Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant Free Essays

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view. Metaphysics is usually taken to involve both questions of what is existence and what types of things exist; in order to answer either questions, one will find itself using and investigating the concepts of being. Aristotle  proposed the first of these investigations which he called ‘first philosophy’, also known as ‘the science of being’ however overtime his writings came to be best known as ‘Metaphysics’ in which he studied being qua being with a central theme of how substance may be defined as a category of being. We will write a custom essay sample on Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant or any similar topic only for you Order Now Kant who is a nominalist criticized both Aristotelian and therefore realists’ ideas of metaphysics by suggesting that they seek to go beyond the limits of human knowledge. Furthermore Kant argued that the structure of the world as it is in itself is unreachable to us; metaphysicians must be content to explain the structure of our thinking about that world. In this essay I will examine the two main exponents of such a doctrine in favor of realists by looking at the main differences of Metaphysics as Aristotle and Kant conceive it, which is centered on the all important question of whether metaphysics is a science of mind or of being. There have been disagreements between philosophers about the nature of metaphysics; Aristotle sometimes characterizes the discipline as the attempt to identify the first cause or better referred to as the unmoved mover and other times as the very universal science of being qua being. It is however important to remember that both of these characterizations identify one and the same discipline. On the other hand the empiricists and Kant were critical of both Aristotelian and rationalist ideas of metaphysics, by arguing that both disciplines seek to exceed the limits of human knowledge. Kant argued that the structure of the world as it is in itself is inaccessible to us and that metaphysicians must be content to describe the structure of our thinking about that world. Realists such as Plato and Aristotle maintain that for language to even exist there must be some universal quality to phenomenon. To elaborate, human beings do not discuss each object as a completely independent entity to be analyzed but rather draw comparisons to other known objects to compile a series of properties to categorize it. Nominalists, on the other hand, while not denying that humans group things together by virtue of certain qualities, maintain that this is simply a convention of language based on people’s perception of them. Just because two objects share the same perceptible quality does not necessarily warrant grouping them together in any real way; it’s simply a human way of making sense of reality through the senses. As soon as one asks the most basic questions of ‘what is Aristotelian Metaphysics? What study does Aristotle believe himself to be undertaking in these essays? you find yourself, baffled immediately. ‘Metaphysics’ is in fact a compilation of a number of Aristotle’s writings that later on editors put together. It has a central theme of an inquiry into how substance may be defined as a category of being. Book Gamma appears to start on characterizing something which Aristotle calls ‘the science of being qua being’ and then goes on to a discussion of the principle of non contradiction. â€Å"There is science which investigates being qua being and the attributes which belong to this in virtue of its own† (Warrington, 1956, P116). In order to study being qua being, one has to simply study those qualities which hold of entities in virtue of the fact that they are entities. What sort of attributes are qualities of entities qua being? Aristotle insists on unity or oneness as such a feature, on the grounds that everything – everything which exists is one thing. However Aristotle’s characterization of the subject raises a few doubts: why is there a need to restrict logic to entities? Is the word ‘qua’ appropriate? No doubt each entity is one thing but is it one thing qua being, or insofar as it exists? Although book Epsilon is rather brief, it shows a return to the science of being qua being and also passes some remarks on truth. â€Å"If there any immovable substances, then the science which deals with them must be prior, and it must be primary philosophy† (Loux, 2006, p14). This shows that the immoveable substances are divinities. Book Zeta appears to restrict our subject matter in a rather different way: ‘the question which, both now and in the past, is continually posed and continually puzzled over is this: what is being? That is to say, what is substance? This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics. â€Å"The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be ident ified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure† (Ross, 1996, p174). Books Zeta, Eta and Theta, together form the central part of the Metaphysics, with a focus on their general topic ‘substance’: its classification and relation to matter and forms, to actuality and to potentiality, to change and generation. According to Aristotle, there is one kind of being which is in the strictest and fullest sense, substance. What we don’t see in Metaphysics is Aristotle treating the categories as a whole. The substance is the whole thing, including the qualities, relations etc which form its essence and this can exist apart. Secondary substances being universals, cannot according to Aristotle’s own doctrine exist apart, but must be supplemented by the special qualities of their individual members. Substance is prior in definition; in defining a member of any other category you must include the definition of the underlying substance. Substance is prior for knowledge; we know a thing better when we know what is than when we know what quality, quantity or place it has. In this realist point of view substance is evidently being thought of not as the concrete thing but as the essential nature. And this double meaning spreads through Aristotle’s whole treatment of substance. The existence of substance and the distinction between it and other categories is for Aristotle self-evident. Kant on the other hand seems to suggest that the necessity for metaphysics is a psychological one, arising out of men’s desires which is the main difference between Aristotle and him; however I would argue against Kant that this is not the case and it is a logical necessity. It arises out of the mere pursuit of knowledge thus that pursuit, which we call science, is an attempt to think in a logical and systematic manner. This involves unraveling the presuppositions of our thoughts. Furthermore it involves discovering that some of them are relative presuppositions which have to be justified and that others are absolute presuppositions, which neither stand in need of justification nor can in fact be justified; and a person who has made this discovery is already a metaphysician. Kant intends to defend metaphysic and scientific knowledge by providing an accurate analysis of human reason. His theory is based on his discovery of synthetic a priori knowledge, judgments that are both informative and necessary. However I would argue against this nominalist point of you as there’s a problem with explaining how much judgment should arise, as well as to give an explanation of their truth. In other words The Critique of Pure Reason argues that the necessary metaphysical principles underlying all hypothetical knowledge originate in the pure forms of feeling and the intellect. Furthermore In Kant’s point of view, there are no universal concepts underlying reality, simply the phenomenon in front of us. Realists, on the other hand, maintain that all things that share the same property — for example, greenness for all things with the color green — are therefore linked by this property. Sharing this property implies possession of the same universal form. Nominalism posits that what is perceived is what exists in reality, whereas realists view a perceived object as the manifestation of a universal concept. Consequently, perception is not a one-to-one process of seeing something as it actually exists, but a synthesis of the underlying concept and real phenomena. Kant wrote the Critique of Pure Reason not as a piece of constructive metaphysical thinking, but it was placed before the public in order to move away from errors which had obstructed and did obstruct metaphysical thinking. In his preface, he argued that his view of Metaphysics is concerned with God, freedom and immortality; however as well as dealing with these subjects, it also signified an inquiry to which men could never be indifferent and which they would never renounce thus the question was no longer about whether people should have metaphysics or no metaphysics but whether they should have good metaphysics or bad metaphysics. He also argued that metaphysicians were to blame for this state of things and that a sounder metaphysics was not to be looked for until those errors had been cleared away. Kant’s way of accommodating both the Aristotelian and Newtonian world pictures alike- both natural teleology and natural mechanism is to ground both in the necessary possibility of rational human nature. According to Kant, the natural world is an objectively real material world in which human persons actually do exist, and consequently in which human persons must also be possible† (Hanna, 2006 , p15). Kant’s point is that if metaphysical knowledge is possible, it will share some of the distinctiveness of logic. For Kant, any science must be based on necessary principles as one would not be able to be certain of what theories are true if scientific principles were only contingent. However unlike logic, which is purely formal, metaphysics has content because it is the science of reality. For Kant, The Laws of logic are not absolute or universal they are in fact left with everything else knowable as phenomenal. ‘Nominalist is true’ and ‘A and Not A, cannot both be true’ are both true statements but only and only because this is the way our subjective minds structure and condition reality. They can never true in the universal and absolute sense without this phenomenological caution. For Kant these statements are not necessarily true (though it may be) outside of phenomenal experience. There is no question that Kant intends his theory of pure concepts to replace Aristotle’s theory of the categories. In his categories, Aristotle identified ten classes as the fundamental ontological types under which all things fall: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, posture, state, action and passion. He thought that things falling under all categories could be subject of essential predications, but only substances can keep their identities while undergoing change in time. In general the categories express metaphysical principles that set limits on meaningful discussions. Kant’s idea of categories differentiated from Aristotle’s in the sense that, he argued rather being empirical, in order for the categories to be successful, they must show that the concepts are pure and have originated in understanding rather than sensibility. In addition the list must include only fundamental concepts, and it must be systematic to ensure completeness. Kant believes it is possible to obtain a complete list because pure concepts express functions of the understanding, thus the key to a complete list is to assume that the understanding has one function. It can be argued that this method is an improvement over Aristotle’s who merely conducted an empirical survey of concepts, which can never guarantee the systematic completeness of the list. In Aristotle’s case it is unclear whether he saw it as a doctrine about things and their basic properties or about language and its basic predicates; whereas  Kant  quite explicitly used his categories as features of our way of thinking, and so applied them only to things as they appear to us, not as they really or ultimately are† (Barnes, 1995, p75). In conclusion Aristotle and Kant’s metaphysics differentiate in the sense that one is arguing in favor of rea lism and the other is arguing in favor of Nominalism. Although there is no doubt that both ideas have faults, the account I agree the most with is indeed Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics as it focuses on the logical necessity of metaphysics rather than psychological. The main differences between the two accounts can be seen in their treatment of perception, treatment of universals and treatment of language. Bibliography Ackrill, J. L. 1995. Aristotle. London: Routledge. 161 Allison, H. E. 2012. Essays on Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press Barnes, J. 1995. The Cambridge companion to Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Buroker, J. V. 2006. Kant’s Critique of pure reason: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Page 8 Collingwood, R. G, 1966. An essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hanna, R. 2006. Kant, Science and Human Nature. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Loux, J. 2006. Metaphysics a contemporary introduction. London: Routledge Ross, D. 1996. Aristotle. London: Routledge Shields, C. 2007. Aristotle. London: Routledge Gardner, S. 1999. Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge Smith, N. K. 2007. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Palgrave Macmillan Warrington, J. 1956. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. London: J. M. Dent Sons How to cite Difference in Metaphysics Between Aristotle and Kant, Papers

The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay Example For Students

The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Civil War was inevitable and regardless of the outcome on the fields of battle, the reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The Civil War and the reconstruction of the nation were bound to happen. There was a great diversity throughout the nation within the three sections. Differences in opinions and rules in slavery, economic and civilization differences are all examples of causes of the Civil War. However, the reconstruction of the nation was necessary, because the three sections needed each other to survive. We will write a custom essay on The Reconstruction of the Nation specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The Civil war was inevitable. Because of the great diversity between the North and the South, the Civil War was bound to happen. Slavery was one of the many causes of the Civil War. It presented a moral issue, since it dealt with human beings and invaded individual freedom and democratic ideals. Slavery greatly distinguished the South from the North, and was the major issue dividing the two sections. The differences in economy also added to the cause of the Civil War. The South had become agricultural, and the North had become industrial. These economic differences led to sectional rivalry on issues such as slavery and the protective tariff. The interpretation of the federal Union differed between the two sections as well. The South insisted that the federal Union was created by the states; therefore, any state had the right to secede. The North thought otherwise; they believed that people created the Union and no state had the right to secede. The South favored, and the North opposed the extension of slavery into the West. Most of the West became tied economically to the North by a network of railroads and trade. Southerners realized that Western lands were not suitable for cotton culture, and realized that they were losing Western support, and the South would remain a minority section in the Union. The North and the South had differences in civilization. A small aristocracy of influential planter families dominated the Southern civilization, compared to the more dynamic and democratic Northern civilization. This difference in civilizations made understanding each others point of view difficult, which added to the causes of the war. Lastly, people in both the North and the South exaggerated differences. The Northerners gave unfair stereotypes of Southern slave owners, as the Southerners did with free-soilers and Republicans. All of these elements added to the cause of the Civil War, and no single cause brought about the Civil War. The reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South, and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The simulation showed how one section depended upon the other two, as well as outside countries and states such as Great Britain, Japan, Hawaii and California for various things. Trade was one of the most important elements in the simulation. Trade routes were necessary for the shipment of raw materials, finished products, goods, and many more items. The South had full control of the most important water route, the Mississippi River. It was necessary for the West and the North to deal with the South to gain use of this water way. The west sold Kansas and land from Texas to Arkansas (excluding Missouri) to the South for a mere $2 million, but gained free use of the Mississippi River from Iowa to Louisiana. The North provided free use of the Mississippi River and agreed to prohibit use of the Mississippi River to the West. The West built a railroad throughout the West to the port of San Diego, which will be open to all. The South provided slaves to build a railroad from Alabama to Pennsylvania. .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .postImageUrl , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:hover , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:visited , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:active { border:0!important; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:active , .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5 .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u30aaba4b6232e25af954911c895e33a5:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Galileo Galilei Essay The North provided technical assistance and material to build the railroad. Both the North and the South had free use of the railroad. The West and the North agreed to constant trade for 20 years. The West sold cattle, . The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay Example For Students The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Civil War was inevitable and regardless of the outcome on the fields of battle, the reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The Civil War and the reconstruction of the nation were bound to happen. There was a great diversity throughout the nation within the three sections. Differences in opinions and rules in slavery, economic and civilization differences are all examples of causes of the Civil War. However, the reconstruction of the nation was necessary, because the three sections needed each other to survive. We will write a custom essay on The Reconstruction of the Nation specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The Civil war was inevitable. Because of the great diversity between the North and the South, the Civil War was bound to happen. Slavery was one of the many causes of the Civil War. It presented a moral issue, since it dealt with human beings and invaded individual freedom and democratic ideals. Slavery greatly distinguished the South from the North, and was the major issue dividing the two sections. The differences in economy also added to the cause of the Civil War. The South had become agricultural, and the North had become industrial. These economic differences led to sectional rivalry on issues such as slavery and the protective tariff. The interpretation of the federal Union differed between the two sections as well. The South insisted that the federal Union was created by the states; therefore, any state had the right to secede. The North thought otherwise; they believed that people created the Union and no state had the right to secede. The South favored, and the North opposed the extension of slavery into the West. Most of the West became tied economically to the North by a network of railroads and trade. Southerners realized that Western lands were not suitable for cotton culture, and realized that they were losing Western support, and the South would remain a minority section in the Union. The North and the South had differences in civilization. A small aristocracy of influential planter families dominated the Southern civilization, compared to the more dynamic and democratic Northern civilization. This difference in civilizations made understanding each others point of view difficult, which added to the causes of the war. Lastly, people in both the North and the South exaggerated differences. The Northerners gave unfair stereotypes of Southern slave owners, as the Southerners did with free-soilers and Republicans. All of these elements added to the cause of the Civil War, and no single cause brought about the Civil War. The reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South, and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The simulation showed how one section depended upon the other two, as well as outside countries and states such as Great Britain, Japan, Hawaii and California for various things. Trade was one of the most important elements in the simulation. Trade routes were necessary for the shipment of raw materials, finished products, goods, and many more items. The South had full control of the most important water route, the Mississippi River. It was necessary for the West and the North to deal with the South to gain use of this water way. The west sold Kansas and land from Texas to Arkansas (excluding Missouri) to the South for a mere $2 million, but gained free use of the Mississippi River from Iowa to Louisiana. The North provided free use of the Mississippi River and agreed to prohibit use of the Mississippi River to the West. The West built a railroad throughout the West to the port of San Diego, which will be open to all. The South provided slaves to build a railroad from Alabama to Pennsylvania. .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .postImageUrl , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:hover , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:visited , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:active { border:0!important; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:active , .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077 .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u0a6354595e24a16ada44e4bf1e6fa077:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Blood is Thicker than Water Essay The North provided technical assistance and material to build the railroad. Both the North and the South had free use of the railroad. The West and the North agreed to constant trade for 20 years. The West sold cattle, . The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay Example For Students The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Reconstruction of the Nation Essay The Civil War was inevitable and regardless of the outcome on the fields of battle, the reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The Civil War and the reconstruction of the nation were bound to happen. There was a great diversity throughout the nation within the three sections. Differences in opinions and rules in slavery, economic and civilization differences are all examples of causes of the Civil War. However, the reconstruction of the nation was necessary, because the three sections needed each other to survive. We will write a custom essay on The Reconstruction of the Nation specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The Civil war was inevitable. Because of the great diversity between the North and the South, the Civil War was bound to happen. Slavery was one of the many causes of the Civil War. It presented a moral issue, since it dealt with human beings and invaded individual freedom and democratic ideals. Slavery greatly distinguished the South from the North, and was the major issue dividing the two sections. The differences in economy also added to the cause of the Civil War. The South had become agricultural, and the North had become industrial. These economic differences led to sectional rivalry on issues such as slavery and the protective tariff. The interpretation of the federal Union differed between the two sections as well. The South insisted that the federal Union was created by the states; therefore, any state had the right to secede. The North thought otherwise; they believed that people created the Union and no state had the right to secede. The South favored, and the North opposed the extension of slavery into the West. Most of the West became tied economically to the North by a network of railroads and trade. Southerners realized that Western lands were not suitable for cotton culture, and realized that they were losing Western support, and the South would remain a minority section in the Union. The North and the South had differences in civilization. A small aristocracy of influential planter families dominated the Southern civilization, compared to the more dynamic and democratic Northern civilization. This difference in civilizations made understanding each others point of view difficult, which added to the causes of the war. Lastly, people in both the North and the South exaggerated differences. The Northerners gave unfair stereotypes of Southern slave owners, as the Southerners did with free-soilers and Republicans. All of these elements added to the cause of the Civil War, and no single cause brought about the Civil War. The reconstruction of the nation was equally inevitable because as much as the North and the South had irrevocable differences, it was in the mutual interest of the North, the South, and the West to maintain a relationship based on symbiosis. The simulation showed how one section depended upon the other two, as well as outside countries and states such as Great Britain, Japan, Hawaii and California for various things. Trade was one of the most important elements in the simulation. Trade routes were necessary for the shipment of raw materials, finished products, goods, and many more items. The South had full control of the most important water route, the Mississippi River. It was necessary for the West and the North to deal with the South to gain use of this water way. The west sold Kansas and land from Texas to Arkansas (excluding Missouri) to the South for a mere $2 million, but gained free use of the Mississippi River from Iowa to Louisiana. The North provided free use of the Mississippi River and agreed to prohibit use of the Mississippi River to the West. The West built a railroad throughout the West to the port of San Diego, which will be open to all. The South provided slaves to build a railroad from Alabama to Pennsylvania. .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .postImageUrl , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:hover , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:visited , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:active { border:0!important; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:active , .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76 .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u81c22ce4db8ef4e13fb74f1a08025a76:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Educational Psychology: The Life History of Leta Stetter Hollingworth example Essay The North provided technical assistance and material to build the railroad. Both the North and the South had free use of the railroad. The West and the North agreed to constant trade for 20 years. The West sold cattle, .

Proper Punctuation for Appositive Phrases

Proper Punctuation for Appositive Phrases Proper Punctuation for Appositive Phrases Proper Punctuation for Appositive Phrases By Mark Nichol When two terms that mean the same thing are introduced in succession in a sentence, careless writers, by omitting a crucial comma, often imply that the definition of the terms is in fact distinct. Here are some examples of misleading statements, plus discussions and revisions. 1. â€Å"Sunlight is a mixture of different colors or wavelengths, which combine to form white light.† Colors and wavelengths are, for practical purposes, the same thing, but â€Å"colors or wavelengths† implies otherwise. To signal that wavelengths is an alternative term for colors, it should be set off in an appositive phrase: â€Å"Sunlight is a mixture of colors, or wavelengths, that combine to form white light.† (Notice, too, the replacement of which with that and the deletion of the comma that followed it not all colors, or wavelengths, combine to form white light; only these do. I also deleted the usually superfluous adjective different.) 2. â€Å"Its odd properties are essential for the evolution and survival of life on Earth, particularly given its ability to form a weak connection called a hydrogen or H-bond.† The weak connection is not called a hydrogen or H-bond, and it does not have the alternative names hydrogen and H-bond, both of which possibilities are suggested by this statement; the choices are â€Å"hydrogen bond† and H-bond. To indicate that H-bond is a distinct term, that it is not an alternative to hydrogen alone, and that it is an abbreviation of â€Å"hydrogen bond† requires a minimal pair of corrections: the use of the full phrase â€Å"hydrogen bond† and the insertion of a comma after that phrase. The revision is â€Å"Its odd properties are essential for the evolution and survival of life on Earth, particularly given its ability to form a weak connection called a hydrogen bond, or H-bond.† 3. â€Å"Then, as that part of Earth passes out of the gravitational bulge, the tide goes out or ebbs.† Again, the lack of a comma between two terms separated by or implies distinct meanings (suggesting that going out and ebbing are different actions), but this sentence, in describing a scientific phenomenon, explains a process and then supplies a perhaps unfamiliar synonym, so a comma should divide them. But there’s another problem one that I haven’t seen discussed in writing guides or grammar handbooks but that has always bothered me: Why, when introducing a new term, supply the better-known synonym or a definition first what’s the use of including the new term if it’s not presented before the aid to comprehension? It seems more logical to provide the new term first, then provide context: â€Å"Then, as that part of Earth passes out of the gravitational bulge, the tide ebbs, or goes out.† (The second example in this post at least positions the appositive terms sensibly, and the first example does not apply, as one term does not define the other, as here, or clarify it, as in the second example.) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Punctuation category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:10 Grammar Mistakes You Should AvoidStory Writing 101The Difference Between "Un-" and "Dis-"

The French Expression Aller Is Integral

The French Expression Aller Is Integral The French verb aller, which means to go, is used in many French idiomatic expressions. Learn how to go fishing, get to the bottom of things, go away and more with this list of expressions with aller. Theres a good reason why so many expressions use aller; its one of the most common and important verbs in the French language. There are a few basics to keep in mind with aller.  First, its an irregular verb, so it doesnt follow typical conjugation patterns. You just have to memorize its many forms. Second, the very common passà © composà © tense of aller uses the auxiliary verb à ªtre. (Je suis allà © means  I went, I have gone). This means that the past participle in this instance, has to agree with the Je,  or the I thats speaking. So If a girl said that, the past participle would have an additional e at the end of the participle to indicate a feminine subject: Je suis  allà ©e.   Another important peculiarity of aller is its use in constructing the near future. Combine the present tense of  aller the infinitive of an action verb to make the near future, or  le futur proche. The construction means  to be going to or to be going to do something. Common French Expressing Using Aller French Expression English Translation aller la pà ªche to go fishing aller la rencontre de quelqu'un to go meet someone aller pied to go on foot aller quelqu'un to be becoming, to suit aller au-devant de quelqu'un to go meet someone aller au fond des choses to get to the bottom of things aller avec quelque chose to match; to go with something aller chercher to go get; to get; to fetch aller de pair avec to go hand in hand with aller en voiture to go by car aller sans dire; à §a va sans dire to go without saying; that goes without saying Allez-y! Go ahead! Allons donc! Come on then! Allons-y ! Let's go! Ça va ? Comment allez-vous ? Comment vas-tu ? How are you? On y va ? Shall we go? On y va ! Let's go! s'en aller to go away

Effective Management in Construction Industry Essay

Effective Management in Construction Industry - Essay Example These materials are useful even to construction managers with general knowledge on management. This essay is geared towards putting together the essential components as far as construction manager's roles are concerned in ensuring the timeliness of a specific project. It tries to emphasize the traditional yet crucial management functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, budgeting, and coordinating and its contribution to the completion of the project within deadlines set. This also provides inputs or synthesis of studies related to construction industry that is contributory to improving implementation efficiency and completed projects' quality. Let us consider a project and its management in the general context in order to understand the process. Project management in the universal context is defined by most literatures as a process by which an idea or project is created, processed, and accepted, and from which resources, whether materials, financial and manpower, are allocated, directed, and carefully coordinated to achieve the goals with the optimum quality, cost, and timeliness (Hendrickson 1998, Jones 2003, FTA 2006:1-9). Based on the definition of the Federal Transit Administration, a project is "made up of a group of interrelated work activities constrained by a specific scope, budget, and schedule to deliver capital assets needed to achieve the strategic goals of an Agency" (2006: 1-3) or a corporate organization for that matter. These aspects hold specifically true for construction projects, over-all goals of which revolve around the idea of delivering the project on time, with quality, and ensuring optimum benefits to the company and the owner. The interrelated tasks inherent in a project, in most cases, require specialized workers to handle and deal with. The efficiency of the management teams in handling the works within a project dictates the pace by which it is done and is among the most crucial in completing the project within the time frame. Besides, it is the management that closely deals with the owner, users or sponsor of a construction project and "it will be wise for any owner to have a clear understanding of the acquisition process in order to maintain firm control of the quality, timeliness and cost of the completed facility."(Hendrickson 1998) There are a lot of approaches to project management that a project manager can use depending on the type of work to be done. Individual projects may vary in their scope of work and life cycle. Recent innovative approaches to project management as far as construction industry is concerned are a subject of many researches and studies in the field. These studies and recommendations from researches can be applied in the actual management of the project. FTA (2006:1-9) states that the project management process begins with identification of the user requirement, project constraints, resource needs, and establishment of realistic objectives to meet the strategic goals. The common life cycle is presented in Figure 1. It usually starts with user demand and ends up to the structures intended usable life. Figure 1 The Project Life Cycle of a Constructed Facility (Hendrickson 1998) The primary concern of the construction manager is

Could the south have won the civil war If so how, if not then why not Essay

Could the south have won the civil war If so how, if not then why not - Essay Example The north had a largely urbanised background with flourishing industrial capabilities. Rapid technological developments were shaping how things had been done for centuries. The railroad was expanding westwards and liberty was in the air. Large manufacturing concerns were being established. Management was evolving to promote efficiency and innovation. Furthermore, a class of individuals was emerging that were to become the modern American middle class. These groups were ardent political supporters of anti slavery drives though their numbers were as yet not very significant. On the other hand, the south was predominantly agricultural. Farm labour consisted of slaves whose ancestors had been imported from Africa. Conservatism was rampant and white supremacy was considered as an ultimate truth. Capital was abundant too as the large farmers had no one to share profits with. Cotton was the mainstay of the southern economy. It was exported to cotton mills in Europe and in the north. Militar y tradition was more rampant in the south than in the north. Boys were taught how to ride and shoot at an early age given the agrarian society’s feuds. The war began as the south gathered its army and invaded Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Then President Abraham Lincoln urged northern states to assemble a volunteer army to deal with the situation. This caused another four states to drift over into the southern camp. The south’s position was strengthened at this point in the war. If the south had wanted to make major strides in the war, it ought to have been better planned and organised than it was. The attack of the Confederate army on Fort Sumter caught the north off guard. The south could have achieved major victories if it invaded with a larger army that engaged more targets simultaneously. This would have helped the south in causing panic and confusion in the ranks of the north. The overwhelming display of power may even have led to more accessions by Union states. Furthermore, the organised all out attack would have sent the Union running and figuring out what to do next. However, what happened on ground was entirely different. The Confederacy’s attack on Fort Sumter served as a rallying point for the northern states. It alerted them to the danger posed by the South. The Union was both proactive and swift in its reaction. An army of volunteers was assembled on ground while a naval blockade was imposed. The Union’s land armies could not achieve victories in the beginning. The level of organisation and the equipment used were not up to the mark. However, the naval blockade served as a double edged sword. On the one hand, the export of cotton virtually ended and on the other hand imports could not be brought in to reinforce the Confederate army’s stock. As mentioned earlier, cotton was the mainstay of the southern economy. Loss of cotton exports meant that revenue generation suffered gravely in the south. The naval blockade also had another profound effect. Foreign intervention was discouraged from taking any real part given the naval blockade. Foreign intervention could only be possible if the naval blockade was removed and foreign troops and supplies could flow into the south. No external power was ready or willing to support the South’s cause by direct military involvement. Another notable issue is the way in which this war was conducted on either side. Initially the south was very aggressive. It

The Meaning of Life Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research Papers

The Meaning of Life My few years on this planet have been a bit confusing. I have learned of many aspects of life from which one can draw meaning, if indeed such meaning can be drawn. I have also learned that there can be no singular meaning of life to stand for us all, or even any one of us. What I have learned above all is that trying to put words to the meaning of life is a task of absolute absurdity. This is not to be confused with the idea that life has no meaning, for life certainly has meaning. However, there is no single meaning of life to be defined - life is different for us all. Therefore, rather than define life for an entire planet, I shall try to explain what life means as I perceive it, and why it means so. When I was a child I felt as though I owned the world. I lived my young life oblivious to the struggles and triumphs of society, simply happy for being in my place with my things. On one cool January evening, as I sat in my room playing with my favorite action figures, simply holding my contentment, my father interrupted my peace to take the family out for dinner. The meal was pleasant to my knowledge, but so ordinary in itself that the meal has long been forgotten, except dessert. I wanted ice cream, but I had no care for the waffle ice cream cones; I preferred my ice cream to be served in a bowl. As I extended for my spoon, it slipped between my fingers and tumbled to the floor. I was taught to never eat with a dirty utensil, but to leave it on the floor would be impolite, so I reached for it intending to place it on the table. As my fingers grasped the shiny object, my forehead nudged the bowl of ice cream that happened to be conveniently near the edge of the table. It was a health... ...to learn - it is a reciprocal relationship, and both aspects are required elements of life. What does this mean? Does this mean that life is merely a story written from the suffering and laughing over a few revolutions around a star, while learning what can be learned before the experience is over? I try not to confuse life with such confusing meanings, for there are far too many reasons to contradict such meanings and even more opinions. Simply put, the sole purpose of life is to just go with the flow. Whatever happens should happen naturally, and it cannot happen by any other method. Even supernatural interference, if present, can be viewed as natural, for who or what am I to decide that the hand of God is not natural? Who am I to say that I am even living outside of my own mind? In conclusion, I have narrowed life to one simple purpose: to live.