Aviation Essay -- essays research papers

There are several factors that enabled Wilbur and Orville Wright, two high school dropouts, to produce a successful airplane controlled by a pilot. The Wright brothers were self-educated and very experienced with several types of technologies when they began their efforts to produce an airplane. Having worked as bicycle mechanics, they understood the importance of several technologies working together to create one particular design, as well as the significance of balance. The brothers worked well together, learning from past attempts at aviation, and drawing from other’s findings, in addition to discovering many of their own. One of the most distinct differences in their attempt from other aviators was that the brothers began by first learning to fly and control the airplane in glider fo...

Broad Political Theory Questions

Picking on materialism in Feuerbach, Marx claims sensuousness and actuality as the main objects of contemplation. This implicitly implies that humanity is interested on selfish issues which result to individual pleasure. Objectivity is also viewed in regards to whether humanity can remain objective. Marx‘s position is of critical importance though the stand on whether it has changed the world remains debatable. Locke’s philosophy has played a big part in the present day events. A look at the American constitution serves as a pointer to this view.Even the unites nations charter on human rights seems to have made reference to Lockes’ work especially on property rights. Locke seems too be an advocate of a free society in which individuals get to benefit equitably. Though this has not been achieved, the society has made remarkable improvements towards attaining certain universal goals like the millennium development goals. The pursuit of objectivity as implied by Marx is thus a unifying feature of the two philosophers. Plato only interpreted the world while attempting to achieve his goal of indicating or underscoring the importance of the republic.Whereas, the pursuit if justice is of noble consideration, it remains to be seen whether, it has been achieved or whether it will ever be achieved. The effect that the Plato philosophy has had remains persistent and unbroken. The academy the philosopher opened in Athens remains a pillar of the works undertaken by the scholar. The influences of Plato are known to have played a significant role in shaping various religious developments over a long period of time. If justice is to be attained, then objectivity is a prerequisite, a fact observed by Marx. 2. Machiavelli used hypocrisy to lay siege on the Christian faith.The philosopher was always against morality apart from the support he gave to those intending to stand on its way. Christianity is based on what its faith call good morals. As Machiavelli pu ts it, morality is not an issue if it cannot be justified. Machiavelli believed that it’s the ‘end that justifies the means’. Machiavelli saw every piece of religion as an act of propaganda. Machiavelli thought that the Christian faith would collapse before the world itself came to an end. Through social relativism, Machiavelli claimed the absence of the Christian god.In this construction, it was claimed that since God never existed to offer universal morals, then there were no morals top be followed. Socrates is believed to have carried a study on what constituted holiness. This in itself presented an act of impiety. While facing a case in Xenophon, Socrates twice objected to using a divine sign ass he prepared his defense. Socrates in another case chose to save Euthyphro instead of saving himself. In short, the prime focus rests on the accusation against Socrates as introducing new gods in the town. The two philosophers appeared to have veered off societal godl y underpinnings.The fact that Socrates is accused of bringing gods to town serves as a pointer to the fact that there are respected and un-respected gods. Machiavelli’s rebuttal of the Christian faith also presents the philosopher as a person that objects to well crafted societal religious leanings. It is thus held that these two philosophers played a role in jeopardizing well regarded traditions during their time. 3. Socrates uses the human tendency to corruption to propagate his preferred type of leadership. Socrates points to timocracy, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny as unacceptable forms of government.Socrates finally submitted that if ruling was to attain the best for society, then it should be left to philosopher leaders. In Socrates’ thinking, the philosophers were the most just and least susceptible to graft. The scholar augmented the position by claiming that the philosophers were in a position to rule in pursuit of the good for the city as opposed to for t he self. In a legitimate society, there is no room for societal divisions; all citizens should enjoy same level benefits. Thomas Hobbes’ views on the best possible form or structure of government were premised on a society led by a powerful leviathan.Based on social contract theories, the focus remains on the creation of a strong centre of administration. This type of government as proposed by Hobbes will guarantee the security and welfare of the people. Any abuses that may arise as a result of the leadership by the leviathan must be accepted. This is premised on the fact that the people by setting up the leviathan, agreed to cede their natural power. Socrates manages to drive to his peers that a government is a role played best by people disconnected with self interest.On the other hand, one gets the impression that Hobbes was driving home the need to have a powerful leadership that was not answerable to people. In the Socrates’ society individuals would have a say, w hile in the Hobbesian society, individuals would not hold a say on public issues. 4. Thomas Hobbes believed that human desires, selfish interests, pleasures and pains of a moment played a key role in decision making. These factors among others imply tat the human nature cannot be relied upon in passing judgment on a number of issues as distortions may occur.Hobbes focal point in relation to human nature remains premised on the concept of motivation. Hobbes saw man as a self centered and rationally calculating individual. It is thus highly unlikely that people will pursue common good. Individuals due to their selfish stances are thus destined top pursue personal goals even if this means putting the goals of the rest at stake. In Hobbes thinking, common good is thus an illusion. In reference to Plato, the pursuit of happiness had to lie with the observation of virtues and commonly accepted doctrines.Plato held the Sophistic view concerning knowledge which saw it as subjective and rela tive. This, in reference to Plato, undermined morality. It thus led Plato into believing that there was no infallible truth. Plato failed to see the point why a person who could not understand the self and rules of morality would be bound to look beyond the principle of self actualization. In short, if morality does not take care of individual interests, then individuals are not bound to observe its dictates. Plato saw man’s nature as rational and expected society to be organized in tandem with requirements of civility on rational principles.As a rational being, a human being knows or is in a position to evaluate every case scenario and pursues what best serves the interests desired by the individual in question. 5. On the basis of Aristotle, happiness is not primarily premised upon an exercise of virtue but rather on the administering of an ideal state. In a nut shell, the interests of all are closely knit together such that the interests of all resemble the interests of a s ingle individual in the republic. In precise terms, all individual acts are for the common good. This altruistic stance remains questionable as it is difficult in practice top find such states.Niccolo Machiavelli is famous for the advice given to the monarch with a view to power monopolization. Machiavelli advocated for policies that would discourage mass activism in political affairs. Machiavelli believed the citizenry was well exercising its energies in private practice in the process leaving out political and state activities. In his book, the Prince, Machiavelli urged the monarch to use violence and force to achieve the government goals. Machiavelli held the view that political aims could not be led by a single set of religious or moral ideas.From the above two positions, it emerges that there are interests to be protected by any state or society. The societal or state claims are wide varied as the ruled and the rulers may conflict on interests. Even if there were no conflicts, still issues regarding approach would arise. This puts the leaders, the few, against the ruled, the many. On this basis, Machiavelli sought to have the ruler have enormous responsibility in making decisions as the many could spoil the aspirations of a republic. However, Aristotle envisaged a scenario; whereby the interests are melted down to reflect a single position, a position difficult to reach.Hence this implied that the leaders had to take a position that they thought would serve societal interests. 6. Aristotle viewed natural justice as a special species of political justice. Inn this view, Aristotle believed that a society had to enlist distributive and corrective measures to ensure societal cohesion. Aristotle claimed further, that the best regime may not after all the one that observes the rule of law in its operations. On the basis of Aristotle every civilized society had a set of rules and regulations it used to govern behaviour.In Aristotle’s views, civilized soci ety emerged as a result of the emerging need to develop laws to regulate certain aspects of life within different societies. Thomas Hobbes uses the term leviathan to capture the collective will of people. These people come together to form a government that retains the sovereign authority. To Thomas Hobbes, collective will is the major force behind the formation of a civilized society. The people realized that they had collective desire, to achieve the different desires; they saw it worthy to establish an authority to take care of their needs.The biggest need being the provision of security so that each individual gets to go about their business without undue disturbance. The differences appear minute in this case as Aristotle’s view of a civilized society was based on the need for cohesiveness in society. On the other hand, the need for civility in reference to Thomas Hobbes rested on the drive to protect collective will. The act of protecting collective will is almost in li ne with regulating societal aspects so as to exact compliance. However, this should not be misconstrued to mean that the two mean the same thing as only similarities exist.7. Aristotle believed that family existed just for the sake of political life. Further to this, Aristotle supposedly viewed politics as practiced for friendship purposes. Contrary to this position, Aristotle discussed family relations as types of friendships which are used as designs of political rule. He thus obscures the ordering of the relationships that he advocates in politics. The practice of politics must observe friendly relations just as a family does. In the terms of Aristotle, politics is thus useful in strengthening family ties.The family integrates people into a family and thus aids the formation or the commencement of political life. John Locke’s 2nd treatise of government aimed to show that there was a legitimate foundation between people and power. This was captured by the social contract th eory. Locke believed that a political society is not a form of family. In this regard, Locke was trying to discredit the patriarchal kingship. Locke went further to claim that a magistrate’s position on a case could not be compared o a father’s on a child’s case. Locke saw two distinct societies in this scenario.Locke further claimed that the creation of the two societies was different and meant to achieve different goals. In Locke’s observation, the political society’s end is to possess property unlike a familial one that aims at raising children. The major separation point between the two scholars is premised on the aims of the two societies and how they are formed. Whereas Aristotle assumed that the two societies pursue one aim, Locke clearly shows that the aims are distinct in the two societies. The reasons for formation are equally found to be different as opposed to the views posited by Aristotle. 8.Locke’s position on money is viewed in relation to the right to ownership of property. In Locke’s opinion, each individual had the right to acquire property through hard work. However, Locke only saw it necessary that an individual amasses what they only need and ensure that in that pursuit, their labor does not become destructive. In precise terms, what Locke stood for was acquisitions of needs. He was opposed to excessive accumulation of wealth which defines the current society. Locke appeared to assume that all things were naturally available to everybody and thus objected to the systems of accumulation.An accumulation beyond what one could use at the time amounted to acquiring an unfair share. Aristotle saw the necessity of money in human life. However, he made a number of proposals regarding currency. Aristotle saw money as a common measure of al things available for consumption. In a nut shell, Aristotle saw money as the surest way of equalizing all consumables. In Aristotle’s terms, money was nece ssary to ensure a just and fair exchange system. The philosopher thus argued that money came up in a bid to ease the problem of exchange.In Aristotle’s terms good money had to be durable, portable, divisible, and intrinsically valuable. On the basis of the above presentation, it is crystal clear that Locke saw money as a potential for unfair practices. It could only be fair if each individual would acquire a rightful amount so that everybody’s interests are taken care of. In reference to Aristotle, money was good only if it could be used for constructive purposes. Aristotle did not envisage money to be used in a commercialized manner. This is because of what Aristotle perceived as the nature’s limited nature.

Context of Islam and Buddhist Fundamentalism Essay

At its most basic aspect fundamentalism implies attention to the religious fundamentals. According to Martin Marty, groups who feel themselves to be at risk in society return to certain sacred fundamentals as a method for both staving off the attacks of modernity and for reclaiming their own place in a sacred history. Modernity, in this sense, is to be understood in the following context. First, it is to be seen as characterized by the rationalization of authority, and the replacement of a large number of traditional, religious, familial, and ethnic political authorities by a single, secular, national political authority. Second, it is to be seen as involving the differentiation of new political functions and the development of specialized structure for the performance of these functions and third, it is to be seen as the development of increased participation in politics throughout society. Modernity, in this sense, requires the development of a pluralistic society that enables the development of positive identities as opposed to identities understood within the context of marginalized groups or communities. Within a modernist worldview, fundamentalism is thereby seen as a form of ideology, which refuses the consideration of other perspectives. In relation to this, Marty contends, â€Å"people in such cultures [fundamentalist cultures] were threatened by the erosion or assault of what they considered to be ‘modern’† (276). In addition to this, he further states that such cultures thereby use fundamentalist tenets, as â€Å"instruments and weapons for reactivity where†¦the real or presumed foundational elements of belief and practice, story and law† are utilized in order to enable the â€Å"selective retrieval of the past† (Marty 277). If such is the case, fundamentalism may thereby be characterized with a certain form of â€Å"conviction in the world of ‘postmodern relativism’† (Marty 377). However, such a conviction is generally misconstrued as enabling the development of an irrational actor and hence the performance of irrational actions. The practice of fundamentalism has generally been associated with religion hence one is presented with the various forms of religious fundamentalisms such as Catholic fundamentalism, Islam fundamentalism and Buddhist fundamentalism to name a few. As was noted above, such religious groups focus on the fundamental philosophical assumptions of their religion which allows the selective retrieval of a real or presumed history which becomes the basis for fundamentalists’ actions. Due to this, it is generally assumed that fundamentalists are privy to the commitment of irrational actions. From the onset, it is important to note that such an assumption is based upon a misleading conception of the fundamentalist movement. Furthermore, it is important to note that such a conception of fundamentalism is based on an understanding of fundamentalism based on its function. In line with this, the task of this paper is two-fold. First, it aims to discuss the practice of fundamentalism within Islam and Buddhism and second, it aims to consider the effects of these practices on the rights of the minority members of such groups. In order to be more specific, the paper will focus on the philosophical assumptions of such movements and how these assumptions determine and affect the rights of the minority members of such groups specifically that of women. As I reckon, an understanding of fundamentalism necessitates an understanding of it content since it is only through the analysis of fundamentalism’s content that one may be able to present an accurate depiction of the inherent power of the ideas within the movement as well as the relevance of the political actors’ normative commitments. Such an understanding of fundamentalism does not necessarily replace the functional purpose of the ideas within the movement. However, in relation to this, I would like to contend that such an understanding of the movement, which necessitates the separation of the function and meaning, fails to comprehend the dichotomy of meaning and function thereby failing to consider the correlation of meaning and function. Such a failure, on the other hand, leads to the delineation of fundamentalism as form of ideology as opposed to a form of political philosophy. This is evident if one considers Marty and Appleby’s understanding of fundamentalism. According to Marty and Appleby, the general characteristic of fundamentalism presents the aforementioned movement as â€Å"reflecting upon the evocative and defining power of the sacred [in an attempt] to harness this power for†¦a variety of political, social and religious ends† (qtd in Henston 131). In this sense, fundamentalism may be understood as seeking to â€Å"reconsecrate the world† (Henston 131). In relation to this Heston claims that Marty and Appleby considers fundamentalism as offering a specific â€Å"reading of certain texts of the history [a particular] religion and peoples†¦hence fundamentalism appeals frequently†¦on sacred space that provides a concrete focus† (131). Such a depiction of fundamentalism with the emphasis on its religious character as well as its aim of reconsecration fails to consider that fundamentalism is characterized by the need for belonging or for security. Within Islam, it is generally assumed that the most common manifestation of fundamentalism can be seen in the position of the female within society’s hierarchy of power. Holsdon and Rozario note that â€Å"Islam is necessarily more patriarchal or more oppressive to women than other religions† (331). The reason for this can be traced to the status given to the female by a literal interpretation of the Qur’an and the Shari’a. Mohammad, himself, describes Islam as â€Å"a religion of right-doing, right-thinking, and right-speaking founded on divine love, universal charity, and the equality of man in the sight of the Lord† (qtd in Syed 157). A literal interpretation of this passage excludes the female from the treatment of equality. Moghissi states, Regardless of the interpretation of the Qur’an and the Shari’a, if the Qur’anic instructions are taken literally, Islamic individuals or societies cannot favor equal rights for women in the family or in certain areas of social life †¦ If the principles of the Shari’a are to be maintained †¦ women cannot enjoy equality before the law and in the law. (140–1) The two most prominent examples of these in Islam can be seen in the allowance of polygamy as well as the requirement that women should be concealed and secluded. One might note that such conditions may be considered as fostering inequality within Islam religions as it places the female in a subordinate position to the male however, it has also been argued that these do not necessarily lead to inequality within Islam. Agosin argues that such an assumption [that the conditions set within both the Qur’an and the Shari’a leads to female inequality] may be seen as a result of a patriarchal society’s misrepresentation of religion and culture (236). The function of this misrepresentation is to maintain women in a position that best serves patriarchal priorities. It is important to contextualize such a claim within the basic assumption of Islam’s religious philosophy. The teachings of Islam are concentrated on the notions of faith and duty. The term Islam itself is equivalent to the concept of submission in the English language. Islam may thereby be seen as the religion of submission wherein one submits to the will of Allah as it is stated in the Qur’an. The problem is thereby presented when one considers the contradictory accounts regarding the treatment of the female as it is presented in the aforementioned text. There are accounts which recognize the equality of both members of the sexes as well as accounts which places the female as a subordinate to the male. If such is the case, it cannot be argued that autonomy may not be granted to the female since a literal interpretation of the aforementioned texts allows instances of freedom on the side of the female. This, however, does not change the fact that Islam operates under the assumption of separate roles and spheres of activities for both men and women. As opposed to Islam, the practice of fundamentalism may be seen in Buddhist religions in different forms depending on the form of Buddhism practiced by a particular group. In the same way that Islam adheres to a certain form of separate-spheres ideology between men and women, Buddhism controls the female as a result of her dangerous sexuality which is considered as potentially dangerous to men. In order to deal with such a problem, marriages are arranged for women at a young age in order to ensure their chastity. According to the traditional doctrine, embraced in Theravada movements, every woman must bear three kinds of subordination. The first is â€Å"to her father when she is young, to her husband while she married, and to her son when she old† (qtd in Paul 53). Such a doctrine is enforced in reality is punished with certain sanctions. A woman who fails to conform to this approved role is stigmatized and devalued within society. The similarity between Islam and Buddhism fundamentalist movements can traced to the value that they place upon the female subject. This value however prevents the female’s attainment of autonomy as a result of her assumed natural subordination to the male. The effects of fundamentalism within these movements may thereby be seen as hindering and in fact enabling the subordination of the female. Works Cited Abu-Nimer, M. â€Å"A Framework for Non-violence and Peacebuilding in Islam. † Journal of Law and Religion 15. 2 (2001): 217-265. Agosin, Marjorie. Women, Gender, and Human Rights: A Global Perspective. London: Rutgers, 2001. Hilsdon, Anne and Santi Rozario. â€Å"Special Issue on Islam, Gender, and Human Rights. † Women’s Studies International Forum 29 (2006): 331-338. Henston, A. â€Å"Crusades and Jihads: A Long-Run Economic Perspective. † Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 588 (2003): 112-135. Marty, M. â€Å"The Future of World Fundamentalism. † Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 142. 3 (1998): 367-77. Paul, Diane. Women in Buddhism: images of the Feminine in Mahayana Tradition. Syed, Ameer. The Spirit of Islam Or the Life and Teachings of Mohammad: Or the Life and Teachings of Mohammed. Np: Gorgias Press, 2002.