Political philosophy Essay Example for Free

Political philosophy Essay Thomas Hobbes was born in Wiltshire, England on 5 April 1588 | birth_place = some sources say Malmesbury[2]). Born prematurely on April 5, 1588, when his mother heard of the coming invasion of the Spanish Armada, Thomas Hobbes later reported that my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear. [3] His childhood is almost a complete blank, and his mothers name is unknown. [4] His father, also named Thomas, was the vicar of Charlton and Westport. Thomas Sr. abandoned his three children to the care of an older brother, Thomas juniors uncle Francis, when he was forced to flee to London after being involved in a fight with a clergyman outside his own church. Hobbes was educated at Westport church from the age of four, passed to the Malmesbury school and then to a private school kept by a young man named Robert Latimer, a graduate of the University of Oxford. Hobbes was a good pupil, and around 1603 he went up to Magdalen Hall, which is most closely related to Hertford College, Oxford. [5][6][7][8] The principal John Wilkinson was a Puritan, and he had some influence on Hobbes. At university, Hobbes appears to have followed his own curriculum; he was little attracted by the scholastic learning. He did not complete his B. A. degree until 1608, but he was recommended by Sir James Hussey, his master at Magdalen, as tutor to William, the son of William Cavendish, Baron of Hardwick (and later Earl of Devonshire), and began a life-long connection with that family. [9] Hobbes became a companion to the younger William and they both took part in a grand tour in 1610. Hobbes was exposed to European scientific and critical methods during the tour in contrast to the scholastic philosophy which he had learned in Oxford. His scholarly efforts at the time were aimed at a careful study of classic Greek and Latin authors, the outcome of which was, in 1628, his great translation of Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, the first translation of that work into English from a Greek manuscript. Although he associated with literary figures like Ben Jonson and thinkers such as Francis Bacon, he did not extend his efforts into philosophy until after 1629. His employer Cavendish, then the Earl of Devonshire, died of the plague in June 1628. The widowed countess dismissed Hobbes but he soon found work, again as a tutor, this time to the son of Sir Gervase Clifton. This task, chiefly spent in Paris, ended in 1631 when he again found work with the Cavendish family, tutoring the son of his previous pupil. Over the next seven years as well as tutoring he expanded his own knowledge of philosophy, awakening in him curiosity over key philosophic debates. He visited Florence in 1636 and later was a regular debater in philosophic groups in Paris, held together by Marin Mersenne. From 1637 he considered himself a philosopher and scholar. In Paris Hobbess first area of study was an interest in the physical doctrine of motion and physical momentum. Despite his interest in this phenomenon, he disdained experimental work as in physics. He went on to conceive the system of thought to the elaboration of which he would devote his life. His scheme was first to work out, in a separate treatise, a systematic doctrine of body, showing how physical phenomena were universally explicable in terms of motion, at least as motion or mechanical action was then understood. He then singled out Man from the realm of Nature and plants. Then, in another treatise, he showed what specific bodily motions were involved in the production of the peculiar phenomena of sensation, knowledge, affections and passions whereby Man came into relation with Man. Finally he considered, in his crowning treatise, how Men were moved to enter into society, and argued how this must be regulated if Men were not to fall back into brutishness and misery. Thus he proposed to unite the separate phenomena of Body, Man, and the State. Hobbes came home, in 1637, to a country riven with discontent which disrupted him from the orderly execution of his philosophic plan. However, by the end of the Short Parliament in 1640, he had written a short treatise called The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic. It was not published and only circulated among his acquaintances in manuscript form. A pirated version, however, was published about ten years later. Although it seems that much of The Elements of Law was composed before the sitting of the Short Parliament, there are polemical pieces of the work that clearly mark the influences of the rising political crisis. Nevertheless, many (though not all) elements of Hobbess political thought were unchanged between The Elements of Law and Leviathan, which demonstrates that the events of the English Civil War had little effect on his contractarian methodology. It should be noted, however, that the arguments in Leviathan were modified from The Elements of Law when it came to the necessity of consent in creating political obligation. Namely, Hobbes wrote in The Elements of Law that Patrimonial kingdoms were not necessarily formed by the consent of the governed, while in Leviathan he argued that they were. This was perhaps a reflection either of Hobbess thoughts concerning the engagement controversy or of his reaction to treatises published by Patriarchalists, such as Sir Robert Filmer, between 1640 and 1651. When in November 1640 the Long Parliament succeeded the Short, Hobbes felt he was a marked man by the circulation of his treatise and fled to Paris. He did not return for eleven years. In Paris he rejoined the coterie about Mersenne, and wrote a critique of the Meditations on First Philosophy of Descartes, which was printed as third among the sets of Objections appended, with Replies from Descartes in 1641. A different set of remarks on other works by Descartes succeeded only in ending all correspondence between the two. Hobbes also extended his own works somewhat, working on the third section, De Cive, which was finished in November 1641. Although it was initially only circulated privately, it was well received, and included lines of argumentation to be repeated a decade later in the Leviathan. He then returned to hard work on the first two sections of his work and published little except for a short treatise on optics (Tractatus opticus) included in the collection of scientific tracts published by Mersenne as Cogitata physico-mathematica in 1644. He built a good reputation in philosophic circles and in 1645 was chosen with Descartes, Gilles de Roberval and others, to referee the controversy between John Pell and Longomontanus over the problem of squaring the circle. The Civil War in England The English Civil War broke out in 1642, and when the Royalist cause began to decline in the middle of 1644 there was an exodus of the kings supporters to Europe. Many came to Paris and were known to Hobbes. This revitalised Hobbess political interests and the De Cive was republished and more widely distributed. The printing began in 1646 by Samuel de Sorbiere through the Elsevier press at Amsterdam with a new preface and some new notes in reply to objections. In 1647, Hobbes was engaged as mathematical instructor to the young Charles, Prince of Wales,[10] who had come over from Jersey around July. This engagement lasted until 1648 when Charles went to Holland. The company of the exiled royalists led Hobbes to produce an English book to set forth his theory of civil government in relation to the political crisis resulting from the war. The State, it now seemed to Hobbes, might be regarded as a great artificial man or monster (Leviathan), composed of men, with a life that might be traced from its generation under pressure of human needs to its dissolution through civil strife proceeding from human passions. The work was closed with a general Review and Conclusion, in direct response to the war which raised the question of the subjects right to change allegiance when a former sovereigns power to protect was irrecoverably gone. Also he criticized religious doctrines on rationalistic grounds in the Commonwealth. Frontispiece from De Cive (1642) During the years of the composition of Leviathan he remained in or near Paris. In 1647 Hobbes was overtaken by a serious illness which disabled him for six months. On recovering from this near fatal disorder, he resumed his literary task, and carried it steadily forward to completion by the year 1650. Meanwhile, a translation of De Cive was being produced; there has been much scholarly disagreement over whether Hobbes translated the work himself or not. In 1650, a pirated edition of The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic was published. It was divided into two separate small volumes (Human Nature, or the Fundamental Elements of Policie and De corpore politico, or the Elements of Law, Moral and Politick). In 1651 the translation of De Cive was published under the title of Philosophicall Rudiments concerning Government and Society. Meanwhile, the printing of the greater work was proceeding, and finally it appeared about the middle of 1651, under the title of Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil, with a famous title-page engraving in which, from behind hills overlooking a landscape, there towered the body (above the waist) of a crowned giant, made up of tiny figures of human beings and bearing sword and crozier in the two hands. The work had immediate impact. Soon Hobbes was more lauded and decried than any other thinker of his time. However, the first effect of its publication was to sever his link with the exiled royalists, forcing him to appeal to the revolutionary English government for protection. The exiles might very well have killed him; the secularist spirit of his book greatly angered both Anglicans and French Catholics. Hobbes fled back home, arriving in London in the winter of 1651. Following his submission to the council of state he was allowed to subside into private life in Fetter Lane. Leviathan Main article: Leviathan (book) Frontispiece of Leviathan In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments based on social contract theories. Leviathan was written during the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war. Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This inevitably leads to conflict, a war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes), and thus lives that are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (xiii). To escape this state of war, men in the state of nature accede to a social contract and establish a civil society. According to Hobbes, society is a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection. Any abuses of power by this authority are to be accepted as the price of peace. However, he also states that in severe cases of abuse, rebellion is expected. In particular, the doctrine of separation of powers is rejected:[11] the sovereign must control civil, military, judicial and ecclesiastical powers. Leviathan was also well-known for its radical religious views, which were often Hobbess attempt to reinterpret scripture from his materialist assumptions. His denial of incorporeal entities led him write, for example, that Heaven and Hell were places on Earth, and to take other positions out of sync with church teachings of his time. Much has been made of his religious views by scholars such as Richard Tuck and J. G. A. Pocock, but there is still widespread disagreement about the significance of Leviathans contents concerning religion. Many have taken the work to mean that Hobbes was an atheist, while others find the evidence for this position insufficient. Locke John Locke (pronounced /l? k/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher. Locke is considered the first of the British empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, classical republicans, and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence. [1] Lockes theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and the self, figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first philosopher to define the self through a continuity of consciousness. He also postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived by sense perception. [2] Contents[hide] * 1 Life * 1. 1 Epitaph * 2 Influence * 2. 1 Constitution of Carolina * 2. 2 Theory of value and property * 2. 3 Political theory * 2. 3. 1 Limits to accumulation * 2. 4 On price theory * 2. 4. 1 Monetary thoughts * 2. 5 The self * 3 List of major works * 3. 1 Major unpublished or posthumous manuscripts * 4 Secondary literature * 5 See also * 6 Notes * 7 Further reading * 8 External links * 8. 1 Works * 8. 2 Resources| Life Lockes father, who was also named John Locke, was a country lawyer and clerk to the Justices of the Peace in Chew Magna,[3] who had served as a captain of cavalry for the Parliamentarian forces during the early part of the English Civil War. His mother, Agnes Keene, was a tanners daughter and reputed to be very beautiful. Both parents were Puritans. Locke was born on 29 August 1632, in a small thatched cottage by the church in Wrington, Somerset, about twelve miles from Bristol. He was baptized the same day. Soon after Lockes birth, the family moved to the market town of Pensford, about seven miles south of Bristol, where Locke grew up in a rural Tudor house in Belluton. In 1647, Locke was sent to the prestigious Westminster School in London under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham, a member of Parliament and former commander of the younger Lockes father. After completing his studies there, he was admitted to Christ Church, Oxford. The dean of the college at the time was John Owen, vice-chancellor of the university. Although a capable student, Locke was irritated by the undergraduate curriculum of the time. He found the works of modern philosophers, such as Rene Descartes, more interesting than the classical material taught at the university. Through his friend Richard Lower, whom he knew from the Westminster School, Locke was introduced to medicine and the experimental philosophy being pursued at other universities and in the English Royal Society, of which he eventually became a member. Locke was awarded a bachelors degree in 1656 and a masters degree in 1658. He obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674, having studied medicine extensively during his time at Oxford and worked with such noted scientists and thinkers as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke and Richard Lower. In 1666, he met Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who had come to Oxford seeking treatment for a liver infection. Cooper was impressed with Locke and persuaded him to become part of his retinue. Locke had been looking for a career and in 1667 moved into Shaftesburys home at Exeter House in London, to serve as Lord Ashleys personal physician. In London, Locke resumed his medical studies under the tutelage of Thomas Sydenham. Sydenham had a major effect on Lockes natural philosophical thinking – an effect that would become evident in the An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Lockes medical knowledge was put to the test when Shaftesburys liver infection became life-threatening. Locke coordinated the advice of several physicians and was probably instrumental in persuading Shaftesbury to undergo an operation (then life-threatening itself) to remove the cyst. Shaftesbury survived and prospered, crediting Locke with saving his life. It was in Shaftesburys household, during 1671, that the meeting took place, described in the Epistle to the reader of the Essay, which was the genesis of what would later become the Essay. Two extant Drafts still survive from this period. It was also during this time that Locke served as Secretary of the Board of Trade and Plantations and Secretary to the Lords and Proprietors of the Carolinas, helping to shape his ideas on international trade and economics. Shaftesbury, as a founder of the Whig movement, exerted great influence on Lockes political ideas. Locke became involved in politics when Shaftesbury became Lord Chancellor in 1672. Following Shaftesburys fall from favour in 1675, Locke spent some time travelling across France. He returned to England in 1679 when Shaftesburys political fortunes took a brief positive turn. Around this time, most likely at Shaftesburys prompting, Locke composed the bulk of the Two Treatises of Government. Locke wrote the Treatises to defend the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but also to counter the absolutist political philosophy of Sir Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes. Though Locke was associated with the influential Whigs, his ideas about natural rights and government are today considered quite revolutionary for that period in English history. However, Locke fled to the Netherlands, Holland, in 1683, under strong suspicion of involvement in the Rye House Plot (though there is little evidence to suggest that he was directly involved in the scheme). In the Netherlands Locke had time to return to his writing, spending a great deal of time re-working the Essay and composing the Letter on Toleration. Locke did not return home until after the Glorious Revolution. Locke accompanied William of Oranges wife back to England in 1688. The bulk of Lockes publishing took place after his arrival back in England – his aforementioned Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the Two Treatises of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration all appearing in quick succession upon his return from exile. John Locke Lockes close friend Lady Masham invited him to join her at the Mashams country house in Essex. Although his time there was marked by variable health from asthma attacks, he nevertheless became an intellectual hero of the Whigs. During this period he discussed matters with such figures as John Dryden and Isaac Newton. He died in 28 October 1704, and is buried in the churchyard of the village of High Laver,[4] east of Harlow in Essex, where he had lived in the household of Sir Francis Masham since 1691. Locke never married nor had children. Events that happened during Lockes lifetime include the English Restoration, the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London. He did not quite see the Act of Union of 1707, though the thrones of England and Scotland were held in personal union throughout his lifetime. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy were in their infancy during Lockes time. Epitaph Original Latin: â€Å"| SISTE VIATOR Hic juxta situs est JOHANNES LOCKE. Si qualis fuerit rogas, mediocritate sua contentum se vixesse respondet. Literis innutritus eo usque tantum profecit, ut veritati unice litaret. Hoc ex scriptis illius disce, quae quod de eo reliquum est majori fide tibe exhibebunt, quam epitaphii suspecta elogia. Virtutes si quas habuit, minores sane quam sibi laudi duceret tibi in exemplum proponeret; vita una sepeliantur. Morum exemplum si squaeras in Evangelio habes: vitiorum utinam nusquam: mortalitatis certe (quod prosit) hic et ubique. 1632 Aug. 29Mortuum Anno Dom. 1704 Oct. 28Memorat haec tabula brevi et ipse interitura. | †| English Translation: â€Å"| STOP TRAVELLER Near this place lies JOHN LOCKE. If you are wondering what kind of man he was, he answers that he was contented with his modest lot. Bred a scholar, he made his learning subservient only to the cause of truth. You will learn this from his writings, which will show you everything about him more truthfully than the suspect praises of an epitaph. His virtues, if indeed he had any, were too slight to be lauded by him or to be an example to you. Let his vices be buried with him. Of virtue you have an example in the gospels, should you desire it; of vice would there were none for you; of mortality surely you have one here and everywhere, and may you learn from it. That he was born on the 29th of August in the year of our Lord 1632and that he died on the 28th of October in the year of our Lord 1704this tablet, which itself will soon perish, is a record. | †| Influence Locke exercised a profound influence on political philosophy, in particular on modern liberalism. Michael Zuckert has in fact argued that Locke launched liberalism by tempering Hobbesian absolutism and clearly separating the realms of Church and State. He had a strong influence on Voltaire who called him le sage Locke. His arguments concerning liberty and the social contract later influenced the written works of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the United States. In fact, several passages from the Second Treatise are reproduced verbatim in the Declaration of Independence, most notably the reference to a long train of abuses. Such was Lockes influence, Thomas Jefferson wrote; Bacon, Locke and Newton.. I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences. [5][6] Today, most contemporary libertarians claim Locke as an influence. But Lockes influence may have been even more profound in the realm of epistemology. Locke redefined subjectivity, or self, and intellectual historians such as Charles Taylor and Jerrold Seigel argue that Lockes Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) marks the beginning of the modern conception of the self. [7] Constitution of Carolina Appraisals of Locke have often been tied to appraisals of liberalism in general, and also to appraisals of the United States. Detractors note that (in 1671) he was a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company, as well as through his participation in drafting the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas while Shaftesburys secretary, which established a feudal aristocracy and gave a master absolute power over his slaves. They note that as a secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations (1673-4) and a member of the Board of Trade (1696-1700) Locke was, in fact, one of just half a dozen men who created and supervised both the colonies and their iniquitous systems of servitude[8] Some see his statements on unenclosed property as having justified the displacement of the Native Americans. Because of his opposition to aristocracy and slavery in his major writings, he is accused of hypocrisy, or of caring only for the liberty of English capitalists. Theory of value and property. Locke uses the word property in both broad and narrow senses. In a broad sense, it covers a wide range of human interests and aspirations; more narrowly, it refers to material goods. He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labor. Locke believed that ownership of property is created by the application of labor. In addition, property precedes government and government cannot dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily. Karl Marx later critiqued Lockes theory of property in his social theory. Political theory. See also: Two Treatises of Government Lockes political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterized by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his â€Å"Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions, basis for the phrase in America; Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [9] Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with help from government in a state of society. However, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name[10] and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day. [11] Locke also advocated governmental separation of powers and believed that revolution is not only a right but an obligation in some circumstances. These ideas would come to have profound influence on the Constitution of the United States and its Declaration of Independence. Limits to accumulation Labor creates property, but it also does contain limits to its accumulation: man’s capacity to produce and man’s capacity to consume. According to Locke, unused property is waste and an offense against nature. However, with the introduction of â€Å"durable† goods, men could exchange their excessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and thus not offend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the culmination of this process. Money makes possible the unlimited accumulation of property without causing waste through spoilage. He also includes gold or silver as money because they may be â€Å"hoarded up without injury to anyone,† since they do not spoil or decay in the hands of the possessor. The introduction of money eliminates the limits of accumulation. Locke stresses that inequality has come about by tacit agreement on the use of money, not by the social contract establishing civil society or the law of land regulating property. Locke is aware of a problem posed by unlimited accumulation but does not consider it his task. He just implies that government would function to moderate the conflict between the unlimited accumulation of property and a more nearly equal distribution of wealth and does not say which principles that government should apply to solve this problem. However, not all elements of his thought form a consistent whole. For example, labor theory of value of the Two Treatises of Government stands side by side with the demand-and-supply theory developed in a letter he wrote titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. Moreover, Locke anchors property in labor but in the end upholds the unlimited accumulation of wealth. On price theory Locke’s general theory of value and price is a supply and demand theory, which was set out in a letter to a Member of Parliament in 1691, titled Some Considerations on the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Value of Money. [12] Supply is quantity and demand is rent. â€Å"The price of any commodity rises or falls by the proportion of the number of buyer and sellers. † and â€Å"that which regulates the price[of goods] is nothing else but their quantity in proportion to their rent. † The quantity theory of money forms a special case of this general theory. His idea is based on â€Å"money answers all things† (Ecclesiastes) or â€Å"rent of money is always sufficient, or more than enough,† and â€Å"varies very little†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Regardless of whether the demand for money is unlimited or constant, Locke concludes that as far as money is concerned, the demand is exclusively regulated by its quantity. He also investigates the determinants of demand and supply. For supply, goods in general are considered valuable because they can be exchanged, consumed and they must be scarce. For demand, goods are in demand because they yield a flow of income. Locke develops an early theory of capitalization, such as land, which has value because â€Å"by its constant production of saleable commodities it brings in a certain yearly income. † Demand for money is almost the same as demand for goods or land; it depends on whether money is wanted as medium of exchange or as loanable funds. For medium of exchange â€Å"money is capable by exchange to procure us the necessaries or conveniences of life. † For loanable funds, â€Å"it comes to be of the same nature with land by yielding a certain yearly income †¦ or interest. † Monetary thoughts Locke distinguishes two functions of money, as a counter to measure value, and as a pledge to lay claim to goods. He believes that silver and gold, as opposed to paper money, are the appropriate currency for international transactions. Silver and gold, he says, are treated to have equal value by all of humanity and can thus be treated as a pledge by anyone, while the value of paper money is only valid under the government which issues it. Locke argues that a country should seek a favorable balance of trade, lest it fall behind other countries and suffer a loss in its trade. Since the world money stock grows constantly, a country must constantly seek to enlarge its own stock. Locke develops his theory of foreign exchanges, in addition to commodity movements, there are also movements in country stock of money, and movements of capital determine exchange rates. The latter is less significant and less volatile than commodity movements. As for a country’s money stock, if it is large relative to that of other countries, it will cause the country’s exchange to rise above par, as an export balance would do. He also prepares estimates of the cash requirements for different economic groups (landholders, laborers and brokers). In each group the cash requirements are closely related to the length of the pay period. He argues the brokers – middlemen – whose activities enlarge the monetary circuit and whose profits eat into the earnings of laborers and landholders, had a negative influence on both ones personal and the public economy that they supposedly contributed to. The self Locke defines the self as that conscious thinking thing, (whatever substance, made up of whether spiritual, or material, simple, or compounded, it matters not) which is sensible, or conscious of pleasure and pain, capable of happiness or misery, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that consciousness extends. [13] He does not, however, ignore substance, writing that the body too goes to the making the man. [14] The Lockean self is therefore a self-aware and self-reflective consciousness that is fixed in a body. In his Essay, Locke explains the gradual unfolding of this conscious mind. Arguing against both the Augustinian view of man as originally sinful and the Cartesian position, which holds that man innately knows basic logical propositions, Locke posits an empty mind, a tabula rasa, which is shaped by experience; sensations and reflections being the two sources of all our ideas. [15] Lockes Some Thoughts Concerning Education is an outline on how to educate this mind: he expresses the belief that education maketh the man, or, more fundamentally, that the mind is an empty cabinet, with the statement, I think I may say that of all the men we meet with, nine parts of ten are what they are, good or evil, useful or not, by their education. [16] Locke also wrote that the little and almost insensible impressions on our tender infancies have very important and lasting consequences. [17] He argued that the associations of ideas that one makes when young are more important than those made later because they are the foundation of the self: they are, put differently, what first mark the tabula rasa. In his Essay, in which is introduced both of these concepts, Locke warns against, for example, letting a foolish maid convince a child that goblins and sprites are associated with the night for darkness shall ever afterwards bring with it those frightful ideas, and they shall be so joined, that he can no more bear the one than the other. [18] Associationism, as this theory would come to be called, exerted a powerful influence over eighteenth-century thought, particularly educational theory, as nearly every educational writer warned parents not to allow their children to develop negative associations. It also led to the development of psychology and other new disciplines with Dav.

Funding a United States Space Program :: essays research papers

Funding a United States Space Program It is imperative that the United States government should put forth a better initiative regarding our flailing national space programs, and increase their budgets considerably, stressing modification on its goals, modification of its resources, and for overall further advancement of its scope and capability. The space program had been heralded for years as the pride, and future, of the United States. Its promise brought hope to a society plagued by fear and competition, and has since been both the impetus for both immense technological competition, and then conversely, a symbol of cooperation between two diametrically opposed cultures. It brought numerous breakthroughs in medicine, materials science, engineering, and defense—over 30,000 advancements to date, including MRIs and CAT scans for detecting cancers and other health threats. Why does our government choose to slowly phase out the life of an entity that has only but added years to our own? The space program is an import ant part of our existence as Americans, and as world citizens.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The space program needs the appropriate funding for modification for fundamental purposes. The program has worked with the same prototype rocket for almost 50 years. New breakthroughs have emerged in planning and research; however the program does not have the means to go about implementing new ideas. With advancements created through space science research, such findings could create better means of travel on Earth. Also, space exploration gave us the first stark warnings of a world damaged by our endangerment of the environment, and it could further nurture the repair of our planet by allowing us to find better ways of utilizing our resources.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Space travel and exploration is needed for social purposes. Just as Russians and Americans, and now the Chinese, are able to put aside differences to embark on the ultimate human pioneering experience, so it is needed for the sake of unifying humanity through example. Someday, everyone in the world, even those not as privileged as the aforementioned societies, will be touched by the immense advancements space research has made, if they haven’t been touched already. Since we do not truly know what can be ‘out there’ awaiting us, both living and nonliving, it is important that we are prepared as a race to face them, in case a need or emergency arises in which we are forced to. Space travel concentrates on an investment in the betterment of humanity as a whole, and by so doing, it presents to the world the idea of our maturity as a race.

Outline the key theoretical claims of restorative justice and critically evaluate its advantages and disadvantages as applied to contemporary punishment practices in the UK.

Abstract Restorative justice describes various processes designed to correct the harm that the criminal inflicts on it’s victims and communities (Braithwaite,1999). It requires all parties; victims, offenders and communities, to establish ways of repairing the harm of crime and prevent it from happening again (Strickland, 2004, Cornwell, 2009). Although such practices may be seen as a more equitable and humane form of justice, it has been criticised for extending the criminal justice system (net-widening) (Garland, 2001) and for it’s propensity to ‘privatise’ the justice estate, by its use of informal and less accountable forms of, what Foucault refers to as ‘governmentality’ (Foucault, 1975, Pavlich, 2013). However, research shows that restorative justice has been successful in reducing reoffending rates and more significantly, giving a voice to the victims of crime, previously ignored by the prevailing criminal justice system. Introduction Restorative justice describes various processes designed to correct the harm that the criminal inflicts on it’s victims and communities (Braithwaite,1999). It requires all parties; victims, offenders and communities, to establish ways of repairing the harm of crime and prevent it from happening again (Strickland, 2004, Cornwell, 2009). This paper will explore the conceptual underpinnings of the restorative approach that will examine it’s development within the theoretical and practical framework of contemporary punishment practices. It will argue that those who advocate restorative justice claim that traditional ways of responding to harm tend to neglect the needs of victims and communities (Braithwaite, 1999). Van Ness & Strong (2010) contend that the prevailing policies and practices of the criminal justice system focus entirely on the offender as law breaker, that only address legal guilt and punishment (Stohr et al,2012). Further, over the last three decades, within the context of the rise of neo-liberal populism, that has seen decline of the rehabilitative ideal, restorative justice practices have the potential to mitigate the worst excesses of punitive punishments (Garland, 2001). However, the theoretical underpinnings of restorative justice, as this paper will show, has been attacked in various ways, due, in part, to its propensity to either be seen as undermining the impartiality of the criminal justice system, or as yet another form of what Foucault (1975) describes as ‘governmentality’. From this perspective, restorative justice is seen as an informal process that results in a net-widening of state control (Garland, 2001, Pavlich, 2013). This, in turn, has generated a significant ideological debate over the future of criminal justice (Johnstone & Van Ness, 2007). Proponents of restorative justice, however, argue that within the prevailing punitive regime, the increase in custodial sentences has generated a penal crisis that may be mitigated by the use of restorative approaches (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). Restorative justice may therefore be seen as a significant and pragmatic means of lowering the rate of recidivism and bringing about a more humane and equitable justice (Sim, 2008, Cornwell, 2009). The Demise of the Rehabilitative Ideal Since the eighteenth century, idea’s surrounding state punishment have led to a mixture of approaches that prevail today (Stohr et al, 2012). Clarkson, 2005, suggests that these theories in turn have generated continual discourse surrounding the moral justifications for punishment, which are; retributivism, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Sim (2009), citing Foucault, argues that although the prevailing literature on the history of the criminal justice system has placed an emphasis on the shifts and discontinuities in the apparatus of punishment, such as the move from retributive punishment toward a more progressive rehabilitative approach, since the mid 1970s punishment has been underpinned and legitimated by a political and populist hostility to offenders (ibid, Garland 2001, Cornwell, 2009). Garland (2001) argues that the last three decades has seen a shift away from the assumptions and ideologies that shaped crime control for most of the twentieth century. To day’s practices of policing and penal sanctions, Garland argues, pursue new objectives in a move away from the penal welfarism (rehabilitation) that shaped the 1890s?1970s approach of policy makers, academics and practitioners. Cornwell (2009) argues that although the rehabilitative model of punishment was seen as a progressive approach in the middle years of the last century, when it was widely accepted that the provision of ‘treatment and training’ would change the patterns of offending behaviour, the ideology failed to work out in practice (Garland, 2001). In turn, there became a disenchantment with the rehabilitative approach, and the ‘Nothing Works’ scenario became an accepted belief, given the reality of prison custody (Martinson, 1974). Muncie (2005) claims that the 1970s neo-liberal shift in political ideology saw the rehabilitative welfare model based on meeting individual needs, regress back towards a ‘justice model’ (retributi ve), that is more concerned with the offence than the offender. From the 1990s, Muncie argues, ‘justice’ has moved away from due process and rights to an authoritarian form of crime control. The Prison Crisis Cornwell (2009) claims that the effect of the ‘justice model’ on the prison population cannot be overstated (Sim, 2008). In England and Wales in 1990 the average daily prison population stood at around 46,000, by 1998 this figure increased to over 65,000, by 2009 the number rose to 82,586 (ibid). Further, the findings in the 2007 Commission on Prison’s suggest that a ‘crisis’ now defines the UK penal system (The Howard League, 2007). Despite a 42,000 decline in reported crime since 1995, the Commission argue, the prison population has soared to a high of 84,000 in 2008, more than doubling since 1992. Cornwell (2009) claims that at present the costs of keeping an offender in prison stands at around ?40,000 per year, where the estimated cost of building new prisons to accommodate the rise of the prison population will take huge resources of public money. Prison has therefore become the defining tool of the punishment process, where the United Kingdom (U K) now imprisons more of its population than any other country in Western Europe (ibid: p.6). A History of Restorative Justice In response to the prison crisis, experimentation in the 1990s began to see various forms of restorative justice models in order to mitigate retributive punishment and as a means of re-introducing a greater emphasis on the rehabilitation ideal (Muncie, 2005). The arguments for restorative forms of justice, Cornwell (2009) claims, are not just about cost and sustainability on national resources, but more significantly, the notion of the type of unjust society the United Kingdom (UK) is likely to become unless this surge in punitive sanctions is not abated (ibid, Sim, 2009). Cornwell (2009) suggests that the main strength of the restorative justice model is that it is ‘practitioner led’, deriving from the practical experience of correctional officials and academics who have a comprehensive understanding of the penal system. From a ‘Nothing Works’ (Martinson, 1974) to a ‘What Works’ experience, the emphasis of restorative justice has been to identi fy a more humane, equitable and practical means of justice that goes beyond the needs of the offender (rehabilitative goal) toward addressing the victims and their communities (Cornwell, 2009). Restorative Justice ? Theory and Practice Howard Zehr (2002), envisioned restorative justice as addressing the victim’s needs or harm that holds offenders accountable to put right the harm that involves the victims, offenders and their communities (Zehr, 2002). The first focus is on holding the offender accountable for harm, the second is the requirement that in order to reintegrate into society, offenders must do something significant to repair the harm. Third, there should be a process through which victims, offenders and communities have a legitimate stake in the outcomes of justice (Cornwell, 2009.p:45). In this way, Zehr (2002) redefines or redirects the harm of crime away from its definition of a violation of the state, toward a violation of one person by another. At the same time, the focus of establishing blame or guilt shifts toward a focus on problem solving and obligations. As a result, communities and not the state become the central facilitators in repairing and restoring harm (ibid). Although restorative justice has received wide recognition across many western countries together with the endorsement of the Council of Europe in 1999, progress toward the implementation of restorative justice principles into mainstream criminal justice practices is slow (Cornwell, 2009). Further, restorative justice, both in theory and practice continues to generate a substantial and contentious debate (Morris, 2002). Restorative Justice ? A Critique Acorn (2005) argues that ‘justice’ has traditionally symbolised the scales of impartiality on the one hand, and the sword of power, on the other. Justice is thereby possible when a neutral judge calculates a fair balance of accounts to make decisions that are backed by state power. Restorative justice, by its practice of informal dispute resolutions, can be seen as a call to a return of a ‘privatised’ form of justice (ibid, Strang & Braithwaite, 2002). This criticism is qualified by the propensity of restorative justice advocates (Braithwaite, 1989) that critique punitive justice responses and thereby view the power of the state as harmful. This in turn, at least theoretically, erodes state power and state created crime categories, thereby threatening to create a ‘privatised’ justice process (Strang & Braithwaite, 2002). Within this process, Strang & Braithwaite (2002) argue, restorative justice cannot be seen to ‘legitimately’ deal with crimes. Acorn (2004) suggests that unlike the prevailing criminal justice system, the desire to punish (retribution) is replaced by a version of justice that is centred on specifically nuanced concepts of harm, obligation, need, re-integration and forgiveness. Such values guide Family Group Conferences, Community Mediation, Victim-Offender Commissions and various forms of tribunals (Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)) (MacLaughlin et al, 2003). Family Group Conferences is a prominent practice in restorative justice, that includes community members (paid or unpaid) to ‘hear’ disputes and help parties to resolve conflicts. However, rather than a diversion from the criminal justice system, such conferences involve offenders already convicted (Acorn, 2004). Garland (2001) views this arrangement a form of ‘net-widening’, where informal justice becomes part of the social landscape that encompasses a widening and ever expanding form of crime control (ibid) . Although restorative justice advocates argue that informal justice creates domains of freedom that empower victims, offenders and communities, opponents claim that restorative justice represents another pernicious way in which community mediation expands state control, while claiming to do precisely the opposite (Acorn, 2004, Garland, 2001, Pavlich, 2013). Restorative justice proponents are clear in their critique of the criminal justice system that is seen to not represent victims or their communities, where state officials, such as the police, lawyers and judges, are impartial, and thereby have no direct understanding of those affected by criminal offenses (Pavlich, 2013). Here, Pavlich refers to Foucault’s concept of ‘governmentality’, where the state subtly arranges the background settings to produce subjects who think and act in ways that do not require direct coercion, in what Foucault terms the ‘conduct of conduct’ (Pavlich, 2013, Foucault, 1975). In this way, Foucault argues, self governed subjects are produced when they buy into the logic and formulated identities of a given governmentality (Foucault, 1975). Garland and Sparks (2000) claim that restorative justice, as a form of govermentality has, in part, come about by the increased attention, over the last twenty-five years, toward the rights of the ‘victim’. Here, Garland (2001) argues that the last two decades has seen the rise of a distinctly populist current in penal politics that no longer relies on the evidence of the experts and professional elites. Whereas a few decades ago public opinion functioned as an occasional restraint on policy initiatives, it now operates as a privileged source. Within this context, Garland argues, victims have attained an unprecedented array of ‘rights’ within the criminal justice system, ranging from; ‘the right to make victim impact statements’, the right to be consulted in prosecutions, sentencing and parole together with notifications of offenders post release movements and the right to receive compensation. Further, the right to receive service provision ent ails the use of Victim Support agencies who help people address their feelings and offer practical help and assistance, mitigating the negative impact of crime (Reeves and Mulley, 2000). Wright (2000) suggests that while such developments may be seen as a triumph for victim support movements, these reforms do not fundamentally alter the structural position of victims. This, Wright explains, is because the punitive structural system remains intact whereby the victim’s interests will necessarily remain secondary to the wider public interest, represented by the crown (Wright, 2000). It can be argued that while critics may be seen as correct in their perception of restorative justice as a form of governmentality or net-widening by the state, the attack may be seen as premature, given the early stages of its development (Cornwell, 2009). Cornwell argues that critics have not given restorative justice enough time to develop and potentially emerge as a stand alone resolution to the problem of crime and its repercussions for the victims, offenders and their communities (ibid). Restorative justice programmes are still at an embryonic stage, where they are attracting critique, mainly due to their attachment to the Criminal Justice System (Cornwell, 2009, Morris, 2002, Ministry of Justice, 2012). Cornwell (2009) also addresses the argument that the restorative approach places too much emphasis on the status it affords to the victims of crime. In reality, Cornwell suggests, that status is very much based on political rhetoric rather than actual reform. The publication of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that anticipated an advance in restorative and reparative measures into the criminal justice system, in reality bought in a much more punitive provision. Restorative measures under the Act are initiated on the basis of a ‘mix and match’ arrangement for ‘custody plus minus’. Here, (Garrielides, 2003) points out that restorative justice has therefore become somewhat removed from its underlying theory (Garrielides, 2003). Put simply, the restorative approach has been cherry picked to support other punitive initiatives, leaving its central tenets at the margins of the criminal justice system (Cornwell, 2009). Restorative Justice – Does it Work? Since the 1990s a number of restorative justice trial schemes began to take place, in order to measure success in terms of re-offending and victim satisfaction. According to a Ministry of Justice Report (Shapland et al, 2008), measuring the success of restorative justice against criminal justice control groups, it was found that offenders who took part in restorative justice schemes committed statistically significantly fewer offences (in terms of reconvictions) in the subsequent two years than offenders in the control group. Further, although restorative justice has been generally reported to be more successful within youth justice, this research showed no demographic differences, for example; in age, ethnicity, gender or offence type. The report also showed that eighty-five percent of victims were happy with the process (ibid). These results are reflected in various case studies. Published by the Restorative Justice Council (2013) the following gives an example of the positive impa ct that restorative justice can have on the victim, the offender and communities: Arrested in February last year, Jason Reed was sentenced to five years in prison after admitting to more than fifty other burglaries. During the criminal justice process, Jason expressed his wish to start afresh and make amends, so he was referred to the post-conviction restorative justice unit. After a full assessment to ensure his case was suitable for restorative justice measures, three conferences took place between Jason and five of his victims. The victims had different motivations for taking part and they were able to express their upset and anger directly to the offender. Jason agreed to pay back an agreed amount of compensation and the victims showed some acceptance and forgiveness (Restorative Justice Council, 2013). Conclusion Overall, this paper has argued that restorative justice may be seen as an attempt to address the disillusion within the criminal justice system in the 1970s that had conceded that ‘Nothing Works’. The demise of the rehabilitative ideal (Garland, 2001), against the backdrop of political shifts toward a neo-liberal ideology, bought about a more punitive, retributive stance toward punishment and offending (Sim, 2008). As a result, the rise in prison populations has bought about a penal crisis. In response, new initiatives in restorative justice began to develop, emerging as a more equitable, humane form of punishment (Cornwell, 2009). The advantages of the restorative approach cannot be overstated, as this paper shows, rather than the state focusing on the offender (as is the case with the prevailing criminal justice system), restorative justice seeks to address the needs of the victim and community participation (Zehr, 2002). In practical terms, there appears to be some su ccess in terms of re-offending and victim satisfaction (Ministry of Justice, 2008). Despite the criticisms (Garland, 2001), it can be argued that restorative justice demonstrates an opportunity and potential to mitigate the worst excesses of the criminal justice system and bring about a more equitable and humane approach (Cornwell, 2009). Word count: 2654 Bibliography Acorn, A (2004) Compulsory Compassion: A Critique of Restorative Justice. Vol 14, No.6 (June 2004) pp. 446-448. University of British Columbia Press Bottoms, A, Gelsthorpe, S Rex, S (2013) Community Penalties: Change & Challenges. London: Wilan Publishing Cavadino, M & Dignan, J (2006) Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach. London: Sage Publications Clarkson, M (2005) Understanding Criminal Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell Cornwell, D (2009) The Penal Crisis and the Clapham Omnibus: Questions and Answers in Restorative Justice. Hampshire: Waterside Press Dupont-Morales, M, Hooper, M, Schmidt, J (2000) Handbook of Criminal Justice Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. Garland, D (2001) Culture of Control: Crime & Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxon: Oxford University Press Garland, D & Sparks, R (2000) Criminology & Social Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Garrielides, T (2003) Restorative Justice Theory and Practice: Mind the Gap! Available[online]from: http://www.euforum.org/readingroom/Newsletter/Vol04Issue03.pdf The Howard League for Prison Reform (2007) Do Better, Do Less: The report of the Commission on English Prisons Today. The Howard League. Available [online] from: http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/online_publications/Do_Better_Do_Less_res.pdf Accessed on 26th February 2014-02-27 Johnstone, G (2011) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates: Second Edition. Oxon: Wilan Publishing Marshall, T (1996) The Evolution of Restorative Justice in Britain. European Journal on Criminal Police and Research (4) 21-43 McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmaland, L (2003) Restorative Justice: Critical Issues. London: The Open University Ministry of Justice (2012) Restorative Justice Action Plan for the Criminal Justice System. November 2012 Available [online] from: http://www.restorative_justice_action_plan.pdf Morris, A (2002) Critiquing the Critics: A Brief Response to Critics of Restorative Justice. British Journal of Criminology (2002) 42 (3): 596-615 Muncie, J (2005) The Globalization of Crime Control: the Case of Youth and Juvenile Justice: Neo-Liberalism, Policy Convergence & International Conventions. Theoretical Criminology 9 (1) pp: 35-64 Raynor, P, Robinson, G (2009) Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan Restorative Justice Council (2013) Case Studies Available [online] from: http:www.restorativejustice.org.uk/?p=resources&keyword=178 Accessed on: 27th February 2014 Reeves, H & Mulley,K (2000) The New Status of Victims in the UK: Threats and Opportunities, cit in: Crawford, A and Goodey, J (eds) Integrating a Victim Perspective Within Criminal Justice Debates. Aldershot: Ashgate Press Robinson, G & Crow, I (2009) Offender Rehabilitation: Theory, Research & Practice. London: Sage Publications Shapland, J, Atkinson, A, Atkinson, H, Dignan, J, Edwards, L, Hibbert, J, Howes, M, Johnstone, J, Robinson, G and Sorsby, A (2008) Does Restorative Justice Effect Reconviction. The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice 2008. Available [online] from: http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/ministry_of_justice_evaluation_does_restorative_justice_affect_reconviction_the_fourth_report_from_the_evaluation_of_three_schemes/ Accessed on 26th February 2014 Sim, J (2009) Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State.London: Sage Publications Limited Stohr, M, Walsh, A, Hemmens, C (2012) Corrections, a text/reader, Second Edition. London: Sage Publications. Strickland, R.A (2004) Studies in Crime & Punishment. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc Sumner, C (2008) The Blackwell Companion to Criminology. London: John Wiley & Sons Wright, M (2000) Restorative justice and Mediation. Paper presented at the conference â€Å"Probation Methods in Criminal Policy: Current State and Perspectives† at Popowo, Poland, 20-21 October. Available [online] from: http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/wrightmartin2000restorative/view Accessed on: 28th February 2014 Zehr, H (2002) Little Book of Restorative Justice. New Zealand: The Little Books of Justice and Peace Building

Henry David Thoreau s The Wilderness Of Walden Pond ...

Though the reasons for their pilgrimages were different, transcendentalists emphasized journeys into nature. Henry David Thoreau, perhaps the most famous transcendentalist, wrote Walden on his time spent in the wilderness of Walden pond. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote Nature on his walks into the woods. Much of Emerson’s works were on intuition and self-reliance. Jeremiah Johnson is a modern movie that seemingly adopts the ideas of these transcendentalist authors into a narrative about a man who leaves civilisation for the mountain. All three characters had different stated motivations. Thoreau left to â€Å"live simply† (Thoreau). Emerson left for solitude. Though it never was stated directly, Jeremiah Johnson left to â€Å"Leave his troubles far behind†, with later hints to him being a deserter of the Mexican American War. But why is nature a staple of transcendentalism? Transcendentalism, unlike rationalism or empiricism, is founded on the belief that one can †Å"transcend the data that we intake via our senses† using intuition (Dwinell). For Transcendentalists, nature is the path to truth, because it is there intuition rules above all. Nature and Transcendentalism are intrinsically connected. Transcendentalism is a form of Romanticism, which emerged as a response to growing civilization and, more specifically, the Industrial Revolution. The romantics endorsed trips away from this, into the wilderness, where one could experience nature undiluted. Moby Dick, by Herman Melville, forShow MoreRelatedComparing Henry David Thoreau and Herman Melvilles Writings1739 Words   |  7 PagesComparing Henry David Thoreau and Herman Melvilles Writings Henry David Thoreau and Herman Melville focused their writings on how man was affected by nature. They translated their philosophies though both the portrayal of their protagonist and their own self exploration. In Moby Dick, Melville writes about Ahabs physical and metaphysical struggle over the great white whale, Moby Dick, symbolic of mans struggle against the overwhelming forces of nature. Ahabs quest is reported and experiencedRead MoreEssay The Incredible Henry David Thoreau1081 Words   |  5 Pagesthe integrity of their government. Henry David Thoreau was one such man. Henry Thoreau was born in Concord, Massachusetts to a successful pencil manufacturer John Thoreau and a strong-willed, quick-witted mother, Cynthia. Early on Henry enjoyed reading books and observing nature in solitude. He inherited the gift of gab and intellectual inquiry from his mother as well as both Puritan and abolitionist ideals. In 1837 he graduated from Harvard. In 1841 Henry moved into Ralph Waldo Emersons homeRead MoreThe Literary Movement of Transcendentalism Essay examples872 Words   |  4 PagesOver-Soul. When this occurred, one was cleansed of materialistic aims, and was left with a sense of self-reliance and purity. Two authors who were among the leaders of the movement were Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, whose works quot;Naturequot;, quot;Self-Reliancequot;, and quot;Waldenquot; brought America to the forefront of the transcendentalist movement. Their ideas opposed the popular materialist views of life and voiced a desire for freedom of the individual from artificial restraintsRead MoreHuman Nature Vs Transcendentalism883 Words   |  4 Pagesintuition. And yes. there’s another author names Henry David Thoreau, who wroite a book named â€Å"Walden†. â€Å"I have spent many an hour, when I was younger, floating over its surface as the zephyr willed, having paddled my boat to the middle, and lying on my back across the seats, my back across the seats, in a summer forenoon, dreaming awake, until I was aroused by the boat touching the sand, and I arose to see what shore my fates had impelled me to.† (â€Å"Walden, Emerson). In addition to the universal soulRead MoreHenry David Thoreau s On Living The Good Life1537 Words   |  7 PagesHenry David Thoreau philosophized about living the good life. According to him, the good life is reached through what can be interpreted as an ever-evolving soul. The ever-evolving soul matures and begins to tune in to spiritual instinct. Epistemologically, Thoreau argues that spiritual instincts are sentiments or feelings that act as a life compass and distinguish the metaphysical aspect of higher laws from the world of being. In order to live the best life, according to Thoreau, one must avoidRead MoreAnalysis Of Christopher Mccandless s The Great Gatsby 2603 Words   |  11 Pagesabove all, Henry David Thoreau, whose work and path he had both looked up to in fond admiration, as well as quite nearly internalized. Following such similar paths, the characters of two individualists held striking similarities, including their desperate need to escape materialism, willingn ess and longing to engage in solitude, as well as unified craving for change and adventure. ! ! ï ¿ ¼The arguably most apparent aspect in which the personalities of Chris McCandless and Henry David Thoreau truly paralleled