PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and Vietnam Veterans Essay Example For Students

PostTraumatic Stress Disorder and Vietnam Veterans Essay Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Vietnam Veterans The power of the human brain is a mystery of science. For example, while certain parts of the brain are well known to control certain bodily functions, the brains memory capacity is just now being discovered. Scientists believe that only a small fraction of the brain is actually used, and its potential power is much greater than one may expect or believe. Its ability to view and store information is still not totally understood by scientists today. This causes a special problem in the treatment certain mental illnesses such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, is a reaction to a traumatic event in which death, serious injury, or the threat of either is present. The most common occurrence of this illness is among veterans of war, and it is very common among those who served in Vietnam. Vietnam veterans who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and do not receive medical treatment are at a high risk of suicide and other horrible demises. They become despondent and hard to talk to. It is as if the sufferers of PTSD are in a different reality. The traumatic events play back in their mind and they have a tough time relating with people. Louise Erdrich illustrates this in The Red Convertible. The short story is about two teenage Native American boys, Lyman and Henry, and the bond of their love for each other symbolized by a red convertible. One summer they buy a red convertible and travel across North America. When they return home, the older of the two, Henry, gets drafted in the war and spends up to three years in Vietnam with several of them as a POW. When he comes back, the effects of PTSD are obvious, but medical treatment is unavailable to him on his reservation because his mother is afraid to visit the local doctor. Henry, who used to be an energetic, joking, happy-go-lucky person, is now very quiet, jumpy, and uncomfortable around other people. He just sits in front of the familys color television firmly gripping his chair. People on the reservation find Henry strange and they do not know how to act around him. Lyman finds his brother hard to understand, so he purposely destroys the convertible, which he had kept in good shape since before the war, and believes that through Henry fixing it, their old relationship can be rekindled. For a while Henry shows a small bit of his old self as he intently works to refurbish the car. When the car is completed, Henry and Lyman go for a drive and end up drinking beer down by the flooded river. In the end, Henry goes for a swim in river where his boots fill with water and his painful memories are finally stopped when he drowns. (Erdrich 293-301) Henry illustrates symptoms many Vietnam veterans have faced after the war. According to Arthur G. Neal and his book National Trauma and Collective Memory: Major events in the American Century, one of the main reasons Vietnam veterans suffer from PTSD is that they were thrown back into society without a any sort of ritualistic purification (140). Neal tells us that unlike after World War II when soldiers were given parades and were praised as heroes, Vietnam veterans were badly treated by civilian Americans because of the huge disbelief in and hatred of the war (140). The lack of this purification was especially bad for those veterans who were underprivileged, such as Native Americans. These underprivileged veterans were unable to get the required medical attention to treat their disorder. .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .postImageUrl , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:hover , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:visited , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:active { border:0!important; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 { 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; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:active , .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .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; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7 .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u0d79b818618b736861946d48d62936f7:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Kant And Utilitarianism Essay The poverty that Native Americans and those of other similar demographics lived in caused a sharp difference in veterans who suffered from PTSD, as Sarah L. Knox writes in a review of Eric T. Dean, Jr.s Shook over Hell: Post-Traumatic Stress, Vietnam, and the Civil War (111). Knox says Dean argues that the privileged veteran would receive better treatment and medical attention compared to his impoverished counterpart (111). Neal also states that the communities and employers of Vietnam veterans treated them as if they had just gotten back from a vacation (140). This casual handling .

Teaching Expository Writing Using Multiple Intelligence Theory free essay sample

This paper details methods used in teaching expository writing, and then gives an overview of multiple intelligence theory. Uses buzzwords like empower and geared to specific intelligences. This paper explores the different methods of teaching expository writing at a secondary school level. The topics covered are: Different theories of teaching expository writing; different methods used to teach expository writing; the use of multiple intelligence theory as a framework for diverse teaching of writing; and the application of multiple intelligence theory in the classroom. Information literacy in the form of classes on information management and retrieval precede any actual writing in composition classes at some schools (Farmer Mech, 1992). Behaviorist approaches, such as the one advocated by Kanellas, Carifio, and Dagostino (1998), require the teacher to break the tasks involved in expository writing into small teaching units that will ultimately lead to an acceptable paper. Chomsky (1985) sees poor writing as evidence of an inability of the student to develop his own knowledge, as do teachers of writing from middle school to college. We will write a custom essay sample on Teaching Expository Writing Using Multiple Intelligence Theory or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page

Parenthetical Phrases

Parenthetical Phrases Parenthetical Phrases Parenthetical Phrases By Mark Nichol Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re explaining something in writing such as which punctuation marks to use to signal a break in thought and you want to make it clear to your readers (many of whom may never have realized that there are distinctions to be made). How would you do it? I just did. One of three basic strategies usually suffices to set a parenthetical phrase off from its root sentence. By â€Å"parenthetical phrase,† I mean one that constitutes a digression (or a clarification) and, despite the name, it doesn’t have to involve parentheses. I did it again. You see, the mildest form of parenthesis, for when you want to quickly insert a detail without distracting the reader, is a subordinate clause: a nonessential phrase framed by a pair of commas. The preceding sentence includes a subordinate clause: the one that begins â€Å"for when† and ends â€Å"the reader.† If you temporarily remove that phrase from the sentence, its structural integrity remains intact. (Try it; I’ll wait but don’t forget to put it back when you’re done.) The subordinate-clause parenthesis is one strategy. Another is to use the punctuation characters called parentheses. (The singular form, also used for the compositional device under discussion, is â€Å"parenthesis.†) Notice that I just inserted a parenthesis inside parentheses to make a point that isn’t key to the explanation but provides an additional dollop of information. Note also that I inserted a subordinate clause inside the parenthesis. That’s acceptable but shouldn’t be overdone, because it complicates sentence structure and can obfuscate writing. The third device is the use of what are technically called em dashes so called because they were originally the width of the letter â€Å"m† though most people refer to them simply as dashes. Digression: A pair of en dashes the origin of this name should be apparent are often used in place of em dashes, though they were appropriated from another use. Simple hyphens either a single pair or two doubles also appear in their place, especially online. Why? The hyphen is part of the ASCII roster of basic alphanumeric characters that automatically translate online, but em dashes and en dashes often have to be coded, or they’ll manifest in most browser windows as odd characters; we’ve all seen that error on even otherwise professional Web sites. Therefore, they’re used less often on the Internet. End of digression. Dashes and their substitutes, as opposed to quotidian commas and wallflower parentheses, are best used to call attention to the inserted phrase hey, look at me! and note that often, they are used not in pairs with a parenthetical phrase within, but rather alone, setting a phrase off at the end of a sentence a function commas but not parentheses share. I have allowed these devices to proliferate here for the sake of instruction; but use them sparingly. (Especially, don’t use more than a single dash or a pair of dashes in one sentence or in consecutive sentences, or the passage may be difficult to follow.) Employed in moderation, and when each type is used according to its strength, parenthetical punctuation is a powerful textual tool try it! 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:20 Types and Forms of HumorEmail Etiquette5 Ways to Reduce Use of Prepositions

Four Common Idioms from Shakespeare

Four Common Idioms from Shakespeare Four Common Idioms from Shakespeare Four Common Idioms from Shakespeare By Maeve Maddox What do the following examples from the Web have in common? Changing my mind  is not something that happens often.  Its a simple case of  me  stating  my  point and  refusing to budge an inch  from it.   US Recovery Cold Comfort for Unemployed Are your kids  eating  you  out of house and home  during the summer? . I made the mistake of buying him an egg salad sandwich, even though  in my heart of hearts I knew  he wouldnt like or eat it. Each one contains a phrase from Shakespeare that is still in widespread use. refuse to budge an inch In the frame story of The Taming of the Shrew, drunken Christopher Sly has been thrown out of an inn. An inn employee threatens to call the law on him, but Sly refuses to be intimidated by the threat. He tells the employee to call whom he will, but that he’ll â€Å"not budge an inch.† Sly uses the expression literally: he will not physically move from the place where he immediately falls asleep. In modern usage, the idiom is usually used figuratively with the meaning, â€Å"stand firm,† â€Å"refuse to change one’s mind on a matter.† cold comfort Shakespeare uses this expression in two plays: The Taming of the Shrew and King John. In the Shrew, Grumio uses the expression in a lengthy and bawdy punning exchange with another servant. In King John, the king, dying of poison, suffers from a burning fever. When his attendants inquire how he feels, he responds hyperbolically, personifying Winter and chiding them for not asking winter: to make his bleak winds kiss my parched lips And comfort me with cold. I do not ask you much; I beg cold comfort; and you are so strait And so ingrateful you deny me that. In modern usage, â€Å"cold comfort† is used figuratively in contexts in which something that is good in one sense is not adequate consolation for those who do not benefit from it. For example, the news of a drop in unemployment is â€Å"cold comfort† to people who remain unemployed. to eat one out of house and home In Henry IV, Part 2, Hostess Quickly of the Boar’s Head tavern has called the law on Falstaff because he has run up an unpaid bill of 100 marks. When the Lord Chief Justice asks for details, she says, â€Å"He hath eaten me out of house and home; he hath put all my substance into that fat belly of his.† In modern usage, the expression seems to be especially common in reference to teenagers. in my heart of hearts Shakespeare puts the expression in Hamlet’s mouth, although without a plural: Give me that man That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart. Hamlet is praising Horatio for being the kind of man who can be trusted. In modern usage the phrase â€Å"heart of hearts† means, â€Å"the seat of one’s truest feelings.† The expression is especially popular on dating sites. For example: The most important question to ask yourself is this:  In your heart of hearts, do you believe that he or she is the one and only? Happy Birthday, Shakespeare! He was not of an age, but for all time!- Ben Jonson (1572-1637) William Shakespeare Born: April 23, 1564 Died: April 23, 1616 Related posts Shakespeare’s Vocabulary Book Titles From Shakespeare Sources of Titles Drawn from Shakespeare 20 Movies Based on Shakespeare Plays The Most Unkindest Cut of All Thou Lily-livered Boy 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 Expressions category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Fly, Flew, (has) FlownFlied?44 Resume Writing Tips7 Proofreading Steps

BANK OF AMERICA TECHNOLOGY (ATM, ONLINE BANKING, ALL TECHNOLOGY Essay

BANK OF AMERICA TECHNOLOGY (ATM, ONLINE BANKING, ALL TECHNOLOGY ASPECTS) - Essay Example (Frguson, 2000).Many banks are now spending huge amounts of money in technology .This money is being spent not only to update and maintain their IT infrastructure but also to keep ahead of the competition by being the first to provide the latest technologies. Some of the technologies provide ease and convenience to the customers and others help the banks to reduce their overheads and thus save money which was usually spent on physical infrastructure. Technology is also allowing small banks to compete with big established banks as they rely more on their virtual infrastructure than on their physical infrastructure to compete. IT has provided many custom made and off the shelf solutions to take care of their accounting and back office needs. IT has also helped in the development of new channels of reaching out to the customer such as auto teller machines, net banking, mobile banking and various other facilities. Some examples of technology products which are used by banks to provide se rvice to its customers are net banking , credit card online , mobile banking , electronic money transfer , online payment of taxes , mobile recharges , airline ticket booking etc. The list of services being provided by banks to its online customers is endless. Bank of America Corporation as a financial services company is the largest bank holding company in USA by assets and second largest by market capitalization. (Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, 2009).It was founded in 1874 and was initially known as Nations bank .Its current name was assumed after the acquisition of a San-Francisco bank named as Bank of America. The need of information technology in Bank of America was felt due to another revolution that it has pioneered. It was one of the first banks to deploy branch offices of the parent bank in many locations all across the nation. But cashing a cheuque in a different location was a cumbersome process for the customers

Compare and Contrast Country Lovers and The Welcome Essay

Compare and Contrast Country Lovers and The Welcome - Essay Example However, other issues that are related to the study of literary works such as style are usually the same. The thematic concerns that are centered in literary works are also mostly the same. These are the various factors that are discussed when looking at literary works. This paper will be a discussion of two literary works Country Lovers by Nadine Gordimer and The Welcome Table by Alice Walker. Focus will be on content, form, style and setting of the two literary works. These features will be analyzed so as to ascertain the rationalization that they have towards developing the themes of race and ethnicity that are common in both works. All these aspects as pertains to the two stories will be compared and contrasted. Both literary works, Country Lovers and The Welcome Table are short stories. They can be found in a number of collected anthologies. However, despite the fact that they are both story stories, they are quite different. While Gordimer’s story is long and quite detai led, this is not the case in The Welcome Table. This story is quite brief but still manages to pass the message that it was intended to. Through descriptive words, the author has still managed to come up with a plot that is interesting to follow. Therefore, while both literary works are short stories, one is long and much more detailed than the other. This is what contrasts the two literary works of art in terms of form. It also makes them quite interesting to study. ? ­ One aspect that is similar in both Country Lovers and The Welcome Table is the protest about racism; this is followed by the tragic human consequences that this practice comes with. Despite the fact that the stories are written based on the same thematic concerns, the context in which they are written is very different. Moreover, the way in which they are written and the emotional impact that they have on the readers are not the same. For example, whilst Gordimer’s story is written in South Africa when the apartheid regime was rampant, Walker’s story is set in the United States during the post civil war period. These were different historical times that occurred in places that are far apart and the experiences that the characters in this stories had may not have been the same. During the Apartheid system, the law, under the operation of the state was used to impose difficult living conditions on the non-whites in South Africa (Union of South Africa, 2012). This situation can be seen from the text, while Paulus went to school and lived in full comfort and sometimes even enjoying some luxuries, like movies, this was not the same case with Thebedi, she was supposed to do manual labor on the white man’s house with education being a secondary objective to her and the other black children (Gordimer, 1975). This was as per the law that ensured that there was a great disparity between the lives of the blacks and the whites. While this was the situation for the blacks, all wealth , economic and educational opportunities were privileges that were exclusively reserved for the whites in South Africa. On the other hand Walker focuses on the plight that the older rural based African Americans go through. This is through the life of complete slavery that they have been subjected to and they are still subjected to. Even though some reforms were made during the Civil Rights era, there is a lot of subjugation that the blacks

Existential Lit Final Paper Essay Example for Free

Existential Lit Final Paper Essay Part I 1. In Thomas Nagels â€Å"The Absurd† (1971), he begins by addressing the standard arguments for declaring life to be absurd. The first argument he points out is the idea that nothing humans doing in the present will matter in the distant future, or as Nagel says, â€Å"in a million years† (Nagel 716). People believe that what they do now wont matter at all in a million years, and that they are just one person living in the now that will soon be gone and will therefore not matter and dont matter. Humans see this not mattering as a reason why life is absurd, since if nothing matters then the point of life is questioned. The second standard argument Nagel looks at is the idea that humans â€Å"are tiny specks in the infinite vastness of the universe† (Nagel 717). This idea focuses around space and time, and how individual humans only live for an extremely short amount of time in a tremendously vast universe. People see this as a reason why life is absurd, looking at their lives as such short increments of time, especially on the large scale of the universe. Since humans are so small and take up such little time with their lives, this is seen as a reason life is absurd. The third argument Nagel looks at is about not being able to justifying all of lifes activities, since humans could die at any moment and will eventually. People go through sequences in life, one thing leading to the next, to accomplish something each step of the way, and therefore it is justified. However, eventually, life must end, and the chain of sequences will be cut off in the midst of one of the activities, and therefore will end without justification. â€Å"All of it is an elaborate journey leading to nowhere† (Nagel 717). These are the three standard arguments for explaining why life is absurd that Nagel discusses. Nagel, however, disagrees with these arguments and finds each invalid for specific reasons. When looking at the idea that nothing humans do now will matter in a million years, Nagel objects this with the realization that it doesnt matter now whether or not what we do now in a million years will matter or not. Whether what humans do now will matter in a million years or not is not important, because either way it wouldnt change how people feel now. â€Å"If their mattering now is not enough to accomplish that, how would it help if they mattered a million years from now? † (Nagel 716). If now doesnt matter in the future, than the future must not matter now, and therefore this explanation of why life is absurd is invalid. The second idea, focusing on life being absurd because of how small and short lived humans lives are, is contradicted by Nagels idea that if humans were larger presents in the universe theyre lives would still be just as absurd and that if humans lived for longer, or forever, there lives would just be absurd for that much longer, or even infinitely absurd. This thought of humans as living for such a short amount of time and being so tiny in the universe is clearly not what makes life absurd, even if life is absurd. These facts, if anything, would make humans lives more absurd, if they were larger presents in the universe or lived forever then the absurd would be even larger or last for eternity. Therefore, this is not a valid argument in saying that life is absurd. Looking at the third argument, which focuses on death preventing the justification of human lives and its many sequences, Nagel shows that this idea is actually false as life does not consist of these sequences that all have purposes and continuous justification. â€Å"Chains of justification come repeatedly to an end within life, and whether the process as a whole can be justified has no bearing on the finality of these end-points† (Nagel 717). Many things we do in our daily lives are already reasonable and do not need further justification, such as taking aspirin for a headache, Nagel points out. However, even if someone wanted to further justify any of lifes activities, this further justification would also have to end somewhere, as all things must. â€Å"If nothing can justify unless it is justified in terms of something outside itself, which is also justified, then an infinite regress results, and no chain of justification can be complete† (Nagel 717). All reasoning must end at some point and must be accepted as it is instead of looking at it as incomplete, because if it is looked at as incomplete then reasoning is impossible. With Nagels profound contradictions to these three arguments, he shows that these are not valid reasons to say that life is absurd. 2. Though Nagel discards the standard arguments for stating that life is absurd, he nonetheless says that life can be seen as absurd, just for different reasons than the previous ones discussed. He states that life is absurd because of the clash between humans tendency to take their lives so seriously and the ability of humans to doubt these things which they take so seriously or view them as arbitrary. Humans take their lives seriously, as seen through the idea that many things are necessities for living and that humans actions, such as making choices, are very important. However, humans also are capable of seeing things outside of their lives, which then creates doubt about the things that are taken so seriously. This idea that humans cannot live their live without this seriousness, yet can have a point of view outside of their lives that makes this seriousness doubtful, is why life is absurd. â€Å"It is absurd because we ignore the doubts that we know cannot be settled, continuing to live with nearing undiminished seriousness in spite of them† (Nagel 719). There is a clash between what people think is happening in life and what is truly happening, and because humans are able to have a point of view outside of their own life, they can see what is truly happening and therefore become doubtful of what they think is happening. However, they continue on with what they think is happening, or with this seriousness of life, even with the doubts from seeing what is truly happening. These two viewpoints, one within our own lives and one outside our lives, are both unavoidable yet clash with one another, and this, according to Nagel, is why life is absurd. Nagel states that humans take their lives seriously whether they live in a serious manor or not, and regardless of what their primary concerns in life are. â€Å"Human life is full of effort, plans, calculation, success and failure: we pursue our lives, with varying degrees of sloth and energy† (Nagel 719). Humans can reflect, make choices, question things, and decide what to peruse and what to avoid and who they want to be or become. This alone is signified, but when it clashes with humans ability to think outside themselves and survey this seriousness, it creates absurdity. â€Å"Yet humans have the special capacity to step back and survey themselves, and the lives to which they are committed, with that detached amazement which comes from watching an ant struggle up a head of sand† (Nagel 720). This ability to step back creates these doubts and questions about this seriousness life is taken with, doubts and questions about things that seem so sure before stepping back. Nagel explains: We step back to find that the whole system of justification and criticism, which controls our choices and supports our claims to rationality, rests on response and habits that we never question, that we should not know how to defend without circularity, and to which we shall continue to adhere even after they are called into question† (Nagel 720). According to Nagel, life is absurd not because humans are capable of this stepping back and reflecting on the seriousness of life, but because they then continue with their lives and taking them so serious even after doubts about the seriousness have been identified. 3. Nagel focuses on the idea that humans live absurd lives because of their self-consciousness, and therefore their ability to see themselves as humans and create this clash between seriousness and reality. With this, it can be said that God, all-knowing and self-aware, also lives an absurd life. The mouse Nagel refers to cannot have an absurd life because he is not self-aware, so he does not know he is a mouse and does not have the ability to reflect on this and create doubts about it. God, however, knows he is God and therefore has the ability to step back and have doubts. Being self-aware means that you doubt, and that every justification is doubted. This means that God, self-aware, doubts justifications, just like humans, and has an absurd life with the clash between these. When Nagel describes how the mouses life would be if he was self-aware, he says, â€Å" he would have to return to his meagre yet frantic life, full of doubts that he was unable to answer, but also full of purposes that he was unable to abandon† (Nagel 725). This sentence is applicable to Gods life being absurd, as God has a life full of doubts without answers due to his self-consciousness, but also has great purposes that he is unable to abandon, since he is the higher power that humans rely on. Also, like humans, God cannot refuse this consciousness, because to refuse it would mean he is aware of it, and it therefore he would already be self-aware. Since God cannot escape this self-consciousness, he is trapped, like humans, in this clash between his self-awareness and the seriousness that is taken with it and the doubt that comes with self-awareness where he reflects and doubts all justifications. This makes Gods life absurd, just like humans lives, as he too experiences the clash between self and reality. 4. Nagel stresses that absurdity is one of the most significant things that makes humans humans, and that it is essentially incurable. With this idea in mind, it can be seen that religion cannot cure the feeling of absurdity, and religious people live absurd lives just as all humans do. Humans lives are absurd because they have life goals and strive for things, which is the aspect of taking life seriously, but they also can step back and reflect on things and this causes doubts, which happens regardless of religion. â€Å"What makes doubt inescapable with regard to the limited aims of individual life also makes it inescapable with regard to any larger purpose that encourages the sense that life is meaningful† (Nagel 721). Believing in something larger does not allow escaping to occur, as it can be doubted in the same way that individual life can be. People use a higher being for comfort and to give their lives meaning and justification, however, as pointed out before, justifications end and humans no longer look any further. Moreover, religious people still have the humanistic qualities that all humans do that eventually lead to reflection and doubt. Another way of portraying religious peoples life as absurd just as nonreligious lives is to look at the idea of being self-conscious leading to absurdity and that this is a natural part of being human. â€Å"The only way to avoid the relevant self-consciousness would be either never to attain it or to forget it—neither of which can be achieved by the will† (Nagel 725). Religion does not change this unavoidable self-consciousness, and therefore life it still absurd with religion. The idea of religion is to provide meaning to life, however, if all humans are prone to this inevitable doubt, than this meaning will be doubted in the same way that life without meaning is doubted, or may even be doubted even more and therefore this creates a more significant contradiction, and may mean that religion makes life even more absurd. The gap between seriousness and reality is even larger in a life with religion because life is taken more serious, as there is this idea of more meaning, but still has the contradiction with reflection and doubt, hence a life with religion abets absurdity. Nagels main focus about religion is that it does not cure the feelings of absurdity because, regardless of being religious or not, humans cannot avoid this inevitable doubt of their seriousness, and therefore creating this clash which makes life absurd. â€Å"There does not appear to be any conceivable world (containing us) about which unsettlable doubts could not arise† (Nagel 722). Nagels idea about facing this absurdity is, rather than believing in something higher that gives life a certain meaning that does nothing but encourage absurdity, view life as ironic. He says to â€Å"approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair† (Nagel 727). Heroism, as seen in religion, means to value life too much, whereas despair, seen in the depressed or suicidal, means to not value life enough or at all. However, to look at the absurdity of life with irony allows humans to live this contradicting life, aware of this contradiction, but continue to live it without denial, torment, or resentment. In Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot (1953), this concept of absurdity seen from continuing seriousness even after doubting it is portrayed. Vladimir and Estragon have chosen enslavement to an authoritative figure, Godot, and though they have yet to see Godot or even get confirmation that he will eventually come, they still continue to wait for him. This is the same idea that religion brings to humans, as they can live their lives without signs from God or true meaning from religion, yet they still believe because it gives them a sense of purpose. However, this creates absurdity because, for religious people, they also doubt all of this purpose and meaning they are waiting for, and for Vladimir and Estragon, they doubt Godot will ever come. Towards the end of the play, it is clear that Vladimir has doubt about Godot and has a realization that he has been waiting for a long time and will continue to wait, possibly for eternity. He has this realization and doubt about his seriousness for waiting, yet continues to wait. This clash is what makes Vladimir and Estragons lives absurd, and is the same clash that is seen in religious lives as well. 5. According to Nagel, atheistic existentialists, such as Sartre and Camus, dwell on and blame the fact that God doesnt exist as the reason life is absurd. They believe that without God, our lives lack the meaning which they demand, and without this meaning our lives are meaningless, and therefore absurd. However, Nagel has already pointed out that this is not why life is absurd and that whether our lives have meaning or not does not change this clash between the seriousness which we take our lives and the reality that causes us to doubt the seriousness that is the true creator of absurdity. These atheistic existentialists view absurdity of humans lives as a problem, as something that needs a solution or to be fixed. Camus advice on dealing with this â€Å"problem† of absurdity is defiance. Nagel looks at Camus proposal, and says, â€Å"We can salvage our dignity, he appears to believe, by shaking a fist at the world which is deaf to our please, and continuing to live in spite of it† (Nagel 726). This, of course, will not rid our lives of absurdity, as this is not possible as long as we are self-aware and able to reflect, but Camus believes it will give humans at least a more fulfilled life. Nagel disagrees with these ideas, and says that the absurdity of human lives isnt even a problem at all. He falls back on his idea that absurdity is one of the most significant things that makes us human, and humans lives are only absurd because they posses the ability of a kind of insight that other species do not. â€Å"If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation (even though the situation is not absurd until the perception arises) then what reason can we have to resent or escape it? † (Nagel, 727). Nagel says that it is important that humans are aware of this absurdity, yet do not try to avoid it as it is not possible to do such a thing and one will only dwell on this attempt their entire life. Instead, as mentioned before, Nagel suggests the only way going about absurdity is to approach it with irony. It is important to not let this absurdity become torturous, but is also crucial to not allow it to force an avoidance or attempt to surpass the absurdity. The acknowledgment of the clash between seriousness and reality is important in acceptance and living life in between heroism and despair. If humans can look at their absurd lives with irony, the absurdity will be acknowledged, but will not effect their lives as to cause anything actually problematic from happening. Nagel also states that this absurdity is important because it exposes our human limitations and allows humans to understand these, so there is no reason to try to escape this. Nagels argument helps make sense of these atheistic existentialists works. For example, in Camus The Stranger (1942), the ending is very clear because Camus didnt believe in the idea of approaching absurdity with irony, so he did not end his book like this, and instead ended it with Maurseult approaching the absurdity with the dramatic feeling that Nagel discourages. Maurseult is unable to find irony in his absurd life, and blames Gods nonexistence for his inability to justify morals. It is clear that this happens because these are Camus beliefs, and Nagel portrays these as making a problem out of absurdity that shouldnt be a problem at all. Jean-Paul Sartre, also an atheistic existentialist according to Nagel, falls back on the idea that existence proceeds essence, and in that way humans achieve absolute freedom. However, this idea is contradicted by Nagel when he says that humans are born into absurdity and there is no escaping it, as it would have to have been never attained or forgotten, which is impossible to do if its part of humans from the start. Nagels ideas about absurdity, such that it is unavoidable yet not necessarily a problem, contradict these atheistic existentialists ideas, and he ends with he belief that contrary to what these existentialists say, humans must approach their absurd lives with irony, because if nothing matters, than it wouldnt matter to do anything other than this. Part II a. â€Å"Existentialism Is a Humanism†, by Jean-Paul Sartre (1946), focuses on freedom as the bases of morality. Sartre defends existentialism as being a moral philosophy by contradicting arguments against this idea with his own thoughts. The first idea that Sartre rejects is that which claims existentialism allows people to â€Å"dwell in the quietism of despair† (Sartre 1). In his argument against this he focuses on the concept that existence proceeds essence, where humans first exist before anything else, such as defining themselves. â€Å"Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing—as he wills to be after that leap towards existence† (Sartre 2). This is what Sartre refers to as the first principle of existentialism. The next idea Sartre argues against is that existentialism is a pessimistic view, however, he says that existentialism actually reflects severe optimism. He gives the example of the way an existentialist looks at a coward and sees him as personally responsible for being a coward, as something he chooses and commits to, which is an optimist way of looking at such a thing. Sartre then looks at the idea of subjectivity, which is argued as a negative aspect of existentialism as it is seen as living a solitude and therefore selfish or egotistical life, and conveys two meanings for â€Å"subjectivism†. One meaning he points out is the freedom of an individual, and the other meaning refers to man unable to further himself beyond human subjectivity. This is a further look at existence proceeding essence, as it shows that humans do not choose being human but they do choose their actions after becoming humans, and by choosing for ones self, one chooses for all humans. This shows, therefore, that existentialists view humans as not individuals whom are selfish, but rather that their actions speak for all humans. The last argument Sartre rejects is that existentialism denies reality and the seriousness of humanity. However, according to Sartre, existentialism is humanist when looking at a fundamental definition of the word. â€Å"Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist† (Sartre 13). Existentialists believe that there is no human action that doesnt have an explanation, and if an action has an explanation it is human. These ideas portray Sartes position that existentialism is a moral philosophy and that it is a humanism. However, his ideas are not enough to make this statement. He focuses deeply on the idea of freedom and that because humans are free as seen by existentialists, existentialism is a moral philosophy. For existentialism to be completely moral, however, it would have to compliment Sartes idea of freedom with other values, such as charity, kindness, and serving our duty to the world and others, as this is what is truly moral and humanitarian. Complimenting freedom with something else though would take some freedom away and therefore his idea of the moral system being based on freedom is invalid. One example Sartre provides to express this idea of freedom being the basis for existentialism, and the reason it is moral, is about a man facing a moral dilemma. He must choose between either staying with his mother, whom has been abandoned by everyone else in her life and only has this one son left, or leaving her, alone and empty, to go join the Free French Forces. He looks at this as a moral dilemma, however, this is not a moral dilemma because both choices are good. A moral dilemma is one where an individual is faced with two options and picks the one which is good and leaves the other which is not good. However, whether this man stays with his mother or goes to fight for a cause, he is choosing between two goods and therefore is not making a moral decision. Sartre also looks at the idea that existentialism leaves you uncertain and that all moral decisions operate with a degree of uncertainty. This, to an extent, is true, and it is not wise to base decisions on certainty of the future. However, there are actions that are possible, and should be, taken based on their consequences. For example, the question of whether one should push another individual off an enormous cliff seems very certain. It is true that life is uncertain, but there is quite a high chance that that individual, if pushed off the cliff, will fall and die. The immediate and certain consequences seen in life are not mentioned and are ignored in Sartres moral system of existentialism, and therefore is not enough to make this claim. Sartre focuses on this idea that freedom is what makes existentialism a moral philosophy, however, true morality limits freedom, and there is so much more to morality than what Sartre mentions. b. Ivan Ilytch and Meursault both experience an epiphany at the end of their lives, and therefore die as happy men. Both men lived selfish lives, unaware of what life truly was about. They both lived under an idea of what they thought was the right way to live, with Ivan attempting to live a normal life, fitting into society, and Meursault living a life in effort to embody the universe. Both of these life styles were structured and allowed the men to just follow guidelines which they believed was the right thing to do. However, this was selfish as it led to them ignoring the rest of the world, such as their families and other aspects of true happiness. Meursault went through life seeing it as meaningless and therefore claims he believes in nothing. However, the fact that he in so deeply devoted to this meaningless shows that he believes in this meaninglessness. This becomes clear when Meursault is talking to the priest and realizes that his uncertainty was just as strong as the priests certainty about everything, and when he says that the priest was living like a dead man he realizes that it was really him who was doing such a thing. Meursault comes to terms with the fact the he so deeply believes that nothing matters and life is meaningless, and in doing so he looses his temper and becomes emotional and passionate about something for once in his life. This same insight about realizing that life is not so structured and that it is about existing and having fulfillment is seen in Ivan when, as he is laying on his death bed, he becomes aware that there is no goal in life. He spent his whole life chasing something, but finally realizes that this is not what life is about, as he already had things in his life that could have given him fulfillment, such as his family. As he looks at his son and is overcome by this realization, he is finally happy. Meursault also was pursing something in life, that of embodying the universe, but he too sees that this is not what life is about. Soon before he dies, he really sees the world for the first time in his life, the smells and sounds that it holds, and is happy. He even thinks about his mother and shows a side, lacking selfishness, that he had never shown before. With this thoughtfulness, as well as recognizing that nothing matters and there is no meaning, he finally gives himself the fulfillment that life is truly about and feels happiness. c. In Samuel Becketts Waiting for Godot (1953), two men wait for an authoritative figure to appear and convey a message, telling them what to do and what to live for. This is a constant part of society, where humans continue â€Å"waiting† and spend their entire lives hoping the universe will tell them something. The play symbolizes this human waiting and longing for something more in many ways throughout it. Estragon cannot take his shoes off, symbolizing that he is stuck on earth and nothing can be done as he cannot escape. Vladimir looks at his hat, as if to find something in it that tells him something or gives some sort of sign, but finds nothing and continues to gaze at the horizon, which holds hope and something more than this life theyre stuck in. However, as trapped and unhappy as they are, as they even considered suicide, they do not give up hope. In fact, they decide against suicide because they must wait for Godot to come and see what he offers, and then they will decide what to do from there. Vladimir and Estragon cannot stop their wanting to live as they want to live for something, so they are hoping that Godot will give them something to live for, even though he already is just from the hope that he might come. They have lost track of time and are unsure of whether they were here yesterday, as waiting tends to make people lose track of time since it is just what humans do and is inherent in our human condition. In metaphysical time, it is always just now, and waiting is eternal. When two new characters enter the scene, Pozzo and Lucky, the main characters become puzzled. Lucky, who is seemingly not so lucky, carries Pozzos bags for him, but he never puts them down, and he obeys Pozzos every command. Vladimir and Estragon wonder why this is, and why Lucky even puts up with Pozzo. Lucky, however, is not much different from Vladimir and Estragon, as he just seeks authority. He wants this enslavement, where he is told what to do and think and how to live. Vladimir and Estragon have their own symbolic bags that they too refuse to put down, as seen through their choice to continue to wait for Godot, with no one telling them they must wait but it being their own decision to do so and continue to do so. When Vladimir and Estragon find themselves worried that Pozzo wants to get rid of Lucky and leave him behind, it symbolizes that they too are worried of being left behind by Godot. This constant desire for authority is something seen in this play as well as in society, as humans are very frightful of being alone or without someone to tell them what to do or how to live. Though Vladimir and Estragons decision to wait is questionable, it does however give them something to do and comes from a command from authority. As mentioned before, though Godot isnt there, Godot is still ruling over them and gives them the authority that is so desperately sought for. This enslavement to Godot seen in Vladimir and Estragon is actually rather admirable, as it shows their devotion and commitment. The patience seen in their servitude conveys their faith and religious spirit. It brings them hope and a sort of comfort to continue this faith and commitment. When the boy comes the second time to deliver Godots message, Vladimir seems to know that the same thing happened yesterday, and that it will continue to happen, but he still continues to wait. The boy does not tell Vladimir that he will convey his message to Godot and does not give Vladimir his desired recognition that this is real, and Godot has not shown up, yet Vladimir and Estragon still continues to wait and do not lose hope. This idea that they are not just existing as humans but are devoting themselves to this higher authority shows that their existential journey leads beyond existentialism, as they continue to wait by choice but are being controlled by the idea of something more.