Philosophy

The term philosophy has its origins in the  political philosophies which is entail freedom, legal code enforcement by authority, rights, liberty and law with respect to what constitutes the legitimacy of a government, freedoms and rights to be protected and the reason for protecting them and the duties owed by citizens to a government which is legitimate. Political philosophy finds its origins in ancient Greek period whilst nations were experimenting with several types of political systems including tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy. In one of his works Republic Plato defines what he calls as justice (Sayers, 1999). The republic refers to a philosophical conversation on the nature of justice including the character and order of a just individuals and a just city-state. Socrates concurs with Polemarchus on the fact that justice constitutes helping others and he indicates that a person who is just can never harm anybody. By saying so, Thrasymachus is strongly convinced that Socrates has been injustice to the present men and this leads him to attacking his reputation and character in public because he thinks Socrates does not understand that harming an opponent is unjust. According to Thrasymachus justice refers to that which is good as perceived by those in power or the stronger ones- the people who govern the city. Socrates however finds this meaning unclear and starts questioning Thrasymachus.

According to Thrasymachus justice comes from those governing a city or state hence their laws are fair as per his definition because they ratify the laws for their own benefits. Socrates then goes a head to inquire whether a leader, who makes a regulation that deems to lessen him, remains a leader with respect to Thrasymachus definition. But in response Thrasymachus agrees to the fact that no true leader would commit such a crime of lessening the laws. However, according to Aristotle, a ruler is a politician and a law giver who is entitled to providing a frame work of an appropriate constitution for the nation. This constitutes enduring institutions, laws and customs for the people (Rosen, 2005).

Having developed the constitution the, the ruler needs to maintain it, introduce reforms when necessary as well as stop developments which may sabotage the political system. Aristotle states that a lawgiver and politician is fully occupied with the nation and a constitution helps in organizing the citizens hence helping in protecting the (Nilstun, 1981) nations freedom. He indicates that because citizens are different from other people like slaves and resident aliens even seniors and children fit not to be citizens. He goes ahead to define a citizen as some one who has a right to partake in deliberative orand judicial office. For instance in Athens, citizens were entitled to attend the council, the assembly as well as sit on jurisdiction. This system was different from modern democracy because citizens took part in governing. Despite the fact that full citizenship was restrictive in Greek nations with foreigners, slaves and women- citizens were highly enfranchised as opposed to current democracies since they took part directly in governing the nation. This implies that to protect the nations freedom those people who are being governed must directly be involved in ruling.

The nature of individuals demands that they act co operatively towards discursive animals. Hence aggression to those not within another persons poll is forbidden with respect to justice, as opposed to aggression against a fellow citizen. People who are not citizen may also posses rights against the citizens of a nation (Mulgan, 1970). Aristotle refers to this as justice that is each time a common association occurs, a certain degree of justice would result. Polls are the most complete indication of an ideal hence justice can appear to be at its peak only through polls. On the other hand, Miller understands Aristotles passages of justice as rights he resists agreeing to the reality of rights prior to politics in the moral universe of Aristotle. He states that since natural justice is politically inherent it can not natural rights prior to politics held by persons in a nation that is pre-political in nature. Rights prior to politics are those rights which are enjoyed by individuals in a pre-political nation. Prepolitical rights in this case only refer to priority of rights. Miller fails to agree with Aristotle because he asserts that these are rights which are commonly universal as well as inhering in individuals from political or social relations. This seems to have much ambiguity because any theory on rights is it modern liberals or Aristotle theory can only be analyzed with respect to more than one person. If miller perceives that Aristotle believes that rights come from social contexts which are organized is very unconvincing. According to Aristotle Murder and theft are by no means justified, and he insists that people should possess a feeling of friendship to all people because friendship comes with justice obligation that is directly proportional to friendship.

 In considering Liberty evaluation by Aristotle, Miller differentiates Locke with Aristotle. According to Locke freedom defines the condition of human being.  Miller refers to liberty as an external good. Aristotle has divided all the goods in to three categories external good, goods for the soul and goods for the body. An individual freedom consists mainly in environmental facts as opposed to the body and soul (Nilstun, 1981). Miller on the hand uses external good to imply a good out side the well being of an individual, that which is not a constitutive element. It is critical that we consider the manuscripts in defining an external good which means that which is out side to the soul and body. Aristotle refers to an external good as that which is outside the well being of an agent and which bears an instrumental value. Aristotle finally defines freedom as that is state of being free outside slavery. There lacks a reason to believe that liberty from slavery overrides Aristotles instrumental good. In politics, slavery is incompatible with self-sufficient (Mulgan, 1970). The state of living for the sake of another person is what is called freedom. In addition to this liberty is important in the political theory of Aristotle. The importance of liberty according to Aristotle lies not in the tiny slavery chattel, he holds that political regimes amounts to slavery also called despotic rule which deprives a nation of its freedomliberty. Constitutions which are deviant are also despotic because they confine their subjects to slavery. This can be seen in Aristotles understanding of a citizen. Aristotle also defines a nation as a group of citizens that is enough for a life that is self-sufficient. In defining the constitution, he states that it is a means of organizing the nations offices especially the sovereign office. In this case a constitution becomes a governing organ that is in a democratic government it refers to the people. A polis refers to a nation which is free. Hence legitimate rule can be differentiated from despotic rule in the fact rulers in legitimate rule lead according to the communitys interest where as despotic rulers lead with their personal interests. The distinction between a person who is free and a slave is that one lives for the sake of his life where as another lives for the sake of the life of another.

This criterion which is based on the interest used in differentiating between despotism and freedom is often in the company of criterion that is based on the consent. Aristotle repeatedly suggests that governments which are legitimate possess the consent of those being governed as opposed to despotic governments which rule against the will of the people (Kallen et al,1969). This is a reply to the arguments of Plato concerning politicus. In the dialogue Plato earlier on treats absence or presence of consent with respect to the citizens as that which differentiates despotic government from a legitimate government. Following further reflection, Plato discards consent-based criterion stating that governing is similar to a profession like medicine the test of proper medical practice does not base on the consent of the client but rather on if or if not the correct medication can be prescribed by the physician. Plato concludes by saying that the truth does not lie in the person who rules by force but on that person who rules basing on wisdom. Aristotle agues against Plato are thinking on the physicians analogue. Doctors do not force treatment on patients instead they seek their consent. He insists that ruling against the will of those being ruled is similar to violation of justice and law. Aristotle considers being governed against someones will is denying that person nation freedom and deems it as being unjust.

To protect the nations freedom, Aristotle uses two distinct criteria to differentiate freedom from despotism the citizens interest and the citizens consent. This is very surprising. However, to a thinker who possesses a view of subjectivity on the well- being it may not seem surprising, because the interests of those who are being governed and the desires of the citizens may be required to meet at a given point (Knight,2007). Never the less, Aristotle believes that individuals are in most cases mistaken with respect to their personal interests, they are biased in judgement. There lack a guarantee on the fact that that which will benefit the citizens will tally with their consent. Then why should he use consent based criterion This is because being ruled against an individual will constitute an element of well-being. Liberty in the sense of consent-based is not enough for achieving the good but it is important constitutively. For instance someone being dragged, screaming and kicking towards a better life via benevolent government does not interact with others on the basis of cooperation but does so unwilling fully hence being deprived of his freedom. This is because he or she is being deprived of whole human life. An important part in the life of politics is cooperating with others on voluntary basis, and such a voluntary cooperation is what constitutes justice not something that can be forced down the throat of individuals. Basing on consent-based criterion, freedom is in the mind of any person who is not a slave. Thus, according to Aristotle freedom based on interest-based criterion constitutes consent-based criterion freedom. Therefore the approval of those being governed constitutes the first condition in a legitimate constitution hence justice being exercised (Nilstun, 1981).

The approval of those being governed can also just mean a majority. Miller agues convincingly that Aristotle is biased on what is he terms the common good where the polls seems to be a mutual advantage and an overall benefit. That means the polls should enhance the good of each citizen in a given nation. If liberty based on consent- based criterion is an important well-being element then for the polls to be just they must have unanimous consent. Aristotle recognizes himself when he approves unanimous consent as a sense of government legitimacy. An issue comes in if consent is preconditioned for well-being (Roderick). If this happens then, every paternalistic law must defeat itself, hence any measure intended to enhance the citizens well being will sabotage the end via depriving the people of their freedom critical to the well being. Aristotle is renowned for not supporting paternalistic laws. In addition to this, he indicates that the decision of the government will not base on ethical suasion alone in securing compliance with the decisions it makes, he stresses that the governments effectiveness is based on its ownership of coercive power which is organized. If a nation imposes its will on citizens forcefully it will deprive its citizens of its freedom. Consent is important in a legitimate nation because the citizen will have a sense of belonging hence protecting their freedom. If the inhabitants of the nation are adamant to exercise what they feel then they will not do so on voluntary basis. In such a case the governors may be force to choose between evils. Where each citizen of a nation enjoys maximum freedom punishment will not constitute an ideal poll. For Aristotle freedom is critical matter of consent as pertains to the constitution more than the individual statutes and edicts ratified under the same constitution (Knight, 2007). Democrats are not mistaken for embracing freedom instead he indicates that they have a false impression of liberty by stating that being subjective to the law is not compatible with freedom. Aristotle maintains that is compatible as long as people do what they do according to their will.

In conclusion a nations freedom can only be protected under justice. This can be found when the people being governed taking part in governing themselves that is the government needs to consent them on each and every thing it does.

From the times of Aristotle the subject on Animal Consciousness has been discussed till today. Aristotle thought that animals cannot think like humans because of this reason they were considered as lesser to humans. Consciousness is defined as awareness of ones own internal and external feelings of himself. Although they are awake about some organisms most of the times they are unaware. If they are aware like us they have to be treated like humans with rights etc. Many psychologists thought that behavior comes as natural to animals like human beings. If we have to say usually the human are the ones who had power over all kinds of animals from to dog to lion (Nieman, n.d).

Two types of consciousness intelligence 1.This type of consciousness intelligence comes when the living thing is alert. The other comes when the living thing got the intelligence of reorganization in that they react according to the environment. The third most consciousness intelligence is access consciousness is introduced by the Block (1995).He thought that every animal posses the access consciousness without necessity of speech.

There two there are two types of consciousness intelligence other than the above
1. Phenomenal consciousness        
2. Self-consciousness.

In Phenomenal consciousness they only know about the other kind of species living in same environment .It refers to knowledge of consciousness. Humans got the ability to see and to feel what is to be like other animal but not in animals because they got a less no of neurons (Ginsburg  Jablonka 2007).

Self-consciousness means the psychological state of ones own mind means thought about thought. This is familiar with theory of mind .Any non humans dont have the power over the control the mind of the others (Animals).

Theories
Dualism According to the dualists the consciousness is an undefined basic element in the bodily universe and it cannot be decreased according to the bodily philosophy. Cartesian dualism agrees the animals dont have mental states. But Descartes explanation based on incapability of the animals to speak normally. But at present any type of dualist cannot confirm that the no animal has got the awareness. Dennett didnt believe in Cartesian theory and also didnt approve that animals got the intelligence.
Physicalist account Physicalist accounts are based upon results of philosophicality that specifying the intelligence with undetermined material possessions. This believes that humans and all are made up of same elements.

Neuron physical accounts Few philosophers believe that changes in the neurons especially in sensory context of the brain which is responsible for storing the information made the differences between humans and animals.

Representational accounts  It is very familiar with phenomenal consciousness .First order representation believes that that some parts of the illustration used to store the information about the external world if it has in animals then it is phenomenally conscious about that.

Higher  order theories
This theory comes from the disappointment of the first order theory. Carruthers HOT means higher order thought is the about the conscious about the thought (Carruthers 1998a,b, 2000)..Caruthers believe that non humans doesnt have minds like of humans even in the most great apes like chimpanzee and they a very little to sustain.

Other theorists like Arm strong supported that higher order theory in requisites with internal knowledge of the mind along with Aristotle which means they lack minds (Shah, 2010).

Aristotle believed animals were incapable of reason, but some philosophers and scientists still cannot agree on one coherent view of animal awareness. Arguments in support of animal awareness are relatively recent, and emerging scientific evidence comes closer and closer to fully supporting these arguments. There is evidence that animals are aware, from bacteria and earthworms to chimpanzees.

Arguments for animal consciousness
Similarity arguments Some ordinary observers made judgments on similarity between human and animal behavior. The animal reactions and events that humans report as painful are mechanically recognized by a lot of people as pain responses. The common mammalian responses to harmful stimuli are fear responses, high pitched vocalization, learned avoidance, nursing of injuries. Irresistible evidence shows that animal brains elaborate many states of affective consciousness. There is no ultimate evidence from science but some relevant evidence from Neuroethological studies evoking the same emotional behavior from the same animal brain analogs, behavioral reinforcement studies, ubiquitous emotional vocalizations and coherent translations between human and animal psychopharmacological work.

In 2001, Likewise reviewing the behavioral and neural evidence for consciousness in animals According to this a subjective consciousness is basically identical in mammals and humans. A neurological similarity also suggests commonality of consciousness experience between animals and humans (Angelfire, n.d).

David Hume proclaimed that no truth appears to be more evident, than that beast is endowed with thought and reason as well as men. Hume argued that animals closely resemble the behaviors of human beings which are caused by associations among ideas.

The cumulative argument for animal consciousness
The belief in animal awareness is part of the commonsense view of the world. Ordinary language talking by animals is not strained that implies that they have mental life. Hebb writes give a record on actual behavior of adult chimpanzees this record gives the objective statement of differences from animal to animal. Gareth B. Matthews an American philosopher and his staff found that one animal was faithful, another nervous, and a third shy, and they characterized that one is friendly to human beings, another to hate human beings (Regan, 2004).

Arguments against animal consciousness
Dissimilarity arguments
Descartes argues against animal consciousness that the animals do not use any language conversationally. Suppose this argument rose due to the failure of animals in showing some thinking capacities and it is exemplified by using certain dissimilarities between animals and humans to argue about the lack of consciousness of animals. In the situation of getting partial information, a general desist absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is saying. Further Descartes says vocalizing of parrots is just meaningless recurrence, but this opinion exposed with out any systematic and scientific examination of the aptitudes of parrots.

Similarity arguments
To reject the animal consciousness one type of strategy has been in use is to focus on assured similarities between the behavior of animals and the unconscious human beings behavior. Consequently Carruthers (1989, 1992) argues that all animals behave like unconscious humans with examples of driving while abstracted, the capacities of blindsight patients. Carrutherss argument which is based on comparison of unconscious humans behavior and animals behavior is like the unsystematic observation of animal behavior which is proposed by Descartes. There is no evidence to normal limitations of animals (Jamieson  Bekoff 1991).

Arguments from the absence of self-consciousness
Carruthers (1998a,b, 2000) argued that the animals do not have self-consciousness also. Gordon Gallup (1970) describes after examine of chimpanzees through mirror self-recognition test, chimpanzees are self-aware. Gallup et al. (2002) opinioned about the connection between the theory of mind and self awareness as If you are self-aware then you are in a position to use your experience to model the existence of comparable processes in others. Success of the test on chimpanzees gave some grounds to maintain that the animals are astoundingly conscious. The attempts to give proof of theory of mind in animals were failed to produce exact evidence.

Methodological arguments
Several scientists are persuaded even the questions regarding self-consciousness are empirically dutiful and any experiment could not allow to exceptional consciousness in animals. But some times scientists behaves as dualists once they are sturdily devoted to rejecting the opportunity of scientifically examining consciousness and another time they remain uncertain of all attempts to bring it into the scientific mainstream (Shah, 2010).

However, similarity arguments break down when the similarities and dissimilarities relate to two completely kinds of evidence. In this case, the similarities and dissimilarities can no longer be weighed up against each other and are thus incommensurable.

Conclusion
Animals may or may not the got the awareness, humans have to treat the animals with good care and protection but as slaves. Similarity arguments based on behavior cannot establish the occurrence of conscious feelings in animals when there is conflicting neurological evidence. Many members argued against the animal consciousness with grounds of similarities and dissimilarities between the nonhuman animals and humans and base of the absence of self consciousness of animals. Some methodological arguments also rose against the animal consciousness.

For the entire 20 years of my existence, I could only remember Christmas as a Christian holiday. I was brought up to keep on anticipating for this day. The year-end gathering and the week-long vacation that accompany the event is too exhilarating. For such a long period, the Christmas day had not been more special than the rest of the vacation. This changed on December 24th 2009. It had been my first genuine Christmas. It made me recognized the beauty of Christmas, apart from its religious significance.

A photograph that was taken last Christmas always reminds me of the beauty of the celebration itself. The beauty of Christmas took me by surprise when my parents took me to the mall for the traditional Christmas shopping. It was our first Christmas here in Los Angeles. Since we did not spend a lot of time together this year, we had a lot of catching up to do. We spent almost the whole day telling our stories and planning for the Christmas Eve. The fact that we are far away from home made us feel like strangers in this foreign land. This led us to be more dependent with each other. It made me realized how much I missed my family and how special Christmas is.

The Christmas Eve was even more colorful for us, because everything is being experienced differently from the way they are presented in Hong Kong. As we strode the streets of Los Angeles, we had a chance to listen to a Christmas choral. Their synchronize gesture and the play of tones and melody was very different from what we were accustomed of. We also had a chance to see a real Christmas tree. Back in Hong Kong, we only have synthetic Christmas trees. The Christmas tree gives a unique feeling of authenticity. It must have been my exposure to copies or imitation that made me admire the beauty of the tree itself. At home, the Christmas meal was never been as delicious. The cold temperature, made our hot meals exquisitely delicious. The hot soup that my mom cooks every Christmas reminded us of our home in Hong Kong. However, in Hong Kong, we shared the meal with our relatives. Last Christmas, we only shared it among ourselves. It felt mystical and serene, because we quietly finished the food and talked about matters after the meal.

Prior to this event, Christmas come and go like other holidays. The ordinariness of celebrating Christmas had stripped away its beauty. Celebrating had become an extravagant practice. Symbolic decors and practices were brandished with glitter and exaggeration. The real beauty of Christmas was being forgotten.

Beauty had long been a controversial topic because of its subjectivity (Hillman). The differences in opinion and preference had been the basis of this argument. In other culture, the beauty of the Christmas spirit is not something to celebrate or to take notice off. Other families do not even care about the spirit of Christmas they merely attend Christmas gatherings as part of traditions. Perceptions, cultures, traditions, religious beliefs, and a concoction of other factors in the society as well as personal experiences and influences, could greatly affect the notion of beauty. If I had celebrated Christmas in Hong Kong last year, I would not realize how it creates a stronger bond between me and my parents. I would not see the incident as something beautiful but as an ordinary holiday about the birth of Christ.

Nonetheless, upon recognizing the beautiful, there is a tendency to replicate the object (Scarry). The memory of the beautiful is retained in the mind. Just as the memory of that Christmas had been one of my most memorable experiences. Then the beautiful is replicated through imagination. Soon after, it will be transformed into tangible representations such as words, paintings, sculpture, and pictures.  This is the reason why I could recapitulate the events last Christmas by merely looking at our family picture.

The subjectivity entails that the concept of beauty differs from one person to another. Yet, it is undeniable that different people described similar feelings upon the recognition of beauty. Generally, these include the cant-take-the-eyes-off moments that usually happens whenever the senses perceives something beautiful.  As I am holding the photograph, I was reminded of the beauty of celebrating Christmas. The mind agrees that the beautiful bring forth a pleasure and tranquility. After reminiscing about the events and the feelings I had last Christmas, I would feel satisfied and happy. According to Elaine Scarry, the perceiver does not merely recognize the beautiful but he is also left with the task of begetting or the perpetual duplicating of the moment that never stops.

What does Hardin mean when he says that the problem of population growth has no technical solution

Hardin believed that there are specific class of of problems that cannot be resolved by any technological or scientific innovation. Among these is the problem on overpopulation. His argument lies on the framework that the earth and its space together with its resources is finite. On the other hand, the growth of human population is infinite. Technological and scientific innovation only can extend the finite world and its resources but will never have the capability to make it infinite. In this sense, the problem on population growth is a problem that cannot be solved by technological and scientific innovations but rather through moral or political measures.

What does Hardin mean when he says,  Freedom in a common brings ruin to all  How does he define true freedom at the end of his essay

Hardin quoted Hegel when he said,  Freedom is the recognition of necessity.  The inability of the people in authority to impose measures that will limit other people (i.e. the commons) that will harm the people will put a greater restraint on the greater number of people. By imposing laws outlawing acts such as robbing, authorities are providing a more free environment to the people. This will allow them to be more free in choosing and pursuing other aspects of their lives.

Explain the idea of the tragedy of he commons as a first set forth by William Forster Lloyd. How does it work

The tragedy of the commons is made possible with an open system that is accessible to all people together with a stable societal arrangement and framework. By having stable societal condition, that is a society without major strifes and conflict, the nature will loss it capacity to balance the people who access the open system it self. As the people left to be unchecked, they are going to pursue their own desires and goals, maximizing the ownership of different materials. The desires and wants of people is infinite while the capacity of the earth, the space and the resources within it is finite. This is the problem and the tragedy set forth by William Forster Lloyd, men are allowed to pursue infinite things in a world that is finite.

Technology, unfortunately, has two-faces while it can aid the human race in easing tasks, curing countless diseases, and even lengthening life spans, it can also destroy the earth and its inhabitants. There is much good to be said about the development of the human race when it comes to technology, but it cannot be denied that insofar as Mother Earth is concerned, there were countless of damages inflicted through the process of development.

There is a need to evaluate the costs and problems that will be met whenever new developments arise, as well as find means to finally minimize these problems. In order to come up with the information on how such problems may be minimized, there needs to be an analysis of the literature regarding such issues (Pojman and Vaughn 895).

Despite the fact that various literature has been written about the problem, the human race cannot escape the fact that they might have not done enough to address such issues. Our Duties to the Environment shows that in order for such problems to be solved, there is a need for humans to acknowledge the fact that technology and development can cause as much harm as good to everyone.

Studying abroad has been a trend since time immemorial. It is a common case that we find foreign students in different schools especially in college and in graduate schools and universities. Certainly, although knowledge can be found in their homeland students, or perhaps their parents, may have a different preference, thus they sometimes tend to choose to be educated elsewhere. However, despite the advantages that one may identify in studying abroad, there is a great drawback to it namely higher tuition fees. In the United States, it is a known fact that foreign students pay higher than the locals. Sometimes twice as high and in extreme cases may reach up to five times higher. Therefore, the question on whether such a discrepancy is reasonable or not, surfaces.

This is actually not a new issue at all. Foreign students, even before they apply for admission, already know that they will be subjected to higher fees. Nevertheless, they still enroll because of various reasons, but the one that stand out is quality education. It cannot be denied that the United States provide one of the best kinds of education all over the world. One would just look at the resources, facilities and the educational equipment to realize that what they are paying for is justified. Oftentimes, those who travel to America to study have more inferior (for lack of better term) educational facilities in their respective hometowns and usually, the courses that they take in America are those that the country specializes in. Thus, the institutions could provide an extensive knowledge of the chosen field.

Another possible reason for the higher tuition fees could be business-wise. Needless to say, educational institutions also function as a business venture so they are also concerned with the money that is coming in. Since they can only charge too much on the local students, they take advantage of their ability to attract foreign students to enroll in their respected institutions and place the extra charges on them. In a way, it is like exporting their product and in exports there are extra charges to be added.

The last reason that I can think of for the higher tuition fee charges to foreign students is because of taxes. Students migrating to the US to get a degree do not pay taxes the way the locals do and we know that part of the government taxes go to subsidizing education especially for community colleges and state universities. The local students have the inherent rights to avail of such subsidies because part of their household or personal income is given to it. Thus, availing of them is a given when they enroll in these institution which is not the same case with the foreign students. Given that, they would have to fully pay for the cost of education at its actual price without the subsidy.

Education is indeed very important, because as the proverb goes knowledge is power. A lot of people share this same idea, thus, no matter how much it costs they still choose to have themselves or their children educated in the best institutions there is even if such institutions are found in foreign lands. Tuition fee differences among the local students and the foreigners would always materialize it is actually present even in other countries around the world. Then again, that is the price that one has to pay for the specific quality of education that he or she wishes to have.  Nevertheless, no matter where one chooses to study, the important thing is to gain the kind of knowledge that one sought to have because in the end, it is better to get what you need rather than going for what you want.

II. Opinion essay about studying in America is better than my home country Saudi Arabia

It may seem unfair for me to compare why it is better to study in America as compared to my home country, which is Saudi Arabia, for that would seem so unpatriotic. Choosing academic institutions found in a foreign land over those in my own place may give an impression that I am undermining the ability of my country to provide the type of education that I wanted. However, that is not entirely the case. There are other reasons that I can cite in explaining why I would choose to study in America, a foreign land, rather than staying in an environment I am most familiar with which I would detail in the succeeding paragraphs.

The first reason that I can identify is, quality of education. Do not get me wrong. By this, I do not mean that Saudi Arabia provides poor quality education it is just that America have better resources, materials, facilities and equipment that are needed in the study of my chosen field. Being able to have easier access to such things would provide a better understanding of the subject matter under study and would allow me to explore all available knowledge extensively. Moreover, it is fact that compared to the US, Saudi Arabia is a very young country which only got to institutionalized education for several decade. This made the latter to be less competitive worldwide.

The other reason that I can cite is diversity of culture. America is a country where different nations migrate to, thus, going to their schools would seem like meeting the world. It would seem like taking education to the next level because not only would I learn the very essence of the different subjects or course, I also get to learn to deal with different personalities of different races and cultures. It is exciting just thinking about it because I am sure to learn a lot from these people. I wont even have to go to other countries anymore just to know their people because I would be in one place with different countries at once, and that for me is a bonus to the knowledge that I would derive from books.

One more thing, studying in America, in my opinion will give me more opportunities to know or explore my own identity. In have seen how free American students are in terms of self-expression. I admire their freedom to choose who or what they can be and I also envy how independent they can get at a very young age. Although this could be a personal choice no matter which country one lives in, in Saudi Arabia, there are some factors that hinder that. The interplay of religion with academic institutions could somewhat be attributed as reason for the difference. Then again, do not get me wrong. I am not in any way in opposition to our religion or the practice of which in our country or its interplay with other institutions. I just stated a blunt fact.

Being a foreigner studying in America is an opportunity that is only given to a few people due to a lot of reasons both within and beyond their control. Nevertheless, I can say that it is a privilege that when offered, one must not think twice to grab especially when the matter you want to study have most of the resources available in this country. I have stated the reasons why I think studying in America is better than being educated in my own home country, which is Saudi Arabia and although many would see me unpatriotic for thinking this way, I plead for understanding because I only want to get the quality of education I know I deserve. Again, I reiterate, I am not undermining the academic institutions from my home country despite my choice of seeking knowledge in a foreign land. It is just that America specializes more in this area as compared to my homeland. Nevertheless, in other aspects, I am still very proud to uphold my country of origin because no matter where I am, I know where I came from.

Perceiving Beauty Through Plotinuss Ennead I Sixth Tractate - Beauty Name of student University Professor Class Perceiving Beauty Through Plotinuss Ennead I Sixth Tractate - Beauty There has been a long debate on the perception of beauty, but in Plotinuss Ennead I Sixth Tractate - Beauty, he discussed the resemblance of beauty and how a person can see true beauty in everything. Plotinus said that a person would not be able to recognize beauty if heshe will only look at the material literally. In Plotinuss opinion, a person can only perceive beauty if heshe sees the material with the Souls sight and through that sight, a person can also see what is truly good and beautiful means. In the writing of Plotinus, he stated that seeing beauty is not only confined to seeing an object. Plotinus said that if people choose to lift themselves above the realm of sense (Plotinus, 1976, p. 141) or rather not put all their attention into their senses, they will see a higher order of awareness of beauty throughout life and in action, in character, in the pursuits of the intellect and there is the beauty of the virtues (Plotinus, 1976, p. 141).

People often make mistake and see beauty as a singular state, but as Plotinus pointed out, beauty cannot be seen as a single thing, beauty can only be seen as a compound, the several parts will have beauty, not in themselves, but only as working together to give a comely total (Plotinus, 1976, p. 142). For example, when a person looks at a picture in general, heshe cannot judge that the picture is beautiful by just looking at the object the picture is focused on, heshe also needs look at the picture as a whole or as a compound. HeShe also has to look at the light, the background, etc. Plotinus said that people sometimes see things differently. A person can sometimes see hisher body beautiful and another may be annoyed by it. Although the soul is symmetrical to the virtue of a person, it is not always unified with one another. Each has a different virtue to which the soul deems beautiful. And not because this persons soul deemed hisher virtue beautiful means that heshe would also see it as beautiful as the other person, all virtues are a beauty of the soul, a beauty authentic beyond any of these other (Plotinus, 1976, p. 142).

Plotinus also wanted to recognize that the soul can see beautiful material things automatically and welcomes it as much as the soul can recognize ugly things and repel it. And that once the soul recognizes something related to the object, the soul can analyze the similarity of the object from the past, the soul can see if it is beautiful or if it is ugly. Plotinus calls it the noblest existents in the hierarchy of being (Plotinus, 1976, p. 143). The Divine-Thought (Plotinus, 1976, p. 143) is where a persons perception of beauty and ugliness comes from the Ideal-Form (Plotinus, 1976, p. 143) is what we hold on and the base idea of peoples perception in beauty, while the perception of ugliness is everything outside Reason and Idea (Plotinus, 1976, p. 143). A person can deem a material thing beautiful if it fits hisher ideal form, and if it is not within the range of hisher ideal form then the material will be seen as something ugly. The judgment of the soul may be gathered from the Divine-Thought (Plotinus, 1976, p. 143). People who do not see the beauty beyond things and who do not want to experience real beauty, according to Plotinus, will never see the face of Justice and of Moral-Wisdom (Plotinus, 1976, p. 145). They will only see skin-deep beauty and will never really experience what the beauty the material holds within. People who obtain the souls sight are the only people who can experience the beauty beyond evening and of dawn (Plotinus, 1976, p. 145).

By seeing with the soul, a person can also awaken hisher passion. Passion may not have color, shape or size but having a souls sight can also stimulate the passion inside a person and let himher have higher intelligence It is that you find in yourself, or admire in another, loftiness of spirit righteousness of life disciplined purity courage of the majestic face... shining down upon all, the light of god-like intellection (Plotinus, 1976, p. 145).

Plotinus said that a person can only perceive beauty if it sees with hisher eyes, but what if the soul itself was tampered and was considered dirty The perception of a person may change and still not see the true beauty because of it, but Plotinus said, like gold that is degraded by the soils of the earth, it still has its golden quality. The person just have to wash it off and remove the soils. When the soul of a person becomes ugly, heshe just have to remove the impurities that are hindering the person to see beauty with hisher soul. Seeing with the soul means one has reached seeing through god-like intelligence. With this, a person can also perceive or rather witness the manifistations of Gods or Supernals, and if a person witnessed such events, heshe will never stray from the vision of it again (Plotinus, 1976, p. 148). Plotinus, through his writing, stated how a person can achieve seeing through the soul. Because a person can see through the soul, that person can see purely by seeing purely, that person will recognize great things, like hisher passion, by having god-like intelligence and virtue.

Once a person obtained these things, heshe will always have it and will be seen as someone who is an offspring and essence of Intellectual Being (Plotinus, 1976, p. 150). The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which Plotinus wanted people to understand is that when a person has reached the end, heshe would be able to understand true goodness and will see what basic good and beauty really is beyond the senses Good, which lies beyond, is the Fountain at once and Principle of Beauty the Primal Good and the Primal Beauty have the one dwelling-place and, this, always, Beautys seat is There (Plotinus, 1976, p. 150). Reference Plotinus (1976) Ennead I Sixth Tractate - Beauty. In Hofstadter, A. Kuhns, R. (Eds.), Philosophies of Art and Beauty Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger (pp. 141-150). Chicago Univerity of Chicago Press. Thesis statement - the road map for the paper. In Plotinuss opinion, a person can only perceive beauty if heshe sees the material with the Souls sight and through that sight, a person can also see what is truly good and beautiful means. Analogy Vision. Plotinuss Ennead I Sixth Tractate.