Rising to the Top free essay sample

My heart is beating so fast; I can feel my chest pounding. I can’t even hear myself think with all of the uproar. The enemy is staring me down, waiting for me to make a move. Like me, their faces are filled with intensity. They want victory almost as much as I do, but I can’t let them win. My competitive spirit tells me that defeat is not an option. As I dribble down the court, I find my opening and I don’t have time to hesitate. The ball leaves my hand and lands just where I want it. It dives through the hoop without any contact with the rim and the game is over. We won by a point. I started out my basketball experience by playing recreational basketball, and I didn’t get the ball a lot. I could sense that the better kids on the team believed they were superior to me by the way they looked at me. We will write a custom essay sample on Rising to the Top or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page They would have that smug look on their face and I couldn’t stand it. I was Determined over the next summer to do whatever I could to surpass their level. I spent all my time out on the driveway, improving my skills. My dad had assembled a list of drills in order for me to practice more effectively. I had to do hours of lay-ups, jump roping, and the dreaded figure eight dribbling drill every day. They weren’t what I would consider fun, but I did them anyway, knowing that the end result would be well worth it. The next year not only did I play recreational basketball, but I tried out for the travel basketball team, and made the team due to nobody getting cut. Though this was a competitive team, I was once again at the bottom. Most of my time on the team was spent watching from the bench waiting in anxiety for the coach to call out my name to send me in the game. But that year I became the star player on my recreational team. I knew this time that my teammates wanted the ball in my hands and my confidence grew stronger. I had gone through a tremendous change. I was making all the shots, and taking the ball up the court for my team to set up our offense. I led my team to the championship game, beating out my other travel teammates teams. We lost the game by a couple of points, but I couldnt have been happier. It took me a bit longer to move up in ranks on the travel team, but every year it was clear that I was gaining on my teammates. I began to get a decent amount of playing time, and I became a vital role on the team. One time my team was down by four points with only seconds left and we needed a miracle. The coach set up a play ending with me shooting a 3-point shot. I took the shot while an opposing player slapped my arm, and it somehow made its way through the hoop. I was at the foul line and I could have tied the game with this one shot. As the ball left my fingertips, I knew it wasn’t going in so I ran up for a rebound and took a quick shot. I missed again, but my team was not mad. I almost kept the game alive, and that’s when I knew I had established myself as a good travel player. My confidence continued to grow, but my seventh grade year, I was cut from the middle school team and my confidence was shaken. I couldn’t believe some of the kids who made it over me and it hurt for a day or two, but I had to learn to accept it and move on. I wouldn’t let this be the end; in fact, it was a blessing in disguise because it made me work harder than ever before. I made sure that every day they would practice, I too would be working hard on my skills. My eighth grade year I got on the team. Though I was not happy with my role on the team, I accepted it and would do the best I could with the opportunity given to me. I am now finishing up what is left of my competitive basketball experience. I have been playing up yet another level on an AAU team. It involves a lot of traveling and playing the best players out there. I once was forced to guard a 6’8 dunking machine, and it was embarrassing, but I am hoping it will help me improve and get the varsity time I have been working my entire life for. I was on the team my junior year, but I didn’t play as much as I wanted. For my senior year, I hope I can prove that I am worthy of a starting position. No matter what happens though, I will always cherish the memories I have had playing the game. It has taught me life lessons, and has allowed me to grow both physically and mentally. I wouldn’t be the person I am today without the game of basketball.

Shylock is an ambivalent portrait Essays

Shylock is an ambivalent portrait Essays Shylock is an ambivalent portrait Essay Shylock is an ambivalent portrait Essay Essay Topic: Play Throughout The Merchant of Venice, Shylock is a character with a strong impact on the audience. The response of the audience changes throughout the play, varying from pity to dislike. His Jewish background and persecution provide a case for the audience liking the character and giving him pity, whereas his obsessions with money and his desire to kill Antonio gives the audience a bad impression. The influence he has on the audience has varied over the years, from the Elizabethan times when he first appeared, who saw persecution of Jews everyday, to the modern audience who will dislike characters who are prejudiced. Shylock first appears in Act 1 Scene 1. For the audience, first impressions are vital. His first line when Bassanio offers him the bond is Three Thousand ducats well (Act 1 Scene 3 Line 1). To any audience this gives the impression that he is very concerned about money, especially when he repeats three thousand ducats throughout the scene. Throughout the scene, there is a repetition of the word three, e. g. three thousand ducats, three months, three thousand ducats for three months etc. This repletion not only emphasises Shylocks obsession with money (as he is still pondering over the bond) but also shows how numerically Shylock thinks. The obsession with money is a key part of his character and the first thing that the audience noticed. Shakespeare himself was interested in money and usances himself, he invested much of his money into his theatre, and his knowledge of that subject is reflected in Shylocks character We also learn from this scene the intelligence of Shylock. As soon as Bassanio propositions him, he considers the offer in his mind, and realises how he can get revenge on Antonio, e. . Antonio shall become bound well (line 5). Later on in the scene, Shylock shows his intelligence once again, when he tries to be friendly to Antonio to try and make him sign the bond, e. g. I would be friends with you, and have your love (Line 133). Shylock is a shrewd businessman. He is careful not to lend money out to people who he doesnt know, or people that he knows w ill not pay him back, e. g. My meaning in saying that he is a good man, is to have you understand that he is sufficient (Lines 13-14). He disguises his sinister bond as a joke in hoping to persuade Antonio to seal the bond, when he does he knows that he can kill Antonio if he does not repay him. Shylock stalls with Bassanio not giving him a definite answer until Antonio arrives, this is because he wants to see Antonio and talk to him about his sinister bond. His stalling also gives him time to think his plan through. Shylock, being an orthodox Jew has considerable knowledge of the Bible. In this scene he uses his knowledge to benefit himself. He tells Antonio the story of Uncle Labans sheep and Jacob to justify why he should collect Interest. His interpretation of the story is completely different from the Antonios. Antonio believes that he twists the story to benefit himself. Antonio detests Shylock, he considers him a dog, and he does not agree with Shylock charging interest, i. e. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. Also In the Rialto you have rated me about my moneys and my usances. Still I have borne it with a patient shrug (Shylock). Much of an Elizabethan audience would have agreed with Antonio on this, as the majority of them would have been Christians. I hate him for he is a Christian illustrates the point that Shylock does not like any Christians. He hates Antonio especially, owing to the persecution he has received from him, e. g. You call me misbeliever, cut throat dog, and spit upon my Jewish gaberdine. Fair sir, you spit on me Wednesday last, you spurned me such a day, another time you called me a dog, and for these courtesies Ill lend you thus much moneys? Shylock has obviously been persecuted due to his Jewish heritage, and this would make the modern audience feel sorry for him. Due to the amount of persecution he has received, Shylock often attracts our sympathies so much that the reader often thinks of how he suffers outside of the play. This shows how deep his suffering must be. Most of the Elizabethan audience would be accustomed to seeing this sort of persecution, but still may not feel that it is right. As a result of his persecution, Shylock hates all Christians, although he obviously has knowledge of the Christian bible, as the Old Testament is part of the Jewish scriptures, e. g. to smell pork, to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into. Shylock also considers Antonio a fawning publican; he compares him to a Jewish tax collector. Antonio also lends out money, but does not charge interest, which annoys Shylock, e. g. If you repay me not on such a day, in such a place, such sum or sums as are expressed in the condition, let the forfeit be nominated for an equal pound of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken in which part of the body pleaseth me. This shows that Shylock seeks revenge, and in some ways gives the audience the impression that he is evil. In fact he is partially breaking the Ten Commandments, (Thou Shalt not Kill, which he would do if Antonio forfeits his bond. ) Antonio is one of the main persecutors of Shylock, but it may not be because of his Jewish heritage that Antonio persecutes him. In the opening scene, Antonio tells us that he is sad and does not know why. When his friend Bassanio asks him to get the bond from Shylock, he has no hesitance about risking his life for it. This, and his general actions to Bassanio might suggest that he is actually in love with Bassanio, but he cannot do anything about it, especially with Portia around. This would explain the intensity of their relationship, and why Antonio is depressed. As a result, Antonio takes it out on Shylock, someone he knows he can get away with persecuting. The Elizabethan audience would consider Shylock a typical Jew. Jews were expelled from the country in 1290, and when many returned in the fifteen hundreds, they only had a limited number of jobs that they could do. Many decided to lend money for interest, as they were allowed to, and Christians were not. As this was all they could do, many had to be very money-tight; to make sure they never lost any money. Jews were always persecuted; many of the Christians hated them for it was them who killed Jesus Christ. Therefore, so far Shylock would appear to be a typical Jewish moneylender, whom many of them would not particularly like due to his money lending and their hate of Christians. As The Merchant of Venice was written in 1596-1597, much of the first audiences would have been aware of the recent execution of another Jew, Rodrigo Lopez in 1594. For many years he was well respected as the Queens physician until the Earl of Essex ruined him. He was hanged for treason. Lopez may have had a strong influence on Shakespeares writing about Jews, e. g. how a prominent man can be ruined because of his Jewish heritage. In Act 2 Scene 1, Jessica, Shylocks daughter says our house is hell, showing the audience that she perhaps considers him a bad father and a bad man. His servant, Launcelot Gobbo also considers him a devil. The people that Shylock sees most often have said negative things about him, so the audience will judge that he is not that a nice person. In Act 2 Scene 5, Shylock is on his way to a supper with the Christians. He is only going to annoy them; this shows the audience that he is not considerate. Shylock says I did dream of money bags tonight which shows how much he cares about his money. He also ensures that his house and daughter are safe from those Christian Fools, before he leaves e. g. Lock up my doors, and when you hear the drum and the vile squealing of the wry-necked fife, clamber not you up to the casements then, not thrust your head into the street to gaze on Christian fools. He is very concerned about his money, but even more he is worried about his daughter seeing Christians, as he considers the Jews a tribe, and they need to marry within the tribe to keep it going, so he feels that she should marry a Jew, not a Christian. At the end of Act 2 Scene 6, Jessica not only leaves her father, but also takes many of his ducats with her and Lorenzo. Any audience would now give pity to Shylock as he has lost a daughter and a considerable sum of money. Jessicas last line before leaving is Farewell, and if my fortune be not crossed, I have a father, you a daughter lost. The audience would not only give pity, but also perhaps see Shylock as a poor father, more concerned about the welfare of the Jewish culture than the happiness of his daughter. In Scene 8, Salerio and Solanio discuss Shylock. We yet again see the Christian persecution of Shylock, i. e. Villain Jew, which would influence the audience. Solanio also overheard Shylock earlier on, after he discovered the desertification of his daughter, e. g. My daughter! O my ducats! O my daughter! Fled with a Christian! O my Christian Ducats! From this it appears that Shylock is just as upset about his daughters betrayal as he is of the loss of his money, which again emphasises his obsession with money, and makes the audience think that he is not that caring of his daughter. He is so angry with her, he says she is dammed for it, but he still persists that she is completely different from the Christians there is more difference between thy flesh and hers than Jet and ivory. He still considers her a Jew who should not see Christians. The audience might see that he has a right to seek revenge after what Jessica did to her. In Act 3 Scene 1, we see Shylock giving reasons for why he should collect the forfeit if it is required, e. g. If it feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and hindered me half a million. To the audience it would appear that Shylock is just bloodthirsty and cruel. An audience from an Elizabethan era would no doubt think that Jews were cruel anyway, as this was the prejudice that was around at the time. There were untrue stories of Jews being cruel, and of course stories from the bible such as King Herod (a Jew) killing all the babies in Bethlehem under two years. Certainly Jews have been played as cruel villains in other plays, such as Barabas, in The Jew of Malta by Christopher Marlowe, who was based upon Joseph, Duke of Naxos (who was not a Jew). So many of the audience would already assume that Shylock was cruel and bloodthirsty. The Jews are described as the cursed race in this story. Shakespeare was without a doubt influenced by Marlowes play; Barabas, the Jew has a daughter who turns Christian during the play, so it is obvious that Shylock and Jessica were adapted from this play. Shylocks speech about the forfeit in this scene begins with To bait Fish with, after Salerios question if he forfeit, thou wilt not take his flesh, whats that good for? Shylocks response to this question shows again that he is quick-witted and can retort to any comments he does not approve of. In Shylocks speech we hear again of his persecution, for example He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and whats his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? An audience would feel sorry Shylock at this point and perhaps agree that it is fair for him to collect his forfeit. Shylock points out that If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why revenge. Shylock points out that if he were a Christian and Antonio were a Jew, no one would have a problem with him collecting his forfeit. He illustrates the division between the rights of the Christians and the rights of the Jews. After this influential speech, much of the audience might agree with Shylock about his view of equality among Christians and Jews. The majority of an Elizabethan audience would still probably consider him evil due to the prejudice of the time. Shylocks image of being bloodthirsty reappears later on in the scene when his friend Tubal informs him of Antonios loss, and Shylocks response is I thank God, I thank God. Is it true, is it true? I thank thee good Tubal, good news, good news! Ha, ha! These lines would suggest that Shylock is cruel as he is so desperate for a chance to take the forfeit of off Antonio. This scene is the first scene in which we see another Jew, and at the end of the scene there is a reference to the local Synagogue. This tells everyone that the Jewish community has been well established, so this might a reason for the audience to feel less sorry for Shylock. Also the Jews must also have quite a bit of money if they have built their own Synagogue. In Act Three, Scene Three, Antonio has been arrested for not repaying the bond and is making one last plea to Shylock. Shylock is obsessed with revenge on his Christian persecutor, and will not forgive him or even listen to what Antonio has to say. All he wants is his bond, e. g. (Antonio) I pray thee hear me speak. (Shylock) Ill have my bond. I will not hear thee speak. Ill have my bond, and therefore speak no more. This scene once again emphasises to the audience the amount of murderous hatred that Shylock has, and also how difficult it is to change the law. Act Four Scene 1 sees the Duke of Venices first appearance. A good friend of Antonios, he describes Shylock as an inhuman wretch. Once again, the audience will be influenced by the feelings of another character. The rest of the characters see Shylock as an evil devil as he enters the courtroom. Much of the audience would not approve of him wanting to kill Antonio. Shylock retaliates to the remarks that he should not collect his bond, with his quick wittedness in the forms of another speech, in which he compares Antonio to a pig. In Antonios speech, he is still being racist against Shylock, saying a Jewish Heart; he does not once call him a man, always a Jew. Bassanio offers him six thousand ducats for the bond, but Shylock refuses. From what we already know about how greedy Shylock is about money, this seems very strange, showing how desperate he is to kill Antonio. Shylock gets more and more aggravated waiting for his bond to become legal, again showing how deep his wounds are from Antonio. Shylock calls Portia Daniel, referring to the Old Testament, where Daniel was a wise Judge. This again illustrates this knowledge of the bible, and how he considers this justice. Shylock shows no mercy and no forgiveness, which are two basic elements of Christianity; many of Antonios Christian friends expected Shylock to forgive Antonio. Shylock makes several powerful speeches throughout the play, the only character other than Portia to do so. He wins battles of words against Antonio many times, e. g. Signior Antonio, many a time and oft in the Rialto you have rated me about my money and my usances. Still I have borne it with a patient shrug (Act One Scene Three). Also in Act Three Scene 1, To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me . These speeches show that Shylock is quick witted, able to retaliate with words and quite intelligent. The Merchant of Venice could be more described as a romantic comedy than a tragedy. Therefore you would perhaps not expect not to see an evil villain in it. The audience may not be expecting an evil character, so may not consider him a villain, but more of a victim. In many plays, especially ones which have Jews featured, there was an evil character (e. g. The Jew of Malta), so, the audience would be accustomed to this, so may picture Shylock as that evil character. Throughout the play, Shylock is compared to both Antonio and Portia. Whereas Antonio is seen simply as a typical example of mankind (who goes through different stages of emotions), and Portia as Wisdom, Shylock is seen for a lot of the time as the Devil. Throughout the play, there are numerous references to Shylock and the Devil, e. . The devil can cite scripture for his own purposes (Act One, Scene Three), The Jew is the very devil incarnation (Act Two Scene Two), lest the devil cross my prayer, for here he comes in the likeness of a Jew. (Act Three Scene One) Shylocks response to Portia turning the case against him in Act Four Scene One is My deeds upon my head. This recalls the time when the Jews called for the execution of Christ, so this line again shows that he is a Christian hater. All of these references indicate to the audience that Shylock is similar to the devil, so many of them will accept his persecution and consider him a villain. This would have been the case especially in the Elizabethan era when all Jews were considered cruel. Throughout the years, Shylock has changed, in the way the actor portrays him and in the way the audience sees him. Up until the eighteenth century, he would have been seen as a slightly comical character, whose purpose is to be mocked. He then changed into the villain of the play, in one portrayal he was so sinister, grotesque and so ferocious a villain that after King George II watched it, he is reported to have had a sleepless night. He then was more portrayed as an injured man, followed by an outrageous father. Today a modern audience sees him as a persecuted man, who seeks revenge on those who wrong him. We also see him as a typical Jew, wanting to preserve his culture. Some people even consider him an Old Testament Prophet. In conclusion, Shylock appears to the audience as a tragic villain, a man who is obsessed with money, revenge on people who wrong him. There is a lot of emphasis on comparing him to the devil, which much of the audience would agree with. His persecution by the Christians gives him some pity but his humbling end leaves the impression of a broken man.

A Critical Review in the Contemporary Themes in Youth Work Practice, Essay - 1

A Critical Review in the Contemporary Themes in Youth Work Practice, Thematic Area Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing - Essay Example It is in this respect that a critical review in the contemporary themes in youth work practice becomes important. It is therefore imperative to critically assess and discuss the key principles of Neurodevelopment and microbiology and their applicability in solving the rapidly growing mental disorders among the young generation. In addressing the above mentioned issue, the following discourse focuses on journal publications. The idea being advanced by Gomez (2013) asserts that the world has made major strides in terms of technological advancement and socio-political reforms aimed at improving the general social welfare of the people. It is however worrying that social justice towards children and the young generation is in a shamble. There are a number of cases where children are exposed to abuse in various ways and this leads to mental disorientation that originates from the structural and functional organization of the brain. This issue is raising concern and that explains why medical specialists, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists and the parents have to resort into research to establish the remedial measures that are effective to curb the problem (Brendtro,2009). In this regard, neurosequential model was formulated to work alongside therapeutic intervention. What most researchers say about this problem is not eventual recovery but the time lag and mechanisms of instituting the treatment meas ures. It is worth to note that critical assessment is imperative to establish the central idea advanced by many researchers on this issue.Children across the world develop mental health problems due to various environmental factors. Cases of neglect, traumatization, chaos, and threat are some of the major contributory factors in the observed mental ill health among the youth which they extend even to the other units of the society like the working place. These experiences gradually realign the mental aspect of children and as

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Death of a Salesman Essay

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Death of a Salesman - Essay Example Abandonment is related to things we can not see because we have left them or they have somehow, left on their own. By calling these things more important than others which have not gone away, the author tends to favor the abandonment right at the outset, and the audience’s perceptions are modified accordingly. Fix has done this in the start of the novel in order to make sure that the audience follows her exactly in the same footsteps so that both the author and the audience reach the same conclusion by the end of the novel. In Willy’s life, there is a constant and uninterrupted shift from one abandonment to another. Every time this happens, the successive abandonment causes even more despair to rise in Willy’s heart than the preceding abandonment. The author has coherently constructed this argument by making the audience aware of the news of death of Willy’s father at an age when Ben and Willy are both too young and are not earning anything. When Ben and W illy’s father dies, the children are left with no tangible or intangible asset whatsoever. After some time, Ben resolves to leave for Alaska and go away from Willy who is lost in the American Dream vision. As a result of numerous unfortunate events congested in the early phase of his life, Willy catches a phobia of abandonment.

A Regional-based Motor Marketing Company Targeting the Working Class Essay

A Regional-based Motor Marketing Company Targeting the Working Class - Essay Example The program will be aired for an hour's duration twice in a week commencing at 7.30pm to 8.30pm on Mondays and Fridays. The program will recognize and invite committed consumers to make their appearances during the airing of the program to publicly declare their experiences of using the products. The program is meant to be aired for a period of one year by which time the target group will be enlightened on the necessary information regarding the company and its products. A large number of automobile customers blindly go for products that may appear attractive to their eyes. This was established as the greatest problem that the customers have with buying of the products since most of them later realize that some features of the vehicles they buy fail to conform to the expectations they had placed on the products. For the sake of informing the potential customers of all the necessary information of the company's product, the radio program will prove helpful. The potential customers will be assisted to make informed choices over the products that they wish to buy since they will be armed with all the necessary information about the product. Incorporation of the consumers into the program will act to boost the confidence of the potential customers and encourage them to buy these products. This is so because the invited customers will give their personal positive testimonies of their experiences with the automobile products thus give the impression that the products are desirable. (Sewall and Sarel 2006 p32) Proposal detail Goals and objectives The following are the goals that the program would wish to accomplish. The proposal will utilize the objectives indicated below the goals in order to accomplish these goals; 1. To create awareness of the automobile products to the actual and the potential market Objectives 1.1 To inform the customers about the availability of the company's products 1.2 To enlighten the customers on the features of the different products. 1.3 To inform customers of the regional distributors from whom they can buy the products 2. To increase the consumer base to enable greater sales Objectives 2.1 To advertise the existing products to the target market to attract more customers 2.2 To create new products for the customers to have a wider variety from where to choose 3. To win dealerships from the interested distributors 3.1 To present an attractive dealership package that can encourage the prospective salespeople to venture into selling of these products 3.2 To offer a comprehensive theoretical package indicating the requirements and expectations of the dealership 3.3 To train prospective dealers on good customer handling skills Clientele The program is directed to two groups of clients; the primary group is the working class of people who can afford to buy the automobile products and maintain them at the expected standards. This group will comprise of the newly employed white collar job workers who happen to fall in the age category of 23 years and 26 years old, and the

Alternate Energy Sources: An Analysis

Alternate Energy Sources: An Analysis Due to the predicted shortage of fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy sources, research is now looking at alternatives. These alternatives are known as renewable energy. Renewable energy effectively uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, which can be naturally replenished. If the use of renewable energy isnt explored for future use, we may be living without appliances we take for granted today. For example, imagine a winter without a heater and a summer without air-conditioning, and day-to-day life without televisions, cars, washing machines, even lights. The earth could get to a stage where it was so severely scarred from people trying to find more energy sources, that the damage is irreversible. With the current consumption rate of non-renewable energy, this scenario may very well be the state of the planet in future years. Hence, this paper will explore the use of the alternate energy source, solar power for present and future use. The advantages and disadvantages of the energy source will be discussed, in relation to its technological, economical, viability factors. In doing so, the paper will attempt to prove that not only is solar energy as an alternate energy source better for the environment, but also verify that it is better for our economy in the long run. Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Overview of Solar Energy 4 1.2 Everyday Usage 6 2.0 Technological Viability 6 2.1 Efficiency 8 3.0 Environmental Sustainability 8 4.0 Economical 9 5.0 Conclusion 10 References 11 1.0 Introduction In todays climate of growing energy needs and increasing environmental concern, alternatives to the use of non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels have to be investigated. We have only really been looking at the possibility of solar power seriously for the past fifty years, and fossil run machines and power plants have been researched for the past century. In the journal article, Photovoltaics A Path to Sustainable Futures, Joshua M. Pierce states that since 1957, electricity demand in the US has increased by over 450% while the US population has increased by only 50%, which illustrates how the demand for electricity has grown.It has been estimated that we only have 50 to 70 years left of all fossil fuels at the current consumption rate. This is a scary figure, considering that as soon as 2050 there could be no more food to feed the industrialized machine. Something will have to change, its obvious, and renewable energy is the most logical answer . Green Peace India defines Renewable Energy as a sustainable energy source that comes from the natural environment that is perennial. Clean Renewable Energy are those, which do not contribute to any sort of emission harmful to lives such as radiation, carbon, or involve extractive processes, or which would cause large scale displacement of people or destruction of land and forest covers. (Green Peace India, 2009). In other words, renewable energy can be taken continuously from the natural environment and does not affect the normal activities in the biosphere. One such renewable energy source being considered for future use is solar energy. Photovoltaics, photo meaning light and voltaic meaning electricity, is one of the fastest growing solar energy technologies. Photovoltaic devices, or solar cells, use semiconductor material to directly convert sunlight into electricity. Overview Solar Energy Solar cells, primarily made of silicon, absorb sunlight which contains photons, the energy by-products of the nuclear reaction in the sun. The photons release electrons that are captured in the form of an electric current which is used as electricity. This is also known as the photoelectric effect. Solar energy is the oldest type of energy found on earth, as it is as old as the sun. Every second the world receives 95.8 trillion watts of power, (Pearce, 2002). That is well beyond the amount of power used in one day. It is unknown when humans began using solar energy to improve their lifestyles. As far as we know, people have always used the sun for growth, vision and warmth. Some of the first ancient cultures to use solar energy as heating were those from the deserts, and dry areas. (Goswami, 1997) It was however recorded that countries such as Egypt, Libya and Algeria would build thick walls of mud to protect them from their harsh climate. For example, during the hot days the wall would absorb the suns energy, leaving the huts cool, and during the night when temperature were much colder, the walls when emit the days heat inside. (Goswami, 1997) Throughout history people have experimented with the many uses of the suns power. In the 17th century, scientists in Europe began rediscovering the sun. When a French scientist proved that the suns rays could melt copper and fuse pieces of iron if concentrated and focused through a glass prism, people began to see the usable power of the sun. In the 1690s an Italian scientist invented a solar furnace that was so hot it could shatter a diamond, one of the hardest substances on earth (Goswami, 1997) Using the sun to produce energy was explore in greater lengths in the 19th century. During this time, an engineer named Frank Shuman, made a breakthrough. He built a plant that used black troughs covered in glass with a few inches of water. This was exposed to the sun, the water would become very hot, causing it to circulate and power an electric generator. He was able to find financial backers and built the worlds first solar electric power plant in Egypt. However, the Eastern Sun Power Company went out of business even though it was using free fuel. It didnt produce enough electricity for the area that it used, 14,000 sq. ft of sun-collecting land. (Pearce, 2002) In 1954 Bell Laboratories invented the first photovoltaic (or solar) cell, made from the semi-conductor silicon, and other elements. It was the first way to convert sunlight directly into electricity. These solar cells were chosen as the power source for the satellites in the 1960s, because they can be small and light, and dont need heavy batteries or other types of generating electricity. After NASA and other major researchers backed solar energy, the technology greatly improved. The first major use of solar cells, other than in satellite, were various emergency units and in remote areas where power lines couldnt be reached. (Energy Matters Pty Ltd). In these situations, it was more expensive to run power lines than to purchase the costly solar equipment. For example, in the high mountains of Papua New Guinea, where there is too much jungle for easy access, there are necessary telephone lines run by solar power and only visited for routine check-ups. 1.2 Everyday Usage Numerous devices for collecting solar energy and converting it into electricity have been developed throughout the years, and solar energy is now being used in a variety of ways. As well as supplying energy to residential homes and companies, they are popularly used in agriculture where they supply the power to pump water, prevent ice from forming on ponds where livestock drink, heating barns to keep animals from freezing, and temporary lighting. They are also used to operate electric dams in areas that cannot be supplied by power lines. Solar powered objects have started to appear quite commonly in many consumer items such as watches, radios, calculators, rechargeable batteries, flashlights, etc. The main attraction in these items is that you dont have to replace the batteries, which saves money in the long run. (International Solar Energy, 2006) 2.0 Technological Viability The time in which solar energy is available, is also the time we least need it least daytime. One disadvantage of solar power, according to International Solar Energy is its consistency and reliability. Solar-powered devices rely on the steady delivery photon to keep the electricity generating process going, as discussed previously. When the sun falls below the horizon at night, photons stop striking the solar panels and the power drops instantly. However, the improvement in technological advancement over the last few years, have seen the construction of a solution. As the suns energy cannot be stored for use another time, we need to convert the suns energy into an energy that can be stored. Due to this nature of solar energy, two components are required to have a functional solar energy generator. These two components are a collector and a storage unit. The collector collects the radiation that falls on it and converts a fraction of it to other forms of energy (either electricity and heat or heat alone). Solar collectors use reflective materials such as mirrors or lenses to concentrate the suns energy to provide heat energy which is then converted into electricity. This can be done in three ways. The first method is a trough systems which use curved mirrors to concentrate the suns heat onto a tube which contains a fluid, usually oil. The hot oil then boils water to produce steam which is used to generate electricity. Alternatively, mirrors in the shape of a dish can be also used to concentrate the suns heat onto a receiver. The latter transfers the solar energy to a heat engine, converting the heat into mechanical energy which drives a generator to produce electricity. This method is called the dish/engine system. A third method of concentrating the suns energy is through the use of power towers which provide a centralized power supply with the ability to store energy. These systems use a large array of mirrors, called heliostats. These heliostats concentrate the heat onto a receiver on top of the towers. The receiver contains a fluid that once heated can be used to produce steam which then turns a turbine to produce electricity.(Markvart Castaà ±er, 2003) The storage unit is required because of the non-constant nature of solar energy; at certain times only a very small amount of radiation will be received. At night or during heavy cloud cover, for example, the amount of energy produced by the collector will be quite small. The storage unit can hold the excess energy produced during the periods of maximum productivity, and release it when the productivity drops. One possible method of storing solar energy is by heating water that can be insulated. The water is heated by passing it through hollow panels. Black-coated steel plates are used because dark colours absorb heat more efficiently. However this method only supplies enough energy for activities such as washing and bathing. The solar panels generate low grade heat, that is, they generate low temperatures for the amount of heat needed in a day. Apparently, according to International Solar Energy Pty Ltd, in order to generate high Grade heat, intense enough to convert water into high-pressure steam which can then be used to turn electric generators there must be another method. The concentrated beams of sunlight are Collected in a device called a solar furnace, which acts on the same principles as a large magnifying glass. The solar furnace takes the sunlight from a large area and by the use of lenses and mirrors can focus the light into a very small area It was found that, a backup power supply is usually normally added, too, for the situations when the amount of energy required is greater than both what is being produced and what is stored in the container. An issue raised by International Solar Energy Pty Ltd, was that only regions with lots of sunlight are suitable for solar power generation. But this concern is currently being worked on as scientists have just recently invented a plastic solar cell that can convert solar energy to electrical energy even on a cloudy day. This plastic device, containing the first solar cells able to harness the suns invisible rays. Also, the researchers are holding this futuristic view that plastic solar panels could be laid across deserts to provide the entire planet with enough clean energy. Another solution to the issue of the inconsistent light is being researched right now by Arthur D. Little Inc. The suns rays are not constant on earth due to weather, location, and season. To avoid this scientists have envisioned huge solar powered space stations that would orbit the earth, capable of sustaining themselves for decades. (Committee on Aeronautical and Space Science, 2005). They would generate electricity by a vast array of mirrors on solar cells, and then the energy would be converted to micro-waves that could be beamed to earth and then distributed. These stations are estimated to be about 10 miles long, and some 23,000 miles above the earth. As far fetched as this seems, its actually theoretically possible, and may one day be our source of power. One flaw in the plan however, is that there is actually quite a lot of space debris floating around at high velocities. If this debris collided with the solar panels, as it invariably would, they would be damaged. How much, and at what price is still to be figured (Goswami, 1997) Another idea is the solar farm. It would be ideally located in desert regions where it is sunny almost every day. The farms would actually harvest sunshine, using flat plate collectors to absorb immense amounts of heat, which would in turn heat water. The heated water would turn giant turbines, and produce electricity. 3.0 Efficiency Solar cells, contain no moving parts, and have a working life of 20 30 years. According to Convincing the Home Builder to Build Solar Homes-Evaluation of the Passive Solar Workshop for Builders by S. Klein, they are reliable because they operate for a long time with practically no maintenance . Most of the photovoltaic cells on the market today operate at an efficiency of less than 15% ;that is, of all the radiation that falls upon them, less than 15% of it is converted to electricity. The maximum theoretical efficiency for a photovoltaic cell is only 32.3%, but at this efficiency, solar electricity is very economical. Most of our other forms of electricity generation are at a lower efficiency than this. Unfortunately, reality still lags behind theory and a 15% efficiency is not usually considered economical by most power companies, even if it is fine for toys and pocket calculators. Hope for bulk solar electricity should not be abandoned, however, for recent scientific advances have created a solar cell with an efficiency of 28.2% efficiency in the laboratory. This type of cell has not been field tested. If it maintains its efficiency in the uncontrolled environment of the outside world, and if it does not have a tendency to break down, it will be economical for power comp anies to build solar power facilities after all. 4.0 Environmental Sustainability It is estimated that the sunlight that falls on the surface of the earth in the time period of two weeks is equivalent in energy to all the energy stored in all the oil and natural gas and coal and other fuels that exist on, or under the earth (Markvart Castaà ±er, 2003) Solar power has two big advantages over fossil fuels. The first is in the fact that it is renewable; it is never going to run out. The second is its effect on the environment. According to Solar Heating Systems: Analysis and Design with the Sun-Pulse Method by Gordon F. Tully, solar cell systems do not harm the environment, as do conventional methods of power generation. The sun is an infinite source of energy and since its use for powering homes causes no damage to the environment. We should use the clean and silent energy source it to its maximum potential. As the primary element of construction of solar panels, silicon, is the second most common element on the planet. Therefore, there is very little environmental disturbance caused by the creation of solar panels. (Markvart Castaà ±er, 2003) While the burning of fossil fuels introduces many harmful pollutants into the atmosphere and contributes to environmental problems like global warming and acid rain, solar energy is completely non-polluting. While many acres of land must be destroyed to feed a fossil fuel energy plant its required fuel, the only land that must be destroyed for a solar energy plant is the land that it stands on. However, solar energy only causes environmental disruption if it is centralized and produced on a gigantic scale. At this scale, the production of solar energy would have some unpredictable negative environmental effects. If all the solar collectors were placed in one or just a few areas, they would probably have large effects on the local environment, and possibly have large effects on the world environment. Everything from changes in local rain conditions to another ice age has been predicted as a result of producing solar energy on this scale. The problem lies in the change of temperature and humidity near a solar panel; if the energy producing panels are kept non-centralized, they should not create the same local, mass temperature change that could have such bad effects on the environment. (Tully, 1981) In due course, solar power will reduce the emissions associated with power generation. Consistent with, Solar Heating Systems: Analysis and Design with the Sun-Pulse Method by Gordon F. Tully, with 1 million solar energy roofs are in place, could reduce carbon emissions equal to the annual emission from 850,000 cars. 5.0 Economical For many. fossil fuels are too available and cheap for the investment in solar energy to be worthwhile. Ironically, although the suns energy is free, the curse of solar power is that the techniques are always too expensive. (Green Peace, 2006) One major concern with solar power is cost-effectiveness. The silicone used for production , is one of the most readily available elements on earth. Nevertheless, the kind of grade silicon needed for solar cells is very expensive. It is grown in tall cylinders, and then cut in thin segments. The cutting process is wasteful and expensive (Pearce, 2002). A new product is polycrystalline silicon, which is grown in thin sheets and cut in squares. In Peter Lorenz, Dickon Pinner, and Thomas Seitz article The economics of solar power it states that Although polycrystalline is not as efficient as natural silicon, its significantly cheaper, and lowering the cost is one of the most important things in making solar energy practical. The initial cost of installing a solar power system is preventing current installation for these devices . The Australian Governments, and many others across the world had recognize this and are offering annual rebates and tax incentives to customers who install the systems in their homes. Consumers with solar power systems in their homes will save about 50-60% on their utility bills, (Energy Matters Pty Ltd). These savings will exceed the original cost of a system in about 10-12 years. After the initial cost is covered, the customer is still saving thousands of dollars in utilities compared to electricity and gas usage. As we burn more fossil fuels, the costs of electricity and gas would be subject to increase over the years. With solar powered home, monthly bills would stay about the same no matter how expensive electricity and gas become. The financial savings of solar-powered homes is an extra benefit for consumers who know that their homes are helping to preserve our environment. The great thing about solar power is that once youve paid for the system you dont have to worry about rising utility costs. Youre basically buying all your electricity at once. However, the cost is still a main factor to be considered. Arrays of rooftop solar panels capable of generating one kilowatt of electricity cost at least $7,500 even with the solar panels now costing about one-third of what they did a decade ago. (Lorenz, Pinner, Seitz, 2008) Still, the average household requires two to four times that much power, meaning that it would take about a $30,000 system to save about $15 per month for each kilowatt of power generated. It would take about 20 years until enough electricity would be generated to make up for the investment. (Energy Matters Pty Ltd). Despite the great cost of solar energy systems, people are still investing in them because of their obvious benefit to the environment and because once you have it installed, the energy is free. As technology improves, solar energy will become more economically feasible because the price of solar panels will go down. 6.0 Conclusion The number of advantages associated with using solar power for the future, greatly out way the disadvantages. Many of the issues explored throughout this paper are currently being research or have already solved, some of which show great promise for the future. Despite being currently still quite expensive, and showing negative effects to the environment if implemented in a large centralised scale, there is no doubt that solar energy will continue to grow and slowly replace the fossil-fuelled world around it .Besides the upcoming scarcity of fossil fuels, their highly pollutive nature makes solar energy a much healthier and wiser decision. The fear of exhausting all our resources has also spurred further development of alternative fuels, and created a greater interest in overcoming those disadvantages of solar power that remain. Technology changes rapidly, and the number of disadvantages of solar power that seemed virtually impossible only a few years ago are now relatively minor inconveniences. Hopefully, with continued this research, we will be in a place one day where we can directly rely on the sun for all our energy needs, and never have to use pollutant non renewable resources again. With an energy source like solar power, thats environmentally safe, capable of producing the raw power to satisfy the entire planets energy needs, we would be incredibly foolish not to use it.

Essay --

Growth and development are two major themes you here time and time again in environmental planning. And rightly so, for if done wrong, they can drastically hinder a society. With that said, Costa Rica is a perfect case study for planning done right. This memo will briefly discuss how Costa Rica made a large leap forward - Using historic population statistics, and crude birth and death rates (Demographic Transition Model), I will tell a story of growth and development done right. Population Growth and Distribution Today, Costa Rica is one of the most stable, prosperous, and least corrupt Latin American countries. As of 2013, Costa Rica has a population of 2,357, 516; 40% of which, live in the Nation’s capital San Jose; the rest is thinly spread across the country. Originally San Josà © was only a small agricultural village with highly fertile soil. However, a few years after winning their freedom from Spain in 1821, the good people of San Josà © and Alajuela combined forces and defeated the pro-Mexican Democrats of Heredia and Cartago. Upon which cemented San Josà © as the capital of the blooming nation (Anywhere Costa Rica). The population slowly rose until after the Second World War- when the city’s numbers increased significantly. Today, over 309 thousand people live in the city with another estimated million in the surrounding suburbs (Anywhere Costa Rica). Development Since 1984, Costa Rica has seen a decrease in population (growth rate dropping from 2.8 to 1.2 by 2015) and infant mortality rates (dropped by half in just 29 years), as well as, an increase in life expectancy. What changed in that short amount of time (United States Census Bureau)? Well, the short answer is the country transitioned from an early industrial soc... ... one percent (Costa Rica). At 9% in 2013, they haven’t reached their goal, however, they’ve managed to cut back 5% in just 20 years. Costa Rica was blessed early on, due to a global interest in coffee beans, with prosperity and wealth; however, it wasn’t until they created a game plan, one with the people in mind that they truly began to progress, fiscally and socially speaking. Granted, Costa Rica isn’t considered a top tier country, but they are by no means at the bottom. With that said, Costa Rica’s young population won’t remain young forever! Much like the baby boomers of the U.S, Costa Rica will have to adjust heavily for the needs of their future elderly. Although, Costa Rica is relatively small, it has a rich history spanning back several millennia; and has positioned itself as one of the most stable, prosperous, and least corrupt Latin American countries.

Russell-Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge

Pg1Pg1 KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE I53 Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description Bertrand Russell Russell, Bertrand (1917). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1910-1911. Reprinted in his his Mysticism and Logic (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. : 1917). Reprinted Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books, 1951, pp. 152-167. Pagination here matches the latter. ) THE object of the following paper is to consider what it is that we know in cases where we know propositions about ‘the so-and-so' without knowing who or what the so-and-so is.For example, I know that the candidate who gets most votes will be elected, though I do not know who is the candidate who will get most votes. The problem I wish to consider is: What do we know in these cases, where the subject is merely described ? I have considered this problem elsewhere1 from a purely logical point of view; but in what follows I wish to consider the questio n in relation to theory of knowledge as well as in relation to logic, and in view of the above-mentioned logical discussions, I shall in this paper make the logical portion as brief as possible.In order to make clear the antithesis between ‘acquaintance' and ‘description', I shall first of all try to explain what I mean by ‘acquain- tance'. I say that I am acquainted with an object when I have a direct cognitive relation to that object, i. e. when I am directly aware of the object itself. When I speak of a cognitive relation here, I do not mean the sort of relation which constitutes judgment, but the sort which constitutes presentation. In fact, I think the relation of subject and object which I call acquaintance is simply the converse of the relation of object and subject which constitutes presentation.That is, to say that S has acquaintance with O is essentially the same thing as to say that O is presented to S. But the associations and natural extensions of the word acquaintance are different from those of the word presentation. To begin with, as in most cognitive words, it is natural to say that I am acquainted with an object even at moments when it is not actually before my mind, provided it has been before my mind, and will be again whenever occasion arises. This is the same sense in which I am said to know that 2+2=4 even when I am thinking of something else. In the second place, the word See references later. acquaintance is designed to emphasize, more than the word presen- tation, the relational character of the fact with which we are concerned. There is, to my mind, a danger that, in speaking of presentation, we may so emphasize the object as to lose sight of the subject. The result of this is either to lead to the view that there is no subject, whence we arrive at materialism; or to lead to the view that what is presented is part of the subject, whence we arrive at idealism, and should arrive at solipsism but for the most desperate contortions.Now I wish to preserve the dualism of subject and object in my terminology, because this dualism seems to me a fundamental fact concerning cognition. Hence I prefer the word acquaintance, because it emphasizes the need of a subject which is acquainted. When we ask what are the kinds of objects with which we are acquainted, the first and most obvious example is sense-data. When I see a colour or hear a noise, I have direct acquaintance with the colour or the noise. The sense-datum with which I am acquainted in these cases is generally, if not always, complex.This is particularly obvious in the case of sight. I do not mean, of course, merely that the supposed physical object is complex, but that the direct sensible object is complex and contains parts with spatial relations. Whether it is possible to be aware of a complex without being aware of its constituents is not an easy question, but on the whole it would seem that there is no reason why it should not be possible. T his question arises in an acute form in connection with self-consciousness, which we must now briefly consider.In introspection, we seem to be immediately aware of varying complexes, consisting of objects in various cognitive and conative relations to ourselves. When I see the sun, it often happens that I am aware of my seeing the sun, in addition to being aware of the sun; and when I desire food, it often happens that I am aware of my desire for food. But it is hard to discover any state of mind in which I am aware of myself alone, as opposed to a complex of which I am a constituent. The question of the nature of self-consciousness is too large, and too slightly connected with our subject, to be argued at length here.It is difficult, but probably not impossible, to account for plain facts if we assume that we do not have acquaintance with ourselves. It is plain that we are not only acquainted with the complex ‘Self-acquainted-with-A', but we also know the proposition ‘I am acquainted with A'. Now here the complex has been analysed, and if ‘I' does not stand for something which is a direct object of acquaintance, we shall have to suppose that ‘I' is something known by description. If we wished to maintain the view that there is noPg2Pg2 154 MYSTICISM AND LOGIC acquaintance with Self, we might argue as follows: We are acquainted with acquaintance, and we know that it is a relation. Also we are acquainted with a complex in which we perceive that acquaintance is the relating relation. Hence we know that this complex must have a constituent which is that which is acquainted, i. e. must have a subject- term as well as an object-term. This subject-term we define as ‘I'. Thus ‘I' means ‘the subject-term in awarenesses of which / am aware'.But as a definition this cannot be regarded as a happy effort. It would seem necessary, therefore, either to suppose that I am acquainted with myself, and that ‘I', therefore, requires no definition, being merely the proper name of a certain object, or to find some other analysis of self- consciousness. Thus self-consciousness cannot be regarded as throwing light on the question whether we can know a complex without knowing its constituents. This question, however, is not important for our present purposes, and I hall therefore not discuss it further. The awarenesses we have considered so far have all been aware- nesses of particular existents, and might all in a large sense be called sense-data. For, from the point of view of theory of knowledge, introspective knowledge is exactly on a level with knowledge derived from sight or hearing. But, in addition to awareness of the above kind of objects, which may be called awareness of particulars, we have also (though not quite in the same sense) what may be called awareness of universals.Awareness of universals is called conceiving, and a uni- versal of which we are aware is called a concept. Not only are we aware of particular yellows, but if we have seen a sufficient number of yellows and have sufficient intelligence, we are aware of the universal yellow; this universal is the subject in such judgments as ‘yellow differs from blue' or ‘yellow resembles blue less than green does'. And the universal yellow is the predicate in such judgments as ‘this is yellow', where ‘this' is a particular sense-datum.And universal relations, too, are objects of awarenesses; up and down, before and after, resemblance, desire, awareness itself, and so on, would seem to be all of them objects of which we can be aware. In regard to relations, it might be urged that we are never aware of the universal relation itself, but only of complexes in which it is a constituent. For example, it may be said that we do not know directly such a relation as before, though we understand such a proposition as ‘this is before that', and may be directly aware of such a complex as ‘this being before that'.This view, however, is difficult to reconcile with the fact that we often know propositions in which KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE I55 the relation is the subject, or in which the relata are not definite given objects, but ‘anything'. For example, we know that if one thing is before another, and the other before a third, then the first is before the third; and here the things concerned are not definite things, but ‘anything'. It is hard to see how we could know such a fact about ‘before' unless we were acquainted with ‘before', and not merely with actual particular cases of ne given object being before another given object. And more directly: A judgment such as ‘this is before that', where this judgment is derived from awareness of a complex, constitutes an analysis, and we should not understand the analysis if we were not acquainted with the meaning of the terms employed. Thus we must suppose that we are acquainted with the meaning of ‘before' , and not merely with instances of it. There are thus at least two sorts of objects of which we are aware, namely, particulars and universals.Among particulars I include all existents, and all complexes of which one or more constituents are existents, such as this-before-that, this-above-that, the-yellowness-of- this. Among universals I include all objects of which no particular is a constituent. Thus the disjunction ‘universal-particular' includes all objects. We might also call it the disjunction ‘abstract concrete'. It is not quite parallel with the opposition ‘concept-percept', because things remembered or imagined belong with particulars, but can hardly be called percepts. On the other hand, universals with which we are acquainted may be identified with concepts. ) It will be seen that among the objects with which we are acquainted are not included physical objects (as opposed to sense-data), nor other people's minds. These things are known to us by what I cal l ‘knowledge by description', which we must now consider. By a ‘description' I mean any phrase of the form ‘a so-and-so' or ‘the so-and-do'. A phrase of the form ‘a so-and-so' I shall call an ‘ambiguous' description; a phrase of the form ‘the so-and-do' (in the singular) I shall call a ‘definite' description.Thus ‘a man' is an ambiguous description, and ‘the man with the iron mask' is a definite description. There are various problems connected with ambiguous descriptions, but I pass them by, since they do not directly concern the matter I wish to discuss. What I wish to discuss is the nature of our knowledge concerning objects in cases where we know that there is an object answering to a definite description, though we are not acquainted with any such object. This is a matter which is concerned exclusively with definite descriptions.I shall, therefore, in the sequel, speak simply of ‘descriptions' when I mean Pg3Pg3 I56MYSTICISM AND LOGIC ‘definite descriptions'. Thus a description will mean any phrase of the form ‘the so-and-so' in the singular. I shall say that an object is ‘known by description' when we know that it is ‘the so-and-so', i. e. when we know that there is one object, and no more, having a certain property; and it will generally be implied that we do not have knowledge of the same object by acquaintance.We know that the man with the iron mask existed, and many propositions are known about him; but we do not know who he was. We know that the candidate who gets most votes will be elected, and in this case we are very likely also acquainted (in the only sense in which one can be acquainted with someone else) with the man who is, in fact, the candidate who will get most votes, but we do not know which of the candidates he is, i. e. we do not know any proposition of the form ‘A is the candidate who will get most votes' where A is one of the candidates by name.We shall say that we have â€Å"merely descriptive knowledge' of the so-and-so when, although we know that the so-and-so exists, and although we may possibly be acquainted with the object which is, in fact, the so-and-so, yet we do not know any proposition ‘a is the so- and-so', where a is something with which we are acquainted. When we say ‘the so-and-so exists', we mean that there is just one object which is the so-and-so. The proposition ‘a is the so-and-so' means that a has the property so-and-so, and nothing else has. Sir Joseph Larmor is the Unionist candidate' means ‘Sir Joseph Larmor is a Unionist candidate, and no one else is. ‘ ‘The Unionist candidate exists' means ‘someone is a Unionist candidate, and no one else is. ‘ Thus, when we are acquainted with an object which we know to be the so- and-so, we know that the so-and-so exists, but we may know that the so-and-so exists when we are not acquainted with any object whi ch we know to be the so-and-so, and even when we are not acquainted with any object which, in fact, is the so-and-so. Common words, even proper names, are usually really descriptions.That is to say, the thought in the mind of a person using a proper name correctly can generally only be expressed explicitly if we replace the proper name by a description. Moreover, the description required to express the thought will vary for different people, or for the same person at different times. The only thing constant (so long as the name is rightly used) is the object to which the name applies. But so long as this remains constant, the particular description involved usually makes no difference to the truth or falsehood of the proposition in which the name appears.Let us take some illustrations. Suppose some statement made KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE I57 about Bismarck. Assuming that there is such a thing as direct acquaintance with oneself, Bismarck himself might have used his name directly to designate the particular person with whom he was acquainted. In this case, if he made a judgment about himself, he himself might be a constituent of the judgment. Here the proper name has the direct use which it always wishes to have, as simply standing for a certain object, and not for a description of the object.But if a person who knew Bismarck made a judgment about him, the case is different. What this person was acquainted with were certain sense-data which he connected (rightly, we will suppose) with Bismarck's body. His body as a physical object, and still more his mind, were only known as the body and the mind connected with these sense-data. That is, they were known by description. It is, of course, very much a matter of chance which characteristics of a man's appearance will come into a friend's mind when he thinks of him; thus the description actually in the friend's mind is accidental.The essential point is that he knows that the various descriptions all apply to the sa me entity, in spite of not being acquainted with the entity in question. When we, who did not know Bismarck, make a judgment about him, the description in our minds will probably be some more or less vague mass of historical knowledge—? far more, in most cases, than is required to identify him. But, for the sake of illustration, let us assume that we think of him as ‘the first Chancellor of the German Empire'. Here all the words are abstract except ‘German'.The word ‘German' will again have different meanings for different people. To some it will recall travels in Germany, to some the look of Germany on the map, and so on. But if we are to obtain a description which we know to be applicable, we shall be compelled, at some point, to bring in a reference to a particular with which we are acquainted. Such reference is involved in any mention of past, present, and future (as opposed to definite dates), or of here and there, or of what others have told us.Thus it would seem that, in some way or other, a description known to be applicable to a particular must involve some reference to a particular with which we are acquainted, if our knowledge about the thing described is not to be merely what follows logically from the description. For example, ‘the most long-lived of men' is a description which must apply to some man, but we can make no judgments concerning this man which involve knowledge about him beyond what the description gives.If, however, we say, ‘the first Chancellor of the German Empire was an astute diplomatist', we can only be assured Pg4Pg4 158MYSTICISM AND LOGIC of the truth of our judgment in virtue of something with which we are acquainted—? usually a testimony heard or read. Considered psychologically, apart from the information we convey to others, apart from the fact about the actual Bismarck, which gives importance to our judgment, the thought we really have contains the one or more particulars involve d, and otherwise consists wholly of concepts.All names of places—? London, England, Europe, the earth, the Solar System—? similarly involve, when used, descriptions which start from some one or more particulars with which we are acquainted. I suspect that even the Universe, as considered by metaphysics, involves such a connection with particulars. In logic, on the contrary, where we are concerned not merely with what does exist, but with whatever might or could exist or be, no reference to actual particulars is involved.It would seem that, when we make a statement about something only known by description, we often intend to make our statement, not in the form involving the description, but about the actual thing described. That is to say, when we say anything about Bismarck, we should like, if we could, to make the judgment which Bismarck alone can make, namely, the judgment of which he himself is a constituent. In this we are necessarily defeated, since the actual Bi smarck is unknown to us.But we know that there is an object B called Bismarck, and that B was an astute diplomatist. We can thus describe the proposition we should like to affirm, namely, ‘B was an astute diplomatist', where B is the object which was Bismarck. What enables us to communicate in spite of the varying descriptions we employ is that we know there is a true proposition concerning the actual Bismarck, and that, however we may vary the description (so long as the description is correct), the proposition described is still the same.This proposition, which is described and is known to be true, is what interests us; but we are not acquainted with the proposition itself, and do not know it, though we know it is true. It will be seen that there are various stages in the removal from acquaintance with particulars: there is Bismarck to people who knew him, Bismarck to those who only know of him through history, the man with the iron mask, the longest-lived of men. These are progressively further removed from acquaintance with particulars, and there is a similar hierarchy in the region of universals.Many universals, like many particulars, are only known to us by description. But here, as in the case of particulars, knowledge concerning what is known by description is ultimately reducible to knowledge concerning what is known by acquaintance. KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE 159 The fundamental epistemological principle in the analysis of propositions containing descriptions is this: Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted.From what has been said already, it will be plain why I advocate this principle, and how I propose to meet the case of propositions which at first sight contravene it. Let us begin with the reasons for supposing the principle true. The chief reason for supposing the principle true is that it seems scarcely possible to believe that we can make a judgment or entertain a supp osition without knowing what it is that we are judging or supposing about. If we make a judgment about (say) Julius Caesar, it is plain that the actual person who was Julius Caesar is not a constituent of the judgment.But before going further, it may be well to explain what I mean when I say that this or that is a constituent of a judgment, or of a proposition which we understand. To begin with judgments: a judgment, as an occurrence, I take to be a relation of a mind to several entities, namely, the entities which compose what is judged. If, e. g. I judge that A loves B, the judgment as an event consists in the existence, at a certain moment, of a specific four-term relation, called judging, between me and A and love and B.That is to say, at the time when I judge, there is a certain complex whose terms are myself and A and love and B, and whose relating relation is judging. My reasons for this view have been set forth elsewhere,1 and I shall not repeat them here. Assuming this view of judgment, the constituents of the judgment are simply the constituents of the complex which is the judgment- Thus, in the above case, the constituents are myself and A and love and B and judging. But myself and judging are constituents shared by all my judgments; thus the distinctive constituents of the particular judgment in question are A and love and B.Coming now to what is meant by ‘understanding a proposition', I should say that there is another relation possible between me and A and love and B, which is called my supposing that A loves B. 2 When we can suppose that A loves B, we ‘understand the proposition' A loves B. Thus we often understand a proposition in cases where we have not enough knowledge to make a judgment. 1 Philosophical Essays, ‘The Nature of Truth. ‘ I have been persuaded by Mr Wittgenstein that this theory is somewhat unduly simple, but the modification which I believe it to require does not affect the above argument [1917]. Cf. Mei nong, Ueber Annahmen, passim. I formerly supposed, contrary to Meinong's view, that the relationship of supposing might be merely that of presentation. In this view I now think I was mistaken, and Meinong is right. But my present view depends upon the theory that both in judgment and in assumption there is no single Objective, but the several constituents of the judgment or asaumption are in a many-term relation to the mind. Pg5Pg5 160MYSTICISM AND LOGIC Supposing, like judging, is a many-term relation, of which a mind is one term.The other terms of the relation are called the constituents of the proposition supposed. Thus the principle which I enunciated may be re-stated as follows: Whenever a relation of supposing or judging occurs, the terms to which the supposing or judging mind is related by the relation of supposing or judging must be terms with which the mind in question is acquainted. This is merely to say that we cannot make a judgment or a supposition without knowing what it is that we are making our judgment or supposition about.It seems to me that the truth of this principle is evident as soon as the principle is understood; I shall, therefore, in what follows, assume the principle, and use it as a guide in analysing judgments that contain descriptions. Returning now to Julius Caesar, I assume that it will be admitted that he himself is not a constituent of any judgment which I can make. But at this point it is necessary to examine the view that judgments are composed of something called ‘ideas', and that it is the ‘idea' of Julius Caesar that is a constituent of my judgment.I believe the plausibility of this view rests upon a failure to form a right theory of descriptions. We may mean by my ‘idea' of Julius Caesar the things that I know about him, e. g. that he conquered Gaul, was assassinated on the Ides of March, and is a plague to schoolboys. Now I am admitting, and indeed contending, that in order to discover what is actually in my mind when I judge about Julius Caesar, we must substitute for the proper name a description made up of some of the things I know about him. (A description which will often serve to express my thought is ‘the man whose name wasJulius Caesar. ‘ For whatever else I may have forgotten about him, it is plain that when I mention him I have not forgotten that that was his name. ) But although I think the theory that judgments consist of ideas may have been suggested in some such way, yet I think the theory itself is fundamentally mistaken. The view seems to be that there is some mental existent which may be called the ‘idea' of something outside the mind of the person who has the idea, and that, since judgment is a mental event, its constituents must be constituents of the mind of the person judging.But in this view ideas become a veil between us and outside things—? we never really, in knowledge, attain to the things we are supposed to be knowing about, but only to the ideas of those things. The relation of mind, idea, and object, on this view, is utterly obscure, and, so far as I can see, nothing discoverable by inspection warrants the intrusion of the idea between the mind and the object. I suspect that the view ii fostered by the dislike of relations, and that it is felt the mindKNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCEl6l could not know objects unless there were something ‘in' the mind which could be called the state of knowing the object. Such a view, however, leads at once to a vicious endless regress, since the relation of idea to object will have to be explained by supposing that the idea itself has an idea of the object, and so on ad infinitum. I therefore see no reason to believe that, when we are acquainted with an object, there is in us something which can be called the ‘idea' of the object.On the contrary, I hold that acquaintance is wholly a relation, not demanding any such constituent of the mind as is supposed by advocates of ‘ideas'. This is, of course, a large question, and one which would take us far from our subject if it were adequately discussed. I therefore content myself with the above indications, and with the corollary that, in judging, the actual objects concerning which we judge, rather than any supposed purely mental entities, are constituents of the complex which is the judgment.When, therefore, I say that we must substitute for ‘Julius Caesar' some description of Julius Caesar, in order to discover the meaning of a judgment nominally about him, I am not saying that we must substitute an idea. Suppose our description is ‘the man whose name was Julius Caesar'. Let our judgment be ‘Julius Caesar was assassinated'. Then it becomes ‘the man whose name was Julius Caesar was assassinated'. Here Julius Caesar is a noise or shape with which we are acquainted, and all the other constituents of the judgment (neglecting the tense in ‘was') are concepts with whic h we are acquainted.Thus our judgment is wholly reduced to constituents with which we are acquainted, but Julius Caesar himself has ceased to be a constituent of our judgment. This, however, requires a proviso, to be further explained shortly, namely, that ‘the man whose name was Julius Caesar' must not, as a whole, be a constituent of our judgment, that is to say, this phrase must not, as a whole, have a meaning which enters into the judgment. Any right analysis of the judgment, therefore, must break up this phrase, and not treat it as a subordinate complex which is part of the judgment.The judgment ‘the man whose name was Julius Caesar was assassinated' may be interpreted as meaning ‘one and only one man was called Julius Caesar, and that one was assassinated'. Here it is plain that there is no constituent corresponding to the phrase, ‘the man whose name was Julius Caesar'. Thus there is no reason to regard this phrase as expressing a constituent of the jud gment, and we have seen that this phrase must be broken up if we are to be acquainted with all the constituents of the judgment. This conclusion, which we have reached from considerations concerned with the theory of knowledge, is also forced uponPg6Pg6 162MYSTICISM AND LOGIC us by logical considerations, which must now be briefly reviewed. It is common to distinguish two aspects, meaning and denotation, in such phrases as ‘the author of Waverley'. The meaning will be a certain complex} consisting (at least) of authorship and Waverley with some relation] the denotation will be Scott. Similarly ‘feather-less bipeds' will have a complex meaning, containing as constituents the presence of two feet and the absence of feathers, while its denotation will be the class of men.Thus when we say ‘Scott is the author of Waverley' or ‘men are the same as featherless bipeds', we are asserting an identity of denotation, and this assertion is worth making because of the dive rsity of meaning. 1 I believe that the duality of meaning and denotation, though capable of a true interpretation, is misleading if taken as fundamental. The denotation, I believe, is not a constituent of the proposition, except in the case of proper names, i. e. of words which do not assign a property to an object, but merely and solely name it.And I should hold further that, in this sense, there are only two words which are strictly proper names of particulars, namely, T and ‘this. ‘2 One reason for not believing the denotation to be a constituent of the proposition is that we may know the proposition even when we are not acquainted with the denotation. The proposition ‘the author of Waverley is a novelist' was known to people who did not know that ‘the author of Waverley' denoted Scott. This reason has been already sufficiently emphasized.A second reason is that propositions concerning ‘the so-and-so' are possible even when ‘the so-and-so' has no denotation. Take, e. g. ‘the golden mountain does not exist' or ‘the round square is self- contradictory'. If we are to preserve the duality of meaning and denotation, we have to say, with Meinong, that there are such objects as the golden mountain and the round square, although these objects do not have being. We even have to admit that the existent round square is existent, but does not exist. 3 Meinong does not regard this as a contradition, but I fail to see that it is not one.Indeed, it seems to me evident that the judgment ‘there is no such object as the round square' does not presuppose that there is such an object. If this is admitted, however, we are led to the conclusion that, by parity of form, no judgment concerning ‘the so-and-so' actually involves the so-and-so as a constituent. 1 This view has been recently advocated by Miss E. E. C. Jones. ‘A New Law of Thought and its Implications,' Mind, January, 1911. * I should now exclude ‘ I' from proper names in the strict sense, and retain only ‘this' [1917]. †¢? Meinongj Ueber Annahmen, 2nd ed. , Leipzig, 1910, p. 141. KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE 163Miss Jones1 contends that there is no difficulty in admitting contradictory predicates concerning such an object as ‘the present King of France', on the ground that this object is in itself contradictory. Now it might, of course, be argued that this object, unlike the round square, is not self-contradictory, but merely non-existent. This, however, would not go to the root of the matter. The real objection to such an argument is that the law of contradiction ought not to be stated in the traditional form ‘A is not both B and not B', but in the form ‘no proposition is both true and false*.The traditional form only applies to certain propositions, namely, to those which attribute a predicate to a subject. When the law is stated of propositions, instead of being stated concerning subjects and pred icates it is at once evident that propositions about the present King of France or the round square can form no exception, but are just as incapable of being both true and false as other propositions. Miss Jones2 argues that ‘Scott is the author of Waverley' asserts identity of denotation between Scott and the author of Waverley.But there is some difficulty in choosing among alternative meanings of this contention. In the first place, it should be observed that the author of Waverley is not a mere name, like Scott. Scott is merely a noise or shape conventionally used to designate a certain person; it gives us no information about that person, and has nothing that can be called meaning as opposed to denotation. (I neglect the fact, considered above, that even proper names, as a rule, really stand for descriptions. But the author of Waverley is not merely conventionally a name for Scott; the element of mere convention belongs here to the separate words, the and author and of and Waverley. Given what these words stand for, the author of Waverley is no longer arbitrary. When it is said that Scott is the author of Waverley, we are not stating that these are two names for one man, as we should be if we said ‘Scott is Sir Walter'. A man's name is what he is called, but however much Scott had been called the author of Waverley, that would not have made im be the author; it was necessary for him actually to write Waverley, which was a fact having nothing to do with names. If, then, we are asserting identity of denotation, we must not mean by denotation the mere relation of a name to the thing named. In fact, it would be nearer to the truth to say that the meaning of ‘Scott' is the denotation of ‘the author of Waverley'. The relation of ‘Scott* to Scott is that ‘Scott' means Scott, just as the relation of ‘author' to the concept which is so called is that ‘author' means this concept. 1 Mind, July, 1910, p. 80. ‘ Mind , July, 1910. p. 379. Pg7Pg7 164MYSTICISM AND LOGIC Thus if we distinguish meaning and denotation in ‘the author of Waverley', we shall have to say that ‘Scott' has meaning but not denotation. Also when we say ‘Scott is the author of Waverley', the meaning of ‘the author of Waverley' is relevant to our assertion. For if the denotation alone were relevant, any other phrase with the same denotation would give the same proposition. Thus ‘Scott is the author of Marmion' would be the same proposition as ‘Scott is the author of Waverley'.But this is plainly not the case, since from the first we learn that Scott wrote Marmion and from the second we learn that he wrote Waverley, but the first tells us nothing about Waverley and the second nothing about Marmion. Hence the meaning of ‘the author of Waverley' as opposed to the denotation, is certainly relevant to ‘Scott is the author of Waverley'. We have thus agreed that ‘the author of Wav erley' is not a mere name, and that its meaning is relevant in propositions in which it occurs.Thus if we are to say, as Miss Jones does, that ‘Scott is the author of Waverley' asserts an identity of denotation, we must regard the denotation of ‘the author of Waverley' as the denotation of what is meant by ‘the author of Waverley'. Let us call the meaning of ‘the author of Waverley' M. Thus M is what ‘the author of Waverley' means. Then we are to suppose that ‘Scott is the author of Waverley' means ‘Scott is the denotation of M But here we are explaining our proposition by another of the same form, and thus we have made no progress towards a real explanation. The denotation of M,' like ‘the author of Waverley', has both meaning and denotation, on the theory we are examining. If we call its meaning M', our proposition becomes ‘Scott is the denotation of M†. But this leads at once to an endless regress. Thus the attempt to re gard our proposition as asserting identity of denotation breaks down, and it becomes imperative to find some other analysis. When this analysis has been completed, we shall be able to reinterpret the phrase ‘identity of denotation', which remains obscure so long as it is taken as fundamental.The first point to observe is that, in any proposition about ‘the author of Waverley', provided Scott is not explicitly mentioned, the denotation itself, i. e. Scott, does not occur, but only the concept of denotation, which will be represented by a variable. Suppose we say ‘the author of Waverley was the author of Marmion', we are certainly not saying that both were Scott—? we may have forgotten that there was such a person as Scott. We are saying that there is some man who was the author of Waverley and the author of Marmion.That Is to say, there is someone who wrote Waverley and Marmion, and no one else wrote them. Thus the identity is that of a variable, i. e. of KNO WLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE 165 an identifiable subject, ‘someone'. This is why we can understand propositions about ‘the author of Waverley', without knowing who he was. When we say ‘the author of Waverley was a poet', we mean ‘one and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was a poet'; when we say ‘the author of Waverley was Scott' we mean ‘one and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was Scott'. Here the identity is between a variable, i. . an indeterminate subject (‘he'), and Scott; ‘the author of Waverley' has been analysed away, and no longer appears as a constituent of the proposition. 1 The reason why it is imperative to analyse away the phrase, ‘the author of Waverley' may be stated as follows. It is plain that when we say ‘the author of Waverley is the author of Marmion', the is expresses identity. We have seen also that the common denotation, namely Scott, is not a constituent of this proposition, while the meanings (if a ny) of ‘the author of Waverley' and ‘the author of Marmion' are not identical.We have seen also that, in any sense in which the meaning of a word is a constituent of a proposition in whose verbal expression the word occurs, ‘Scott' means the actual man Scott, in the same sense (so far as concerns our present discussion) in which ‘author' means a certain universal. Thus, if ‘the author of Waverley' were a subordinate complex in the above proposition, its meaning would have to be what was said to be identical with the meaning of ‘the author of Marmion'.This is plainly not the case; and the only escape is to say that ‘the author of Waverley' does not, by itself, have a meaning, though phrases of which it is part do have a meaning. That is, in a right analysis of the above proposition, ‘the author of Waverley' must disappear. This is effected when the above proposition is analysed as meaning: ‘Some one wrote Waverley and no one else did, and that someone also wrote Marmion and no one else did. ‘ This may be more simply expressed by saying that the propositional function ‘x wrote Waverley and Marmion, and no one else did' is capable of truth, i. e. ome value of x makes it true, but no other value does. Thus the true subject of our judgment is a propositional function, i. e. a complex containing an undetermined constituent, and becoming a proposition as soon as this constituent is determined. We may now define the denotation of a phrase. If we know that the proposition ‘a is the so-and-so' is true, i. e. that a is so-and-so and nothing else is, we call a the denotation of the phrase ‘the so- 1 The theory which I am advocating is set forth fully, with the logical grounds in its favour, in Principia Mathematica, Vol. I, Introduction, Chap.Ill; also, less fully, in Mind, October, 1905. Pg8Pg8 166 MYSTICISM AND LOGIC and-so'. A very great many of the propositions we naturally make about Ã¢â‚¬Ë œthe so-and-so' will remain true or remain false if we substitute a for ‘the so-and-so', where a is the denotation of ‘the so-and-so'. Such propositions will also remain true or remain false if we substitute for ‘the so-and-so' any other phrase having the same denotation. Hence, as practical men, we become interested in the denotation more than in the description, since the denotation decides as to the truth or falsehood of so many statements in which the description occurs.Moreover, as we saw earlier in considering the relations of description and acquaintance, we often wish to reach the denotation, and are only hindered by lack of acquaintance: in such cases the description is merely the means we employ to get as near as possible to the denotation. Hence it naturally comes to be supposed that the denotation is part of the proposition in which the description occurs. But we have seen, both on logical and on epistemological grounds, that this is an error.The actual object (if any) which is the denotation is not (unless it is explicitly mentioned) a constituent of propositions in which descriptions occur; and this is the reason why, in order to understand such propositions, we need acquaintance with the constituents of the description, but do not need acquaintance with its denotation. The first result of analysis, when applied to propositions whose grammatical subject is ‘the so-and-so', is to substitute a variable as subject; i. e. we obtain a proposition of the form: ‘There is something which alone is so-and-so, and that something is such-and-such. The further analysis of propositions concerning ‘the so-and-so' is thus merged in the problem of the nature of the variable, i. e. of the meanings of some, any, and all. This is a difficult problem, concerning which I do not intend to say anything at present. To sum up our whole discussion: We began by distinguishing two sorts of knowledge of objects, namely, knowledge by acquain tance and knowledge by description. Of these it is only the former that brings the object itself before the mind. We have acquaintance with sense-data, with many universals, and possibly with ourselves, but not with physical objects or other minds.We have descriptive knowledge of an object when we know that it is the object having some property or properties with which we are acquainted; that is so say, when we know that the property or properties in question belong to one object and no more, we are said to have knowledge of that one object by description, whether or not we are acquainted with the object. Our knowledge of physical objects and of other minds is only knowledge by description, the descriptions involved being usually KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE167 such as involve sense-data.All propositions intelligible to us, whether or not they primarily concern things only known to us by description, are composed wholly of constituents with which we are acquainted, for a constituent wi th which we are not acquainted is unintelligible to us. A judgment, we found, is not composed of mental constituents called ‘ideas', but consists of an occurrence whose constituents are a mind1 and certain objects, particulars or universals. (One at least must be a universal. ) When a judgment is rightly analysed, the objects which are constituents of it must all be objects with which the mind which is a constituent of it is acquainted.This conclusion forces us to analyse descriptive phrases occurring in propositions, and to say that the objects denoted by such phrases are not constituents of judgments in which such phrases occur (unless these objects are explicitly mentioned). This leads us to the view (recommended also on purely logical grounds) that when we say ‘the author of Marmion was the author of Waverley', Scott himself is not a constituent of our judgement, and that the judgment cannot be explained by saying that it affirms identity of denotation with diversity of meaning. It also, plainly, does not assert identity of meaning.Such judgments, therefore, can only be analysed by breaking up the descriptive phrases, introducing a variable, and making prepositional functions the ultimate subjects. In fact, ‘the so-and-so is such-and-such' will mean that fx is so-and-so and nothing else is, and x is such-and-such' is capable of truth. The analysis of such judgments involves many fresh problems, but the discussion of these problems is not undertaken in the present paper. 11 use this phrase merely to denote the something psychological which enters into judgment, without intending to prejudge the question as to what this

Sexual Selection

Sexual selection was an idea proposed by Darwin and refers to the process in which males and females attempt to maximize their chances of reproductive success. Within a species there are certain characteristics that make individuals attractive to potential mates. An example of this is in peacocks, female peacocks are attracted to males with long brightly colored tails, even though this makes them easier to be spotted by predators. This characteristic then evolves within the species due to how males with this characteristic have a higher chance of reproductive success and their characteristics being passed on to surviving offspring.There are 2 types of sexual selection. Intersexual selection takes place when males compete for the attention of a female. The female will play an active role in choosing her mate and will choose the mate with the best characteristics in order to produce the offspring with the best characteristics. The other type is Intrasexual selection. This takes place w hen males compete against each other and are rewarded with the female. The female plays a passive role in this. An example of intrasexual selection is Short’s sperm competition.This suggests that males are motivated to ensure that their sperm is successful in fertilization and can compete against other males. This is essential due to how in some species the female will mate with a number of different males so the male with the best fertilizing sperm will win. In humans this has resulted in men evolving to release much larger amounts of sperm after ejaculation to help increase the likelihood of fertilization. Harvey and May suggested that ethic differences in testicle size may reflect adaptive differences in mating strategies within different populations.Samples showed that Chinese mens testicles were approximately half the size Danish mens testicles. This means a chinese man will be at a disadvantage if the female mates with a numerous amount of males and will most likely ent er a long term relationship in order to create offspring. Males are more likely to use short term mating strategies as a form of producing offspring due to how they have an unlimited amount of sperm compared to women who have limited amount of reproductive opportunities.Clark and Hatfield helped support this by getting female and male experiments to ask male and female participants if they would like to engage in casual sex. 75% of males said yes while every female participant said no. This helps support the sexual selection theory as it shows that females have to be more careful with mating as they only have a limited amount of opportunities therefore are more likely to enter a longterm mating strategy. Males can have casual sex with little investment so are more likely to then females. This study helps to show the gender differences.Much of the research documenting sex differences in mate choice focus on preferences rather than on real life choices. So a male may have a preference but may have to settle for much less. Mate choice is a product of mate preferences form in the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA). Sexual selection suggests that females prefer males who they can gain benefits from such as gifts. This is shown in male birds who make nests for females in order to mate with them and also in insects who give nuptial gifts. Sexual selection also suggests that females prefer males who have a strong jawline and prominent cheekbones.These characteristics arise because of a strong presence of testosterone which also helps to indicate fertility within males. Penton-voack found that during a women's most fertile time in her menstrual cycle they preferred a male whose face shape was more masculinised (strong jawline etc.. ) Suggesting that females like males who show high levels of testosterone, supporting sexual selection theory. Buss explored whether there were universals of human mate preference. His research spanned across 37 cultures and invo lved 10 thousand participants of different religion,ethnic and economic groups, increasing the validity of the study.He then made the study even more ecologically valid by varying the sampling procedure per culture. Results showed that women in all cultures show a preferences for men with resources while males placed more emphasis on women's attractiveness as it is an emphasis on their physical health. This supports the claims made by the sexual selection theory that women will form relationships with men for resources as it will benefit them and increase the survivability of their offspring which is a woman's main evolutionary goal.A problem is in some cultures arranged marriages is the normal and individuals have no choice on their mate as it is already chosen by their parents, so the studies validity can be questioned as this will affect the results obtained. Buss further helped to supported mate choice by looking at real marriages. He found that when males divorce many of them g o for younger women when they choose to marry again. This is due to how men will want to be in a relationship with women in their most fertile age and the younger the woman is the more chance of reproductive success the male his.This helps to support the evolutionary theory that a mans main goal is to produce as many surviving offspring as possible. The evolutionary approach can be seen as deterministic due to how it suggests our genes specify exactly how we will behave. The approach fails to take into account that our genes are not the only thing that determine how we behave, the environment in which we grew up in will also have an effect on us. This is known as the nature vs nurture debate where it is argued if our biological factors or the way in which we are brought up makes up how we behave when we grow up.The evolutionary theory suggests that rape is an evolved and adaptive behaviour which enhance reproductive success. Sterglanz and Nash suggest that the theory offers justific ation for rape as it explains why males who can’t compete with other males for resources and women will produce offspring. This is socially sensitive and has been met by much hostility from the general public and women psychologists due to how it is an issue which negatively affects the lives of many.The evolutionary theory is also seen as reductionist as it explains humans reproductive behaviors as a result of our genes, ignoring the environmental actors which also decide our behavior. The approach also ignores homosexual relationships and only accounts for heterosexual relationships and the roles in which men and women take. To conclude the sexual selection theory helps to explain that males and females attempt to maximize their reproductive success by getting with a partner with certain characteristics, these characteristics will then evolve over time due to how individuals in a species with these characteristics will have a higher chance of reproductive success