The Tao-te Ching by Lao-Tzu and The Prince by Machiavelli Essay

â€Å"The Tao-te Ching† by Lao-Tzu and â€Å"The Prince† by Machiavelli Throughout history, it can be argued that at the core of the majority of successful societies has stood an effective allocation of leadership. Accordingly, in their respective works â€Å"The Tao-te Ching† and â€Å"The Prince†, Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli have sought to reach a more complete understanding of this relationship. The theme of political leaders and their intricate relationship with society indeed manifests itself within both texts, however, both Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli approach this issue from almost entirely opposite positions. Lao-Tzu appears to focus the majority of his attention on letting problems or situations take their course and allowing good to prevail. On the contrary, Machiavelli advocates the necessity for a successful leader, or prince, to take control of his endeavors, and the skills or qualities necessary to maintain power, at any cost. Since these thinkers both make an inquiry to what is essentially the same dilemma of effective leadership, it becomes almost a natural progression to juxtapose the two in an effort to better understand what qualities a prosperous leader must possess. In this sense, when we utilize the rhetorical strategy of compare/contrast as a vehicle to transport us to a more enlightened interpretation of Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s conclusions, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli’s effort is much more successful as his practicality serves its purpose much more effectively.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, â€Å"Stop Trying to control† ( § 57, 35), then there is no desire ( § 37, 24), he dwells in reality ( § 38, 29), and â€Å"the world will govern itself.† ( § 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled â€Å"Government,† I... ...d this consequently deducts from the validity of his advice. As he begins to conclude, Machiavelli states that the prince: â€Å"should think about avoiding those things which make him hated and despised.† (Mach 48) Although these lack any withstanding moral values, they are effective in the sense that they better serve their purpose. Machiavelli was seeking to display a way to hold political power by any means possible not a utopian state. This may mean malicious acts, imprisonment, and torture, or it may mean the utilization of power to achieve a common good. Machiavelli doesn’t elaborate on this. He concentrates on a realistic approach towards government, as he remains concerned with the establishment and protection of power. Works Cited Boltz, William G. Lao tzu Tao te ching. In Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide, edited by Michael Loewe. Berkeley: University of California, 1993. Kaltenmark, Max. Lao Tzu and Taoism. Translated by Roger Greaves. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1969. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. Hill Thompson. Norwalk: The Easton Press, 2002. The Prince, and Other Political Writings, tr. Stephen J. Milner, London, 1995

Symbolism in Guy de Maupassant’s “The Necklace”

Hayley Hughes Professor Fowler English 1102 9 February 2013 Short Story Essay Guy de Maupassant’s short story â€Å"The Necklace† uses a diamond necklace to symbolize two different things. The first thing the necklace represents is that deceiving others will lead to one’s downfall. The necklace also symbolizes how the effects of greed can change a person. In the story, the reader sees the main character’s personal growth from beginning to end due to losing a diamond necklace.Mathilde Loisel’s life is turned upside down because she was materialistic, but by the end of the story Mathilde is wiser and more admirable. Mathilde changed in ways that could not have been possible had she not lost the necklace. The story opens with the beautiful Mathilde Loisel fantasizing about luxuries she and her husband cannot afford. When her husband comes home with an invitation to an exclusive party, she is upset because she does not have anything fancy to wear. Even after her husband gives her some money for a dress, she then complains about not having jewelry.Since she does not own any expensive jewlery, Mathilde goes to her friend Madame Forestier and borrows a diamond necklace. She absolutely loves the necklace and when she and her husband attend the party, everyone notices her and the necklace. After they return from the party, Mathilde is sees she has lost the necklace. However, instead of telling Madame Forestier that the necklace had been lost, Mathilde buys a replacement necklace worth 40,000 francs and gives that to her friend hoping she would not see the difference.She and her husband then spend the next ten years working to pay for the cost of the necklace only to find out that the original necklace had been a fake. Even though her hardship could have been avoided completely, Mathilde became a better person from of losing the necklace. The necklace is the main symbol in â€Å"The Necklace. † What is a symbol? According to Lite rature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing, â€Å"a symbol is a substitute for the elements being signified,† (Roberts and Zweig, 382). The necklace could be considered a cultural symbol.A cultural symbol is universally recognized (Roberts and Zweig, 383). Out of all the jewelry Mathilde could have chosen, she chose the diamond necklace. Maupassant most likely chose a diamond necklace because people would recognize the gravity of the situation in the story; most people could understand the value of a diamond necklace as opposed to some of the other jewelry mentioned in the story, which makes the diamond necklace a cultural symbol. The necklace could also be considered a contextual symbol.Unlike a cultural symbol, a contextual symbol gets its meaning from the story (Roberts and Zweig, 383-384). In this story, the necklace represents the fact that appearances are not always what they seem and that the bitter truth of reality can lead to one’s downfall. Mathilde wants to wear a diamond necklace in order for people to think she is wealthier than she is. When she borrows it from Madame Forestier, who is wealthier than Mathilde, she has no reason to believe that the necklace is a fake.Because Mathilde thinks the diamonds as being real, she thinks that others will believe she is wealthy too. In deceiving others of her wealth, she essentially deceives herself. For example, when it is time for them to leave the party her husband gives her the shawl she brought; she does not want anyone to see her wearing the shawl because it reminded her that she was not wealthy and she did not want anyone to find out. She wants to live out this fantasy as long as she possibly can and runs outside with the shawl hoping no one will notice.When she loses the necklace, she is brought back to reality and must deal with the consequences. Instead of accepting her reality that she was not wealthy and being greedy, she set herself up for disaster. The necklace symbolizes gree d and how it can affect a person. In the beginning of the story, Mathilde is greedy. She pities herself for not being born into a wealthy family, claiming it was an â€Å"error of destiny,† (Maupassant, 200). She and her husband are most likely middle-class, but she is still unhappy with their financial status. Her husband, Mr. Loisel, is the exact opposite.He takes pleasure in the little things, even praising his wife’s beef stew while she daydreamed about the finest cuisines (Maupassant, 200). All he wants to do is please his wife, but Mathilde is never satisfied. It is because of her greed that she ends up borrowing the necklace in the first place. After losing the necklace and giving the replacement to her friend, not only had the Loisels’ lifestyle changed, but Mathilde also started to change. She had to do cleaning jobs to earn money, dressed in cheap clothes, and argued with food vendors about the price of their goods in order to save every penny.After th e ten years of hard labor, the story describes Mathilde as â€Å"the strong, hard, and rude woman of poor households,† (Maupassant, 204). Even though she still reminisced about the party, unlike before where she pitied herself for not being wealthy, now she contemplates what her life would be like had she not been so greedy in borrowing the necklace. She questions how something as small as a necklace could have such a big impact on her life saying â€Å"How little a thing it takes to destroy you or to save you,† (Maupassant, 204).The necklace both destroyed her and saved her. Even though she had to deal with ten long years of working to pay back the money, losing the necklace symbolizes Mathilde losing her greediness and gaining the knowledge that money does not lead to happiness. Works Cited Page De Maupassant, Guy. â€Å"The Necklace. † Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. Roberts, Edgar V. , and Robert Zweig. 10th ed. Illinois: Pearson, 2012. 2 00-205. Print. Roberts, Edgar V. , and Robert Zweig. Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 10th ed. Illinois: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Public Schools

Ever since Charles Darwins The Origin of Species was published in 1859, the theory of evolution by natural selection has been the dominant explanation for biodiversity. It fits the evidence better than any other theory and is overwhelmingly accepted by biologists. It is impossible to understand genetics, microbiology, zoology, or any number of other biology subspecialties without a solid background in evolutionary theory. The Problem of the Bible and Evolution But evolution also challenges religious beliefs. The Bible, which teaches that the visible universe was created by Gods command over a period of six days, contradicts evolutionary theory. This account, if interpreted literally, makes scientific literacy difficult. Plants, for example, are created before sunlight is created (Genesis 1:11-12; 1:16-18), which means that a literalistic biblical approach to science must challenge the idea of photosynthesis. Stars are created prior to the sun and moon (1:14-15, 1:16-18), which means that a literalistic biblical approach to science must challenge our working cosmological model. And of course, if God created all creatures by command (Genesis 1:20-27), land animals before sea animals, then evolution by natural selection and the story it tells becomes a controversial idea. While many people of faith have been able to reconcile the ideas of literal creation and evolution by natural selection, thinkers on both sides of the debate press the idea that this reconciliation is impossible. Secular philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Darwins Dangerous Idea, has argued that evolution by natural selection renders God superfluous. He told Der Spiegel  in 2005: The argument for design, I think, has always been the best argument for the existence of God, and when Darwin comes along, he pulls the rug out from under that. Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins often described (lovingly or derisively) as the atheist pope for his objection to religion, once remarked that  around the age of 16, I first understood that Darwinism provides an explanation big enough and elegant enough to replace gods. I have been an atheist ever since. Religious fundamentalists, who also have their objections to metaphorical interpretations of the Book of Genesis, tend to agree that evolutionary theory is a direct threat to the idea of God. Evolution and Intelligent Design Controversy So its little surprise that controversy has long existed over the teaching of evolution by natural selection in public schools. Fundamentalists initially attempted to ban it, allowing only the biblical account of creation to be taught, but the Scopes monkey trial of 1925 made such bans appear ridiculous. Then in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that creationism is a religious doctrine and cant be taught in public school biology classes at all. Within two years, supporters of creationism coined the term intelligent design as a means of asserting the creationist doctrine outside of the context of religion—asserting that everything was created, but not asserting who it was that did the creating. It could have been God, or it could have been another immensely ancient and powerful creator. More than twenty years later, were still more or less there. A smattering of state laws and school board initiatives during the late 1990s and early 2000s attempted to replace the theory of evolution by natural selection with the doctrine of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, or at least to mandate that the two theories be taught side-by-side as equal, but most have lost favor either through public response or local court rulings. Proponents of intelligent design argue that the theory of evolution by natural selection is itself a religious assertion that denies the doctrine of God as creator. Its hard to say the theory doesnt at least challenge the biblical doctrine of God as creator, in much the same way that astronomical theories of star formation and so forth do, and this does pose a legitimate First Amendment problem: How should public schools teach scientific topics that challenge core religious beliefs? And are they under an obligation to accommodate these beliefs by teaching more religiously inclusive alternative theories? The answer to this question depends on how you interpret the First Amendments establishment clause. If you believe that it mandates a wall of separation between church and state, then the government cannot base its public school biology curriculum on religious considerations. If you believe that it does not and that some general non-preferential accommodation of religious doctrine is consistent with the establishment clause, then teaching intelligent design as an alternate approach to biology would be legitimate, as long as evolutionary theory is also taught.As a practical consideration, intelligent design should not be taught in public school biology classes. It could, however, be taught in churches. Pastors, particularly youth pastors, have an obligation to become scientifically literate and be prepared, in the words of 1 Peter 3:15, to provide reason for the hope within. Intelligent design is an evangelism imperative because a pastor who is not scientifically literate cannot adequ ately address contemporary challenges to religious faith. That job should not be outsourced to the public school system; as a theological accommodation, intelligent design has no place in a non-sectarian biology curriculum.