Astronmy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Astronmy - Essay Example Knowledge on astronomy is also used in navigation, planting strategies, and explaining the origin of earth and its nature. The Greeks incorporated astronomy into their beliefs, mythology, religion and superstitions (Heath, 1991). One of the earliest writings on astronomy is Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, also known as the oldest-manual of astronomy. It provided information on constellations, stars, eclipses, and meteor showers. It also described how ancient people used stars in traveling both land and sea. Iliad also includes the idea that Earth is flat surfaced, an idea which is widely accepted then (Wood, 1999). It was also said that Thales, one of the Seven Sages or the Seven Wise Men of Greece, was able to predict an approximate time of an eclipse and devised a navigating system using the constellation Ursa Minor (Dreyer, 1953). Ancient Greeks used astronomy as a tool that can aid them in their everyday lives. An example of this is Solon’s calendar. The calendar, which is based mainly from his observation of the moon, which lead to the discovery and understanding of seasons provided the Greeks knowledge with better planting schemes and became vital for good food production (Ehrenberg, 1973). Aside from calendars, Greeks were also introduced to sundials by Anaximader of Miletus around 560 B.C. Although sundials are said to be originally discovered by the Babylonians, the Greeks were able to develop and make various forms of sundials (Aveni, 1989). Many people see the hands of God in studying the heavenly bodies, and the Greeks used astronomy as a means to see, understand and commune with God. As a result, astronomy and religion are closely related in Greek civilization. Names of planets are derived from Greek mythology, which is a great part of their religion (Heath, 1991). Several speculations were made by early Greek philosophers. One of them is Pythagoras, who provided the idea that

Magical Realism And Transformation Of Characters In Animated Films Case Study

Magical Realism And Transformation Of Characters In Animated Films - Case Study Example The numerous character transformations have been used to highlight or depict the social changes of the time some of which may include the changing women rights, homosexual issues and increasing transformations regarding birthrights and abortion rights among others (Moritz, 1996, 49). It has also been widely suggested that the transformations may have been used as a satirical anti-Nazi parable. Generally, although the silhouette artforms may have been made to target children, Lotte Reiniger may also have infused social responsibility. Some of the major characters that have undergone character transformation in the movie include Peri Banu and the African magician. For example, the African magician frees himself from the chains and transforms into a bat and attempts to seek out Ahmed before the Prince chases him back to human form. The first appearance of the African sorcerer/magician shows him slowly unfold in the medium of close up with his fingers undergoing spider like articulations (Moritz, 1996, 48). As he transforms into various creatures, the body of the African Sorcerer can be seen going through a series of contortions. On the other hand, Aladdin and the magician both engage in a fiery magical due to each transforming into various creatures (Warner (2011, 401). They, however, soon resume their human form after a while before flinging fireballs at each other. Princess Peri Banu also transforms herself from time to time. In some instances, Peri Banu has a proportionate body with softened mellow and silhouette s with constant grins and smiles while at the time the princess appears as an earthly creature with a frontal appearance. With a lot of plotting; this German animation film is the oldest surviving animated motion picture.

Challenges in Reverse Logistics

Challenges in Reverse Logistics Reverse logisticsthe movement of products back toward the manufacturer in a channel of distributionis a topic that has been given scant attention. However, the increased contemporary emphasis on reverse logistics appears to be the result of public policy and social marketing influences. Broadly speaking, reverse logistics may be the result of one of the following types of initiative: Customer initiativevoluntarily returned goods. Government initiativeproduct recalls. Industry initiativerecycling. The latter two factors have a distinct consumerist/public policy flavoring, and have become mainstream issues largely in the past thirty years. For instance, while product recalls have existed since the early years (Schneider 1974) of the 20th century, they have become prevalent only since the mid-1960s. Two important pieces of federal legislationthe Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972have generated an increased number of product recalls. Similarly, interest in recycling surged in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As a result, prior to the mid-1960s, it appears as if reverse logistics considerations primarily involved customer initiative. Since customer motivated return of goods is a relatively small-scale phenomena, it was overlooked by scholars. As a result, the reverse logistics costs, both direct and indirect, associated with voluntary returns are likely to be miniscule. This low cost scenario provides one explanation for why the distribution ramifications of voluntary returns have gone unstudied. On the other hand, government-initiated and industry-initiated reverse logistics are generally conducted on a much larger scale than is the case with voluntary returns. For instance, with respect to recalls, in 1979, one firm (Corning Glass Works) had to recall nearly 18,000,000 (CPSC Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1979) defective items of the same product. As a result, the costs associated with recall and recycling are likely to be greater than those of voluntary returns. And, since physical distribution is concerned with costs, it is only natural for there to be greater interest in either government-initiated or industry-initiated reverse logistics. Virtually all companies must deal with returns. Consider such diverse organizations as Phillips Electronics and Aurora Health Care Pharmacy. Both companies are highly successful in dealing with returns. Phillips reduced the number of returns from 1.2-1.3 million per year to less than 500,000 (Sciarrotta, 2003). Aurora keeps returns at less than 2% of its total inventory despite stringent FDA regulations related to expiration dates, manufacturer recalls, and proper disposal of drugs (Morton, 2006). The common success factor: both firms have established and meticulously enforced returns-related policies and procedures. They each put a structured program in place to manage returns (Morton, 2006; Sciarrotta, 2003). Regardless of products and/or services involved, managers need to get control of their return operations. Control has been recognized as a crucial component of supply chain management (SCM): The first step (in SCM) is to introduce structure and discipline to the supply process, tightening up procedures, and taking control of all activities in the supply chain. (Sandelands, 1994, p. 44). One important way to introduce such structure is to formalize the operation. Level of formalization is indicative of how much control a given firm has over its reverse logistics operations. Thus, the issue of control becomes associated with the formal development and implementation of written down policies, rules, and procedures related to reverse logistics. Literature review and practitioners perspectives indicate that formalization is a necessity for managing all aspects of the distribution effort including the return movement of goods and services from the market. The purpose of the current research is to provide an analytical tool for measuring the level of reverse logistics process formalization achieved. Such a tool will allow for a more precise assessment of firms readiness to deal with the complexities involved in managing reverse logistics. Accordingly, this study examines the relationship between reverse logistics program complexity and reverse logistics process formalization. James (1974) recognized that transportation and warehousing are key components of a reverse distribution system. Large companies are heavy users of private warehousing. One advantage to private warehousing is control; perhaps one aspect of control is an efficient procedure for calculating warehousing expenses. The transportation-related research that has been done suggests that, for the most part, affected companies bear (Yaros 1976) the freight expense for recalled products. However, only about one-quarter of the affected companies (Yaros and Wood 1981) have control over carrier selection. Three warehousing-related variables contract warehousing, private warehousing, and relative use of private warehousing that show statistically significant relationships with revenues at all locations. Contract and private warehousing are more prevalent among larger firms; this may be an indication that larger firms strive to exhibit more distribution control than smaller firms. Among those firms who utilize private warehousing in both forward and reverse distribution, large firms tend to use private warehousing more in the forward channel. This may be an indication that larger companies are more flexible in their warehousing patterns. That is, the magnitude of a recall might influence whether or not private warehousing is used in the reverse channel (e.g., for small recalls, private warehousing may not be utilized). Reverse Logistics Reverse logistics is the process of planning, implementing and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from the point of consumption to the point of origin for the purpose of recapturing or creating value or for proper disposal. (Rogers Tibben-Lembke, 1999, p. 2). Despite the growing recognition of the importance of reverse logistics, many companies are not ready to meet the challenges involved in handling returns. The rapid growth in the volume of returns far outpaces the abilities of firms to successfully manage the returns (Rupnow, 2007). Because of all the uncertainties involved, reverse logistics program development and implementation becomes very complex. The major challenges involve the considerable number of unknowns that have to be accounted for in developing reverse logistics programs (A.T. Kearneys Executive Agenda, 2004). The process of measuring and analyzing returns-related performance criteria is aimed at improving reverse logistics quality and identifying potential problem areas. The following metrics were identified by returns managers as the most important reverse logistics indicators: 1) volume of returns; 2) type/condition of returned product; 3) dollar value; 4) percent of sales; and 5) resources, including human resources, dedicated to returns. In-depth analysis of these measures can help to identify problem areas. Analyzing the volume, type/condition of returns, dollar value, and percentage of sales can provide a comprehensive list of reasons for returns and identify trends. For example, if a particular customer is constantly abusing the returns policy, this will be apparent when volume of returns and percent of sales data are analyzed. Type/condition of the returned product measures can uncover damage-related problems with specific carriers. RD product designs and/or supplier selection pro cedures can be reconsidered if the number of defective products coming back exceeds a pre-determined level. Measuring and analyzing reverse logistics programs can streamline resource allocation decisions as well. Targeting resources to potential efficiency gains should be a priority. Some firms start to apply reverse logistics-specific ROI ratios to identify the value-added to both the firm and the customers. Investments in employee training and new reverse logistics technological solutions, for example, are tied to pre-determined performance outcomes. Process formalization will enable the application of standardized analytical and measurement tools, like ROI, which can provide feedback useful in improving the service-quality and economic performance of the reverse logistics program. The Effects and Implications of Reverse Logistics Process Formalization Consistent with the RBV of the firm, in its dynamic capabilities extension, (reverse logistics) processes/competences help to transform property-based and knowledge-based resources into enhanced (reverse logistics) capabilities and (reverse logistics program) performance (Teece et al., 1997). The formalization of these processes/competences becomes a necessary condition for building a state-of-art reverse logistics program. The formalization of the reverse logistics processes addresses the issue and provides several related benefits discussed bellow. First, the formalization of the reverse logistics program can serve as a foundation for developing and implementing a solid monitoring system. Specific measurement items can be developed to help companies get control over their reverse logistics operations through increased visibility of the processes and activities involved. In addition to enhancing control, multiple monitoring/check points can help firms to modify certain processes and related activities. A constant feedback system can be established allowing for continuous process improvement. Second, reverse logistics program formalization defines roles and responsibilities. A clear and shared understanding of what is involved in managing returns can increase employee motivation and contribute to increased operational efficiency. Clear delineation of required activities and associated responsibility can reduce returns processing time. The managers interviewed believe that reverse logistics process formalization allows employees to focus on ways to increase productivity. Measurable gains can be achieved, for example, by avoiding discussing potential options for every returned product. Instead, the prescribed policy/rule can be automatically applied. In addition to pure operational gains, providing structure to the reverse logistics program can contribute to enhanced performance by enabling reverse logistics personnel to build upon shared and in-depth, firm-specific knowledge and experience. Capturing standard policy through written formal procedures provides institutional memory and creates a firm-specific knowledge database. Next, reverse logistics program formalization can help to identify necessary resources and indicate how resources should be utilized. A step-by-step schematic of what exactly is involved in handling returns can greatly contribute to securing senior management support. Problem areas can be readily identified as well as potential economic and strategic benefits. Tailored investments can be made, for example in returns inspectors training and wireless technologies. These investments should be related to clear-cut performance outcomes through developing distinct IT, innovation, and responsiveness capabilities. More importantly, gaining support for reverse logistics was cited as the necessary first step in changing the attitude toward returns, the culture from lets try to lose less money to lets try to identify opportunities. The development of an effective, formalized reverse logistics program can also help companies to improve relationships with customers. When reverse logistics processes are formalized and documented at the detail level, preparing a customer-tailored offering can become less burdensome. Different activities can be adjusted as necessary and presented to the customer. The reverse logistics program can become an important element of the overall selling effort. Leading firms in reverse logistics management already include returns experts as part of their sales team. Formalization of reverse logistics processes can become a key, customer-oriented strategic tool.

Astrology :: essays research papers

Have you ever wondered what astrology is? Astrology has been around for many years, but many people don’t understand what astrology is, who used astrology, and it’s connection with the zodiac. Many people don’t know this, but the actual term astrology comes from two words, which are â€Å"astra† and â€Å"logos†. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) When people believe in astrology, what they believe is that the planets and stars directly or indirectly influence their lives and determine what happens to them in life. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) The stars are said to show guidance and meaning for the lives of people. (Woolfolk, p.297) Most people think that astrology is a recently thought up science, but it has actually been around for many generations. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.1) The actual science of astrology can be dated to about six thousand or so years before the birth of Christ! (Woolfolk, p.297) The oldest astrology chart dates back to 4,200 BC (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) At this time, astrology and religion went hand in hand with each other. (Woolfolk, p.297) Most astrologers were priests. (Woolfolk, p.297) Many people looked up to these astrologers as â€Å"taught men†. (www.astrology.net/about.html) Astrology has had its ups and downs through history, but it always maintained that station of being. (www.astrologers.com/history.html# Relevant, p.1) After some aspects of religion became prevalent, astrology became known as the â€Å"work of the devil†. (Weblinker.com Enterprises, p.1) During the Renaissance, though, astrology became more liked than before. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) Even religious leaders began to practice astrology more often. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) People of the royal families had their own astrologers. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) That is how worldwide astrology was. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) Modern day astrology is meant to be a philosophy to put into detail different aspects of life instead of predicting the future. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.2) Astrology has been the stuff that has brought people together. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.2) It explains the power that people contain in their lives. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.2) Of course, there are many different aspects or branches of astrology. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.3) Some are medical, business, stock market, weather, mundane, electrical, horary, and natal. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.3) They are practiced for health, financial, politics, marriage, business, and other things that concern people in their lives. (www.astrology.net/about.html, p.3) As a matter of fact, even Hitler used an astrologer during World War II. (Weblinkers.com Enterprises, p.1) One of the astrologers said that he should seek peace, and Hitler became mad at the astrologer and burned him and all astrology books.

Structuration theory

Anthony Giddens was born on January 8, 1938. He is a British sociologist who is known for his theory of structuration and his holistic view of modern societies. He is considered to be one of the most prominent modern sociologists, the author of at least 34 books, published in at least 29 languages, issuing on average more than one book every year. In 2007, Giddens was listed as the fifth most-referenced author of books in the humanities.He has served as Director of the London School of Economics in 1997 until 2003. Structure is defined by Giddens as rules and resources, organized as properties of social systems. The theory of structuration is a social theory of the creation and reproduction of social systems that is based in the analysis of both structure and agents without giving primacy to either. In other words, when we communicate with one another, we create structures that range from large social and cultural institutions to smaller individual relationships.As communicators act strategically according to rules to achieve their goals, they do not realize that they are simultaneously creating forces that return to affect future ction. Structures like relational expectations, group roles and norm, communication networks and societal institutions affect social action. But these variables may also both affect and are affected by social action. These structures provide individual with rules that guide their actions, but their action in turn create new rules and reproduce old ones. Figure 1: Variables of the theory. 2.ORIGINS OF STRUCTURATION THEORY Sociologist Anthony Giddens adopted a post-empiricist frame for his theory, as he was concerned with the abstract characteristics of social relations. This leaves each evel more accessible to analysis via the ontologies which constitute the human social experience: space and time and thus, in one sense, ‘history'. His aim was to build a broad social theory which viewed basic domain of study of the social science s neither the experience of the individual actor, not the existence of any form of societal totality, but social practices ordered across space and time.His focus on abstract ontology accompanied a general and purposeful neglect of epistemology or detailed research methodology. Giddens used concepts from objectivist and subjectivist social theories, discarding bjectivism's focus on detached structures, which lacked regard for humanist elements and subjectivism's exclusive attention to individual or group agency without consideration for socio-structural context. 3.DUALITY OF STRUCTURE Structuration theory may be seen as an attempt to resolve a fundamental division within the social sciences between those who consider social phenomena as determined by the influence of objective, exogenous social structures and others who see them as products of the action of human agents in the light of their subjective interpretation of the world. Giddens attempts to square this circle by proposing that tructure and agency be viewed, not as independent and conflicting elements, but as a mutually interacting duality.Social structure is therefore seen as being drawn on by human agents in their actions, while the actions of humans in social contexts serve to produce, and reproduce, the social structure. Structure is thus not simply an exogenous restraining force, but is also a resource to be deployed by humans in their actions, it is enabling as well as disabling. More specifically, Giddens identifies three dimensions of structure, which are signification, domination and legitimation. The three dimensions of interaction are described as communication, power and sanctions.The means by which structures are translated into actions are called modalities, which are interpretive schemes, facilities and norms as shown in Figure 2. These modalities can explain why and how interaction is affected. Figure 2: Dimensions of the duality of structure, Giddens (1984) For example, as humans comm unicate, they use interpretive schemes to help them make sense of their interaction; at the same time these interactions change or reproduce the same interpretive schemes that are embedded in structures as signification.The facility used to allocate resources is manifested in the wielding of power, which in turn produces and reproduces facilities influencing social structures of domination. Norms on the other hand, referred to also as moral codes; provide both understandings and sanctions for human interactions, ultimately also producing legitimation within structures. 4. APPLICATION OF THE THEORY Donald Ellis (1999) shows how ethnicity is entailed in structuration. Ethnicity is a structural arrangement created over time as a result of many local practices throughout the world.Yet, once created, ethnicity has a life of its own, so that it ecome almost impossible not to see and act in accordance with ethnic experience in some way or another. Well intentioned people acting in their ev eryday live create unintended categories of social structure, which is limit what they can do in future interactions. these structures are not necessarily bad, but they can limit the ability to see a range of possibilities for acting in future situations 4. 2 Communication : Decision making Marshall Scott Poole (1985) and his colleagues have been working for several years on her structurational theory of group decision making.This theory teaches that group ecision making is a process in which group members attempt to achieve convergence or agreement on a final decision and in so doing structure their social system. By expressing their opinions and preferences, group member actually produce and reproduce certain rules by which convergence can be achieve or blocked. However, good decision making depends on three set of variables that are objectives task characteristics, group task characteristics and group structural characteristics.Figure 3 : Variables of the theory in term of Group Decision Making.   Adaptive structuration Theory Desancns and Poole (2011) adapted Structuration Theory to study the interaction of groups and organizations with information technology, and called it Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST). Adaptive Structuration Theory is formulated as the production and reproduction of the social systems through members use of rules and resources in interaction. This theory criticizes the technocentric view of technology use and emphasizes the social aspects.Individual interaction with technology and in the incorporation personal experiences can dictate outcomes and structural change as well as eventually change the design or use of the technology. The theory could be used to analyze the advent of various innovations such as the printed press, electricity, telegraph, mass transpirations, radio, telephone, TV, the Internet, etc. , and show how the structures of these innovations penetrated the respective societies, influencing them, and how the socia l structures of those societies in turn influenced and modified innovations ongtnal intent. Social media networks were create to provide interpersonal connectivity to its users. Users began utilizing the technology to drive trends through the sharing of xperiences with good or bad regarding brands and products or rallying behind the Large organizations began tollowing these trends and implemented t cause. technology used for themselves. This alteration of the technologies use resulted in social networking site adjusting their design to also meet the need of organizations to connect with consumers. . CRITICISM John B. Thompson (said that Structuration theory needed to be more specific and more consistent both internally and with conventional social structure theory. Thompson focused on problematic aspects of Giddens' concept of structure as â€Å"rules nd resources,† focusing on â€Å"rules†. He argued that Giddens' concept of rule was too broad. Thompson claimed that G iddens presupposed a criterion of importance in contending that rules are a generalizable enough tool to apply to every aspect of human action and interaction.Waldeck et al. concluded that the theory needs to better predict outcomes, rather than merely explaining them. Decision rules support decision-making, which produces a communication pattern that can be directly observable. Research has not yet examined the â€Å"rational† function of group communication and decision-making (i. . , how well it achieves goals), nor structural production or constraints. Rob Stones argued that many aspects of Gidden's original theory had little place in its modern manifestation.Stones focused on clarifying its scope, reconfguring some concepts and inserting new ones, and refining methodology and research orientations. Strong structuration are: 1. Places its ontology more in situ than abstractly. 2. Introduces the quadripartite cycle, which details the elements in the duality of structure. T hese are: – External structures as conditions of action; – Internal structures within the agent; Active agency, â€Å"including a range of aspects involved when agents draw upon internal structures in producing practical action† and – Outcomes (as both structures and events). 3.Increases attention to epistemology and methodology. Ontology supports epistemology and methodology by prioritising: – The question-at-hand; – Appropriate forms of methodological bracketing; – Distinct methodological steps in research; and – The specific combinations of all the above in composite forms of research. 4. Discovers the meso-level of ontology between the abstract, philosophical level of ntology and the in-situ, ontic level. Strong structuration allows varied abstract ontological concepts in experiential conditions. 5. Focuses on the meso-level at the temporal and spatial scale. . Conceptualises independent causal forces and irresistible causa l forces, which take into account how external structures, internal structures, and active agency affect agent choices (or lack of them). â€Å"Irresistible forces† are the connected concepts of a horizon of action with a set of â€Å"actions-in-hand† and a hierarchical ordering of purposes and concerns. An agent is affected by external influences. This aspect of strong structuration helps reconcile an agent's dialectic of control and his/her more constrained set of â€Å"real choices. As a conclusion, in structuration theory, neither micro nor macro focused analysis alone are sufficient. The theory most significantly in the constitution of society, which examines phenomenology, hermeneutics, and social practices at the inseparable intersection of structures and agents. Its proponents have adopted and expanded this balanced position. Though the theory has received much criticismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

A Review of Rene Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy

INTRODUCTION This article is a summary of Rene Descarte’s Meditation on First Philosophy. It seeks, as permitted by the Meditator himself, in his letter to the reader, to examine his treatise with the possibility of instituting change if necessary. †¦I doubt not, if you but condescend to pay so much regard to this treatise as to be willing in the first place to correct it (for mindful not only of my humanity, but chiefly also of my ignorance, I do not affirm that it is free from errors); in the second place to supply what is wanting in it, to perfect what is incomplete, and to give more ample illustration where it is demanded, or at least to indicate these defects to myself that i may endeavour to remedy them;1He starts his meditations which spans over a period of six days by sitting himself, I dare say, comfortably, by the fire side†¦ MEDITATION I SKEPTICAL DOUBT IN THE First Meditation, the meditator expounds the grounds on which we may doubt generally all things, and especially material objects, so long at least, as we have no other foundations for the sciences than those we have before now possessed. The meditator was struck by how many false things he had believed, and by how doubtful the structure of beliefs he had based on them.He realized that if he wanted to establish anything in the sciences that was stable and likely to last, he needed – just once – to demolish everything completely and start again from the foundations. I can do this without showing that all my beliefs are false, which is probably more than I could ever manage. My reason tells me that as well as withholding assent from propositions that are obviously false, I should also withhold it from ones that are not completely certain and indubitable.So all I need, for the purpose of rejecting all my opinions, is to find in each of them at least some reason for doubt. I can do this without going through them one by one, which would take forever: once 1 Rene Descar tes, Meditations on First Philosophy, (Start Publishing LLC: eBook edition, 2012) kobo file. the foundations of a building have been undermined, the rest collapses of its own accord; so I will go straight for the basic principles on which all my former beliefs rested. Whatever I have accepted until now as most true has come to me through my senses.But occasionally I have found that they have deceived me, and it is unwise to trust completely those who have deceived us even once. 2 The Meditator goes further to say that although our sense perceptions deceive us yet one could not possibly doubt all of what one has come to know through the senses for example, his seating by the fire, clothed in a winter dressing gown or that he is truly in possession of this arms and legs. This led to what is popularly referred to as the dream argument where he argues that; I often have perceptions very much like the ones I usually have in sensation while I am dreaming.There are no definite signs to dis tinguish dream experience from waking experience. therefore, It is possible that I am dreaming right now and that all of my perceptions are false3 Objection to the dream argument: It could be argued that the images we form in dreams can only be composed of bits and pieces of real experience combined in novel ways. Therefore, Although we have reason to doubt the surface perceptual qualities of our perception, we have no reason to doubt the properties that we perceive the basic components of our experience to have. In particular, there is no reason to doubt the mathematical properties that material bodies in general have. )4 The First Meditation can thus be seen as presenting skeptical doubts as a subject of study in their own right. Certainly, skepticism is a much discussed and hotly debated topic in philosophy, even today. Descartes was noticeably the first to raise the mystifying question of how we can claim to know with certainty anything about the world around us. The idea is not that these doubts are 2 â€Å"Rene Descartes 1639.Meditations on First Philosophy in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and the body. † marxists. org. n. p. n. d.. http://www. marxists. org/reference/archive/ descartes/1639/meditations. htm (accessed April 10, 2013). 3 Banach, David. â€Å"An Outline of Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy. † anslem. edu. Creative Commons License. 2006. http://www. anselm. edu/homepage/dbanach/medol. htm (accessed April 10, 2013). 4 Banach, ‘An Outline†¦ philosophy. ’ op. cit. robable, but that their possibility can never be entirely ruled out. And if we can never be certain, how can we claim to know anything? Skepticism cuts straight to the heart of the Western philosophical enterprise and its attempt to provide a certain foundation for our knowledge and understanding of the world. It can even be pushed so far as to be read as a challenge to our very notion of rationality. Skepticism cannot be lived, we as individuals cannot possibly doubt everything as this will lead to an infinite regress.We should note that Descartes' doubt is a methodological and rational doubt. That is, the Meditator is not just doubting everything at random, but is providing solid reasons for his doubt at each stage. For instance, he rejects the possibility that he might be mad, since that would undercut the rationality that motivates his doubt. Descartes is trying to set up this doubt within a rational framework, and needs to maintain a claim to rationality for his arguments to proceed. MEDITATION II OF THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN MIND; AND THAT IT IS MORE EASILY KNOWN THAN THE BODYDay two of the meditation sees the meditator still in doubt, following Archimedes, the meditator attempts to find a starting point or at least one point which he would not doubt. I will nevertheless, make an effort, and try anew the same path on which I had entered yesterday, that is, pro ceed by casting aside all that admits of the slightest doubt, not less than if I had discovered it to be absolutely false; and will continue always in this track until I shall find something that is certain, or at least, if I can do nothing more, until I shall know with certainty that there is nothing certain.Archimedes, that he might transport the entire globe from the place it occupied to another, demanded only a point that was firm and immovable; so, also, I shall be entitled to entertain the highest expectations, if I am fortunate enough to discover only one thing that is certain and indubitable. 5 Recalling the previous meditation, he supposes that what he sees does not exist, that his memory is faulty, that he has no senses and no body, that extension, movement and place are mistaken notions. Perhaps, he remarks, the only certain thing remaining is that there is no certainty. Descartes, ‘On†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. kobo file The meditator then wonders, is he not, the source of these meditations? (that is after doubting his existence; of his body and senses) does that mean he cannot exist either? He has also noted that the physical world does not exist, which might also seem to imply his nonexistence. And yet to have these doubts, he must exist. For an evil demon to mislead him in all these cunnuing ways, he must exist in order to be misled. There must be an â€Å"I† that can doubt, be deceived, and so on.He formulates the famous cogito argument, saying: â€Å"So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition (pronunciatum) I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived in my mind. â€Å"6 The cogito argument is so called because of its Latin formulation in the Discourse on Method: â€Å"cogito ergo sum† (â€Å"I think, therefore I am†). This is possibly the most famous single line in all of philosophy, and is generall y considered the starting point for modern Western philosophy.In it, the Meditator finds his first grip on certainty after the radical skepticism he posited in the First Meditation. The cogito presents a picture of the world and of knowledge in which the mind is something that can know itself better than it can know anything else. 7 The latter part of the Second Meditation dwells largely on the â€Å"Wax Argument† with which the meditator hopes to show that we come to know things through the intellect rather than through the senses and that we know the mind better than anything else. His argument focuses on the process of change by which solid wax melts into a liquid puddle.The senses seem to tell us things about the world, and Descartes admits that what we know about the solid piece of wax we know through the senses. The senses can similarly inform us about the melted wax, but they cannot tell us that the melted wax and the solid wax are one and the same. Nor, the meditator argues, can the imagination. Only the intellect can organize and make sense of what we perceive. The senses only perceive a disconnected jumble of information: the intellect is what helps us to understand it. 6 7 ibid, kobo file. SparkNotes Editors. â€Å"SparkNote on Meditations on First Philosophy. † SparkNotes LLC. n. d.. ttp:// www. sparknotes. com/philosophy/meditations/ (accessed April 12, 2013). MEDITATION III. OF GOD: THAT HE EXISTS At the beginning of Meditation III, the meditator finds a whole host of truths which he holds we can know for certain. These truths involve the causal or representational theory of perception. This theory holds that we directly perceive ideas which are caused by objects in the external world. Descartes claims that we can know for certain that we are seeing a particular idea (of the sun or the stars or this room or that tree), what we don't know for certain is if there is a sun or stars or a room or tree ausing our ideas). The meditator goe s on to produce a criterion for truths which we can know for absolute certainty. He does this by reflecting on those truths which he has already discovered using the method of doubt, and determines that what they all have in common is that the ideas in them are all clear and distinct. Thus any truth composed of clear and distinct ideas can be known for certain. Descartes then proceeds to try to move from the foundation, to determine what truths might be based on those truths. The first thing he must do, as it turns out is to prove that God exists!Without doing this he cannot get rid of the Evil Demon hypothesis. 8 When considering God as â€Å"a substance that is infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else,† the Meditator realizes that the idea of God must have far more objective reality than he has formal reality: God is an infinite substance whereas he is only a finite substance. Sin ce the idea of God cannot have originated in himself, he concludes that God must be the cause of this idea and must therefore necessarily exist.The Meditator counters the argument that he might conceive of an infinite being through negation, that is, through conceiving of it in contrast to his own finite being. Doubts and desires come from an understanding that we lack something, and we would not be aware of that lack unless we were aware of a more perfect being that has those things which we lack. While he can doubt the existence of other things, he cannot doubt the existence of God, since he has such a clear and distinct perception 8OSU. â€Å"the meditations. † n. p. n. d. ttp://oregonstate. edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/meditations. html (accessed April 13,2013). of God's existence. The idea has infinite objective reality, and is therefore more likely to be true than any other idea. The Meditator then entertains the possibility that he may be supremely perfect, that al l his deficiencies are potentialities within him, and that he is slowly improving toward perfection. If perfection is a potentiality within him, then it is plausible that the idea of God could be conceived in him without any outside cause.The Meditator rejects this possibility for three reasons: first, God is all actual and not at all potential; second, if he is constantly improving, he will never attain that perfection where there is no room for improvement; and third, potential being is not being at all: the idea of God must be caused by something with infinite actual being. If the Meditator could exist without God, he would have come to be out of herself, or from his parents, or from some other being less perfect than God. If he derived his existence from himself, there is no reason that he should have doubts and desires.He also cannot escape this reasoning by supposing he has always existed and never had to come into being. There is no reason that he should continue to exist unl ess there is some force that preserves him, that creates him anew at every instant. As a thinking thing, he should be aware of that power of preservation though it came from within him. If his parents or some other imperfect being created him, this creator must have endowed him with the idea of God. If this creator is a finite being, we must still ask with respect to it how it came to possess the idea of an infinite God.We can trace this chain back through countless creators, but we must ultimately conclude that the idea of God can originate only in God, and not in some finite being. We can thus sum up the third meditation: Every idea must be caused, and the cause must be as real as the idea. If I have any idea of which I cannot be the cause, then something besides me must exist. All ideas of material reality could have their origin within me. But the idea of God, an infinite and perfect being, could not have originated from within me, since I am finite and imperfect. I have an idea of God, and it can only have been caused by God.Therefore God exists. 9 Anderson, JT. â€Å"Summary of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy. † n. p. 1999. http://home. sandiego. edu/ ~janderso/10/descart. html. ( accessed April 13, 2013). 9 MEDITATION IV OF TRUTH AND ERROR The Fourth Meditation, subtitled â€Å"Truth and falsity,† opens with the Meditator reflecting on the ground he has covered so far, observing that all his certain knowledge, and in particular the most certain knowledge that God exists, comes from the intellect, and not from the senses or the imagination. Now that he is certain of God's existence, a great deal more can follow.First, he knows that God would not deceive him, since the will to deceive is a sign of weakness or malice, and God's perfection would not allow it. Second, if God created him, God is responsible for his judgment, and so his faculty of judgment must be infallible so long as he uses it correctly. One wonders then following f rom the evil demon argument and the third meditation on the existence of God, how then error comes to play if God is too perfect to be infallible yet He (God) is responsible for our judgement? Error, the meditator believes comes from improper use of our intellect, i. e. in judging things we do not really know.Summation of the fourth meditation is thus: Only an imperfect (less than perfectly good) being could practice deliberate deception. Therefore, God is no deceiver. Since my faculty of judgment comes from God, I can make no mistake as long as I use it properly. But it is not an infinite faculty; I make mistakes when I judge things that I don't really know. God also gave me free will, which is infinite and therefore extends beyond my finite intellect. This is why it is possible to deceive myself: I am free to jump to conclusions or to proclaim as knowledge things that I don't know with absolute certainty.I therefore know now that if I know something with absolute certainty (clearl y and distinctly), then I cannot be mistaken, because God is no deceiver. The correct way to proceed is to avoid mistakes and limit my claims to knowledge to those things I know clearly and distinctly. 10 The Meditator also questions why a supremely good God would not create us with infinite being. In sum, we are given a variant on the answer, â€Å"The Lord works in mysterious ways. † The Meditator suggests that God's motives are beyond our meager comprehension.While on our own, we may be seen as imperfect, we are only a small part of a much larger creation. We might think of a steering wheel on its own as rather useless and imperfect, but when we see it in the larger context of a car, we understand that it is perfectly designed to suit its purpose. 11 10 Anderson, 11 ‘Summary of†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. Sparknote Editors, ‘Sparknotes on†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. MEDITATION V OF THE ESSENCE OF MATERIAL THINGS; AND, AGAIN OF GOD;THAT HE EXIS TS The Fifth Meditation opens with the Meditator turning his attention toward material objects.Rather than inquire into the things themselves, he inquires into her ideas regarding material things. He concludes that he can distinctly imagine extension, size, shape, position, and local motion, which is associated with duration. The Meditator has reasons here that a triangle must have all the properties he ascribes to it, because the triangle exists as an idea in his mind and he clearly and distinctly perceives all these properties. He then reasons by analogy that God exists as an idea in his mind and he clearly and distinctly perceives all of his qualities.One of these qualities is existence, so it follows from his clear and distinct perception that God must exist. If existence is the essence of God, then God would not be God if he did not exist, just as a triangle would not be a triangle if it were not three-sided. At the very least, then, the existence of God must be as certain as t he properties of mathematical and geometrical objects since he can prove them in the same way. Does this mean that thinking of something means that it exists? According to the meditator; If I conceive of a triangle, I must conceive of a figure whose angles equal two right angles.But it doesn't follow that the triangle must exist. But God is different. God, being perfect, is the one being to whom existence must belong. Thus, when I conceive of God, I must conceive of a being that exists. Because God, being perfect, is not a deceiver, I know that once I have perceived something clearly and distinctly to be true, it will remain true, even if later I forget the reasoning that led me to that conclusion. I could not have this certainty about anything if I did not know God. 12 The proof of God's existence found here is a version of a proof that was popular among the Scholastic philosophers.Our idea of God is the idea of a perfect being, and one of the attributes of a perfect being would be existence, since it is more perfect to exist than not to exist. In Descartes' formulation, existence is not just an attribute, but an essential property of God's, so that God cannot be conceived of without existence. This proof, however, rests on the faulty assumption, first pointed out by Kant, that existence is a predicate or a property, like â€Å"being red† or â€Å"being tall. † In fact, â€Å"exists† is a very different kind of predicate than â€Å"is red† or â€Å"is tall. † The predicate â€Å"exists† does not 12Anderson, ‘Summary of†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. modify an object so much as it modifies the world. If I say â€Å"the red car exists,† the property of redness is something that modifies the car. On the other hand, â€Å"exists† does not modify the car so much as it says that the world is such that the car is in it. In that sense, â€Å"exists† is not a property of the car. 13 MEDITATION VI OF THE EXISTENCE OF MATERIAL THINGS, AND OF THE REAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE MIND AND BODY OF MAN The meditator starts his sixth and last meditation by drawing a line between imagination and pure understanding.In the case of a triangle, he can perceive that a triangle is three-sided and derive all sorts of other properties using the understanding alone. He can also perceive these properties with the imagination, by picturing the triangle in his mind's eye. However, the weaknesses of the imagination become clear when he considers a thousand-sided figure which the meditator calls a ‘chiliogon. ’14 It is very difficult to picture it in his mind's eye, and more difficult still to differentiate that mental image from the mental image of a 999-sided figure.The pure understanding, however, dealing only in mathematical relations, can perceive all the properties of a thousand-sided figure just as easily as it can a triangle. The imagination cannot be an essential property of his mind, since the Meditator could still exist even if he could not imagine. Therefore, the imagination must rely on something other than the mind for its existence. The Meditator conjectures that the imagination is connected with the body, and thus allows the mind to picture corporeal or tangible objects.In understanding, the mind turns inward upon itself, and in imagining, the mind turns outward toward the body. The Meditator admits that this is only a strong conjecture, and not a definitive proof of the existence of body. The Meditator then turns to reflect on what he perceives by means of the senses. He perceives he has a body that exists in a world, and that this body can experience pleasure, pain, emotion, hunger, etc. , 13 14 Sparknote Editors, ‘Sparknotes on†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. Descartes, ‘On†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. kobo file. nd can perceive other bodies with extension, shape, movement, hardness, heat, color, smell, taste, etc. He thinks it not unreasonable to suppose that these perceptions all come from some outside source. They come to him involuntarily, and they are so much more vivid than the perceptions he consciously creates in his own mind. It would be odd to suggest that he can involuntarily create perceptions so much more vivid than the ones he creates voluntarily. And if they come from without, it is only natural to suppose that the source of these sensory ideas in some way resemble the ideas themselves.From this point of view, it is very easy to convince oneself that all knowledge comes from without via the senses. 15 What Descartes understands by â€Å"body† is somewhat counter-intuitive and is closely linked to his physics, which is not made readily apparent in the Meditations. This section of commentary will depart a bit from the text it comments on in order to clarify some concepts of Cartesian physics. The entirety of Cartesian physics rests on the claim that extension is the primary at tribute of body, and that nothing more is needed to explain or understand body. Extension† means extended in space, and so a body is anything that occupies space. We should recall that Descartes was also a great mathematician, and invented both analytic geometry and the coordinate system that now bears his name. Descartes' physics is highly mathematical, and we should understand bodies as anything that could be graphed in coordinate space. 16 ON THE MIND BODY DUALISM The Meditator muses that he has been puzzled as to why his mind seems particularly attached to one particular body, which he calls his own. Why does he feel pain and tickling in this body but not in any body external to it?And why should a tugging in the stomach of that body suggest to his mind that he should eat, since there is no obvious connection between the tugging and the decision to eat? He concludes that he is inclined by nature to assume the things he does about his body and about the world external to it , since he accepts these assumptions prior to developing any arguments regarding them. The Meditator reasons that imagination and sensory perception are modes of thought. He could conceive of himself without imagination or sensory perception, so they are not essential to him, but 15 16Sparknote Editors, ‘Sparknotes on†¦ Philosophy. ’ op. cit. ibid imagination and sensory perception could not exist without a mind to contain them. Similarly, there are modes of extension that cannot exist without a body to contain them. The Meditator next considers those ideas about body that he perceives only confusedly and obscurely, hoping that his knowledge that God is not a deceiver will help him further. First, he reasons that he must have a body, as nature teaches that to him more vividly than anything. Further, mind and body are intermingled to form one unit.If the mind were in the body like a sailor in a ship, he would be able to perceive pains and hungers by purely intellect ual understanding. Instead, he feels these sensations sharply and directly as if his mind itself were suffering. The confused modes of thinking that arise with respect to these sensations result precisely because the mind and body are intermingled and the mind cannot survey the matter disinterestedly. The Meditator argues that mind and body have nothing in common, so they must be two totally distinct substances.We could point out that Clark Kent and Superman are very dissimilar and are yet the same thing, and so argue by analogy that mind and body might be two very different ways of looking at the same thing. However, even the primary attributes of mind and body are different. Body is essentially extended, whereas mind is non-extended and essentially thinking. Since the two are totally different, the Meditator concludes that he is only mind, and not body. This is a step beyond what is stated by the sum res cogitans in the Second Meditation, as there the Meditator asserts that he onl y knows that he is a thinking thing.This sharp distinction between mind and body is called â€Å"mind-body dualism† and has had tremendous impact on Western philosophy ever since. If sensory experience is in the mind and the bodies that cause our sensations are in the world, the question arises as to how the two can causally interact. What is the connection between mind and world? This has been a great concern in particular for the rationalist philosophers that followed Descartes–Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz being the most important–as well as for philosophy of mind in general ever since. 17 17 ibid. CONCLUSIONThe mind and the body if held as totally distinct from each other leaves no room for interaction. The mind becomes a separate entity as well as the body. The body is extended and occupies space, it is measureable, visible and degenarates hence the body is matter. The mind however is a direct opposite. It cannot be measured, it is not visible and does not occupy space. Also, since the body is extended in three dimensional space, it can be divided into specific parts, the mind however does not occupy space and cannot be divided. The nature of the body according to Descartes was that, unlike the mind it was divisible. 8 â€Å"There is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch as body is by nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely indivisible. â€Å"19 How then an immaterial mind (that Descartes denied had a location in space) moves a physical body that does, how a body consisting of space-occupying matter influence an immaterial mind remains a philosophical problem, I dare say, beyond any discuss in the philosophy of mind, a metaphysical problem that the whole discipline of philosophy up till date is yet to find a solution to. 18 ‘Rene Descartes. ’ n. p. 2002. ttp://www. renedescartes. com/essay/rene_descartes_essay_001. htm (accessed April 13,2013). 19 ibid. Further Readings Meditations on First Ph ilosophy in which are demonstrated the existence of God and the distinction between the human soul and body Rene Descartes Copyright  ©2010–2015 All rights reserved. Jonathan Bennett Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles, and the Cartesian Circle James Van Cleve The Philosophical Review Vol. 88, No. 1 (Jan. , 1979), pp. 55-91 Published by: Duke University Press Article Stable URL: http://www. jstor. org/stable/2184779