What effects did the Catholic Church have on the world during the Research Paper

What effects did the Catholic Church have on the world during the renaissance - Research Paper Example This is the period which is considered as one of the most important periods during the history of modern Europe. Though the overall benefits of this were not uniformly spread over the whole Europe, however, it started a period which brought important changes that shaped the modern history of Europe. During this era, Christian religion also went through significant changes, and many new sects emerged during this period. This time is also considered as the period of reformations and change: the world witnessed significant changes in the way Christianity evolved during this period. It was also during this era that mass publication of the Bible started to take place due to the invention of a paper machine. Thus, during this era the religion went through drastic changes, and the impact of these changes was enormous not only upon Europe, but on the other parts of the world, too. The reformation process was considered so strong that it almost split the Christianity. The overall influence of the Church during this era started to decline, and the society’s values and needs were changed significantly. This era actually initiated a debate to re-evaluate and re-examine some of the old values and revive them in the society to make them more useful. Therefore, this paper will discuss the effects Catholic Church had on the world during the Renaissance period. Catholic Church and Renaissance The Renaissance was a period of transformation, and it was also during this period that the overall influence of the Catholic

How did Jesus compare and contrast with other miracle workers Essay

How did Jesus compare and contrast with other miracle workers - Essay Example In the above question, why not the same bad did not occur to others is an inherent pessimism. When that pessimism is absent, one can understand that the good happened for many as a miracle. Hence, a positive attitude with just a limited criticism is necessary to receive a happening as a miracle. Now the question comes about the nature of the miracle and the miracle workers. Before and after Jesus there are miracle workers and World recognizes Jesus as the most famous one. The most important miracle about Jesus is that he rose to life three days after crucifixion, which is extra-human in nature. This is the most contrasting thing that differentiates Jesus from other miracle workers. The comparison of Jesus with other miracle workers is that many of the miracle workers like Moses have lead the distressed and downtrodden to the path of light and created awareness in them. Another thing that is common about the miracles is the increase of faith of followers on the miracle workers (Sander s Theresa, 2000). The important aspect about Jesus that contrasts him with other miracle workers is his birth. Christians believe that he is son of God. This tag is not available with other miracle workers and they bore the title of prophets, servant of god or saints. No other miracle worker is named as son of the god and this is the important miracle (if it is so), that contrasts Jesus with other miracle workers. ... The incident and the miracle that made him disappear in person from the earth was a contrast as well. The resurgence of Jesus after crucifixion is also a contrast from other miracle workers' disappearance. In addition to that, the miracles of Jesus lead the Jews to rebel against the kings or the kings felt so (Bockmuehl, Markus Editor, 2002). In addition to above, another important aspect about Jesus is that the miracles and activities of him resulted in a divine identity. One of the most contrasting aspects about Jesus is that the followers of Jesus characterized him and historians did not condemn him as a messiah, which is absent in case of other miracle workers. Another contrast about Jesus and other miracle workers is that the miracles of Jesus have moral background and other miracle workers have shown miracles in the context of saving their followers from enemies or natural calamities. Miracles of Jesus also have that nature up to some extent, but his miracles possess a nature of inculcating morality in his subjects. Thus, he preached through his miracles, which is not present to that extent in other miracle workers (Bockmuehl, Markus Editor, 2002). Moreover, the miracles of Jesus healed the followers and thus gave an interpretation to the healings. Jews in the day of Jesus felt that the world is open and it is possible for God or an extra ordinary person like Jesus to perform extra ordinary events (miracles). The origin of the events is the ability of the extra ordinary person or the god. Thus, Jesus has contrast with other miracle workers, as his miracles are foundation for the notion that he has been sent by god. However, in case of miracles of other miracle workers after Jesus, the origin of miracles is Jesus or

Contract law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 4

Contract law - Essay Example The Law reform Commission, in its Consultation Paper titled â€Å"Privity of Contract: Third Party Rights† launched on 14 November 2006, has recommended that the rules of privity be amended such that where the parties to a contract clearly intend a third party to benefit, then that party be allowed to sue if terms are not carried out.2 Moreover, the existing exceptions to the Rule of Privity are also to be preserved. However, in view of the numerous exceptions and exclusions that exist to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract, the question that arises is whether these reforms are really necessary? As stated by Trietel, â€Å"the many exceptions to the Doctrine [of Privity] make it tolerable in practice but they have provoked the question whether it would not be better further to modify the doctrine or to abolish it altogether.†3 For example, one of the exceptions that exist is the provision for collateral contracts, where one of the parties to the original contract may have a collateral contract with a third party that relates to the same subject matter of the original contract. In the case of Shanklin Pier v Detel Products4 the Plaintiffs had a contract with some contractors. However these contractors recommended that the plaintiffs purchase paint from the defendants, which was guaranteed to last seven years. When it lasted for only three months, the plaintiffs sued and the Court held that despite the existing contract with the Contractors, plaintiffs could sue defendants under the collateral contract arrangement which existed, thereby allowing for action against a third party. Collateral contracts also provided the means for a third party to circumvent the doctrine of Privity in the case of Andrews v Hopkinson.5In this case the Plaintiff bought a car from a defendant who assured him that it was in good condition. The Plaintiff bought the car on a hire purchase arrangement and had it financed through a finance Company and

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Essay Example for Free

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Essay My topic is a rally car made by the Japanese company Mitsubishi. This machine is considered one of the best rally cars in the world. And they are used as cars in our everyday life. The car I am going to be focusing on is the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution in Short Evo. The evolution is a racing car modern transportation car. | Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution short (evo) is a product of Japan. It was created as a separate branch to the lancer. The Evolution was intended as a Professional Rally car. The car turned out so well that there were numerous requests for a road car. The evolution was then turned into a sports sedan. The reason I love Evolution so much and would like others to know is because of the way the car was created. If for example you are a driver that loves a sporty car but has a family the Evolution is perfect it has five seats so that the whole family can go. The car is also 4by4 which means that it can go through stormy weather and the drive can feel confident. The Evolution has great prices as well so that means that you can get almost up to three hundred horsepower and a turbo for an affordable price. One of the reasons that the Evolution is so famous is for its handling it was created for rally racing which means that even though the sedan may be different it is still similar. The handling on an Evolution is one of the best in the world for a sedan. Due to the Gentlemen’s Agreement which stated in Japan that no production car would have more than 300 horsepower the Evolutions in Japan, Europe and North America some of the versions of the Evolution where different. In the future Mitsubishi is planning on making more Evolutions but it is still unclear about the look of the car. Mitsubishi claims that the car is going to have some medications and Versions of it might run on Electricity and there probably will be Hybrids. The Conclusion that I came up with is that if you are a family person but always wanted something sporty under $30,000 and something the whole family can go on this would be your choice. The car has magnificent handling and it is very safe. It has a very flashy look and enough power under the hood to keep you going for a long time. In my personal opinion if you have a family a two setter sports car would not go as good with the family, but a sports sedan would.

Argument Analysis of the Issue of Euthanasia Essay Example for Free

Argument Analysis of the Issue of Euthanasia Essay 1.If a right creates a net benefit to society and is not morally incorrect, then it should be made legal. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 2.Voluntary euthanasia refers to a doctors right to kill a terminally ill patient to his/her request. (IM; Oracle: definition from www.euthanasia.com) 3.If voluntary euthanasia is not a moral transgression and euthanasia creates a net benefit on society, then present legal prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. (LI from 1,2) 4.It is considered a moral duty to kill a pet that is suffering due to incurable illness. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 5.If it is a moral duty to relieve a suffering pet with incurable illness from its suffering by killing it, performing euthanasia on willing humans that are terminally ill cannot be a moral transgression. (IM; Oracle: tacit knowledge) 6.Performing euthanasia on willing humans that are terminally ill is not a moral transgression. (LI from 4,5) 7.Terminally ill patients use scarce medical resources. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 8.Euthanasia would increase the number of terminally ill patients that would willingly die. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 9.Patients stop using medical resources once they die. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 10.Euthanasia would create an increase in scarce medical resources not used by terminally ill patients. (LI from 7,8,9) 11.Other patients will use the scarce medical resources that are not being used by terminally ill patients. (IM; Oracle: Tacit Knowledge) 12.Euthanasia would thus create an increase in scarce medical resources that will be used by patients that are not terminally ill. (LI from 10,11) 13.Patients that are not terminally ill benefit from medical resources more than terminally ill patients. (IM; Oracle: Common Knowledge) 14.Scarce resources cause the largest benefit to society when used by those people that can benefit most from them. (IM; Oracle: Mankiw, Principles of Microeconomics) 15.Euthanasia would create a net benefit to society because of its allocation of scarce medical resources. (LI from 12,13,14) 16.Present legal prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. (UC and LI from 3,6,15) Argument Evaluation of Original Argument Euthanasia is sure to become an issue of increasing importance as our population ages and the leading  causes of death become long term debilitating illness rather than accidents or infectious disease. Too often the debate is clouded by emotion and irrational thought. However, turning ones attention to the following points may serve to clarify the situation. The first few sentences in the speakers argument serve as an introduction to the topic. The first to statements establish the importance of the issue. While these two sentences are no directly part of the argument, the speaker has already made an error. The speaker states that the leading  causes of death become long term debilitating illness rather than accidents  or infectious disease, however the leading cause of death is already a long term debilitating illness (namely cardiovascular disease). This of course suggests that the speaker has unreliable information and will make his/her argument less trustworthy. The remaining to sentences serve to exclude any irrational topics from being introduced into the argument criticism. This is a very wise move strategically since it is indeed true that many times this subject is clouded by speak of God and prejudice against elderly. While the speaker attempts to avoid discussing such issues, he/she does mention morality. We consider it a duty, not a moral transgression, to end the life of a suffering pet. Why do we balk at providing the same service to willing humans? The speaker tries to establish that moral transgression is not in question so that it is not brought up in an argument criticism. A pet cannot request euthanasia. A pets owner will have the pet killed if the pet has an incurable illness which will cause unbearable suffering. Humans on the other hand can request euthanasia. If they cannot request euthanasia their surrogate can. Thus we must speak of voluntary euthanasia when concerning humans. The speaker is making a link between the morality of performing euthanasia on pets and the morality of performing euthanasia on humans. This link, represented in statement 3, is an opinion about what is moral and thus cannot be verified with a strong source. Nonetheless, it is a valid stance on morality and the speaker chose to use this link in his/her argument Is it not crueler to condemn these individuals to weeks, perhaps even months, of suffering? I did not include this statement in my argument reconstruction since I believe it is very weak and is a point that will be criticized greatly. No patient is being condemned to suffering. I will return to this subject in my own argument Besides, it is a greater injustice to squander precious medical resources on  the terminally ill when so many others, particularly infants, could benefit from them instead; and frequently this is the only alternative to euthanasia. This argument is actually quite weak. Rarely are medical treatments rival. One persons use of a treatment usually does not affect the use of others. In the case where the medical resources are indeed rival, (eg. organs etc) the speaker himself/herself says that frequently the younger patients or those that will benefit most from the treatment are given the scarce medical resources. The argument about scarce medical resources can be used, however the speaker should not mention: frequently this is the only alternative to euthanasia. When these points are considered, it becomes clear that the present legal prohibitions against euthanasia ought to be lifted. This statement is the speakers ultimate conclusion. It is not necessary to reestablish the validity of the argument with the statement it becomes clear that. Furthermore, the preposition when these points are considered should be excluded from the sentence as it allows us to suspect that there are other points that should be considered. In terms of strategic excellence, the argument should only contain information relevant to the inquirers inquiry. No information that does not aid in reaching the ultimate conclusion should be present unless absolutely necessary. Lastly, there are many kinds of euthanasia. The speaker must specify that he/she is considering one specific meaning. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the killing of a patient that gives consent to be killed. There are problems with determining what is really voluntary. We must assume that the patient is capable of requesting euthanasia. Otherwise, the patients surrogate must request euthanasia. The doctor cannot decide alone that a patient should be killed. Many times however (according to statistics from Holland where euthanasia is currently legal) a doctor may take his/her own initiative and then lie about the cause of the patients death, attributing death to natural causes. For the purposes of argument, let us assume that voluntary euthanasia will be practiced correctly and assess whether the prohibitions against voluntary euthanasia ought to be lifted. General Evaluation: As is evident from my argument reconstruction, the inquirers written argument lacks many links. Most importantly the inquirer fails to establish that his/her conclusion is based on a conjunction of two different claims (actually three, but I excluded the claim that patients are being condemned to suffering for informative correctness purposes). It is extremely important to establish what statements the conclusion is based on. Another major error is the use of wrong information. While the wrong information is not necessary for the establishment of the inquirers conclusion, the inquirer still suggests unreliability with his first two introductory statements. Furthermore, the inquirer included the claim that patients are being condemned to suffering. I excluded this statement completely as it is incorrect. I will discuss this subject in my own argument. Lastly, the argument is not set up in an organized manner. The lines of thought are not linear. Rather, the inquirer proceeds in multiple directions failing to relate his conclusion to each point put forth. The inquirer states that his conclusion is clear even though he/she actual failed to show the relation between the left side moves and the conclusion by not establishing that the conclusion is based on a conjunction of two different claims. The inquirer is usually definitorily correct. Occasionally, he/she makes errors. For example, the inquirer fails to define what is meant by euthanasia. It is a simple matter of vocabulary, yet the intended definition of the word can change the argument in many ways. There are many criticisms of euthanasia related to involuntary euthanasia. The inquirer should avoid these by specifying he/she is considering only voluntary euthanasia. The inquirer portrays some wise strategic moves in his/her first few statements. The inquirer first establishes the importance of the subject by implying that as the population mortality age increases more and more patients will be considering euthanasia. While this was a wise strategic move, I did not include it as it was not necessary to establish the conclusions validity. This statement simply served as an introduction to a written argument. The inquirer also attempts to avoid any criticism related  to irrational concepts (such as God) by stating that these ideas simply cloud the subject. This was also a wise strategic move. As discussed previously, the manner in which the ultimate conclusion is stated is quite weak. It is unnecessary to draw attention to the possibility of other points being relevant to the subject. In fact, this provokes the reader to search for other subjects that have not been considered and will contradict the inquirers conclusion. He/she also uses a danger signal in the ultimate conclusion. The inquirer says it should be clear that, however the inquirer never establishes the relation between the mentioned points and the ultimate conclusion. This phrase suggests that the inquirer may actually draw no connection at all. Lastly, the argument is valid. Rectifying some mistakes and adding some moves that were assumed obvious the table now does close and there are no other open paths. Thus the argument is complete and the conclusion true, assuming all IMs and LIs are truth preserving. My Argument A right that is not necessary (has no use) and can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us should not be legalized. As can be seen from statistics from countries that have made voluntary euthanasia legal, there are many complications related to the right not being implemented efficiently. Many doctors may take advantage of the right, many euthanasias are performed on people who did not even request euthanasia with reasons such as It was too much of a burden for the family or the patients illness was terminal. Evidently, it is not so clear what voluntary or terminal mean, and depending on the doctors judgment the same patient may be treated differently. Furthermore, doctors can suggest euthanasia to patients that have not even considered it. The psychological stress on a suffering patient is so great that they may be easily influenced by doctors or family members to request the procedure. Laws against  euthanasia are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. Secondly, there is no use to the right. Prohibitions against euthanasia are not intended to make patients suffer. No one is being condemned to suffering. If a patient is capable of requesting euthanasia they are also capable of committing suicide. People do have the power to commit suicide. If the patient does not have the means to commit suicide, a prescription of lethal drugs may be given to the patients but this is no longer considered euthanasia, but rather assisted suicide (which I am in favor of even though for moral reasons I personally disagree with suicide). Euthanasia refers to the killing of the patient directly by the doctor (either by lethal injection or by removal from necessary medical treatment). The need for assisted suicide is a completely different subject and should not be introduced into an argument about euthanasia. If the patient is not capable of requesting euthanasia then a court of law will allocate a surrogate to that patient which can make decisions for th e patient. If the patient is not capable of requesting euthanasia then the patient may not be able to commit suicide without assistance. But if the patient is in such a condition, they must be in vital need of medical treatment (either machines or drugs). A lot of people think that euthanasia is needed so patients wont be forced to remain alive by being hooked up to machines. But the law already permits patients or their surrogates to withhold or withdraw unwanted medical treatment even if that increases the likelihood that the patient will die. Thus, no one needs to be hooked up to machines against their will. Neither the law nor medical ethics requires that everything be done to keep a person alive. Insistence, against the patients wishes, that death be postponed by every means available is contrary to law and practice and is also cruel and inhumane. Thus even a patient that cannot commit suicide can kill himself/herself by removal from treatment. Euthanasia is not necessary and can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us. Prohibitions against euthanasia should not be lifted. (Assisted suicide is when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life. When a doctor helps another person to kill themselves it is called physician assisted suicide. In my opinion, physician assisted suicide should be allowed as long as it is merely assistance and is practiced lawfully. Measures should be taken to ensure it is practiced lawfully. Each doctor should be forced to send in a consent form to some organization first. The consent form should contain the patients or the surrogates signature (if the patient is incapable of signing or requesting). In this way there will be less abuse of the right.)

Comparison Of Taoism V Socrates

Comparison Of Taoism V Socrates Historically, Oriental and western philosophies developed in isolation from each other. The geographical and cultural distance between oriental and western civilization determined substantial differences between oriental and western philosophies. On the other hand, works of ancient Greek philosophers, such as Socrates, and some oriental philosophies, such as Taoism, do have some common ideas and concepts, although, regardless of some similarities, differences between oriental and western philosophies are distinctive. In this regard, it is possible to dwell upon the philosophy developed by Socrates and Taoism as two different philosophies, which respected the strife of individuals for the improvement of their life and self-perfection but still had quite different views, beliefs and concepts. In such a way, Taoism worshiped Toa as the first-cause of the universe and developed the philosophy, which worshiped Tao and promoted the self-perfection of individuals to meet Taoist ideals, wher eas Socrates stood on the ground that individuals should seek for wisdom as the way of self-perfection, taking care of their souls to reach harmony and spiritual balance. Socrates principles As the matter of fact, Socrates is one of the most influential philosophers of ancient Greece that defined, to a significant extent, the development of not only ancient philosophy but also the western philosophy at large. Socrates laid the foundation to basic principles of western philosophy, which were modified, changed and adapted by other philosophers. At the same time, his views were, in a way, universal because Socrates focused on the development of ideas, concepts and values which were universal and applicable to different cultures. Hence, Socrates philosophy persisted throughout times and places for centuries. In such a context, it is important to dwell upon basic principles of Socrates philosophy and to compare them to fundamental principles of Taoist philosophy. First of all, Socrates stressed the importance of wisdom and knowledge. He insisted that people should learn the surrounding world, themselves and phenomena around them. He developed the idea that the unexamined life is not worth living. At the same time, he remained very critical in regard to himself and his knowledge. On analyzing his knowledge he estimated I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. In such a way, Socrates stood on the ground that human mind can hardly become absolutely wise. In other words, Socrates had doubts that people could know everything. At this point, his views were close to Taoism, which respected Tao as the wisest deity, whose wisdom is not achievable for ordinary humans. In such a context, it is worth mentioning the fact that Socrates insisted that wisdom should not be the ultimate goal of human life but what made the life purposeful was the search for wisdom, learning: I decided that it was not wisdom that enabled poets to write their poetry, but a kind of instinct or inspiration, such as you find in seers and prophets who deliver all their sublime messages without knowing in the least what they mean. At the same time, Socrates argued that the most important task in life is caring for the soul: All mens souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine. Therefore, Socrates argued that people should take care of their souls and lead a virtuous life to be good and happy. Socrates places emphasis on the fact that people should work on their self-improvement and self-perfection to take care of their soul and to live a happy life. At this point, another principle of Socrates is of the utmost importance. Socrates believed that a good person could not be harmed by other people. In this regard, the material well-being of a person was not important for Socrates since: He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature. Therefore, Socrates believed that it is through the virtuous life people could be happy and live in harmony with their self and with other people. Principles of Taoism In fact, fundamental principles of Taoism are, in a way, similar to that of Socrates, although Taoist principles are built up on the religious ground. To put it more precisely, Taoist believe that Tao is the first-cause of the universe: We believe in the formless and eternal Tao, and we recognize all personified deities as being mere human constructs. We reject hatred, intolerance, and unnecessary violence, and embrace harmony, love and learning, as we are taught by Nature. We place our trust and our lives in the Tao, that we may live in peace and balance with the Universe, both in this mortal life and beyond. In this regard, Taoist views are quite different from that of Socrates because Taoist viewed Tao as the Supreme Being, deity that rules the world and humans, whereas Socrates insisted on the power of human mind. Therefore, Socrates was more anthropocentric compared to Taoists who viewed Tao as the supreme deity. At the same time, goals of human life and existence in Taoism were, in a way, similar to that of Socrates. Taoist stood on the ground that a believers goal was to harmonize themselves with Tao. This means that Taoist are supposed to seek for harmony and self-perfection to harmonize with Tao as Socrates suggested to seek for knowledge and self-perfection to take care of the soul. At the same time, Socrates was apparently concerned with the spiritual life of people above all, whereas physical aspects of human existence were secondary to him. He insisted on the necessity to develop knowledge and wisdom of humans. In contrast, Taoism stressed the importance of health and vitality in contrast to Socrates soul. In such a way, Taoist believed that the happiness is impossible without health and vitality, whereas Socrates was more concerned with knowledge, wisdom and soul of people, instead of their physical body, health and vitality. Nevertheless, Taoist developed believes which were close to Socrates philosophy. To put it more precisely, Taoist viewed the development of virtue as ones chief task. What is meant here is the fact that Taoist should lead a virtuous lifestyle to reach the harmony with Toa. In contrast, sinful life lead to misfortunes and problems people could not cope with in their life. Hence, Taoist developed the belief that people should plan in advance and consider carefully their actions before making them. In this regard, the belief of planning human actions is intertwined with Socrates emphasis on the importance of wisdom in human life. On the other hand, Taoist focus on the importance of actions planning were determined by the belief that actions tend to be reciprocated that means that good actions of an individual lead to good actions committed by other people in regard to the individual and, vice versa, bad actions provoke misfortunes and bad actions committed in regard to the individual. Similarity between Taoism and Socrates Socrates and Toaism still have some similarities. For instance, both Socrates and Taoism believed that a person with great wisdom can still be uninformed And to act on that ignorance under the pretense that it is knowledge, both held, is folly that leads not to progress and betterment within the individual and society but to the opposite effect (Moore Bruder, 2005, p. 503). Therefore, wisdom is not achievable but worth striving for, while, in case of Socrates, striving for wisdom makes the life of people purposeful. At the same time, both Socrates and Taoism stressed the importance of the virtuous life. Socrates insisted on the virtuous life as a part of caring for the soul, whereas Taoist viewed virtuous life as a way to reach harmony with Tao. In such a way, both philosophies viewed virtuous life as essential because without virtuous lifestyle people could not be happy in their life. At this point, the virtuous life is one of the fundamental concepts of both philosophies. On the other hand, it is worth mentioning the fact that the ways of the achievement of the virtuous life and happiness differed in Socrates and Taoist philosophy. To put it more precisely, Socrates believed in wisdom and knowledge as the main tool with the help of which people could become virtuous, whereas Taoist believed that it was through worshipping of Tao and respecting principles of Taoism people can be virtuous and, therefore, happy. Conclusion Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Socrates and Taoism developed philosophies, which had both similarities and differences. At first glance, Socrates philosophy and Taoism are absolutely different, especially in regard to the role of religious beliefs in the life of people. On the one hand, Socrates viewed knowledge and wisdom as issues worth living of and without which human life is pointless. On the other hand, Taoism viewed worshipping of Tao and living according to principles of Taoism as the only way of life for true Taoists. In such a situation, it is quite noteworthy that Socrates and Taoists developed views, which were, to a certain extent, similar. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the fact that both Socrates and Taoism viewed virtuous life as essential concepts for the happiness of people. At the same time, both Socrates and Taoism agreed that people, in spite of their efforts to learn and strife for knowle dge, cannot always be wise and wise people can be uninformed.

Posthumous Letter to Georgia OKeefe Essay -- Okeefe Aesthetic Argumen

Documented Aesthetic Argument Essay I Know You Were Misunderstood: A Posthumous Letter to Georgia O’Keeffe Dear Ms. O’Keeffe, May I call you Georgia? I feel as if I know you and so it seems too formal to address you as miss, but I guess neither of these choices matters because you are dead, unfortunately. Despite that minor detail, I had to address you to let you know†¦I know. I recently spent some time with your painting, Red Canna, and to echo one of your critics, â€Å"The huge blossoms demand respect and admiration, and they captivate viewers, forcing those who stand close enough to feel their presence† (Richter). And after literally â€Å"feeling their presence† and getting to know the work, I had to let you know that your secret is safe with me. I feel that you were sorely and irrevocably misunderstood. I think for decades, even during your lifetime when you were slowly becoming famous and making a name for yourself on the art scene, you were misunderstood. And you never said anything. Or if you did say something, it was hilariously harsh, like this quote, â€Å"I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you wrote about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see what you think and see of the flower-and I don’t † (Lynes). Establishing yourself as indifferent and above the gossip and speculation, you never said anything to clear the air of misconceptions. You never corrected the critics and the naysayers, and while I respect that, I wish you would have - because now it’s too late, and you’re still misunderstood. I think you let them all think you were independent. And for the most part, I’m sure you were ra... ...ome human, and distinctly female to me, I feel and understand your works in a different, and deeper way now. So, thank you for sharing yourself and your talent with me; it will be appreciated far beyond my lifetime, as it was yours. Sleep tight, Georgia. Your friend and awed admirer, -------- ------- Works Cited Amarillo Art Center. Georgia O’Keeffe and Her Contemporaries. Amarillo: Amarillo Art Center, 1985. Drohojowksa-Philp, Hunter. Full Bloom The Art and Life of Georgia O’Keeffe. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004. Lisle, Laurie. Portrait of an Artist A Biography of Georgia O’Keeffe. New York: Seaview Books, 1980. Lynes, Barbara Buhler. Georgia O’Keeffe and the Calla Lily in American Art, 1860-1940. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Richter, Peter-Cornell. Georgia O’Keeffe and Alfred Stieglitz. Munich: Prestel, 2001.