Declaration of Independence Evaluation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 2

Declaration of Independence Evaluation - Essay Example It has several similarities with the work of John Locke’s second treatise of government. The first cause of the document that states that all men are created equal with inalienable rights of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness is in conjunction with the Locke philosophy. Locke point of view was that all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal with no one having more than the other does. The document further proceeds to emphasize that government is established through the consent of the citizens to protect their rights. Finally, it states that in case the government fails to address and protect the rights of the people then it will be the right of the people to abolish or alter the government. The Locke’s philosophy is well enshrined in the declaration of independence. Hobbes counter declaration mimics the ideologies of declaration of independence and the Hobbes ideas was to justify the kings action in England as perfectly legitimate. Hobbes perception and beliefs allowed the people to elect sovereign once and after that, the people should be obedient to the government without questioning. The sovereign as called by Hobbes decides the successor and the rules. The perspective was seen the United States founding fathers that this method will leave the government vulnerable to corruption. With the idea they opted to apply Locke’s’ philosophy. Hobbesian counter declaration saw the need for the people to dissolve any political bond that have connected them and take the power of the earth. He further expounded that opinion of the humankind necessity declaring the cause that impel them to the separation. His ideologies were evident that all men are created equal and endowed with life by the creator and securing these rights the governments were to be instituted among men. Hobessian perspective on the declaration of independence could have stated that

Recruitment plan Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Recruitment plan - Essay Example Recruitment plan It is located near New York City right at the foothills of Blessed Valley Mountains. Sincere College is a reputable institution offering higher education by promoting teaching as well as learning based on curriculum formulated under strong liberal arts. To this account the institution is accredited by Middle States Commission dealing with Higher Education earning high honours for exemplary performance in arts. The institution’s curriculum emphasises on sciences, liberal arts, professional programs as well fine and performing arts within a learning and suitable living environment. Today, the institution is acknowledged for its academic excellence based on its interdisciplinary curriculum, intercultural understanding, international education and also experimental learning opportunities. Job Description: The qualified candidate will teach mainly in the faculty of business particularly in business ethics. Additionally, the candidate may teach required elective courses like perspectives of Business and the Society. Qualified candidates must have a doctorate in a business related field. However, candidates who have completed their dissertation with a stated date of completion will also be considered. Successful candidates must have some teaching experience from a college institution and research interests in the area of Business Ethics. Experience also in the private sector under a for-profit organization will be highly regarded. Candidates who will demonstrate to be in possession of commendable teaching experience will have an added advantage.

Home of Mercy Essay Example for Free

Home of Mercy Essay Home of Mercy Home of Mercy is a sonnet written by Gwen Harwood during modern era Australia. It depicts the lifestyle of a select few group of â€Å"ruined girls†, who have been impregnated and exiled to live with the nuns throughout the course of their pregnancy, in hope of exoneration. It deals with the confronting issue of the loss youthful innocence; is a wrong decision made in your teenage years really enough to have the rest of your social life destroyed? Gwen Harwood’s poem raises the problem of teenage pregnancy. Pregnancy in juveniles was something that shamed an entire family. With very few options, the young women were forced to live with the Catholic nuns in hope that god will show mercy upon them. The text was clearly written with a clear understanding of the feelings of the exiled women and the obvious suppression undergone by these girls. To some extent, â€Å"Home of Mercy† loses some of its power in a modern context because of teenage pregnancies becoming more and more accepted. I think Gwen Harwood wrote her poem to not only outline the problem of unplanned pregnancy, but for the â€Å"onlooker† to have a different perception on this topic. Most people would look at them as â€Å"the ruined girls†, but I think Harwood is trying to make the reader feel compassion and sympathy for these underappreciated girls. She implies that they live very harsh lives, and touches on the notion that they aren’t mature physically (or mentally) when she refers to them as having â€Å"ripening bodies. In my opinion, Gwen is blatantly telling the reader that they should see both sides of this argument and not to jump to conclusions about them. The mood of â€Å"Home of Mercy† is one of its fundamental tools in persuasion. It contains a very strong emotion of suppression and domination, with a strong influence of a lifeless and depressing overtone. A main emotion is the strict and forceful routine enforced by the Catholic Church. The opening sentence â€Å"By two and two † already suggests that they are standing in regimented lines. The next line â€Å"at the neat margin of the convent grass† re-instates the sharp, tense lines symbolically representing their sharp, tense lives. The girls are shown as being ultimately dominated; â€Å"They kneel†, â€Å"their intolerable weekday rigour. †, â€Å"they will launder†. They have no say: â€Å"an old nun who silences their talking†, and are forced to do exactly what the nuns tell them or face life-long solitude. â€Å"Home of Mercy† is structured like a conventional Petrarchan sonnet (abba rhyming scheme), with a few minor flaws in the flow (line 1 and 4 have 11 syllables, and line 6 has 12). A strange aspect of the poem is the use of language. The poem is about a group of girls being treated like the scum of the Earth, yet there aren’t many violent or hateful words at all. Most of the meaning is put through symbolic references and metaphors. The most hateful words are sin and brutish, which are only used toward the end of the poem for effect. Visual imagery is also strong in Harwood’s poem. The opening line â€Å"By two and two† already gives the reader the impression that the girls are under strict control. angels will wrestle them with brutish vigour† is metaphorically saying that even the sacred angels won’t be by their side; that everyone is against them. â€Å"Home of Mercy† has iambic pentameter, with 10 syllables per line in most. A good example of Gwen using sounds to give effect to the poem is â€Å"They smooth with roughened hands†, the soft sounds of â€Å"smooth† in contrast of the harsh sounds of â€Å" roughened† have almost an onomatopoeic effect. Also, the line â€Å"faces of mischievous children in distress† contains sibilance of the â€Å"s† sound. â€Å"Home of Mercy†

Presentism Eternalism And Special Relativity Philosophy Essay

Presentism Eternalism And Special Relativity Philosophy Essay In this essay I hope to show that it is not necessarily true that Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity refutes presentism. It is not my aim to show that presentism is correct, nor is it my aim to show that eternalism is incorrect. I aim to show that it is naÃÆ' ¯ve for eternalists to assume that STR favours the eternalists view on time over the presentists view. I will start this essay by explaining and defining the views of the presentist and eternalist. For any valuable work to be done in defending presentism against the claims of STR, I believe a sound understanding of what both presentism and eternalism entails is needed. I will make it clear how presentism and eternalism differ and make it clear what is meant when they say something exists. I will then move onto discussing STR. I hope to explain STR in as clear a manner as possible, although I will not be explaining it in the depth found in physics papers. I will consider the postulates that make up STR and consider the imp ortant paradoxes these lead to. In particular, I will discuss the paradox of the speed of light and the paradox of simultaneity, as these are a concern to the presentists view. With STR adequately explained (in enough detail that I may hope to defend Presentism against its claims) I will move onto considering the arguments Philosophers have brought forward in an attempt that STR supports a 4D model of the universe, and as a result refutes Presentism. I will consider the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, and Penroses version of this argument, The Andromeda Paradox. By explaining these arguments I hope to show clearly the problem that STR poses for presentism. Finally, I will consider two defenses  [1]  of Presentism against the claims of STR. The first defense is brought forward by Hinchliff (2000), and the second defense is brought forward by Markosian (2004). I find the latter defense to be the more compelling, and I will explain why I think this. I will conclude by offering my reasoni ng for thinking that STR does not necessarily refute presentism. I start this essay by defining the terms presentism and eternalism, and by discussing what they mean when they say something exists. Section 1- Defining Presentism and Eternalism I start this section by considering presentism. To show what presentism actually entails, I think its important to first consider where the view comes from. Presentism can be traced back to McTaggarts famous 1908 paper The Unreality of Time. In this paper, McTaggart highlights two ways in which we experience time. These ways form what he calls the A-series and B-series. The A-series is a tensed series where events are arranged using tensed properties such as past, present or future. The B-series is a tenseless series where events are arranged relationally using terms such as before or after. McTaggart claims that the A-series is essential to time as events only change with respect to their tensed properties, and time must involve change (p26, McTaggart, 1927). No change occurs in the B-series. If event A is before event B, then event A will forever be before event B. Those who claim that we should talk about time using tenses, and claim that the A-series is essential to time are know n as A-theorists. Those who think tensed expressions are reducible to tenseless expressions, and claim that the B-series is essential to time are known as B-theorists. Some A-theorists advocate presentism, and some B-theorists advocate eternalism. Of course, it is not always the case that A-theorists are presentists, and not always the case that B-theorists are eternalists. Zimmerman notes two other views that the A-theorist could hold; the growing-block theory and the moving spotlight theory (Marcus, 2012). These will not be considered in this essay. Now that Ive explained where eternalism and presentism come from, I will move onto actually defining presentism. There are a number of ways in which presentism has been defined. In this essay, I will take presentism as the view that only things in the present exist or as Markosian (2004) defines it: Necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist (p1, Markosian, 2004) The presentist distinguishes the present as being special over the past or the future, in that it is only objects in the present exist. The presentist believes in an absolute (universal) present, where all events happening now, exist. No events (or objects) that exist, exist in the past or future. We can see why the presentist will claim that the A-series is essential to time and why the B-series is not. Only in the A-series can objects or events be located (temporally) in a present moment. The B-series does not treat the present as being any more real than the past or future. Its hard to see what would count as the present in the B-series, as all events are arranged relationally as either before or after other events. Its important to note here that necessarily, it is always true that only present objects exist is not the same as saying only the present exists as some have interrupted it (e.g. Davidson, 2003).The presentist may say that the past and future exist (in some sense of the word exist), but no objects exist in the past or future. Nor does presentism equal the tautology that is only present objects exist at present (Vallicella, 2003). Nor is it the claim that all objects that have existed, and that will ever exist, exist in the present now. Its easy to see the difference between these statements when the flow of time is taking into account (the presentist view accounts for the flow of time, whereas the externalist view does not). The diagram below shows the presentists view. In diagram (a), the present moment (now) happens to be a moment in 1967. The presentist would say that only things (or objects) in this moment in 1967 exist. Nothing exists in the past or future. In diagram (b), the present moment (now) happens to be a moment in 2013. The presentist would say that only things (or objects) in this moment in 2013 exist. No objects exist in the past (which now includes 1967) or future. Now that I have defined presentism and made it clear how I will be referring to it in this essay, I will move onto defining eternalism and in the process, contrast it with presentism. Eternalism can be thought of as the main rival to presentism. As mentioned previously, the eternalist sees the B series as being essential to time and denies the existence of the A-series. Eternalism is the view that objects in the past and future are equally as real as objects in the present. objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects (Markosian, 2010) Others have said that Eternalism is the view that all times are real (p326, Ladyman, 2007), but I see this is open to further interpretation. I will be interpreting all times are real as meaning objects can equally exist in the past or future. Its not hard to see how this contrasts with the presentists view, nor is it hard to see why eternalists accept the B-series. All times in the B-series are treated equally. Theres no special property given to a present moment. Eternalism is sometimes referred to as the block universe view, as the past, present and future all exist in a closed 4-dimensional Space-time block (p2, Peterson Silberstein, 2009). Presentism, on the other hand, may be thought of as endorsing a 3D view of the universe. As Valente (2012) puts it in The Relativity of Simultaneity and Presentism: For an eternalist (four-dimensionalist) a 3D object is just a slice of a four-dimensional (4D) worldline of a timelessly existing 4D world (or block universe) in which all the slices (i.e. the 3D objects) are actually all given at once. For a presentist, the 3D world consists of all 3D objects and fields existing simultaneously at the moment now or present. (p4, Valente, 2012) Presentism and Eternalism can be visually imagined as in the diagram below. Presentism features a present moving with the flow of time. Time to the eternalist can be imagined as a block  [2]  which contains the past, present and future, along will all objects and events. (Savitt, 2008) The differences between presentism and eternalism can be further shown by using an example. I will consider the example used by Lombard (2009) in his paper Time for a Change: A polemic against the Presentism Eternalism Debate. Lets take the statement Dinosaurs exist. Dinosaurs are not included on the presentists list of things or objects that exist. Dinosaurs are however included on the eternalists list of things or objects that exist. Of course, as Lombard points out, the eternalist is not saying that there are dinosaurs, that is, right now (p58, Lombard, 2009). As the eternalist believes that objects exist in the past, in the same way as they exist in the present, they must insist that dinosaurs nevertheless exist (p58, Lombard, 2009). This is point that can lead to confusion. Its important to understand what we mean by the word exist in the statement Dinosaurs exist. Markosian (2004) gives a brilliant explanation of what we should mean by exist in his paper A Defense of Presentis m. In what follows, I will consider this explanation and make it clear what exist means. Markosian highlights two ways in which we may think about the word exist. The first sense in which we may think of the statement Dinosaurs exist is what Markosian calls the temporal location sense. Under this interpretation, Dinosaurs exist is synonymous with Dinosaurs are present. Under the temporal location sense of the word, the eternalist will agree that no non-present objects exist right now i.e. Dinosaurs do not exist right now. However, this is not what we will be taking the eternalist to mean when they say Dinosaurs exist. Markosian calls the other sense of exist, the ontological sense. Under this interpretation Dinosaurs exist is synonymous with dinosaurs are now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, whether it happens to be presentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦or non-presentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (p2, Markosian, 2004). The eternalist will agree with this. The presentist will argue that dinosaurs are not now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers, as dinosaurs do not exi st in the present (now), and only things that exist in the present will be included in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers. Under this interpretation of exist the disagreement between the presentist and the eternalist becomes clear. According to presentism, dinosaurs do not exist i.e. dinosaurs are not included in the things that our most unrestricted quantifiers range over. According to eternalism, dinosaurs do exist i.e. dinosaurs are included in the things that our most unrestricted quantifiers range over. For the Presentist what objects our most unrestricted quantifiers range over is a changing matter of fact (p13, Kehler, 2011). This is because the objects of the present are forever changing as time passes (in line with change in the A-series, as discussed earlier in this essay). The opposite is true for the eternalist. What objects our most unrestricted quantifiers range over never changes (in line with the unchanging B-series as discussed earlier). With presentism and eternalism defined and discussed, and the difference between the two made clear by discussing the meaning of exist, I will move onto the next section of this essay. In the next section, I will be considering Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (STR). I will be considering the postulates that make up Einsteins theory and discussing some of the paradoxical consequences of these. I will then discuss the arguments Philosophers have come up with in an attempt to show that STR implies a 4D view (eternalism). These arguments will be the Rieldik-Putnam argument, and I will construct my own version of Penroses Andromeda Paradox. Once STR is made clear, I will conclude the section by considering what these arguments mean for both presentism and eternalism. Section 2 The Special Theory of Relativity: the Thorn in Presentisms Side As this is a Philosophy essay, and not a Physics paper, I will not be going into any great detail in explaining Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity (STR), and Im unlikely to do it justice. I will, however, explain the theory in enough detail so to allow me to adequately discuss the arguments in support of the 4D model and against presentism. This will also help me in defending presentism in the final section of this essay. Without adequate knowledge of STR and its paradoxical nature, its unlikely I, or any other philosophers, would be able to even start defending presentism against its claims. I start by considering the postulates behind STR. In 1905, Albert Einstein presented STR in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. The theory itself is derived from a number of postulates, of which two can be said to form the heart of Special Relativity (Hamilton, 1998). The first postulate is the Principle of Relativity: There is no absolute rest frame of reference (p1, Lee, 2012) The second postulate is the Principle of Constancy of the Speed of Light: The speed of light c is a universal constant, the same in any inertial frame (Hamilton, 1998) Together, these postulates open up paradoxes which lead Philosophers to the thought that STR implies 4D view of time (eternalism). Inertial frame (or inertial reference frame) here will be defined as frames of reference in which Newtons first law of motion is observed. Newtons first law of motion is that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force (Benson, 2010). Before Special Relativity, the speed of light was thought to depend on the speed of the person observing and the speed of the source from which the light came (Lawerence, 2002). An experiment was conducted in the late 1800s by Michelson and Marley in the hope that this was correct (Carlip, 1996). As the earth orbits around the sun at .01% the speed of light (Lawerence ,2002), Michelson and Marely hoped they would be able to show that a light beam moving along with the orbit of the earth would be .01% slower than a light beam going perpendicular to the orbit of the earth. To their surprise, this was not the case. Every attempt to find a difference in the speed of light failed. The light always took exactly the same amount of time to travel down either leg (Lawerence, 2002) Since light always travelled at the same speed in the experiments  [3]  , Einstein took the constancy of the speed of light to be a fact of nature, and from it, formed the second postulate of STR. Now that the history behind STR has been discussed, and the postulates of STR have been explained, I will move onto discuss how these postulates lead to some interesting paradoxes. The second postulate leads to an interesting paradox. In order to understand the problems that STR poses for presentism, its important to understand what this paradox entails. I will construct this paradox by way of example, based on the example used by Hamilton (1998). Lets pretend Im standing on the surface of the Earth  [4]  . Im wearing a helmet on my head. The helmet has the ability to emit a powerful flash of light. My friend Bob has a super car which just so happens to be capable of moving at a constant half the speed of light (1/2c). Bob is moving in a straight line from my right to my left. At the very point that Bob passes me, my helmet lets out a flash of light. This light expands at the same speed (c) in all directions. According to the second postulate of STR, the speed of light is constant for both of us. This means that from my frame of reference, the light expands at the same speed in all directions, and that from Bobs frame of reference the light expands at the s ame speed in all directions (even though he is moving at half the speed of light away from the light source). The paradox here is that, from our own frame of reference, we both believe we are at the centre of the flash of light. Its not possible that we are both at the centre of the flash of light. Before considering the solution to this paradox, I will discuss the example of this paradox as shown by Penroses (1989) Andromeda Paradox. Using his Andromeda Paradox argument, Penrose attempts to show that the Universe is a pre-determined 4D Space-time block, which causes problems for presentism. Penrose (1999) asks us to consider two people (Jack and Jill) walking past each other on the street. Jack is walking towards the Andromeda Galaxy  [5]  and Jill is walking away from the Andromeda. From STR it can be said that Jack and Jill have different ideas about what events are presently happening in the Andromeda Galaxy. It would take light from the Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million years to reach either person, and as such, they dont know what events are happening, but whether or not they know of the events happening is of no importance here. An event on Andromeda that Jack thinks is present (from his frame of reference), is an event that Jill still thinks is yet to happen (from her frame of reference). To Jill, the event is in the future. Penrose calculates the event is 5  ¾ days behind in time for Jill. One can calculate that their planes (or spaces) of simultaneity at the instant at which they pass each other on Earth intersects the history of the world line of Andromeda about 5  ¾ days apart (Savitt, 2008) Our planes of simultaneity  [6]  are different. The diagram below shows this: (modified from BobC_03, 2012) With the paradoxes explained, I can consider what they mean for both Presentism and Eternalism, and show how the minowski Universe appears to favour Eternalism. Its possible that an event in Andromeda is in the present (and according to Presentism does exist) for Jack, but the same event is in the future (and according to Presentism does not exist) for Jill. Here lies the problem that STR its paradoxical nature poses for Presentism. As can be seen, the problem has at the heart of it the second postulate of STR. No matter what speed they walk past each other in opposite directions, if Jack and Jill were to measure the speed of light (in their own frames of reference), they would get the same result. no matter at what speed or in which direction they or the source of the light are moving, must come to the same result when they measure the speed of light (Savitt, 2008) If its not known whether an event is present or past, then how can presentists hold the view that only things in the present exist? What things are in the present are both different for Jack and Jill. In an attempt to solve this, the presentist might try to say that the event is taken to be present or future depending on whether it is present or future in the absolute rest frame (p5, Eichman, 2007). However, according to STR there is no absolute rest frame, or absolute simultaneity, and therefore, there can be no absolute present. If we assume that STR is true, the following argument against Presentism can be constructed: (1) STR is true. (2) STR entails that there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity. (3) If there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity, then there is no such property as absolute presentness. (4) Presentism entails that there is such a property as absolute presentness. (5) Presentism is false. (p29, Markosian, 2004) Now that STR has been discussed adequately and that the trouble it poses for Presentism has been highlighted, I can move onto the final section of this essay. In the final section, I will consider two ways in which philosophers have tried to defend presentism against the seeming threat posed by STR. The first defense is brought forward by Mark Hinchliff (2000) in his paper A Defense of Presentism in a Relativistic Setting. The second defense, and the defense which I find more compelling, is brought forward by Ned Markosian (2004) in his paper A Defense of Presentism. I will explain why I find this defense more compelling, and why I think Hinchliffs defense doesnt work. Section 3 Defending Presentism The first defense against STR that I will consider is what Hinchliff calls The Point Model. In the point model, Hinchliff claims that in STR the present is to be identified with the here-now (pS579, Hinchliff, 2000). In other words, a presentist can argue that in STR, only a single space-time point exists; the here-now. Hinchliff does not hold this view himself and says that he knows of no one who actually holds this view (S579, Hinchliff, 2000). Nevertheless he feels its worthy enough to discuss. A standard objection against this model is to say that its lonely, in that nothing but the here-now exists. This objection is easily refuted however. Saying its lonely is akin to rejecting solipisism because theres no other people. Something stronger is needed in order to reject either the Point Model or solipsism. Putnam (1967) offers a better objection against the view however. Putnam says that anything that is past must have previously been present (p246, Putnam, 1967). Under Point prese ntism however, there are events in the past which have never been present. Therefore, Point Presentism violates the conceptual truth that what is past was present (S579, Hinchliff) This can be shown by way of example. Lets pretend an event occurs which is space-like separated from my here-now. It is therefore not in the present from my frame of reference. When time moves on, the event is however included in my past here-now, without ever being in the present, and therefore violated a conceptual truth. A presentist may try to argue that point presentism does not violate a conceptual truth, but this would lead them to trouble when trying to explain how certain objects of the present (objects that exists) cease to exist (fade into the past). I do not think this is a suitable defense of presentism against STR. I think if a presentist is to hold their view, then they must look for a way of fitting the outcomes of STR into that view. Point presentism attempts to change presentism in such a way that makes it compatible with STR, and fails to do so. Presentists should rather attempt to change STR in such a way that makes it compatible with presentism. I believe this is what Markosian (2004) attempts to do in his defense of presentism. I will now consider this defense and explain why I find it more compelling than Point Presentism. In his defense of presentism, Markosian (2004) considers whether STR contains enough philosophical baggage built into it to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ entail the proposition that there is no such relation as absolute simultaneity (p31, Markosian, 2004). If this is not the case, then there is no reason to assume that STR poses problems for presentism. Marksoian asks us to consider two different types of STR (p31, Markosian, 2004): STR+ : This version of STR does have enough philosophical baggage built into it to entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. STR-: This version of STR does not have enough philosophical baggage built into it to entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Markosian rejects STR+ and accepts STR-. I believe the reasons for why he thinks this is key to any presentist wishing to defend their view against STR. All empirical evidence which suggests that STR+ is true, equally supports STR- (p31, Markosian 2004). Just because it is not physically possible to determine whether two objects or events are absolutely simultaneous (p31, Markosian) does not entail that there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, and no absolute present. Consider the Andromeda Paradox as explained earlier. From their own frame of reference (or plain of simultaneity) their idea of what event is present is different  [7]  . The presentist is able to agree with this view. Agreeing with this, does not mean they must reject their view on absolute simultaneity or their view that an absolute present exists. It may be the case that an absolute rest frame is not accessible to us. The presentist can reject the first postulate of STR. With this said, it seems the etern alist is unable to refute presentism by appealing to STR, and it looks likely that any such argument will end in a stalemate. The eternalist and presentist view with regards to STR can be summed up as follows: Eternalist STR is true and entails there is no absolute simultaneity or absolute present. Therefore, presentism is incorrect. Presentist STR being true does not entail there is no absolute simultaneity or absolute present. It entails that these are not accessible to us, but nonetheless may still exist. According to me, they do exist. Its impossible to say whether either view is true or false (How would one prove that there is or isnt an absolute rest frame?), resulting in a stalemate. Its certainly seems that its not necessarily true that STR refutes presentism. Conclusion In this essay, I have achieved what I had set out to do. I have defined and explained what both presentism and eternalism entail. Ive made it clear what the differences between the two are and Ive shown that its important to understand what the word exists mean when discussing both views. I have also explained and discussed the Special Theory of Relativity. In doing so, I have shown how the paradoxes it leads to, causes problems for presentism, and have shown why the eternalist might try to attack presentism using STR. Finally, I considered ways in which the presentist may try to defend their position against STR and the eternalist. I have shown that any attempt by the eternalist to use STR against presentism will result in a stalement. The empirical evidence which supports STR+ equally supports STR-, and the presentist only needs to reject STR+ and accept STR-. The problem with using STR to attack presentism is that STR+ must be assumed to be true. It is not necessarily the case tha t STR+ is true, and the presentist may use this point in defending their position. STR+ (or a theory with the same consequences) may be shown to be true someday, but until that day comes, the eternalist should make use of some other weapon in trying to attack presentism. Word Count 4629 Student ID 1818201

Sectional Conflics in Early America Essay -- essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The sectional conflicts within the United States affected numerous domestic polices and even caused, in part, Andrew Jackson’s election. Andrew Jackson’s election was greatly affected by sectional differences because he represented only a portion of the United States, yet it was the portion with a majority of Electoral College votes. The sectional differences of the United States caused a protective tariff to be levied. The Missouri compromise was also affected by the differences between various differences between the divisions of the United States. Even Texas was affected by the sectional differences of the United States. The political divisions of the United States greatly affected politics between the years of 1828-1837.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Andrew Jackson’s election was caused, in part, by the sectional differences between the north and the west and south. Andrew Jackson was representative of the west and south in his virtues and views on national policy prior to entering office. He was for no tariffs and states rights in general. This meant that the majority of southern and western states supported him and allowed him to win a majority vote in the Electoral College. While his election was effected by sectional differences, his policies were not so much affected because of a rapid turn around to a federalist look of government and supporting the north in most every aspect. Andrew Jackson’s election, if not presidency, was greatly ...

Essay examples --

The Regulators By: Anika Khanderia What was the Regulator Movement? The Regulator Movement (also known as the War of the Regulation, or the Regulator uprising) was an uprising that took place in the Carolinas from 1765 to 1771 when citizens of both colonies took up arms against corrupt colonial officials. Historians consider the Regulator Movement to be a catalyst to the American Revolution, even though it was unsuccessful. Causes of the Uprising Many factors influenced the uprising that took place in the Carolinas during the 1760s and 70s. Firstly, many people emigrated from the urban northeast to the rural southwest during the 1760s which created a huge population increase in the Carolinas (as noted by the Censuses). The once agricultural inland section that was populated by planters was upsetted as merchants and lawyers headed westward. At the same time, the local agricultural economy was experiencing a deep economic depression due to the severe droughs that had occured throughout the past decade. The loss of crops cut out the average farmers'/planters' main food source as well a...

Inventory system introduction Essay

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Nowadays, computer-based system is commonly found in the business world. This is because of the benefits it gives in the respective companies. In addition, an upgraded system in this point of time is a big advantage due to the great deal of the competition in our economy. Technically, logical and analytical skills will certainly improve after this study. Hopefully, this study will also be character-building and still upon the importance of teamwork and maintaining harmony within the group which will be quite handy in the corporate world. One of the disadvantages of not having a computerized Inventory System is that, there a chance of inaccurate data record in a manual inputting of inventory records. Also there is a delay in updating records due to manual process. Miguel’s Home Merchandise is a growing company with an increasing size of customers. And so, today the company needed a computerized based program that can handle such difficulties. 1.1 Statement of the Problem 1.1.1 General Problem How to develop an Inventory System with Point of Sale for Miguel’s Home Merchandise that will improve the current process of inventory, lessen the time consumed in categorizing, pricing, monitoring of the items and customer’s transaction? 1.1.2 Specific Problems 1.1.2.1 How to develop a module that will provide an inventory and transaction system for the company? Currently, the company is still using calculator to compute the total amount of items purchased by the customers. For this reason, there are some instances where error occurred using this manual way of computation. 1.1.2.2 How to develop a module that will monitor the reorder and critical level of company’s items? Since the company is conducting an inventory every week by manual record, there are some instances where not aware on what are those items are in reorder or critical level. 1.1.2.3 How to develop a module that will generate fast and accurate reports? Currently the company is still using manual record on each report, there are some instances where the company is too busy to monitor sales reports and it consumes most of their time. 1.2 Current State of the Technology Miguel’s Home Merchandise was using a manual method of listing their items. They call their suppliers to order some items or they went to their suppliers to buy items and upon reaching the store they count the items one by one and write it down in a record book. And when the time comes to put it into display they just attached a sticker for the price in every item. And if there is a sudden change in price of the items, they just erase the records in the record book and update the price. Staffs like Manuel Ciyab create manually reports, check their inventory weekly and report it to the owner, Mrs. Miguel. The existing customer transaction is just a typical buying; the customer arrived, walk through the store and look in the shelves for the item they want and the staff will assist the customer and walk with her/him to look for the items. And eventually after paying the items, the staff uses a calculator to compute the total price and issue a receipt by writing it in a formatted paper, filling up the date, total price, change etc. At the end of the day the staff will list all items and compute for their sales. Again, using a calculator and writing it in a record book. The current system was done manually, their encounter some problems that occur in the process. Considering the problem cited, the proponents intended to develop an inventory system with point of sale that would help the company for the fast monitoring of items, accurate reports and fast customer transaction. 1.3 Objectives 1.3.1 General Objective To develop an Inventory System with Point of Sale for Miguel’s Home Merchandise that will improve the current process of inventory, lessen the time consumed in categorizing, pricing, monitoring of the items and customer’s transaction. . 1.3.2 Specific Objectives The proposed system aims to achieve the following objectives: 1.3.2.1 To develop a module that will provide an inventory and transaction system for the company.  The proposed system will allow the user to input items data electronically for more secure and faster data retrieval and count all items accurately while the customers will just go to the cashier and because of the search feature of the computerized system it will be easy to find if the item is available. And the staff will compute the total amount using the proposed system and the issuing of receipt is already printed. 1.3.2.2 To develop a module that will monitor the reorder and critical level of company’s items. The proposed system has a module on which items are monitored if there are in reorder or critical level, and the system will automatically notify the user if there are any items that reached its critical level using color coding. 1.3.2.3 To develop a module that will generate fast and accurate reports. For computing reports such as daily sales report the system provide a module that will generate necessary report to determine product master list and sales report. The time will lessen since all the computing is done in the system.