Topics For Definition Essay - Writing A Definition Essay

Topics For Definition Essay - Writing A Definition EssayWhen you are writing a definition essay, you should take all of the appropriate steps to ensure that your topic for definition is one that readers will relate to. It's not easy to write a good definition, but it can be done and if you do it right, then it will open up many doors in your career.A good tip is to ensure that you have enough information before you begin writing. If you only have a very general idea of what you want to accomplish, then you will be at a disadvantage. Having an idea of what you need to talk about will make it easier to establish the questions to ask.Always start with a basic definition. In this way, it's easy to cover the first few questions. Then you can begin to go into more detail once you have answers to the following questions. These are the important ones.Exactly how would you use this word or phrase? The word 'means' is usually the one that is used to begin a definition. Sometimes you will see a n expression like 'having this meaning', which is used as a synonym for 'having this meaning'.How would you use this in everyday life? This question helps you understand what the person is trying to say. It might be useful to see what someone has said in a sentence or paragraph and translate it. What are some examples of this type of translation?The next question you should ask yourself is how to give examples to support your theory. Some examples are too general and can be used to illustrate the points.What are some examples of scientific terms? The better your vocabulary, the better it will be for you to be able to explain the details of what you are discussing. There are also lots of books that can help you discover how to use the correct terms.At the end of the day, when you are finished writing you should ensure that it is very clear and well defined. If it isn't, there is a good chance that you won't get your essay published. Therefore, it is vital that you do it correctly.

Extra-narrative Voices and Character Agency in Dead Souls - Literature Essay Samples

However much of its text might be preoccupied with ‘realist’ visuals, Nikolai Gogol’s ‘poem of Russia,’ Dead Souls is still rife with extra-narrative commentary and digressions, in keeping with Gogol’s established style and his stated intentions for the novel as a morally-edifying work. Within the main plot, this manifests mostly in short satirical asides and runaway similes (up to a few paragraphs in length) conveyed by the author/narrator of Chichikov’s journey. In later sections of the novel, however, the non-diegetic language expands to include entire passages in alternate voices or stylistic registers. Rhapsodic though they may appear, these non-plot points share a set of narrative strategies that build up to the last chapters’ direct addresses from the author. When Gogol shifts from speaking for Chichikov to letting characters speak for themselves, or letting himself speak for the reader, he primes his audience for his ultim ate conclusions on the relationships between each speaker. The turning point for extra-narrative concerns supplanting plot matters is the shift in narrative focus from Chichikov’s schemes to the townsfolk and their gossip. The first scene of this sort is the â€Å"certain conversation which took place between a certain two ladies† in Chapter Nine (174). As in Chichikov’s introduction in the first chapter, the characters’ names are not revealed until they come into diegetic focus. They are first ‘heard’ in dialogue, while Chichikov’s name and rank are not known to the reader until they can be ‘seen’ in writing (178, 4). More pronounced in this later section, however, is the narrator’s rationale for distancing himself from his subjects. He prefaces this section with an acknowledgment that â€Å"the author is very hard put to name both ladies in such a way as not to make them angry at him, as they used to be angry in the old days† (175). Here, the skaz-like mock verisimi litude that has inflected the plot narration from time to time is taken up a notch to suggest that elements of this anecdote could be construed as non-fictional. Echoing the opening of â€Å"The Overcoat,† the authorial narrator hyperbolically explains that he wishes to avoid inadvertently defaming anybody with the same names as his fictional characters (175-6). Ironically, the author’s wishes are not honored by his own pen: the characters do not stay unnamed. But it is not the narrator’s voice that names them, it is their own. Gogol thereby creates a crucial distinction between his narrator’s concerns and those of his characters. Prior to this chapter, with Chichikov cast as both subject and object of narration, these had been one and the same. The distinction can therefore seem somewhat arbitrary, but its importance becomes apparent as the novel’s thematic scope expands farther beyond its linear plot. Having control over their own fictional identity gives these characters the sort of ‘ridiculous agency’ that becomes a hallmark of extra-narrative speakers in Dead Souls. The qualities of self-de termination, as expressed in relative freedom from narrative control, diminish rather than elevate these characters’ moral standing. In this first example, the narrow focus of the plot-driven narration gives way to a deeper view of very shallow people. The ladies’ elaborate dialogue begins with a long disagreement over clothes, progresses through gossip about Chichikov’s intrigues, and includes a particularly divisive argument about the countenance of a third woman (177-8, 180-4, 182). All throughout, the ladies’ cattiness is on display in their own voices. What starts as a simple disagreement over one’s complexion ends in such exaggerated venom as â€Å"I’m ready, right here and now, to lose my children, my husband, all our estate, if she has even one tiny drip, even one little particle, even a shadow of red in her cheeks!† (182). An earlier argument concludes with one of the ladies reasoning, with high society faux-politesse, â€Å"it looks as if you actually want to insult me . . . Evidently you’ve already tired of me, evidently you want to break off your whole friendship with me† (178). It is important to note that this patently ridiculous form of speech is directly quoted, without paraphrasing or commentary by the narrator, to remove any doubt that the insane jealousy and contentiousness on display is a personal failing of these two souls. The verbal depth with which Gogol imbues them only makes them fit closer to type. The third-person narrator’s contributions to this character judgment are limited to his assertions that the scene is not too grotesque or banal to realistically reflect Russian society. To deny the improbability of such viciously petty disagreements, he writes â€Å"let it not seem strange to the reader . . . there really are in this world many things which do have that very peculiarity† (183). On their incredible gullibility around rumors, he states â€Å"there is nothing unusual about the fact that the two ladies became at last utterly convinced of that which hitherto they had merely assumed and known to be a mere assumption. Our fraternity – we intelligent people, as we style ourselves – acts in almost the same way† (185). This latter statement fits a novel-wide rhetorical strategy of assuming the reader’s disbelief and countering it with an example from a scene that is ostensibly drawn from the reader’s own experience, or at least some form of common knowledge. The same tactic is used in Chapter Ten to explain how the populace could possibly believe Chichikov might be Napoleon Bonaparte: â€Å"Perhaps there are some readers who will call all this improbable . . . However, it must be remembered that all this took place only shortly after the glorious expulsion of the French. At that time all our landowners, officials . . . all our literate folk, as well as the illiterate, had become – at least for all of eight years – inveterate politicians† (205). Again, the narrator includes himself and the reader (with â€Å"we† and â€Å"our†) as members of a massive third party who can judge the townsfolk’s foibles as absurd yet believable. There are two more prominent examples of characters whose agency increases with a shift in narrative voice, only to reveal their outlandish flaws. These are the gossip-mongers, Nozdrev and the Postmaster, who have the capacity to tell their own stories within the narrator’s text. Nozdrev repeatedly spins yarns throughout the novel, culminating in his own version of Chichikov’s rumored backstory. In this section, the narrative voice is not given over entirely to Nozdrev, but it does conform to his verbal style. It is said that â€Å"Nozdrev was positively a man for whom there were absolutely no such things as doubts,† and what follows is a list of direct answers, delivered completely without equivocation or authorial comment. Each response fits the textual formula â€Å"To the question: [townsfolk’s rumor about Chichikov]. Nozdrev’s answer: [Yes or no, tall tale ensues]† (207). As with the ladies, the author gives Nozdrev enhanced agency by pu tting his words before his own. Nozdrev’s independence from the narrator is perhaps not as complete because his dialogue is paraphrased rather than quoted and it fits a repetitive, and therefore more contrived, style. Nevertheless, this change in textual form stands out enough to identify Nozdrev as an alternative voice to the narrator. As evidenced in Chapters Four and Eight, one of Nozdrev’s primary character traits is his ability to construct alternative narratives to those presented by his peers (66, 168). This affords him some more depth than the archetypical landowners, whose quirks are revealed by the non-verbalized observations of Chichikov and the narrator. Yet, for all his mastery over story-telling, Nozdrev cannot begin to tell a word of substance or honesty: â€Å"Nozbrev with an instant’s hesitation went off on such a blue streak of drivel that it bore no resemblance to either truth or anything else on earth† (208). Because his gift of wit is always used for lying, Nozdrev remains a tragicomic example of Russian vice, albeit a more fleshed-out one than the other caricatures. Nozdrev’s agency is real enough to stop the narrator from subsuming his voice in his own, but his misuse of such freedom makes him an easier target for ridicule in extra-narrative commentary. The Postmaster represents the most completely independent extra-narrative voice, because his anecdote includes an entirely separate narrative voice, not just a change in 3rd-person narrative style. His guess at Chichikov’s backstory takes the form of the lengthy interpolation in Chapter Ten, â€Å"The Tale of Captain Kopeikin† (197-204). This segment is a full-on skaz story of a vengeful veteran, proposed to the gathered townsfolk as a solution to Chichikov’s mysterious identity. The plot is less indicative of the Postmaster’s agency than the language in which it is relayed. The Postmaster is introduced in Chapter Ten as one who peppers his speech with â€Å"a multiplicity of sundry tag-ends and oddments of phrases, such as ‘my dear sir,’ ‘some sort of a fellow,’ ‘you know,’ ‘you understand,’ ‘you can just imagine,’ ‘relatively speaking, so to say,’ ‘in a sort of a way,â⠂¬â„¢ and other such verbal small change† (153). In the narration of Kopeikin’s tale, these exact verbal tics do indeed appear in nearly every sentence, and the extra-diegetic narrator comments on this practice: â€Å"After the campaign of 1812, my dear sir – (thus did the Postmaster begin, despite the fact that the room held not one sir but all of six sirs)† (197). This comedic assumption of a plural audience and a profusion of addresses to such a readership is shared with the authorial narrator’s style, thus positioning the two voices as equally authoritative in this chapter. Furthermore, the Protagonist frequently refers to his protagonist as â€Å"my Kopeikin,† echoing the author’s use â€Å"our hero† and â€Å"our friend Chichikov† (199, 222). Even more so than Nozdrev, the Postmaster shows his agency by taking possession of the narrative. Of course, the impossibly myopic conclusions the Postmaster reaches in his digression make his agency the most ridiculous. When it is pointed out that Kopeikin cannot be the same man as Chichikov because he’s missing an arm, the Postmaster initially admits his error, but then attempts to fantastically rationalize his absurd conclusion (204). The most completely realized diegetic voice in the novel utterly fails to speak in a logically sound manner. This suggests that even the most seemingly self-possessed people in the Russia of Dead Souls fail at the crucial task of self-reflection. For Gogol, this task is a wholly moral undertaking. This opinion is revealed in his second letter to the readers of Dead Souls, in which he explains that the moral weakness of the novel’s characters matches the evil of contemporary Russians who seek fame or success â€Å"without any appeal to reason, without any reflection† (101). The ultimate purpose of these extended extra-narrative episodes is to further convince the reader of the moral degradation of the Russian landowners’ society. After a tour through the sinful landscape in a conventional novelistic style (following a â€Å"hero† as he pursues his goal), Gogol shifts tactics. The condemning gaze is momentarily removed from the exterior narrator’s visions of gross caricatures and provincial squalor. Instead, it is given to whoever witnesses this incompetence firsthand in the words and views of such immoral people. It is only after the townsfolk have expressed enough personal agency to convinci ngly indict themselves in the eyes of the reader that the narrator can step back in with his diatribe in the last chapter against the scoundrels, Chichikov now included, pictured in the novel (243). The familiarity he has by now established with the reader makes his conclusion that Russia is ethically in dire straits more believable than if it had been presented immediately after the tour of flat caricatures. Perhaps the most crucial function of the polyphonic structure of Dead Soul’s latter portion is that Gogol can now define Chichikov in relation to his contemporaries (the townsfolk, the narrator, and the reader). Only once representative voices have been heard or viewpoints shown from each of these perspectives, can Gogol definitively pass judgment on his hero. In the end it is seen that Chichikov shares the avaricious and paranoid nature of his targets, and none of the forward-thinking nationalism that Gogol attributes to his narrator and to the reader during the troika scene of Chapter Eleven (220). In this moment, the narrator turns to first- and even second-person modes to wax poetic about the uplifting philosophical effect of the Russian landscape. Even Chichikov is said to fall â€Å"under the spell of reveries that were not altogether prosaic† but these turn out to be reminiscences of his own life, not selfless reflections on the beauty and potential of Russiaâ₠¬â„¢s expanse (222). In the end, Chichikov emerges from his moral grey zone as a fully negative example of Russia’s nascent capitalistic narcissism. The voice of the author concludes that â€Å"acquisition is the root of all evil,† and berates his readership for trusting swindlers like Chichikov in day to day life, only suspecting them if they are juxtaposed with a known quantity of decency, such as an epic hero (242). In this sense, Gogol concludes that comparative analysis is the best way to settle a person’s moral accounts, thus vindicating his drawn-out progression through many voices and vices. The final word on the significance of fictional characters with ‘ridiculous agency’ might be found in the author’s allegation that â€Å"it’s all Chichikov’s fault; he is full master here, and wherever he may get a notion of going thither must we, too, drag ourselves† (242). So it is in Gogol’s novel that characters drive the plot, not vice versa, and the author slyly acknowledges the discomfort this brings to the reader, when the character’s concerns are banal. The novel, he reveals at last, is purposefully constructed this way, so that the reader can most clearly recognize the moral failings of those who waste their (god- or narrator-given) freedom on ignorant, greedy, or inane escapades.

Kant s Concept Of Categorical Impairment - 1371 Words

Immanuel Kant, a well-known eighteenth century German philosopher, offers a more convincing theory of justice than that supported by utilitarian or Lockean theory by defining what it means to act autonomously. Autonomy, meaning self-govern, regards to ones actions as being a result of their own free will. Although Kant attempted to look for another way for people to be good outside of religion, he believed that people had natural rights that were god given. Kant is best known for his idea of categorical imperative. Essentially this means do to others, as you would like others to do to you. A central theory Kant had was that it is important to treat people as an end of themselves rather than means of an end. It was Kant’s idea of treating†¦show more content†¦The second thing to consider when becoming familiar with categorical imperative is to understand if people are ends in themselves or means to an end. According to Immanuel Kant, every person must be treated as an end rather than a means to an end. What this means is that you are never allowed to manipulate anyone no matter what. Kant’s idea of people being an end rather than means to an end was contrary to utilitarianism. Those such as Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the doctrine of utilitarianism, focuses on the greater good. Kant did not believe in this idea of the greater good, instead he thought that each person was their own rational agent and that no one person may be manipulated to achieve the goals of another. Therefore, Kant believed that lying should never be done, under no circumstance, for any reason. The main idea behind utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Contrary to Kant, this allows for people to be means to an end rather than an end in themselves. One of the major down falls with utilitarianism is that it disregards individual rights. In the case of Christians who were thrown to lions during ancient Roman times for pleasure of the crowd, those who were being thrown to lions were means to an end rather than an end in themselves. The same applies for the example of the four sailors. One of the four sailors was a young man, the other three on the boat were older men, whoShow MoreRelatedSlavery in Chocolate Industry3505 Words   |  15 Pageswe dissect the impasse of a much-loved industry s unpleasant, inadvertent underside in an objective and comprehensive method, rigorously applying the ancient, contemporary, and modern theories of ethics in our analysis, and drawing on practical precedents and goings-on in the business world to reinforce abs traction with cases and results. SYNOPSIS Slavery is not an ancient artifact in our time, but a concealed certainty. Only 81 of the world s near 200 countries are signatories of United NationsRead MoreAppearance Discrimination in Employment22039 Words   |  89 Pagestheories to determine whether such discrimination can be seen as moral or immoral. Design/methodology/approach  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on look. Court cases and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed. Findings  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The paper finds that appearance-based discrimination is not illegal in the USA so long as it does not violate civil rights laws. Research limitations/implications  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ This research is limited toRead MoreMoral Psychology : A Long Standing Rationalist Tradition3611 Words   |  15 Pagesmorally right or good, with different concepts of justice to organize social cooperation (Rest, 1986). Using his own studies of reasoning, Kohlberg introduced six stages of cognitive moral development that started with consequence-oriented reasoning and advanced to a rule-oriented form of reasoning. His research focused on how individuals reason through moral dilemmas but mentioned little about the judgments themselves and the behaviors that follow. Kohlberg s work has been refined and advanced byRead Moreethical decision making16006 Words   |  65 Pagesvirtue, and what part do virtues play in the practice of nursing? 3. What is meant by principle-based ethics? 4. How does Kant’s deontological approach differ from Mill’s utilitarian approach? 5. What role does each of the four major ethical concepts— beneï ¬ cence, nonmaleï ¬ cence, autonomy, and justice—play in community nursing practice? 6. How can health care resources be distributed in a fair manner? 7. How does the ethical theory of care differ or agree with other theories? 8. What informationRead MoreAnnotated Bibliography: Plagiarism39529 Words   |  158 PagesOrganization, 19(6): 881- 889. Global Health Bibliography Carabali, J. M. and Hendricks, D. (2012), Dengue and health care access: the role of social determinants of health in dengue surveillance in Colombia. Global Health Promotion, 19(4): 45-50. Deguen, S., Sà ©gala, C., Pà ©drono, G. and Mesbah, M. (2012), A New Air Quality Perception Scale for Global Assessment of Air Pollution Health Effects. Risk Analysis, 32(12): 2043-2054. Hassoun, N. (2012), Global Health Impact: A Basis For Labeling And Licensing

Test on French Prepositions En and Dans

An Introduction to Sociology

Justifying Reproductive Cloning For Logistical Motives Essay

Justifying Reproductive Cloning for Logistical Motives In this age of technology and innovation, what was once science fiction is now becoming a reality. Human reproductive cloning is on the forefront for providing prospective parents with a new mode of reproduction. However, with the concept of reproductive cloning comes an unprecedented set of ethical issues. Issues especially focused on how cloning may affect the child’s right to an open future are highlighted by philosophers such as Dena Davis. Davis takes a neutral stance on reproductive cloning and argues that it is morally impermissible when used for duplicative motives, but permissible when used for logistical motives. Duplicative motives are when â€Å"the genetic replication itself†¦ is the attraction† (Davis 160) and the parents wish for their child to be a mere copy of their donor. Logistical motivations are when the parents’ end goal â€Å"is simply to have a child† that is genetically related (Davis 159). Davis leaves the evaluation of such parental motives in the hands of healthcare professionals. Philosophers McGee and Wilmut add to Davis’ position, but call for a more holistic evaluation of parental motives and competency by following an adoption model. In this paper, I will support Davis’ argument on the moral permissibility of reproductive cloning under logistical motivations by addressing the main concerns that surround reproductive cloning. First, I shall reconstruct Davis’ argument in favor of reproductive cloning

The United States And The Civil Rights Crisis - 898 Words

The United States of America has the largest prison system in the world with over 2.2 million prisoners. 1,320,000 of those prisoners are blacks and hispanics. The justice system in the United States has unequal outcomes across racial groups. Although together they make up only 30% of the country’s population, black and hispanic men are 3 times more likely to end up behind bars for the same crime committed by white males, allowing them to make up 60% of the prison population. Private prisons, the War on Drugs and a civil rights crisis and are the main factors to why people of color are overrepresented in our prison systems. Private prisons continuously buy prisons in states all across the US. Once they buy these prisons and a contract is†¦show more content†¦This leads to a plethora of men and women being stopped constantly for no reason. Often a civilian is stopped solely on the basis of their skin color/stereotypes. To work properly, private prisons require full prisons as aforementioned, and the least expensive prisoner as possible. The 2012 ACLU report , relates that â€Å"it costs $68,270 to support a prisoner age 50 or older compared with $34,135 per year to house a non-geriatric prisoner† (ACLU,2012). In their contracts private prisons exempt themselves from having to accept older prisoners. This is why young men of color are filling up these private prisons in record numbers. Modern day prison systems guarantee monetary security for the corporations, rather than protect the public and rehabilitate the inmates. President Richard Nixon first used the term â€Å"The War on Drugs† in 1971. Since then little to nothing has been accomplished to stop drug use, trade and distribution. The Drug business is a multi-billion dollar enterprise that continues to thrive. A federal study conducted by â€Å"Monitoring the Future† reports that 85% of high school students found marijuana easy to obtain. (Williams,2011). Many believe it is nonsensical to spend billions of dollars on arrest of small time offenders who commit non-violent crimes, when in over 45 years nothing has improved. Initially, Federal law mandates five years in prison without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin.