Stephen Jay Gould And Friedrich Nietzsche

Contemporary economics are best explained by comparing two foundational thinkers that have contributed to the better understanding of liberalism, one being its proponent Adam Smith and the other being its most significant critic, Karl Marx. Both thinkers are profoundly important in locating and investigating the roots of neoliberalism as well as exploring alternatives ways to challenge neoliberal economics in the face of its post-cold war expansion as the inevitable and only alternative to redistribution and economic justice. This essay traces the emerging ideas of classical liberalism as articulated by Smith and their subsequent deployment in the debates that produced neoliberalism. In this context, Marx and Marxism are utilized to expose and deconstruct the shortcomings of both liberalism and neoliberalism and their limits in providing solutions to the structural symptoms of liberal and neoliberal capitalism.

Karl Marx and Max Weber were influential sociologists that paved the way for modern sociological school of thought. Both, Karl Marx and Max Weber contributed a lot to the study and foundation of sociology. Without their contributions sociology would not be as prominent as it is today. From the contribution of how sociology should be studied, to how they applied their theories to everyday life has influenced many sociologists. Predominantly, both of these theorists’ discussed the effects of capitalism, how it has developed, shaped and changed society into what it is today. Specifically, Karl Marx’s contribution of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class and Max Weber’s social stratification has helped individuals to understand how modern day society has transformed into what it is today. Particularly, this paper will lie out Weber’s theory of social stratification and Marx’s theory of the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat class; additionally this essay will also compare and contrast the ideas of these two influential sociologists. Finally this essay will criticize both of these sociologists’ theories and display that Marx and Weber do not explain how modern day society and classes have been formed.

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx both came from very different worlds, however they saw the world in similar ways. Both had thoughts derived from different views. Smith had a very capitalistic view on things, while Marx was socialist in many ways. They expressed their thoughts in ways that were surprisingly similar while other ideas were dissimilar. Ultimately socialism and capitalism can go hand in hand. One main idea that both works addressed was the productivity of work and the ability to accumulate property, stock and capital. They both wanted a wealthy nation but Marx believed that redistribution of wealth was the way to go. Smith believed in a free economic system that gave capitalists rights to accumulate their wealth.

Leadership is the most important quality for the head of any nation, or any other political leader. To be a good leader, you must have many attributes that qualify you for such a huge responsibility. There are good crisis leaders who would fail in a period of "calm." What is clear, is that leadership is a complicated concept. We have consistently found that good leaders have passion and values, confidence yet humility, knowledge and realism; Having these attributes and the ability to use them and develop them in others is the foundation for reaching goals and being successful in a leadership position. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli are two men who have influenced some of the most influential people in the world, as the two were writing to different audiences, it 's easy to see why their ideologies might clash or unite; Henry Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli both use an abundant amount of rhetorical strategies in both of their stories, including ethos, pathos, and logos; both of the stories also have their fair share of differences.

“Have no fear of perfection - you 'll never reach it,” said famous Spanish painter, Salvador Dali. Dali seems to be implying that no matter the effort, perfection is unattainable and something that should not be feared by anyone. Famous Puritan authors Jonathan Edwards and Nathaniel Hawthorne in their works give the same impression as Dali, they both believe that the strive for perfection is both unrealistic and unattainable. In regard to the unattainably of perfection Hawthorne and Edwards’ opinions differ greatly, Edwards believes that even though perfection is unrealistic, one can and should still strive for it, while Hawthorne on the other hand believes that because perfection will never be reached, it would be unnecessary for one to strive for it.

Religion has been subject to various examinations throughout time; this historically dominant concept has offered much to the world, while sometimes being disadvantageous. Philosophers have looked to offer insight and understanding to the idea of a higher power, aiming to try and grasp its complex nature. Friedrich Nietzsche a 19th century philosopher takes a different approach to the idea of religion in his literary narrative “The Gay Science”. In this narrative Nietzsche makes the bold statement that “God is Dead” (Nietzsche 95), claiming that we have all killed him. This is rather extreme statement in any context, however considering the time period in which he was writing, a time

As of 2013, fifty-four percent of Americans still had a belief in God, although in some other minorities, that number was larger (Gallup). Despite this, there was a time when some of the greatest minds of the time felt as if God had no modern purpose in human’s lives. One such example of this was that of Friedrich Nietzsche, who went down in history as the man who declared God “dead”. Though this might seem like a hypothetical call to atheism, he was instead showing how the people of the world had come to outgrow a need for God with the coming of the renaissance (Lawhead 454). However, the contradictions found within Nietzsche’s argument

“If the universe is so bad, or even half so bad, how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?” (Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain, p. 3.) Prehistoric man first wrote of fear of a supernatural being, and Lewis describes a feeling of awe and fear which he calls Numinous. He describes man’s consciousness of morality, and the inherent feeling of knowing right from wrong. God is all powerful and good, yet the world is full of evil, tragedy, loss and suffering. Lewis argues that life cannot exist independent of the natural world and because we have the freedom to make choices, human suffering is inevitable. “We have seen that in a stable and meaningful universe a possibility of pain is inherent; and in a universe of creatures, inclined, by virtue of their fallen nature, to move away from God, evil becomes, so to speak, endemic.” (Bacz, Jacek.) God is full of love and goodness. Man, however, is not perfect, we make mistakes, we make bad choices, we can be wicked and evil resulting in great suffering to ourselves and others. The pain we experience is the mechanism to bring us closer to God, and to become blessed and

Human nature is something that never seems to change. While humans all seem to be different from one another through physical and emotional attributes, their psychological behaviors are all mostly very similar. In the late 18th century and early 19th century, many authors successfully could explain the characteristics of human nature and the effects that it has on everyone and everything surrounding human beings. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Edgar Allen Poe all convey the behavior of human nature in separate ways. These three authors show the curiosity, drive for perfection, and fear of human nature throughout their texts in detail. With these characteristics being prominent in human nature itself, it

In 1882, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared, “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him” (120). Modern thought and its scientific basis rejected the existence or need of any God, religion, or their accompanying belief in absolute, objective morality. This rejection of the divine preoccupies a greater segment of the population after Nietzsche’s death as humanity seeks redemption from the atrocities of two world wars. However, rejection of God and religion removes the healing potential of faith, resulting in a modern society yearning for meaning among the ashes of Europe’s dead. No answer presents itself easily, but one of modernism’s philosophical responses reveals itself in the devastation. As Wylie Sypher surmised, “we have lived amid the ‘dust and crashes’ of the twentieth century and have learned how the direst calamities that befall man seem to prove that human life at

When Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed God’s death, he meant modern culture has ceased to look to God for answers to existential questions. An example of this shift may be seen in A Brief History of Time, where in 1996 the famous cosmologist Stephen Hawkins posited that even a scientific understanding of the universe’s beginning at the Big Bang does not preclude a belief that God created the universe. In other words, science does not rule out God’s possibility. Less than 20 years later, Hawkins rejected even God’s possibility. "Before we understood science, it was logical to believe [in] God…” Hawkins told a reporter in 2014, “[b]ut now science offers a more convincing explanation…I 'm an atheist." Science has replaced God, as Hawkins’s statement corroborates, making faith in God illogical and therefore untenable. Hawkins’s position, which can perhaps stand as a methaphor for secular society’s evolution to atheistism in general, highlights the challenge of speaking about faith in God to a post-enlightenment, postmodern, society. When viewed rationally, the idea of faith in God seems irrational because the existence of religious faith’s object, God, cannot be scientifically, rationally, demonstrated.

Humans need the appearance of some sort of structure to live. They need rules to live by to tell them whether or not they are living “right”, in a good way or a bad way. We humans have come up with many different ways to tell whether we are living right “right” or not. We have come up with all of the different types of religions and the different sets of morals , all of which change throughout history and time depending on and reflecting it’s episteme. How can any religion or set of morals be considered the “right one” when there has been no consistency with either? Both Feuerbach and Nietzsche have the same belief, that religions and morals are only a crutch that humans grab on to in order to give some meaning to the random assortment of life on earth. Both think that religion was a crutch for humans because of our inability to be perfect. Religions especially Christianity (Jesus) have their own destruction built in to them because of the humanity aspect. Though Feuerbach and Nietzsche agreed upon this they had very different opinions on how it would come about.

It can be said that all fiction is autobiographical in that no matter how different from the author’s life experience it may be, marks of their life can be found in any of their works and characters. One such example is Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, which is largely based on Hemingway’s own personal life experiences. Frederick Henry, the main character in the story, experiences many of the same situations that Hemingway lived out in his own life. Some of events and situations are exact, while others are less similar, and some have a completely different outcome all together.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” (Gay Science, 126) This harsh statement remains among Friedrich Nietzsche’s most powerful and disturbing quotes, spoken by a proclaimed Madman to a crowd of disbelievers. After making this claim, the Madman becomes horrified by his audience’s ignorance, noting that “This tremendous event is still on its way.” This has an effect of suspending the Madman’s message in time, expanding its audience infinitely, for the event of God’s death could still be on its way. Therefore, nearly 150 years after these words were written, we must ask ourselves, does God remain dead, and has our modern society killed him? This is a haunting and disturbing question, but in many ways our society does resemble Nietzsche’s masses. However, it also resembles the Madman himself, due to its inherent individualism.