New Product Proposal and Development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

New Product Proposal and Development - Essay Example   The small innovations typically make up for more than 80% of the development of the company (Annacchino, 25). These events do not lead to the growth that the company hopes to get in the end. R-W-W directs the project to answer six important questions, which are, does the product have a real market? Does the company produce a genuine product? Can the commodity compete with other products? Will the organization compete with others? Is the product return profitable at a particular risk? Is it logic to launch the product?  Ã‚   Does the product have a real market?Establishing if the market exists is an important factor to its growth.   The new technology has a real market because it has passed the qualities of the market (Day, 03). The charger has been able to shape the quality of the market because of its quality. Apple and Samsung are the main producers of smart phones in the world. The phones they produce do not come with a portable charger. It means the charger will have a re ady market for the charger. The need of portable kinetic charger is growth due to diversity of products.  Ã‚  Will the organization compete with others?  Individuals will choose the charger over other because of one or more features it possesses. The charger would improve on the existing charging solutions in the industry. The market has been there for a long time and it indicates that the portable kinetic charger will, compete with other corporations. The high use of mobile phones and other devices has become a community norm.

The New Right Essay Example for Free

The New Right Essay The New Right, as it is called, has had a phenomenal impact in Britain and the United States since 1979. Both its successes and failures have led to an intense ongoing debate, especially within the British Conservative Party, as to what extent the New Right represents a departure or continuance of, what some perceive as, traditional Conservatism. The long and rich past of the Party has made the citation of a particular period of its history, as being either a source or illustration of traditional Conservatism, very difficult indeed. Nonetheless, certain tenants transcend the breadth of its history to form the criteria by which the New Right can be judged. Conservatism is, first and foremost, composed of many conflicting strands of thought. It does not stand as a monolithic ideology offering an unalterable set of prescriptions which configure to some preconceived, and as yet, unrealised ideal of society. It is not surprising then that there are many conservatives who would deny the attribution of ideology to their beliefs.1 British Conservatism is, therefore, more accurately, characterised by the prevailing strand or grouping at any given time. This displays a fundamental point, namely that Conservatism avoids being ideological because it is, by nature, not. By contrast, one of the most striking aspects of the New Right is its strong ideological fervour. Margaret Thatcher and her mentors, like Sir Keith Joseph, were fired up by the battle they believed they were waging against the damaging post-war consensus and the pernicious ideology of socialism. Unlike previous incarnations of Conservatism, Thatcherism (which is the British New Right) relied heavily on actual thinkers and academics rather than the traditional sort of ancestral wisdom which was personified by Harold Macmillan: who had once said distrust the clever man. In light of this, it is of little surprise then that John Stuart Mill referred to the Tories as the stupid party.2 Although having borrowed from Adam Smith in the early nineteenth century the Conservatives by no means had a Karl Marx. Thatcher felt that this traditional absence of a strong ideology was a disadvantage. She is reported to have said after her election as Party leader in 1975 that: We must have an ideology. The other side have got an ideology that they can test their policies against. We must have one as well. This is where Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and the Centre for Policy Studies came in. The Conservative Party had not witnessed this degree of ideological zeal before and it represents something of a departure. It also worked exclusively thereby distancing itself, maybe misleadingly, to what had gone before. Thatcherites saw each MP as either wet (meaning a paternalistic Conservative) or as a dry (an ideologue). The wet Ian Gilmour (dismissed from the Cabinet in 1981) entitled his assault on Thatcherism Dancing with Dogma. It has passed into Thatcher legend how being one of us was the only way to gain favour. The importance of this term is reflected in how it was used as the title of Hugo Youngs acclaimed biography of Margaret Thatcher. This ideologicalism is a departure but it does not represent a complete break with the past. Most Conservatives today, who speak of traditional Conservatism, refer to a paternalistic aspect which reached its zenith in the period after the Second World War up until about Edward Heath. It is usually identified by language which stems from Disraeli and his references to One Nation from his novel Sybil in 1845. It is highly debatable as to whether this is indeed the most traditional form of Conservatism because it did, after all, contain some facets which differed from the eras of Edmund Burke and Robert Peel. Indeed, some of the differences within Conservatism are reflected in the tremendous difference between these two giants of Toryism or Conservatism alone. This complexity is not surprising considering the Partys long history which has seen Conservatives adapt and respond to changing circumstances in order to meet the needs of the Nation and Party. What the two figures above illustrate is a form of Conservatism which reflected the needs of the period within which it had to exist and survive. It also allows for the fair conclusion that traditional Conservatism emerged, in frail form, under Peel in the mid-nineteenth century to embrace its belief in measured and progressive change with a sense of compassion. Although this overview implies differences with the New Right there are also similarities. The New Right fits in with the Conservative tradition of rising to the needs of Nation and Party and is an example of typical Conservative adaptability. It is, after all, the worlds oldest and most successful political party. Peel dramatically refashioned the Tory Party by moving it in a new direction, despite hostile opposition, to expand its base of support and to deal with the land-owning elitism of politics. A tradition continued to a different extent by Disraeli. Much the same could be said for Thatcherism, which pressed unreservedly for the end of the broadly accepted status-quo. Keynesianism (which was already being gently questioned under Jim Callaghan) and corporatism were held responsible for British decline and she aimed to obliterate them. Again, it ushered the Party further in a new direction away from its previous acceptance of such arrangements and the general consensus which had surrounded the essential matters of politics since the War. The Party examined itself and the national condition, remodelling itself accordingly. This is a very distinctive Conservative tradition. The New Right did, however, abandon any notions of paternalism and instead emphasised the importance of economics in emancipating the individual. Economics was above politics. This brought the New Right into conflict with the One Nationists who felt, like P. Norton and A. Aughey in 1981, that the disposition towards economic policy may entail the disseveration of the concept of One Nation.3 The emphasis on free markets, deregulation and an non-interfering state has a strong tradition in Conservatism which stretches back to the publication of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations. It was, however, a departure from post-war Conservatism. There had always been mixed and opposing views within Conservatism on the merits of capitalism. Lord Hailsham had criticised capitalism as an ungodly and rapacious scramble for ill-gotten gains whereas Burke before him regarded the laws of commerce as being the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God.4 In this respect the New Right had roots within the longer history of Conservatism. The ferocity with which it economic policies were pursued, in the face of stiff opposition, represented something of a departure in the broad consensus of post-war Britain. It was really a return to the traditional policies pursued by Conservatives before 1940 rather than a revolutionary new approach. This also illustrates how difficult it is to define traditional Conservatism. It is misleading however to consider this conversion or reversion as something which began suddenly with Thatcher. The New Right had come to exist after a period of gradual change and modification to Conservatism which began under Edward Heath. The 1979 Party manifesto contained many similarities with one of 1970. Admittedly, this does not account for what came after, in subsequent General Elections. The Selsdon mentality bore parallels with the New Right in moving towards a radical, technocratic questioning of institutions, customs and ideas.5 Heath had shown the same propensity to dispense with the past where necessary when he said: we are going to build on the past but we are not going to be strangled by it5 The New Right aroused tension in the party because, unlike Heath, it saw itself as ideological and was wholly unwilling to compromise. Yet, t is crucial to mention, in this context, that compromise had never really been a feature of traditional Conservatism. It only came to be regarded so in the consensus of post-war Britain. The New Right represented a visible continuation in continually pertaining, mainly in rhetoric, to various nebulous concepts in which all Conservatives take refuge: Nation, Church, Monarchy, Family, Authority, the Rule of Law, Order, Hierarchy, Deference, Community and so forth.6 The New Right held to virtually all of these in its rhetoric. This is advantageous because each of these concepts, as all Conservatives know well, unites each of them as well as being able to transcend class in their appeal. The New Right was hugely populist and classless, keeping to a later Conservative tradition as the franchise was extended in the last century. Some, but not all, traditional Conservatives feel, however, that the New Right has undermined Conservative values due to its own inherent contradictions. A few examples are the conflict between meritocracy and monarchy or community and individualism. The New Right chose to be opposed to constitutional reform (unlike almost every other leader since Peel) while fundamentally altering institutions such as the Civil Service and Local Government. Maybe it is the undermining of traditional Conservative concepts that lays the New Right open to the accusation that it un-Conservative. It could be retorted that it is a belief in certain traditional Conservative values which has bred the contradictions and anomalies in Thatcherism by splitting the New Right between Traditionalists or Authoritarians and the Libertarians. The former wish to maintain traditional Conservative values while also pursuing a New Right agenda. Arguably it is the latter, represented by MPs like Alan Duncan, which are the departure from traditional or any other form of Conservatism. Thatcher represented the dominant Traditionalist grouping which Alan Clarke has stated is really Gladstonian Liberalism. In his view Thatcher was not really a Conservative. Heath is of the same opinion. In 1985 Heath wrote: I dont believe that what we have now is true Conservatism. Its 1860 Laissez-Faire Liberalism.7 Yes, Thatcherism does have many similarities, in domestic terms, to the Liberalism of the past century. What is negated in this argument is that Gladstone had been a Peelite and was once regarded as a future Conservative leader. So, if Thatcherism is neo-liberalism it does not necessarily mean it is not traditional Conservatism. Her domestic view was indeed Gladstonian but her foreign policy view was, to muddy the issue further, closer to Disraeli and that of Winston Churchill (a former Liberal). The foreign policy of Thatcher (excluding Europe because it defies categorisation) was very Conservative indeed, and the Falklands is considered its proudest achivevement. The New Right has been found not to be a departure in all key aspects so it must therefore be concluded that it represents a continuation it is not separate from traditional Conservatism. There are too many threads within it which relate to Conservative history and values for it to be considered a break with what had gone before. It did not or does not seem a blatant continuation because, as time wore on, it increasingly sought to exclude or sideline those who held reservations about the New Right project (the One Nationists). The New Right thrived on confrontation by constantly defining itself by what it was against. Its abandonment of consensus meant it departed from post-war Conservatism but not from traditional Conservatism per se. Sir Robert Peel, back in 1846, had split the entire party due to his refusal to compromise over protectionism for the land-owning classes. By contrast, the Party managed to hold together under the leadership of Thatcher for ten years and even went on to win a further Election in 1992. A simple majority of MPs had supported Thatcher in the internal ballot of 1989. There must have been common ground under the New Right for all this to have been achieved. The New Right saw themselves as an ascendant strand of traditional Conservatism and did not regard themselves as a complete departure. Between lasting values and changing circumstances there must be a constant dialogue Thatcher had said in 1977. It was or is its uncharacteristic ideologicalism which obfuscates the issue of continuity making it seem like a departure. It refused compromise and objected to any tempering of what it thought the best way to proceed. The New Right was not really new because it related to many aspects of Conservatism which had gone before: the New Right is in fact a renewed Right. It prized freedom, was thrift, classless, populist, nationalistic or patriotic and authoritarian to name but a few. Neither its contradictions or an erroneous view of traditional conservatism should allow it to be labelled a wholesale departure from traditional Conservatism, it is not.

The Impact of Dr. Kings Vision on My Life :: Personal Narrative Writing

The Impact of Dr. King's Vision on My Life In the summer of 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went to Chicago, Illinois, to further press his campaign of equal rights for all Americans. Dr. King led a march through Chicago and some of its neighboring suburbs to promote that ideal. To many, this march is best known for the negative treatment of the peaceful demonstrators in the more racially prejudiced suburbs of Chicago: Berwyn and Cicero. When the demonstrators reached those two suburbs, rocks and bottles were hurled at them by onlookers who did not agree with the peaceful beliefs of Dr. King and others participating in the march. However, Dr. King was prepared for this kind of reaction and made sure men stood at the front and back lines of the group; he also had men placed on the outside of each line as protection for the women and children marching. These men became known as Dr. King's lieutenants. My father was seventeen at the time of this march, and Dr. King used him as one of his lieutenants. Moreover, Dr. King met sepa rately with his lieutenants in groups of five to ten at a time; therefore, my father had the privilege of having a private meeting with one of the great leaders in history. He described his encounter with Dr. King as one of the best experiences in his entire life, and the only other person whose impact would have been as great is Jesus. My father feels that way because like Jesus, Dr. King was willing to die for his people. The meeting between Dr. King and my father has had a major impact on my life because Dr. King showed my father and several others peaceful means of obtaining their goals, and these teachings have reciprocated to me. Three key ideals that Dr. King exemplified in his meeting with my father were to show respect for women, to use peace and not violence, and to not give up in the face of adversity. The sheer fact that my father served as one of Dr. King's lieutenants proves that Dr. King stressed the importance of respect for women. He did not want women or children to be subjected to the dangers of hurling objects while they were marching. He felt that the men should stand on the outside to protect the women and children who marched. The Impact of Dr. King's Vision on My Life :: Personal Narrative Writing The Impact of Dr. King's Vision on My Life In the summer of 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. went to Chicago, Illinois, to further press his campaign of equal rights for all Americans. Dr. King led a march through Chicago and some of its neighboring suburbs to promote that ideal. To many, this march is best known for the negative treatment of the peaceful demonstrators in the more racially prejudiced suburbs of Chicago: Berwyn and Cicero. When the demonstrators reached those two suburbs, rocks and bottles were hurled at them by onlookers who did not agree with the peaceful beliefs of Dr. King and others participating in the march. However, Dr. King was prepared for this kind of reaction and made sure men stood at the front and back lines of the group; he also had men placed on the outside of each line as protection for the women and children marching. These men became known as Dr. King's lieutenants. My father was seventeen at the time of this march, and Dr. King used him as one of his lieutenants. Moreover, Dr. King met sepa rately with his lieutenants in groups of five to ten at a time; therefore, my father had the privilege of having a private meeting with one of the great leaders in history. He described his encounter with Dr. King as one of the best experiences in his entire life, and the only other person whose impact would have been as great is Jesus. My father feels that way because like Jesus, Dr. King was willing to die for his people. The meeting between Dr. King and my father has had a major impact on my life because Dr. King showed my father and several others peaceful means of obtaining their goals, and these teachings have reciprocated to me. Three key ideals that Dr. King exemplified in his meeting with my father were to show respect for women, to use peace and not violence, and to not give up in the face of adversity. The sheer fact that my father served as one of Dr. King's lieutenants proves that Dr. King stressed the importance of respect for women. He did not want women or children to be subjected to the dangers of hurling objects while they were marching. He felt that the men should stand on the outside to protect the women and children who marched.

Presocratic Philosophy Essay

Although Aristotle’s statement is too slight to serve as a sure foundation for judgment, it seems more likely that Thales was arguing for the broader presence of life forces in the world than most people imagined, rather than that the real in its totality is alive. Anaximander Thales’ younger contemporary from Miletus, Anaximander, born toward the end of the seventh century B. C. E. , found the explanatory principle of things in what he called ‘‘the apeiron,’’ a word that might be translated as ‘‘the indefinite,’’ ‘‘the boundless,’’ or both. This opens up the possibility that the apeiron is both immeasurably large in its temporal and physical extent and also qualitatively indefinite in that it is without measurable inner boundaries. The apeiron is further described, according to Aristotle, as being ‘‘without beginning,’’ ‘‘surrounding all things,’’ ‘‘steering all things,’’ ‘‘divine,’’ ‘‘immortal,’’ and ‘‘indestructible. ’’Some have inferred that Anaximander’s barely concealed purpose was Western philosophy’s first attempt at demythologization. Equally striking is Anaximander’s description of the universe as a closed, concentric system, the outer spheres of which, by their everlasting motion, account for the stability of our earth, a drum-shaped body held everlastingly in a state of equipoise at the center. Whatever the inadequacy in certain details (the stars are placed nearer to the earth than the moon), with Anaximander the science of cosmological speculation took a giant step forward. As far as life on earth is concerned, Anaximander offered another striking hypothesis. The first living things, according to him, were ‘‘born in moisture, enclosed in thorny barks’’ (like sea urchins), and ‘‘as their age increased, they came forth onto the drier part’’ (as phrased by Aetius [first to second century C. E. ]). Pythagoras Although we know that Pythagoras was a historical figure, it is difficult to determine exactly what Pythagoras himself taught. He wrote nothing, and the ideas of other members of the community were attributed to him as a sign of respect and as a way of lending weight to the ideas. Plato and Aristotle rarely assign ideas to Pythagoras himself, although Pythagorean ideas seem to have influenced Plato’s philosophy. Pythagoreans asserted that number is the first principle of all things. They were the first systematic developers of mathematics in the West and discovered that natural events could be described in mathematical terms, especially as ratios. To the Pythagoreans, the â€Å"principle of number† accounted for everything. Number was a real thing. Somehow, numbers existed in space, not just as mental constructs. According to Pythagorean doctrine, the entire universe is an ordered whole consisting of harmonies of contrasting elements. The Greek for â€Å"ordered whole† is cosmos. The Pythagoreans were the first philosophers to use the term cosmos to refer to the universe in this way. The â€Å"celestial music of the spheres† is the hauntingly beautiful phrase the Pythagoreans coined to describe the sound of the heavens as they rotate according to cosmic number and harmony. Xenophanes A fourth Ionian philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon, born around 580 B. C. E. , s the first we know of to overtly attack the anthropomorphism of popular religious belief, in a series of brilliant reductio ad absurdum arguments. His own view has been understood, ever since Aristotle, as pantheistic. Xenophanes was also the first philosopher we know of to ask what degree of knowledge is attainable. In B34 we read: ‘‘the clear and certain truth no man has seen, nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods and what I say about all things. ’’ Several ancient critics took this to be an indication of Xenophanes’ total scepticism. On this basis of moderate empiricism and scepticism, Xenophanes offered a number of opinions of varying plausibility about the natural world, one of which—a strong, evolutionary interpretation of the discovery on various islands of fossils of marine animals—is enough to constitute a major claim to fame in natural philosophy and ranks with his other significant steps in epistemology (the theory of knowledge dealing with what we know, how we know it, and how reliable our knowledge is), logic (the study of rational inquiry and argumentation), and natural theology (the attempt to understand God from natural knowledge). Heraclitus One of the most important and enigmatic of the Presocratics, Heraclitus (fl . 500 b. c. e. , d. 510–480 b. c. e. ), said that ignorance is bound to result when we try to understand the cosmos when we do not even comprehend the basic structure of the human psyche (soul) and its relationship to the Logos. The complex Greek word logos is intriguing. It could and at times did mean all of the following: â€Å"intelligence,† â€Å"speech,† â€Å"discourse,† â€Å"thought,† â€Å"reason,† â€Å"word,† â€Å"meaning,† â€Å"study of,† â€Å"the record of,† â€Å"the science of,† â€Å"the fundamental principles of,† â€Å"the basic principles and procedures of a particular discipline,† â€Å"those features of a thing that make it intelligible to us,† and â€Å"the rationale for a thing. † The Heraclitean capital L Logos is like God, only without the anthropomorphizing (humanizing) of the earlier philosophers and poets who attributed human qualities to the gods. According to Heraclitus’s impersonal view of God, the Logos is a process, not an entity. As such, the Logos is unconcerned with individuals and human affairs, in much the same way that gravity affects us but is unconcerned with us. More radically yet, Heraclitus asserted that even though things appear to remain the same, â€Å"Change alone is unchanging. † Traditionally, it has been held that Heraclitus went so far as to claim that everything is always changing all the time. But whether he really meant that everything is always changing, or that individual things are held together by energy (change), remains unclear. Anaximenes Anaximander’s younger contemporary, Anaximenes, who lived during the sixth century B. C. E. appears to revert to a prior and less sophisticated vision in claiming that the earth, far from being a drum-shaped body held in equipoise at the center, is flat and ‘‘rides on,’’ supported by air. The same might be said of his contention that the basic, ‘‘divine’’ principle of things was not some indefinite entity but something very much part of our experience; namely, air. Anaximenes’ view would also no doubt have seemed to be corroborated by the fact that the universe, commonly understood as a living thing and hence needing a soul to vivify it, possessed in air that very ‘‘breath’’ that for most Greeks constituted the essence of such a soul. Parmenides Parmenides of Elea (fift h century b. c. e. ) radically transformed the early philosophers’ interest in cosmology, the study of the universe as a rationally ordered system (cosmos), into ontology, the study of being. By common agreement he was the giant among the pre-Socratics. According to Parmenides, none of his predecessors adequately accounted for the process by which the one basic stuff of the cosmos changes into the many individual things we experience every day. In his search for a solution to the problem of â€Å"the one and the many,† Parmenides turned to a reasoned analysis of the process of change itself. According to Parmenides, all sensations occur in the realm of appearance. This means that reality cannot be apprehended by the senses. Change and variety (the many) are only appearances; they are not real. If this is true, then our most commonly held beliefs about reality are mere opinions. The senses cannot recognize â€Å"what is,† much less can they discover—observe—it, ever. In other words, whatever we see, touch, taste, hear, or smell is not real, does not exist. Perhaps most unsettling of all, Parmenides â€Å"solved† the problem of the appearance of change by concluding—in direct opposition to Heraclitus’s insistence that everything is always changing—that the very concept of change is self-contradictory. What we think of as change is merely an illusion. The logic runs as follows: â€Å"Change† equals transformation into something else. When a thing becomes â€Å"something else,† it becomes what it is not. But since it is impossible for â€Å"nothing† (what is not) to exist, there is no â€Å"nothing† into which the old thing can disappear. (There is no â€Å"no place† for the thing to go into. ) Therefore, change cannot occur. Empedocles posited, against Parmenides, change and plurality as features of reality, but affirmed the eternality of anything that is real; the sphere-like nature of the real when looked at as a totality and the fact that the real is a plenum, containing no ‘‘nothingness’’ or ‘‘emptiness’’. Anaxagoras likewise posited change, plurality, and divisibility as features of reality, yet also affirmed the eternality of the real (understood by him as an eternally existent ‘‘mixture’’ of the ‘‘seeds’’ of the things currently constituting the world, rather than the eternal combinings and recombinings, according to certain ratios of admixture, of four eternally existent ‘‘roots’’ or elemental masses). Leucippus Leucippus of Miletus (c. fi ft h century b. c. e. ) and Democritus of Abdera (c. 460–370 b. . e. ) argued that reality consists entirely of empty space and ultimately simple entities that combine to form objects. T is materialistic view is known as atomism. Leucippus is credited with being the originator of atomism and Democritus with developing it. Rather than reject Parmenides’ assertion that change is an illusion, Leucippus argued that reality consists of many discrete â€Å"ones ,† or beings. Zeno Zeno, who was born early in the fifth century B. C. E. , was a friend and pupil of Parmenides. In his famous paradoxes he attempted to show by a series of reductio ad absurdum arguments, of which the best known is perhaps that of Achilles and the tortoise, the self-contradictory consequences of maintaining that there is a real plurality of things or that motion or place are real. The prima facie brilliance of many of the arguments continues to impress people, though it soon becomes clear that the paradoxes turn largely on the failure or unwillingness of Zeno, like so many Pythagoreans of the day, to distinguish between the concepts of physical and geometrical space. Zeno’s way of constructing the problem makes it seem that his primary object is to defame pluralists by attacking the logical possibility of explaining how there can be motion in the world. Gorgias Gorgias has achieved fame for the stress he laid upon the art of persuasion (‘‘rhetoric’’), although whether he wrote the baffling On What Is Not as a serious piece of persuasive reasoning or as some sort of spoof of the Eleatic philosophy of Parmenides and others remains disputed. Its basic, and remarkable, claim is prima facie, that nothing in fact is (exists /is the case [esti] or is knowable or conceivable. Any exiguous plausibility that the arguments supporting this claim possess turns on our overlooking Gorgias’s failure, witting or unwitting, to distinguish carefully between knowing and thinking, along with his various uses of the verb ‘‘to be. ’’ If the failure was witting, the document can be seen as a skillful device for the spotting of fallacies as part of training in rhetoric and basic reasoning. If it was unwitting, Gorgias still emerges as what he was claimed to be—a deft rhetorical wordsmith on any topic proposed to him. Protagoras Perhaps the greatest of the Sophists was Protagoras of Abdera (481– 411 b. c. e. ). Protagoras was an archetypal Sophist: an active traveler and first-rate observer of other cultures who noted that although there are a variety of customs and beliefs, each culture believes unquestioningly that its own ways are right—and roundly condemns (or at least criticizes) views that differ from its own. Based on his observations and travels, Protagoras concluded that morals are nothing more than the social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. The details of Protagoras’s beliefs remain disputed. When he said, for example, that ‘‘anthropos [humanity] is a/the measure for all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not,’’ it is unclear whether he is talking about one person or the sum total of persons; about ‘‘a’’ measure or ‘‘the’’ measure (there is no definite article in Greek); or about existence or states of affairs or both. The Platonic reading in the Theaetetus, which takes ‘‘anthropos’’ as generic and ‘‘measure’’ as exclusive, led to the assertion that the logical consequence was total (and absurd) relativism. ______________________________ References: The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. Richard H. Popkin. Columbia University Press. 1999. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Douglas J. Soccio. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2010.

Environmental Protection Essay

Environmental protection is an increasingly pressing issue all over the world. Ozone depletion, green house effect, global climate changes or global warming, etc, are the main issues in environment. Recent years, many countries and various organizations have paid more attention into environmental protection. A treaty about global environmental protection was discussed by 192 nations in Copenhagen in December 2011. But I fell every individual on this earth should make sacrifices to prevent environment changes. Yes it is the need of the hour. We should protect the world for the future generations. Why? It is because of mans greed he has the once beahtiful earth into a rubbish of Earth. He has increased his numbers to terrible proportions, has caused the death of hundreds of species of animals, has robbed and destroyed the planet in his search for fuels; now he stands, like a violent, spoilt child, delighted at the speed of his rise to power, It is he who is on the edge of the final mass destruction and of killing all the life which exists in the solar system. The Earth is our home but much of it is dirty and dying. Rapid industrial development caused a lot of ecological problems. They are: air pollution, water pollution, growth of population and shortage of mineral resources. Air becomes polluted with Cars, trucks, buses, airplanes, factories and plants send burnt gases into the air. The production of electricity causes not only air pollution but acid rains and global warming. Because of acid rains the Earth losses twenty million acres of tropical rainforests every year. This means the extinction of thousands of species that live there, for example tigers. Only 67 thousand tigers remain. Tigers are hunted and killed for their body parts. Ozone layer is destroyed too and the dangerous rays get through the atmosphere causing skin cancer and other diseases. Most of the air pollutants directly affect the respiratory and cardiovascular systems Nitrogen dioxide and ozone also effect the respiratory system, irritate the eyes, nose and throat and headaches. Carbon monoxide is able to displace oxygen in the blood which in turn can result in cardiovascular and neurological effects. Lead affects bone narrow, impairs liver and kidney function, causes neurological damage and also causes mental retardation in children. Oceans are vital for the life on Earth. We need to protect it. They provide homes for millions of plants and animals, provide people with food and help regulate the climate. But now they are a big dumping ground for tons of toxic waste. Most big cities pour their waste into seas and rivers. Water pollution is due to mixture of dirt, sewage and industrial waste , increased use of fertilizers and insecticides that seep through the earth and pollute the ground water As a result, there are numerous health problems like dysentery, cholera and paratyphoid fever. Noise pollution is yet another problem that the researchers say causes ulcers, abortions, cardiovascular diseases and hypertension besides several mental disorders. Checking of environmental pollution has been absolutely necessary. if it is not checked, the earth will become a graveyard. So we must give due attention to protect it from our own abuses. We must have balanced and planned industrial growth in order to check thin pollution. Towns and cities should be planned very carefully and stress should be given on planting of more trees. I would like to dwell on practical measures which must be taken in order to improve the ecological situation: -the factories must be removed from cities; -have balanced and planned industrial growth -purifying systems for cleaning and trapping harmful substances must be widely used; -green zones must be created by planting more trees. -almost everything is recyclable today – recycling is a great way to reduce waste. We need clean air to breathe and pure water to drink. So we have to prevent disposal of toxic waste and nuclear tests. I feel formal education programmed should be provided and implemented for the environ ­mental protection We need to conserve resources like water by planting rain water harvest in our houses Earth is the only planet endowed with a beautiful environment for man to live We should pass it on to our future generation as their legacy. Protect our earth today for our children tomorrow.