through the campaign cost them to loose the election to Labour. I believe that the conservative’s ways of campaigning and relying on gratitude from the British public for winning the war, lost them votes. I also believe that by trying to discredit the Labour party also lost them respect, which lost them votes.

John Stuart Mill And Liberalism Essay

John Stuart Mill (May 20, 1806, Pentonville, England – May 8, 1873, Avignon, France) was one of the greatest and most influential liberal thinkers of the XIX century and also a famous political economist and a Liberal Member of Parliament from 1865 to 1868 (Plank). As a prominent thinker, Mill introduced a new doctrine of liberty and can be considered as a first-rate liberal and a second-rate utilitarian (Reeves). John Stuart Mill (Source: httpwww. liberalinternational. orgeditorial. aspia_id=685) Conceived for the first time as a short essay in 1854, Mill’s famous and enormously influential book On Liberty that he published in 1859 is considered one of the founding philosophical works of classical liberalism and also one of the most fundamental texts on the concept of liberty. In the book which concerns social and civil liberty, the philosopher explores the nature of the power that society can legitimately exercise over individuals, and advocates their moral and economic freedom from the state (John Stuart Mill; John Stuart Mill: Political Philosopher). The most important point and basis for liberty made by Mill in his book is that â€Å"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign†. Individuals exercise their sovereignty both through their judgment and actions. The main ideas that Mill explains in his On Liberty could be grouped into the following sections. 1. Mill opens his treatise by pointing out that the government is a â€Å"dangerous weapon† if it is not appropriately controlled and if its authority is not limited by the liberty of the citizens. In this way, Mill suggests, citizens will be ruled by a government whose rule is guaranteed against oppression and tyranny. However, at a given stage society develops into democracy â€Å"Page # 2† which does not fear tyranny any longer but where the majority can easily criminalize or marginalize a minority group of society and encroach on their rights or liberty. Mill calls it the â€Å"tyranny of the majority† and believes it is much worse than the tyranny of government because it is easier for individuals to be protected from a tyrant than â€Å"against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling†. He saw a danger of the old repression of despotic rulers being replaced by â€Å"despotism of custom†. Rules of conduct, thus, would be based on the majority opinion and there would be no protection in law against its tyranny (John Stuart Mill). He emphasizes that social tyranny is the greater danger than political tyranny for modern nations such as Britain (Heydt). As in Mill’s view the prevailing opinions within society are not necessarily the correct opinions on the one hand, and an individual has the right to choose whatever preference for his moral beliefs on the other hand, Mill concludes that this situation is wrong and unjust. In this case, individuals will be harmed, then their sovereignty over themselves will be impaired (John Stuart Mill). 2. Mill argues for a need of rational principle that would govern individuals within society, and thus introduces and explains his so-called harm principle which is supposed to regulate the limits of intervention in an individual’s actions. Individuals can act as they wish as long as their actions do not harm other individuals. Society should not intervene if the action affects only the individuals that undertake it even though these individuals are harming themselves. In Mill’s view, in a civilized community society has the right to legitimately exercise power over any individual against his will only in order to prevent harm to others. However, Mill distinguishes two categories of â€Å"harms†. If an individual fails to pay taxes, rescue another drowning individual, or appear in court to give evidence, then these acts (which he calls acts of omission) should be qualified as harmful and may be regulated. But if individuals give their consent to take risks without fraud or force, for example, by accepting unsafe employment offered by others, this is not considered as harming them (acts of commission). â€Å"Page # 3† In this case, society is not allowed to intervene except when individuals sell themselves into slavery (John Stuart Mill). 3. Children can’t take care of themselves and may instead harm themselves unintentionally. That is why, Mill explains, they do not have sovereignty over themselves, the harm principle can’t be applicable in this case and society is allowed to interfere with them against their will. Barbarians fall into this category, too. Mill states that barbarians can’t be sovereign over themselves and that despotism over them may be justified in cases when the end result is the improvement of their life. But as soon as they become more civilized and have the capability to decide for themselves, they must be given liberty from the government and its tyranny. Good examples of this, Mill illustrates, are Charlemagne and Akbar the Great who compassionately controlled and â€Å"helped† barbarian nations better manage their lives (John Stuart Mill). 4. According to Mill, human liberty includes several components without which individuals can’t be truly free: †¢ Individuals are free to think as they wish, and to feel as they do (the freedom to opinion and of speech). Mills argues that the freedom of speech is necessary for social progress because allowing people to freely express their opinions and ideas, even if they are false, is useful for two reasons. First, in an open exchange of ideas individuals are likely to understand that some of their beliefs may be erroneous and will thus abandon them. Second, in the process of debate individuals reaffirm their beliefs and prevent them from turning into mere dogma. Mill believes that it is important for individuals to understand why their beliefs are true (John Stuart Mill). †¢ Individuals are free to pursue tastes however â€Å"immoral† they may be considered by others so long as they are not harmful to others (John Stuart Mill). â€Å"Page # 4† †¢ Individuals are free to meet with other individuals (the freedom of assembly) (John Stuart Mill). 5. Mill believes that religion should be criticized in the same way as are other systems of thought regardless of the offence that such criticism may cause. One of main purposes which governed Mill’s philosophical endeavours all his life was his commitment to replace Christianity with a Religion of Humanity (Carey). 6. Mill’s liberal ideas made him an advocate of the development of efficient local government and associations and he fiercely opposed central control. He argued for the parents’ obligation to educate their children but disapproved of a central education system run by the state (John Stuart Mill). In what concerns individual freedoms, it is quite important to understand that Mill gives the specific justifications for them because he believes they will promote the progress of civilization and will be good for society. Mill does not regard liberty as a standard of value and does not mention any natural rights of individuals in his discussions. Instead he is mainly concerned with the utility of rights and freedoms of individuals for the social progress (John Stuart Mill; John Stuart Mill: Political Philosopher). Many critics point out that Mill underestimated the important role of social order and custom as a source of security or freedom. His liberalism is also weakened in the eyes of other critics who do not share his extremely optimistic view of human nature. They are particularly pessimistic about his rosy belief that it is humans’ conditioned engagement in a continuous attempt to achieve personal development that results in the existence of diverse personalities and viewpoints (Reeves). Mill is also often criticised for justifying the right of one developed nation to exercise despotism over other underdeveloped nations (or â€Å"barbarians† as he calls them) on the grounds that it brings them the benefits and advantages of higher civilization (John Stuart Mill and Liberal â€Å"Page # 5† Imperialism). Despite criticism, the remarkable greatness of Mill lies in his readiness and willingness to combine both his thoughts and actions. He was a progressive philosopher who was ready to go to jail for his beliefs. It is not surprising then that six years after he published his great book On Liberty, he decided to stand for parliament in order to better implement his beliefs. His most known initiatives include the introduction of an amendment to the Reform bill in a successful attempt to give women equal voting rights; his relentless pursuit of Governor Edward Eyre for having brutally suppressing an uprising in Jamaica; his fierce opposition to the suspension of habeas corpus in Ireland; his successful campaign against an attempt to prohibit demonstrations or meetings in public parks, and many others (Reeves). By and large, Mill’s career as a liberal politician could be regarded as a relative failure. His performance was usually acclaimed, but he often found himself in opposition to the aims and wishes of his electors. He was quite reluctant to compromise with his own principles just to get support of his electorate, and this resulted in his failure to be re-elected in 1868 (John Stuart Mill: Political Philosopher). 200 years after his birth, Mill’s liberalism is still relevant(Source: http://www. prospect-magazine. co. uk/article_details. php? id=7439) Mills was aware that On Liberty as well as many others of his philosophical works raised several important problems, such as the tyranny of â€Å"uniformity in opinion and practice† which would be more faced future generations than were by his own and that some critics believed that these problems were exaggerated because they were looking more at contemporary facts than at existing tendencies (Reeves). It may be argued that the issues that Mill was interested in and consistently dealt with in his time are without a doubt still relevant and important today (Plank). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Carey, G. W. The Authoritarian Secularism of John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. nhinet. org/carey15-1. pdf 2. Heydt, C. John Stuart Mill: Overview. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. iep. utm. edu/m/milljs. htm 3. John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill 4. John Stuart Mill and Liberal Imperialism. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. antiwar. com/stromberg/s051802. html 5. John Stuart Mill: Political Philosopher. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. john-mill. com/ 6. Plank, B. John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. liberal-international. org/editorial. asp? ia_id=685 7. Reeves, R. John Stuart Mill. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www. prospect-magazine. co. uk/article_details. php? id=7439

`` Happiness Is A Warm Planet `` By Thomas Gale Moore

â€Å"Happiness Is a Warm planet†, by Thomas Gale Moore is an article concerning global warming. In the article, Moore claims that â€Å"Global warming, if it were to occur, would probably be beneficial to most Americans†. The main points that Moore explains in the article are that everyone will benefit from the rising temperatures, the cost of fighting CO2 emissions cost too much,, and that America will pay the price from third world countries not being able to keep up with new conditions. Essentially, his idea is that global warming would have a positive outcome. He believes that nothing should be done to stop global warming. Moore s statements that global warming would be beneficial lacks evidence and reason. If nothing is done to stop global†¦show more content†¦Destructive storms, rising sea levels, and the problems with the Arctic heating up are just some of the multiple ways that global warming will hurt our planet. Moore mentioned in his article that h uman life would be better because of the warm temperatures. Yes, it is true that a lot of people do enjoy a warm day to a cold day, but what Moore seems to have left out is that for us to enjoy anything, we need to have an Earth that is not dangerous to human health. One of the first problems associated with climate change and human health is the toll extreme heat can take. It can cause heat strokes, dehydration, and cardiovascular issues. People living in more northern parts are at a higher risk for this because their bodies are not used to coping with high temperatures. Moore stated in this article that heating costs would go down, but forgot to mention the opposite of heating. Air conditioning would need to be installed to make homes an environment that people can live in without encountering the conditions listed above. Air quality is also a factor that would worsen if the temperatures continue to grow. Wildfires would become more common, which would lead to the air we breath be coming contaminated from pollutants. Water vapor levels will rise with global warming are expected and will increase the ground levelShow MoreRelatedStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesSelf-Assessment Library What’s My Emotional Intelligence Score? 115 An Ethical Choice Schadenfreude 120 Point/Counterpoint Sometimes Blowing Your Top Is a Good Thing 122 Questions for Review 121 Experiential Exercise Who Can Catch a Liar? 123 Ethical Dilemma Happiness Coaches for Employees 123 Case Incident 1 Is It Okay to Cry at Work? 124 Case Incident 2 Can You Read Emotions from Faces? 124 S A L S A L 5 Personality and Values 131 Personality 133 What Is Personality? 133 †¢ The Myers-BriggsRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pagesconcludes his rather pessimistic assessment of these key dimensions of the twentieth-century experience with cautionary explorations of key sources of our increased recognition and understanding of these processes and their implications for life on the planet, as well as with an overview of some of the measures that have been proposed for bringing them under control. Taken together, the thematic essays included in this collection provide the basis for fashioning a coherent, inclusive, and wide-ranging