Essay on Asymmetric Threat and Differences between International and

On Asymmetric Threat and Differences between International and Domestic Terrorism - Essay Example This form of intimidated has caused the nation to suffer economically as the security of the citizens is compromised while working thus affecting productivity. Terrorism is among the asymmetrical risks affecting the United States. The term asymmetrical threat refers to a threat where the group causing the terror is widely spread and operates within a shadowy network. The group is difficult to identify as it is camouflaged within the citizens living in the country. The organized groups are at times well funded and possess technology and weapons that are used to cause terror within the country. In simpler terms, asymmetric treats can be used to refer the technique of warfare that is not fair. The term fair in war can be used to refer to the use of surprise or unconventional weapon during the war. Asymmetric treat is successful mainly due to the use of the attacker’s strength to exploit the opponent’s weakness. Politics plays a significant part in the nature of terrorism w ithin a country. The United States have been attacked by many threats from Muslim nations. The world trade center came under attack from a Pakistani decedent in 1993 called Ramzi Yousef. The group parked an explosive filled rental van in the packing lot of tower one. His idea was to collapse the tower onto the second tower using urea nitrate. The bomb did a lot of  destruction but did not collapse according to Ramzi’s plan (Post, Ruby & Shaw, 2002). The paper will evaluate some of the asymmetric threats in the history of the  US and the cause of action taken by the government to counter these asymmetric threats. The government can act through legislative and executive means. This means that the legislative arm of government can create new law or the executive can make laws responding to the treat. One of the significant asymmetrical threats suffered by the US in the resent past includes the September Eleventh bombing of the trade towers. The threats become eminent due to the influence of the US on foreign Muslim nation and the war against terrorism. Prior to the bombing, a series of bombing aimed towards the US and its allies had been witnessed with bombing in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, claiming a total of 19 US casualties and a significant number of the nations citizens (Post, Ruby & Shaw, 2002). The organization responsible for this attack and the threat was the Al-Qaeda group headed by Osama Bin Laden. On September 11, the group hijacked four passenger airliners and attacked America’s trade center which doubled as a symbol of the nation’s economic and military strength. The air strike resulted to the destruction of the buildings and the  killing of 2,726 people on American soil. The action taken by the legislature was aimed at ensuring that such an attack did not take place again and capturing the mastermind of the attack. The public law 107-40 was among the law passed giving the president the power to use force necessary to elim inate any organization responsible. Laws governing judicial detentions were amended to allow secret detention. The department of homeland security was created during this period. The USA patriotic Act allowed the USA government to interdict terrorist and also a criminal statute against those harboring terrorists (Monaghan, 2000). The post World War II world raised increasing concerns regarding the communism threat. Those accused of communism and involvement with the

Theories for Product Bundling

Theories for Product Bundling RASHIDA ABDULHAMID WHY DO FIRM BUNDLE TWO PRODUCTS TOGETHER AND HOW IS IT LIKELY FOR THEM TO MAKE PROFIT? What is product bundling? Product bundling is simply means combining two or more goods together and selling them as on one combined product. It is mostly common in market with imperfect competitive product. It is a marketing strategy that joins products or services together in order to sell them as a single combined unit. Bundling allows customers to purchase two or several product at the convenient purchasing power from one company. The products and services are usually related, but they can also consist of dissimilar products which appeal to one group of customers. It based on consumer’s value the grouped package more than the individual items. Why do producer go into product bundling? Producers go into product bundling because of so many reasons, bundling of two products gives the producer to offer more affordable prices for their customer with also a better interest for them. Bundling enhances an organizations offering mix while at the same time minimizing cost of both production and selling. This is attractive to consumers who will benefit from a single, value-oriented purchase of complementary offerings. Bundling is attractive to producers by increasing efficiencies, such reducing marketing and distribution costs. It can also encourage customers to look to one single source to offer several solutions. Product bundling may also incorporate products from multi producers. Example of this is the palo alto software may include one of their business planning product with an accounting software package, or participate in a small business bundle† through a major computer manufacturer whose customers would have the opportunity to purchase with their new PC. In these situations, bundles may cost effectively open to new marketing channels. FACTORS CONSIDER WHEN BUNDLING INCLUDE VOLUME: bundling typically increases unit sales volume. MARGING: bundling can reduce margins. EXPPOSURE: bundling may offer new channel opportunities or exposure to new potential customers. RISK: if executed incorrectly, bundling may cannibalize more profitable sale, resulting in lower contribution margins and potential channel conflict. This last example has three important implications. First, the market outcome is not necessarily efficient, in the sense that a social planner with full information and no costs of imposing a solution could do better. That should not be surprising in light of the results in the product selection literature that the set of product offerings is not necessarily efficient. Second, while the model reveals a bias toward the offering of a bundle, the bias is primarily toward mixed bundling, not toward pure bundling or other forms of tying. Indeed, although the preceding example does not show it, the model can be interpreted to suggest a bias against pure bundling. In a companion paper, we show that the conditions for pure bundling to be the only sustainable outcome are stronger than the conditions for pure bundling to be the efficient outcome. The model does not rule out the possibility of inefficient tying. Tying can be. the predicted outcome when components selling is optimal, but there is no systematic reason for this to be the case. There is a tendency in the model for big groups to get the offering they want. But this effect holds equally when the biggest group wants just one component as when the biggest group wants the bundle. Third, in analyzing the welfare consequences of bundling discounts (under mixed bundling), it is important to distinguish between marginal cost savings and the effect of fixed costs. Both are potential sources of savings to the group that purchases the bundle, but only the marginal cost savings reflect welfare gains. In this example, there is a substantial bundle discount; the bundle price of 19 is 5 less than the sum of the components prices. Under pure components selling, they would pay a total of 20, which is also more than the bundle price under mixed bundling. Notwithstanding this private benefit, it is inefficient for the bundle to be offered. In contrast, if there were no fixed costs and the bundle discount reflected a marginal cost savings of 5, then mixed bundling would be efficient. . Which products are offered depends on the extent to which bundling lowers marginal cost, on the fixed costs of offering each product, and on demand. For a product to be offered in the kind of contestable market we describe here, three conditions must holdthese are known in the formal economics literature as sustainability conditions. First, no price can exceed average cost. Otherwise another firm could enter and provide the product to the same group of customers for less. Second, the price of each product must be low enough that the seller of a second existing product cannot profitably lower its price and attract the purchasers of the first. Third, prices must be low enough that entry with a product not offered is unprofitable. First, marginal cost savings are neither necessary nor sufficient for tying to occur in competitive markets. They are not necessary because, even without marginal cost savings, firms may not separately provide a product if there is not enough demand to cover the fixed cost of offering that product this result assumes that the firm is offering a bundle that attracts at least some consumers who want that product. They are not sufficient because, even with marginal cost savings, firms may find that there are enough consumers who want the products separately and do not value the other product they will therefore oiler the bundle to attract consumers who want both and separate products to attract consumers who only want one. Second, fixed costs are a necessary but not sufficient condition for tying to occur in competitive markets. Firms eliminate a product choice that some consumers want because it enables them to avoid the fixed costs of offering it separately. Or, to put it another way, firms cannot provide some products separately because there is not enough demand to cover the costs. Third, pure bundling can arise for two reasons which are worth distinguishing: (1) moderate fixed costs when many consumers demand all components and demand is low for at least one of the individual components; and (2) high fixed costs. Without fixed costs, our assumptions generally imply mixed bundling. Under mixed bundling, the bundle is available for those who want both goods and the separate products are available for those who want just one. With some fixed costs, however, pure bundling can result if many customers want both goods and demand for the component does not justify the fixed cost of offering them separately. Pure bundling can also occur, however, even if no consumer wants both components. These will happen when fixed costs are very high, which in turn implies that pure bundling saves significant fixed costs over components selling. Fourth, firms may sell some but not all of the components separately from the bundle. This occurs when demand for the bundle and one of the separate components is substantial but demand for the other is not. In a separate welfare analysis we show that firms may not offer the optimal product variety (the standard result in the product variety literature) but that the tendency is to offer too much mixed bundling rather than to offer too much tying. Table 3 contains our first example. The size of each group of consumers is 100. The marginal costs of both goods ; and 2 are 8 while the marginal cost of the bundle is 14. Since the latter is less than the sum of the components prices, there are marginal cost savings from bundling. Fixed costs are 600 It follows that the prices of the components under mixed bundling are 14 while the price of the bundle is 20. As the next line in the Table indicates, the price of the bundle under pure bundling is 16. It is lower than the price of the bundle under mixed bundling because more customers share the fixed cost. Under components selling, the prices of the components are 11 each. As with pure bundling, the prices are lower than under mixed bundling becau se the fixed costs are shared with a larger group. Before turning to why mixed bundling is sustainable, let us consider why the other product configurations are not. Under pure bundling, the price of the bundle is 16. This price is susceptible to entry by, say, a producer of good 1 at a price of 14. This component price is less than the 16 that group 1 pays for the bundle under mixed bundling, and it is sufficient to cover costs even if only group 1 buys the bundle. A pure component selling, in which the price of each of the two goods is 11, is not sustainable either. Group B pays a total of 22 for the two components, so entry with the bundle at a price of 20 attracts group B and is profitable. When the bundle and just good 1 are offered, the price of the bundle is 17. Entry by a supplier of good 2 at a price of 11 is then profitable. For the same reason, it is not sustainable to offer just the bundle and good 2. Having seen how entry can prevent a set of offerings from being sustainable, we can now understand why mixed bundling is sustainable in this case. All possible products are offered in mixed bundling, so it is not possible to enter with a new product. We do, however, need to consider whether cutting the price of an existing product (or products) to attract an additional block of customers would be profitable. At these prices, it is not. For example, to sell the bundle at a price that is low enough to attract groups 1 and 2; one would still have to charge 16. But that would not be low enough to attract groups 1 and 2, which can purchase only the good they want under mixed bundling for 14. Similarly, cutting the price of the components to attract group B would not be profitable. If group B purchased the components, the prices would still have to be 11. Group B would then pay 22 for both goods, which is more than the 20 it pays for the bundle under mixed bundling. There are a number of factors that give rise to mixed bundling in this example. First, there are marginal cost savings from bundling. At the same time, the marginal cost of the bundle exceeds the marginal cost of just one of the components. So, putting fixed costs aside, there would be an advantage to having the separate components available to those who want just one of them. Also, the demand for each of the three possible products is substantial; and, while fixed costs are present, they are not so great as to preclude offering one of the goods. The results in Table 3 depend, of course, on the assumed values for each of the seven variables in the model. Small changes in each variable would affect prices, but mixed bundling would still be the qualitative outcome. With larger changes, however, the qualitative outcome would change as well. Since mixed bundling means that all three of the possible products are offered, any change would eliminate one or more of the products offered. For example, consider a reduction in the number of people who want just good 1. The fixed cost of offering good 1 would then have to be spread over a smaller customer base so the price of good 1 would have to increase. When the number of people who want only good 1 is sufficiently small, the price of good 1 would exceed the price of the bundle. Consumers who want just good 1 would then buy the bundle (anSd discard good 2). Good 1 would disappear from the market, leaving good 2 and the bundle as the only products offered. In that case, good 2 is tied to good 1. Just as a reduction in the number of people who want good 1 causes the price of good 1 to go up, an increase in X1 causes the price to drop. With a sufficiently large increase in the demand for good 1 alone, the price can drop enough that people who want both goods find it cheaper to buy them separately. The bundle disappears from the market. The result is pure components selling, which does not entail tying. Table 4 shows the change in product offerings that could result from sufficiently large increases and decreases of each of the seven variables in the model. (As we note, in some cases, even a large change will not alter the product offerings.) The first row of the table reports the results described above. The left half of that row says that with a sufficiently large decrease in X1, the set of products offered becomes the bundle and good 2 while good 1 is no longer offered. The right hand half of the first row shows that with a sufficiently large increase in the demand for good 1, the set of products offered are goods 1 and 2 while the bundle is no longer offered. As Table 4 indicates, there are two cases in which mixed bundling are the qualitative outcome no matter how much the variable change (in the given direction). One of these is a reduction in fixed costs. That result makes intuitive sense. Fixed costs in the model can cause a potential product not to be offered. Given the other assumed values in Table 4, fixed costs of 600 are low enough that all three of the possible products can be offered profitably. A reduction in the fixed cost of a product offering would only reinforce the possibility of providing for each group the product tailored to its particular demand.

Eudora Weltys The Ponder Heart as Dramatic Monologue :: Eudora Welty The Ponder Heart

Eudora Welty's The Ponder Heart as Dramatic Monologue Dramatic Monologue", Edna is defined as the filter through which we see everything. "What we commonly call "point of view"-- is the nexus of our interpretation of the novel's characters, events, and thematic significance"(Nissen 1, emphasis added). According to Nissen Welty's narrators are often "ignored or misconstrued" by critics. In "The Ponder Heart", Edna Earle is an exemplary storyteller at her best and at her worst defined by critics as "bossy, narrow-minded and dumb" (Nissen 2, emphasis added). Edna Earle fits none of these negative lashes. She is a Southern woman who cares for her family and community and tries to put them in their best light for her audience. The form of dramatic monologue has long been a way for authors to give their audience an inside view by allowing us to be voyeurs; we are not part of the story, but simply folks who are passing by the actions at hand. With this genre tag already in place, we bring to our reading certain expectations. "In a sense, we never read a story for the first time; we bring into our reading the expectations that previous encounters with the genre have created" (Nissen 2). Nissen sees Edna Earle as putting herself second in the line of importance to the story she tells with Grandpa Ponder and Uncle Daniel as the primary forces that shape her narrative. She sacrifices her own needs in order to fill those of Grandpa and Uncle Daniel. "That she has been taken for granted must be painfully clear to the narrator as well as her audience" (Nissen 9). In this way, she arouses sympathy from her audience much in the same way as if we were passing by her on the street while she told her story to a friend. We hear her, but are not free to help her. We are strangers in her world and cannot affect the outcome of her circumstances. In closing, Nissen rewrites the end to reflect the importance of Edna Earle's voice as narrator. "I'd like to warn you again, Edna Earle may try to give you something--may think she's got something to give. If she does, do me a favor. Make out like you accept it. Tell her thank you" (Nissen 9). I agreed with Nissen's article, but believe he could have stated his points more concisely. This article was long for the amount he really had to say. There is clearly no arguing the point that The Ponder Heartis a monologue, yet he spends three pages

How to Write a Thesis Statement (2018)

How To Write A Stronger Thesis Statement – Essential Tips Writing a strong thesis is one of the most important things that you can do in regards to essay writing in college. If you’re going to become one of the top student OR anything else that you do in life, knowing how to structure a correct thesis statement is going to help you. So, how to you go about Writing a Thesis Statement Let’s explore this together: A thesis statement is an interesting thing to consider as it is part of the main idea of your essay If your goal is to be a better writer, than the following tips are just for you. This is a solid option that is going to give you a great option to move forward with, especially if your goal is to master the art of essay writing.Thesis Statement DefinedThe first thing that you need to consider is simple, you need to consider what this truly is. A thesis statement is an interesting thing to consider as it is part of the main idea of your essay. This should appear in your essay as a way to inform readers what you’re going to be discussing and explaining. It can be a single sentence statement, or it could be a couple of sentences. Your thesis topic needs to explain to the reader what you’re going to be proposing with your writing.Dividing The Thesis StatementsThe next thing that you need to know is that you are going to have to deal with two major statements. These are thesis options that will make or break your essay. This is an option that is going to help you gain the upper hand when writing. The first option is an informative thesis, which gives the reader a better idea of what you’re going to be writing about. The best way to do this is to write a cause and effect sentence. An example of this could be similar to this: To ride a skateboard, you first need to get a board, and then kick and push in one direction. This is not the only type of thesis that you are going to want to consider. There’s several other options that you need to know about. The second solution is known as a persuasive thesis. This is something that will help you create a reason why you’re trying to write your essay and why the premise is stated as you want it to be said. For instance, use a sentence similar to this: Skateboarding is the best type of sport, because it lets you be creative, and is easy to learn. As you can see, this option lets you create an opinion that you will then talk about in your essay. This is different than the informational solution, which lets you have a full narrative based on one statement. This is something that you will need to consider overall, as it is an important example as to how to divide thesis elements. This is an important thing to learn if you’re going to create a strong thesis overall. You may also review how to structure a PhD thesis.Style and Substance of Your ThesisIf you’re going to create a good thesis, you’re going to need to either go with one point or several points. This is something that can be a matter of your own assignment. For instance, if your teacher is going to ask you to write an essay that is about one topic, and there’s one point that you need to make in a small essay, then you don’t need to have a list of topics. Instead, you’ll need to work with one overarching point into the paragraphs that you’re going to be creating. You’ll find that the length of your essay is going to mean a lot. An essay that is shorter than 5 pages, will ensure that you will not have to write about several different points. You’ll find that one topic will be easy to work with if you’re going to write five pages or under. Now, if you’re going to write a larger paper, you’re going to need to put in a lot of effort to create a serious push into your points. Your thesis will need a list of statements and topics because you’ll be writing an extensive amount of information about the topic.What To Look For In A Solid ThesisYour thesis statement has to have 3 major components. These are going to help you gain the upper hand moving forward. The length for instance, will be the first thing that you need to consider. Your sentence shouldn’t be too long. Anything longer than 30 words is too long, and anything less is ok, but you have to ensure you have a complete position. The position of your thesis also matters. This is something that you will need to write that has an opinion on the matter. You need to write as though you believe the statement on a small scale, to then discuss it on a larger scale. The last thing that you need to have is a moment of strength, meaning that your statement has to be fully realized and closed overall. What does a strong thesis look likeWell, here’s an example of what you can do. Skateboarding is a great sport because it’s fun to learn. In that sentence, you have an argument that answers itself in one sentence. Now, if you were to write an essay around that sentence, you could easily bring about several elements to discuss the question of â€Å"why†, which is why essays are written in academia and in professional settings. You may also like to review how to avoid plagiarism in an essay or dissertationComposing Thesis StatementsOverall, when you’re thinking about writing an essay, make sure that you look into creating a simple way of describing arguments overall. What are you trying to explain with your essaySeriously, what is it that you want to conveyIf you consider this, you’ll be able to write a sentence that explains things with relative ease. This is a great option to consider. Direct your research towards the sentence of your thesis, and you will see a positive push forward, no doubt. If you are worried that you need to survive the uni, head over to our site and let our expert writers help you write a top class essay, on time and to the highest possible quality.

Presocratic Philosophy Essay

Introduction As early Greek civilization grew more complex (c. 500 b. c. e. ), mythology and religion began to develop into philosophy (and later into science). As part of this development, a new kind of thinker emerged known as a sophos, from the Greek word for â€Å"wise. † These â€Å"wise men,† and they were almost exclusively men, asked increasingly sophisticated questions about all sorts of things, especially natural processes and the origins and essence of life. Although mythology and religion continued to play important roles in the lives of people for centuries to come, these first philosophers were noted for their attempts to use reason and observation to figure out how the world works. Instead of living a â€Å"normal life,† the sophos devoted himself to asking questions that so-called normal people thought had already been answered (by religion and mythology) or were unanswerable (and thus a waste of time). In respect to public perceptions, it didn’t help that the sophos lived and spoke in ways that were interpreted as showing disregard and possibly disrespect for conventional values, and that set him or (infrequently) her apart from â€Å"regular folks† living â€Å"normal† lives. It is hardly surprising, then, that one of the earliest popular images of philosophers is the stereotype of an odd, â€Å"absent-minded,† starry-eyed dreamer and asker of silly questions. The very first Western thinkers identified as philosophers were initially concerned with questions about the nature of nature (physis) and of the â€Å"world order† (kosmos). Presocratic Rational Discourse The earliest Western philosophers are referred to as the Presocratics because they appeared prior to Socrates, the first major figure in the Western philosophical tradition. Some of the Presocratic philosophers are described as proto-scientists because they initiated the transformation of mythology into rational inquiry about nature and the cosmos. A very general characterization of the development of Presocratic philosophy is helpful for placing subsequent philosophical issues and disagreements in context. Of  most interest for our purposes is the Presocratic philosophers’ struggle to offer rational, â€Å"objective† arguments and explanations for their views. These concerns played a major role in the origins and historical development of Western philosophy. The first philosophers’ intense interest in explanations shaped the development of reason by triggering questions of logical consistency and standards of knowledge that went beyond the sorts of evidence that a craftsman could offer to back up his claims to expertise. The Presocratic Philosophers Thales Thales (c. 624–545 b. c. e.), traditionally said to be the first Western philosopher, seems to have believed that water is in some way central to our understanding of things. This concept was probably based upon a belief that the earth floated on water, and that all things originate with water. Current opinion holds that Thales believed that whatever is real is in some significant sense ‘‘alive. ’’ According to Aristotle, Thales ‘‘thought that all things are full of gods,’’ and as evidence of such powers even in apparently inanimate nature he points to the remarkable properties of what was referred to as the ‘‘Magnesian stone’’. Although Aristotle’s statement is too slight to serve as a sure foundation for judgment, it seems more likely that Thales was arguing for the broader presence of life forces in the world than most people imagined, rather than that the real in its totality is alive. Anaximander Thales’ younger contemporary from Miletus, Anaximander, born toward the end of the seventh century B. C. E. , found the explanatory principle of things in what he called ‘‘the apeiron,’’ a word that might be translated as ‘‘the indefinite,’’ ‘‘the boundless,’’ or both. This opens up the possibility that the apeiron is both immeasurably large in its temporal and physical extent and also qualitatively indefinite in that it is without measurable inner boundaries. The apeiron is further described, according to Aristotle, as being ‘‘without beginning,’’ ‘‘surrounding all things,’’ ‘‘steering all things,’’ ‘‘divine,’’ ‘‘immortal,’’ and ‘‘indestructible. ’’ Some have inferred that Anaximander’s barely concealed purpose was Western philosophy’s first attempt at demythologization. Equally striking is Anaximander’s description of the universe as a closed, concentric system, the outer spheres of which, by their everlasting motion, account for the stability of our earth, a drum-shaped body held everlastingly in a state of equipoise at the center. Whatever the inadequacy in certain details (the stars are placed nearer to the earth than the moon), with Anaximander the science of cosmological speculation took a giant step forward. As far as life on earth is concerned, Anaximander offered another striking hypothesis. The first living things, according to him, were ‘‘born in moisture, enclosed in thorny barks’’ (like sea urchins), and ‘‘as their age increased, they came forth onto the drier part’’ (as phrased by Aetius [first to second century C. E. ]). Pythagoras Although we know that Pythagoras was a historical figure, it is difficult to determine exactly what Pythagoras himself taught. He wrote nothing, and the ideas of other members of the community were attributed to him as a sign of respect and as a way of lending weight to the ideas. Plato and Aristotle rarely assign ideas to Pythagoras himself, although Pythagorean ideas seem to have influenced Plato’s philosophy. Pythagoreans asserted that number is the first principle of all things. They were the first systematic developers of mathematics in the West and discovered that natural events could be described in mathematical terms, especially as ratios. To the Pythagoreans, the â€Å"principle of number† accounted for everything. Number was a real thing. Somehow, numbers existed in space, not just as mental constructs. According to Pythagorean doctrine, the entire universe is an ordered whole consisting of harmonies of contrasting elements. The Greek for â€Å"ordered whole† is cosmos. The Pythagoreans were the first philosophers to use the term cosmos to refer to the universe in this way. The â€Å"celestial music of the spheres† is the hauntingly beautiful phrase the Pythagoreans coined to describe the sound of the heavens as they rotate according to cosmic number and harmony. Xenophanes A fourth Ionian philosopher, Xenophanes of Colophon, born around 580 B. C. E. ,is the first we know of to overtly attack the anthropomorphism of popular religious belief, in a series of brilliant reductio ad absurdum arguments. His own view has been understood, ever since Aristotle, as pantheistic. Xenophanes was also the first philosopher we know of to ask what degree of knowledge is attainable. In B34 we read: ‘‘the clear and certain truth no man has seen, nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods and what I say about all things. ’’ Several ancient critics took this to be an indication of Xenophanes’ total scepticism. On this basis of moderate empiricism and scepticism, Xenophanes offered a number of opinions of varying plausibility about the natural world, one of which—a strong, evolutionary interpretation of the discovery on various islands of fossils of marine animals—is enough to constitute a major claim to fame in natural philosophy and ranks with his other significant steps in epistemology (the theory of knowledge dealing with what we know, how we know it, and how reliable our knowledge is), logic (the study of rational inquiry and argumentation), and natural theology (the attempt to understand God from natural knowledge). Heraclitus One of the most important and enigmatic of the Presocratics, Heraclitus (fl . 500 b. c. e. , d. 510–480 b. c. e. ), said that ignorance is bound to result when we try to understand the cosmos when we do not even comprehend the basic structure of the human psyche (soul) and its relationship to the Logos. The complex Greek word logos is intriguing. It could and at times did mean all of the following: â€Å"intelligence,† â€Å"speech,† â€Å"discourse,† â€Å"thought,† â€Å"reason,† â€Å"word,† â€Å"meaning,† â€Å"study of,† â€Å"the record of,† â€Å"the science of,† â€Å"the fundamental principles of,† â€Å"the basic principles and procedures of a particular discipline,† â€Å"those features of a thing that make it intelligible to us,† and â€Å"the rationale for a thing. † The Heraclitean capital L Logos is like God, only without the anthropomorphizing (humanizing) of the earlier philosophers and poets who attributed human qualities to the gods. According to Heraclitus’s impersonal view of God, the Logos is a process, not an entity. As such, the Logos is unconcerned with individuals and human affairs, in much the same way that gravity affects us but is unconcerned with us. More radically yet, Heraclitus asserted that even though things appear to remain the same, â€Å"Change alone is unchanging. † Traditionally, it has been held that Heraclitus went so far as to claim that everything is always changing all the time. But whether he really meant that everything is always changing, or that individual things are held together by energy (change), remains unclear. Anaximenes Anaximander’s younger contemporary, Anaximenes, who lived during the sixth century B. C. E. appears to revert to a prior and less sophisticated vision in claiming that the earth, far from being a drum-shaped body held in equipoise at the center, is flat and ‘‘rides on,’’ supported by air. The same might be said of his contention that the basic, ‘‘divine’’ principle of things was not some indefinite entity but something very much part of our experience; namely, air. Anaximenes’ view would also no doubt have seemed to be corroborated by the fact that the universe, commonly understood as a living thing and hence needing a soul to vivify it, possessed in air that very ‘‘breath’’ that for most Greeks constituted the essence of such a soul. Parmenides Parmenides of Elea (fift h century b. c. e. ) radically transformed the early philosophers’ interest in cosmology, the study of the universe as a rationally ordered system (cosmos), into ontology, the study of being. By common agreement he was the giant among the pre-Socratics. According to Parmenides, none of his predecessors adequately accounted for the process by which the one basic stuff of the cosmos changes into the many individual things we experience every day. In his search for a solution to the problem of â€Å"the one and the many,† Parmenides turned to a reasoned analysis of the process of change itself. According to Parmenides, all sensations occur in the realm of appearance. This means that reality cannot be apprehended by the senses. Change and variety (the many) are only appearances; they are not real. If this is true, then our most commonly held beliefs about reality are mere opinions. The senses cannot recognize â€Å"what is,† much less can they discover—observe—it, ever. In other words, whatever we see, touch, taste, hear, or smell is not real, does not exist. Perhaps most unsettling of all, Parmenides â€Å"solved† the problem of the appearance of change by concluding—in direct opposition to Heraclitus’s insistence that everything is always changing—that the very concept of change is self-contradictory. What we think of as change is merely an illusion. The logic runs as follows: â€Å"Change† equals transformation into something else. When a thing becomes â€Å"something else,† it becomes what it is not. But since it is impossible for â€Å"nothing† (what is not) to exist, there is no â€Å"nothing† into which the old thing can disappear. (There is no â€Å"no place† for the thing to go into. ) Therefore, change cannot occur. Empedocles posited, against Parmenides, change and plurality as features of reality, but affirmed the eternality of anything that is real; the sphere-like nature of the real when looked at as a totality and the fact that the real is a plenum, containing no ‘‘nothingness’’ or ‘‘emptiness’’. Anaxagoras likewise posited change, plurality, and divisibility as features of reality, yet also affirmed the eternality of the real (understood by him as an eternally existent ‘‘mixture’’ of the ‘‘seeds’’ of the things currently constituting the world, rather than the eternal combinings and recombinings, according to certain ratios of admixture, of four eternally existent ‘‘roots’’ or elemental masses). Leucippus Leucippus of Miletus (c. fi ft h century b. c. e. ) and Democritus of Abdera (c. 460–370 b.c. e. ) argued that reality consists entirely of empty space and ultimately simple entities that combine to form objects. T is materialistic view is known as atomism. Leucippus is credited with being the originator of atomism and Democritus with developing it. Rather than reject Parmenides’ assertion that change is an illusion, Leucippus argued that reality consists of many discrete â€Å"ones,† or beings. Zeno Zeno, who was born early in the fifth century B. C. E. , was a friend and pupil of Parmenides. In his famous paradoxes he attempted to show by a series of reductio ad absurdum arguments, of which the best known is perhaps that of Achilles and the tortoise, the self-contradictory consequences of maintaining that there is a real plurality of things or that motion or place are real. The prima facie brilliance of many of the arguments continues to impress people, though it soon becomes clear that the paradoxes turn largely on the failure or unwillingness of Zeno, like so many Pythagoreans of the day, to distinguish between the concepts of physical and geometrical space. Zeno’s way of constructing the problem makes it seem that his primary object is to defame pluralists by attacking the logical possibility of explaining how there can be motion in the world. Gorgias Gorgias has achieved fame for the stress he laid upon the art of persuasion (‘‘rhetoric’’), although whether he wrote the baffling On What Is Not as a serious piece of persuasive reasoning or as some sort of spoof of the Eleatic philosophy of Parmenides and others remains disputed. Its basic, and remarkable, claim is prima facie, that nothing in fact is (exists /is the case [esti] or is knowable or conceivable. Any exiguous plausibility that the arguments supporting this claim possess turns on our overlooking Gorgias’s failure, witting or unwitting, to distinguish carefully between knowing and thinking, along with his various uses of the verb ‘‘to be. ’’ If the failure was witting, the document can be seen as a skillful device for the spotting of fallacies as part of training in rhetoric and basic reasoning. If it was unwitting, Gorgias still emerges as what he was claimed to be—a deft rhetorical wordsmith on any topic proposed to him. Protagoras Perhaps the greatest of the Sophists was Protagoras of Abdera (481– 411 b. c. e. ). Protagoras was an archetypal Sophist: an active traveler and first-rate observer of other cultures who noted that although there are a variety of customs and beliefs, each culture believes unquestioningly that its own ways are right—and roundly condemns (or at least criticizes) views that differ from its own. Based on his observations and travels, Protagoras concluded that morals are nothing more than the social traditions, or mores, of a society or group. The details of Protagoras’s beliefs remain disputed. When he said, for example, that ‘‘anthropos [humanity] is a/the measure for all things, of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not,’’ it is unclear whether he is talking about one person or the sum total of persons; about ‘‘a’’ measure or ‘‘the’’ measure (there is no definite article in Greek); or about existence or states of affairs or both. The Platonic reading in the Theaetetus, which takes ‘‘anthropos’’ as generic and ‘‘measure’’ as exclusive, led to the assertion that the logical consequence was total (and absurd) relativism. ______________________________ References: The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. Richard H. Popkin. Columbia University Press. 1999. Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. 7th ed. Douglas J. Soccio. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. 2010.