Wuthering Heights Response Essay Example for Free

Wuthering Heights Response Essay Wuthering Heights and The Bell Jar are both novels that were influenced by the authors at two very different times in history, they both contain similarities in the way the themes stereotypes and lack of control affect the main characters. Bronte’s novel is influenced by her upbringing while Plath’s novel is about the media and events at the time of her growing up. It is also more about the events she had witnessed herself making her novel a lot more personal. Lack of control develops in Wuthering Heights due to isolation from others. Lack of control is shown throughout both novels in a vast number of ways depending on the character. Through the female character of Catherine it is shown through emotion like Hindley but also because of the pressure of stereotypes to be a typical Victorian lady. Hindley’s inability to control his emotions means he does not meet the strong male stereotype whereas at the beginning of the novel, Catherine’s ability to take control means she challenges the weak female stereotype. Catherine as a child, we see her in a different light to how we do towards the end of the novel. As a child Catherine is very demanding and challenges the stereotype of a typical Victorian lady. â€Å"she liked exceedingly to act the little mistress; using her hands freely commanding her companions† explains that she was a spoilt young child who her father seem to favour over Hindley who during the novel breaks down after the death of his wife which suggests his loss of control was through emotion, he abandons his son Hareton then turned to alcohol for comfort which backfires on him and his life begins to spiral out of control as he is manipulated and degraded by Heathcliff as an act of revenge who scams Hindley into loosing Wuthering Heights leavin g him with all the control. Catherine is described as acting like a ‘mistress’ meaning she is comfortable in a position with power therefore challenging the weak female stereotype, because of her status as a wealthy female she is able to manipulate and control others around her for example Nelly who always does as she says. Her having control as a child may indicate her precocious nature unlike Esther in the Bell Jar who as a child was brought up around a society in which women were very unequal to men which may have triggered her  lack of confidence and negative attitude further on in the book. Both characters as youngsters fit the ‘weak female stereotype’ however as Catherine grew older she also outgrew this stereotype as she became rebellious like Heathcliff however Esther is influenced by her childhood and carries out this stereotype throughout letting it affect her emotions and decisions in life. â€Å"I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn’t make up my mind which of the figs I would choose†¦the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet† her vision of this ‘fig tree’ represents her lack of control to make choices in her life because she doesn’t have the confidence to pursue her career choices or to move forward in life this conveys that her upbringing around the negative attitude towards women being there to ‘serve their husbands’. The figs represent the opportunities for Esther and she feels they are slowly going away. Bronte may have believed that women were capable to take control just like men because she made her character Catherine a lot more defiant and turbulent compared to Isabella which may indicate that Bronte was trying to show that women could take control just like men. Catherine returns from the Linton’s at Thrushcross Grange changed women, The Lintons changed her from a rebellious young child into an elegant lady and she seems superior to Heathcliffe. â€Å"Why, how very black and cross you look! And how funny and grim!’ suggests a complete contrast in Catherine’s character after her return from the Linton’s, she is losing her individuality and trying to fit in with the others around her. Catherine at this point has a mighty amount of control she has a lot of people looking up for her and could potentially do anything she wanted. She comes across as independent, confident women but in reality the pressure of the stereotype is controlling her behaviour and affecting her relationships. This is similar to Esther in The Bell Jar, Esther follows Doreen’s lead trying to fit in â€Å"After Doreen left, I wondered why I couldnt go the whole way doing what I should any more. This made me sad and tired. Then I wondered why I couldnt go the whole way doing what I shouldnt, the way Doreen did, and this made me even sadder and more tired. This quote shows how Esther is just like Catherine, she cannot think for herself and is influenced by others around her. ‘ the way Doreen did’ suggests Esther is influenced by Doreen’s behaviour of being independent and care free although  she wants to be like this she can’t bring herself to take charge which leads to her breaking down. Catherine decides to marry Edgar for many reasons she knew she couldn’t degrade her status that she already had by marrying Heathcliffe although she loved him ,â€Å"I’ve no more business to marry Edgar Linton than I have to be in heaven; and if the wicked man in there had not brought Heathcliff so low, I shouldn’t have thought of it. It would degrade me to marry Heathcliff now; so he shall never know how I love him; and that, not because he’s handsome, Nelly, but because he’s more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same† shows that Catherine’s reasons to marry Edgar are not because she loves him but that he can give her the material possessions that Heathcliffe cannot although she does love Heathcliffe and acknowledges that he is her soul mate Hindley’s treatment of Heathcliffe has degraded him and to the point that he is not a suitable match by society’s standards; Edgar is not only suitable but will also elevate Catherine’s status. It is clear that Catherine is superior to Edgar in their relationship, she dominates him and he comes across as the weaker character.

Physiological Changes Due to Risperdal Essay examples -- Psychology Me

Physiological Changes Due to Risperdal Hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, psychosis and thought disorder are all symptoms of Schizophrenia and people who suffer from these symptoms seek the treatment of atypical anti-psychotic medications. Those medicines include Risperidone (Risperdal), Clozapine (Clozaril) , Ziprasidone (Geodon) and Quetiapine(Seroquel). The purpose of these medications is to alleviate symptoms of Schizophrenia and lessen the chances of a recurrence. The basic function of Atypical Antipsychotics is to reduce the effects of blockage in the dopamine receptors and serotonin and allow communication between nerve cells. Dopamine is thought to be relevant in Schizophrenic symptoms and Antipsychotic medications act against these symptoms. While there may the reward of reducing Schizophrenic symptoms there are risks that come along with taking such drugs as Risperidone (Risperdal) and Quietiapine (Seroquel). Commons side effects that exist while taking Risperidone are dizziness, nausea, tiredness and hyperactivity. More serious conditions may include Orthostatic Hypotension which is an extreme drop in blood pressure. Patients may also experience Syncope which is related to Hypotension in that a person may experience a loss of consciousness or fainting. Quietiapine can also cause Hypotension, but with the long term use of this drug it can cause Tardive Dyskinesia which is involuntary movements of the lips, jaw and tongue. The features of this condition are tongue protrusion, lip smacking, rapid eye blinking and rapid arm movements. In the most extreme cases Risperidone has been said to cause galactorrhea which is breast growth in males and a secretion of br... ...he Young Mania Rating Scale (YMS) and assessment was measured by the change of YMS scores at the end of the study. The study showed the patients who took Risperidal improved in their YMS scores than those who took the placebo. However patients who took Risperdal reported experiencing nausea, dizziness, weight gain, and upset stomach (Titusville, N.J., Dec.10/ PRNewswire). References Retrieved: March 1, 2005 from http://www. Counseling resource.com/medication/drug- pages/risperidone.html Retrieved: March 2, 2005 from http://www. Maripoisoncenter.com/ctr/9611risperidone.html Clinical Toxicology Review Vol.19, No.2 November 1996 Retrieved: March 2, 2005 from http://www.priory.com/psych/catatonia.html Retrieved: March 3, 2005 Common use of Risperidal among Children http://www.risperdal-help.org/what_causes.php www.Schizophrenia.com

Outline the concepts of just war and pacifism Essay

Outline the key concepts of Just War and Pacifism. A01 [21] The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions. Many Christians had taken the view that war may be justifiable under certain circumstances, and only if fought observing certain rules of conduct. Wars against the Muslim control of Jerusalem in the 11th-13th centuries were sometimes seen as holy wars which were popularly regarded as Crusades. Some philosophers based their justifications on the stories in the Bible. For example, St Paul in Romans 13:4 wrote that rulers are servants of God ‘†¦for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil’. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas gave an outline (the first three criteria of a just war) on the Justification of war and the kinds of acts that are allowed in a war in Summa Theologica. His ideas became the model of later scholars such as Franciso Suarez and Francisco de Vitoria. The first three conditions necessary for a just war were listed by Aquinas which included right authority, just cause and just intention. These and the three additional conditions that were later included, were referred to as ‘Jus ad Bellum’-rules about when it is right and just to go to war. Aquinas asserted that just authority meant that war could only be started by legitimate authority: ‘the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged’. He wrote that sovereign authority which has been elected legitimately has the sole authority to declare war. This meant that, there can be no private armies of individuals who can start a war and, equally, an incompetent government or sovereign does not have the authority  to initiate war. Just cause, is considered to be one of the most important conditions of jus ad bellum. Aquinas once stated that, ‘†¦those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault’. It was considered that self defence against physical aggression was the only sufficient reason for just cause. Finally, Aquinas wrote that the war fought with just intention, was to be for ‘the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil’. Kant once said that sovereigns could not fight wars for immoral intentions only for good motives. During a state of conflict, right intention should mean for peace and reconciliation. Therefore, soldiers cannot use or encourage a hatred of a minority in war. Their intentions must always be virtuous. In the 16th and 17th century, Suarez and de Vitoria added three additional conditions: proportionality in the conduct of war, only entering war as a last resort, and only fighting when there is a reasonable chance of success. Hence when dealing with proportionality, a state should never wage war that causes relatively more suffering and destruction than the actual wrong done by the enemy. Therefore, in any case, excessive violence, death and damage should be avoided. For example, it was not proportionate for the atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan that were conducted by the United States during the final stages of World War II in 1945. Additionally, all peaceful attempts at resolution must have been exhausted before violence is used. War cannot be chosen as a first response but as the last resort. Also, there should a reasonable chance of success during a war. It’s immoral to enter into a hopeless war, thus magnifying the suffering and loss for no constructive reason. There have always been rules of conduct in war, although such rules have often been ignored. In Christian tradition, there are conditions of conduct that limit the degree of destruction and who may or should not be killed. These conditions were referred to as Jus in Bello- rules governing how war should be fought. The principles include: only legitimate targets should be attacked, proportionality and that, agents of war should be responsible for their actions. An act of war aimed indiscriminately using chemical/biological weapons at the entire cities or of extensive areas along with their populations, is not only a crime against God but one against humanity and should be condemned. Also, it is unfair and unjust of attack non-combatants (civilians, or innocents) because it is against their right  and therefore they cannot be justly attacked. However, the Just war theory comes under criticism from those who advocate pacifism. They maintain that war is always wrong. Pacifism is described to be the opposition of all forms of violence as a means of settling disputes, either between individuals or between countries. The Christian argument for pacifism is based on Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount where he rejected the option to use physical force even in defence of himself against unjust aggressors. An example includes the incident at Gethsemane where Jesus ordered Peter to drop his sword and not to resist the authorities (Matthew 26:52). Mennonites and Quakers are two groups that emphasise pacifism. Members of this group conscientiously object to violence and have been often persecuted as a result. They believe that Just war theory ignores the essential pacifist stance taken by Jesus. An absolute pacifist claims that it is never right to take part in war, even in self-defence. They believe that peace is intrinsically good and should be upheld whether as a duty or on that it is better for humans to live at peace than war. They think that the value of human life is so high that nothing can justify killing a person deliberately. These pacifists claim that they would prefer to die rather than raise their fists to protect themselves. This is because; killing in self-defence is ‘an evil that makes the moral value of the victim’s life less important than our own’. They rely on the fact that there can be no justification for killing which stems from the scriptures of the bible ‘thou shalt not kill’ (Exodus 20:13). Absolute pacifists usually hold this view as a basic moral or spiritual principle, without regard to the results of war or violence, however they could logically argue that violence always leads to worse results than non-violence in other words, there can never be any good that comes out of war or violence. On the other hand, Conditional Pacifists offer a more flexible approach which allows the use of violence under certain circumstances. Pacifism is a word defined by Martin Caedel to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace. Conditional pacifists usually base their moral code on Utilitarian principles – it’s the bad consequences that make it wrong to resort to war or violence. These pacifists accept that sometimes our duties to uphold peace and non-violence may conflict with the duty to save or defend lives against aggression.  Utilitarian pacifists claim that wars generally do not produce favourable results but in certain circumstances, they can be acceptable. Such examples may include wars to protect people from genocide. To conclude, the Just war theory accepts that human nature is evil and most often use force to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, past philosophers and the present generation have offered moral guidelines that serve as justifications for the act of war. Whereas, pacifism which firstly originated from Christians believe that war and the act of violence is intrinsically evil and that peace should be the resolution of all conflicts in the society. Comment on the views that a pacifist can never accept the principles of Just war A02 [9] Pacifism can never accept the principles of Just war due to their firm belief that, all violence or force should be forbidden. Additionally, some pacifists would argue that the advantages of the just war theory does outweigh the disadvantages simply on the ground that there is no morality towards violence and that there is no place for ethics in war. Firstly, the criteria for a just war is considered to be unrealistic and pointless because, once the combatants have gone into battle the results of the war are unpredictable and such soldiers are unlikely to adhere to any conditions of a just war making the moral guidelines irrelevant. Pacifists argue that the results of war will always be bad since there can never be any positive outcome in war because; it leaves more damage on peoples’ lives. For example, the holocaust that occurred during the Second World War left more harm on the victims rather than the justice the so-called Nazis were supposed to achieve. A pacifist would argue that it will be inhumane to the point of cruelty to suggest such an incident like the Holocaust was just to serve for the greater good. Therefore a pacifist would argue that war is a waste of resources given by God, a cause of immense suffering, including suffering of innocent people and they believe that war encourages greed, hatred and prejudice. Secondly, Pacifists believe that life has an absolute value. They argue that the indiscriminate mass destruction brought about by the use of nuclear and biological weapons violates the sacredness of human life. It is though that the social and moral damage caused by war is too great, and that it should be abandoned. They maintain that non-violence and non-resistance will change the minds of, or disarm those who use violence. Hence, Pacifists encourage non-violence  resistance will goes against the principles of a just war. However, the deontological objection to a just war is favoured by absolute pacifists. Similar to Reihnold Neibuhr’s (1932) claim; it is inevitable that humans are prone to violence or the act of violence simply because , human nature is evil(imperfect). This means that most Pacifists are most likely to have a consequential approach towards the matter. Jeff McMahan once pointed out that Pacifism is difficult to maintain as it places extraordinary limitations on individual rights and self-defence which, in an era of weapons of mass destruction and the practice of genocide, may ultimately appear unacceptable. For this reason, Pacifists may claim that wars generally do not produce more favourable results, in specific examples. They can be acceptable. Additionally, most Pacifists accept that if someone is threatened by a dangerous person then the use of violence can be permitted since it would be considered to be self-defence. Therefore, due to the inconsistencies evident in Pacifism, most Christians still accept that the use of violence can be justified in the society. To conclude, Pacifists do believe that the weaknesses of a just war theory does outweighs its strengths simply because, it lacks purpose and morality. However , others do have different views; which means that they actually accept the principles of the just war theory.

Rialroad Reveries - 4043 Words

K N DAruwalla (1929-1993) Introduction: He was born in Lahore , now in Pakistan. HE attended the Government College in Ludhiana (in the Punjab) for his higher education. After obtaining a Master degree in English literature, he joined the police department from which he must have by now retired. He is believed to have settled down in New Delhi. The strangest and the most interesting fact of his life is that while serving his country as a policeman, he has been English writing poetry, in which he has made a name. Functioning as a police officer and writing poetry do not go well together. But we must take our hats off (as the phrase goes) to Daruwalla for his having accomplished his self-chosen task of writing poetry admirably. He has†¦show more content†¦The violence would be caused by mutual hatred which prevails between two different groups of the people. The poet goes about looking for the places where this violence might break out. Violence would lead to killings; and the poet looks for the possible places wher e death might raise its head. Dead Bodies Kept in the Mortuary: The poet then speaks about the mortuary where the persons killed in violence would be taken and kept for post-mortem or for identification by the relatives who would naturally like to take away those dead bodies in order to bury them or cremate them, as the case may be. If kept in a mortuary even for a few days, a dead body begins to stink because of the decomposition which takes place. Not even the sweet-smelling substances like rose-water and flowers can drown that foul smell. There is, in the mortuary, the dead body of a woman whose husband had cut-off her nose on a suspicion of her having adulterous relations with another man. After having cut off her nose he had even stabbed her in breast, thus puncturing her lungs. The Human Capacity for Adjustment: Man, says the poet, can adjust himself to different conditions. For example, a dead man, if buried in the earth, remains there firmly. If the same man were to be cremated, he would allow the fire to consume him quickly. If the dead body were thrown to the birds (like the vultures and the kites), he would let his flesh be eaten up without