Category: Relationship

Introduction

Spinoza is not, for the most part, viewed as an advocate of religion. He is not, for instance, recited currently as a religious scholar despite the fact that it is difficult to find an individual with a greater amount of sway on the contemporary theological colleges. His generalist theology, such as it is, barely appears to fuel divine arousal or restoration, and its instinctive components are not sufficiently definite to generate a religious society.

To be specific, over a hundred years, Spinoza has been portrayed as a Supreme Being inebriated individual, mystical, and an individual of faith. However, in a path reminiscent of peculiarities, Spinozism could maybe move to sacredness. Yet, it is not clear what it does toward advancing religion (Den 3).

Supporters of Spinoza as an earnest promoter of religion must contend for their perspectives, notwithstanding monstrous chronicled assessment that Spinoza was either a skeptic or, if nothing else, an opponent of religion (James 12). This feeling is generally communicated just in the name of Leo Strauss book  Spinozas Criticism of Creed as though there was no protection of religion offered by Spinoza and as though it is the way of religion, as opposed to religion as he discovered it in his own particular time, to which Spinoza disapproves.

On the off chance that critics are insistent to the point that Spinoza rules out bare religion, it is no big surprise that Spinozas admirers show up continually on edge. From Spinozas standpoint on the miracle to prescience, it is absolutely not clear what Spinozas defense of faith might be (Den 22).

In this paper, our position is not simply absorbed by either Spinozas supporters or opponents. Against the opponents, our case is that Spinoza considered religion important, at any rate in governmental issues. We should start at the end of the day, not with the thought that Spinoza looked to challenge religion, but instead with the possibility that for Spinoza, religion is basically a component of politics. However, against any supporters of Spinoza who may want to contend that his precept is not conflicting with a sound religious atmosphere, we should see that the ramifications of that principle raise a number of difficult issues regarding both the feasibility of religion and its impact on politics.

Spinozas theory of politics

Spinozas political reasoning is one of a kind since it is the sole power-based liberalism, instead of rights-based liberalism. His philosophy is very different from philosophies such as that of Hobbes and Locke that are hinged on rights. According to Spinoza, the common right of nature and of each person spreads as far as its power. Therefore, everything a person does as per his tendency, he does by the supreme right of nature.

An individual also has as much right to different things in nature as he has influence and power (James 33). It is conceivably tantalizing to claim that Hobbes, too, made individual rights to extend as far as its power, in any case, under the state of nature. However, a number of writers have accurately established that rights and power are not totally co-extensive. Hobbes holds the opinion that rights and power can be forgone once an individual departs the state of nature, while Spinoza believes that nobody can exist outside the state of nature. He stresses that individuals only act as per their own tendency and political dispensation (James 34).

While different scholars are apprehensive about matters of political and ethical authenticity, Spinoza does not view such matters as fundamental. According to him, matters of authenticity and model systems of government are more to do with poets than political theorists and, therefore, people should focus on the ways in which power operates in a political setting and its effective usage. However, this should not be used as a doctrine of what should be the situation in some ethical perspective. In accordance with Leo Strauss, Spinozas political ideology lacks an ethical foundation, unlike Hobbes political ideology (Den 26).

Without a doubt, Spinoza made power equivalent to a right. As a result, it would be an error to consider Spinozas political ideology as articulations about what rights individuals should possessor to see his work as a formula for perfect political associations. Since many authors view political ideology in a similar manner, it is hard to take no notice of Spinozas political philosophy. In any case, on the off chance that one doesnt fight that temptation, one will make genuine blunders in comprehending Spinoza, the most essential of which is to consider rights as a conformist idea.

Not at all like, say, Locke, Spinoza is not more concerned with individual rights and commitments to such an extent as he is to detail the different stages of power. In other words, Spinoza paid to much attention to power functions (James 37).

According to him, the right to free discourse is unreservedly a function of power granted by the authority, and freedom can only be enhanced by gaining more power. For this reason, one may wonder what is so liberal about Spinozas political ideology. According to Den, the key to comprehending Spinozas liberalism recognizes that the majority of liberal states are among the most dominant states and, therefore, the expressive and conformist aspects of his theory are merged under a single preface of power (Den 25).

It was Spinoza who came up with the idea that when individuals are brought together on the premise of interest and for restricted ends, they would coordinate the powers inside society so effectively that the existing powers would eliminate the force of all the paltry oppressions. The many instruments of liberal states, for instance, the constitution and the elected government can have excess power due to their influence on the power and contribution to national unity, and not because it is ethically mandatory or well-intentioned. Spinoza adds that absolute power is subject to local and international politics (Copulsky and College 5).

Surely, the profound liberalism of Spinozas theory is precise that the government is not a device for making individuals great. Therefore, the ends of the state are constrained; it makes no commitment to sacredness. At the same time, religion, whose main objective is morality and sacredness, is, as many people claim, an indispensable component of politics. Thus, our next task is to try and reconcile these claims (Copulsky and College 6).

Spinozas conception of religion and politics

Like Hobbes, who had earlier taken an interest in religion and politics, Spinoza was apprehensive of the role that religion played in civil strife and separation of power. His answer to the issue of religion and politics is, be that as it may, neither Adam Smiths answer nor the American answer (Lorberbaum 27). Adam Smiths solution was one where various organizations contend with each other to the point where they counterbalance each others impact on society.

Similarly, Spinoza does not settle on the American solution which is to separate religion and politics through a constitutional approach. Instead, Spinoza held the opinion that religion is a critical component of politics whose impact could not be weakened or reduced (Lorberbaum 28).

As stated by Spinoza, knowledge of the bible is very crucial for the public. This is because the public need to be familiar with tales that can best encourage them to be more obedient and devoted. He believed that the public was not sufficiently shrewd to make wise judgments and, therefore, needed the help of religious leaders (Mastnak 31). He adds that religious leaders cannot be sidelined from politics since they are the translators and watchmen of religious law.

In many of his works, Spinoza sought not to expel religion from politics; instead, he tried very hard to establish a suitable type of settlement. For instance, he suggests total religious freedom in jurisdictions governed by monarchs. While for states governed by ruling elites, he suggests vast and sublime state chapels (Mastnak 31). There is no sign that he imagines of governmental issues without religion.

On the contrary, if we regarded Spinoza to be a fan of Machiavelli, as he had stated in some of his works, then the following statement from Machiavelli might help us discern Spinozas way of reasoning. According to Machiavelli, since the adherence to a celestial cult is the reason for the enormity of states, so abhor for it is the reason for their collapse. For where the fear of Supernatural Being falls flat, it must be either that the realm collapses or that it is maintained by the apprehension of a ruler who supplies the imperfections of religion. Just like Spinoza, Machiavelli stresses on the indispensability of religion to governmental issues (Lorberbaum 28).

Be that as it may, even the most superficial perusing of Spinozas work demonstrates that Spinozas desire to change religion is because of its clear perturbing relationship to politics (Lorberbaum 33). How then does Spinoza intend to blend the two? Spinoza considers democracy as the most normal and innate type of political society. This does not mean that it is the best form of political society. Nonetheless, Spinoza believed that the most excellent form of political system should give power to the people. Given the fact that this is the similar audience for whom the religion emphasizes on, one will ask whether religion and politics crisscross in one way or the other (Mastnak 41).

Spinoza argues that both religion and politics have a similar end, that is, compliance. For that reason, if obedience is the end, the two should safeguard it by attractive the desire and dreams of the people. Thus, religion and politics cannot be separated on the premise of their individual goals, but only, if by any stretch of the imagination, on the premise of the means these individuals (Mastnak 43).

However, this is not exactly precise on the grounds that it suggests that Spinozas strategy is one that differentiates variously intends to compliance. Rather, what Spinoza does is to recognize the vital components of solid submission as they may be found in either governmental issues or religion while leaving what is most certainly not basic and fundamental to both to their separate domains. What gets sidelined in both religion and legislative issues under this process was what was generally thought fundamental to each. In legislative issues what is disregarded is a compulsion, whereas in religion what gets sidelined is revered Scripture (Mastnak 44).

It is not that either one vanishes, but instead both no longer serve to characterize the focal point of political existence. What has supplanted them, and what is the most intense component in both religion and legislative issues is deliberate willingness to comply (Mastnak 44). The prior may give the notion that Spinoza looks to secularize religion (in spite of the fact that he has from time to time given the notion of theologizing legislative issues), and in a specific sense that is irrefutable.

By concentrating on what it is about religion that is workable to legislative issues, religion loses a lot of its free and superior aspects. To be specific, it may be claimed that Spinoza has of now presumed the secularization of religion when compliance turns into the object of religion instead of, say, sacredness, redemption, or individual immortality. It is unequivocally here, in any case, that another element of Spinozas association with liberalism can be established (Mastnak 45).

The government has nothing to add to ones attainment of sacredness, with the exception of maybe by giving an atmosphere that is sufficiently safe to do so. In reality, sacredness has nothing to do with compliance. This is because most people tend to appeal to the levelheaded obedience. For this reason, the main part of religion left that is applicable to governmental issues is what involves acquiescence, for it is here and just here that the two domains crisscross each other (Barbone 305).

Whats more, since confidence in chronicled stories cannot provide us with information on God, and thus cannot make individuals adore him either, what Spinoza winds up doing is less secularizing or challenging religion as showing the superfluity of legislative issues to genuine sacredness. It is the conventional conviction that ones state or society can make a contribution to ones actual sacredness that Spinoza rubbishes (Barbone 306).

Likewise, as we simply observed, Spinoza rubbishes the notion that the most influential state is the authoritarian one. Regardless of arguments that the state having the privilege to do whatever it has the authority to do, Spinozas conviction of political acquiescence is based on the idea of willingness (Den 28). According to him, acquiescence is more of external action than of the thinkers inward action, so that the individual who wholeheartedly chooses to comply with all the orders of another is completely under his influence and, therefore, the one who governs in the hearts of his followers has the overall power (Den 29).

The problem with such viewpoint of acquiescence is that politics is not able to supply what will advantage it most, that is, voluntariness. This is due to the fact that the majority of politics tends to be forceful and focused towards exterior conduct. Therefore, if the state is to be extremely commanding, it must gain much of that command from the only establishment that has traditionally created alacritous acquiescence, that is, religion (Den 29).

On the other hand, religion does to appear to have the well-being of the state as its object. As a result, it is important to make the object of religion a thing that is likewise appropriate as an object of political life. Sacredness cannot be considered in this case since it is something that is accomplished past legislative issues and on the grounds that it is not a type of submission at any rate. What is needed is a novel type of submission, one that meets the object of religion and at the same time does not redirect the power of the state into different streams of command (Den 30).

The Jewish state provides the best model of an interface between religion and politics that was largely admired by Spinoza. The Jewish state is essentially discussed in most of his work as part of an assault on customary biblical power and the precept of the voting of the Jewish leaders. However, the somewhat extensive discussion of the Jewish state ought to tell us that something more than denigration is taking place (Mastnak 48).

As a matter of first priority, the establishments of power in the Jewish state were basically vote based. From the scripture, we find that the Jewish people surrendered their right to a single individual to act as their liaison with God as in a democratic state. However, the covenant made them equal and had the equal right to communicate with God and decipher his laws. To be specific, they were all equally responsible for the running of the state (Mastnak 49).

Moreover, when Moses led the Israelite out of the Egypt as per the scripture he went to considerable lengths to see that the general population undertook their duties willingly and without coercion. We are informed that the Jewish state could have carried on persistently if certain issues had not cropped up (Mastnak 49). If the Jewish state truly is an example of a perfect state for Spinoza, why then not just promote a religious government like it? Spinoza explains that it is neither fitting nor conceivable to duplicate the Jewish state in our contemporary world.

The main reason he gives is that since the agreement is no longer inscribed in paint or rock tablets but in individual souls, it is not possible to enter into an agreement with the Supreme Being as the Jewish people did. The second and the most important reason is that such states are very much restricted in the current world (Mastnak 50).

If a religious government is very much constrained in the current world and yet politics is not able to maximize the power of the state, then an object of acquiescence that can service both religion and modern politics must be discovered (Lorberbaum 37). Whereas an all-inclusive religion described by Spinoza can achieve that end, it is not really its all-inclusiveness and doctrinal moderation that concerns many analysts. Neither of these attributes is crucial on the grounds that, despite the fact that they might both jointly achieve the unity of legislative issues and religion, they dont clarify what it is about that solidarity that is likely to arouse the sort of willing submission Spinoza needs and the religious appeal of that compliance (Lorberbaum 38).

This brings us to the concept justice and charity (love) as proposed by both Hobbes and Spinoza. According to Spinoza, the worship of the Supreme Being comprises of both justice and charity. Charity basically refers to love towards our neighbors (Den 35). The two fuses religion and politics in the sense that the safest way to safeguard the state is by ensuring that the rights of all individuals are protected and no one is subordinated. Justice is usually linked to politics, whereas charity (love) is normally linked to religion. However, Spinoza makes charity basically an ethical concept. This is because morality has always been an embodiment of religion. As a result, religion and politics can be interfaced through charity and justice (Den 36).

Application of Spinozas ideas on the controversial subject of gay marriage

The issue of gay marriage has been a subject of heated debate, particularly between the supporters of religious values and the proponents of secular life (mainly politicians). In fact, Gay marriage is one of the most contentious topics in the contemporary world. Traditionally, marriage was viewed as a union between people of opposite gender and, therefore, homosexuality was looked at with contempt or prohibited altogether.

However, gay relationships are gradually becoming accepted in the society today thanks to the spirited fight for gay rights among the pro-gay activists. Opponents of gay relationship argue that it goes against the religious values and that it would affect the next generation. On the other hand, the proponents of the gay relationship believe that it is their basic human right. In addition, they claim that marriage is between two people and that gay people have a right to marry.

Besides being liberalists, Spinoza was also a monist. He believed that sole object of mind was the body; for this reason, what affected the mind also affected the body. In this case, the religious and ideological concerns regarding the body are rendered null and void. For example, religion cautions against the desires of the body, whereas many philosophers warn against trusting human senses and refer to them as falsehood. In both cases, the body is disgraced for deceiving the mind. On the other hand, Spinoza believes that body is mind and, therefore, desires of the body are also the desires of the mind (Copulsky and College 88). In this case, homosexuality is considered as any other form of romantic relationship.

The gay relationship may also be defended based on the concept of justice and charity. According to Spinoza, the rights of all individuals must be protected and no one should be subordinated. Given the fact that gays are tax payers like any other individual, are free to choose their partners and have legal benefits, they must be protected. However, since the issue of gay marriage is subject to political and religious dynamics, this cannot be guaranteed.

This is because in some jurisdiction politics and religion go hand in hand, and Spinoza always strived to find a balance between the two. Furthermore, Spinoza believed that the most excellent form of political system should give power to the people, but the masses cannot make shrewd decisions and, therefore, need the help of religious leaders.

Since Spinozas political reasoning was power-based, there is a likely chance that individuals or states may influence public perception regarding the gay community. The influence may be positive or negative. For instance, the United States of America has been on the forefront in advocating for the rights of gays and lesbians. To be specific, the U.S. President Barack Obama has been the number one advocate for gay marriage. As a result, a number of states have legalized gay marriage. However, the freedom to exercise gay marriage by gaining more power cannot apply in this case.

Conclusion

Spinozas political reasoning is one of a kind since it is the sole power-based liberalism, unlike his colleagues who believes in right-based liberalism. According to Spinoza, the common right of nature and of each person spreads as far as its power. In other words, the right to free discourse is unreservedly a function of power granted by the authority and the freedom can only be enhanced by gaining more power. In this case, Spinoza believes that nobody can exist outside the state of nature.

Therefore, more focus should be on the ways in which power operates in a political setting and its effective usage. He also adds that when individuals are brought together on the premise of interest and for restricted ends, they can coordinate the powers inside society so effectively that the existing powers can eliminate the force of all the trivial oppressions. Last but not least, Spinoza believes religion is basically a component of politics and, therefore, leaders should always strive to find a balance between the two.

Justice and charity (love) play a very significant role in establishing that balance. Spinoza makes charity an ethical concept. This is because morality has always been an epitome of religion. As a result, religion and politics can be fused together through charity and justice.

Works Cited

Barbone, Steve. Virtue and Sociality in Spinoza. Lyyun 42 (1993): 303-395. Print.

Copulsky, Jerome and Goucher College. The Last Prophet: Spinoza and the Political Theology of Moses Hess, American Academy of Theology, 2007. Print.

Den, Douglas. Power, Politics, and Religion in Spinozas Political Thought, Free Press, 2016. Print.

James, Susan. Spinoza on Philosophy, Religion, and Politics: The Theological-Political Treatise, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Lorberbaum, Menachem. Spinozas Theological-Political Problem, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2006. Print.

Mastnak, Toma~. Spinoza: Democracy and Revelation. Filozofski vestnik 2.19 (2008):31-59. Print.

Introduction and Summary

The process of reading is often taken for granted, yet there are underlying issues that are worth discussing. In the provided excerpt, Rosenblatt renders the idea of reading and explores its numerous iterations. As a rule, the process of reading used to be interpreted as interactive due to the unceasing process of drawing connections between a readers perception of the represented ideas and the viewpoint conveyed in a text.

However, on closer inspection of the reading process, one will realize that the phenomenon represents introspection and a spiral relationship between a reader and the signs in the text, as shown in Rosenblatts Literature as Exploration.

Thus, the purpose with which a reader approaches a text defines the way in which the meaning of the discourse under analysis will be deconstructed. The interaction between a reader and the signs on the page creates sense and allows a reader to explore it in depth (Rosenblatt 26). As a result, the meaning of the text is shaped under the influence of the notions and concepts that define the readers philosophy. Goulish expresses a similar idea by stating that reading a particular text inevitably entails the propagation of ones own vocabulary (5). The introduction of personal opinions and philosophies into a narrative is inevitable and thus needs to be recognized.

Connections to Goulishs Work

The problem of criticism as a process that does not imply reciprocity should be addressed. According to Goulish, the identified action causes a personality change due to the introduction of new ideas and concepts into a personal worldview (7). Nonetheless, there is little to no interaction between a reader and a discourse; instead, the former subjects the latter to criticism, deconstructing its meaning and assembling it again in order to imbue it with additional concepts and terms.

Furthermore, revisiting the process of reading, in general, and the notion of understanding, in particular, one may need to return to the idea of metacognition. As Goulish explains, when consuming a particular text, a reader inevitably infers its meaning based on a variety of approaches used to deconstruct it (Rosenblatt 26). Goulish compares the specified process with rain due to its omnipresence (8). Indeed, the text under analysis points to the necessity for a reader to approach the presented information from all the standpoints of which they are aware of. As a result, understanding is achieved.

Therefore, the use of the traditional terms accepted in the literature analysis, such as the reaction of a reader toward the text, complicates the process of studying the effects that a specific discourse produces on its audience. Instead, one should consider using the description methods that allow drawing a line between the text itself and the meaning that it helps to create (Rosenblatt 26). As a result, more accurate analysis of a text can be performed, with an in-depth inspection of the

Conclusion

The perception of a specific text used to be seen as primarily the interactions between a reader and the chosen discourse, yet a more profound study of the subject matter indicates that a reader constructs notions and themes independently, being influenced by the personal philosophy. Therefore, the relationships between a reader and a text should be seen as a spiral rather than directly reciprocal. The specified change will help to view the product of deconstructing a text more objectively.

Works Cited

Goulish, Matthew. Criticism. Business and Public: Advanced College Essay, edited by Denice Marton and Pat C. Hoy. McGraw-Hill Custom Publishing, 2002, pp. 5-9.

Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration, 5th edition. The Modern Language Association of America 1995.

Introduction

Typically, democracy is a system of governance in which people choose the kind of leadership they prefer (Mansbridge 2). Concurrently, capitalism refers to an economic system signified by private or commercial ownership of principal commodities (goods and services). Capitalism is determined by investments through private decisions, prices, production, as well as distribution of commodities in a free market (Crick 34).

There is a considerable relationship between capitalism and democracy. Additionally, it is not possible to attain democracy in the absence of capitalism or capitalist economy. Considerably, democracy is a major contributor to capitalism as well as other fundamental human values, thus, it should be encouraged all over the world.

It promotes values, such as the rights of workers, freedom of speech/movement, as well as the right to establish and run a business under the sole proprietorship methodology. It also establishes a secure and stable environment for citizens of a country. This shows its relationship with capitalism (Barkawi 54).

In addition to this, democracy ensures that the interests of all citizens and the country are secured. Governments that promote democracy are the ones that enhance peace, avoid violence and wars, encourage development, promote capitalism, and advocate for the rights of all humans.

Democracy should be promoted in the modern world to assist in the achievement of stability and growth for humanity. Its development should also be promoted to enable countries that are newly formed to adopt democratic principles (Mansbridge 98).

Countries that have not implemented the principles of democracy and capitalism should be denounced and encouraged to adopt them (DAnieri 33). This section of the paper discerns the relationship between democracy and capitalism and whether any of the two can do without the other one being a considerable provision.

The relationship between capitalism and democracy

Through capitalism, many countries in the world have established, ratified, and embraced democracy. There are others still in the process of implementing strategies that will ensure democracy (Art 245). The growth of democracy has taken a long time, and there are various methods that have been used to spread it.

There have also been various barriers to the spread of the value. Capitalism and commercial provisions have spearheaded the aspects of democracy in diverse aspects. Some of the methods that have been used to spread democracy incorporate religion and education. However, there is the question of the effectiveness of coercion in spreading democracy through capitalism. There are people who believe that capitalism and free market economy can promote democracy (Traub 56).

The need to interconnect capitalism and democracy can be answered using theories of international relations. In this context, realism theory focuses on the motives leading to proper security, control, and capitalism (Gilbert 58). On the other hand, liberalism proposes that the relationship that exists between countries regarding principles of democracy and capitalism are evident.

The theory also believes that the international structure and systems have an important role in international relations (Fishkin 23). The proponents of this theory further believe that the absence of authority from a central point leads to dilemma on matters of security, capitalism, and its free market provisions.

This, therefore, means that attempts by one country to seek security assurance are likely to make its adversaries feel insecure. These adversaries can then use other forms of interactions that are hostile by nature. The relative provisions of capitalism thus play an important role in international relations and democracy (Dryzek 77).

Groups based in various parts of the world are also important in international relations (according to the realists). Additionally, the behavior of the states (n the context of democracy) is considered to be rational according to this theory. The reason for this belief among realists is that the States use democratic provisions when making decisions and act in the interest of the nation.

This then promotes the aspects of capitalism (Mansbridge 62). The motives of the nation usually make analysts to manipulate how policy makers think, and this has the effect on policy makers making laws that are to the interest of the nation.

Through capitalism, external factors of democracy are evident. These can be used to explain how democracy can be spread within a country through the ratification and embracement of capitalism. For example, Iraq was a country led by a dictator. This interfered with the provisions of capitalism in the country.

There were also extremists in Iraq and the rights of the citizens were not guaranteed (Bulliet 45). The United States, on the other hand, is a country that values democracy and protection of the rights of individuals through capitalism. However, according to realists, there are other interests that the United States had apart from the promotion of democracy through capitalistic economy.

There are various approaches to capitalism that depends on the level of the business institution. According to research being carried out over the last three years, the government has seized control over business market, as such, most of the business institutions are privately owned because it cannot go beyond the set boundaries due property rights that protect single private merchants in the context of capitalism and democracy (Porritt, 2005).

Although the government involvement in private business corporation is limited, other approaches are set that grant partial and democratic involvement. Some of these approaches are based on taxes and business permit purchase. Stock market scales is another way through which the government controls and benefits from private corporations in the context of capitalism (Fortmann 116).

Other elements of capitalism are capital accumulation, wages, labor force, and stiff competition. Citizens have democratic rights to decide on the business prospects of the country, and how capitalism can be established and nurtured to realize such goals. This indicates the relationship between the two phenomena, namely, capitalism and democracy.

The importance of the roles played by the stock market in the capitalistic economy is related considerably to the aspects of democracy and free market. Most governments measure their economic stability in relation to world stock exchange and free market provisions (Fishkin 34).

Capitalism is also measured the same way. To enable investors to trade securities, they must be able to access the assets. The primary and secondary securities markets do exist to enable investors to have the access, and enable the sale and purchase of securities. It is vital to agree that most capitalists mostly like to do business in democratic countries.

In this context, primary markets are new markets while secondary markets, on the other hand, are the resale markets. Having a clear understanding of the two markets, work is very important to investors as it enables them to be aware of various capitalistic securities (Gilbert 223).

According to realism theory of international relations, democracy has guided decision making in various countries. In this context, for instance, the United States checked the benefits that could result from invading Iraq and the costs of the invasion. It then made decision based on the findings in respect to democracy (Botscher 56). Capitalism does not embrace forceful invasion of other economic territories. This is quite disadvantageous to the concerned countries. It is vital to consider these prospects considerably. The foreign policies of some countries do not reflect the aspects of democracy as well as their economic prowess (Hamm 67). According to the capitalistic principles, the economic strength of a country is important in the context of free market and open economy. It determines how the country establishes, ratifies, and protects its foreign policies and democratic provisions. A democratic country is able to understand and respect the capitalistic demands of its citizens. This indicates the relationship that exists between capitalism and democracy in the international realms. In other words, the capitalistic policies of most countries are democratic in nature (Rousseau 143).

On the other hand, according to liberalism, decisions to ratify force (to initiate democracy) are made based on differences that exist between countries that are democratic and countries that are non-democratic (Modugno 165). Thus, it is the capitalistic ideologies that exist in a country that promotes the economy of a given country in the context of democracy.

This is different from the realists who see financial, political and bureaucratic motives of the elites as the reasons for embracing democracy and capitalistic economy. Liberalism theory believes that the spread of democratic principles can lead to peace in the whole world and promotion of capitalism.

Arguably, countries that uphold democratic principles are usually peaceful and democratic compared to countries that are ruled by authoritarian regimes.

Economic interdependence among countries can also promote peace, business, and enactment of free market in the context of capitalism (Carter 92) because countries that are cooperating or depending on each other economically cannot go against each other because this would destroy both economically. According to liberals, the States are the main actors in international arena but not international corporations.

Is democracy possible in the absence of a capitalist economy?

It is arguable that democracy is hardly possible in the absence of the capitalist economy. Capitalist economy enhances the aspects of free market, which is a considerable provision in the context of democracy. Free market system is one in which there is no control by the government in the supply and demand.

This means that individuals are allowed to buy and sell or transact freely. The business decisions of a country should be made democratically so as to open the market for various investors. This provision is only possible in a capitalist economy (Fishkin 87).

The state usually gets involved in the process of transaction through regulation of activities, taxes and through subsidies. One of the main proponents of the free market system is Milton Friedman. However, Karl Polanyi has criticized the free market system on various grounds (Polanyi 43).

According to Friedman, a capitalist economy leads to economic freedom for the people. This, on the other hand, leads to political freedom and democracy in diverse contexts. The reason for this is that free market separates economic power and political power. This brings about a balance that gives freedom to individuals. However, Polanyi criticizes this view and argues that capitalism autoregulates itself; market prices are the only determining factors.

The mechanism controlling the economy does not relate to the will of any person but democracy. Thus, markets are directed by the laws controlling supply and demand. This means that Friedmans view tended to denote that free market ensures economic power, and is not concentrated in the hands of the political players.

Capitalism helps in spearheading democracy. Free market should be practiced since the society is subordinate to the economy (Mansbridge 41). Polanyi believes that capitalists should adapt to the market but should not interfere in it. On the other hand, Friedman proposed that the government should promote democracy so as to enhance a capitalist economy. The other basis of Polanyis critique of the capitalist economy is based on history (Polanyi 32).

Friedmans views of the free market are supported by historical evidence showing the relationship that exists between free market and development of political freedom and democracy. This indicates that the democracy is hardly possible in the absence of the capitalist economy as indicated earlier.

The evidence is that there is no society that has gained democracy, and maintained it without first gaining economic freedom. This means that capitalism is important in the quest for freedom politically. However, it is not a satisfactory condition. He further argues that it is free markets characteristics that have led to shift in direction of reforms from political to economic reforms.

On the other hand, capitalists argue that societies economy cannot be controlled by fringed markets. Thus, capitalism is not a result of free market, however, it dictates the aspects of democracy and free market. There are other factors that determine development of capitalism or market, for example, human passions.

The other point to base ones criticism on is the distribution of products. Free market economists argue that there is cooperation and voluntary exchange in market economy. Thus, individuals usually cooperate so as to satisfy their democratic needs. In order to operate efficiently so as to achieve economic goals, the distribution of products should be free and capitalistic.

This means that the distribution, the cooperation and the coordination of activities should be democratic and free of external hindrances. This indicates how democracy is hardly possible in the absence of a capitalist economy as indicated earlier.

In any country, democracy tends to promote credible financial systems. A countrys financial system and markets matter considerably in the realms of economic growth. The stock market plays a very big role in ensuring that the economy grows steadily. Some economists do not consider whether the stock market favors the economic development.

The economic development that is seen in any place always creates demands for certain types of financial arrangements, and financial systems always tend to automatically respond to such demands. This is mostly promoted by democracy within an economy and political quarters. Evidently, this provision tends to exhibit that democracy is hardly possible in the dearth of a capitalist economy indicated before. Additionally, the other basis for criticism is in the role of the States in the economy (Long 65).

According to Friedman, the role of the government is to promote democracy and provide credible ways of modifying transaction rules, mediate whenever disputes arise between traders, and enforce agreed democratic rules. There have been debates whether free trade imperialism is justified and whether it benefits the countries that practice it through democratic provisions.

There are views that the struggle for democratic survival is a natural occurrence, and thus justifies free trade imperialism. Other people have views that free trade imperialism is justified since it can be employed to ensure the security of the country in the context of capitalism.

This can be in terms of supply of raw materials or in ensuring that the country is free from attacks. Finally, another justification (between democracy and capitalism) has to do with the political liberation of people. Free trade imperialism can be implemented in countries that have authoritative rulers and regimes that are democratic (Fishkin 12). In these cases, the free market policies will aim at ensuring that the rights of people are guaranteed and their lives are improved democratically.

Free trade capitalism refers to credible market policies of state, actions, and practices that seek to extend power and democratic domination over other states. The state can do this through various means including acquiring territory, controlling the economy of another state or by directing political activities in another state.

Free trade imperialism in most cases is achieved through the use of power (especially use of military forces), democracy, and has many submissions (Hobson 129). This indicates how democracy depends on capitalism in order to gain economic rights. Many countries have practiced free trade imperialism, and some still practice it up to date.

For instance, countries such as England, France, Germany and Italy practiced free trade capitalism by colonizing countries in Asia and India between the 15^th and 18^th century. Between 19^th century and the period of the First World War, countries such as Japan, the United States, Russia, Germany and England practiced, established and embraced capitalism through democratic provisions. The methods used by Germany, Japan and Italy to employ free trade imperialism policies caused the outbreak of the First World War.

After the First World War, Russia implemented capitalism policies and gained control of a large part of Eastern Europe. Russia did this by gaining much military and political control of the states in the region. The United States has constantly intervened in the activities of the third world countries in the twentieth century (Aron 76).

The interventions are mainly to protect the interests of the United States especially to protect interests of international organizations that are owned by the United States in the context of democracy. These examples indicate how democracy is hardly possible in the absence of a capitalist economy as indicated earlier.

Most countries have employed free trade policies, and they always appear undisruptive. Mostly, capitalist agreements are mutually beneficial. Mostly, the agreements are made by rulers in the countries signing the agreement through democratic provisions. Most capitalist economies are characterized by democratic provisions in diverse contexts (Crick 56). Conversely, most free trade policies end up making the rulers rich while the masses do not benefit much.

The policies at times are made for economic reasons, for example, to enable companies of a country to sell its products at a cheaper price than competitors. However, in the communist manifestos, Karl Marx recognizes that capitalists have the ability to use advanced technology to produce commodities cheaply and then use these commodities to exploit the democratic rights of other countries.

Conclusion

It is vital to conclude that democracy is a system of governance in which people enjoy the right to choose the kind of leadership they prefer. In the same context, capitalism refers to an economic system signified by private or commercial ownership of principal goods and services, and determined by investments through decisions, prices, production, as well as distribution of commodities in a free market (Crick 34).

As indicated before, there is a considerable relationship amid capitalism and democracy. Through capitalism, external factors of democracy are evident. These can be used to explain how democracy can be spread within a country through the ratification and embracement of capitalism.

The need to interconnect capitalism and democracy can be answered using theories of international relations. Democracy should be promoted in the modern world to assist in the achievement of stability and growth for humanity. Its development should also be promoted to enable countries that are newly formed to adopt democratic principles.

This shows the relationship that exists between capitalism and democracy in vast quarters. It is evident that there is no society that has gained democracy and maintained it without first gaining economic freedom. This means that capitalism is important in the quest for freedom politically.

It is crucial to argue that democracy is not possible in the absence of a capitalist economy. Noticeably, democracy is a major contributor to capitalism and other fundamental human values; thus it should be encouraged globally.

Works Cited

Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New Brunswick: Transactions Publishers, 2003. Print.

Art, Robert. The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. Print.

Barkawi, Tarak. Democracy, Liberalism, and War: Rethinking the Democratic Peace Debate. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publ, 2001. Print.

Botscher, Johana. Neorealist Assessment of Indias Look East Policy. London: Grin Verlag, 2011. Print.

Bulliet, Richard. The Earth and Its People: A Global History. Boston, MA: Cengage Wadsworth, 2011. Print.

Carter, April. Direct Action and Democracy Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004. Print.

Crick, Bernard. Democracy: A very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press , 2002. Print.

DAnieri, Paul. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.

Dryzek, John S. Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York , NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. Print.

Fishkin, James S. When people Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: University press , 2011. Print.

Fortmann, JamesBalance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Print.

Gilbert, Alan. Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy?: Great-power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1999. Print.

Hamm, Bernard. Cultural Imperialism: Essays on the Political Economy of Cultural Domination. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2005. Print.

Hobson, Joan. Imperialism: A Study. New York, NY: Cosimo, 2005. Print.

Long, David. Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: The International Theory of J. A. Hobson. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996. Print.

Mansbridge, Jane. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago press, 1983. Print.

Modugno, Roberta. Murray N. Rothbard Vs. the Philosophers: Unpublished Writings on Hayek, Mises, Strauss, and Polanyi. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009. Print.

Polanyi, K ari. Karl Polanyi in Vienna: The Contemporary Significance of the Great Transformation. Montreal: Black Rose, 2006. Print.

Rousseau, Dancan. Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities: The Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Print.

Traub, John. The Freedom Agenda: Why America Must Spread Democracy (just Not the Way George Bush Did). New York, NY: Straus and Giroux, 2009. Print.

Political economy as a discipline had been abandoned hundreds of years ago and overtaken by Economics, but now with businessmen and politicians interacting more, its popularity has seen tremendous growth. Political Economy can be referred to as a study that defines how economics theories can influence the ideology of politics in a state.

Political economy is a major key factor in the creation and implementation of public policies as it directly influences economics, law and politics together with how different institutions come up with the different social systems and economic systems, which are based on capitalism, communism or socialism. Simply put, political economy is the management of a country or a state in relation to its economy.

According to Usher, economy is regarded as a major contributor to decisions making processes especially those that concern politics in matters including tariffs and taxes all which are run in accordance with the stipulated laws^[1]. He also states that the economic growth of a nation influences the nations political organization as much as it influences the nations economic conditions.

Today, political economy can be used to refer to some sections of a countrys economy that are influenced by politics and law or just the countrys whole economy being in relation to politics and law. Many economists explain that political economy is a study that combines how the supply of goods by markets influences the economic growth and how these markets rely on several other institutions in the society, institutions such as public administrations.

Most countries, such as Russia, China and the states at the Gulf region are known to use businesses as a mechanism of state power. It is known that most of the worlds biggest companies, like the oil companies are always run by the states. Mostly these companies are governed by political influences as well as some economic considerations. According to article written by Schumpeter, people concerned with businesses are bound to know that they should consider political risks while managing their businesses^[2].

Schumpeter elaborates with an example of Ahmed Ezz who was considered just about a month ago as the most influential business person in Egypt, controlling about 40 percent of the countrys steel production. Ahmed was also involved in the countrys politics as he was in the lead role of managing the ruling party and most of all he was considered as a very good friend to Hosni Mubaraks son who would be the heir to Hosni Mubarak.

Although this was the case before, the business man has now found himself in deep problems. During the resent protests which have successfully forcefully removed Hosni Mubarak from the presidency, Ezzys company headquarters were torched by the angry protesters, even his own guard felt he was a burden and dumped him.

Above all, Ahmed is undergoing investigations while his assets have been frozen and his travel arrangements have been restricted. All the companies which had invested in his companies have lost greatly and could have wasted their time and money in investing in his businesses.

Political instability of a country is likely to course havoc in the countrys economy. Countries experiencing political instability also affect the multinational companies, which have invested in branches or subsidiaries located in these countries.

For this reason, many of the governments around the world are coming up with ways of trying to ensure there are vigilant actions taken against crimes that mostly involve corruption. giving an example of the Obamas government which is trying to implement the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as a way of fighting organized crimes like corruption cases and British Governments which introduced anti bribery measures to reduce crimes that result to due to corruption and many other governments like in Indonesia the executive personnels who assume what is regarded as local rule face a jail term and this is the same case to those in Thailand.

The article simply proves that politics go hand in hand with a countrys economic trend. In the article, the relationship between politics and economics offers a useful guide for theorizing experimenting in the fields of politics and economics. For example, it explains how an organization that has its goal set to improve that countrys economy should ensure that they take political issues as serious matters.

According to Wallenstein, Frieden and Golden, the study of political economy brings about questions of what relationships are there between politics and economics^[3]. In their book, both politics and economics relate to each other noting that all governments should have ways in which they are able to control their markets and provide legal and institutional measures on which the markets free enterprise will be dependent on.

According to the article, there is no market that can run entirely on its own and that all the market institutions contributing to the growth of an economy need to have extensive involvement and policy from the government. Many of the markets which end up facing economic problems rely on the government fully for help and for this reason it should be noted that a market economy cannot self-regulate itself, contrary to the capitalist thinking.

Bibliography

Schumpeter, David. Business people need to think harder about political risk. The Economist (2011). Web.

Usher, Dan. Political Economy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

Wallerstein, Michael, Frieden, Jeffrey & Golden Miriam. The political economy of inequality, unions, and social democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Footnotes

1. Dan, Usher, Political Economy (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007), 10.
2. David, Schumpeter, Business people need to think harder about political risk, The Economist (2011).
3. Michael Wallerstein, Jeffrey Frieden & Miriam Golden, The political economy of inequality, unions, and social democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 104-127.

Introduction

Aristotles works have been perceived to be the framework of most disciplines in modern science. His views on civic relationships have been extensive, considering they highlight different issues such as happiness, virtues, deliberation, justice, friendship (and other related issues).

These aspects of civic relationship form the framework of this study. However, emphasis will be given to the workplace context and more specifically to issues that define a good workplace environment. Aristotles ideas on civic relationship will also be contrasted with the notions of the best places to work.

Aristotle and Relationship at Work

Aristotle explains that friendship forms a normative framework for the practice of citizenship but in explaining this fact, he outlines three factors that define human friendship. These factors are hinged on the concepts of like, use or pleasant. Aristotle is of the view that people develop friendships because they like one another, they perceive someone to be useful, or because a partner is pleasant to be around with.

In explaining the concept of like, Aristotle explains that people develop friendships based on common likings or love for one thing. In this context, two people can therefore spend time together and do things, which manifest their values. The concepts of use and pleasantry are explained from the assumption that friendships should be satisfying and must expose a strong sense of goodwill among the parties involved. Relationships built on gaining advantages alone are therefore not sustainable.

In explaining how the concept of virtue is essential in civic relationships, Aristotles highlights two factors. First, Aristotle says that virtue can be categorized in two levels. The first level appeals to a part of the human soul that focuses on reason (able to formulate reason) while the second part appeals to the part of the human soul that follows reason.

Focusing on the human intellect, Aristotle explains that the human intellect is categorized into a section that appeals to theoretical reason and a section that appeals to practical reason. Aristotle therefore explains that people have the capability to be ethically virtuous but good moral ethics mainly develop from merging practical wisdom and proper habits.

Close to the understanding of virtues is Aristotles view on happiness. Aristotle explains that human happiness stands at the core of our being but by extension, it is a goal in itself. However, Aristotle also explains that the ability to be happy mainly rests within us. Though people have the ability to be happy, Aristotle explains that happiness is mainly a product of our virtues. Virtues are also explained as the middle-point of two extremes, which border on the quest for sensual pleasure and the pressure that comes from harsh asceticism.

Aristotles view on deliberation stems from the fact that deliberation is a means to uncover our acts, and a tool for determining our goals. Aristotle equates a good person to be a person who is open to deliberation. Similarly, Aristotle does not shy away from further explaining the concept of deliberation as a product of rational inquiry. From this understanding, Aristotle perceives deliberation to be an important component of fostering good relationships among people because the openness to deliberation produces good people.

Finally, in understanding civic relationships, Aristotle explains the concept of justice as being two-fold. The first component of justice is particular justice while the second component of justice is general justice. General Justice exists in an ideal world where different aspects of universality are practiced.

Particular justice exists where justice is dispensed, depending on the circumstances of the time. Researchers who recommend the inclusion of an educated judge in solving workplace conflicts have cited Aristotles works because Aristotle explains that educated judges could correctly implement particular justice. From this understanding, it is correct to say that Aristotle prefers particular justice to general justice. This component of Aristotles view on justice is applicable in solving conflicts among colleagues.

Best Places to Work

The best places to work are explained by the quality of employee relationships in the workplace. This statement emphasizes the importance of Aristotles views on civic relationships because through his analysis, he exposes the factors that determine the realization of quality relationships. This statement also disputes the common held belief that the best places to work are where successful programs and benefits are realized in the workplace environment.

The best places to work must exhibit characteristics of enjoyment, trust and pride. However, trust is highlighted as the most important component to the realization of best places to work environments. Usually, the concept of trust is explained as trusting the employers as opposed to the employees.

The lack of trust in relationships has far-reaching implications because it affects the nature and quality of human relationships. For instance, if an employer is known to cheat his employees, it is only natural that the employees question the truthfulness of any promise the employer makes.

The same example can be flipped to expose how employee distrust may interfere with the employer-employee relationship. Say, an employee has a poor reputation of keeping deadlines; it is very difficult for the employer to trust the employee to deliver urgent reports in time. From this understanding alone, it is correct to conclude that trust works both ways (employer to employee) in the organization.

The concept of enjoyment and pride can be used to explain the motivation behind peoples contribution to the organization. Motivation has been ordinarily cited in human resource literature as vital to employee productivity but at the center of this narration is the importance of enjoyment and pride.

These two concepts are vital in the understanding of employee relationships because it is established that good employee relationships are often realized when employees find pleasure in associating with one another, or being part of a common cause (like working for a common organization/employer).

It is therefore established that it is difficult to provide a good environment for employees to work if the employees do not find pleasure in working for the employer (or if the employees do not enjoy working with one another). In fact, the lack of enjoyment in an organization is cited as a common factor for increased employee turnover. Consequently, there is enough evidence to suggest that employee enjoyment is a primary cause for increased employee retention.

This attribute touches on the social nature of human relationships and by extension; it exposes the agility of improved social relationships in boosting organizational performance. If employees find pleasure through association, the overall workplace morale can be easily improved and equally, it is easy to establish a vibrant environment for increased employee productivity.

It is only through this enjoyment that employees can find pride in associating with one another or with the employer. It is therefore almost impossible to find employees who find pride through association and do not enjoy associating with other people in the workplace. The organizational environment is therefore primarily a product of the quality of employer-employee relationships (or employee-employee relationships) because all other factors in the organization are subject to these two relationships.

Therefore, in evaluating the best environments for work, a careful emphasis should be given to analyze the social relationships existing in the workplace environment. Similarly, it is important to analyze the quality of trust, enjoyment and pride in ascertaining the quality of workplace environments.

Comparison of Aristotles Views and the Concept of Best Places to Work

Successful workplaces are where the virtues of trust, pride and enjoyment are effectively realized. These three virtues underlie the framework for successful employee relationships because without them, it is impossible to realize synergy or cohesion in the workplace.

Trust is usually a double-edged sword where people who trust one another are often expected to be trusted back. Much like respect, employees quantify the degree of trust depending on the quality of their relationships not only with themselves but also with the management. The concept of trust mainly emphasizes the concepts of friendship and justice as explained by Aristotle.

Analyzing the concept of friendship, Aristotle explains that mutually satisfying friendships are realized where there is no party that unfairly benefits from another. The concept of goodwill is also highlighted in this analysis where both parties are supposed to express genuine goodwill with one another. Trust is easily manifested in such relationships. However, if such relationships do not exhibit goodwill, there will be distrust among the parties involved.

The same analysis also applies to the concept of justice as explained by Aristotle because Aristotle identifies that particular justice is preferable because it resonates with the varying facts of the moment. The realization of proper justice can therefore only be realized when this justice is realized but most importantly, it is important to highlight that people will only expect good justice when they trust the arbitrator. If they do not trust the judge (for example), they would not believe in justice.

The concept of pride is also identified to be central to the realization of a good workplace environment and almost explicitly, it emphasizes Aristotles concept of happiness. Aristotle says that happiness is a goal in its nature (through the realization of this goal, we are essentially happy). However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that happiness is a source of pride. Therefore, when employees are truly happy, they are bound to derive satisfaction in what they do. This satisfaction manifests in pride.

Almost, conjointly, pride and enjoyment go hand-in-hand because employees who find pride in what they do enjoy what they do (as well). Enjoyment is also explained in the context of finding pleasure in working with other people in the office. Again, Aristotles remarks on friendship cannot be ignored in this case because he explains that one core pillar of forging good friendships among employees is deriving pleasure in associating with some people.

Conclusion

After weighing the findings of this study, it is correct to say that Aristotles remarks outline the important frameworks needed to realize the best workplace environments.

However, Aristotle highlights the importance of establishing productive friendships (by working with other people in the organization) as the main factor needed in establishing a good workplace environment. Comprehensively, we can establish that Aristotle predicts the quality of good workplace relationships by outlining the fundamental principles of productive employee relations.

Introduction

According to Jean-Paul Sartre, understanding of the body is obscured by many factors. Moreover, its relation to consciousness is masked. In addition, its problems are concealed. He argues that this is attributed to the complexities surrounding consciousness. For instance, the body has laws that govern it.

Moreover, it is observable as matter. Furthermore, the body can be defined from the outside. However, this is not the same as with consciousness. Consciousness is reached by peculiar intuitions, which are inside the body.

This complicates its understanding since one has to relate it to the body organs. Sartre claims that after internal intuitions, one can then unite consciousness to the various body organs for action.

Therefore, Sartre tries to define the relationship between body and consciousness. In addition, he tries to explore the problems of the body. This paper will review Sartres theories on the body as well as its relation to consciousness.

The Body

Jean-Paul argues that consciousness is quite complex to understand. However, he finds it quite easy to cognize the body. Interestingly, once consciousness has been achieved, then its unity to the various body organs such as the nervous system becomes increasingly complex to analyze.

However, he argues that the difficulties arise from trying to connect ones conscience with other peoples bodies. Interestingly, he notes that no one has ever seen or will ever see his/her brain.

That is, people look to others for explanation about their bodies. In that sense, he sees ones body organs as his/her property than as his/her being. Through this, he notes that observable body organs such as the eye, the legs, and the ears, among others can only be seen in a single perception, which does not involve itself.

In essence, Sartre argues that people see their organs as the other in relation to themselves because they cannot comprehend how they function to communicate sense.

Therefore, he claims that people deal with different orders of reality. In this regard, he rejects the notion of double sensation because these two orders of reality are in incommunicable levels. In essence, he claims that the orders of reality are radically distinct.

Sartre also agrees with other theorists that the discovery of the body as being is real. However, he claims that the body is indeed a being for others. On this, he argues that people usually link their consciousness of objects on the body of others.

Sartre gives an example of an inverted image seen from the lens to show that conscience can refuse to be bound by the laws of objects so that it conveys an upright image. In this regard, he posits that it is only possible to reflect on the nature of the body by first establishing the order of reflection.

This should conform to the order of being which states that people cannot keep confusing the levels of ontology.

Moreover, they must first look at the body as being-for-itself then as being-for-others. In addition, he argues that the two orders of the body are in both incommunicable and different levels so that they cannot be unified.

In this regard, he continues that being-for-itself has to be wholly consciousness and wholly body. Moreover, it should be noted that the two (consciousness and body) cannot be unified. Similarly, he posits that being-for-others should also be wholly body and the body wholly psychic.

Being-for-itself: Facticity

From the discussion above, Sartre rejects Descartess theory that knowing the soul is easy as compared to knowing the body. In essence, it rejects the observations in the Cartesian cogito. Sartre argues that the facts of the body are completely different from the facts of thought.

To prove this, he says that facts of the body are accessible through divide providence while facts of thought can be accessed through reflection. That is, the facts of consciousness manifest in signs, which drives the body out of conscience. This makes it difficult to reunite the two since the body has become a body-of-others.

He commends the idea that idealism was right in positing that the world is made out of relation. However, he believes that idealism is not entirely true because it was taken from Newtonian science, which conceived relation from another relation known as relation of reciprocity.

That is, idealism succeeded only in making the point of absolute objectivity. Moreover, Absolute objectivity made it possible for the world to exist without people thereby nullifying its effect.

He therefore claims that the body is in the order of for-itself. In this regard, the body must be defined with the world. He therefore concludes that the body is ones motivation without being its foundation.

Sartre agrees with Plato on the fact that the body individualizes ones soul. However, he does not agree with some theorists that it was made because of a demiurge. Moreover, he faults Plato in his belief that soul can be separated from the body at death.

That is, he believes that ones soul cannot detach itself from individualization because soul is the body as far as Sartre is concerned. To prove this, he gives an example of a sense, which he believes cannot be given before or after the sensible object.

He also commends Bachelard for reproaching phenomenology for inadequacy in coefficient of adversity. However, he faults him partly on the fact that instrumentality is primary. Moreover, he claims that ones body extends through the tool that it utilizes. In this regard, he joins action and sensation as one.

Moreover, he states that the body is a conscious structure of its own consciousness. Sartre believes that body organs give the body as it is acted upon as opposed to giving as it acts.

Since he believes that the appearance of the body is not capable of giving rise to new complications, he concludes by stating that the body is ones facticity of being. Moreover, since on one aspect the body appears as being for itself, on the other aspect it appears as an object, which is visible in ones body organs.

This shows that in accordance with the former level, the body has no physiology but on the latter level, it has physiology due to the presence of organs.

In essence, Jean-Paul Sartre believes that the body is being-for-itself as well as being an object. In accordance with the former, he claims that the body has several aspects while one lives. One of the aspects includes consciousness, in which he considers the body as being a matter being-for-itself.

The second aspect is perception. In this regard, he argues that when people perceive other bodies, they do so in a special manner. This kind of perception is completely different from the perceptions of lifeless things.

Thirdly, Sartre believes that one can perceive his/her own body under particular circumstances. One therefore sees himself/herself as an object even without involvement of other people (being-in-itself).

He utilizes numerous examples and arguments from theorists such as Plato, and Bachelard, among others to prove his arguments. Moreover, he draws information from many sources with an in depth analysis of information for the audience. It can be said the Sartre tries to define the body and consciousness.

Moreover, he tries to relate them with a view to establishing a common description and cognition of both. This is quite difficult considering the complexities involved. However, it should be noted that he rightly rejects theories that suggest that understanding the soul is easy as compared to understanding the body.

Conclusion

Jean-Paul Sartre tries to define the human body. He also tries to define consciousness. In both cases, he agrees that human body can be defined in different levels. For instance, he defines it as a being-for-itself and as an object.

In the process, he disputes many theories including those posited by Plato, Descartes, and Bachelard, among others. However, it is important to note that he does not dispute their theories entirely but borrows from them to support his theories.

Nonetheless, his understanding of the body and soul is quite apprehensive given that he rejects almost all theories posited by others. Moreover, he claims that ones soul cannot be detached from his/her body even in death.

This brings controversies especially with religious people who believe in the separation of soul from body as well as in their distinctiveness. In addition, his arguments are largely theoretical as well as philosophical. This makes it difficult to defend his theories.

Friedrich Nietzsche is well known for having attacked on all aspects of moral and religious distinctions and belief systems in terms of democracy, equality, morality, God and other modern value systems. He repudiated all theories of religious and moral beliefs. In his rejection of the contemporary belief systems he believed that it was necessary that all existing value systems in regard to social and political institutions must be destroyed for the future development of humanity. He was a nihilist and there was barely any unambiguous element in his thoughts that was not relevant to the context that he referred to. He wanted that society should adopt radical changes by believing in realism and reason. Nietzsches statements represented his philosophical efforts in covering a wide range of subjects and Christianity was one of the areas that were struck by his logic of reason and reality. Nietzsche considered that modern values and morals mattered more to humans, and propagated the belief that ultimately it is the will power of people and their natural self that will lead them towards happiness rather than in following Christian Moral Ideals (CMI) which are firmly rooted in the religion and philosophy of most parts of the world. Most of what was espoused by Nietzsche faced criticism in being labelled as nihilistic, pessimistic and harsh but there is lot of strength in his arguments that is of an inspirational nature. Most of what he advocated proved to be very prophetic and penetrating.

In criticizing the CMI he believed that it carries forward the human life towards denial of the natural self thus implying that the natural being is deprived of any intrinsic value. He considered that values accrue in life as a consequence of the way of life but they get support from CMI solely with the purpose of devaluing the interpretations of the forms of life. In considering that religion interprets human acts as right or wrong on the basis of predetermined code of conduct is wrong; he strongly vouched for human activities to result because of instincts and not from sources outside of the natural world. Nietzsche understood very well the growing forces within humanity in regard to nihilism and was able to predict the history for the next two centuries. The predictions that he made are relevant to this day and can be related to the thought processes of mankind.

Nietzsche believed that moral ideals espoused by Christianity contained its own flaws because it places the sources of all human values outside of nature and promotes the importance of truth as being most important which in turn logically leads to the conclusion that there is very less that falls outside the scope of nature. It was in this context that he claimed that God is dead. Hence he felt that there was no basis for CMI to justify the following of religious beliefs by humans in achieving more than they already had. Nietzsche wrote such things 26 years before the outbreak of World War I which was later followed by World War II. He was able to foresee the contradictions in the human belief systems and thus knew that such catastrophes would result, not due to being military conflicts but as a result of the representative forces and fast changing cultures. Such changes altered most things that stood within their own characteristics including the authority of God.

Nietzsche did not believe in the regression and decline of the spirits power but he considered that the human spirit has immense power. His philosophy signified several qualities of the positive living of modern day humans in conveying that man is essentially on his own in creating a positive meaning to his life while in the past such meaning got its measure from religion and mythology. The world of today is constantly bringing new challenges for mankind and Nietzsches views in effect heralded the emerging values of today.

I feel Nietzsche valued individualism a great deal although some philosophers considered this to be attempts at simplifying what he intended to convey. He considered individuals as complex subjects that had instincts and will to power which I consider to be a kind of radical individualism. I do not consider Nietzsche to be an individualist thinker but he is more of a hierarchy scholar in covering the social order as related to contemporary thought patterns. I understand that Nietzsche has involved himself with politics to some extent in providing humanity with certain goals and directions in considering the problems and contradictions faced by people during his time. His criticism of Christianity and morality has in fact criticized human feelings. He is found to have detested the patterns of altruism and pity which he considered as being ways by which the weak empowered the strong. From what he wrote it appears that he disliked the state and the way it functioned while he spoke negatively about socialism, anarchy and anarchists. His writings conclude that there are very few people who can disengage from herd mentalities and this theme is common in most of his writings.

The author of the article is trying to define the moral responsibility of every individual in society with regard to giving relief and alleviating suffering. He uses the case of refugees in Bengal, India. The refugees are experiencing an emergency that has gone unnoticed by many individuals. The relief they have received is not enough to alleviate their suffering.

The authors argument is that it is necessary for the society to change its way of responding to the problems of needy people. The thesis of the article states that it is everyones moral responsibility to prevent suffering and offer assistance without sacrificing anything of equal moral importance.

The author starts by stating that it is wrong for people to die from lack of basic human needs including food and shelter, as well as medical services. Singer talks of the importance of morality in society and uses the case of refugees in Bengal to present his ideas and arguments. He argues that people have a moral responsibility to prevent bad occurrences. Morality does not choose the type of person to help or their geographical location.

In addition, distance should not be a hindrance. He argues that the geographical location of needy people should not be a reason to deny relief to the needy. The problem of distance has been overcome by globalization. Singer explores the issue of numbers and obligation, and their relationship to morality. According to him, it is immoral for anyone to refuse to help because other people are not doing it. It is an individual obligation to help and not a communal obligation.

Singer argues that individuals should offer as much help as they can without causing suffering to themselves or their families. It is important for people to offer help as long as they do not expose themselves to suffering. He demonstrates the effect of communal perception on peoples willingness to help. Many people give relief because others do it.

However, if others fail to do it, they also refrain from giving relief. This way of looking at moral responsibility is flawed. Singer talks about distance and moral obligation with regard to offering assistance to the needy. According to him, it is morally right to offer assistance only if it does not involve any immoral act.

The author argues that there is a thin line between duty and charity. According to Singer, it is everyones duty to prevent unfavorable events from happening. He finds it necessary to redefine charity and duty. For example, he argues it is everyones duty to prevent unfavorable events.

Offering assistance should not be optional but a moral obligation. He adds that it is important to develop a universal moral code that defines the moral duties of people in society. Offering help and preventing bad things from happening regardless of culture or geographical location should be a universal moral responsibility.

He cites reasons why people fail to give relief. Many people consider relief as a responsibility of the ruling government. In addition, many people consider it as a way of postponing a problem instead of finding a lasting solution. However, he argues that these reasons should not stop people from giving relief. Singer says that people should focus their energies on helping to alleviate suffering so that such problems are not experienced in future.

Throughout the course of peoples lives, they spend much time thinking over some aspects of their existence and relationships with other beings. For me, the most exciting thing to think of is the relationship between people and the world in which they live. This idea engages me so much that it frequently makes me lose all track of time, and I cannot get distracted from it by anything else.

The concept of humans place in the world and their connections with other species is not new, but no research can be sufficient to explain all the aspects of this concept. For me, the most interesting questions have always been the ones associated with the place of people in the world. It seems to me that humans overestimate their importance and undermine the significance of animals and plants in the natural course of events. People think that because they have analytical skills, they are superior to other species.

However, it has always occurred to me that the role of nonhuman animals has always been underrated. Humans kill animals for clothes and exploit them in circuses and laboratories, though they have no moral right to do so.

An important aspect of the issue of coexistence between species is peoples inconsiderate exploitation of natural resources. Very often, large corporations and governments are ready to destroy wilderness that is home to rare species of plants and animals merely to gain more power or wealth. I could never understand how thoughtless one can be when it comes to the matter of gaining money. I cannot comprehend why some individuals choose wealth over spiritual development and why the richer the person is, the less likely he or she is to help those in need.

Another issue of the topic that is fascinating for me is the history of the world, the planet, and space. Even as a child, I could spend hours looking at maps and following the track of the stars. It has always amused me how scientists living many centuries ago managed to explore space and gain accurate results. What concerns the inventions of contemporary scientists, I am speechless. So many fascinating discoveries have been made that I cannot but wonder how clever people are and how beneficial their findings can be for humanity. At the same time, it is strange why there are so many ecological disasters if people can think of solutions to reduce their number.

When I want to learn more about the topic, I resort to books, articles, video lessons, and other educational materials that offer information on a variety of natural processes. The more resources are available, the more eager I become to learn something new. Also, I attend workshops and open lectures where I can discuss some issues with other people who are interested in the same problems. I think that exchanging opinions and sharing views can promote a better understanding of natural phenomena.

Learning about the connections existing between people and other species has always been the most captivating thing for me. I enjoy investigating new concepts and analyzing the existing ones. Probably the only issue which I cannot understand is why some people treat nature so thoughtlessly as if they have some spare planet hidden in a safe. I am convinced that it is time for humanity to stop and think about its effect on life on this planet.

In his Enquiry, David Hume considers the unique relationship between necessity and liberty. It is in section VIII of the Enquiry that Hume notes the existing dispute between the two. In his work, Hume views liberty as the work not to act or act in accordance with the determination of what he calls the will.

On the other hand, Hume defines the concept of necessity as the kind of uniformity observed in the unique operations and processes in nature (Hume 35). In his work, Hume states that a liberty is the negation of causes and necessity. However, liberty tends to have no existence and therefore it makes morality extremely impossible.

Hume therefore uses the idea to define necessity as the constant conjunction existing between objects and interference or motivation of the mind from an object to the next. With this understanding in our minds, Hume uses the concepts to explain how we can evaluate actions from a moral point of view or not.

However, Hume asserts that are actions subject to moral evaluation cannot be distinguished from the actions take place without a cause. He therefore uses this understanding to explain that free actions result from our human will (Hume 36). On the other hand, he argues that unfree actions result by external causes to the individual.

From this account by David Hume, it notable he offers a relationship between necessity and liberty. The philosopher states that our desires and willingness to act as human beings determines our liberty (the ability to act or not act). If the action occurs from the agents desires, then such an action is voluntary.

If the action does not result from the agents willingness, it is termed as involuntary. Hume uses this notion to explain the relationship between necessity and liberty. If a person decides to act because of some constraint or violence, which is the individuals liberty, then this becomes a necessitated action.

This means that the action does not spring from the will of the individual (Hume 42). That being the case, Hume says that such action cannot be connected or attributed to the person.

Liberty, as presented and defined by David Hume, is the need to act in a given manner or not to act. For this to take place or not to, Hume asserts that the determinations of the human free will are very important and cannot be ignored (Hume 36). This means that any action will result from the will of an individual. The action or behavior results from external force acting on the individual.

It means that an action can be from free will, and if it does, then placing judgment on the individual is necessary. This means that the punishment or judgment of the doer of the action is has found it deep in himself to do so. This has been a source of debate and argument regarding the extent to which an action should be determined as caused or not.

On the other hand, Hume argues that human beings or the society should not condemn or judge actions caused by an external force such as violence. This is because the individual had to make the decision from a cause, and not from his free will.

The causing factor to an act is where the issue of necessity comes in (Hume 36). The philosopher uses these two concepts to explain their relationship with each other. He also explains how they can help to pursue higher justice in the society.

If an event forced the individual to act or behave in a certain manner, this makes the individual innocent of the actions. In such condition, he should not be condemned because the liberty resulted of an external force. From the philosophers argument, we observe that actions can result from our free will or be determined.

This forms the basis of the relationship between necessity and liberty according to Hume. For people to act in a given manner, the actions should be dependent on necessity (Hume 42).

Because of the kind of relationship explained by Hume between liberty and necessity, there is a lot desirable about the way people behave in the society and how they act. The issue of necessity explores how actions in their natural form relate with one another.

This also explains why such actions are pre-determined (Hume 42). With the knowledge, philosophers and scholars have used the concepts to address the issues of free will and human determinism. Different philosophers have supported the relationship offered by Hume about the two terms while others have disregarded the opinions as unacceptable and inapplicable in the modern society (Hume 43).

If an action is caused or necessitated, the individual cannot be responsible for such actions. From this argument, I believe that Humes view on necessity and liberty are not plausible at all. According to Humes views, the same ideas or motives will always the same kind of actions.

This is something debatable because our actions will vary depending on their specific cause (Hume 44). It is because of this that freedom and will have been widely discussed.

Another thing that makes the philosophers account unreasonable is because he does not explain the moral foundation for not punishing some form of actions simply based on their causation. This has been an issue of debate among sociologists and other philosophers regarding the issue of free will, determinism, and social deviance.

Through Humes arguments and opinions, individuals might decide to act in a certain manner that threatens a social order. As a result, the moral underpinning of the society remains questionable (Hume 42). While there are some convincing ideas and observations presented by the philosopher, it is necessary to view the opinion as non-plausible because it does not offer moral arguments and support of a free society.

The assertion that the same kind of motives will always produce the same kind of action and behavior is another issue of conjecture with Humes presentation. He also asserts that the same events will always follow the same kind of causes. It is important to agree that this kind of opinion is really questionable and debatable because there are other forces leading to different actions and behaviors (Hume 46).

It is because of these issues and arguments that the discussion and presentation of necessity and liberty by David Hume have continued to form an important part of determinism and relationship with human free will. In conclusion, Humes argument and account fails to offer a solution to most of the moral problems faced by humankind today.

Works Cited

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.