Thursday 5 April 2012

MARCUS BRUTUS






 First, Brutus is a well-respected public figure and a genius military leader. His recognition is acknowledged many times throughout this play. The crowd at Caesar’s funeral regarded and praised Brutus in the highest of fashions. Brutus shows his military genius in his battles in Philippi. When Titinius receives news of Brutus’ battle one realizes that Brutus is a good military leader. Messala tells one that Octavius has been overthrown by noble Brutus’ power. Showing that noble Brutus is a well-respected public figure and a genius military leader.

The noble Brutus is also a kind master to his servants and a loving friend. He keeps his servant busy yet he still feels indebted to keep him well nourished. Brutus is the truest friend one could ever have. The only thing that surpasses his love for his friends is his love for Rome. He has complete trust for a friend and he is also trustworthy to a friend.

Last, Brutus’ gullibility is ironically one of his purest character traits yet his fatal flaw. It is very innocent of Brutus to trust everything that Cassius and the conspirators tell him. It would be good to trust them only if they were not deceptive. He ignores Cassius’ suggestion to kill Antony, believing Antony could bring no harm. He again chooses to ignore Cassius' advice and allows Antony to speak a funeral oration over Caesar's body. Brutus believed Antony would make the crowd more comfortable because Antony was one of Caesars dear friends. Allowing Antony to speak in the funeral may not have been such a bad idea, but allowing him to get in the last word had a catastrophic result. The reason why these two incidents happened is because Brutus failed to realize not everybody is noble, and pure such as Brutus himself.
During Julius Caesar funeral Brutus have given a speech in front of all Roman people. Below is the text of Brutus speech:



BRUTUS

Be patient till the last
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honour, and have respect to mine honour, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:–
Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honour him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honour for his valour; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

All
None, Brutus, none

BRUTUS
Then none have I offended. I have done no more to
Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The question of
his death is enrolled in the Capitol; his glory not
extenuated, wherein he was worthy, nor his offences
enforced, for which he suffered death.


During his speech, he tries to appeal to the citizens’ reason and national pride. He explains his reasons and is straightforward. For example in his speech he says, “If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer- not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” Brutus's speech was logical. It contained facts about Caesar's ambition. He reminded the people that Caesar would have become a tyrant and would have enslaved everyone. Brutus clearly states to the citizen’s that he killed Caesar for the good of Rome. Brutus is indeed persuasive, but not as persuasive as Antony. Of course the gullible crowd is pleased to hear that Brutus loves Rome. But they cannot grasp the concept of being assassinated for ambition, as Brutus did not say in what way Caesar was ambitious or why he should be so severely punished.



SYLLOGISM



Syllogism is a way or arguing in which two statements are used to prove that a third statement is true. For example, All human must die; I am a human; Therefore, I must die. (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). Theory of syllogism was developed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Conditional syllogisms

Conditional syllogisms are better known as hypothetical syllogisms, because the arguments used here are not always valid. The basic of this syllogism type is: if A is true then B is true as well. An example will follow to elucidate the former.

Major premise:   If Johnny is eating sweets every day, he is placing
                           himself at risk for diabetes.
Minor premise:  Johnny does not eat sweats everyday
Conclusion:       Therefore Johnny is not placing himself at risk for
                           diabetes.

Categorical syllogisms

The third and most commonly used type of syllogisms are the categorical syllogisms. The basic for this syllogism type is: if A is a part of C, then B is a part of C (A and B are members of C). An example of this syllogism type will clarify the above:

Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

RULES OF SYLLOGISM

Rule 1: There must be three terms and only three – the major term, theminor term, and the middle term. If there are only two terms therelationship between these two cannot be established. And if there were more than three terms this would violate the structure of the categorical syllogism.

Rule 2: Each term must occur twice in the syllogism: the major must occur in the conclusion and in one premise, the minor in the conclusion and in one premise; the middle in both premise but not in the conclusion. There must therefore be a total of three propositions in the syllogism.

Rule 3: The middle term must be distributed at least once. If the middleterm is particular in both premises it might stand for a different portion of its extension in each occurrence and thus be equivalent to two terms.

Rule 4: The major and minor terms may not be universal in the conclusion unless they are universal in the premises. If a term is distributed in the conclusion then it must be distributed first in the premise.

Rule 5: If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must beaffirmative. The reason for this rule is that affirmative premises either unite the minor or major terms, or else do not bring them into relationship with each other at all.

Rule 6: If one premise is affirmative and the other negative, the conclusion must be negative.

Rule 7: If both premises are negative – and not equivalently affirmative – there can be no conclusion.

Rule 8: If both premises are particular there can be no conclusion.




#I have found some information about the rules of syllogism from this link. For more information, you can just click to the link.







Saturday 31 March 2012

EVALUATING EVIDENCE



 CREDIBLE EVIDENCE


It is important to decide how credible (believable and authoritative) a piece of evidence is within an argument. As you look at the evidence supporting a reason, ask yourself whether or not this evidence matches with readers' experience of the world. If it doesn't, does the evidence come from a source that readers would accept as more knowledgeable or authoritative than they are?

If one reason given in an argument is:

On the university level, argument is valued by professors of various disciplines who say that they would like for their students to be able to take a strong position and support it with ample reasons and evidence, statistics taken from The National Inquirer and given in support of this reason will typically be much less credible than ones taken from The Journal of Higher Education.



Credibility of an argument was based on two criteria of the source which are:

  •      Free of bias


  •             Expertise




Expertise was determined by:

  • Education

  • Experiences

  • Job or Position

  • Reputation

  • Achievements




CONSTRUCTING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT

What is an argument?
An argument is an effort to justify a particular conclusion. The justification should be strong enough to persuade others that your conclusion is the correct one.

What is an argument composed of?
Every argument consists of premises and a conclusion. The premises are particular statements that provide the reasons or evidence supporting your conclusion. The conclusion is, of course, the position that you are arguing for.


 Types of Argument:

Type: Deduction

Definition: This form of argument is based on the rules of logic, so if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

Example: If you smoke, you might get lung cancer. You smoke. Therefore, you might get lung cancer.   

What makes it strong? : Deduction is always strong because it is based on logical connections between premises and conclusion. It is important, however, to establish the truth of the premises.

Type: Induction

Definition: This form of argument involves reasoning from particular facts or observations to draw conclusions about general principles.

Example: Ann smoked and she has lung cancer. Emile smoked and he has lung cancer. In fact, every smoker I know now has lung cancer. Therefore, if you smoke you will have a good chance of getting lung cancer.

What makes it strong? : The strength of inductive arguments depends on the number of observations supporting the generalization.  The more observations there are, the more likely the conclusion is true. Note that every counterexample reduces the likelihood that the conclusion is true.


Type: Abduction

Definition: The conclusion is considered to be the best explanation of the available facts. 

Example: Several studies establish a high correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Additional studies demonstrate that incidence of lung cancer in ex-smokers and non-smokers is much lower. Therefore, it is likely that smoking causes lung cancer.

What makes it strong? : The strength of abductive arguments depends on the degree to which the conclusion accounts for all evidence and data, including that which appears to be contradictory.

Type: Analogy

Definition: The conclusion is derived from comparing the issue at hand with another, similar issue. 

Example: Breathing in a toxic substance like asbestos is known to cause lung cancer. Cigarette smoke is also toxic, so it likely causes lung cancer.

What makes it strong? : Arguments from analogy are only strong when the two issues are similar with respect to the key features that are significant to the conclusion. 



MOVIES ABOUT JACK THE RIPPER


The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog

Of course Alfred Hitchcock did a Jack the Ripper movie. (The British filmmaker and the story of the Ripper go together like foie gras and apple compote.) This 1927 silent thriller, the first adaptation of Marie Belloc Lowndes‘s novel, starred Welsh actor Ivor Novello as the titular lodger wrongly suspected of committing Ripper-like murders. It was Hitchcock’s first commercial success.




A Study in Terror

This 1965 film put Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) and Dr. Watson (Donald Houston) on the tail of Jack the Ripper. And in this one, our crack crime solvers actually determine the identity of the killer.







The Ruling Class

Not a Ripper film per se, but a very dark comedy (from 1972) starring the sublime Peter O’Toole as a mentally disturbed earl who believes he is Jack the Ripper. Here’s Mr. O’Toole putting on an acting clinic, and, at around 3:43, letting out a primal scream that will absolutely liquefy your bowels




From Hell

Based on Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell‘s graphic novel about the Ripper case, this 2001 film starred Johnny Depp as the opium-addicted Detective Abberline and took the Hughes brothers off the streets of South Central (where they directed their 1993 hit Menace II Society) to the equally alarming “ghettos” of late 19th century London. Roger Ebert wrote, in his three-star review, “Despite its murders, it’s not a slasher film. What it is, I think, is a Guignol about a cross-section of a thoroughly rotten society, corrupted from the top down. The Ripper murders cut through layers of social class designed to insulate the sinners from the results of their sins.”








Friday 30 March 2012

JACK THE RIPPER



Mention the words "London" and "Ripper" in the same sentence and most of us will naturally think of the serial killer who butchered English prostitutes in the late 1880s.

The identity of Jack the Ripper is probably the most famous unsolved crime in history. With the horror and the history surrounding the events, it has become an increasingly popular topic in recent years with many new suspects being put forth. This list looks at 10 of the most interesting suspects – some considered by the police at the time, and others recently suggested.

There were top 10 suspects that had been recognized to Jack the Ripper which is:


# 10. Lewis Carroll


Carroll, author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, was named as a suspect based upon anagrams which author Richard Wallace devised for his book Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend. This claim is not generally taken seriously by other scholars. Wallace claimed that the books contained hidden but detailed descriptions of the murders. This theory gained enough attention to make Carroll a late but notable addition to the list of suspects, although one that is generally not taken very seriously. It should be noted that Carroll was very interested in word tricks and this certainly gives a little more weight to the theory.


#9. Prince Albert



Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (8 January 1864 – 14 January 1892) was first mentioned in print as a potential suspect in 1962 when author Philippe Jullian published a biography of his father, Edward VII of the United Kingdom. Jullian made a passing reference to rumours that Albert Victor might have been responsible for the murders. Though Jullian made no reference to the date when the rumour first started and did not detail his source, it is possible that the rumour derived indirectly from Dr. Thomas E. A. Stowell. The theory was brought to major public attention in 1970 when Stowell published an article in The Criminologist which revealed his suspicion that Prince Albert Victor had committed the murders after being driven mad by syphilis. The suggestion was widely dismissed as Albert Victor had strong alibis for the murders, and it is unlikely that he suffered from syphilis.


#8. Jill the Ripper




 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and William Stewart advanced theories involving a female murderer dubbed “Jill the Ripper.” Supporters of this theory believe that the murderer worked, or posed, as a midwife. She could be seen with bloody clothes without attracting unwanted attention and suspicion and would be more easily trusted by the victims than a man. A suspect suggested as fitting this profile is Mary Pearcey, who in October 1890, killed her lover’s wife and child, though there is no indication she was ever a midwife. E. J. Wagner, in The Science of Sherlock Holmes, offers in passing another possible suspect, Constance Kent, who had served 20 years for the murder of her younger brother at the age of sixteen. There is some inconclusive DNA evidence taken from the letters sent to the police – this evidence does not rule out the possibility of the killer being a woman.


#7. Dr Thomas Neill Cream



Cream was a doctor secretly specializing in abortions. He was born in Scotland, educated in London, active in Canada and later in Chicago, Illinois. In 1881 he was found to be responsible for fatally poisoning several of his patients of both sexes. Originally there was no suspicion of murder in these cases, but Cream himself demanded an examination of the bodies, apparently an attempt to draw attention to himself. Imprisoned in the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois, he was released on 31 July 1891, on good behaviour. Moving to London, he resumed killing and was soon arrested. He was hanged on 15 November 1892. According to some sources, his last words were reported as being “I am Jack…”, interpreted to mean Jack the Ripper. He was still imprisoned at the time of the Ripper murders, but some authors have suggested that he could have bribed officials and left the prison before his official release, or that he left a look-alike to serve the prison term in his place.



#6. “Dr” Francis Tumblety




Francis Tumblety was a seemingly uneducated or self-educated Irish-American raised from an infant in Rochester, New York, where he ostensibly trained as a homeopathic physician at Hahneman Hospital. He earned a small fortune posing as a quack “Indian Herb” doctor throughout the United States and Canada, and occasionally travelling across Europe as well. Tumblety was in England in 1888 and had visited the country on other occasions; during one such earlier trip he became closely acquainted with Victorian writer Thomas Henry Hall Caine, with whom it was suggested he had an affair and from whom he tried to borrow money. He claimed to have treated many famous English patients, including Charles Dickens, for a variety of illnesses. He was arrested on 7 November 1888, on charges of “gross indecency”, apparently for engaging in homosexuality. Notorious in the United States for his scams, including selling forged Union military discharge papers during the American Civil War and impersonating an army officer, news of his arrest led some to suggest he was the Ripper.


 #5. Aaron Kominski






Kominski was a member of London’s Polish Jewish population. He worked in London as a hairdresser, but he was born in Kłodawa. He was certified insane and admitted to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum in February 1891. He was named as a suspect in Chief Constable Melville Macnaghten’s memoranda, which stated that there were strong reasons for suspecting him, that he “had a great hatred of women, with strong homicidal tendencies”, and that he strongly resembled “the man seen by a City PC” near Mitre Square. Aaron Kosminski meets some of the criteria in the general profile of serial killers as outlined by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal profiler John Douglas and Robert Ressler. He also lived within a mile of the sites of the murders.



#4. Thomas Cutbush




In November 2008, a newspaper reported that files released from Broadmoor high security hospital indicate that Thomas Hayne Cutbush may have been responsible for the murders, which ceased from the time of his detention. Cutbush was sent to Lambeth Infirmary in 1891 suffering delusions thought to have been caused by syphilis. After stabbing one woman and attempting to stab a second he was pronounced insane and committed to Broadmoor that same year, where he remained until his death in 1903. The paper also reported that Cutbush was the nephew of a Scotland Yard superintendent, and speculated that this may have led to a cover-up of the killer’s identity. The idea that Cutbush was the Ripper was first raised by newspapers shortly after his arrest.


#3. Sir William Withey Gull




Gull was physician-in-ordinary to Queen Victoria. He was named as the Ripper as part of the evolution of the masonic/royal conspiracy theory. Thanks to the popularity of this theory among fiction writers and for its dramatic nature, Gull shows up as the Ripper in a number of books and films (including a 1988 TV film Jack the Ripper starring Michael Caine and the graphic novel From Hell written by Alan Moore). It is just possible that Gull’s “candidacy” as a Ripper suspect is due to an odd item connected to his career. In April 1876 Gull was one of the physicians called to “the Priory”, the home of the barrister Charles Bravo when he was poisoned. Gull (like the other physicians) did what he could do, but he was hampered in not knowing the nature of the poison involved. His bedside manner on this occasion, even given the horror of speeding events or sheer desperation, were hardly conducive to easing the dying man’s mind. Gull would testify at the massively covered coroner’s proceedings that summer, and insist it was suicide.



#2. George Chapman





Chapman was born Seweryn Kłosowski in Poland, but went to the United Kingdom sometime between 1887 and 1888, later (c. 1893/94) assuming the name of Chapman (no relation to Annie Chapman, one of the victims). Without question a duplicitous and cold character who undertook several aliases, he was guilty of successively poisoning three of his wives, crimes for which he was hanged in 1903. He lived in Whitechapel, London, at the time of the killings where he had been working as a barber since arriving in England. He was at one time the favored suspect and is considered by many modern commentators to be the most likely killer. Chapman is supposed by some to have had the medical skills necessary to commit the mutilations (although the level of skill evidenced by the Ripper is a matter of debate, and divided medical opinions at the time). However, the main argument against him is the fact that he murdered his three wives with poison, and it is uncommon (though not unheard of) for a serial killer to make such a drastic change in modus operandi.



 #1. Montague John Druitt







Druitt was born in Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England, the son of a prominent local physician. He was educated at Winchester College and New College Oxford. He graduated from Oxford in 1880 and two years later was admitted to the Inner Temple and called to the bar in 1885. He practiced as a barrister and a special pleader until his death. His body was found floating in the River Thames off Thorneycroft’s torpedo works near Chiswick on 31 December 1888. Medical examination suggested that his body was kept at the bottom of the river for several weeks by stones placed in his pockets. The coroner’s jury concluded that he committed suicide by drowning “whilst of unsound mind.” His disappearance and death shortly after the fifth and last canonical murder (which took place on 9 November 1888) and alleged “private information” led some of the investigators years later to suggest he was the Ripper, thus explaining the end to the series of murders.








Monday 19 March 2012

48 Laws of Power and The Machiavellian Personality...


In the early 1970s, psychologist Richard Christie and his colleagues identified a distinct personality style that is characterized by manipulativeness, cynicism about human nature, and shrewdness in interpersonal behavior. Named after the sixteenth-century political philosopher and Italian Prince Machiavelli, this personality style is very nearly synonymous with being a manipulator. Machiavellian personalities are committed to the proposition that a desired end justifies virtually any means. Machiavellianism is defined as a manipulative strategy of social interaction and personality style that uses other people as tools of personal gain.

Machiavellianism derives from the views of Prince Machiavelli that a ruler is not bound by traditional ethical norms. A prince, therefore, should only be concerned with power and be bound only by rules that would lead to success. Prince Machiavelli deduced these rules from the political practices of his time: ? Never show humility; it is more effective to show arrogance when dealing with others. ? Morality and ethics are for the weak; powerful people should feel free to lie, cheat, and deceive whenever it suits their purpose. ? It is better to be feared than loved.

High machs (Machiavellists) tend to constitute a distinctive type. They tend to be charming, confident, and glib; but they also are arrogant, calculating, and cynical, prone to manipulate and exploit. In the context of laboratory experiment games, high machs display a keen and opportunistic sense of timing, and they appear to capitalize especially in situations that contain ambiguity regarding the rules."
This looks like a mixture of Narcissism and Antisocials. Now lets take a look at some of the 48 laws.

Law 1
Never Outshine the Master
Always make those above you feel comfortably superior. In your desire to please or impress them, do not go too far in displaying your talents or you might accomplish the opposite ? inspire fear and insecurity. Make your masters appear more brilliant than they are and you will attain the heights of power.

Law 2
Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies
Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.

Law 3
Conceal your Intentions
Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

Law 4
Always Say Less than Necessary
When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.

Law 5
So Much Depends on Reputation ? Guard it with your Life
Reputation is the cornerstone of power. Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once you slip, however, you are vulnerable, and will be attacked on all sides. Make your reputation unassailable. Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations. Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.

Law 6
Court Attention at all Cost
Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost.