Philosophy

The author of the book uses this statement to mean that truth happens to be strange and much worse than fiction. However, it always remains necessary to read fictional novels. Just because the fictions that is contained in the novel sounds very strange and we know it is not true, it does not meant that they are completely useless. This is what will prepare us for the difficult things that are in real life.
Even though some people would read what is in fiction and try to implement or to put it in practice, I believe that one reason as to why we should always read fictional novels and especially in totalitarian societies such as Iran is the reasons that some activities that take place in such places happen to be very hard to explain. These novels are known to present a situation and then try to offer a solution. This means that if we read such a novel, we might be able to put some of the facts that the author discusses into real life. This may help us to deal with some issues that may be affecting our society. It may also prepare us to deal with some very difficult issues that may arise. (Nafisi)
This is because, in some of those fiction novels, there are some difficult situations that are presented. It is more likely that they may take place in the real world. When such situations arise, there is a chance that as a person who have ever read about it in a novel, one will be able to suspect or rather predict what might happen. This means that one will be well prepared to deal with these issues when they take place.
It is therefore necessary for all the persons to read novels especially fiction novels so that they can get good ideas and good advice which would help them to deal with their day to day life. This would be applicable especially to those people who are living in very difficult societies. This would be best applicable to the people who are living in totalitarian societies as they are faced by a lot of problem from this difficult form of government. (Nafisi)
Some of the issues that take place in most totalitarian societies are too difficult to understand. It makes it more difficult because in most of those societies, people are not allowed to question or comment on issues concerning the government. This has turned to these people being oppressed and exploited. Therefore it becomes very easy for writers and other people who are involved in communication to express their feeling through writing fictional materials. It would therefore be a good thing to read these fictional materials as they help us understand some of the activities that may be taking place in our societies.
This second statement says a lot about the worlds view on Islam. In the world today, people are using their religions so that they can conduct their illegal business which would otherwise be difficult to conduct if they were not under religion. This is because, the Islamic religion has been associated with a lot of terrorist attacks in the past and people are using this to their advantage. This statement tries to open our eyes on the exploitation that some people are getting simply because they are linked to this religion.
One of the main problems with this is that there has been a lot of criticism that has been associated with Muslim. Among the places that this view has been strongly held is the United States. Since the attack on September eleven, there has been a lot of different view in which Muslim has been viewed negatively and condemned. (Nafisi)
In addition, some people are blindly following their faith and they are exploited by their leaders. They do things that they are not ready to do simply because their leaders are promising them heaven. For instance, some Muslims are made to believe in Jihad and they go around killing people and themselves with the aim of having some eternal benefits. They should ask themselves the reason why their leaders are not killing themselves to get the same benefits. Others are paid a lot of money so that they can kill their opponents through suicide attacks. This can be termed as oppression and this is the point that the author is trying to pass across. (Nafisi)
Some parts of the world view Muslims as terrorists and there are some people who take advantage of this branding. They believe that they can only survive by being Muslim. This is because as Muslims, they know that they are likely to get funds from the other large organizations and therefore they will be able to go on with their activities. They convert to Muslims not because they like the faith but they convert because they want to get financial gains from the religion. (Nafisi)
From this statement, it is clear that the United States and the world have a certain view on Islam. This book can be termed as a direct attack on the Bush administration which is known to have been against Islam. There are some people who believe that Islam is not the best religion and the main reason for their existence is getting their financial needs done through extorting some money from other people. They seem them as terrorists and some of them take advantage of that view and use it to their advantage. (Nafisi)
However, this is all about politics. This is the reason as to why the author insights into politics as a form of both fiction and fact. The reason is that she tells us that there are those activities or those ideas politician in those totalitarian regions uses which are fiction. In some areas especially in the developing countries politicians are known to look into the loopholes that are there into the society and then use them to their advantage. The author sees politics as being fiction as the politicians themselves are known to create fictional stories so that they can fit to their situation. They are also known to employ these stories into the real life of the society and this may be termed as application of fictional stories to deal with factual things. (Nafisi)
In most part of the world, there are a lot of case of racial discrimination, religious discrimination and oppression. These are some issue that needs to be addressed as soon as people can. It is after these issues are addressed that human beings will be able to live in peace and live without seeing each other as enemies. These are the same themes that the author brings out in all of her books. (Nafisi)
As a report, this book brings in to the picture the real activities that some people are experiencing in the world. Reporters are people who are dependable by a large population so that they can deliver important messages to them. They are therefore the best people who can pass some important message to the community. They are also the people who can help people to deal with some problem that exists in the world. It is only after some of these things are exposed to the public that they can be dealt with and the only way to ensure this is through reporters or journalists.
This book would therefore help the reporter to try to fight discrimination cases that are taking places in the whole world against Muslims and also to other people who have been branded as being band people. As a reporter, one learns a lot of things from this book. One understands the main reason life is the way it is in some nations such as Iran.
This book gives the reason as to why people in this area seem to behave in a strange way. All this is attributed to their form of government. It is after reading this book that one understands how the government serious affect the future of people in these areas through shattering their dreams to succeed. After reading this book, one may decide to help fight for the rights to of these people who seem to be oppressed and who are exploited to the advantage of their government. After reading this book, one may have a clear idea as to why the America had to intervene or rather had to fight Saddam Hussein. The main reason was to try to liberate Iraq from the slavery of its government.
Most of the authors books have the same theme of oppression and exploitation and therefore as one leads one of the authors books, he or she is likely to learn more about how these vices has affected our society to a point of changing their direction and perception on life. One can also learn more about the various methods that one can use so as to deal with these problems.

One of the mysteries in life involves the emotion that human experienced in relationships called love. Love, with its many forms and manifestations, could lead humans to feel extreme bliss or extreme sorrow. The contradicting or opposite effects of love made it more confusing and interesting. Nonetheless, a clear definition of what it is and what is its importance remains as questions unanswered despite several attempts.

Love is usually rendered as a relative or subjective concept, which ends the inquiries without the need for further investigation. However, the fact that humans experience it at the same time, with the same effects, and with similar manifestations begs for a universal definition. This puzzle piece had captured the attention of Plato as could be reflected in his dialogues, most prominently in the Symposium. 

Symposium is a drinking party, characterized as an aristocratic past-time in ancient Greece where people discuss important matters or celebrate important occasions. In the Platonic dialogue, the Symposium was made in honor of the host Agathon, who had won a competition. The discussion  focused on the idea of love or Eros discussed in length by Socrates. Nevertheless, unlike in any of Platos writings, Socrates was not directly involved in the exchange of ideas in this dialogue. Instead, he presented the conversation that happened between him and a priestess named Diotima of Mantineia. Therefore, the ideas that Socrates conveyed in the dialogue was depicted as not his own. Nussbaum described the dialogue as something that resembles a Chinese box due to the complexity brought by the distancing from the actual source.

On its entirety, the concept of love was discussed with its correlation to philosophy. In the Symposium, love was first presented in its traditional essence, as one of the Greek gods. Afterwards, it was revealed as connection between the loved and the beloved. Then, it was assumed to be associated to a search for intelligence. Another view about love discussed in the dialogue, was its ability to transform its desires. There is also a rendition regarding love as finding the other persons half. This was based on the ancient story about Zeus chopping humans to half and people trying to find their other halves. Lastly, there was a view about love being beautiful and good. This is where Socrates relates his discussion with Diotima.

Plato used Socrates character in his dialogues to explain or represent his thoughts and ideas. In the Symposium, Socrates relay his conversation with a priestess named Diotima. The conversation was about the idea of Eros. In Greece, during the period that Symposium was written, Eros was a term used to reflect desires. Plato used the term Eros without its underlying concept of sexual love. Thus, the discussion of Eros in the Symposium denotes a study of desire and not of love per se. More particularly, as the discussion would reveal, Platos notion of Eros highly reflects a rational desire. In order to understand Platos idea of Eros, we shall look into the speech made by Socrates and the idea of Eros presented by Diotima. To avoid confusion, the word Eros would be used interchangeably with the word love to signify a desire.

Socrates initiated his speech through praising the ideas of Agathon as something that resembled his own when he first met the priestess Diotima. Diotima, according to the Symposium was the instructress of the art of love. Upon questioning the nature of love, Socrates answered Diotima that love is both good and fair. This was the notion of love during Platos time since it was associated to Gods. Nevertheless, Diotima answered that love is not something that could be categorized as good and fair.

Something good and fair is not something that is bad and unfair. This is the first implication of Diotimas proposition. However, Diotima explained that this is not necessarily true. People tended to look at things as either black and white. Most often than not, people failed that there are gray areas in between. In this part, Diotima introduced the concept of knowledge. She argued that in between being wise and being ignorant lays the capacity for the right opinion. To this end, Eros is something that is in between good and bad, fair and unfair.

Diotima further argued that Eros is not a god. To explain this, she goes back to the idea that Eros is neither good nor fair. Eros desires good and fair things make him happy. Since he desires something, this implies that it is something that he, himself, does not possess because one would not desire anymore what he already has.

Thus, in pursuing the nature of Eros, Diotima recounts that he is neither mortal nor immortalhe is a great spirit mediator between the mortal and the divine. Through incorporating Greek culture, a story regarding Eros genealogy was told by Diotima. Eros mother was Poverty, who conceived a child with Plenty when he was sleeping in the garden of Zeus during Aphrodites birthday. Eros was born and he became the follower and attendant of Aphrodite. Eros was neither wise nor poor. He resembles both his mother and father. Thus, he is alive and flourishing at one moment and dead at another momentwhich is always flowing in is always flowing out. It is during this part that Diotima acknowledged Eros as a philosopher or lover of wisdom.

In a deeper sense, Diotima asked if indeed Eros is the desire for what is beautiful, then what does he actually desire. The answer given by Socrates was That the beautiful may be his. To clarify her point, Diotima used the word good instead of beautiful. She asserted that all men desire good things. Good things are those that generate happiness. Therefore, men desire good things, but they differ in what makes them happy.

 Using this illustration, Diotima argued, one part of love is separated off and receives the name of the whole, but the other parts have other names. A further understanding of this point could be made through a discussion of creativity. Creativity implies creation or the passage from non-being into being. This is not only limited in reproduction, for ideas and arts and music are produced through the process of creation. Diotima rendered these creative actions as an act of poetry yet she also acknowledged that those who create arts such as painting, rhetoric, dances, music are not known as poets. This, she argued, was the same with love for those who loves were not called lovers per se, but they were called depending on the object of love. For instance, lover of medicine would not be called medicine lover but a doctor or a healer instead. Diotima concluded with the idea that the simple truth is, that men love the good.

The arguments presented by Socrates did not end with this. Diotima further pursued the manner of love or desire. She asked whether the love of the possession of good is everlasting. Socrates assent, thus the final definition of love would be an everlasting desire for the possession of good. In order for the good to be possessed, it has to be created and this is done through procreation in the body or in the soul known as begetting upon the beautiful.

 Conception, according to Diotimas account was the immortal principle in human creature, which cannot be harmonious or compatible with deformity.  Diotima further added that Eros love is not merely the love of the beautiful but also of generation because it is necessary for men to desire immortality along with the good. It is through generations that something could be left behind. For example, humans, animals, plants andor all living creatures could continue its existence by leaving behind offspring.

The discussion entailed that humans loved their offspring for the sake of immortality. This could be the reason why Vlastos noted Platos idea of love as something impersonal. Vlastos argued that Platos theory is not about personal love for persons. Vlastos argued that in Platonic love, love is only present because B could provide something that.

A further understanding of how Plato used the term immortality could be made through a review of his concept of the forms and true knowledge, which he discussed in Phaedo. Plato believes that true knowledge could only be attained through an engagement with the Forms or ideas. In the Republic, Plato explained that the Forms exist in the world of ideas, which could only be realized through the reflection of the things in the material world because these things are imitations of Forms. While the physical body is a component of the material world, the human soul is connected to the world of forms.

 In the practice of philosophizing, the person gained wisdom and therefore understand that the body limits the soul. Death releases the soul from the bodily shackles and gives it the ability to become one with the forms. The soul, in the Platonic concept is immortal, it undergoes transmigration or rebirth. In Phaedo, Plato argued that true virtues could be attained through wisdom.

Connecting these to the discussion of Eros in Symposium, Diotima believes that creation and therefore, love is not something that is limited to the body. She argued that love could also be conceived through the soul through the conceptions of wisdom and virtue in general. The impregnation of the soul is achieved through the pursuit of the beauty of the forms. Proper pursuit would lead the person to see the beautiful in due order and succession, when he comes toward the end, will suddenly perceive a nature of wondrous beauty.

In The Fragility of Goodness, Martha Nussbaum highlighted the fact that the speech made by Diotima presents the connection between love and philosophy. This reveals an ethical side of love in contrast to the common notions regarding love as some kind of personal expression and emotions. In this regards, Gill argued that in modern thinking, love refers to the relationship between persons in which each responds to the other as an individual that is as the bearer of a unique personality of identity. The beloved is therefore, treated not merely as an object of desire but as a companion in the ascent towards the recognition of beauty.

Vlastos defined Platonic Love as a peculiar mix of sensuality, sentiment, and intellecta companionship bonded by erotic attraction less than by intellectual give-and-take. Vlastos further claimed that the love that Socrates described paralleled the idea of the utility-love described by Aristole. It denotes that the lover would only look at the beloved because of the benefits that he may bring. For instance, the sick man loves his doctor for the sake of health. This, according to Vlastos, is an egoistic type of love since it did not give further instruction as to how else a person could be loved, unless he is of some use to another. Nussbaum argued that it is a common for people to find Plato treating a person as a seat of valuable properties and describing love as directed at those repeatable properties, rather than the whole person. However, it is only because one has not really understood his whole philosophy, which is fragmented in his other works.  This interpretation denotes that Platonic Love is not romantic love. Romantic love involves an idealization to actualize the lovers fantasies.  A.W. Price noted that it should not be forgotten that Platonic Love seeks immortality not just the joys of self-creation. Therefore, Platonic Love is not merely an intellectual give-and-take nor is it a romantic type of love. Rather, it is the desire to attain an everlasting possession of good.

Platonic Love, commonly perceived as brotherly love in todays world, is something that goes beyond worldly desires. The desire it entails incorporates the understanding or knowledge of the beautiful or good which underlies happiness. Milton and Hall argued that the lesser mysteries of love could be enjoyed by the undisciplined soul while the higher mysteries could be attained through careful disciplining and proving oneself worthy. Diotima, in her speech, described an assent from these lower mysteries involving personal loveto the higher mysteries of the love of the beautiful.  Platonic love is concerned about immortality, which is achieved through the creation not just of the body but also of the soul.

In the Platonic dialogue entitled Symposium, Socrates relayed his conversations with Diotima to explain the concept of love. The conversation revealed that love is something that seeks to eternally possess the beautiful. Platonic love according to the critics, do not take into account the other persons individuality or uniqueness and treats the beloved because of its utility. Love, in todays setting, is portrayed as something romantic, underlying the consideration for the other persons as an individual and not as a possessor of certain qualities. Platonic love is different  from romantic love. Romantic love belongs to the lesser mysteries of love while Platonic love is concerned with the higher  mysteries which could only be achieved through the process of creation yielding to the immortal possession of beauty.

Most of the human population believe that they are created, not evolved. Unlike the belief of Charles Darwin, the father of modern of evolution, most of the earths population believe in God and has been purporting that this belief is real, without any doubt.

The proponents of the creationism theory argued that
The complex characteristics of each creature on earth only prove that it is designed by an intelligent Being, known as God or Creator. William Paley, one of the proponent of the Creationism theory said that the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator.

Just like the simple mousetrap, the human beings and other beings on earth are constituted of irreducibly complex parts, like the brain for example that is composed of billions of neurons and other substance, which is too complex that it is impossible for it to obtain its current form if without the intervention of an intelligent designer or maker.
Though the proponents of evolutionism has presented material (archeological) evidences that humans came from monkeys, there is still a missing link to complete the idea that the human ancestors are indeed monkeys. Though the scientific community has found Ida, which is said to bridge the gap between man and monkeys, Sir Attenborough said that every time you find a link that once was missing, you find two more, and youve created two more that are missing. So its never going to be a complete chain.
Dembski (2002), on the other hand, argues that even in the scientific terms, the intelligent design theory is undeniable due to the varied characteristics of all things. The scientist argued that on the event of the development of things, that unique signature called characteristic is undeniably a product of intelligent design. For example, no two peopleeven twinshave the same fingerprints. And this is a plausible claim for an intelligent designer.

Finally, the pro-Creationism said that science alone cannot explain everything. Even some of the diseases just like Alzheimers disease that is in existence for many years, the scientific community is still puzzled about its true origin.
Presenting those evidences, the scientific community has failed to proof that the earth and the living things existing therein are not a product of an intelligent design, for (1) there are things that are remain unexplainable by science and (2) the complexity of the biological composition of human beings, for example, is an evident of a good and intelligent design.

The theory of knowledge (Epistemology) is the philosophical study of the nature, scope and limitation of what constitutes knowledge, its acquisition and analysis. The fundamental issue that remains unsolved in epistemology is the definition of knowledge. Philosophers are divided on this issue with some analyzing it as justified true beliefs while others differ and say that justified true belief does not constitute knowledge. The objective of this paper is to compare and contrast Plato and Aristotles theories of knowledge.

Platos theory of knowledge
Before Plato, there were some other philosophers that had made some remarks about the theory of knowledge especially Socrates. However, Plato has been credited with the origin of the theory of knowledge as it was found in his conversations. His theory of knowledge closely intertwined with his theory of forms (ideas), envisaged that there were two essential characteristics of knowledge.

Knowledge must be certain and infallible.
Knowledge must have as its object that which is genuinely real as contrasted with that which is an appearance only, that which is fully real must be fixed, permanent and unchanging- in the realm of being as opposed to that which is in the realm of becoming(physical)

Consequently, he completely rejects imperialism on the account that knowledge does not arise from sensory experience. In his arguably best publication, Thaeatetus, Plato explores the question, what is Knowledge much more ardently than in any of his other works. In this dialogue involving Socrates and the young man named after the text, the dialogue turns aporetic because it ends at an impasse.
What the dialogue inferred in the beginning is that knowledge is perception. This is evidently not true because it would be impossible to attribute knowledge to perception without a semantic structure and hence it would be impossible to state it. Perception only describes one quality of a given type of knowledge that is available only to the vision. Based on the tripartite theory of knowledge, which analyses knowledge as a justified true belief, Thaeatetus believes that knowledge structured semantically from sensory impressions, is possible. Plato rejects this notion arguing that there is no way to explain how sensations concatenated, is organizable into a semantics structure.  In response to the definition of knowledge as true judgment with an account, he uses the Dream Theory to explain how semantic structures can arise from perceptions, just as the mind creates logical constructs, which have meaning in a dream (Chappell, 2005).

Because this view fails to give an account of how the logical construction takes place in the first place, Socrates objects.  In essence, the failure to differentiate between what is knowledge and from true belief about knowledge only adds to identify a diagnostic quality of knowledge. Because there is s problem of how to identify knowledge, then it also follows that there will be a problem in how to identify the diagnostic quality of knowledge. This regression makes Thaeatetus conclude that we cannot define knowledge. A very interesting point emerges in Platos remarks at the end of the dialogue, bringing into focus the concept of understanding and the role of wisdom in enabling us to even start considering that perhaps we only begin having true belief and about what knowledge is when we actually understand anything (Chappell, 2005).

The allegory of the cave
In the allegory of the cave, Plato compares people untrained in the Theory of Forms to prisoners in a cave, chained to the wall with no possibility of turning their heads.  With fire burning behind them, they can only see the wall of the cave and the shadows of the puppets placed between them and the fire (Platos Cave, n.d). The prisoners are unable to fathom that the shadows they see and the echoes they hear are a reflection of real objects, behind them. The Allegory of the cave summarizes most of Platos views and philosophical thoughts.  His central tenet, the belief that the world available to our senses is only a reflection (a poor imitation) of the real world, of which the real one can only be intellectually grasped, is synonymous to his theory of forms, which exalted the world of ideas (form) above the world of senses (matter).

It is therefore easy to mistake appearance for reality, based on what the prisoners in the cave experience they easily refer to the shadows using the names of the real objects that the shadows reflect. In this way, Plato tries to show that our knowledge is only a reflection of the real ideas in our minds.  He maintained that what is seen on the earth is an imitation of the real thing. The prisoners, by looking at the shadows may learn what a book is but this does not enable them to claim that it refers to an object, which they have seen. Likewise, we need the physical objects in order to enable us acquire concepts. However, it would be a mistake to imagine the concepts same as the things we see (Platos Cave, n.d).

Plato concludes that men Begin to understand reality by being out in the full glare of the Sun (out of the cave). He gives an illustration of a more true reality of the road and the images of people passing along it. These he explains are perceptions that present the immediately apparent reality of shadows upon the wall and the conceptual recognition that the images being carried are not as real as the variously motivated people carrying them.

Aristotle
Aristotle theory of knowledge was based on his strong belief in Logic. He developed the principles of reasoning. He argued that the possibility of error forces the mind to determine the truth validity of a given statement.  This meant the intellect must have adequate reasons, which can ensure the proposed judgment conforms to reality. He believed that such reasons, were the foundation of perfect knowledge, perfect knowledge being knowledge through causes.

Aristotle devised a method of leading the mind to correct reasoning (syllogism) which is a structure of two statements (premises) which follow from each other and a conclusion necessarily drawn from the two above. He developed the first principle of reasoning which was the principle of no-contradiction where he stated that something could not be and be at the same time in the same manner (Adventures in Philosophy, n.d).

Aristotle differed with Plato in his theory of Knowledge. He believed that experience showed that individual substances exist and a predicated of the substance and that an individual is not produced by some idea or model, as opposed to what Plato thought, but by fellow individuals of the same species.

His theory of knowledge was based on empirical evidence as opposed to Plato who was an idealist. Aristotle believed that first there had to be an individual who through germ or seed was able to reproduce another one hence, the seed in the individual would be in potency form because of its capacity to become an individual in future.

To make this possible matter (substratum) where this seed with potency could develop under the right conditions was needed. It was supposed to remain unchangeable but perform its function. Aristotle believed that only individuals could be referred to as beings in the full sense of the word. Every individual was a compound of matter and form.

Matter was the indeterminate element, which was unchanging, and Form (potency) was the force and power shaping and developing the individual. This he called active potency. Every form, because it possessed some actual determination of matter, was also called act. Therefore the Human being development analysis was designated as comprising matter (substratum), form (determining element), potency (both active and passive), and act.

By giving an example of an artist, Aristotle explains how ideas in the mind of an artist become a work of art in the physical world- his classical example, the piece of marble, which becomes a sculpture through the work of the artist. The marble though it has shape and form (in passive potency), loses it to become a sculpture which was only an idea in the mind of the artist. Aristotle thus identifies the four important causes, the efficient cause- the work of artist. The material cause- the organic matter (marble), the formal cause  when the two meet and the final cause which is the finished product-perfection.

From the combination of the above four, he summarizes the idea of Form in the development of the individual. Making form the ... propelling, organizing and final principle of becoming.

The individual therefore has both matter and form, even though God, the immovable mover was only form.

Vietnam War started in 1959 and lasted until 1975. It was fought between South Vietnam government with support from the United States of America and other anti-communist nations, and the communist North Vietnam government under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh assisted by its allies. The conflict grew as a result of the ending of the France colonial rule when they were defeated by Vietnam in July 1975. The US feared a take offer of the entire region by the communists who had expanded into Eastern Europe, Korea and Cuba and decided to take action to stop its further spread. The whole war was captured by an American Photographer, Tim Page and a Writer, Michael Herr, who later reported on the war on the Esquire Magazine. Herr covered several operations including two major ones the siege of the Khe Sahn and the recapture of the old Vietnamese capital City Hue.
These correspondents attached a lot of glamour to their work in these war zones. There is some passion associated with watching, covering or doing a story about war. This is why Tim Page, the American Photographer said, Take the glamour out of war I mean, how the bloody hell can you do THAT... I mean, You Know that, it just CANT BE Done (Herr, 1977) This was his reaction to a British Publisher, when he was asked to do a story on war that was supposed to take glamour out of war. Despite the dangers, pain and suffering that Page underwent while covering the war in Vietnam, he still felt there was that urge inside him that made him volunteer to work in this place and this is what he associates with glamour. Herr describes him as a remarkable correspondent who took many risks and suffers many shrapnel wounds. He adds to say that his flair and obvious craziness made the marine nervous. He behaves as if he is home, he is not scared about the enemy and this scares the marine, if they hadnt known him well, they would have thought he was some sort of spy. His glamour comes partly from courage and partly from his lampoons of the military, but he earns it (Bookrags, 2000). Soldiers also earn their glamour as indicated by the badges on their chests. This portrays the glamour that Page is referring to in his statement. The soldiers on the ground themselves wanted to come home and were surprised with the correspondents presence in full knowledge of the looming danger. He does not even regret the large shrapnel at the base of the brain that nearly took his life. To extend the odd personality of enjoying glamour of this war, he throws a party on his twenty-fifth birthday to the surprise of many (Bookrags, 2000). Through his photography, Page showed that war was always was, and will always be heavily invested in glamour, with glory and in machoism such is the representation of conflict in popular imagination (Hills, 2003). He made an issue of the glamour of Vietnam in an exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London in 1980 and recalled how groovy it had been playing with helicopters, tanks and piloting Sky-raiders (Hills, 2003).
Herr meets a lot of Marines, several officers, and fellow correspondents while gathering information on his story Dispatches. She prefers working in the field over work in Saigon which is considered safer. Vietnam is never a safe place at this time as the night is owned by the enemy. It is filled with mortar attacks and bombs that explode anywhere at anytime of the day (Bookrags, 2000). In his story, Herr (1977) quotes Page for a number of reasons. Both of them attended the war area Herr to write a story and Page to cover the scenes. Therefore, there works are complimentary and their experiences of grief and suffering are the same. The story told by Herr is the perception of war from looking at the pictures taken by Page. They are also driven to this area by the same reasons. Another reason is the perception that is fascinating that is usually associated with war when one is watching a movie as Herr recalls when he was young watching these movies. This is what pulls Herr to the Vietnam War. Herr notes that the marines who think that they are being captured by the war coverers act movies in a real situation (Bookrags, 2000). In Bookrags (2000), it is written that, war has its own beauty though it is very terrible, and this is seen in the displayed feelings that Herr, Tripper and Mayhew as they pass over triage. Herr also says that the driving force of the soldiers in these war fields is the glamour that follows after the opponent has been overpowered. It does not matter the worse the situation gets even as their combat mates are killed and they are forced to retreat they will not surrender and go back to their homes, they want to truly serve their country. Others would like to be honored for being in this battle fields. In Bookrags (2000), war stories are also conveyed as being popular and everyone would always want to be associated with them.
War can be defined as a contest between two or more groups who engage in an armed confrontation aimed at solving an issue. It is a forceful action aimed at solving conflicts. It is usually prolonged and is fought between nations, parties or states. It usually arises because of the changing relations of numerous variables technological, psychic, social, and intellectual (Wright, 1965). There are several reasons why people engage themselves in war. The following are some of them and their illustrations.
A country will engage in war if it is invaded by the other in a way to defend itself. The invasion of its territorial boundary will cause make it to retaliate by sending the invaders away. If the invading nation refuses to withdraw, the two nations will engage another in war. A good example is the war that was fought against the colonialists in Africa. The rise of MAU MAU fighters in Kenya in the 1950s to fight the British is an example of this war. The White Settlers were taking away their land through forceful evictions from their farms and this made people from all the communities in Kenya to group and fight against this common enemy.
Some of the wars are meant to redress wrongs done on the people of a nation. When the most of the fundamental human rights are disobeyed, there is always need to fight for them. Iraq invasion by the United States of America with its troops was aimed at removing the former President, Saddaam Hussein who had infringed too much on the rights of the citizens of Iraq. He ruled by his principles and had clinched to power for a very long time.
Other wars are fought to acquire territory. There is also a boundary between rulers of certain regions in a country and these boundaries are usually permanent. Rulers govern these regions and some times they would want to expand them. Of course, no other ruler will be willing to reduce its territory at the expense of the other ruler and the only way to extend the boundary is by waging war on the other group. In the ancient past, nations were divided into territories each under the leadership of rulers and these wars were common.
In some cases, wars are fought as revenge missions on unaddressed cases of the past. The fighting between Israel and the Palestinians is a good illustration of this. Other wars are fought to obtain and establish superiority over another nation or group. The war between the Algaeda and the United States is a war of dominion. The United States is a super power and would like protect the Pakistan Central government which has been destabilized by this group. On the other hand, the Algaeda group seeks to establish dominion by organizing terror attacks on other nations especially those under the helm of United States. It did bomb the United States Embassy in Kenya in 1998 and the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001. 

In the essay Zero Tolerance by Gary Bauslaugh, the author argued that the concept of Zero Tolerance has diverged greatly from its beginnings in regards to law enforcement, and school discipline. Bauslaugh presents this argument in terms of Mad Cow Disease He claims that when problems arose with Mad Cow Disease, any cow that presented a threat was eliminated, even if there was no evidence that the cow was diseased.

Bauslaugh argues that much as with Mad Cow Disease, zero tolerance that is not moderated by the lawn, and balanced by the facts, creates an environment in which discrimination and runs rampant. This secondary argument is also applied to Mad Cow disease as Bauslaugh presents the case of a farming family that had their entire herd of dairy water buffalo confiscated by the Canadian government upon it being revealed that a single cow in Denmark (where the water buffalo had been imported from) had died of Mad Cow Disease. The animals belonging to this family were executed and the family was given no recompense for their losses.

Zero Tolerance is argued by Bauslaugh to be a negative thing. Zero Tolerance creates intolerance, most specifically when it is applied to cases that it did not originally apply to such as dairy farming rather than criminal justice. Bauslaughs final argument states that the intent of zero tolerance regulations is not, in fact, to make people feel safer, or to ensure that the laws are enforced, but, to present a positive image for politicians to their public.

Bauslaugh presents a logical, well thought out argument. He uses terms that everyone can understand, and backs up his claims with clearly presented evidence, using a case that many of his readers would have read about. Bauslaugh depicts zero tolerance not only in terms of cause e.g. why zero tolerance policies are put in place (Mad Cow Disease) but effect e.g. what happens when zero  tolerance policies are unjust (having your water buffalo herd confiscated and killed, resulting in a loss of income). This casts Bauslaughs argument in a positive light. Not only does he back up his claims with fact, but, he shows the consequences of zero tolerance policies on the people who come into contact with these policies.

Overall, Bauslaugh presents a good argument. His opinions are supported and he uses evidence that is congruent with what he is arguing about. His argument may seem slightly slanted because of his own beliefs on zero tolerance policies but his evidence is sound, and his arguments are logical. They progress from Zero Tolerance policies have negative effects on society under all circumstances, including those they were originally intended for to zero tolerance policies have a negative effect on farming and agriculture when applied to Mad Cow Disease. Bauslaugh related his arguments to this in order to present an example that everyone could understand.

It can be claimed that Bauslaughs arguments were valid. Not simply because the evidence he presented supported his claims, but, because there is other evidence outside of Bauslaughs argument that supports his claims that zero tolerance regulations are unfair, discriminatory and only help the politicians that put them in place. This makes Bauslaughs arguments even more believable than had there only been that single case in which zero tolerance policies had been applied in an unfair and unjust manner.

Bauslaugh presents strong evidence in this essay. Zero tolerance is wrong because it is unjust. This is supported when he states that case of farmers who have had their dairy herds confiscated because of mad cow disease. He then presents several examples from a specific case in which zero tolerance policies were wrongly applied. This only serves to support his conclusion that zero tolerance policies only serve to support the interests of politicians rather than protecting innocent people as they were designed to do.

The main weakness in Bauslaughs argument is that he leaves his conclusion open. How does zero tolerance benefit politicians rather than helping people, and why do zero tolerance policies fail to do what they were designed to do  These were two questions that could have been answered in the summation of his argument, or supported in the summation of his argument that he failed to answer.

Bauslaugh does meet the three conditions of argument according to Goviers concept of ARG. Arguments are presented in clear easy language so that they are easy to find an analyze. There is evidence that supports that argument that is both applicable and credible and he clearly supports each sub-argument with evidence. The evidence stands up to evaluation as being factual and truthful. Therefore it can be claimed that Bauslaugh presents a powerful argument.

It can be concluded that Bauslaughs argument against zero tolerance policies met the three characteristics of a standardized argument. He presented his case clearly and succinctly and his evidence was presented in a fashion that made the argument both understandable to a lay person, and credible. It can be further stated that Bauslaugh sets his arguments up in the standard method with his main argument presented in the first paragraph and his sub-arguments presented in the preceding paragraphs. The only weakness in an otherwise strong argument was the failure to answer several key questions in the context of his argument. But, this can be somewhat excused by the fact that this information was presented in the context of a short essay.

In this paper I will be presenting a summary of the basic argument for skepticism, then examining both Descartes and Moores presentations of arguments against skepticism.  Finally, I will conclude by defending skepticism and arguing against the presentations placed by Descartes and Moore. 

The basic argument for skepticism is that if you assert to know something, such as knowing that there is a God, you would need to rule out all of the alternatives. 

While you can start ruling out alternatives, the number of alternatives is infinite so you can never rule out all of the alternatives. 

In this case, the premise is that in order to know something, one would need to rule out all of the alternatives.   This statement we could accept because the number of alternatives is impossible to count, as it is infinite.
   
Another way to think about this is by making a statement that there is said to be a gold wrapped candy bar somewhere in the world with a special stamp, but that there are so many candy bars in the world and that there are so many candy bars being made.
   
That if a person tried to count them all and peel open every candy bar they would never reach the end.  Of course this is assuming that candy bars will continue to be made as people will continue to want to consume candy bars.

The conclusion to the premise would then be that it is impossible to know something when all the alternatives could not be ruled out. 

Cartesians approach to skepticism that if one is in a sensory state of even being entirely deceived and able to hold nothing for certain. 

There is still a deep cognizance of the self, that in order to be deceived, in order to think that he is being deceived, he must exist.  It is true because even if the alternative, that he is hallucinating he exists were proposed, it is disproved by the very experience of being deceived. 

In this case, the premise would be   I am and I exist     It is supported by the assertion that as long as he thinks that he exists, he must exist even if he is being deceived.  As much as he may be deceived, he must exist if he is thinking and is then able to be deceived.  In conclusion, something can be substantiated and even instantaneously true.  That this something is true even if the alternative that it was just a delusion is true.  In the case of a man who believes that he has died, the act of thinking that he has died necessarily imposes upon the man that he should be certain that he exists. 

The evidence for the first premise, that a man believes he exists, is that a man is thinking and challenging whether or not he exists which means that he must exist.  As someone who does not exist could not be thinking that or having it pass through their mind. 

The evidence for the second premise, that a statement of thinking about thinking makes existence instantaneous as it is impossible for the property of existence to exist if there are no people who exist. 

Some criticism would be that the  I  cannot be taken for granted, something can be thinking but it cannot hold the property of the  I.   That thinking is and can always be thought without a person, an  I  thinking it.
   
A dog for example, is not capable of saying  I think its raining.   However, a dog, with sensory perceptions, can be looking out the window and not go out the door.  The owner then, can say, the dog must be thinking its raining so that it is not choosing to go outside.

Moores argument for skepticism is as seemingly simple as extending a hand.  There is a hand that is being extended, there is another hand to be extended, therefore, there are at least two external objects in the world. 

The Premises would be that there is a physicality, a hand, that a person possessing two hands can extend the other hand.  That these two hands constitute to external objects in the world. 

If a person extends one hand and knows that they have another, they know that there are two objects in the world. 

With two external objects shown to be external to the mind, there is a world in which these two objects are shown. The conclusion must be that there is a world, an external world which exists.

A criticism would be that there may be a world, but that one could be hallucinating the other hand.  A person who has had one hand amputated, holds out one hand, it is there, but does not have the other hand. 

They may hallucinate the other hand, as its not there, its no longer in the world.  But the man is so accustomed to seeing the other hand and cannot bear life without the other hand so the man hallucinates it. 

Returning back to my assessment of the long-standing debate on skepticism, I would accept the premises of the Basic argument for skepticism and accept that I am a skeptic. 

My issue with Descartes argument is as follows  A person could be thinking things about the world but be deceived about who they are.  If descartes is thinking that he is descartes but really is stuck in the body of a dog, the dog can be thinking but its thinking says nothing about the world apart from being interpreted by people.  If descartes is thinking but he is in the body of a dog, he is not existing anymore.  He is a dog, and therefore, it, the dog, exists but not Descates. 

My issue with Moores argument is as follows.  A man is in the hospital, his hands appear to be gloved.  The doctors, in their apparent kindness, have molded a hand out of wax, and placed a glove on it.  He says, oh, look at my gloved hands, they must have been cut, and now theyre healing.  They exist as an object in the world.  But in fact the man has no hands.  Once he takes off the gloves he finds that there is no hand but wax, he pulls off the wax, there is still no hand, only a hook placed on wood.  The thing is, Moore could know that he has two hands for a long time, if he does no investigating.  The doctors could keep telling him that his hands are still healing, as long as he is alive even.  He may never know.  If he chooses not to investigate there may be hands that he sees but he has no hands, his hands do not exist.