The Only Person You Have to Please is You

The Only Person You Have to Please is You Yeah, thats hard for us to swallow sometimes. We write to be read. Eager to please, were like kids asking what are the rules so we can play the game well enough to win. We want people on the sidelines to root for us and tell us how well we did. We want the prize. Along the way, when times are rough, we remind ourselves that we are our best and worst critic. We might even say we only have to please ourselves, but we dont mean it. We get sad. Sometimes we cry. A few get mad and bash the publishing world as an evil, heartless machine that gobbles up the good and spits on the rest, stomping out the soul of art. But in the end, when were alone in our room staring at a screen that wont produce the right words, we have to face the fact we write for ourselves first, foremost, and last. Without our own love infused into our stories, they read dry. And to give love to something means to sacrifice and take risks. Remember, love can be unrequited. Many things we do in our lives we do for self-pleasure. While its a joy to be complimented for our efforts, the bottom line is we shouldnt perform without enjoying the experience of the performance. When you do, you shortchange the audience. Write a story that makes you smile, cry, or feel proud. Be truthful with yourself when trying to make it your best. Be thrilled when others enjoy the experience you worked so hard to produce, but try not to measure your success on the judgment of others. While its tempting to beg for the judgment, and shoved in our faces that success comes in terms of sales to others, nothing we do gets off the ground written in a vacuum with only an Amazon ranking representing the goal. Its like finding a friend. Not everyone likes you, and you dont like everyone. Only certain people connect with who you are. You have to be the best you to be the best for someone else. Without pleasing yourself first, you lose all hope of pleasing others. Have fun writing.

The differing notions of power and freedom explored in the Gorgias Essay Example

The differing notions of power and freedom explored in the Gorgias Essay Example The differing notions of power and freedom explored in the Gorgias Paper The differing notions of power and freedom explored in the Gorgias Paper What starts off as a discussion surrounding rhetoric, within the Gorgias, quickly but unsurprisingly transcends into a dialogue concerning the nature of virtuex of which the notions of freedom and power are intrinsically linked. Plato has the dialogue played out between Socrates and four others. Gorgias a famous Sophist and rhetorician, Polus his eager student, Callicles x and Chairephon a friend of Plato who plays little part in the dialogue. This essay shall split the dialogue into three parts, with each part considering Socrates debate with each of the three main protagonists. In each instance, the ideas of each individual regarding power and freedom will be expressed, Socrates response examined and the resulting implications surrounding his personal ideas explored. From this analysis, any overriding ideas throughout the dialogue may then be distinguished. Throughout the dialogues, power is usually the focus of discussion as opposed to freedom but it is fair to conclude that the concepts of power and freedom are so deeply intertwined that it often becomes difficult to disentangle them. Certainly Socrates and the three others seem to have similarly conflicting viewpoints regarding freedom and power. Usually in disproving his opponents views on power, he also, in conjunction, shows their idea of freedom to be faulty. The dialogue first introduces the notion of power via Gorgias, whom when questioned by Socrates declares rhetoric to be the greatest and noblest of affairs. Upon being asked by Socrates why this and not other professions such as medicine are not as noble, Gorgias retorts that a rhetorician can persuade a crowd to their personal line of thought through their oratory skills. In this lies power since they can dictate the desires of the population and bend them to their own device. Gorgias uses an instance of him competing against a real doctor to outline his point, he states that it would for him, as a skilled person in rhetoric, be easy to persuade an assembly or equivalent that it is he who is the expert in medicine and not the doctor. He could then get profit from this by being selected for posts above the real doctor. This is the notion of power that Gorgias believes an orator possesses. Power for Gorgias is the main goal in life and since, through persuasion, he believes he can achieve power, rhetoric becomes the supreme art for him. Gorgias does not dispute Socrates attack on his ideas, in that there is no truth in what a rhetorician can state i. e no real medical knowledge is necessary in order for the orator to convince a crowd that he is the expert. Socrates points out that there is no worth in convincing a crowd ignorant of medicine that you are knowledgeable in the subject. No good will come from this, there is no benefit here for society, nor is there any good for the individual. The orator does not further themselves by continuing on with such flattery, they are merely guessing at true knowledge. Gorgias also claims to be able to last web page Polus enters the conversation on the side of his teacher Gorgias and in particular is shocked when Socrates dismisses rhetoric as being equivalent to cooking in worth and the idea of Despite talk of flattery, Polus maintains that the orator is the most powerful person in a community because he can do whatever he pleases, like tyrants, put to death any man they will is the example he offers. Socrates response to this is simply No, if by power you mean something good for its posessor the ability to do whatever one pleases is not actually power. Wielding power is not good in its own right, there also needs to be some benefit coupled with the power. Plato uses the idea that rhetoricians are not intelligent in their own right to comment that if power is the ability to get what you want then a rhetorician, without any intelligence nor rational expertise lacks power. Platos argument here is not as convincing since he redefines want continually throughout this section. He appears to restrict wanting to cases where it is actual and not just apparent. Some commentators argue that Plato is deepening our understanding of want and not just changing his definition to suit his argument or alternatively highlighting the spurious nature of oratory, there is no real knowledge at the base of rhetoric could be the subtle point he is making. This line of thought though probably affords Plato too much credit in this instance. Polus continues to claim that political speakers have power, to which Socrates paradoxically replies that they have the least power of any in the state. In order to back this up Socrates claims that, although you may be able to do what is best, it is not necessarily true that you can do what you actually want. This is because of the fact that what you want is going to be good for you, while politicians always aim for their own personal good but if they do not appreciate what this good is they will end up doing what they do not. If they are doing what they do not want then they surely have no power. To complete the paradox, the philosopher claims that politicians especially are likely to be led away by others in order to gain approval rather than pursuing there own personal good which would be beneficial for them. The conclusion is that those who apparently have the most power turn out to infact have the very least. More potential chat on Polus Socrates brings up the issue of freedom by insisting on a distinction between doing as one sees fit and doing what one wants i. e negative and positve freedom. Polus has showed that the orator can do as he sees fit, but that doesnt automatically mean that he can do what he wants. Socrates argues, and Polus agrees, that some things are good, some things are bad, and some things are in themselves indifferent but can be either good or bad depending on how theyre used. What we want are the good things, but sometimes we must do the indifferent things (some of which may be very disagreeable, like taking medicine or going on a sea voyage) in order to get the good things. We dont want the indifferent things for their own sake, though; we want them for the sake of the good things. So strictly speaking, its the good things we want. However Socrates in many ways is not really justified in drawing a distinction between freedoms since If, however, we are mistaken about the connection between what were doing and that for the sake of which were doing it, we wont in fact be doing what we want. If I willingly take a bitter medicine in order to attain health, but in fact the medicine wont cure me, Im not doing what I want, even though Im doing as I see fit. In the same way, if I put someone to death or confiscate his property, but doing these things wont actually be for good, then Im not doing what I want, even though Im doing as I see fit. Following Polus acception of Socrates ideas Callicles enters the fray, in this the last section of the book. His arguments go beyond that of Polus, he approves of power over others in order that one can indulge their whims. His philosophy on how one should live is that of might is right citing nature as his justification a very similar line that was ultimately to be taken up by Neit zsche. Socrates points out though that his ideas may leave one vulnerable to an aggressor. Can a man avoid being wronged if it be his will to avoid it is posed as a question by Socrates, intuitively and for Callicles this would appear to be false. To avoid being wronged and hence to have real freedom you need power to protect yourself be it political or otherwise. Since doing wrong is involuntary, a consequence of error, you especially need power to protect yourself from this seemingly inevitable occurance. For Socrates, the problem this idea of power being necessary brings is that it assumes life at any cost is desirable even at a cost of moral corruption. Socrates replies that if life is infact the highest good, then even if rhetoric lead to power and hence the ability to survive one should also consider other examples such as swimming which has the potential to save lives. Even more so the mechanic who may save an entire community through the machines he builds. If mere life is viewed as the highest good, then these are equally as important as power in this respect. This goes a long way in showing that power is not necessay for freedom. It goes against Callicles definition of power being the freedom to do what you wish. In essence we find that Socrates is arguing that power is not an external force but an internal one, power over oneself i. e. self control is more important than power over others. It is this critical idea that seperates Socrates from Gorgias, Polus and Callicles. Socrates links true power inherently to having an ordered, controlled body and soul. Since rhetoric, as shown by Socrates, contains no real knowledge and is simply false knowledge, no agathon or beneficial good is derived for the body or soul and hence this flattery does not provide you with any true power. The use of a dialogue on rhetoric to explore notions of power can be seen as clever on the part of Plato, since the common but false view of power, power over others, like rhetoric, gives out an impressive image but ultimately does little to advance the good and has little real worth. the discipline to act justly, live virtuously, and not need anything. Additional pertinence is carried, when one considers the recent events surrounding the historical Socrates death. Socrates was willing to die if it be the will of the government even though he had the means to escape. This treatment of power becomes all the more significant in light of the events surrounding Socrates actual trial and death. The philosopher was accused of corrupting through false instruction and treason, and convicted and executed because of his refusal to admit having acted wrongly. In light of this event and its close proximity to Gorgias creation, then, the nature of power for Plato takes on crucial importance in that he must prove his teacher died in strength rather than weakness. For Socrates contemporaries, the rampant view of power is the ability to rule over others and to satisfy ones own desires. This position is best expressed by Polus (466-69) and Callicles (490-492). Plato takes great care to debunk this formulation. On the one hand, Socrates argues, those who rule others often must perform actions they do not will in order to benefit the state of which they are in charge. In this sense then, apparently powerful tyrants are often unable to act as they will, and true power is shown to consist of something other than ruling over others. At the same time, those who repeatedly satisfy their desires do not possess real power because this gratification further fuels rather than extinguishes the appetites. A person capable of always satisfying desire is in constant need of more satisfaction, and as such possesses no true power. This point is illustrated in 493b by the metaphor of the leaky jar. Mention of probable proximity of Socrates execution to book and themes this may have inspired. Socrates views freedom for the most part, whether there is anything within that has any element of control. This would include not having any addictions or other strong needs. Ideally reducing ones needs until one is content with what is to hand is best.

Organizational Communication about internship Essay

Organizational Communication about internship - Essay Example The modern economy is moving from manufacturing to service orientation. In essence, service production is crucial to human life because it relates directly to human social activities (Downs & Adrian, 2012). Therefore, there are a lot of personal contacts with people. This is seen mostly in hospitality industries like hotels and restaurants. In such places, where business success is dependent on customer satisfaction, effective communication should be enhanced. A good communication strategy enhances customer satisfaction and attainment of organizational goals. Furthermore, because too much engagement with customers, communication helps to clear up misunderstanding and promote straightforward business deals free from inaccurate information, sarcasm, and personal attacks. Usually, customers are ‘right’ and they should be treated with utmost good faith to feel appreciated. This can be achieved by effective communication. According to Miller, (2014), there is no employee who wants to be a faceless cog. Irrespective of how small or big the organization is, workers who are not appreciated and accommodated will drain the moral of other workers leading to low productivity and high turnover. Before the voiceless employees drain others, the company can conduct regular employee surveys to ascertain issues affecting them. This is the most recommended method of getting their input clearly examined. Employee survey is paramount because the organization can identify the loopholes and take corrective measures. Surveys bring on board all the parties to understand what each one is expected to. As a result, productivity levels will be maintained. Written communication is formally accepted and removes doubts. Once words have been put on paper, it can easily be authenticated as opposed to written. Also, it cannot be easily altered and

The current macroeconomic situation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The current macroeconomic situation - Essay Example This means that the people in America were borrowing in order to fund spending (Tilton, 2011). A deficit then is created. This situation is expected to result into inflation. Nevertheless, as of 2010 until the present, the private sector’s spending has been in moderate level (Tilton, 2011). There is a rise in saving and a drop of spending (Tilton, 2011). The country’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is used to determine this fact. Second, credit conditions have improved for both smaller businesses and individuals; more and more banks have stabilized their lending standards (Tilton, 2011). This means that banks are not anymore imposing strict policies in terms of lending. If this is the case, then, it would be easier for smaller businesses and consumers â€Å"to spend a bit more† (Tilton, 2011). Despite these good economic findings, there are three key factors which could hinder full economic growth in the United States. These are the following: (1) large federal bud get deficit; (2) large increases in commodity prices; and (3) weakening of housing prices (Tilton, 2011). To prevent these factors from becoming a big economic problem, the federal government should adopt fiscal tightening instead of fiscal expansion. At this time, to use an expansionary fiscal policy would worsen the situation.

Discussing Literary Genre Essay Example for Free

Discussing Literary Genre Essay To define genre is to embark on a conjectural journey within a theoretical minefield. Genre theory has drawn immense debate and contemplation throughout literary history, however, several conclusions have emerged. Genre types are unfixed categories whose characteristics differ considerably among the specific genres; furthermore, the role of literary history plays a significant role in discussions of genre, for genre types evolve and shift with each new literary text. An approach to the discussion of genre, family resemblances, illustrates similar conventions among texts within a genre, but there are significant problems in this approach. There are several ways to discuss genre, and although problems abound in any approach, the subjective nature of the literary experience calls attention to the importance of the interaction between reader and text to provide the final word on genre. Although there is considerable theoretical debate about the definition of specific genres, the conventional definition tends to be based on the idea that texts within a genre share particular conventions of content and form, such as themes, settings, structure and style. However, the nature of genre leads to several problems inherent in the defining of genres. Certain genres are looser and more open ended in their conventions than other genres and some genres have many conventions while others have very few. Furthermore, literary texts that overlap and mix genres blur the distinction between them. Genres are not discrete systems consisting of a fixed number of list able items. Consequently, the same text can belong to different genres in different countries or times. For example, Latin poets categorized the elegy mainly in terms of its meter, while poets during the English Renaissance regarded the subject matter and tone to be determinate of form. History and culture play a role in the ever changing status of genres, which are difficult to define because the concept encompasses so many different literary qualities and conventions that can be broken or accepted, overlapped or mixed. Rather than define genre, some theorists approach the discussion of genre using Ludwig Wittgenstein’s concept of â€Å"family resemblances† among literary texts. Although a literary text rarely has all the characteristics of a particular genre, this method involves the discernment of similar conventions among texts within a genre. However, the problem of selection arises, for which texts can claim to be representative of a genre? Moreover, who decides the selection of these texts? The consideration of specific characteristics in literature introduces problems regarding the classification of literary works. The choice of characteristics taken into account is essential to the discussion of genre types . The characteristics of specific genres shift throughout history to accommodate variations in the category that occur; the defining characteristics of a particular genre can alter so drastically that the preliminary era in a new genre may not resemble the modern literary works in that genre. The works of Edgar Allan Poe, considered to be the father of the modern short story, show the contrast between the classification of short fiction in the 19th century and today. Poe’s short story, â€Å"The Murders in the Rue Morgue†, provides suspense and mystery; however, the story does not include the main character’s moment of consciousness, the key ingredient in classifying modern short stories. Although â€Å"The Murders in the Rue Morgue† does not entail a moment of revelation, the story was regarded as short fiction in 1841. The contrast between early short fiction and the modern short story demonstrates the varying qualities of the genre between its preliminary stages and the present, and shows the substantial transformation which occurred within the genre. The types of genres not only shift throughout history but also alter with each new literary work. The altering of generic categories results in further difficulty in defining genre and classifying literary texts, for it demonstrates that generic forms are never fixed entities. Literary theorist Todorov asserts that although â€Å"every work modifies the sum of possible works we grant a text the right to figure in the history of literature only insofar as it produces a change in our previous notion of one activity or another†. Donald Barthelme’s â€Å"The Glass Mountain† is an example that expands the notion of short stories; the text challenges readers to find meaning and story where there is none. â€Å"The Glass Mountain† influences and increases the possibilities of short stories, while compelling readers to contemplate the role of short stories. Such engagement between a literary text and a reader results in the most intriguing and merited discussion of genre. The subjective procedure of defining genre appeals to the relationship between text and reader. Genre provides a framework within which texts are interpreted, and expectations and emotional outlooks are the individual results of reading literature. The expectations prompted by conventions in a literary text play a large role in the discussion of genre. For example, Mavis Gallant’s â€Å"From the Fifteenth District† cheats the expectation that arises from the first sentence, â€Å"[a]lthough an epidemic of haunting † (Gallant 115), and surprises readers with the discovery that the story is a reversal of the ghost story. A reader’s personal interaction with a literary work is decisive of genre, for what we think a genre is and the individual’s impression of a literary text often serve to classify a literary work. The individual’s response to literature plays a vital role in the discussion of genre, for literary texts are created for an audience of one. The various means to discuss genre provide insightful observations; however, significant problems are inherent in these discussions. The constantly changing categories of genre and the emergence of new literary works make defining genre a daunting task better left to the individual reader.

Ford :: essays research papers

The Ford Motor Company led what has been called a revolution. Henry Ford restructured everything from the salaries of employees to the work ethic they demonstrated. He did numerous things that were considered absurd and unrealistic at the time. This included the introduction of the $5.00 work day, and with this the desire to control his workers lives. In a way he did this for the better of the workers and the better of the company. The $5.00 per day rate was not as dumb as people perceived it to be. In reality, it was the perfect thing to do. Henry Ford gradually increased the wages of Ford Motor Company employees. His main objective in doing this was to motivate his employees into being more dedicated and motivated, and increase production overall. Henry Ford did not have the reputation of being especially munificent to his workers, but he was in no way parsimonious. His salaries did not often exceed the going rate of about $1.90 for Model T production workers for a ten-hour day in 1908. The average salary for production workers increased to around $2.50 by 1913 with a minimum of just $2.34. In October of 1913 a man named John R. Lee, recruited from the Kiem Mills to reform the company’s wage structure, developed an ingenious job-ladder system. This innovative system allowed increased wages for the upper crust portion of the working core. These elite workers had incentives to work their way from the $2.34 minimum to over $4.00 a day. This was a wage increase of 13%! This system was developed to increase labor turnover and create a more stable and committed workforce. This wage increase was copiously overshadowed by the increase to $5.00 a day just three months later. This pay raise was coupled with a reduction in work hours. Henry Ford replaced the two existing nine-hour shifts with a new nonstop rotation of eight-hour shifts around the clock. The new pay raise was part of a complicated system. The basic pay rate was to remain at $2.34. Workers could then reach a â€Å"wage† of $5.00 by earning a â€Å"profit-sharing† bonus. Workers could acquire this bonus on their paycheck regularly by meeting a few qualifications. They had to put in at least six months of service and be twenty-two years old.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At first, many people adored the idea of $5.00 per day. On January 5, 1914, Henry Ford announced this bonus plan.

Majority-Minority Question in the Writings of Gandhi and Jinnah Essay

Two major political leaders stand out in early twentieth century history of India. These two men are Mahatma Gandhi and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In the lead up to the demand of Indian political leaders for independence from British colonial rule, a major political party was formed, and named ‘The Indian Congress Party’. All areas of British colonial India was represented in the Congress party. British colonial India was made up of people of many religions; the two major ones being Hinduism and Islam. Hindus were in the majority, while Muslims were in the minority, though a sizable minority. Both Gandhi and Jinnah were members of Congress Party. The initial push for independence from British colonialism was supported by people of all religions and from all regions. Of the main actors in the Indian independence movement, Mahatma Gandhi advocated a single united India composed of people of all religions in a secular constitutional democracy. Mohammad Ali Jinnah on the other hand, wanted an India made up of two states of equal parity, Pakistan and Hindustan. Hindustan would be ruled by the majority Hindus while Pakistan would be ruled by the minority Muslims, not as a democracy, but as an Islamic state. His difference of opinion with other Congress Party leaders like Gandhi, led Jinnah to leave Congress Party and to join ‘The Muslim League’. The inability of the two different and extreme positions to reach a consensus, eventually led to the division of British colonial India into two different countries at independence in 1947: India and Pakistan. Gandhi’s Position on Indian Independence Mahatma Gandhi was first and foremost a Hindu. When Gandhi entered Indian politics by joining the Indian Congress Party, he had three major objectives in view. The first was to unite all the people from diverse regions and religions into one united, indivisible India. The second was to awaken in all Indians a sense of nationalism and moral rearmament. The third was to use non-violent civil disobedience to force the British colonialists to grant India both political and economic independence. His speeches and writings were tailored towards these three objectives. Prior to Gandhi’s entry into Indian politics, there had been agitations for political autonomy by Indians. Many of these agitations had turned violent. The British on their part forcefully put down these violent protests, with consequent heavy loss of life of protesting Indians. Gandhi institutionalized non-violent protests as an effective method of forcing British colonialists to grant, first economic concessions and later political self determination to Indians. One of Gandhi’s most quoted famous speeches is one address to all Britons and given in 1942. â€Å"Leave India to God. If that is too much, then leave her to anarchy. † (Gandhi, May 1942) ‘†During the struggle for freedom, Gandhi had written this speech as an appeal â€Å"To Every Briton† to free their possessions in Asia and Africa, especially India†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Philips and Wainwright, 567). In order for both Gandhi’s Indian Congress Party and the Muslim League to present a common front to the British for a unified Indian independence, Gandhi had meeting with Jinnah on many occasions. However, because of their diametrically opposed positions on the majority/minority issue, their talks yielded no positive results. While Gandhi and his Congress party wanted a unified India with a secular constitutional democracy, Jinnah and his Muslim League wanted a two state structure with the Muslim minority being granted political parity with the Hindu majority. Thus the stage was set for division of India into two separate political entities, one secular and the other religious. Jinnah’s Position on Hindu/Muslim Parity The stance of the Muslim minority of British colonial India was articulated by Jinnah in his speeches and talks with British colonial administrators and Gandhi. ‘In 1940 Jinnah said â€Å"So far as I have understood Islam, it does not advocate a democracy which would allow the majority of non-Muslims to decide the fate of the Muslims†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II) ‘†Also in 1940 Jinnah spoke of how the Muslims constituted not a mere minority, but a nation and must have their own homeland. (Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957) Hence from his speeches and writings, Ali Jinnah left no room for meaningful compromise with those like Gandhi, who wanted a unified independent India, with a secular democratic constitution. Jinnah and the Muslim minority in India feared that the Hindu majority would dominate them and subjugate them in reprisal for the way the Muslim rulers of pre-colonial India had subjugated the Hindu populace which they ruled. In the words of Burke, ‘†At best, Jinnah and his colleagues were apprehensive of the intentions of the Hindu-dominated Congress towards the Muslims, and its ability and willingness to provide for and facilitate the progress and well-being of the minorities. In short, they were seeking to â€Å"escape the yoke of the more numerous Hindus. †Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Burke, 1973) NOTES 1. Philips and Wainwright, eds. The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935-1947. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1970. 2. Speech delivered at Aligarh, March 6 1940, Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore 3. Speech at Lahore Session of the All India Muslim League, March 22, 1940,’Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-47†²,Vol II, Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957 4. Burke, S. M. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) p. 65. Bibliography 1. Burke, S. M. Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis (London: Oxford University Press, 1973) p.65. 2. Philips and Wainwright, eds. The Partition of India: Policies and Perspectives 1935-1947. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1970. 3. Speech delivered at Aligarh, March 6 1940, Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol II, Khurshid Yusufi, Bazm-i-Iqbal, Lahore 4. Speech at Lahore Session of the All India Muslim League, March 22, 1940,’Speeches and Documents on the Indian Constitution 1921-47†²,Vol II, Gwyer and Appadorai, 1957 Internet Sources 5. Gandhi, May 1942, quoted in â€Å"The Partition of India† http://www. english. emory. edu/Bahri/Part. html