The social and historical influence Essay Example for Free

The social and historical influence EssayLook at the significance of chapter 5 to the novel as a charge to focus on the relevance and effect of the writers use of language to describe setting and characters and what it shows nigh the social and historical influence? This novel is about an extremely intelligent doctor called master key Frankenstein who used his lastledge of knowledge to find a way of keeping people alive. bloody shame Shelleys plot must have been influenced by the changes that were happening around her in Britain during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Scientists at this time were canvass the meaning of life. They were using corpses in experiments. She appears to have a great understanding of the scientific discoveries of that time. Behind the authorship is a deeper meaning. Mary Shelley is trying to show us how an addiction to anything is not natural and very often dangerous to our well-being and to our social and mental health. Chapter 5 is a crucial moment because this is when the daimon is brought to life.Mary Shelleys opening sentence of chapter 5 is Dr Frankenstein telling us It was a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. He goes on to say It was already matchless in the morning the rain pattered dismally over against the panes. The dismal setting contrasts with Dr Frankensteins expectation and anxiety he is feeling just moments before his being is brought to life. This setting and events causes us to be alarmed and scared because we start imagining what it would be like to be in his position.He then tells us The fanatics dull yellow eye opens and it begins to breathe. We would theorize that he is pleased that he has succeeded in what he set out to do but he straight away is horrified at his earthly concern and what it has turned out to look like. He expresses his negative feelings many times, such as breathless horror and disgust filled my heart and the demonical corpse to which I had so miserably given life. This shows us that the social influence of looks was as great then as it still is in 2009.Dr Frankenstein is distraught about how his creation looks rather than thinking about the feat he has just achieved, I find it puzzling that he is shocked by its image only later on the creature has been brought to life, even though he could have seen what it would look like when it was on the operating table. I believe that this shows Dr Frankenstein was so caught up by the science involved with making this being that he was blind to the obvious This is backed by him saying I had selected his features as beautiful this shows us he really thought it was beautiful when it was being made.This chapter shows us that social influences are similar to that we experience today. Through out the novel Mary Shelly uses language to change the atmosphere. This is closely present in chapter 5 in which the monster is born and Dr Frankensteins mood changes from a rather exited one to one of bitter disappointment and then again to cowardice before becoming rather animated at the arrival of Clerval. There is much emphasis on description. Dr Frankenstein describes in great detail the evening, the monster and his changing feelings towards his project.His language is often overdramatic and emotional. At length lassitude succeeded to tumult I had before endured, and I threw myself on the bed in my clothes, endeavouring to seek a few moments of forgetfulness, here he is using descriptive words that would not commonly be used today, this reminds us that this novel was written in the 1800s. Shelley writing style is very catching. I believe this is because she isnt writing as a watcher but as a character.This gives us the best view because we know the characters feeling as well as knowing what they dont, this can leave the reader frustrated, worried, scared, and hopeful such as at the end of chapter five when Clerval arrives and Victor has his nervous breakd own. This is evident when victor imagines what could happen. Clerval asks My dear Victor, what, for Gods sake, is the matter? Do not laugh in that manner. How ill are you What is the cause to all this? To which Victor replies Do not ask me, He can tell. Oh save me Save me All this while Frankenstein had been fighting an invisible monster, had Clerval known like us about the monster many people could have been saved. In conclusion I think Mary Shelley produced a novel that was frighteningly believable. I believe that this book shows us that social influence is massive and Shelley believed that one-day man would hold the meaning to life not God. Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This school-age child written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.

Williams and Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Williams and utileism EssayIn his critique of Utilitarianism, Williams finds fault in the Utilitarian commitment to utmost returns in that it undermines the integrity of moral agents and denies people the projects and relationships they inherently esteem. Famously known as his Integrity Objection, this proposition is immediately very tempting in that it appeals to the idea of the invaluable and imperative nature of benevolence and compassion, versus the cold, impartial hand of Utilitarianism. That is not to say, however, that Utilitarians have been dealt a hefty criticism from which they have no defense. While Williams may be correct in claiming that abandoning commitments or devaluing personal relationships may be counterintuitive, a Utilitarian could argue that his construction of integrity is as counterintuitive in that it would require one to override their intrinsic pursuit of self- preservation. Additionally, if we were to presuppose Williams correctness, a Utilitarian could argue that the only plausible implementation of such a theory would mean valuing these emotional engagements above ones own agency, a scenario even more demanding and sacrificial of ones personal identity than the Utilitarian proposal.Williams directs this protestation specifically toward Act-Utilitarianism, a branch of Utilitarian thought that deems the morally correct action as the one that produces the greatest amount of joy for the greatest number of people. He claims that such a theory is incompatible with the aspect of human happiness that is found in the commitment to personal projects and relationships Utilitarianism would do well then to acknowledge the evident fact that among the things that make people happy is not only making other people happy, but cosmos taken up or involved in any of a vast range of projects.1 While Utilitarians actually pick out lower browse projects comprised of relationships and commitments in order to validate their higher order pro jects, the lower order projects will always serve the concerns of the first order. In override, Williams asserts that such a compromise of emotional engagements for uttermost utility usurps ones sense of self, consequently marring the distinction between ones commitment and ones identity ( ) that criterion would eliminate any desire at all which was not blankly and in the most straightforward sense egoistic.Thus we should be cut down to frankly egoistic first-order projects, and- for all essential purposes- the one second-order utilitarian project of maximally satisfying first-order projects. 2Abandoning certain commitments for the sake of another project can be acceptable, but when forced to relinquish those which a person deeply values, Williams argues they ar robbed of a sense of ones moral identity or what he describes as ones integrity.Williams offers us two scenarios to further exemplify his theory Jim, who is told by the edicts of utilitarianism to murder one innocent Ama zon Indian in order to prevent twenty more being murdered, and George, a chemist who is ( also by the parameters of Utilitarianism) forced to take a job creating weapons of mass destruction, since the balance-sheet of utilities shows that if George refuses, a remote younger, more zealous chemist will carry the project along even further and more efficiently than George.While these scenarios may seem wish well far-fetched constructions meant to reveal Utilitarianism pursuing the wrong choice, Williams conversely (perhaps begrudgingly) admits that these would be the right choices for the given circumstances. The true problem, he argues, is 1? CITATION? 112? 2? CITATION? 113? ?that the emphasis should not simply be on the rightness of the action but the considerations involved in reaching that conclusion. This is a feature of Utilitarianism Williams claims cuts out a consideration which for near others makes a difference to what they feel about such cases. 3 He continues to explain that excluding such considerations denies our sense of personal accountability for our own actions and in turn makes integrity as a value more or less intelligible.4 In sum, if we were to reduce Williams entire integrity objection to its most salient points, they would be the following the emotional commitments that atomic number 18 incompatible with the parameters of Act- Utilitarianism are not only impossible to abandon entirely but are an integral facet of human happiness, therefore creating a dilemma for the Utilitarian in that they must allow for it. The potential defense of a Utilitarian to Williams objection begins with the examination of his construction of integrity, which he seems to define as ones sense of self.Looking simply at this definition alone, it could be verbalise that subjectivity suggested with this variety of integrity incorrectly presupposes that a persons sense of their identity is always correct. Utilitarianism could make a claim for the value in assess ing reality with the sort of virtue that Williams rejects, seeing as if one is not being appraised objectively, their sense of self is entirely contingent on their own conception. much importantly, and the crux of the Utilitarian defense, is that while Williams is correct in his claim that abandoning these emotional entanglements is counterintuitive, maintaining such commitments are at odds with the human desire for self-preservation, a 3? CITATION? p99? 4? CITATION? p99? ? fighting that Utilitarianism not only recognizes but Williams does not offer any viable solution for.Based on his examples and criticisms of Utilitarianism, it could be inferred that Williams assumes that we have a moral obligation to help others in a time of crisis, that one has an inherent responsibility to compassion and benevolence. This is clearly in conflict with the Utilitarian theory that ones responsibility is to maximum utility, so even if the Utilitarian were to concede to Williams objection, it wou ld be implausible to imagine a scenario in which the two could be regarded as being of equal value.In turn, the only option available to maintaining this ethos of selflessness would be to regard it as superior to maximum utility. This, a Utilitarian could argue, could prove to be extremely problematic. Firstly, it is extremely unrealistic to assume that people have the capacity to function entirely out of selflessness. raze though benevolence and emotional attachment can provide a certain level of happiness and fulfillment to a person, the expectation to unilaterally value the welfare of others over our own is not only implausible but ultimately self-defeating.Abandoning or betraying commitments in order to further advance a larger more important agenda sure as shooting isnt an idea particular to Utilitarianism. A quick browse of a history textbook would support that, by and large, humans are inherently self-serving and while one may commit to an act, cause or person, it does not necessarily mean that they themselves arent use such relationships for their own agency.Utilitarianism may require that a person abandon a particular commitment for the sake of the greater good, but it can certainly be said that in the absence of utilitarianism, the commitment could be abandoned anyway, except in this case it would be for a self-serving purpose. A Utilitarian could potentially argue that their moral theory simply recognizes and curbs the inwardly focused desires of mankind and attempts to redirect such motivation toward the greater good. One could argue that Williams is some disillusioned with mankind as he makes sweeping idealizations of the human psyche.Williams examples of Jim and George seem to both be contingent on the idea that what makes said examples disconcerting is bring in that both men would be acting against their conscience, in turn making the assumption that all people have consciences that should be considered. Secondly, if one could clear the hu rdle of the first argument, the actual implementation of such a theory is extremely difficult. Williams argues that Utilitarianism is far too demanding to be plausible but in fact, trading this impartiality for benevolence proves to be far more exhausting.Considering the worlds current state of affairs, there are always people in dire need of help, so one calls into question exactly what parameters would be set in place in order to orchestrate such a society. What would be the stipulations of a worthy recipient of anothers benevolence? If Williams was simply talking about peoples obligation to those close to them, valuing those relationships above maximum utility creates a bias that is even more incompatible with benevolence than Utilitarianism, which at least works in the interest of the entire population.A Utilitarian could also argue that it simply because they are outweighed by maximum utility does not mean that substantial relationships are not valued in Utilitarianism. While t hey are indeed lower order projects, a Utilitarian could make an argument that it is through maintaining such relationships that the value of ones own welfare is recognize and are only outweighed by serious interests of first order projects.The analyses above reflect the same conclusion. Williams objection brings to light shortcomings in Utilitarianism that are easily felt by those uncomfortable with the impartial and seemingly unfeeling Utilitarian mentality. However, the arguments put forth by Williams regarding the counterintuitive and overly demanding nature of impartiality neglect the as well as inherent and insatiable desire for self-preservation.

Marketing Communication Tools for Apple

Marketing Communication Tools for appleIn the past two decates it become a joint practice for companies to spend millions and billions of money in advertisement (see Table 1, due to lack of any further evidence the numbers should be taken low suspicion). Most of us think that they spent all this money just to make us buy more and more but is not and that. Their ultimate final stage is to make as aware of their presence, they want to gain more and more market share and they also use various methods and shipway to attract newfangled customers that they have not yet consider them as an option.In order to do that they have to use some tools and means. These tools are know as Marketing Communication Tools and they consist from five principles -also known as merchandising dialogue mix- advertising, sales promotion, public relations, personal exchange and direct merchandise (Armstrong, Kotler, Harker, Brennan, 2009, p398). Not all of the tools are been used from the companies, som e of them are used less some of them more. This is dependable on the strategy the company wants to follow, at this date I will try to critically assess and evaluate two key marketing communication tools that apple Inc. uses.Apple Inc. founded in 1976 and is one the largest fraternity across the world that designs computers, electronics and computer software. It became known by been one of the first companies to mass produce and sell Personal Computers, in 1976 Apple 1 and in 1977 Apple II. Since then they become one of the leading companies both in innovation and sales this is the reason why I choose this particular injury in my assignment.One of the most common marketing tools used by Apple Inc. is direct marketing and as Chris Fill (2005, 4th) defines the companies level in his take Apple Inc. is a type four hybrid company. This means that they see direct marketing as provoker vehicle and use direct marketing to exploit market space opportunities (Chris Fill 2005, 4th, p.738 ). The main tool they use for their strategy is the internet and web-mail since the evolution of technology helps direct marketing to prosper and grow. Apple Inc. exploited that by using huge storage databases to keep track of their customers data and preferences. Their main goal is to build a strong and long-term relationship with their customers by forming a community and to define the word I used I mean use customers that follow Apple Inc. products blindly.This growing community is the business office of company it consisted by dedicated customers that are tied to the company mainly for sen durationntal reasons slowing rising as a cult. Even if the products sometimes do not meet their expectations or the products are left to die from the company they still follow them as a cult current slowly rising. As an example we can relate to that cult is the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community as explained at Albert M. Muniz Jr and Hope Jensen Schau research Religiosity in the Abandone d Apple Newton Brand Community published in the Journal of Consumer Research mentioning how customers off different brands turn their favorite brands into a godliness and giving the products supernatural and magical motifs because they believe they are consisted from some kind of magic and will survive through time and at some tear down they even might rise again like the phoenix from the ashes.From a consumer point of view their strategy is not as efficient as it could be mainly because direct marketing should be more close feedback and customer profile based. From that prospective they should focus more on how they can use efficaciously their recourses to be more customer-friendly and diverse, they postulate to give you the opportunity to feedback and give your own advices, after all this are a way of saying to the customer that you handle about his opinion and the customer feel that they contribute to their favorite brand.In 2001 Apple Inc. decided to add one more communic ation tool lose so far from their arsenal, as a result from that they launched their very own retail stores aiming to get higher market share and to bring joy to millions of dedicated customers around the globe. At this moment Apple Inc. counts 324 stores around the world, their philosophy is simple, they want customers to be able to found everything around their technology in one store.The goal is simple, the company tries to be more diverse more interactive and more two-way communication with their customers, this is what personal selling is all about this is what they aimed at. They want existent customers to interact with new customers and sales personnel to interact with both of them. This is the way they make their bond with the dedicated customers even stronger, due to human interaction and tow-way communication the customers do not only attach to the brand but they evolve a special relationship with the personnel that serves them in a way that the selling personnel influenc e the buying decision of the customer and the customer has someone that knows what his needs and wants are.Personal selling is a great way to learn about what your customers think for your brand, because is a two-way communication and the feedback is faster than from the one you have with research or direct marketing. Is more specific, more consumer-oriented and more flexible than former(a) communication tools but not without a cost. The main weakness is the high cost, the cost for each contact is very high and thus less time consuming methods should be introduced and used for each customer from the sales manager, as an example Germanos ( http//www.e-germanos.gr/ the pioneers in phone selling in Greece) has evolved a very effective and less time consuming model of personal selling, it is called the 5 minutes rule in which each sales personnel has 5 minutes to recognise the customer, identify their needs, propose, take him to the counter and closure. Additionally there is always the possibility of misunderstanding due to the human factor involved in the whole attend to although human factor is an important part of this process is also the one part that sometimes causes most of the problems the reasons may vary from cultural and religion beliefs to differences in the social military position.As a conclusion after doing research for the strategy that Apple Inc. uses we came across equivocal results, despite Apple Inc. market share status (one of the pioneers at their market) and their total revenue their main goal is their loyal customers, perhaps giving more attention on building stronger and life-lasting relationships with their existing customers than introducing the company to new customers. We cannot get a clear conclusion if their strategy is either bad or good, the only thing we can assume is that what they do, they do it to keep the brand image at a level to justify that their brand is for the few and not for the many.Bottom line despite their strategy or their agenda we need to respect Apple Inc. but always have in mind that we need to be critical and analyze everything to see the hidden truth and what is leaving on behind the scenes. At the end I want to include a part of an interview given in the September of 2010 from the founder of Accer Inc. , Stan Shih, Apple has to be respected. He said that the company and CEO has always been using a different strategy in the computer industry. According to Shih, Apple is tone for revolution, while other PC brands are evolving naturally.