Ontology :: essays research papers

Ontology One of the most controversial debates in philosophy has been over the nature of being. In the Pre-Socratic era the dispute focused on whether change was constant while our human perceptions made static separations so that we could make sense of our environment, or if being exists omnipresently and that our perceptions of diversity in matter are false. Plato tries to solve this dilemma with his theory of an objective reality in a realm different from that which we experience. Aristotle agrees with Socrates except that he believes an object’s true essence cannot exist separated from the object itself. I presume that we can exist with our own identity and inhere to a greater whole simultaneously, however my rationalism does not extend beyond people. Nonetheless, these philosophers all had valid conclusions and their theories compliment each other. "War is king"1 said Heraclitus. He believes that reality is not composed of a number of things, but is a process of continual creation and destruction. An accurate metaphor for his rationale is a river. It’s location remains basically the same. One can walk away from it, and return with the confidence that it will still be there. However, the exact water that flows through it is never the same. One can’t tell the difference between the water in the river now and the water in the river earlier and yet this transience of matter does not detract from the identity of the river. Heraclitus would say that all of what we experience is like the river, forever changing in a process of erosion and creation. Heraclitus’ successor, Parmenides, believes that Being must exist virtually in the mind. Because nothing cannot be thought without thinking of it as something, there cannot be "nothing"2, all that can exist is Being. If there is only Being it must be indestructible, uncreated, and eternal. If one agrees that Being is , then there can’t be any place where being is not. According Parmenides’ purely logical view, all perception of vacuous space is an illusion. Plato tried to solve this dilemma of ontology with his theory of the forms. "You have before your mind these two orders of things, the visible and the intelligible,"3 he says, which can be compared to opinion and knowledge respectively. In The Republic he uses a line analogy to explain the connection between what we perceive and what really exists. Dividing a line in four unequal parts gives us the four stages of understanding with a state of being on one side of the line corresponding to a state of understanding on the other side of the line.

Ek Ruka Hua Faisla – Review

E’Ek rukaa hua faisla’’ , remake of Hollywood classic ’’Twelve angry men’’ an Oscar Winning Film widely used in Management Schools & corporate for understanding ‘HUMAN BEHAVIOR’ and â€Å"LEADERSHIP STYLES’ †¦.. Let’s take a look at the plot first to be familiar with this movie. The movie starts from a scene in a jury room where 12 jury members are discussing the case for the final verdict. The case is regarding a murder of an old man and the suspect is his own son. Everything from the statement of witnesses to debate of lawyers has already finished. And as they are reaching verdict and counting votes.. 11 said guilty and 1 said not guilty. Now the whole movie revolves around this 1 person who is standing on his ground for voting not guilty. He explains that he is neutral in his judgment and unless he is satisfied he won’t vote guilty. And gradually with his common sense, thinking and debating power ( Advocacy skills ) he changed the mind of other jury members until finally they all voted not guilty. This movie is special especially because it portrays the thinking of 12 different people from 12 different aspects of society, from self-made guy coming from the slums to famous doctor to elite class people. In these 12 jury members, everyone was so careless to reach their decision except that 12th person. They are so preoccupied with their personal problems or engagements that they do not understand the gravity of their decision. 1 person’s life is on stake. yes, the accused guy could be real culprit or maybe not. But they should not just let the guy to be hanged only because they were getting late for a movie or a game or for dinner party, etc. Sometimes the plot do get interesting when that lone ranger (12th jury member) is highlighting the broken links in the statements of witnesses and the case put together by public-prosecutor against the accused. You get the feeling that this guy could do wonders if he were a real lawyer and whether the lawyer for the accused was so stupid. The movie touch the hearts of everyone who watches it. It shows how unsafe we all really are. How much we lie to our self just to feel safe and strong , and how weak we really are. You can relate yourself to each and every one of that jury member. Each person is a manifestation of your in different situations you can find yourself in your daily routine life. And it horrifies you to realise that how prejudiced and careless you have become to other humans and their feelings. You are not wrong in any way.. but you have to be understanding enough and responsible enough to take other’s point of view into account too when reaching a major decision that could effect other’s life. The message is very clear. Do not reach any decision just for the heck of it. Do take time to think and be as neutral as possible. You really feel so sick when you see and hear the remarks of the other jury members and why some of them want the boy to be punished. Just because the guy from elite class think that this boy belongs to slums and so they must be destroyed to make 1 person less against the fight for exploitation. The doctor thinks that these guys are good for nothing and it’s better that the boy should be punished for making this world more safe and clean. But The main character is the jury member who is most difficult to change his decission, Pankaj kapoor (who i am sure was quite young when he acted in this movie), is really amazing in his portrayal of a hurt father who is prejudiced about the accused boy because his own son had been disrespectful to him and even slapped him. And in the end, you really wonder.. this is a movie so there has to be poetic justice. But in this real world, can you really be impartial and neutral while making every decision? i know and you know too.. t’s next to impossible.. that 12th jury member, the ideal human being , only exist in the movie. It’s hard to find anybody who can be impartial in decisions which do not effect their own life. So, the real decision here to be made is to be positive and unbiased and not to be influenced by our preconceived notions in making important decisions. I am glad that i get to share my views with all of you guys. I would totally recommend this movie to eve ryone. and i mean everyone. This movie is worth watching at least once for your development. ttp://www. slideshare. net/prkworld/ek-ruka-hua-faisla The model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the [x-axis]] and concern for people as the Y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High). The resulting leadership styles are as follows: * The indifferent (previously called impoverished) style (1,1) : evade and elude. In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to preserve job and job seniority, protecting themselves by avoiding getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions. * The accommodating (previously, country club) style (1,9): yield and comply. This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this will increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily very productive. * The dictatorial (previously, produce or perish) style (9,1): control and dominate. With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance in return. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure. This style is often used in cases of crisis management. * The status quo (previously, middle-of-the-road) style (5,5): balance and compromise. Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve suitable performance but doing so gives away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are met. * The sound (previously, team style) (9,9): contribute and commit. In this style, high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel themselves to be constructive parts of the company. * The opportunistic style: exploit and manipulate. Individuals using this style, which was added to the grid theory before 1999, do not have a fixed location on the grid. They adopt whichever behaviour offers the greatest personal benefit. * The paternalistic style: prescribe and guide. This style was added to the grid theory before 1999. In The Power to Change, it was redefined to alternate between the (1,9) and (9,1) locations on the grid. Managers using this style praise and support, but discourage challenges to their thinking * Grid theory breaks behavior down into seven key elements: Element| Description| Initiative| Taking action, driving and supporting| Inquiry| Questioning, researching and verifying understanding| Advocacy| Expressing convictions and championing ideas| Decision Making| Evaluating resources, choices and consequences| Conflict Resolution| Confronting and resolving disagreements| Resilience| Dealing with problems, setbacks and failures| Critique| Delivering objective, candid feedback|

Why Does Alcohol Make You Pee

If youve ever had a drink, you know it sent you to the bathroom, but do you know why alcohol makes you pee? Do you know how much more urine you produce or whether there is a way to reduce it? Science has the answer to all these questions: Key Takeaways: Why Alcohol Makes You Pee Ethanol or grain alcohol is a diuretic. In other words, it increases urine production.It works by suppressing anti-diuretic hormone (ADH), so the kidneys return less urine to the blood and allow more to exit as urine.Alcohol also stimulates the bladder, so you may feel the urge to urinate sooner than your ordinarily would.Each shot of alcohol increases urine production by 120 milliliters.Drinking also dehydrates the body in other ways by increasing perspiration and possibly by producing diarrhea or leading to vomiting. Why Does Alcohol Make You Pee? Alcohol is a diuretic. What this means is, when you drink alcohol, you  produce more urine. This happens because alcohol suppresses release of arginine vasopressin or anti-diuretic hormone (ADH),  the hormone that allows your kidneys to return water to your  bloodstream. The effect is additive, so drinking more alcohol increases the level of dehydration.  Another part of the reason you visit the bathroom more often is because alcohol also stimulates the bladder, so youll feel the urge to pee sooner than you would ordinarily. How Much More Do You Have To Pee? Ordinarily, you produce 60-80 milliliters of urine per hour.  Each shot of alcohol causes you to produce an additional 120 milliliters of urine. It matters how hydrated you are before you start drinking. According to the  July-August 2010 issue of Alcohol and Alcoholism, youll produce less urine from drinking alcohol if you are already dehydrated. The biggest dehydrating effect is seen in people who are already hydrated. Other Ways Alcohol Dehydrates You Urination isnt the only way you become dehydrated from drinking alcohol. Increased perspiration and possibly diarrhea and vomiting can make the situation even worse. The Breaking the Seal Myth Some people believe you can stave off the need to pee by waiting as long as possible to break the seal or urinate for the first time after you start drinking. Its a myth  that the first pee is a signal telling your body you need to visit  the bathroom every 10 minutes until the booze clears your system. The truth is, waiting just makes you uncomfortable and has no effect on how frequently or copiously you will pee from that point on. Can You Reduce the Effect? If you drink water or a soft drink with alcohol, the diuretic effect of the alcohol is reduced by about half. These means youll get less dehydrated, which helps to reduce your chance of getting a hangover. Other factors also affect whether youll get a hangover, so adding ice to a drink, drinking water, or using a mixer may help, but wont necessarily prevent headache and nausea the next morning. Also, since youre increasing your fluid intake, diluting the alcohol wont make you pee less. It  means a smaller volume  of that urine will be from the dehydrating effect of the booze. Its worth noting, no matter how many beers you drink or how much water you add, the net effect is dehydration. Yes, you are adding a lot of water to your system, but each shot of alcohol makes it that much harder for your kidneys to return that water to your bloodstream and organs. People can live if the only liquid they get is from alcoholic beverages, but they get water from food.  So, if you were stranded on an island with nothing to drink except rum, would you die of thirst? If you didnt have lots of fruit to offset the dehydration, the answer would be yes. Sources Harger RN (1958). The pharmacology and toxicology of alcohol. Journal of the American Medical Association. 167 (18): 2199–202. doi:10.1001/jama.1958.72990350014007Jung, YC; Namkoong, K (2014). Alcohol: intoxication and poisoning - diagnosis and treatment. Handbook of Clinical Neurology. 125. pp. 115–21. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-62619-6.00007-0Pohorecky, Larissa A.; Brick, John (January 1988). Pharmacology of ethanol. Pharmacology Therapeutics. 36 (2–3): 335–427. doi:10.1016/0163-7258(88)90109-XSmith, C., Marks, Allan D., Lieberman, Michael (2005). Marks Basic Medical Biochemistry: A Clinical Approach, 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams Wilkins. USA.