In everyday actions and decisions, human nature dictates that ignorance is very common. Barbara Tuchman’s theory of “wooden-headedness”, can be applied to real life on many different levels. Wooden headedness consists of assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. This is when a person acts according to a wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. Ignorance plays a substantial role in human affairs, although some may think it is just how kids are raised by their parents. Frequently, people will not give in to admitting they’re wrong, even though there may be facts in front of them. Wooden-headedness plays a remarkably large role in human actions and decisions.
In the Tanner Humanities Center video of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Tyson discusses the problems with the American currency. His platform is that there should be scientists like him on the U.S currency, so they could be valued as people who contributed to who we are as a nation. While watching the video, I enjoyed his humor , and the way he used logic to explain how the currency should be labeled. Although, I disagree with Tyson’s view that scientists should be the ones on the currency, I believe that the currency should be changed. It should not only have scientists, but some politicians, artists, etc. People who sacrifice themselves in order to keep the U.S moving forward.
An increasingly conspicuous phenomenon is the Mandela Effect. It relates directly to confabulation, which is defined as a disturbance in memory, without the consciences’ intention to deceive. This means that someone can remember something to be a certain way and be very intent in it’s truth, but in reality the memory is incorrect. For example, the majority of society remembers the popular children book series being titled ‘Berenstein Bears’. If you look back at the books, they are actually titled ‘Berenstain Bears’, which many people don’t recall it ever being called. While our brains do make errors, the Mandela Effect addresses a large group of people all having identical memories but they are incorrect. This causes a confusion in society. So many people remember something the same way, but it is not the truth. Because of this problem, reality seems to be distorted and the accuracy of our brains is in question. The Mandela Effect makes it impossible for us to trust our societal brain.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.
War is defined as “[a] state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict” (“War”). War existed throughout the history of mankind, and left its footprints deep within our society. Even though, we do not know what war truly is. We may assume that war is a complex matter that derives us to think and analyze its true meanings and values. It raises the question of ‘What causes war?’ In Ehrenreich’s writing “The Ecstasy of War” she answers that war is too complex to say it is based on a single act. Moreover, she claims that instinct is a minor factor and should be disregarded (Ehrenreich 426-431). Although her principles, some may think instinct should be considered as factor that derives war. Therefore this paper will rebut on the oversimplification of such argument and reason the importance of instinct in war.
“It is well that war is so terrible-- otherwise we would grow too fond of it,” were the words once said by the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee. Indeed, even opposing nations can agree that war is full of destruction and devastation. Despite this, there are those who believe that war is glorious. Too often, movies and literature depict war as a virtuous endeavor. Young men are often told during war that they should become a soldier, for honor and glory. As a result, many young men are pressured into joining the military, or even join willingly, due to this over glorification. All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque and “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen discuss this very topic. Quite similar works, both feature ex-soldiers as their authors.
All who inhabit the earth have a different opinion on the universe and the study of the cosmos. While many are eager to learn, some prefer to focus only on the world in front of them. The pros and cons to having a wide understanding and perspective of the universe vary depending on prior knowledge and opinions. While some would rather halt space exploration entirely, many still hunger and yearn to learn more about the universe around them. The human race needs to gain more knowledge of space with a new perspective to better understand their past, home, and universe.
The U.S. Constitution founded America's national government and fundamental laws, and guaranteed certain basic rights for its people. It was created and structured around the idea of freedom which was so important to the Founding Fathers who wanted a country that would be nothing like Britain. The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, presided over by George Washington (History.com, 2009). John Locke was a very important and influential philosopher. The Founding Fathers of the Constitution drew heavily on his ideas. Another influence on the constitution was Thomas Hobbes even though his ideas were not to be acknowledged in the final making of the constitution. The last but not least big influence upon the constitution was the Magna Carta.
When George and Lennie meet candy, the old swamper he tells them about the boss’s son (Curley’s) new wife. George and Lennie are told she is flirtatious and troublesome to the men on the ranch. This begins her presentation in the novella through rumors. This means the reader already has a biased opinion of Curley’s wife from the beginning of the book. Candy states that she’s “got the eye” which shows she is a flirt and an attention seeker, which implies she is not faithful to Curley. Already the reader has a negative impression of Curley’s wife.
Have you ever discovered that something you know to be correct was in fact wrong? If so how did you react? And what would you do if your parents and friends claim that one of your childhood memories that you remember distinct details of actually never happened? You will probably think that you must be misremembering it. There are some occasions in which a group of people misremember some events or physicality in the same certain way. This phenomenon is called the “Mandela Effect”. The name comes from the instance in which many people believed that Nelson Mandela, the first black president of South Africa, died in prison in the 1980s, prior to his actual death in 2013. The first person to come up with the term was a self-described author and a researcher named Fiona Broome. She was certain that Nelson Mandela died in prison, when he was actually still alive. She even said that she remembered the news clips of Nelson Mandela’s funeral, the heartfelt speech by his widow, the mourning in South Africa, and some rioting in cities. Later, she observed that a large number of people remembered the same history about Nelson Mandela that she recalled. While doing research about this argument, she discovered several other examples of the case. In the examples of the Mandela Effect not a couple of people, but many people remember the details wrong way. How come so many people remember the details wrong? Is this not a bit weird? How can we explain this phenomenon?
War Then Peace Throughout time people have talked about peace and the many ways in which we can obtain it, unfortunately it seems the most successful way of accomplishing that peace is through violence. Many people claim they want peace, but in order to achieve it, they must fight in wars.
War is a constant presence on our planet. Ever since the fall of man there have been personal disputes, conflicts between tribes and groups of people, and full-blown wars between nations or alliances. Although the United States may be in peacetime and the prospect of war is relatively far off, there are wars in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and many other countries that have claimed the lives of thousands of soldiers, as well as innocent civilians. When confronted with this immense loss of life, one is compelled to ask the question, Why? Why do governments feel the need to declare war against each other? Why is there enough hatred and animosity among groups of people on this Earth for us to kill each other in cold blood? Is there meaning behind war? Hamlet asked a similar question as he pondered the loss of life of Fortinbras’ army in Poland. Although Hamlet seems to believe in the meaninglessness of war and life in general, wars have meaning because they represent causes for which people will give up their lives.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust. There is only constant fear of violence and death, and hence the life of man will be solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short as Hobbes mentions.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society. Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form.