Ancient China: Politics, Social Structure and Culture

Ancient China: Politics, Social Structure and Culture The ancient Chinese had lived in primitive villages, and were mainly farmers or hunters. Many villages were surrounded by a strong wall to protect the village from enemy attacks. The land in which the farmers worked was owned by the emperor and the nobility. The farmers, who were also called peasants, rented the land paying for its use by various services such as working on the nobles land or entering war. Many ancient Chinese never let left the village they were born in. there were public wells for drawing water and a local meeting place would be held in a courtyard. There were markets in each village in which farmers sold their livestock, vegetables and fruit. Family life was the heart of society in Ancient China. Events such as births and weddings were widely celebrated by the entire village. The men and women in each village worked together farming. An important and crucial task the villagers shared were digging ditches, so the water would run from the canals to the field and crops in which they would be watered. Farmers used oxen and water buffalo to pull ploughs wagons and carts. The common farm animals in that time were pigs and chickens. This is because there werent enough large â€Å"farm† animals to provide manure, instead human faeces were used to fertilise the crops. Leadership and politics: Ancient China was ruled by emperors. According to historical evidence, it was thought that the emperors authority to rule was granted from heaven, in which each emperor was called the â€Å"son of heaven† when an emperor lost power/authority, it was believed that he had committed something wrong according to the heavens. The emperors generally lived a different life than the ordinary people. They owned all the land, in which great parts of it were given to the nobles. They lived in abundant wealth, surrounded by their many wivess, servants and cooks. A constant stream of entertainment consisting of artists, singers, musicians and dancers were at his command. No one was permitted to approach or speak first to the emperor. People had to bow and kneel in his presence, showing the upmost respect. Although it was a luxurious lifestyle, it was an isolated existence as well. Emperors rarely left their places. On very rare occasions, the emperor would leave his palace grounds, although the roads were blocked and the emperor was carried in a enclosed carriage. Governors and officials assisted the emperor in the smooth running of Ancient China. Governors were based in diverse regions throughout Ancient China where they administered and imposed laws of the emperor of the day. They collected taxes. Governors were also involved in management of farming and they supported the development of new farming methods. Some officials were based in the palaces of the emperors, assisting in simple chores such as cleaning and even keeping the emperor informed on what is going on. The most important officials for the emperor were his eunuchs. Eunuchs were men who had been castrated when they were small boys. This is because as they were brought up in the palace and worked with the emperor, they posed no sexual threat to him. In which allowing the emperors bloodline to continue. Eunuchs worked as the emperors cooks, tailors and cleaners.   They also looked after the emperors children. Sometimes eunuchs became powerful within the palace, they became entrusted by the emperor. Social structure: The social structure of China was divided into five social classes; Rulers: this would be the emperor and governor officials. These are people with high authority and of great wealth. Nobles: the nobles were also a wealthy class. They owned large areas of land and lent it to the farming peasants.   In which the farmers pay was often high. Nobles wore silk clothing, and lived a life of utter luxury. Although they were constantly aware of having to please the emperor. If the emperor was displeased, he could in an instant wipe out a nobles land and wealth. Merchants: merchants may have been quite wealthy, but they were not respected in Ancient China. In fact they were often treated badly under the rule of various dynasties. They were forced to pay much higher taxes than others. Despite this, they played an important role in Ancient China. Merchants produced businesses which were essential for day -to -day life. Peasants: peasants were the farmers. They were the largest part of the population in Ancient China, making up approximately 90% of the entire population. The peasants were generally very poor and lacked of education. Sometime peasants were forced to sell their children into slavery in order to pay off their debts. They had to grow enough crops to feed their family and pay large amounts of money to the nobles for the rent of land. Slaves: slavery was not as committed in Ancient China than other ancient civilizations. Slave in China were forced to do strenuous hours of labour, and were treated in terrible conditions. Culture: Painting: Ancient Chinese artists painted amazing works on silk and on paper. Often flowers and animals were depicted. Landscapes were also very common. Animals were used in their art to represent human aspects. Ancient Chinese artists portrayed works that mainly emphasised on â€Å"nature† Poetry: Poetry was very popular in Ancient China. Many poets wrote about love and sadness; in their poets they also make comments on war and social upheaval. Chinese writing: Chinese writing is very different from English. English is a phonetic language. Meaning the letters represent sounds but not meaning. Chinese writing system developed with pictographs. These are simple drawings when combined represent/express an idea. E.g. the pictures of ‘sun and ‘moon when drawn together mean ‘bright Music and dance: Music and dance were part of everyday life in Ancient China. Drums, gongs and pipes were common instruments used in that time. Chinese music is based on a five-tone scale, as western music is based on an eight-tone scale. This is why it sounds so different. Architecture: Most people in Ancient China could not afford to live in fancy houses. They lived in small houses made of mud brick. The house would generally contain one room and a dirt floor. In northern China, the doors of these houses would generally face south, in order to keep out the cold ‘north wind Of course, rich people had larger and fancier houses. All ancient Chinese architecture was built according to strict rules of design that made Chinese buildings follow the ideas of Taoism or other Chinese philosophies. The first design idea was that buildings should be long and low. Roofs would be held up by large columns. The second idea was inspired by Taoism, the idea was symmetry. Both sides of a building should be the same, balanced, just like Taoism emphasised balance. During the different dynasties, ideas of architecture changed. The biggest architectural change in Ancient China was during the Han dynasty (around 200 B.C.) this is when the new reign of Buddhism was bought into Ancient China. Chinese Buddhists began to build pagodas. Religion In the Shang dynasty, people in Ancient China worshipped many gods. Such as weather gods and sky gods. Including a higher god who ruled among the other gods, this god is called Shang-Ti. People living in the Shang dynasty also believed that their ancestors -their grandparents and parents became like gods when they died. As well the ancestors wanted to be worshipped, like gods. Each family worshipped  

Deception Point Page 46

Delta-One had now finished packing snow down the woman's throat. Before turning his attention to the others, Delta-One unhooked the woman's belay harness. He could reconnect it later, but at the moment, he did not want the two people behind the sled getting ideas about pulling his victim to safety. Michael Tolland had just witnessed a murderous act more bizarre than his darkest mind could imagine. Having cut Norah Mangor free, the three attackers were turning their attention to Corky. I've got to do something! Corky had come to and was moaning, trying to sit up, but one of the soldiers pushed him back down on his back, straddled him, and pinned Corky's arms to the ice by kneeling on them. Corky let out a cry of pain that was instantly swallowed up by the raging wind. In a kind of demented terror, Tolland tore through the scattered contents of the overturned sled. There must be something here! A weapon! Something! All he saw was diagnostic ice gear, most of it smashed beyond recognition by the ice pellets. Beside him, Rachel groggily tried to sit up, using her ice ax to prop herself up. â€Å"Run†¦ Mike†¦ â€Å" Tolland eyed the ax that was strapped to Rachel's wrist. It could be a weapon. Sort of. Tolland wondered what his chances were attacking three armed men with a tiny ax. Suicide. As Rachel rolled and sat up, Tolland spied something behind her. A bulky vinyl bag. Praying against fate that it contained a flare gun or radio, he clambered past her and grabbed the bag. Inside he found a large, neatly folded sheet of Mylar fabric. Worthless. Tolland had something similar on his research ship. It was a small weather balloon, designed to carry payloads of observational weather gear not much heavier than a personal computer. Norah's balloon would be no help here, particularly without a helium tank. With the growing sounds of Corky's struggle, Tolland felt a helpless sensation he had not felt in years. Total despair. Total loss. Like the cliche of one's life passing before one's eyes before death, Tolland's mind flashed unexpectedly through long forgotten childhood images. For an instant he was sailing in San Pedro, learning the age-old sailor's pastime of spinnaker-flying-hanging on a knotted rope, suspended over the ocean, plunging laughing into the water, rising and falling like a kid hanging on a belfry rope, his fate determined by a billowing spinnaker sail and the whim of the ocean breeze. Tolland's eyes instantly snapped back to the Mylar balloon in his hand, realizing that his mind had not been surrendering, but rather it had been trying to remind him of a solution! Spinnaker flying. Corky was still struggling against his captor as Tolland yanked open the protective bag around the balloon. Tolland had no illusions that this plan was anything other than a long shot, but he knew remaining here was certain death for all of them. He clutched the folded mass of Mylar. The payload clip warned: CAUTION: NOT FOR USE IN WINDS OVER 10 KNOTS. The hell with that! Gripping it hard to keep it from unfurling, Tolland clambered over to Rachel, who was propped on her side. He could see the confusion in her eyes as he nestled close, yelling, â€Å"Hold this!† Tolland handed Rachel the folded pad of fabric and then used his free hands to slip the balloon's payload clasp through one of the carabiners on his harness. Then, rolling on his side, he slipped the clasp through one of Rachel's carabiners as well. Tolland and Rachel were now one. Joined at the hip. From between them, the loose tether trailed off across the snow to the struggling Corky†¦ and ten yards farther to the empty clip beside Norah Mangor. Norah is already gone, Tolland told himself. Nothing you can do. The attackers were crouched over Corky's writhing body now, packing a handful of snow, and preparing to stuff it down Corky's throat. Tolland knew they were almost out of time. Tolland grabbed the folded balloon from Rachel. The fabric was as light as tissue paper-and virtually indestructible. Here goes nothing. â€Å"Hold on!† â€Å"Mike?† Rachel said. â€Å"What-â€Å" Tolland hurled the pad of wadded Mylar into the air over their heads. The howling wind snatched it up and spread it out like a parachute in a hurricane. The sheath filled instantly, billowing open with a loud snap. Tolland felt a wrenching yank on his harness, and he knew in an instant he had grossly underestimated the power of the katabatic wind. Within a fraction of a second, he and Rachel were half airborne, being dragged down the glacier. A moment later, Tolland felt a jerk as his tether drew taut on Corky Marlinson. Twenty yards back, his terrified friend was yanked out from under his stunned attackers, sending one of them tumbling backward. Corky let out a blood-curdling scream as he too accelerated across the ice, barely missing the overturned sled, then fishtailing inward. A second rope trailed limp beside Corky†¦ the rope that had been connected to Norah Mangor. Nothing you can do, Tolland told himself. Like a tangled mass of human marionettes, the three bodies skimmed down the glacier. Ice pellets went sailing by, but Tolland knew the attackers had missed their chance. Behind him, the white-clad soldiers faded away, shrinking to illuminated specks in the glow of the flares. Tolland now felt the ice ripping beneath his padded suit with relentless acceleration, and the relief at having escaped faded fast. Less than two miles directly ahead of them, the Milne Ice Shelf came to an abrupt end at a precipitous cliff-and beyond it†¦ a hundred-foot drop to the lethal pounding surf of the Arctic Ocean. 52 Marjorie Tench was smiling as she made her way downstairs toward the White House Communications Office, the computerized broadcast facility that disseminated press releases formulated upstairs in the Communications Bullpen. The meeting with Gabrielle Ashe had gone well. Whether or not Gabrielle was scared enough to turn over an affidavit admitting the affair was uncertain, but it sure as hell was worth a try. Gabrielle would be smart to bail out on him, Tench thought. The poor girl had no idea just how hard Sexton was about to fall. In a few hours, the President's meteoric press conference was going to cut Sexton down at the knees. That was in the bank. Gabrielle Ashe, if she cooperated, would be the death blow that sent Sexton crawling off in shame. In the morning, Tench could release Gabrielle's affidavit to the press along with footage of Sexton denying it. One-two punch. After all, politics was not just about winning the election, it was about winning decisively-having the momentum to carry out one's vision. Historically, any president who squeaked into office on a narrow margin accomplished much less; he was weakened right out of the gate, and Congress never seemed to let him forget it. Ideally, the destruction of Senator Sexton's campaign would be comprehensive-a two-pronged attack sacking both his politics and his ethics. This strategy, known in Washington as the â€Å"high-low,† was stolen from the art of military warfare. Force the enemy to battle on two fronts. When a candidate possessed a piece of negative information about his opponent, he often waited until he had a second piece and went public with both simultaneously. A double-edged attack was always more effective than a single shot, particularly when the dual attack incorporated separate aspects of his campaign-the first against his politics, the second against his character. Rebuttal of a political attack took logic, while rebuttal of a character attack took passion; disputing both simultaneously was an almost impossible balancing act. Tonight, Senator Sexton would find himself scrambling to extract himself from the political nightmare of an astounding NASA triumph, and yet his plight would deepen considerably if he were forced to defend his NASA position while being called a liar by a prominent female member of his staff.

Kant and the Categorical Imperative Essay

The possibility of the existence of right and wrong has been a subject of discussion among philosophers for centuries and many theories have been presented to answer the question of whether morals exist. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the great German philosopher is one who has contributed profoundly to the world of philosophy and especially in regards to his thought on the subject of morality. Kant disagreed with Hume that morality is objective and not subjective. Kant wanted to propose a pure moral philosophy, one of absolute necessity and independent of all human feelings, because if it not so, it will not be absolute and binding upon every person. The purpose of morality is to affect our behaviour and that it is reason that makes humans moral and not feelings or preferences. We shall explore some of the a priori foundations of morality paying special attention to Kant’s ‘categorical imperative’ and what exactly this was designed to solve in moral theory. To have moral worth, an act must be done in the name of one’s duty, the moral worth of this act is taken from the principle from which it’s determined, not from what it aims to accomplish and that duty is necessary when one is acting out of respect for the law. A shopkeeper giving the buyer the right amount of change because the law states one must not steal, this is an example of a legal action because rules are being followed but for the wrong reasons. A shopkeeper returning the correct amount of change because it belongs to the customer is an example of a moral action because the action is being done for the right reasons. Kant adopts the view of morality as an ‘unconditional ought’, as opposed to a ‘conditional ought’ By this he means that one should perform an act without considerations of the merits that that act may produce, in comparison with acting in order for something else to happen. This implies that acts that are moral are those t hat are done without being done for the sake of the merit or reward that they may bring to the person. Kant claimed that moral behaviour does not guarantee the attainment of happiness; rather that good will is crucial for actually deserving happiness. â€Å"Nothing in the world–indeed nothing even beyond the world–can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification  except a good will† (Kant 1964 p.27). By the ‘good will’ Kant means that a good will is not good because what it performs or what it effects but that it is simply good in itself. The good will is the will which acts out of respect for the moral law and from freedom, but actions such as these, if motivated by selfish or emotional factors, will then have no moral worth. There is a great deal of stress placed on the intention behind the act, consider giving money to charity for the sake of helping out, without any need for any ego gratification or such self-serving purposes, this is an instance of â€Å"good will†. Kant’s most well known contribution to ethical discussion is the categorical imperative. There are three key propositions that form the basis of Kant’s ethics. They are: act only on that maxim (principle) through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law, act in a way that you never treat humanity as a means to an end and that you act as if you were a lawmaker member of a kingdom of ends. These three principles form the categorical imperative. For Kant the source of moral justification is the categorical imperative. It presents a method to determine whether or not an act may be considered to be morally correct. An imperative is either categorical or hypothetical. Kant writes, â€Å"If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical . . . .† (Kant 1989 p.31) As humans we all have subjective impulses – desires and inclinations that may contradict the dictates of reason. These desires, whether they are material objects or gratify us in a sexual or psychological way, may in fact contradict the dictates of reason. Therefore we experience the claim of reason as an imperative, a command to act in a particular way. Kant views a person to be most free when they can overcome their temptations and it is this freedom that helps us make sense of morality. The categorical imperative emphasises the means for completing an action and places little meaning on the end result of an action, whereas the hypothetical imperative places much emphasis on the end result of an action. It is an imperative because it dictates what we should do, disregarding our desires. As rational beings we are guided through life by  laws and principles, in the form of an imperative which simply orders us â€Å"you must do this† regardless of any desires which we may have. Hypothetical imperatives apply to us if we have a particular desire, â€Å"go to university if you want to become a philosopher†. An act becomes imperative when it ought to be applied to everyone, hence the basic statement of the categorical imperative being to act only on maxims that you could will to become universal laws of human nature (Kant). A categorical imperative would command you to do X inasmuch as X is  intrinsically right, that is, right in and of itself, aside from any other considerations–no â€Å"ifs,† no conditions, no strings attached . . . a categorical imperative is  unconditional (no â€Å"ifs†) and independent of any things, circumstances, goals, or desires.  It is for this reason that only a categorical imperative can be a universal and binding  law, that is, a moral law, valid for all rational beings at all times. (Miller 1984 p.462) Immorality then would be to make exceptions for ourselves by acting only on maxims that we cannot universalize out of our own will. It is those who act in such a way and then expect others to act different to our way, who are immoral. The categorical imperative acts as a formula for universal law; by stating the prerequisites that an act must have to be considered moral, it presents a comparison for people to be able to see if they are acting morally, this being to act only on principles that you could will to become universal laws by which all who wish to act morally must comply with. It determines whether any act is right or wrong, so to do the opposite would be contradictory and this would then be an act that is not morally correct. An example that Kant puts forward in â€Å"Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative,† (1989) to depict this is of a man who is in extreme despair and contemplating suicide. By taking his own life he would be universalizing the principle that in order to love himself he should end his life (by doing this he is trying to improve his life by ending the despair he is feeling). Killing himself would in fact do nothing to improve his life because he would have no life at all! So you see how these contradictory acts undermine those that may be classified as morally right. Although Kant’s categorical imperative has been widely read and accepted by some it has had criticism. Some philosophers have thought of it as absolutist, being too ‘black and white.’ But when thinking of humanity and society in which we reside, looking at morality according to the categorical imperative allows a standard rule for everyone to follow. If it was alright for some people to steal and not others this we could not call a moral and fair society. There needs to be a rule or comparison so that what acts are right and what are wrong may be differentiated from each other and the wrong acts then dealt with accordingly. Some have asked how only an action which one had no desire to do could ever have any moral worth. This to me does not seem to be what is trying to be expressed in Kantian ethics. It is not the desire per se that makes an act immoral, I think it seems that it is more the fact of this desire being the reason the act is conducted in the first place. If the act is done to fulfil a personal desire or attain that which one desires, then the act is immoral, but if the act is done for the good of the act in itself, for example donating money to an orphanage because one desires to help, then this is still what Kant would regard as a morally right act. Although Kantianism has had a profound effect on some people, producing many elaborations, translations and thought, for some it is not feasible once placed together as a whole. Kant had some very profound ideas but looking at society tody I would think he was definitely on the right thought pattern. Society and we as humans, with our impulses whether good or bad, need a  clarified ethics to follow to help us separate what may be considered right and wrong in a moral sense, and it must be fair and the same for everyone, this is what Kant’s categorical imperative has done by creating a universal law or ‘rule of thumb’ for morality. References: Kant, I. 1989 â€Å"Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative.† ed. Serafini, A. Ethics and Social Concern, the categorical imperative. New York: Paragon House Publishers Kant, I. 1964 Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Herbert J. Paton, New York: HarperCollins. Miller, Ed. L. 1984 Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 3rd ed. Colorado: McGraw-Hill, Inc. http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm (accessed on 12/10/04)

Eat Your Vegetables Printables - Crossword and More