Essay plan ( management employee relation ) Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Plan ( management employee relation ) - Essay Example One instrument of improving employee-management relations is by using employee empowerment method. By empowering you mean that you delegate more authority to them and give more power to subordinate. This way they can come up with new ideas and cost cutting methods and firms might not only cut costs but it might also benefit from good relationship with employees. 2. According to a book written by John Gennard on employee relations, employee-management relationship suffers because of different aims of both management and employees. For example, management wants higher profits which includes lowering costs and could lead to downsizing and loss of job for labor. On the other hand, labor wants the security of their jobs and higher wages. The book further states that during recession these aims become more conflicting and the need to maintain cordial relations become more vital. The book recommends that this relationship could be improved by bilateral negotiation between management and labor union and by joint consultation by the both parties before decision making. For example, in recession due to slump in demand your organization cannot pay high labor costs and firing is inevitable. But this can be avoided if management decides to involve labor union in the decision making process.

Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Psychopathy Comparison

Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Psychopathy Comparison What is the distinction between Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Psychopathy? Is this distinction practically useful? The first step in answering such a question would be to define the terms, it is here that the first problem is encountered. On consulting Rycroft (1977, p.12) it appears that â€Å"behaviour disorder is a psychiatric diagnostic term embracing psychopathy† This definition paraphrases that contained in the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders referred to by Hare(1993 p.24). In addition to being enduring patterns of markedly deviant behaviour, the characteristics are first diagnosed as a disorder in adolescence or early adulthood. The American definition judges anti social behaviour disorder by what is done. A vastly different definition can be found in Home Office Research Document 225 (Moran Hagell 2001), where, what is put forward, is acceptable behaviour, once again, specifically in adolescents. Thus the Home Office/NHS definition of anti social behaviour is one in which adolescents fail to meet the set of criteria that would identify them as functioning normally. They are judged by what they fail to do. In this document Moran and Hagell do go on to define anti-social personality disorder as an extreme form of anti-social behaviour. They also make a very important distinction, â€Å"anti-social behaviour is what people do whilst anti-social personality disorder is what people have. Psychopathy is a psychiatric and medico legal term for what used to be called moral  imbecility. Despite the fact that Cleckley (1952) suggests that the term psychopathic personality was replaced by personality disorder, it was still in use by the medico-legal authorities in England and Wales as evidenced by its use in the Mental Health Act 1959 where it was defined as: â€Å"a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub normality of  intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct  on the part of the patient, and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment† In common with anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy is something that a person has rather than does. This distinction from other deviant or socially unacceptable behaviour allows for the treatment of offenders in special hospitals. If these definitions are not sufficient to confuse, in the United States of America the terms psychopath and socio path are used interchangeably. Hare (1993 pp 23-24) condemns this practice and contrary to a large body of medical opinion posits that the terms anti-social personality disorder and psychopathy are not interchangeable either. Hare (1993 p.22) suggests that the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the term psychopathy for which he claims a literal meaning of â€Å"mental illness† is largely due to inappropriate and irresponsible use of the term by the media. According to Hare,(1993 pp34-70) the difference between anti-social personality disorder and psychopathy is that the former refers primarily to a cluster of criminal and antisocial behaviours whilst the latter is a syndrome defined by a cluster of both personality traits and socially deviant behaviours. He has produced a list of key symptoms of psychopathy. Hare shows that the criteria for diagnosis of psychopathy is, or should be, different, and following on from this, it can be seen that whilst most criminals are not psychopaths many criminals will have some degree of anti-social personality disorder. If the distinction between psychopathy and anti social personality disorder was universally agreed and referred to in the treatment of offenders then it might have a practical usefulness. Alas this is not the case, even the criteria for determining psychopathy cannot be agreed. In 1995 Prins as quoted by Bartlett and Sandland (2003 p311) added further indicators to the criteria for diagnosis. Does this mean that some offenders have previously been misdiagnosed? The distinction that Hare continues to make between psychopathy and anti-social behaviour is not universally accepted. In England, the medical profession are slowly beginning to contest the insistence of separating psychopathy from anti-social personality disorders. Bartlett and Sandland (2000 pp48-51) point to the fact that Section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 defines the terms used in the Act and whilst they accept the definition of other terms in the sub section they strongly contest the validity of the definition of psychopathic disorder. They base their argument on the fact that the criteria for definition are not distinct from the results of that behaviour. They argue that: â€Å"abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct does not merely characterise the  malady; they are indistinguishable from it, at least in current medical understanding†. They suggest that the medical profession consider the term psychopathy outdated and prefer instead to speak of anti-social or dis-social personality disorder. It is not only within England and Wales that there is disagreement, the mental health legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland does not distinguish between psychopathy and anti-social behaviour disorder. Even amongst the legal and medical establishments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there is no agreement. Gough (1968) suggests that the concept of psychopathy can be traced to the work of J. C. Pritchard who in 1885 classified psychiatric disorders into two broad categories, moral and intellectual sanity. Pritchard referred to aberrations of the conative and emotional areas of the brain. That Pritchards thinking affected other health professionals can be inferred from the work of Grob (1994 pp149-150) in which he recounts the history of Boston Psychopathic Hospital which opened in 1912. Amongst the variety of deviant types who were treated there, were prostitutes and juvenile delinquents. By current definitions these types indulge in anti-social behaviour but without further in-depth diagnosis neither would be classed as psychopathic. Perhaps this type of thinking was influenced by Ceasare Lombroso (1876) who claimed that the heavy punishments of his day could not be justified by the effect they might have, because the behaviour of those who committed crime could not be changed. They were born criminals. In an age of more enlightened approach towards criminality Fennell and Yeates (1999) propose that there is undoubtedly a moral hierarchy of mental disorder. They suggest that in crude terms the mentally ill are divided into afflicted or deserving mad whilst people with anti social personality disorder; and the definition which includes psychopathy is assumed here; are seen as the bad mad or undeserving mad. Unfortunately it seems that this classification of the mentally ill, fuelled by the media has developed a strong and negative influence on popular perceptions of those mental disorders which are identified by anti-social behaviour. The theory of criminal behaviour proposed by Eysenck in 1964 muddies the water even further Peck and Whitlow(1979) examine his claims that extroverts are more likely to show more criminal behaviour. Although a later study by Cochrane in 1974 discredited this conclusion it does point to an over emphasis on which type of people are prone to anti-social behaviour rather than why anti-social behaviour occurs. At least Hare (1993) makes an attempt to explain why psychopathy occurs in certain individuals, he suggests that something is missing and that this something is conscience. A dictionary definition of conscience would include, moral sense, the sense of right and wrong. It is this sense which is missing in the psychopath. In psychology the notion of conscience is closely related to the psychoanalytic theories of Freud. Wrightsman (1997) explains how these theories have contributed to social psychology and particularly the understanding of the socialisation of the individual. He explains that the contents of the superego are distilled from the influences of parents, teachers and other persons and eventually become internalised as conscience. Braithwaite (2003 p394-395) in his work on re-integrative shaming suggests that conscience is what prevents most people from committing crime rather than the deterrence of punishment. He suggests that societies which replace much of punishment, as a means of social control, with shaming and appeals to the better natures of people, have less crime. The argument continues that punishment should be reserved for the psychopaths because they are beyond shaming. The problem arises once again that punishment will not deter further offending. The psychopath will play the game whilst confined but on release, because of his inability to learn from experience, will continue to offend. Braithwaites suggestion indicates that our prisons should be full of psychopaths which is clearly not the case. If this argument was put forward in respect of people suffering from anti-social personality disorder it would be more credible. The notion of born criminal continues and to compound the problem further Graft (1961) suggested that there is probably more than one type of psychopath, he included, brain damaged, affectionless, emotionally unstable and impulsive. To this list can be added the sexual psychopath (Dobson 1981). Without actually using this phrase Marshall and Barbaree (1990) as cited by Ward, Polaschek and Beech ( 2006 pp33-45) suggest similarities between psychopaths and sexual offenders, notably that both groups are likely to have experienced physical and sexual abuse as children. Although there may be some similarities between types, not all sexual offenders are psychopaths, nor are all psychopaths sexual offenders. Such indiscriminate use of the term psychopath is not helpful and probably only serves to fuel the belief that nothing can be done to alleviate the condition. As late as 1976 Cleckley, whose work is discussed by Hare(1993 pp27-28) suggested that since psychopaths cannot benefit from exp erience there is little that can be done for them. Perhaps this pessimistic view stems from the belief that the onset of anti social personality disorder occurs in adolescence or early adulthood. Hare (1999) cites the work of sociologist William McCord in which it was concluded that although attempts to deflect a person from psychopathic patterns in early life had not been successful, there was hope for those programmes in which an individuals social and physical environment was completely changed. McCord appears to have recognised that sufferers from anti-social behaviour disorder are not born bad but might be made bad as a result of early life experiences. This suggestion appears to be born out by the work of Rutter et al (2007) with Romanian adoptees who had suffered trauma as a result of institutional deprivation. Rutter and his colleagues have shown that the early influences in life, particularly the influence or lack of parental care, can have profound effects on the development of the child. It is not suggested that early separation from the mother automatically causes anti-social behaviour disorder, but Rutter and his colleagues have shown that adverse early life experiences do cause trauma and disruption of emotional and psychological development, what has been described as the primal wound. What is important about studies of adopted institutionalised children is that whilst their behaviour is what they do, it can be linked to the trauma they have suffered and to the resultant emotional and psychological problems that they have. Optimistically Rutter believes that even when emotional and socialising deprivation has occurred, it can be addressed, and the sooner it is addressed, the greater the chances of the abandoned child leading a relatively normal life. He found that those children who had been institutionalised for less than six months fared better than those who had been institutionalised for a longer period. Rutter and his colleagues discovered that children in their sample who had suffered institutional deprivation in Romania had greater problems than those from Romania who had not been in an institution, or children who had been adopted from within the U.K. It was noted that IQ and inattention had a negative effect on scholastic attainment, the children exhibited autistic like patterns, possibly a response to profound lack of interpersonal interactions and conversations. These children also suffered dis-inhibited attachment, inattention/over-activity problems and emotional and conduct disturbances. The findings concerning scholastic attainment are borne out by research conducted by Beckett et al (2007). When considering the work of Goldfarb (1943) as cited by Woods (2004) the foregoing should not be surprising, his research showed that institutionalised children show higher levels of aggressive behaviour and score lower in IQ and sociability tests than non institutionalised children but these problems were more severe for those children who remained in the orphanage for longer. A few years later Bowlbys (1951) maternal deprivation hypothesis suggested that a failed or damaged attachment was likely to cause long term difficulties for a child. Despite the fact that Bowlbys research was criticised as being flawed, Woods (2004) reveals that his emphasis on bonding and attachment has been held to be correct by Michael Rutter(1982) If the foregoing is examined in the light of the NHS/Health Advisory Service indicators of 1995, that is; a capacity to enter into and sustain mutually satisfying personal relationships, continuing progression of psychological development, an ability to play and learn so that attainments are appropriate for age and intellectual level, a developing moral sense of right and wrong, and a degree of psychological distress and maladaptive behaviour being within the normal limits for the childs age and context, it could be argued that unless these problems are resolved such children might be in danger of exhibiting anti-social behaviour and/or developing anti-social personality disorder. This hypothesis is stated to make the point that a lack of clear definition, and aetiology in the study and management of anti-social behaviour disorder and psychopathy, if indeed the two are separate, only serves to encourage much more speculative explanations of behaviour. There is perhaps a belief that it is unreasonable to label a child as a psychopath and if this is one of the reasons that the British medical establishment prefer the designation anti-social personality disorder then this is beneficial, particularly if it prompts recognition that symptoms of the disorder are recognisable at a very early age. Certainly the research of Goldfarb, Bowlby, Rutter and others has  shown that causes for anti-social behaviour in children can be identified and responded to, the earlier the response the greater the chance of effecting fundamental change. Experimental data concerning the effects on animals of enriched and impoverished environments is readily available and supports the conclusions based on observations of adopted children. Boddy (1981pp205-208 ) describes experiments carried out by Bennet et al in 1964 in which it was found that rats from age twenty five days to eighty days reared in an enriched environment had cerebral cortices which were thicker and heavier than rats of the same age reared in impoverished environments. This study was complemented by work conducted by Krech et al in 1962. This study found that differences in learning ability correlated with structural and biochemical differences induced in the cerebral cortex as a result of exposure to different environments. Obviously similar experimentation on the human brain is unacceptable and the only evidence available is from the post mortem examination of human brains. Boddy points to the study of the brain of a blind deaf mute carried out by Donaldson (1980) which was found to have atrophied visual and auditory areas. Sight and sound were missing as a result of defects in the corresponding areas of the brain. If, as the studies with institutionalised children appear to show early damage due to a deprived environment may be repairable, why does there appear to be permanence of psychopathy or anti-social behaviour disorder in adults? The psychopathic personality scores high as an extrovert and Boddy (1981 p253) quotes Grays work of 1972 in pointing out that the extrovert is not readily conditionable because the septo-hippocampal system which inhibits responses that have been punished or have failed to elicit reward is relatively insensitive. There is more than a suggestion here that conscience, guilt and remorse are missing in the psychopathic personality because of a defect in the septo-hippocampal system. Because of their psychological profile psychopaths and people suffering from anti-social behaviour disorder are unlikely to seek out or even believe that they need therapy. If this class of person is forced into undergoing therapy, for example by the justice system, they are unlikely to take an active part in their treatment. It could be argued that their belief systems are so entrenched that they cannot be changed. Aitkenhead and Slack (1985 p323) suggest that we acquire a large body of knowledge over a lifetime and that this knowledge is incorporated into our belief systems which then affects our interactions with society. It maybe that certain information has to be acquired at specific times in life. Body (1981 p208) points to the work of the ethologist Nash in 1970 which has wide support amongst psychologists. Nash suggested that the external stimuli for many crucial events in development must occur within critical periods. If this is true then it would explain why adults with psychopathic personality disorder or anti-social personality disorder do not, indeed cannot respond to therapy. If the window of opportunity for essential socialising influences can be identified then steps can be taken to ensure the necessary conditions for socialisation are present. In the absence of this information an assumption that these conditions should be available from birth or as soon as possible afterwards may eliminate or reduce the instances of psychopathy and anti-social behaviour disorder. There is no doubt that anti-social behaviour disorder and psychopathic personality disorder cause problems for society and for the individuals concerned. Even here there is no clear understanding of the immensity of the problem. Rutter, Gillo and Hagell (1998) suggest that obtaining accurate data on which to assess the state of the problem that anti -social behaviour poses is also problematical. There is no single source of data concerning anti-social behaviour, therefore data has to be drawn from official statistics, criminal records, victim surveys and self report data which means that research is based on estimates rather than facts. What is the distinction between Anti-Social Personality Disorder and Psychopathy? Is this distinction practically useful? It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if there is any real distinction between these two afflictions or if there is only one malady with two or more names. Hare(1993 pp34-70) does make a distinction between anti-social personality disorder and psychopathy in that one refers primarily to a cluster of criminal and antisocial behaviours whilst the other is a syndrome defined by a cluster of both personality traits and socially deviant behaviours. Hares view seems to be in the minority. The continued distinction appears to have no practical use at all. Scotland and N.Ireland seem to manage quite well without making a legal distinction. A universal adoption of the term anti-social behaviour disorder or better still, psychopathy in its original meaning of â€Å"mental illness† might have more practical use if it removed the sad/bad madness dichotomy. M ore accurate collection of data would obviously help to obtain a clearer understanding of the extent of the problem. The practice of waiting until adolescence or early adulthood before diagnosis,when previous research indicates that at this point nothing can be done to change behaviour, seems to be insane. In the light of the work conducted by Nash, Goldfarb, Bowlby, Rutter and others, the sane, the moral, thing to do would be to diagnose as early as possible after birth and then put measures in place to ensure that all developmental milestones are achieved. What the affliction is called is not nearly as important as its treatment. References Bartlett P. Sandford R. (2003) Mental Health Law, Policy Practice. (2nd Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beckett C. Maughan B. Rutter M. Castle J. Colvert E. Groothues C. Hawkins A. Kreppner J. OConnor T.G. Stevens S. Sonuga-Barke E.J. (2007). Scholastic Attainment Following Severe Early Institutionalised Deprivation: A study of Children Adopted from Romania. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 1063-1073 Retrieved 1 November 2008 from e-prints Soton, University of Southampton. Boddy J. (1981) Brain Systems and Psychological Concepts. Chichester: John Wiley Sons Ltd. Braithwaite J. (1996) Re-integrative Shaming. In McLaughlin E. Muncie J. Hughes G. (Ed) Criminological Perspectives 293-299. London: Sage. Dobson A.P. (1981) Cases and Statutes on Criminal Law (2nd Ed). London: Sweet and Maxwell. Gabor T (1986) The Prediction of Criminal Behaviour. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Gough H.G. (1968) A Sociological Theory of Psychopathy in Spitzer S.P. Dervain. N.K. (Ed). The Mental Patient:Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: McGraw Hill (1968) 60-67. Grob M. (1994) The Mad Among Us. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press. Hare R.D. (1999) Without Conscience.The Disturbing World of the Psychopath Among Us. New York: Guildford Press. Moran P. Hagell A (2001) . Intervening to Prevent Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Home Office Research Study 255. London. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Retrieved Home Office Data Base October 31, 2008 from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors225.pdf Peck D. Whitlow D.(1975) Approaches to Personality Theory. London: Methuen. Rycroft C. (1977) A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rutter M. Beckett C. Castle J. Colvert E. Kreppner J. Mehta M. (2007) Effects of Profound Early Institutional Deprivation: An Overview of Findings from a U.K. Longitudinal Study of Romanian Adoptees. European Jouurnal of Developmental Psychology 4(3) 332-350 Rutter M. Gillo H. Hagell A. (1998) Antisocial Behaviour by Young People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ward T. Polaschek D.L.L. Beech A.R. (2006) Theories of Sexual Offending. Chichester: John Wiley Sons. Wrightsman L.S. (1972) Social Psychology (2nd Ed). Monterey Cal: Brookes Cole Publishing.

Spontaneous Human Combustion :: essays research papers

For as yet scientifically unknown reasons, times occur when an unsuspecting person can just burst into flames and be incinerated. This is referred to in the scientific world as Spontaneous Human Combustion or SHC. There are many documented cases throughout history. The earliest cases go as far back as the early 16th century. Then there are the ones that are as recent as 1998 but have no better explanation of what happen then the ones in the 16th century did. There are truly only two types of cases: fatal and non-fatal. The fatal cases of SHC represent three-quarters of all the reported incidents. The most common of these cases is the famous "bedroom burnings" in which a victim is found as a pile of ashes with only limbs remaining. These burnings a characterized by five main features: 1) The victim’s body and clothing is mostly reduced to ash. 2) Small portions of the body (an arm, a foot, maybe the head) remain unburned. 3) Only objects immediately associated with the body have burned; the fire never spread away from the body. 4) A greasy soot deposit covers the ceiling and walls, usually stopping three to four feet above the floor. 5) Objects above this three to four foot line show signs of heat damage (melted candles, cracked mirrors, etc.); objects below this line show o damage. These cases are the ones that mass media tend to cover most and is what most people think of when they hear about spontaneous human combustion. Nearly half of the cases are "bedroom burnings" Another common case under the fatal category are the witnessed combustions, in which people are actually seen by witnesses to burst into flames. Most of the time witnesses claim that there was no other source of ignition and/or the flames were seen to come directly from the victim’s skin. These cases present the fact that maybe SHC has more to do with the supernatural than science. Unfortunately, most of theses cases are poorly documented and usually unconfirmed. The second major type of SHC is the non-fatal cases. The victims usually don’t know anymore than the investigators do. The good thing about this is that the victims are alive to tell about what happened and cause most SHC skeptics to take a look at the picture again. Non-fatal cases usually incorporate one or more of the following features. The most common is the mysterious flames. This is where a victim will just begin to emit flames form their body.

Impacts from Space and Mass Extinction Events

Describe concept of faunal succession and use of fossils in correlation and in the subdivision of Earth history. -Principle of Faunal Succession: Strata of Eke age can be recognized by the fossils they contain even if the outcrops of strata are separated by large distances geographically, this only works because species have evolved through time C] older forms of life die out and new forms develop -using the appearance and disappearance of fossils to subdivide geological time Is the science of physiotherapyD. Recognize the qualities that make fossils useful in physiotherapy. – Physiotherapy: each fossil species is said to have a range through geological time 0 it exists in the geological record from the point that it evolves to the point that it becomes extinct E. Identify important historical figures in the development of stereography and physiotherapy. Archbishop of Armada, James Usher (1581-1665) calculated the Earth to be 6000 years old by adding up all the dates mentioned in the Bible and arrived at a date of October 22, 4004 BC as the creation of planet Earth (hard to accept by many people) -Late asses and asses scientists started to conclude that the Earth Is ancient and had undergone much change throughout Its history. This George Xavier (1769-1832) examined the remains of mammoths in Europe concluding they were a once living species that had become extinct F.Appreciate the scale of changes that can occur over geological time scales. – Geological time scale – to represent the changing character of the Earth through time, fossils were used to correlate between different regions and characterize particular periods of Earth's history -Today we have a time scale that divides and bedsides Earth's 4. 6 billion years into various time periods G. List some of the major subdivisions/ ages of the geological time scale and appreciate the relative scale between the Phonetics and the Precambrian.This is due to an extraordinary proliferation of f ossils at the base of the Phonetics in a period called the Cambrian. -Most creatures with hard parts like shells, teeth, and internal skeletons evolved here as they fossil much more readily than soft-bodied creatures -In addition to an increasing biodiversity as new species evolved, many of the new â€Å"hard part creatures† would more readily form fossils. H. Understand how extinction events are linked to the structure of the geological time call. Eras are broad subdivisions that are particularly significant as they represent a grouping of geological periods. They represent times when there has been a major change in the Earth's biosphere. -The base of the Phonetics is defined by the emergence of creatures with hard parts. -The base of the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic is based on the emergence of new species following a mass extinction at the top of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic respectively. -The base of all periods is defined on the emergence of radiation of new species l.List s ome of the major developments in the history of life on Earth. ) At least 30% of Earth's species must be lost 2) It must be across a broad range of geologies, not restricted to any one niche. 3) It must have short/sudden duration (around 1 million years maximum) K. List the â€Å"Big Five† mass extinction events and their order through time. 1) Cretaceous / Polygene (Tertiary) (K/Peg), 65 Ma 2) Late -errant's, 205 Ma 3) Perm / Triassic, 251 Ma 4) Late Devotion, 360-375 Ma 5. Late Ordination, 440-450 Ma L. Distinguish between broad extinction-producing phenomena. ) Biological causes: Organisms being brought together that once lived in isolation can cause mass extinctions (ex. Many of the New Zealand ground dwelling bird fauna were devastated when human hunters and then later European mammals (cats, rats, dogs) were introduced) -The three main modes of biologically induced extinctions: a. Competition between creatures occupying the same ecological niche b. (Excessive) Predation : Predators do not have to do the whole Job, Just drive a population to a low enough level then â€Å"random extinction† can complete the extinction.The idea behind a random extinction is that, although the number of individuals in a species may grow and the species may spread over a wide area, thing ensures the permanent survival of a species. C. Pathogens: disease being introduced to an area by incoming plants or animals 2) Earth-based causes: Extinctions influenced by Earth-based tectonic processes may be caused by changes in continental configuration or changes in atmospheric composition a. Changes in continental configuration: changes in the distribution of continents can have a profound effect.Two major effects of continental configurations: -Changes in climate, ocean cyclist, sea level. Weather patterns and the movement of the oceans are directly linked to the distribution of continents. The Late Ordination extinction -The greater the landmass the lower the diversity. At the moment we have a relatively high biodiversity. This is in part due to the number of continents that are in effect isolated from one another. In times when there is a high degree of continental fragmentation, evolution can proceed in isolation to produce many different species on different landmasses.If plate tectonics cause the formation of a large interconnected land mass there will be more competition between species and lower biodiversity. 0 The Perm/ Triassic Extinction b. Changes in the atmosphere: volcanic activity can also have severe effects. Gases such as carbon dioxide can cause greenhouse warming and aerosols may cause climatic cooling. These can significantly affect the health of the biota c. Extraterrestrial impacts d. Combination of many factors: it is very unlikely that any one factor would be responsible for a global crisis in the biosphere.M. Describe the late Ordination and Perm-Triassic extinction. -Late Ordination: Australia, moves towards the South Pole d uring the late Ordination causing a severe ice age. As water was locked up in the form of glaciers at the Southern Pole, sea level fell. This may have had a severe effect on creatures that live in the shallow water, lose to the continental margins. As the sea retreated off the continental shelf and into the ocean basis shallow marine ecosystems would have been devastated. The Perm / Triassic Extinction (the WORST day for the Biosphere, 251 Ma): At the end of the Permian, plate tectonics had brought all the continents together to form the super continent of Pangaea -Between 95-98% of all species would go into extinction -It hit both ocean- and land-based ecosystems and was less than 1 million years in duration -Many of the common Paleozoic marine creatures would suffer badly through this extinction including trilobites, barbershops, and crinoids.On land, large amphibians and mammal-like reptiles would be badly effected. -Potential causes of the Perm / Triassic extinction (involves a number of events happening at the same time): 1) Continental configuration: drop in biodiversity. The greater the landmass the greater the competition between species. At the end of the Permian, the superscription of Pangaea or â€Å"all lands† would have brought many species into direct competition. 2) Sea level fall: less ocean ridge activity.Sea floor spreading slowed its pace during the Permian, resulting that the oceanic ridges were smaller in size and displaced less water. Consequently oceans retreated from shallow areas into the deeper basin causing problems for creatures that lived in any remaining shallow marine environments. 3) Oceanic stagnation: The close of the formation of Pangaea saw the end of an ice age. Cold polar waters probably disappeared and ocean circulation slowed or stopped. This would have reduced ventilation of deep ocean waters killing off many deeper marine species.In addition occasional overturn of stagnant water could have brought oxygen poor wa ters to shallower marine communities as well. 4) Climate change: Due to the formation of a large landmass, limited would have been much drier and subject to drought. 5) Siberian Traps: massive volcanic activity in Russia: Around 2-3 million kamala basaltic lava were produced within a million years. Carbon dioxide from the volcanic activity and methane caused by melting of gas hydrates would have resulted in greenhouse warming of the planet.In addition, gas emission from volcanoes would have also produced acid rain effects. 6) Possible impacts: Although still very controversial, it is possible that the Earth suffered impacts from space during this time as well. N. Describe the character of extinctions at the K/Peg boundary. Just as the end of the Permian extinction marked the beginning of a new grouping of periods (the Mesozoic) the end of the Cretaceous extinction is likewise so distinct that it marks the beginning of the latest grouping of periods, the Cenozoic. Characteristics: 1) Over 50% of all species on the planet would go into extinction during the k/Peg extinction event 2) One land, few creatures over 25 keg in weight would survive 3) In general, the extinction was even more severe in the oceans with around 80-90% of marine species including the ammonites and marine reptiles going into extinction -A ether and son scientific team, Louis and Walter Olivarez brought the K/Peg extinction crosses the K/Peg boundary in Gobi, Italy.The I-CM clay layer lies directly on top of the latest Cretaceous rocks and was found to be enriched in the element iridium (very rare at the Earth's surface and yet in this layer was enriched over xx above background 0 has now been recorded in many other sections around the world that straddle the Cretaceous. Polygene boundary) -Iridium is known to exist in higher concentrations in extra-terrestrial objects such as asteroids. Olivarez suggested that he clay layer enriched in iridium has been produced by a meteor or comet over 10 k m in diameter impacting the Earth.He suggested further that this impact may have also been responsible for the extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. O. Discuss the evidence used to support the K/Peg impact. 1) Fern spores vs.. Pollen: Ferns are often the first plants to colonize a landscape that has been devastated by fire. In the earliest Polygene (part of what was formerly called the Tertiary), many areas show an increase in fern spores relative to pollen. This suggests that global forest fires may have raged at the end of the Cretaceous paving a landscape open for ferns to spread.This is further supported by high concentrations of soot found around the K/Peg boundary. 2) Tektites: they are thought to be produced during an impact event and they are composed of natural gas. During impact, rock is melted and ejected form the crater. As it travels through the air and cools, it forms characteristic aerodynamic shapes. Many tektites are found at the K/Peg boundary in many different locations, suggesting a massive impact event. 3) Shocked quartz: In many sections around the K/Peg boundary, fragments of the mineral quartz show evidence of multiple fractures.These fractures are thought to be produced when rock is shattered during a high-energy impact. The fragments are called shocked quartz. 4) Tsunami deposits: Tsunami waves leave characteristic sedimentary deposits on inundated shores and as far inland as the waves reach. This feature was found in Mexico, Texas, New Jersey, and the Carolinas suggesting the passage of an enormous wave, far larger than could have been produced by standard tectonic processes.Such a wave could have been generated if an impact had occurred in the ocean. P. Describe the location and probable nature of the K/Peg impact. The distribution of tektites, iridium, shocked quartz, and other potential impact related features was pointing towards a possible centre of activity in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. An oil company had drilled wells in the area and encountered unusual fractures and even melted rock suggesting the area had been subjected to some form of extreme stress. The presence of a crater was finally confirmed when geophysical data revealed a large circular disturbance over km in diameter, the Clubbing Impact Crater -The object responsible for this crater had a shallow angle of entry around 0-30 degrees and is estimated to have been at least 10 km across. -As an analogy, you can think of something the size of Mount Everest hitting the surface of the planet. The energy released by the impact was equivalent to 6. Axes tons of TNT. An estimated 100 kamala of rock was vaporized and released to the atmosphere. Material that wasn't instantly vaporized was thrown out of the crater (the ejects) and Q.Describe the initial and long-term effects of the impact and their environmental consequences. 1) Initial effects (seconds to days) of the impact in the area of the Yucatan Peninsula were significant a. Everything clo se by would have been vaporized b. The intense heat form the blast and the hot debris (including tektites) would have started massive forest fires as suggested by the fern and pollen data c. As the impact occurred partly in the ocean, a massive tsunami would have been generated 2) Longer-term effects (months to decades) of the impact were numerous.Two significant effects were on global temperature and on atmospheric composition. A. Global temperature changes -Dust thrown into the atmosphere would have shut off sunlight for weeks or perhaps months generating a period of cold (a â€Å"Cold House†, lasting weeks to months. The lack of sunlight would also have had severe consequences for plants and photosynthetic algae. -After the dust had settled, water vapor would have remained in the atmosphere acting as a blanket, preventing heat from escaping the Earth. This would have created a greenhouse effect and caused a rise in global temperature. Eventually the excess water vapor woul d be removed by rainfall. However, the temperature of the Earth would continue to rise due to the release of greenhouse gases during impact (a â€Å"Hot House†), lasting years to decades. In particular, carbon dioxide would have been liberated when large quantities of limestone (calcium carbonate, Cacao) would have vaporized during the impact. -The Mesozoic had in general been a warm equable environment. These swings in temperature would have laced a lot of stress on creatures more used to stable climatic conditions. . Acid Rain -High-energy blasts can cause oxygen to combine with nitrogen to form oxides of nitrogen. When these are dissolved in water (ex. Rainfall), it becomes nitric acid. -In addition to the vaporization of limestone as described in (a) above, rocks called evaporates were also vaporized in the blast. Evaporates form when salts precipitate out of solution as the sun evaporates a body of water. This can occur on a vast scale, for example in the Mediterranean S ea, which is closed off at the Strait of Gibraltar.With virtually no input of water from the Atlantic Ocean, high rates of evaporation resulted in the Sea being converted into a vast sultan. This process had also occurred in the Yucatan area. The effect of high-energy blasts on sulfate-rich evaporates is the release of large amounts of sulfur gases. These gases, when dissolved in rainwater, fall to Earth as sulfuric acid. Although the acidity of the nitric- and sulfuric- containing rain was weak and could probably not affect any large animals directly, they would have been affected the acidity of soil and surface ocean.This would have had a devastating effect on plant life and plankton. Thus, the effects from acid rain on the organisms that form the base of the food chain or food web had serious repercussions for all the creatures at higher atrophic levels. R. Consider other potential causes of the K/Peg environmental consequences. -Some scientists remain convinced that another impa ct at the K/Peg boundary (perhaps not loud have been significantly larger than the Clubbing impact, but impacts would NOT have been the only cause.Some factors may be: -During the late Cretaceous, the superscription of Pangaea was starting to fragment. This would have caused changes in oceanic circulation and climate. -Even more significantly, global climate would have been affected by an increase in volcanic activity, in particular, during the formation of the Decca Traps in India, which were highly active at this time. Like the Siberian Traps that occurred at the end of the Permian, this activity would have reduced vast quantities of gases that could have seriously affected the Earth's climate.S. Describe the type and location of potential impostors and rate of meteor influx. 1) Comets are essentially material left over from the formation of the Solar System and are composed of icy material and other debris – effectively â€Å"dirty snowballs† in space. As comets tra vel towards the Sun, the ices vaporize producing the comet's tail. -Two examples of comets are comet Halley, which comes into view of the Earth every 74-79 years, and comet Hale-Bop that was last seen in the night sky in 1997 and will turn in 2380 years. An annual event is the Leonie Meteor Shower, which is visible in Canadian skies in November. This rain of â€Å"shooting stars† is produced as the Earth passes through the debris left behind by comet Temple-Tuttle as it orbits around the sun -There are two comet â€Å"stores† in the Solar System: a) The Keeper belt exists in an area from about the orbit of Neptune to about 50 auk's out (1 AU = 150 million km) -May contain 1 billion (1 x IOWA) comets that are greater than km in diameter. ) The Root cloud is a cloud of comets that exists way beyond the Keeper belt and is only Oakley associated with our sun -May have more than 200 comets with a diameter greater than 500 km with many smaller but still significant in size - It is interesting to note that comets may have been responsible for bringing much of the water and perhaps some of the organic compounds that would lead to the development of life of Earth 2) Asteroids are mostly found in a belt between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter.It is speculated that they may represent the material that might have formed another planet early in the history of the Solar System if it were not for the gravitational effects of Jupiter. Some asteroids are solid, rocky to metallic while others are little more than â€Å"rubble piles† in space. Collisions between asteroids could potentially cause them to be redirected into Earth-crossing orbits. Of those so far mapped, a few are over km in diameter, about 1000 have diameters greater than 30 km and 1 million (alexia) with diameters over 1 km T.List some of the major impact features preserved on the Earth's surface and explain why impact craters appear to be rare on Earth. -Around 100 billion (IXIA 1) objects ente r our atmosphere every rush 0 most of these are burned out at a distance of km above the Earth's surface. These objects are commonly traveling around 11-km/ second. At such speeds, the atmosphere acts like a brick wall. If an object enters at a shallow angle, it may skip like a stone being skipped across a pond and fly back out to space -Early in Earth's history, our planet probably suffered on our planetary neighbors' like Mercury.The evidence of this early bombardment is missing on Earth due to processes of erosion and active plate tectonics. -Until recently (sass's) the possibility of impact on Earth's surface was regarded as improbable. -Craters such as Meteor Crater in Arizona and even the craters on the non were held by some to represent extinct volcanoes and not impact craters at all. U. Describe some of the features and processes of crater formation. Gene Shoemaker was to change this view by studying features such as the material thrown out of a crater (ejects), shocked quar tz, and chemical anomalies, which demonstrated extra-terrestrial origins for these features. -With the aid of satellite imagery, we are now beginning to identify more craters on the surface of our planet. V. Provide examples of Canadian Impact Craters. -Manicuring impact crater (Northern Quebec) – formed about 214 Ma in the Late Triassic. It is km in diameter but was probably as wide as km before glacial erosion stripped away the upper levels. This impact even is thought to be associated with 4 others including Saint Martin Crater (Manitoba) – 40 km in diameter and Architecture Crater (France) – 25 km in diameter. -When the continents are reassembled into their locations during the late Triassic all these craters line up along 22. 8 degrees North latitude over a distance of 462 km. -It is thought that this almost improbable alignment may actually represent a fragmented body that generated several impacts. It is interesting to note that although the effects of th is impact would have been severe, it is not associated with a major mass extinction event W. Describe the hypothesis proposed by Rap and Sheepskin. -They analyzed the number of mass extinctions during the Phonetics and concluded that every 25 million years there was severe stress on the biosphere, sometimes associated with a mass extinction event -There is no known terrestrial geological process that could cause this frequency of problems for the biosphere.So it was suggested that an extraterrestrial source may be to blame 0 comets in the Root cloud were cited as being the most likely culprit -Rap and Sheepskin's hypothesis suggests that every 25-26 million years, something shifts the Root cloud, which causes some comets to fall in towards the Sun and a possible impact with the Earth 0 for this to work, we need to identify a gravity source that can cause disturbances in the cloud on a regular 25 million year basis: 1) Nemesis – Companion Star: This hypothesis proposes that ou r Sun has a companion star way beyond the outer limits of our Solar System whose orbit brings it close to the Root cloud every 25 million years.The gravitational effects of this close pass could cause comets to fall into the inner Solar System. If this body was a red dwarf star or even a black hole, it might be difficult to detect, but even though powerful telescopes such as Hubble have the Nemesis hypothesis, this has an astronomical body (Planet X) that causes shifts in the Root cloud as it orbits around the Sun. In this case, the body y is a planet lying within the bounds of the Root cloud but outside the Keeper belt. Again, no evidence of such a planet has been found. 3) Movement Through the Galactic Plane: In the same way that our planet orbits the Sun, so our Solar System orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.Galaxies are not Just flat pancakes of stars, they also have â€Å"thickness† -In addition to traveling around our galaxy, our Solar System is also movi ng up and down through it, Every 25-26 million years we pass through the densest part of the galaxy, which contains a higher number of stars and also the most gravitational effects. It is proposed that it is this movement through the dense part of the galactic plane that is responsible for the shifts in the Root cloud and thereby a potential impact related biosphere crisis every 25 million years or so. X. List and describe some recent impacts and â€Å"near misses†. ) Tunas, Siberia None 30, 1908): A large explosion about km above the surface attributed to an extraterrestrial object breaking up I the atmosphere (which is why no crater was found).Fortunately, the area was not populated but people and horses km away were knocked off their feet. The shock wave from the blast traveled around the Earth twice. -In Scotland and Sweden, a light appeared in the sky so bright that you could read books at am without the aid of artificial light. It has been suggested that this might have been a fragment of comet Neck, which was passing close by the Earth at hat time -Over 80 million trees were knocked over covering an area about kamala (compare the area of the Tunas devastation to that of the area occupied by Washington, D. C. ) 2) Asteroid near misses: 1989, 1996, 2009, 2011 -March 22, 1989: A mm asteroid misses Earth by 6 hours.

Philosophy Questions Essay

1) Explain (the main ideas and views) and evaluate (by giving arguments) the view of Heraclitus regarding the nature of reality? Heraclitus was one of many pre-Socratic philosophers, and he’s considered to be the most important and influential. I don’t know why, I find him a bit contradictory. His way of thinking was the result of perception and intuition. He despised rational, logical, conceptual thought. His pronouncements were purposely self-contradictory. â€Å"We are and at the same time are not.† â€Å"Being and nonbeing is at the same time the same and not the same.† (I’m totally confused) He posed two main ideas – 1- The Heraclitean doctrine of â€Å"flux† or â€Å"Everything is Flux† This doctrine of flux (or as I understood it â€Å"Everything flows†) says that the whole cosmos is in a constant state of change. He expressed this view with his famous remark â€Å"You cannot step in the same river twice†. This remark raises an important philosophical problem of identity or sameness over change. This question doesn’t apply just to rivers, but to anything that change over time: plants, animals, it applies to people too, the problem of personal identity – you are not the same person today as you were yesterday. 2- Things change. (Even though I find him contradictory, I do have to agree that everything is in a state of constant change). Heraclitus wasn’t just looking for the primary substance, he believed that everything was constantly changing and he was looking to explain these constant changes or transformations. He didn’t believe change was random, instead, he saw all change as determined by a cosmic order he called the Logos (Greek for â€Å"word†) According to Heraclitus, all is fire. Fire, whose nature is to ceaselessly change, is the fundamental substance of the universe, even more than water because fire transforms solids into liquids and because it was always in motion. He was also a materialist (all objects are physical or material). I didn’t understand him well, in my opinion I think he just wanted to contradict Parmenides, for the heck of it. 2) Explain and evaluate the view of Empedocles? Empedocles was another major Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, also a materialist. His Pluralistic views declared that everything is made of four elements (or roots, to put it in his own terms) air, water, fire, and earth.  His philosophy is best known for being the originator of the four-element theory of matter. He diplomatically sided partly with Parmenides (being is unchanging) and partly with Heraclitus (being is ceaselessly changing). He thought that true reality is permanent and unchangeable, yet he also thought it absurd to dismiss the change we experience as mere illusion. Because of this he was possibly the first philosopher to attempt to reconcile and combine the apparently conflicting metaphysics of those before him. Although he stated that true reality is changeless, objects do appear to change and this apparent change is brought about by the variation of the relative proportions of the four elements. Empedocles also recognized that an account of reality must explain not merely how changes in the objects of experience occur but why they occur. In other words, he attempted to provide an explanation of the forces that cause change. He taught that the basic elements enter new combinations under two forces or agents — love and strife– which are essentially forces of attraction and decomposition. He was a competent scientist; regarded variously as a materialist physicist, a shamanic magician, a mystical theologian, a healer, a democratic politician, a living god (proclaimed himself a god), and a fraud. 3) Explain and evaluate the view of Anaximander? The second of the Milesians, a pupil of Thales, sought the primary substance. In my opinion, Anaximander was way ahead of his time, he thought that all dying things return to the element they came from. He believed that it wasn’t an element like water, fire, earth, and air, but that the beginning is endless and unlimited and does not age or decay and that it is what all things come from. A primordial mass, containing everything in the cosmos, does it sound familiar? Big-Bang Theory, maybe? Anaximander maintained that the basic substance out of which everything comes must be even more elementary than water and every other substance of which we have knowledge. He thought the basic substance must be ageless, boundless (Greek: â€Å"apeiron†, that is, â€Å"that which has no boundaries†) or infinite, changing, undefined, and indeterminate. He doubted whether any fundamental or primary substance would exist in an observable pure form. In a sense he was correct, as we today know that we don’t observe the primary substance anywhere in the world; even atoms are composed of smaller particles that normally don’t  exist anywhere by themselves. 4) Explain, evaluate and compare (by stating how they are similar or different) the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. They both agreed that the world could be reduced to one thing, but never agreed on what that one thing was. Even though their philosophies were in direct opposition, they were both named by Plato to be among the wisest of the early Greek philosophers. Heraclitus (H) thought everything was made out of fire, because fire was ever changing. Parmenides (P) disagreed; he thought the entire idea of change was impossible. H– Maintained everything is constantly changing and becoming something else. P– States, everything is constantly staying the same. H– Thought reality is ceaselessly changing, permanence is an illusion. P– Being is unitary, an undifferentiated whole, eternal. All of us, although we seem individual, are part of one great unity or whole. This view is known as monism. Parmenides arrived at his truths through pure logic. He calculated and deduced his doctrine of Being, he did not care about finding the primary substance, or in looking for the features of reality. His methods were completely different that of those before him. While Milesians, Heraclitus, and the Pythagoreans looked around at the world to find answers and tried to figure out its primary substance, Parmenides, simply assumed some very basic principles and attempted to deduce from these what he thought must be the true nature of being. (This guy was simple and logic) He based his philosophy on â€Å"principles of reason†, which just means that they are known prior to experience. For example: if something changes, it becomes something different. Thus, he reasoned, if being itself were to change, then it would become something different. But what is different from being is nonbeing, and nonbeing just plain isn’t. Thus, he concluded, being does not change. Question #1 explains Heraclitus in detail. I would’ve love to see these 2 up close and personal debating, what a pair!!! 5) Explain and evaluate the views of Protagoras.  A sophist, and an expert in rhetoric, was best known for 3 claims. a) That man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) â€Å"Man is the measure of all things. Of the things that are, that they are of the things that are not, that they are not† b) That he  could make the â€Å"worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)† Protagoras was a relativist about knowledge; the question is what type of relativist? Is knowledge relative to the species, or culture, or the individual? The species relativism view claims that truth is relative to our species, or relative to humanity as a whole. Cultural relativism view claims that ethics is determined by each culture. What is right and wrong ought to be determined by culture. Individual relativism (Subjectivism) claims that each person ought to determine what is true for themselves. As long as you do what you think is right, then you have acted correctly. Whatever you believe to be true, is true. Descriptive relativism says that as a matter of empirical fact, different cultures have different beliefs about what is true, this seems to be true. c) That one could not tell if the gods existed or not. Protagoras was agnostic (undecided about God’s existence) He said –About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the factors preventing knowledge are many; the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life– 6) Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras. Not much is known about Pythagoras because he wrote nothing, and it is hard to say how much of â€Å"his† doctrine is â€Å"his†. He was the founder of The Pythagoreans Cult or Club, (Pythagoras followers), they kept their written doctrines pretty secret, and controversy remains over the exact content of these doctrines. Pythagoras is said to have maintained that all things are numbers, numbers are ideas, ideas are immaterial, therefore; all things are immaterial (Idealist) â€Å"Everything is composed of numbers†, could mean, all things take up space and have measure. He was also a Dualist, dualism states that some objects are physical and some objects are not physical. The Pythagorean combination of mathematics and philosophy helped promote an important concept in metaphysics, one we will encounter frequently. This is the idea that the fundamental reality is eternal, unchanging, and accessible only to reason. 7) Explain and evaluate the views of Anaxagoras. Anaxagoras introduced philosophy to Athens, where it flourished; he also  introduced into metaphysics an important distinction between matter and mind. Unlike Empedocles, he believed that everything is infinitely divisible. He is known best for two theories. First, he held that in the physical world everything contains a portion of everything else. The second is the theory of Mind (Nous) as the initiating and governing principle of the cosmos. He postulated that the source of all motion is something called nous. This Greek word is sometimes translated as â€Å"reason,† sometimes as â€Å"mind,† and what Anaxagoras meant by nous is apparently an equation between mind and reason. Mind, according to him, is separate and distinct from matter in that it alone is unmixed. He believed, the universe was an infinite, undifferentiated mass. Mind did not create matter but only acted on it. 8) Explain, in your opinion, which, if any, of the early Greeks had a reasonable conceptio n of the nature of reality. I might be wrong, but Anaximander seems to have been a pretty down to earth guy, his explanations and theories of the universe, and his believes in the existence of new and older worlds make me think of the constant expansion of the universe (†¦some coming to be), the evolution of our entire universe since the Big-Bang, and how many planets, stars, galaxies, etc, have already â€Å"passed away†. Anaximander, another Milesian thinker, rejected Thales, and argued instead that an indefinite substance — the Boundless — was the source of all things. According to Anaximander, the cold and wet condensed to form the earth while the hot and dry formed the moon, sun and stars. The heat from the fire in the skies; which we see as the stars and other heavenly bodies, through holes in the mist; dried the earth and shrank the seas. The seasons change as powers of heat and cold and wetness and dryness alternate. It’s a rather fantastic scheme, but at least Anaximand er sought natural explanations for the origin of the natural world. He believed that the origin of all things was what he called the â€Å"apeiron† – an unlimited or indefinite indestructible substance, out of which individual things were created and destroyed. He appears, like many pantheists, to have believed that there were many worlds or universes, some coming to be, others passing away. As you can see, he proposed a theory of the universe that explained things in terms of natural powers and processes. 9) Explain and evaluate Plato’s criticism of the views of Protagoras and others that argue that knowledge is relative. Protagoras, an early agnostic, was one of the few  Greek thinkers who did not believe in the pantheon of Greek gods. While it would have been difficult politically for him to just come right out and say, â€Å"these gods aren’t real†, he expressed that feeling in his â€Å"homo-mensura† doctrine, â€Å"man is the measure of all things†; that the only thing that matters is the actions of a person, that the gods are irrelevant and have no influence on a person’s life. Or it can be interpreted the way Plato did, that there is no absolute knowledge: one person’s views about t he world are as valid as the next person’s. Plato thinks that because this world is constantly changing, that truth in this world is impossible, truth for him is something, eternal. Plato also believed objects in this world are not eternal, so are beliefs about them, cannot always be correct and we cannot have truth. Plato argued strenuously against this theory. In the Theaetetus dialogue, Plato pointed out that, if Protagoras is correct, and one person’s views really are as valid as the next person’s, then the person who views Protagoras’s theory as false has a valid view. Protagoras did get in some trouble for his philosophy, and he was also frequently criticized for â€Å"inciting social disorder† by encouraging people to ignore the gods and live rational lives. In the Theaetetus, Plato also tried to show that another popular idea about knowledge is mistaken. This is the idea that knowledge may be equated with sense perception. Plato had several reasons for thinking that this equation was false. One reason for thinking that knowledge is not just sense perception is the fact that knowledge clearly involves more than sense perception. Another reason is that you can retain knowledge even after you are no longer sensing a thing. Finally, and even more important, in Plato’s view true knowledge is knowledge of what it is. The objects of sense perception are always changing; sense perception and knowledge cannot be one and the same (Heraclitus). According to Plato, the highest form of knowledge is that obtained through the use of reason because perfect beauty or absolute goodness or the ideal triangle cannot be perceived. Plato was certain that true knowledge must be concern with what is truly real. So this means that the objects of true knowledge are the Forms because the objects of sense perception are real only to the extent that they â€Å"participate† in the Forms. 10) Explain and evaluate how Plato claims people can know the Forms. Perfect Intelligence- Knowledge of the Forms. Our thoughts become knowledge.  Plato claimed that all physical objects copy the original, unchanging Form or Forms. Physical objects are imperfect copies. Like Heraclitus, he held that this reality is constantly changing and shifting. What is true today may be false tomorrow in this world. In the realm of the Forms- truth is eternal. Let’s say I want to make a dress for my daughter, so I have to think of a kind of dress, her size, what color, all the materials I’ll need in general, and how to sew it together. So the dress idea is going to be born before I sew the actual dress. After I sew it, based on my original idea/pattern, it’s not going to be as perfect as I thought it originally. Because she’s going to wear it, it might get torn, it’ll get old, and at the end it will no longer look even similar to my original design, but my original idea of the dress will remain with me in my head, even if the dress isn’t physically there anymore, my perfect dress idea is immortal, unchangeable. Plato’s metaphysics is known as the Theory of Forms is also called the Theory of Ideas. In other words the nature of reality is a physical realm and a Platonic realm of the Forms. The truth is that the ideas or Forms are what â€Å"really† exist! The Republic, the most famous dialogue, gives Plato’s best-known account of the Theory of Forms. According to the theory, what is truly real are not the objects we encounter in sensory experience but, rather, Forms, and these can only be grasped intellectually. All physical objects are copies of these original entities. The Forms exist in another plain of reality- in an immaterial realm. In Plato’s similes of The Cave and The Divided Line, he argues that to gain knowledge of the Forms, a person must be â€Å"re-oriented†, away from being concerned and caught up in the world of the senses: â€Å"the mind as a whole must be turned away from the world of change until its eye can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the good†. Beauty is another example of a form, there is only one Form of Beauty, but many things can be beautiful. Characteristics of forms according to Plato: ageless, eternal, unchanging, unmoving, and indivisible. Note: For some reason I’m very confused with questions 9 & 10, I’m not able to separate properly between Plato’s theory on Knowledge and Forms, I tried my best and because I wasn’t able to express my views correctly I had to  copy some stuff from the book and the slides. 11) Explain and evaluate Aristotle’s notion of the 4 causes. Four Causes refers to an influential principle in Aristotelian thought whereby causes of change or movement are categorized into four fundamental types of answer to the question â€Å"why?† Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes: 1- Formal cause: What is the thing? In other words, what is its form? This cause determines what a thing is. It is akin to the essential property or form. 2- Material cause: What is it made of? This cause determines what a thing is made of. 3- Efficient cause: What made it? This cause determines how an object is made or created. 4- Final cause: What purpose does it serve? This cause determines the purpose of function of an object, person or state of affairs. That is, for what end was it made. 12) Explain and evaluate Aristotle’s 10 categories. Aristotle thought that there were yet other ways that humans use to think about things; so he developed ten basic categories of being. These categories allow us to comprehend various aspects of any thing’s being. Not only do we want to know that a thing is; we want to know what it is and how it functions. These are the 10 categories or predicates to distinguish one object from another. 1. Substance 2. Quantity 3. Quality 4. Relationship 5. Activity 6. Passivity 7. Date/ Time 8. Place 9. Posture 10. Constitution/ Possession Note: I wasn’t able to come up with an explanation other than just naming the categories by reading the book and slides only. I searched the internet and found several articles which I saved, but I couldn’t get myself to write anything here based upon them. 13) Explain and evaluate Aristotle’s third  man argument and theory of forms. This was actually formulated by Plato as a way of criticizing his works on the Theory of Forms. The Third Man Argument (TMA) is one of the most compelling arguments against the Theory of Forms. Aristotle thought that Plato’s theory was metaphorical and meaningless. His own views are that the Forms are universals—something that more than one individual can be. Plato says what connect two coins together is circularity. Aristotle says, what connect the individual objects with the â€Å"form† of circularity? Some other form? What connects that form to the form of circularity†¦ this will result in an infinite p rogression of forms†¦ It was Aristotle who actually developed the ‘man’ example. It’s designed to highlight the problem of infinite regress in Plato’s work on Forms. For example, a man who is described as a man because he has the Form of a man, then a third man (or Form) would be needed in order to explain how the man and the Form of the man are both classed as man. This leads to an infinite regress, as to explain how the third man and the form of the third man are classed as man, you would need a fourth man and so on. The Third Man Argument isn’t simply infinite regress, but that each particular form would regress infinitely based on the definition of â€Å"participation.† 14) Compare and Contrast Plato’s view of Forms with Aristotle’s view of forms. Their views were different, but to some extent similar. Aristotle does not agree with Plato about the nature of ideas, forms for Aristotle exist only in the objects, not in some separate reality, it makes no sense to talk about participating in some immaterial essence in a separate realm. I’m going to take a long shot at this and say, Plato was an idealist, and loo ked to the skies and other worlds for his answers, while Aristotle was focused on the world around him. Aristotle was more of a realist, he liked more scientific studies and practical philosophy, and came up with some practical everyday logic which we use today without even realizing it. He disliked theories for which there was no proof or reason, and criticized Plato’s theory of forms. 15) Aristotle says â€Å"Everything which comes into being is brought about by something [else]† if that were the case, would existence not be a paradox as Gorgias points out? Explain. If this were true, then how or what caused the Big-Bang? Personally, I’m a big believer of the Big-Bang theory (as you can probably see from my answers in previous questions), even though I have to admit is mysterious, and confusing; it intrigues me, the fact that we are  here, how did we get here? I find it to be sort of mystical, and fantastic. I used to be atheist, but always had that little pinching feeling that there’s got to be another explanation to â€Å"ALL† these, so I have to agree with Aristotle â€Å"everything comes into being from/by something else†. Just look at the DNA molecule, such a meticulous process, and happening constantly in every living thing, ever since†¦when? The beginning of times, how did it began?, when did it began?, how does DNA knows what to do, in which order and when to do it? So, yes, Aristotle was on the right track, in my opinion, and the only paradox I see is, the who or what started it all, just like what came first, the chicken or the egg? â€Å"You can’t get something from nothing, as such, there must be a being that is pure actuality which sets into motion the world, the world of potential and perishable things.† On the other hand, Gorgias proposed: †¢That nothing exist †¢That if anything does exist, it is incomprehensible †¢That even if it is comprehensible, it cannot be communicated Gorgias’s propositions are said to be logical contradictions, how can they be logical if they contradict each other? How is it that â€Å"nothing exists†? I’m definitely puzzled, and if it does exist, it’s incomprehensible? Was he questioning his/our own existence? How can something be comprehensible but cannot be communicated? I have no explanation for Gorgias’s propositions; as a matter of fact I don’t really understand or know how to even try to make sense of them.