The Manhunts idea in the movie The War of Kids

The movie The War on Kids by Manhunt reveals the past American education trends under which schools were perceived as the source of torture, punishments and a place from where nothing of interest was thought to be attained from. In this movie, the idea of Manhunt to bring in to focus the kind of administration public schools adopted in the past few decades was based on the misuse of power and authority leading to the overreaction by school administrators and consequently an interruption of the coherence expected within the learning process. More specifically, Manhunt in his movie draws the attention of the untold suppression and down pinning of various individuals by school administration within public schools.

The Manhunts idea from the movie The war of Kids
The Manhunts idea from the movie The War of Kids is rooted on the brutality of school administrators within the American education system for the past few decades where schooling seemed to be of no interest especially under the initial levels of learning. From the movie various scenarios depict the idea of the misuse of powers and authority, as a way of instilling discipline among the learners especially during the initial levels of learning. Further, the movie expounds on the idea of rule by force under which the running of public schools in America during that time was based on the use of force to instill discipline among the learners. More so, the brutality by the police to school teachers stresses this idea of rule by force which led to the learners reacting against such inhumanity among the teachers within the lower ranks who seemed to team up with the learners (Catsoulis, 2009).

The movie further unveils the suppressive policies which were adopted within the running of public schools, leading to the lack of coherence within the running of school activities as the school system was out of touch with its stakeholders. More specifically, Manhunts main idea within the movie was to bring in to attention the massive inefficiency within the school system due to the oppressive and harsh policies adopted within the American education system in the past leading to most learners lacking interest in schooling (Kim, 1994).

The relationship between Manhunts idea and Foucaults Discipline and Punish
The problem of schooling system in America in the past can be referred to Foucaults Discipline and Punish. Perhaps, the idea of Manhunt in the movie The War on Kids has a very close link to the Foucaults ideas within the book Discipline and Punish considering the way various incidences unfold within the movie. In fact as Foucault brings out the public governance system as being brutal and malicious, the same ideas are generally carried during practice within the education system in America as the movie The War on Kids depicts. More specifically, the book Discipline and Punish portrayed the overall administration of public governance as being oppressive and as using prisons as the key institution useful in instill discipline among the people in which the movie The War on Kids reflects similar administrative policies within the school system (Santa, 2009).

In addition, the Manhunts idea of bringing in to focus the misuse of power and authority in public schools is directly linked to the Foucaults ideas in which they both bring in to attention the oppressive and harsh policies adopted in most public administrative systems. As the movie The war on Kids depict, the school systems had been turned in to prisons where the learners had no rights to express their feelings and ideas freely an instance where subsequent punishments were administered to the learners who came out to advocate for their rights. In this respect, the idea of Manhunt is closely related to the Foucaults idea on the massive powers by the public governance in torturing, punishing, disciplining and the imprisoning of people who went against the suppressing public governance policies without compromise (Foucault, 1975).

Lastly, Manhunts idea to bring out the American compulsory education system as meant to produce individuals like civil servants, the military and internal soldiers among others who would be very much submissive to the government. As it usually happens, the public governance practice pursues to developing education systems which would yield citizens who are sycophants to the public administration so as to enhance further oppression of the public in general. In this perspective, Manhunts idea goes hand in hand with the Foucaults idea of the public administration to harshly and brutally deal with those people who go against the oppressive public administrative policies so as to intimidate people to be loyal to the prevailing public administrative system (Catsoulis, 2009).

Conclusion
Generally, the Manhunts idea within the movie The War of Kids is based on the oppressive administrative policies which were adopted within the American compulsory education system in the past under which brutality and the misuse of power was greatly practiced in the lower levels of education. As it is revealed from the movie, various counter-reactions by school kids to advocate for their rights and liberalization from such oppressive policies within the education system were made. More specifically, the main idea from the movie is to bring in to focus the need for a liberated education system which will help enhance the free expression of feelings and ideas by scholars. This is the case as it will help make schooling more interesting thus enhancing the cultivation of special talents and skills among individuals.  

A History of Metaphysics Definition and Approach

The term metaphysics is first found in the Aristotelian treatises, which defines it as ta meta ta physica, literally meaning what comes after the physical. There is an inherent ambiguity within this definition, as it may both refer to the works of Aristotelian that come after the physical works dealing with material science, or a study that deals with things that come after the physical. There has been considerable debate over the actual meaning of this phrase, and the term that was later derived from it  metaphysical.

Buhle, in the 18th century after a close reading of Aristotles metaphysics, came to the conclusion that it is used primarily as an editorial term like appendices, cataloguing works that come after the physical.
However, most future philosophers would summarily disagree with such a definition, as there is neither proof nor rationale behind it. Parmenides of Elea undertook a study of astronomical bodies and the cosmos in the fifth century BC, and tried to explain the being of these bodies. This formulation established the meaning of the word being in Greek philosophy, which meant that which was permanent and immutable, not subject to change. This was opposed to becoming, which meant objects that are of a temporary and changeable. As such, metaphysics  the study that dealt with being, was well established within the Greek tradition even before the term was coined by the disciples of Aristotle.

Plato placed the things of immutable nature within the scope of Ideas, the permanent and unchangeable entities, of which all sensible things were mere shadows. The highest type of science, according to Plato, was the study of Ideas. Aristotle wrote in the same tradition, and believed that for every changing and mutable object, there is a permanent and immutable correspondence in the realm of the supersensible. Aristotle expanded this doctrine to state that the study of separate substances was the primary science, and in being primary it was also universal. This kind of study dealt in a focused way, with the study of the supersensible but since the supersensible contained everything, this study also included the general characteristics of everything. This made it the supreme science, because it tried to explain the highest causes behind the material, sensible world.

This location of the metaphysical in the realm of the supersensible raised many questions among subsequent philosophers. Particularly, after the Christian era there ensued a scriptural debate, as Christian philosophy considered God as the first principle and as the First Principle, which transcended the human logical approach. Reactions to the Aristotelian view also came from the Middle East, as Arabic thinker Avicenna distinguished between a study of the highest God who transcended philosophy and the study of the unity of beings in general and the supersensual level. Averros, a century later opposed this to state that metaphysics most rightly belonged to the realm of the supersensible. Among Christian thinkers, Siger of Brabant had reservations about considering God as a proper subject of this investigation, and a study of human beings as the subject of metaphysics, and God should be wholly kept out of it. However, whatever pure human reason could obtain about God was considered to be a part of metaphysics. This conception laid the foundation for the battling ground between traditional Aristotelian concept of being and Christian theology, particularly with relation to creation. According to the Christian doctrine of creation, the immutable was not only permanent, but its creation also had to be significant and contingent in some way. The discussion that followed throughout the Middle Ages became a jumble of contrasting theological views, from among which no consensus seemed possible.

Francis Bacon was the first to divide the traditional differences of metaphysics in such a way as to include only the study of common axioms and the essences of materials. The study of God, angels and other supersensual beings were relegated to the realm of Natural Theology. This division set the course for metaphysics in subsequent Western philosophy. For Descartes, for example, metaphysics included an investigation of the first principle, though the original principle was cogito and not the sensual things like Aristotle. This stream that dealt with human mind, God and the general axioms, were categorized by him as First Philosophy. Spinoza included it under the general head of ethics, and Leibniz created a separate discipline for the study and defense of the Christian God, and arguments for and against it, which he termed as theodicy. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the subject matter of traditional metaphysics was again in a muddle, leading Christian Wolff to systematize it into four heads  ontology dealing with being in general  which meant notions about things and not things directly, general cosmlogy dealing with the sensible universe, psychology dealing with the study of the human soul, and natural theology, which would devote itself to the study and philosophical enquiry about God. We find a return to Wolffian metaphysics by neo-scholasticism who try to maintain the divisions. Their inability to fit in the Cartesian cogito within the Wolffian categories has lead to the development of a separate science devoted to it, called epistemology.

The Wolffian categories, however, faced serious criticism in the hands of Immanuel Kant, who attacked each of the categories for fallacies and stating emphatically that human thought only belongs and relates to its own sphere, and nothing outside it. Kant, moreover, relocated the term metaphysics to include scientific investigation of human thoughts, and even hinted at a practical application in his Metaphysics of Morals. Hegel, disturbed by the complete negation of metaphysics in Kant, tried to relocate it within the mainstream of philosophy in the form of a logic of the internal necessities of ideas, leading to many grandiose systems of idealistic metaphysics in the nineteenth century (Owens, 1985, p.9), most of which ended up being a futile search. It elicited strong reaction from many quarters.

Postitivists dismissed it, pragmatists laughed at the lack of rigor, logical positivists shunned it because it was not verifiable, linguistic analysts clearly expelled it from the purview of science, mathematical logic thought it to be an indulgence into a logically impossible procedure. It was summarily thought to belong more to the domain of fiction and poetry rather than philosophy. Some of its proponents wre Bergson, Collingwood and Existentialists who all tried to relocate it within mainstream philosophy in different ways.

The brief historical survey makes it clear that there has been as many ways of thinking about metaphysics as there have been schools of thought. However, what cannot be denied is that every thinking individual has a strain of thinking on a line that has been traditionally been designated as metaphysical.

Examples of Equivocity in Language
Essence
Some schools of Early Metaphysics believed in the existence of essence of all material objects existing outside them.
The fragrance of the essence filled the ball room
Cause
Fire is the cause behind smoke
It is worth dying for a cause you strongly believe in
Understanding
Marcus Aurelius was a man of deep knowledge and understanding
The battling factions finally reached and understanding
Examples of Univocity in Language
Ultimate
Some theologians believed God to be the ultimate source and destiny of all creation
For Plato, the Ideas were the ultimate causes behind all earthly entities
God
All monotheist religions propound the belief in a single, omnipotent God
The very existence of God was debated by the positivist thinkers in nineteenth and twentieth century
Thing
Chivalry appears to be a thing of the past
You may or may not believe in the existence of even such a thing as an angel

Definition A definition is a passage describing the meaning of a term, which can be a word, a phrase or a set of symbols. In philosophy, definition is of extreme importance, precisely because often normal, day to day words are rendered important through special definitions that are allotted to them.

Essence  The definition of essence lies in the aspect of indestructibility, immutability and constancy. It could mean the intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something, the crucial or most important ingredient of any object, and the inherent or unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. As such, it could also mean a spiritual or incorporeal entity. In philosophy, an essence of something can be defined as something that is distinct from, and logically prior to, its existence.

Argumentation An argumentation is the presentation and elaboration of an argument or arguments. It may refer to a debate or the deductive reasoning employed in debate. In Logic, it refers to the process of reasoning methodically.

Rational Rational can be defined as having or exercising the ability to reason. This faculty must be consistent with or based on reason, or logical.

Ultimate Ultimate in philosophy has two different significations. It can be defined as the last in a series, process, or progression and can also be defined as fundamental or elemental. In general usage it can mean of the greatest possible size or significance or representing the utmost or extreme possible development or sophistication of something.

Causes Cause is the one, such as a person, event or condition that is responsible for an action or result. It is a basis for an action or response. In general usage, it can refer to a ground for legal action, a goal o principle served with dedication and zeal or the interests of a person or group engaged in a struggle.

Effects An effect is something that is brought about by a cause or an agent, the result. It also refers to a scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon. It can also refer to bring into existence or the production of a desired impression or that impression in general.

Knowledge Knowledge would mean the state or fact of knowing familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study. In philosophy it would also refer to the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned about a particular aspect of investigation.

Belief It is the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. It is accepting something as true. It refers in particular to a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a person or a group of persons.

Religion Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. It can also mean a personal and institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. A religion can also refer to a cause, a principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. He is a force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. He is believed to be in possession of supernatural powers, is widely believed in a widely worshipped by people, is usually a male deity and is believe to control some parts or whole of reality.

Empirical Any branch of study relying on or derived from observation or experiment. An empirical knowledge is usually verifiable, or can be proved to be probable by means of observation or experiment. An empirical knowledge usually depends on practical experience and not on theory, particularly in medicine.

Supersensible Anything beyond the perception of senses

Qualitative Procedure Classification and study from a viewpoint of sensibly observable characteristics is called Qualitative Procedure. We can example of this methodology in sciences like Botany and Zoology, where a database is created on the basis of colors, sounds, odors, tastes, temperature, hardness and other such features that are sensually verifiable, through which materials appeal to human cognition in the most immediate way.

Quantitative Procedure This is related directly with the aspect of measurement. Quantitative procedure was applied with mathematics, astronomy, harmonies and Optics.

Thing A thing refers to an entity, an idea, which can be perceived, known, or purely thought to have its own existence. As such it can be a real and concrete substance of an entity existing in time and space, or any inanimate object.

Faith A faith is a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. It can also refer to allegiance and loyalty.

Science Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. It can refer to any methodological activity, discipline, or study or any activity that appears to require study and method.

Understanding understanding is the quality or condition of one who understands, and can also refer to the faculty by which one understands i.e. intelligence. In normal parlance, it can refer to a reconciliation of differences and reaching a state of agreement.

Explanation it refers to the act or process of explaining, something that explains, or a clarification of disputed terms or points reaching to a reconciliation of disputing ideas.

Proximate Very near or next, as in space, time, or order. However, in philosophical discussion it can be defined as approximate.

Experience Experience is the apprehension of an object, thought, or emotion through the senses or mind. It can also refer to the knowledge or skill derived from direct and active participation in events or activities.

Wisdom The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting. It refers to insight, and often to good judgment.

Tabula Rasa The Tabula Rasa refers to a mind before it receives the impressions gained from experience, or a need or an opportunity to start from the beginning. In philosophy, it refers to the unformed, featureless mind implied by John Locke. It literally means a clean slate.

Innatism It is a philosophical doctrine that holds that the mind is born with ideas knowledge, and that is directly in opposition to the clean slate theory of John Locke and early empiricists. It asserts that not all knowledge is obtained from experience or gathered through the senses.

Terrorism and Civil Disobedience

Anybody can bear me witness that, the history of mankind has been nothing short of protests against certain acts that we perceive to be wrong or morally degrading. These protests have resulted to acts of terrorism and civil disobedience which have brought up devastating effects to innocent people. This paper will discuss hybrid law approach to terrorism and provide an understanding of civil disobedience as perceived by Martin Luther King Jr. Thereafter a focus is given to opinions and reasons as to whether terrorism and civil disobedience are morally justified. The paper will also provide the utilitarian and deontological justification of terrorism and relate either of them with Nagels argument.

The second part will discuss positive and negative eugenics and provide examples on the same as provided in the Engineering American Society article on top of highlighting the eugenics social agenda as described in the article. Towards the end of the paper we shall evaluate whether the positive and negative eugenics lead to any form of discrimination. Finally, the paper will discuss the video who should decide and provide the moral issues as depicted from the case in the video.

Terrorism is one subject that has so far not gained globally acceptable definition. This is the case because different jurisdictions have adapted different definitions on the same thus slowing down the process of acquiring a globally and legally acceptable definition of the crime. For the purpose of this paper we shall adopt the definition of terrorism as defined by the FBI. According to the FBI, terrorism refers to the unlawful use of force to coerce a government or a certain segment of the population to act in accordance to your social or political objectives. We can also choose to adopt the definition as per Poland. According to Poland, terrorism is a pre-planned mayhem which is meant to intimidate the innocent by instilling fear into them. By so doing, terrorists are able to influence their audience and fulfill their political and social motives.

Terrorism
Terrorism can manifest itself in different forms. They range from threats, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, bomb scares to cyber attacks. Terrorist attacks are of different types. They range from chemical, mechanical, radiological and biological terrorism (Stevens, 2009). Of interest in this research paper is the biological terrorism which is commonly referred to as bio-terrorism.

The term bio-terrorism is used to refer to the deliberate distribution or release of bacterias, viruses and fungi among others. The probability that a particular biological agent will be used by a terrorist depends on its availability. According to the U.S Centre for disease control and prevention Bacillus anthracis is more available than other agents and thus have a high potential of being used by terrorists. Currently, numerous bio-terrorism acts can be applied by terrorists groups and anyone with an ill-motive. They range from the use of Bacillus anthracis, Clostridium botulinum toxin, Yersinia pestis,Varola major, Francisella tularensis to Burkholderia mallei.

Gradually, we have witnessed the emergence of several groups which seek to justice terrorism. By justifying we mean an act of defining the motive of the terrorist groups. Worth noting is the utilitarian justification of terrorism. This group is of the opinion that racial and ethnic groups have a right to resort to armed struggle whenever they are denied off their equal participation in matters of political and social life. Still we have the deontological justification of terrorism. This justification is based on the Principle of Non-Combatant Immunity (PNI) prohibits the intentional killing of non-combatants. At the same time PNI prohibits counter terrorist activities aimed at killing or causing severe injuries to non-combatants. An argument presented by Nagel seems to be consistent with the utilitarian justification of terrorism. According to Nagel, terrorism is no crime as long as the objective is important enough. He goes ahead to provide example of issues that may justify terrorism. For instance Nagel cites that terrorism is justified when one wants his enemy to withdraw from his territory, be granted independence or to force an enemy to cease hostility. He however cautions that in delivery of such operations care should be taken to minimize the amount of risk that the innocent people are being exposed to.

Of late, there has been concern over how liberal democratic states should respond to the security threats posed terrorism as well as non state political violence. Some of the counter measures include use of military force or prosecution of the criminals after subsequent investigations are conducted. However, the counter measures depend on the group that the state may be dealing with and the extent of their operations. This has consequently led to the hybrid law approach. This approach seeks to prosecute terrorists on charges of murder under the domestic law. The hybrid law approach is applicable irrespective of whether it was the murder of civilians or the military personnel. However, a philosopher by the name of Luban is opposed to the hybrid law approach. According to him the hybrid law approach is based on the relationship that prevails within states, while the war model is based on the relationship that prevails between states. He goes further to assert that the hybrid law approach upholds some community values. On the other hand, he presupposes that the war model has the assumption that mankind do not live in a single community with some ethical principles to be held.

Luban goes further to produce a theoretical objection to the hybrid law approach to terrorism. He states that it is unprincipled to separate and recombine the law and the war model since it is to the interest of the Americans. Finally, Luban asserts that the war on terrorism is not clearly defined. In that, it lacks a defined point of termination. This leads him to the conclusion that the war on terrorism regardless of which model is applicable will only increase the violation of human rights (Gehring, 2003).

Since the issue of terrorism has grown to be an immense one, numerous guidelines about how to deal with the same have emerged incase one is a victim. Of interest in this research paper is the ticking time bomb scenario. The ticking time bomb story goes something like this. A bomb which is about to explode is planted in a hidden locality within an American city. In your custody you have the man responsible for the bomb who would not even say a word of the whereabouts of the bomb. Under such condition the well safeguarded ethical principles should be compromised. In that, the guy should be subjected to torture in order for him to reveal crucial information about the whereabouts of the bomb. This will definitely go a long way towards saving the innocent lives of many. However, Luban is opposed to the whole ticking bomb story. According to Luban the ticking bomb story is not to happen in the near future. In addition, Luban presumes that despite subjecting the suspect to torture it is not guaranteed that he or she may be having the information that is desired by the relevant authorities. The bottom line according to Luban is that torture should not be accepted under any circumstance.

Civil disobedience
According to Rachaels, civil disobedience refers to the refusal of an individual to abide by the law and the government orders without necessarily resorting to any form of physical violence. Generally, it is a non-violent form of resistance from disgruntled individuals. Civil disobedience differs from terrorism because terrorism is normally a violent form of protest to the government as opposed to civil disobedience which is non-violent (Rachels, 2010). He further cites this as the same view given by Martin Luther King, who saw civil disobedience is a form of protest to the government over some unjust laws. He goes further to make a distinction between the just and the unjust laws. To his understanding, an unjust law is normally not in harmony with the moral law. At the same time, an unjust law contradicts eternal and natural law and degrades human personality. On the other hand, just laws are those that are consistent with the law of God and the moral law and uplifts human personality. This leads us to the opinion part of the paper.

In my opinion, terrorism is by no measure justified. In that there is no point of claiming the innocent lives of many for the sole intention of gaining political or social recognition. I can only justify terrorism whenever dialogue between the warring groups has failed. On the other hand, civil disobedience is justified since there is no form of physical violence involved. At the same time, civil disobedience is for the interest of all since it does advocate for the scrapping of the unjust laws and the upholding of the just laws.

Part 2
Moral issues in genetic technologies
Overtime, different technologies concerned with genetics have emerged the human race. Notably, there has been the emergence of Eugenics which applies genetic principles and agricultural breeding in a bid to improve human race. Of interest in this research paper is the positive and negative eugenics. By definition positive eugenics refers to a form of eugenics which advocates for marriage and breeding between two individuals who may be considered desirable. This was evident in the article from the Engineering American Society article where Galton tries to improve the human race through selective breeding. This led to the degeneracy theory which shared the idea that the unfit in the society are products of bad environment and they are responsible for the degenerate off-springs (Micklos, 2000).

On the other hand, we have the negative Eugenics. By negative eugenics we mean the attempt to scrap off the defective germ-plasmas that may be present in the society. This involves the employment of such measures as sexual separation, sterilization, and immigration control and marriage regulation among others. Negative eugenics is depicted from the article where there was an attempt to stop any further spread of faulty genes. This came after studies revealed that over 700 petty criminals, prostitutes and paupers could trace their heredity from Margaret, the mother of criminals. The positive and the negative eugenics paved way for the eugenic social agenda.

The Eugenic social agenda was directed at improving the human race through scientific progress. A large percentage of the middle class citizens shared the opinion that human being was a defective species which was needed some form  of pruning in a bid to maintain its viability. To achieve .the American eugenicists succeeded in lobbying for eugenic social legislation. The social legislation was directed at minimizing the number of immigrants into the European Nations to prevent any further racial mixing. As if the immigration restriction was not enough the eugenicists went further to sterilize those that they viewed to be genetically unfit.

The whole issue of eugenics has brought about some moral issues. It has widened the gap between the rich and the poor. This is because the two groups cannot be allowed to freely intermingle. In my opinion, regardless of whether it is positive or negative eugenics, they both lead to discrimination. This is because the poor and the genetically undesirable cannot be freely allowed to choose their breeding partners.

Who should decide
The movie who should decide focuses on the numerous parenting issues that parents have to go through. It features on the lives of Suzie and his brother. The brother to Suzie identifies that a problem exists between them and the parents and he chooses to address them by writing a masterpiece. He writes an open letter to all the so called unappreciated and misunderstood sons and daughters. On a Saturday afternoon, a bunch of Suzie friends are going skating .Suzie had also prepared a nice lunch for her date. Trouble started when Suzies friends came to pick her up with a car. This was however not a big issue since the boys in the car were good drivers. The issue driving Suzies mum crazy was that the driver was actually a no one in the society and Suzies mum was worried of the influence that he would have on her daughter now that they were going over 25 miles from home. The mum was quite reluctant to let her daughter go despite the fact that she had attained the age of consent. Eventually, it was evident that she would not actually let her go. The question at hand is who should decide the kind of friends that your sons and daughters should interact with.

Suzies brother has issues too. His father is doing some paint works in the kitchen and he expects his son to help out. In response, the son asks whether it is acceptable that he gets a painter and he gets to pay him from his own pocket because he dislikes painting. The dad accused him of not being part of the family. The son is however inquisitive about whether he has a right to decide over what kind of work he should be involved in while in the house. He is also unsure whether the dad has a right to decide what he is to do with his life. Things even gets worse on him after he went with his girlfriend fro a movie date. This did not go down well with his father who was expecting him back in the house by 11.00 p.m. However, he feels that since he is old enough he has a right to decide when he comes back to the house. The movie date ended quite early but he deliberately chose to be late just to prove to his dad that he was old enough. When he finally got home he was treated as a public enemy since no one would dare talk to him. In summary, the movie brings out some moral issues. For instance, it brings into right that the kind of friends we interact have some influence on our lives. Finally, it depicts that we as the youth should help out in the household chores.

Kierkegaard on Life

Summary
A major thrust of Kierkegaards Concluding Unscientific Postscript is the rejection and criticism of Hegelian system. Hegel had claimed to have established a comprehensive system, and even attempted to incorporate philosophy into the realm of science. Furthermore, Hegel argued against the self and subjectivity, something that was strongly rejected by Kierkegaard. The main theme in this paper is a criticism of Hegel as advanced by Kierkegaard. It goes a step further to establish the flaws in the objections raised by Kierkegaard. The term bracketing in this paper is intended to mean the intentional act of setting aside ones preconceived ideas in order to engage in a certain undertaking.
Kierkegaard was actually reacting against Hegelian determinism and Speculative thought. For him, the possibility of real happiness can only be attained subjectively. Hegel thought it was possible to attain absolute reality, a claim that was strongly opposed by Kierkegaard. He observed that it was impossible to establish a system of living, mainly due to the subjectivity of truth that he so deeply attempts to explain.

For Hegel, reason was the only vehicle capable of taking humanity to absolutism. In this he introduces the idea of progression from levels of truth to absolute truth. Kierkegaard strongly refutes this, arguing that religious faith has a central role not only in the attainment of deeper inwardness necessary for the attainment of truth subjectively, but also as the highest form of existence possible.

However, while it seems clear that both Hegels and Kierkegaards positions have strong foundations neither is complete on its own. Each stands in need of the other for completion.

Introduction
The whole of Kierkegaards criticism of Hegel is based on the premises that Hegel seems to write from outside his system. Kierkegaard raises several issues with the Hegelian system, questioning its very foundation. One of the most notable of his attacks on Hegel was regarding his emphasis on rationalism. His disagreement with Hegel was not just that it was a disagreement with any systematic approach to knowledge.  For this reason, it would be fitting to say that Concluding Unscientific Postscripts marked what can be called a turning point in philosophy. Hegel had created, or claimed to have, a comprehensive thought system purely on the basis of reason and abstraction. In this he claimed that truth is progressive, with the end as the absolute truth. God in this case, becomes this absolute truth.  Accordingly, the Hegelian view on the human persons was that each is viewed in relation to the other. Furthermore, whatever is considered mans greatest good is not his, but belongs to society. Thus, properly put, Hegels main emphasis was the whole, rather than the part. Kierkegaard strongly differed with these Hegelian views. He observed that this system was incomplete. He saw that Hegels claim that truth was in the whole was not true because it was not complete itself.  Abstraction as such requires the one involved in the process to bracket ordinary connotations of two important existential as well as metaphysical terms being and nothing. Kierkegaard asserts that suspending all assumptions, which is considered the beginning of speculative thinking, would also mean forgetting that pure being as such results from abstraction. As indicated,

Kierkegaards Critique of Hegel
The Hegelian claim of a comprehensive system prompted Kierkegaards sharp criticism.  He found great fault in the very beginning of the system. The question he poses to Hegel is that after having abstracted everything, with what can one begin Worth noting is the fact that Kierkegaard claims that the Hegelian system begins with nothing. Kierkegaard points this as a major flaw in Hegels argument. Kierkegaard notes that the reflective process is per se and in se an infinite one. This is because in order to bring a reflective process to finitude, it must involve a conscious reflection that one seeks an end, so that this process would need to stop itself. This according to Kierkegaard is impossible. On the same vein, abstraction as a process can only bring itself to finitude by abstracting itself from itself. This would have to continue ad infinitum. This argument challenges the thought of purely immediate being, on which the whole of Hegelian philosophy is hinged. Kierkegaard says that it is possible to subjectively decide to interrupt ones own thought process, in order to reflect upon a certain thing. An objection to Kierkegaard is that he largely fails to note that his so conceived subjective decision to interrupt the reflective process in view of pure being does not in any way interrupt that process. Kierkegaard did not seem to realize that even the decision itself is a reflective process. Although there is a presupposition of decision in logic, this does not prevent such an undertaking from being logical.

Another criticism of Hegelian philosophy by Kierkegaard was that in his system, the person involved in thinking is actually outside of the System. The main question here is who then is this individual who is a systematic thinker It seems that this individual is both outside of existence and in existence. It is he who is eternity and the totality of existence. This according to Hegel is God. Kierkegaard sharply criticizes him on account of assuming the role of God in that system. It is also not possible, according to Kierkegaard, to have the thinker outside the system.

Kierkegaard further points out that abstraction as understood in Hegel brings about a lot of problems, because this process is carried out sub specie eterni, meaning that it is conducted from an eternity point of view. This results in a disregard of the temporal and the concrete. As such, it simply eliminates the becoming of existence. The obvious issue here is rejecting the self and its concreteness also means rejecting truth as subjectivity.

Hegel had argued that truth was possible through science. For this reason, he had sought to reconcile philosophy with science. Kierkegaards objection was that existence itself was a system, but a system only for God. This is because conclusiveness corresponded with existence, and before a system concludes itself, it must necessarily be annulled in the eternal. Kierkegaard strongly emphasizes on man and his individual existence, a fact that leads him to subjectivity as the basis for truth. His understanding of existentialism is particularly interesting. He says that there is a relationship between knowledge and the knower. Furthermore, this knower has an essential individual existence, which means that there is a significant relationship between existence and all essential knowledge. Kierkegaard was reacting to the Hegelian claim that the whole was the most important.

As earlier mentioned, truth according to Hegel, is found not in the parts, but in the whole. Kierkegaard objects to this for the reason that any search for knowledge objectively, leads only to approximation. Here he rejects the call by Hegel to make philosophy a science and instead equates it to history. He says that just as no one can write a final history, no one can write a final philosophical system. For him, whatever is considered as knowledge is nothing but approximation.

Hegels system had asserted that everything is knowable.  However, Kierkegaard says that human existence as such, is marked by total uncertainty. As a matter of fact, his definition of truth attests to this uncertainty. He considers truth as an objective uncertainty, one that is attained only through a process of appropriation of passionate inwardness. He further argues that knowledge of the truth of personal existence is knowledge of uncertainty. He argues that whenever a question of truth is brought up in a manner that is considered objective, the direction of reflection is always towards the truth as the object related to the knower. This understanding of truth as implying a relational state of existence, rather than a set of propositions that should be believed in, is what makes it impossible for the development of a particular system of life. It is precisely this understanding that places faith higher than Hegelian reason.

Conclusion
 In conclusion, the claim by Hegel to have created a system has been strongly criticized. It is in the person of Kierkegaard that the most ardent criticism is found. Thinking out of a system cannot be conceived abstractly without invoking the idea of conclusiveness. Conclusiveness can only be attributable to the absolute being, and therefore, reasoning about the absolute would require that the thinker be the Absolute. This was a major flaw in Hegelian philosophy. A very noble observation by Kierkegaard is that in thinking of the pure being the thinker cannot be set apart as such from existence, meaning that the thinker is fully involved in existence, as he carries out the reflective process. However, it has been demonstrated that Kierkegaards conception of Hegelian thought is not entirely without error. The failure by Kierkegaard to recognize the fact that the decision to call to mind the idea of pure being is itself a reflective act is a remarkable thing. It seems however, that a synthesis of the philosophies of both Hegel and Kierkegaard would produce a more mature philosophy. In arguing against the Hegelian system, Kierkegaard recognizes two important aspects of truth the objective and the subjective. His explanation of these two terms brings into light the reasons for his objection to a particular philosophical system of life.

Article Critique

Critical Literature Review
EAP 3
Chopra, M., Galbraith, S., and Darnton-Hill, A. 2002. A Global Response to a Global Problem The Epidemic of Overnutrition, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 80, (12), 952-957.
Gostin, L.O.  2007. Law as a Tool to Facilitate Healthier Lifestyles and Prevent Obesity, Journal of American Medical Association 297, (1), 88-90.

Introduction
Non-communicable diseases will soon be the leading causes of morbidity and mortality (Chopra, Galbraith, and Darnton-Hill 2002 952). This disease, which includes obesity and being overweight, should no longer be ignored, because of their harmful impacts on individual health and state medical expenses, aside from loss of productivity. Global Response to a Global Problem, by Chopra, Galbraith, and Darnton-Hill, argues for national and international mechanisms that can respond to the problems of overnutrition and undernutrition. Law as a Tool to Facilitate Healthier Lifestyles and Prevent Obesity by Gostin, on the other hand, stresses that the law can be effectively used to resolve problems of obesity and being overweight.  These articles indicate the importance of national and international binding and non-binding laws in curbing the immense appetite of many people for unhealthy foods.

Summary 1
Chopra, Galbraith, and Darnton-Hill (2002) argue that the obesogenic environment can be changed through legislation, public education, and proper marketing, under the guidance of the WHO and with the support of local governments (953). They cited national intervention programs that aimed to reduce non-communicable diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases and obesity. They argued for the importance of a global strategy as a prevention paradigm, through the leadership of the WHO. They also called for a stronger, but non-binding involvement of the state in educating the people about the impact of food ingredients on their health through clear food labeling, marketing controls for unhealthy foods, and taxing unhealthy food choices, among other policies. They stressed the magnitude of non-binding laws over binding laws, because the former are more flexible and can involve multisectoral participation, although their greatest limitation is their non-binding status. The authors conclude that the strength of organized food industries can hinder the pursuance of their recommendations and they assert that this can be resolved through collaboration and innovation from all concerned parties.

Summary 2
Gostin (2007), on the other hand, strongly argues for lawmakers to adopt a paternalistic approach in preventing and reducing obesity rates. He examines the pros and cons of each legislative measure that he discusses, namely disclosure, surveillance, regulation of food marketing to children and adults, taxation, school and workplace policies, the built environment zoning, and food prohibitions (i.e. trans fat ban). He provides a table that contains an overview of each legislative measure, definition of these measures, public health benefits, and the arguments for and against these public policies. He advocates for many of these legal interventions through stressing their function in protecting national health, especially the health and lives of children. He believes that it is the responsibility of the government to build healthier communities, where people have more opportunities to pursue an active lifestyle and have greater access to inexpensive and healthier food options.

Critique1
This article is useful because it offers practical national and international measures that can prevent non-communicable diseases. On other hand, it does not discuss a more concrete and step-by-step framework for the suggestions provided. The article also comprehensively discusses prevention strategies, binding and non-binding legal arguments, and international instruments. However, there is lack of more in-depth discussion of the arguments of the authors for non-binding laws, in a way that readers would be truly convinced that they are better than binding laws. It is also hard to follow the flow of thought of the authors. There should be more specific transitions that guide their discussions and arguments.

Critique 2
This article is useful for people who want to support legislative measures for reducing obesity and other national epidemic non-communicable diseases. The arguments for and against each legal measure are explained in a simple and engaging manner. The author also uses persuasive and insightful language that supports the measures that he seem to favor more, such as taxation of unhealthy food and the built environment. The use of a table to summarize the legal interventions also helps to easily understand his main points. One weakness of the article is the absence of sector-based and additional forms of support for his personal views, wherein a survey, for instance, can show that many parents want greater school policies against unhealthy foods. These evidences should have helped strengthen the relevance and urgency of his arguments.

Conclusion
In conclusion, readers who want to understand the international and national measures that can prevent the increase of non-communicable diseases can use both articles for their review of literature. Chopra, Galbraith, and Darnton-Hill argue for national and international mechanisms that can respond to the problems of overnutrition and undernutrition, though not in a binding manner that Gostin supports.

Chopra, Galbraith, and Darnton-Hil explore these mechanisms adequately, although they are deficient in providing specific steps on how to achieve effective nonbinding measures. Gostin contends that legal measures can successfully lessen obesity, because evidently, the rising obesity rate shows that self-control is not enough. He shows that the government has a primary responsibility to step in and regulate the eating habits of its citizens, when national health, culture, and performance are at stake. These articles are informative and have diverse viewpoints, though they can be improved by providing particular steps and processes (existing or suggested) and other evidences that can prove that their arguments are relevant and critical to diverse stakeholders.

SOCRATES RESPONDING TO FREUDS CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENT

Socrates reads the works of Freud. After reading Civilization and Its Discontents, he embarked a journey to meet Freud personally so as to have a one-on-one dialogue with him. How would their ideas collide Who among these truth-seeking warriors will emerge unscathed from this cerebral combat In this essay let me explore this hypothetical scenario and generate a dialogue in how they wrestled with their brains to put up with their own philosophy.

When Socrates came, Freuds disciples were already gathered, excited to witness the encounter of two geniuses. Socrates was not known of giving lectures every time he engages into an intellectual battle. He used to brainstorm his opponent by throwing an avalanche of questions. Socrates startedYouve presented several interconnected ideas in your books which put religion as a form of madness, a mass delusion that is responsible of this human misery. Freud motioned Socrates to have a seat, which the latter obeyed. Religion is not the target.Freud said, while seated on his couch with a cigar in his hand.I did not point out religion as the source of the problem. It is civilization in which religion is a part. Yes, but let me ask you this question, Socrates retorted, this conflict between this so-called id and the superego (to use your jargon), what is the role of the ego in this conflict Socrates began his characteristic method of inquiry, a sort of free-wheeling philosophical cross-examination popularly known today as the Socratic Method.

The ego is the reality principle. Freud answered. The role of the ego is to give balance between the mandates of the id and the prohibitions of the superego. Freuds disciples were nodding their heads as gesture of support. Of these three structures, Socrates got his rejoinder, which is responsible for the formation of civilization There was a hush silence everyone was waiting for an answer. Freud gave his answer Civilization is formed as interplay of these three structures.  The disciples were smiling to one another so proud of their master who could easily answer the question. But one, as what youve said, Socrates bounced with a statement, makes decisions to weigh down the promptings of the two structures.  And it is

It is the ego Freud butted in, in response to the demands of the id and the inhibitions of the superego.

Feud was bombarded with a series of questions that lasted two hours then Socrates steered his question into something more direct and universal.We have gone so far, but the more questions I offer the more you bring me far from the core issue. Now let me ask this, when you formulated these ideas, these principles, all these theories youve presented what aspect of personality structure do you attribute as responsible in the formation of all these Everyone in the crowd was dumbfounded by such a question that nobody had asked before. Freud answered squarely So long as it is an intellectual activity, it is taking place in the ego in line with the accumulated sediments of civilization that is formed as the superego. The crowd made voices of applause as if someone had made three points in a basketball game. In your own case, Socrates asserted, youve mentioned all this mess and you seem to imply youve found a way out. I never offered any solutions. Freud answered. Religion offers a lot of answers to lifes purpose, and human misery persists. It is not a design in nature that man could be happy. How can there be happiness when there is a heightening of guilt The disciples were jubilant with this answer, but Freud gestured them to maintain silence.So whats the point of your therapies Socrates dropped his strongest contention as if it was his strongest card. Whats the point of your ideologies to go back to nature if you offer a morbid situation that nothing can be done to alleviate man out of this trouble Cannot anyone including your self, go beyond the stranglehold influences of this so-called civilization How By what principle were you able to assess the reality of all of these Everyone was taken aback by the question Freuds disciples began to listen seriously. Freud responded The powerful influence of culture may diminish if one is aware of its subtle manipulation.  Therefore, Socrates pushed his idea, you see it clearly that there must be something in man which is capable of going beyond, transcending the conflict of the mind and the biological urges towards something which is more significant and spiritual in nature. The capacity of learning exists in the soul already. You even mentioned in your writings that civilization distinguishes us from animals. So there is something in us which has produced civilization. All eyes and ears were now glued to Socrates. Yes, Freud replied, and that something which you have given a shroud of mystery and called a soul is actually an invention of a neurotic mind. It is this neuroticism in man which has created all these miseries including this so-called civilization. We organize ourselves into civilized society to escape suffering, only to inflict it back upon ourselves.

There was a commotion in the crowd as a sign, that disciples are now divided. Socrates Wait Lets go slowly into this. You said civilization is neurotic. But there is something in us that goes beyond our animal nature which is responsible for the creation of civilization. Is it your judgment that to go beyond our animal nature is neurotic Should we go back to our animal nature and get on with our instincts
At this juncture, Freud got irritated of Socrates disarming logic and excused himself politely, he said, he still has a patient to attend to, then left. Socrates continued in his argument ruthlessly like a raging lion which tears his victim into pieces. Freuds disciples which included Horney, Adler, Jung, Erikson, etc. were there listening and were impressed by the depth of his ideas.

FREUD RESPONDING TO THE CHRISTS SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Upon reading the Sermon on the Mount in the gospel of Mathew, Freud made his own comments The beatitudes (Mathew 51-12) is statement of acute rationalization, knowing the inevitability of lifes suffering, Jesus offered an escape from reality by attributing a meaning to our miseries. If we take a ride on the parable of the salt (Mathew 513), it should be noted that salt may provide taste to the food but what nutrition does it provide In fact, too much salt is damaging to the kidney. In the same way the baloney of meaning that was provided by religion is the root of misery because of mans attempt to get away from his nature. Man is light (Mathew 514-16), Man is salt these are statements to cover up human inadequacies.

Because of the inevitability of death, religion and its civilization has invented the afterlife and the promise of heaven (Mathew 520). The investment of heavenly treasures is another strategy under the theme of hope for the next life (Mathew 619-21). You are suffering today, you will be happy in the next life. You are a victim of injustice today you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Whatever tragedy that befalls you today, do not worry you will be rewarded in heaven. This is the supreme opium that man has invented in order to escape from the sting of existence. Drug addicts take drugs when they are sad drunkards drink alcohol every time they are in trouble. There is no difference between them and to a man who succumb to religious teachings to ease his pain.

It is taught that man must not bear grudges against anyone or else he will be punished in the next life (Mathew 521-26). It is human nature to get angry but religion has designed a teaching to disarm human in his own anger and to channel that anger into something socially acceptable by saying love your enemies (Mathew 544). Loving ones enemy is the most idiotic invention of religion. It is anti-human nature, and a desperate attempt to impart an image of a prosthetic god in us. Religion, because of its fear in human instincts, has invented teachings that would keep man away from his nature but what is nurtured in the process, is a perpetual conflict between his nature and the teachings. Man sees problems in almost everything he is into. If he gets angry, it becomes a problem because it is in conflict with the religious concept of love and forgiveness. Even sex becomes a problem to humans. To get sexually attracted to someone, even if that person is married, is but part of our sexual nature. We feel sexual urges and nurture sexual fantasies to fill in our longing for sexual fulfillment. This teaching on adultery (Mathew 527-28) is a reaction formation of a sexual paranoia.

You cannot serve two masters  God and mammon (Mathew 624). This teaching is irrelevant. People obviously serve for money, although in the name of God. Whos crazy to believe, after wielding much toil, and your boss will tell you Thanks for your labor God will give your pay in the next life

Do not worry about your lifeLook at the birdsyour heavenly Father feeds them. Consider the liliesGod clothes them. Seek first the kingdom of God (Mathew 625-34). These are very unrealistic analogies Man must toil in order to feed himself and survive. Our situation is different from the birds and the lilies. Wrong analogy Besides, to worry, to be anxious is hardwired into our mechanism for survival. It is part of day-to-day realities and experiences to be worried about things that disturb our security, be it in our jobs, in relationships, or our something to do with our financial necessities.

Whoever seeks, will find whoever knocks, the door will be opened whoever asks will receive (Mathew 77-8)  but what is found, what is opened, and what is received are all illusions projected onto our experiences. When a believer encounters something favorable in his life, he tends to attribute it as answer to his prayer.  The mind is tricked into believing his prayers are answered. This is where all the so called miracles sprouted.

Civilization is continually threatened with disintegration because of mans inclination to aggression. It invests great energy in restraining these instincts, and achieves this goal by installing within the individual a sort of watchdog agency. Society regulates individual aggression through the police force, but religion puts the police force inside the individual.

Philosophy of Fallacy

Newspaper articles present a wide range of arguments. After enlisting the various Pakistani links with global terror in the recent years, the article Terrorism and the economy published in the Dawn on 6.1.2010 uses as a premise the global isolation of the country and the failure of the international community to address the issues with grit and character as causes that may lie behind Pakistan becoming a hub of terrorist activities. As a strategy to come out of it, the author employs deductive argument isolation leads to escalated terrorist activities (the article implies it by stating the reverse), deduces that Pakistan is isolated, and concludes that further isolation would do it enormous damage.

An example of concluding signal word is found in the argument presented in This is the age of war among generations, author Anatole Kalestsky in a well prepared argument delving into the causes of the Greek economic crisis and the question of pensioners and retirees, clinches his second argument of reform with the help of the signal word as a result. The premise is that baby boomers are too numerous for politicians to ignore them, and older people are more likely to vote. The conclusion is that, this increasing number of pensioned retirees will hold democracies across the world hostage to their interests. The concluding signal word is as a result.

An example of introductory signal word for a premise can be seen in the article Prudential Shareholders in rebellion by Patrick Hosking. All power to their elbow, where he begins his premise with the signal word because, The rebellion was all the more remarkable because the Pru had taken the precaution of hiring many of the Square Miles most influential investment bankers as advisers, and then goes on to develop this argument.

An example of inductive argument can be seen at the conclusion of the same article. The premise states that The closure of guaranteed final-salary style pension schemes means millions of pension fund members are no longer insulated from the poor investment decisions of their agents. Reckless strategic decisions made by companies today mean smaller retirement incomes tomorrow, and then uses the specific case in its support that Last Friday, a senior executive from Standard Life stood up at HSBCs annual shareholder meeting and publicly rebuked the board for its overgenerous pay arrangements.
The seven logical fallacies include fallacy of accident, affirming the consequent, irrelevant Conclusion, denying the antecedent, begging the question, fallacy of false cause and fallacy of many questions (Tigert 241).