Comparing Matthew Arnolds Dover Beach and Gerard Manley HopkinsGods

Comparing Matthew Arnold's Dover Beach and Gerard Manley Hopkins'God's Grandeur      Ã‚   Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach," and Gerard Manley Hopkins' "God's Grandeur" are similar in that both poems praise the beauty of the natural world and deplore man's role in that world. The style and tone of each poem is quite different, however. Arnold writes in an easy, flowing style and as the poem develops, reveals a deeply melancholy point of view. Hopkins writes in a very compressed, somewhat jerky style, using sentences heavy with alliteration and metaphors. His tone, though touched with sadness and perhaps even anger at man, unlike Arnold's poem, reveals an abiding sense of hope. Basically, each poet is presenting a very different view of Faith, and consequently of man's ultimate condition. Matthew Arnold begins his poem by describing a calm, beautiful scene. Dover Beach is lying "fair" in the moonlight. It is high tide and he sees the coast of France and "the cliffs of England... / Gleaming and vast, out in the tranquil bay." All seems lovely and quiet. According to Baum's research on the date and circumstances of the poem, Arnold is probably speaking to his new bride (86) as he says, "Come to the window, sweet is the night-air." But gradually the reader senses a shifting of mood and tone. Now he describes the "line of spray... / Where the sea meets" the land as "moon-blanched." And the tide, tossing pebbles as it comes, is a "grating roar" with a "tremulous cadence slow" that "bring[s] / The eternal note of sadness in." This melancholy mood grows deeper as he thinks of man's long span of history-- "The turbid ebb and flow / of human misery."    In the next stanza beginning with line twenty-one, Arnold gets to the reason ... ... in a sky that is brown, not completely black because God's Spirit is hovering in love over the dark world still, like a mother dove brooding over her nest.    Obviously, both poets recognize the darkness in the world; and both see love as a light in the   darkness. Arnold's love is human love from one individual to another and even that seems uncertain. The redeeming love Hopkins speaks of is God's love for man and His creation. That love is unchanging and indestructible--an abiding hope in the darkness. What a difference faith can make.       Works Cited Baum, Paull F. Ten Studies in the Poetry of Matthew Arnold. Durham: Duke UP, 1961. Boyle, Robert S.J. Metaphor in Hopkins. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1961. Kirszner, Laurie G. and Stephen R. Mandell. Literature: Reading Reacting Writing. 3rd ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt, 1991.

Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy Comparison Essay

Philosophy is a vast subject area to talk about. It is already known that philosophy involves the way people think about different things and how we questions things around us. The primary goal of philosophy is to obtain knowledge. To get and understanding of knowledge and question knowledge is what philosophy is all about. Philosophy has been studied by philosophers for years and every philosopher has his or her own take on what philosophy means to them. Sometimes there are agreements and sometimes there are disagreements within the philosophy community but with the debates being raised goes the rise to the knowledge that exists in philosophy. Through studies and debates philosophers have found that there are many different types of philosophy. Three very important types of philosophy are moral, social, and political philosophy. These three philosophy types are examined over and over by many philosophers. There is a lot of insight that can be learned by all three philosophy types. To get a more insight into moral, social and political philosophy one must compare and contrast the differences and similarities in the three types. Moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral judgments- value judgments about what is virtuous or base, just or injust, morally right or wrong, morally good or bad or evil, ,morally improper or proper. (Moore-Bruder, 2005) For example, if you see an older lady with a lot of groceries in her hand then one would say it would be morally right to help the woman with her groceries. So it would be morally right to help those that are in need of help. Many philosophers study this type of moral philosophy. Asking questions about what makes something wrong or right morally. There are also three different ideas about morals which are skepticism, relativism, and subjectivism. Skepticism would be when people feel that having moral knowledge is not humanly possible. Basically we do not know what moral standards are. This means that any thing goes and there is no right or wrong belief. Relativism is the fact that different cultures have different beliefs and have differences on what is morally right or wrong. Subjectivist basically is what is right or wrong depending on what you might believe as an individual person. Within moral philosophy there is also the use of egoism which is putting your self-interest in front of everything else. The pursuit of pleasure is hedonism. (Moore-Bruder, 2005) Knowing how to seek put pleasure and embracing it is a description of this type of moral philosophy. There is also what is called social philosophy which goes hand in hand with moral philosophy. In social philosophy we bring up questions about social behavior. Basically how is the behavior of a person in different social settings? The legitimacy of different laws socially and the breakdown of revolution. There is the break down of social questions when it comes to things like demographics, culture, and science. Social philosophy helps with understanding changes and different patterns within societies. Then you have what is called political philosophy. This means finding the best form of political existence. (Moore-Bruder, 2005) It helps give an understanding to the nature of political relationships and also authority. This means that there are questions rose like â€Å"How do you determine whether someone is to go to jail or pay a fine? Such questions like that tap into the political environment of philosophy. In political philosophy it is said that the philosopher Aristotle was an ethical naturalist and because of that he was sometimes viewed as the source of natural law political theory. (Moore-Bruder, 2005) That means that there a questions are answered through natural law which is suppose to determine right or wrong. In political philosophy there are four kinds of law which are eternal law, divine law, natural law, and human law. Now eternal law is the idea that God rules over everything and divine law puts people in the direction of his or her supernatural goal which is eternal joy. Natural law is the eternal law God which could be described as happiness on earth or the natural goal of man. Last, human law is the laws that are made through the thoughts and ideas of man. These all show different aspects of political philosophy. Different rights one would have come along the lines of political philosophy. In conclusion, the depth of philosophy goes far beyond each of our understanding and that is why studying the different aspects of philosophy gives those better insights into things that are questioned. Moral philosophy deals with what is morally right or wrong in different individual’s eyes. Social philosophy deals with the social aspect of questioning social ideas and changes. Whether it is laws, science, culture, or demographics, these ideas can bring forth socially motivated questions. Last, political philosophy deals with the different political questions of what is right and wrong and how we determine this through political questioning. All three of these political philosophies are dissected through constant study and debate on what is really the basis of philosophy. Reference:Moore, B. N. , & Bruder, K. (2005(. Philosophy: The Power of Ideas (6th ed. ). Boston: McGraw-Hill (Packaged with PowerWeb). Retrieved: January 14, 2009.

Summary junk food

Why Do Americans Eat a Lot of Fast Food? Alaa A1-Marhoon American Language and Culture Program University of Idaho Mark Bittman, in his 2011 article, â€Å"Is Junk Food Really Cheaper? † says that American people think fast food is cheaper than real food and they use this point to explain why so many of them are overweight. However, he believes that's not true because junk food is actually more expensive than real food. The average cost of a fast food meal is around $12 per person. On the other hand, home cooked meals might cost round $10 per four people.Some people say the fast food could be cheaper if it is weighted by the calorie, but that also isn't a way to price the food according to Bittman because the home cooked meal could have more calories by adding natural sources (paras. 1-3). Money isn't a guide for what people eat, either. As Bittman states even poor people could have real food with a small amount of money. The author mentions, the time isn't either because the people who drive to fast food restaurants ould drive to any supermarket to buy their stuff to cook, but the fact is some people are lazy and they don't want to cook.Also, some people don't accept others' advice to cook at home (paras. 5-7). The author believes that eating fast food isn't Just related to money and time, but it gets people addicted to eating it, which make it harder to stop because the fast food industry mix chemicals with it. Bittman explains those chemicals make the taste of fast food and people addicted to having them. A study in 009 showed that eating a lot of fast food affects the brain.Also, the fast food industry leads people to eat fast food more and more because that makes people feel pleasure when they eat it (paras. 8-10). Bittman confirms there are five fast food restaurants tor each supermarket in the United S t s All those supermarkets increase the fresh food price by 40% and decrease soda and manufactured food by 30% to increase their restaurant benefit s. On the other hand, those supermarkets have done that to force people to eat fast food projects (Para. ).To have better lives, Bittman advises people to change their eating habits. Making this change will require to work both culture and political. People have already done this before to change the tobacco settlement limited in 1998. Certainly, this change will not be something hard to make. People will alone have to work together.