A Comparison Of Alexander Hamilton And Aaron Burr

In the battle between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton was one of the most famous duels in the early 19th century. Both men were very significant political leaders of the United States. The men had clashes throughout the 1790’s which lead to a duel between the two and Alexander Hamilton lost his life.

Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had quite a difficult relationship. There were many instances where the two were greatly opposing each other. Due to these instances and others in which Burr had felt completely insulted by Hamilton, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel in Weehawken, New Jersey. At the Duel, Burr shot Hamilton in the stomach. Hamilton died the next day. Burr was never charged for the murder of Hamilton, but some still consider Burr completely unjust in his actions of challenging and killing Hamilton.

Smart people can categorize their strengths and weakness giving them the opportunity to leverage those strengths and weaknesses. Successful and intelligent people have the ability to evaluate, and analyze their abilities. This is different compared to Spearman's g factor because it elaborates how intelligent people can be successful and excel in life (Nevid, 2015).

One of the first things a child is taught while growing up is the well-known cliché, practice makes perfect. This phrase has been the basis for trial and error situations time and time again, where if it doesn’t work the first time then keep trying. In Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcolm Gladwell leaves the audience with a memorable observation, the 10,000 hour rule. The basis of the 10,000 hour rule is that an area of interest requires 10,000 hours of practice in order to become an expert. Although this may be true in some situations, how can someone practice something they are unable to do? Natural talent and ability are crucial characteristics in order to become an expert in any area. This phenomena highly lends itself to the observations made about intelligence and genetics. The main misunderstanding when considering whether this argument is fundamentally nature or nurture is the difference between intelligence and education. Many consider education to be exactly equal to intelligence, which is the basis for the believing that working hard will essentially result in intelligence. Intelligence is considered as “a very general mental capability that, among other things, involved the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience” (Colangelo19-39.) Qualities that make up the realm of intelligence are things that people are simply born with and cannot easily be taught and trained. One may be able to work twice as hard as the next person and equalize their achievements, but the essential difference at work is the way the mind process information and the difference between intelligence and education. Although some consider intelligence to be an environmentally based attribute, they fail to understand the true meaning of

I'm comparing and contrasting Hamilton and Burr. I think Burr would be Republican today because the party that he belonged to years ago was the Democratic-Republican party founded in 1791. This party became the Democratic Party of today. However the 1791 old party had 3 beliefs Republicanism, Jeffersonian Democracy, and State Rights. 2 out of the 3 makes me say that he is a Republican. The one belief that doesn't apply is the Jeffersonian Democracy because Jefferson wanted to have the president have the last say in any situation. Now Hamilton would be Democratic today because he believed of a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Hamilton believed that anything that wasn't written in the Constitution he could make his own decisions on. Burr on the other hand believed if it wasn't written in the Constitution it has to go back to the individual State Government to decide.

Back in the 18th century, some politicians preferred to have a duel rather than talking out their problems. A famous duel during this time was the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Arron Burr. These two men were against each other and had totally different outlooks on things. The duel was held in Weehawken, New Jersey on July 11, 1804. A duel is a contest with weapons to settle an argument. Alexander Hamilton died during the fight. In today’s century, politics are more likely to debate rather than have a duel. In comparison to these two different founding fathers, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are two current day American politicians that always seem to bump heads.

The Strong of Mind In the modern world, a persons achievements matter greatly. It is a common belief that Academic achievements define a person’s success, and the amount of wisdom they possess. Today, social acceptance involves a college degree and beyond. While wisdom does affect scholastic performance, there are many types of astuteness that influence a person’s success in life.

Claudia Kalb starts talking about Albert Einstein’s exceptional mind in order to start exploring her main question; ‘’what makes a genius?’’ she uses connections about how Einstein revolutionized the world, to build inquiry and not just answer her question through the example of Einstein but instead she keeps developing inquiry questions such as; ’What set his brainpower, his thought processes, apart from those of his merely brilliant peers?’’ which support her main question in order to keep the reader engaged.

Before I begin I would like to define the word genius to help gather a more conclusive answer for my persuasive essay. As specified by the works of Dean Keith Simonton genius is a character that shows “exceptional achievement” with their related courses. This can be branded

Throughout the essay Ralph Waldo Emerson, discussed in detail about what makes one a genius. According to Emerson, to be a genius, one must “Believe your own thought, to believe what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men (Emerson 1).” A genius is one who abides by the thoughts of his or her own mind and not of others in society. A genius does not let society control the direction of his or her life, like it does to so many in society. Emerson not only expressed this belief through the utilization of the term genius, but also indirectly by distinguishing a genius from the common man. Emerson stated that “The great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude (Emerson 5).” Emerson also stated in the article that in order to be a genius, one must express independent thoughts and not recreate the ideas shared in society. One cannot let society infiltrate the mind and influence actions of the individual. To become a genius, one must mentally separate the mind from society and begin forming independent beliefs and views. Emerson thus believed the genius was simply a man who trusted his own beliefs and thoughts.

“Longinus” touches upon the concept of untrained genius in On Sublimity. “Greatness, the argument runs, is a natural product, and does not come by teaching. The only art is to be born like that. They believe moreover that natural products are very much weakened by being reduced to the bare bones of a textbook” (“Longinus”,144). Some believe that greatness is an innate quality, he refutes this argument with three points. The first point he makes is about the role of nature; he states that while nature is its own law, it cannot work without method. Secondly, nature is a primary element of creation, but the method is what provides correctness in the application. Finally, on the topic of untrained genius, he contends that when left unchecked genius

Making of a Genius: Conventional educational and Job training are notorious for crushing our confidence and squelching our most brilliant thoughts. Genius are nothing but ordinary people who are able to widen their channel of attention making their conscious a subtle, unconscious

Peter Abelard stated “it is perhaps difficult to speak confidently in matters of this sort unless they have often been investigated”. (Texts 1) The sort that Abelard was speaking of was “Wisdom”. Wisdom pushes on to seek answer by asking “question”. (Text 1) Hugh of St. Didascaicar was convinced of the three mechanism to the programming of learning. Individual were categorized in these three levels of wisdom. One could have wisdom but be ignorance of “their own dullness and continue to strive forward, desiring their own work but do not have the result of their work” this was considered theorical arts. (Text 2) One could have virtue that has come “very naturally with enriched ability, but lack intellectual ability”. (Text 2) They often time “do not want to exercise this natural intelligence through exercise and learning”, this was considered practical arts. (Text 2) Lastly, one could lack property and little wealth, which leads to infirmity due to the” reduction of practicability of learning” which is considered mechanical arts. (Text 2) Although these different level of wisdom were understood, Hugh of St. Victor believed there are” two main things by which everyone is instructed in knowledge, which are reading and medicating”. (Text 2) It was said. that it is essential to know what one should read and then what order you should read it. Lastly one has to know how it should be read, this was strongly viewed by St.

According to Emerson, the “genius” idea, is the idea that an individual can speak their minds. As it states, “To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in our private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius” (Emerson 266). The individuals, who withstand from the lies and deception of society and speak their thoughts truly are the ideal concept of a “genius” to Emerson.

The Oval Office symbolizes the government whenever public judgement casts the governmental system in negative or positive light. Arguably, every presidential administration becomes marked by the supposed corruption that lies within it, for the office is considered the “Room Where It Happens” (Miranda and McCarter 186). In homage to the times of exclusion and inclusion of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton in this room during the founding father’s era of government, Hamilton: The Revolution, by Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, states that “[one] feel[s] like [one has] been Burr [..] as many times as [one has] been Hamilton” (264). Nevertheless, as Miranda identifies to a greater degree with Hamilton because of his rags to riches record, my ideologies gravitate towards Burr from experiences in a culture where failure is condemned. Moreover, the eventual vilification of Burr for his role in Hamilton’s demise versus Hamilton’s martyrdom for his reckless abandon leads me to identify more with Burr as a victim of fallacious antagonization than Hamilton as an erroneous martyr based on a single precept: one’s reputation stems from a series of public judgements void of consideration on individual detriment.