Monday, January 27, 2020
Sport And Social Class
Sport And Social Class Today sport is seen as a symbol of unity for the young people, something you can do no matter what is your skin color or your social status. In the past the difference between social classes was notable, and often people were not allowed to train or participate in games because of their social status. In his book The Ancient Olympic Games, Judith Swaddling shows us the first social differences in sport. In those Olympics almost everyone was allowed to participate except the slaves, who were counted as items back then and giving any kind of freedom to these people was something unheard of. The big difference between classes back then was shown in the horse racing. In this sport you could participate only with your own horse, and since the one race was long at least 6 tracks the only people who could afford such training, and also to feed both the horse and rider. Also the Olive wreath was not awarded to the jockey, but to the horse owner which discriminated all of the jockey effort. There were also chariot races were chariot were pulled by two or four horses, there the principle remain the same and the horse owners gained all the fame, instead of the hard working jockeys. In the Middle Ages the difference between the rich and poor in the sport continued to grow. The Olympics of that time The Knight Tournaments were allowed only for aristocrats and royals and the poor were not allowed even as spectators. The poor people were left to be in a league of their own. During this period for the rich people the Bowls became one of the biggest sports in the country only because they loved to gamble on it. Also Colf (the today`s Golf) was very popular among the nobles . The peasants mainly trained with the sole purpose to be prepared for war, and this is the biggest reason why sword fighting and archery were so popular back then. ( Medieval Sports (2012). www.middle-ages.org.uk) During the Georgian era the class difference decreased. The main sport played back then was cricket and both rich and poor played it. The main changing factor was gambling to cricket which was something very popular for the rich. Often they hired people from the lower classes to play for their teams in exchange for money. Many of the lower class cricket players were offered work in the Lords mansions. A lot of the richer players were against this, mainly because they believed sport must remain clean, without any financial stimulation to the players. Of course the rich could afford to play and spend the time, but for the poor who needed to work extra hard to get their food this was unbelievable. This is the period when the first disputes between amateurs and professionals came up. In a popular article Sandiford (1983) shows us the difference between the social classes during the Victorian era is increased again. The amateurs (upper-class) were distancing themselves from the lower class professionals. Class distinctions were so big that both sides used different dressing rooms, used different trains to travel and etc. E.J. Tiger Smith of Warwickshire wrote- Even the stands were built with the idea of separating the elite from the multie. There were members pavilions, balconies, grandstands, and open areas-each denoting, trough price and usage, a certain social status. (Sandiford 1983, page 33). The amateurs officially claimed that they do everything because they want to keep the sport clean but, many historians doubt this and claim they dont want their games to attract attention from the lower classes and to be played for fun just between them. Even many clubs organized cricket games between the amateurs and the professionals the difference in the social class stayed many years ahead. The upper and lower class often hated each other and the games where the lower class won were remembered as remarkable. Many people nowadays claim that cricket is so unique game because of the amateurs and the fact that in so many years no one was remembered but the game was still the number 1 sport in the country. Many amateurs actually made money from cricket, by going to different countries on tours and making huge profit from it, but since it was unofficial payment nobody protested. Even until 1952 the difference between crickets remained as the journalist from the Financial Times, Rob Has tings wrote: When Len Hutton led the England team out to field against India at Headingley in the summer of 1952, so becoming the countrys first professional captain, he was quietly cocking a snook at the cricketing establishment. Cricketers in England had, for as long as anyone could remember, being divided by social hierarchy. There were the Gentlemen; and then there were the Players. For the Players, cricket was a living. They were from the working classes and were paid fees to play for their counties and their country. The Gentlemen, on the other hand, were from aristocratic backgrounds and were sufficiently well off to play for the love of the game alone. In his book Rugbys Great Split Tony Collins presents to us one of the biggest social battles in sport. In 1890 the working class clubs from North were in a big conflict with the southern clubs of gentlemen, (the upper class) because they could not turn professionals, and after furious disputes and refuse to step back from both sides. For a long time the working class people in the North liked to play the hacking game of rugby than any other. This sport was among the most popular ones in the north of England and most of the players were workers in the mines or the factories. The dream to play the game they love and get paid for doing this was so close to them, but the rich amateurs from the south were strictly against this and the Rugby Union federation which was located in the south did not let them to accept payments. The rugby players and official from the north decided to start their own league, which will be fully professional and players can be payed for playing their favorite g ame. The rivalry between the working class north and the upper class south increased after this decision. After the new found Rugby League was found mainly from teams from the North many amateurs came there to play for money, and also many northern clubs players and administration workers quit because they still believed in amateurism. This made the Rugby Union league even weaker causing a big problem for the Rugby Union, taking them 18 years to win another international championship.
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Ethical Theories Essay
A virtue is a trait of a certain person that is valued as being good from a particular point of view and answers the question of what actions are moral and what are not. Also, morality is the basis of being ethically correct and good. There had been several different ethical theories that exist in the society and each having different standards or basis for morality. One of the well known theories in the contemporary time in the field is virtue ethics which is one of the 3 major normative ethics approaches.            Virtue ethics originated in the ancient Greek times that takes inspiration from the works of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle while other theories in virtue ethics also incorporate elements from the works of Hume, Plato, Aquinas and as well as Nietzsche. Basically, virtue ethics gives importance on the character of a person. Thus, it is the character of a person that is the key element and the basis of being good or morally correct rather than laws/rules or even the consequences or outcome brought about by a particular action.            According to virtue ethics, we should look at the character of a person rather than his or her duties and actions. It is how one can be better person that is given emphasis rather than the right thing to do. It is easy to live a virtuous life according to Aristotle and that the main reason for those who do so is to be happy. Thus, a virtuous life gives happiness which is the main or ultimate goal of every human being according to virtue ethics.            In order to become a better person, virtue ethics suggest that one must practice virtuous acts on a regular basis. These acts will eventually become habitual and thus, making the habit of doing such acts as a natural day to day activity which in the long run, will make the person a better being. Thus, the ultimate aim of the particular person is to make people happy. Virtue ethics suggests that a person living a virtuous life will eventually do virtuous things not only to be happy but as well as to make people happy which in turn will be their main objective and goal in life of a virtues person.            Virtue ethics also assumes that all humans have capacities that are inherited and that, as stated earlier, actions that could improve these capacities are considered as ethical and those that hinder the improvement of these capacities are not, that is, if an action is able to develop the potential of the particular person, it is the morally right thing to do and otherwise, morally wrong. These, inherited potentials, according to ethical theories are wisdom and intelligence and so, in order to live a virtues life, we must be able to develop our wisdom and intelligence. Thus, rather than trying to define goodness or righteousness, improving one’s character is given the importance and is the basis of ethically good actions and is virtue ethics’ central theme.             By giving emphasis on the person’s being rather than actions, virtue ethics aims to achieve something that is genuinely wanted by the person rather than focusing on the incoherent ideas about the after-life which are found to be arguable. It is said that virtue ethics is applicable to all, can easily be understood and fits into both dos and don’ts of philosophies and as well as religion. Therefore, it is like a combination of both religion and philosophy.            Every ethical theory suggests standards of morality and according to virtue ethics, right actions are the results of being a moral person. It is by becoming a moral person that we will eventually know what actions are righteous from what are wrong and thus, we flourished as human beings. Virtue ethics also suggests that virtue is an important and admirable human characteristic just as courage and kindness. Virtue ethics also suggests that a good society is a result and accomplishments of virtuous people in that particular community. Thus, it can be said the virtue ethics is far more different than other ethical theories present such as Consequentialism that focuses on the results of a certain actions or Deontology that focuses on certain rules and duties of every individual as set by the society. Consequentialism would ask what actions will bring the most benefit and the least harm to the persons that are involved and will be affected by the action. On the other hand, Deontology will ask what actions are approved by the society and that are accordance to the moral rules or laws as dictated by the society or culture. Still, as mentioned earlier, virtue ethics does not focus on the action itself or on the result of that action or even in the set of rules that are present in the society but rather, on the character of the person involved in making the decision. By evaluating the points of these ethical theories, it can be said that all have their own strength and as well as weak points when it comes to decision making and one cannot be considered as superior to the other. Still, taking either side will also be dependent on the points of view of the person making the decision.            One problem with virtue ethics is that it is mostly not applicable or of little help to persons who are facing dilemma. The same thing also goes for Consequentialism and Deontology.  If for example, you can save a friend by lying to a certain person or group, would lying be the action by a virtuous man or is it considered as a simple lie that a virtuous man should avoid? In this case, it can be said that virtue ethics cannot be applied and does not help the person in making a decision.            Another problem faced by virtue ethics is that it cannot justify a certain problem for doing so would require a basis of what is moral. In this case, the decision on which virtues are considered morally correct and which are not are has to be made which is definitely a hard thing to do. Thus justifying certain actions based on what virtues are moral and what are not are still a big question.            On the other hand, it can also be said that the one of the distinct strength of virtue ethics is that it gives emphasis on the connection between our characters and our acts. It also views our character as whole and unified rather than treating each as isolated when it comes to making ethical decisions. Thus, a person’s virtue is considered as a totality and not as fragment of different aspects and that one character/trait is not isolated from the other. Thus, virtue ethics looks at the individual, something that most ethical theories fail to do.            There is no absolute theory that exists in which all will agree that it is definitely the right standard of living a virtuous life. Thus, every theory has its own critique and opponents. This is because of the difference in the experiences, knowledge and points of view of every individual, being unique in different ways. Thus, an ultimate theory can never really exist. The actions that must be taken by every individual defends on both his or her experiences and values together with the situation at hand and no theory will be able to solely suggest what ought to be and not be done. Therefore, decision making is not just a matter of theories and principles but of experiences, knowledge of the situation and of the people involved and the complete being of a person making the decision. Reference Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2000). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved April 28, 2008            from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/#3
Friday, January 10, 2020
Museum Of Modern Art George Seurat
Art AS communication 3 December 2013 Museum Paper On November 9th, 2013, St. Josephs College hosted a field trip into New York City. The purpose of this field trip was to transport us into the city, and have the students visit a major art museum. There were a few different choices, the students had, but most went straight to the Metropolitan Museum of Art because the admission to the museum was whatever you want to contribute. However, we took a different approach.My friend and I went straight to The Museum of Modern Art, also known as the MOMA. I looked briefly the night before at each museum to get a feel for what I wanted to see, and what I did not. Once I saw this artist was at the MOMA, that's when I knew I wanted to actually see it in person. The artist that I very much wanted to see was George Seurat. Prior to this class, I have never heard of this artist. I never knew who he was, or knew the style in which he painted. It was only a few classes before the trip that I truly lea rned to appreciate this artist.I have never seen an artist who has the patience and delicacy to place these dots on a canvas, sometimes smaller than a crumb, to create a work of art. George Seurat was a French Post-Impressionist painter who drew in a style called pointillism. Pointillism is â€Å"the theory or practice in art of applying small strokes or dots of color to a surface so that from a distance they blend together. †(Merriam- webster. com) This style of painting is consistent with his other works through this time period. The piece of art I chose for my paper is the â€Å"Port-en-Bessin, Entrance to he Harbor†by Seurat.This painting was made in France in 1888 and is roughly 21. 65 inches by 25. 59 inches. The painting is oil on canvas and describes a harbor in France. When I first saw this painting I didn't realize it was a piece by Seurat. It looked as if it was work done in a different style than pointillism. I chose this one because, in my opinion, this style of painting deserves the most respect out of any of the artist. In this painting you can see how each little dot is done in order to create one large image. The first thing I noticed in this painting was the defining line between the shore and the water.Seurat uses different shades of green and a very pale color to illustrate the effect of grass and sand. For some reason that part of the painting kept me looking for a little bit and following the shore line up the painting. Next my eyes brought me to the water and the floating dock towards the middle ground slightly to the left of the painting. Here you can see he used two complementary colors to really attract your eyes to that point. The almost wood color f the dock and the light blue water really reinforce each other and keep you looking there for a brief second.The water had me confused at first. You can see within the harbor itself, there are three larger dark blue circles. I thought they were deeper parts of the water an d Seurat was trying to create depth here, but I soon ruled that out. I later realized with the weather that is portrayed here, that those are clouds exiting the harbor and that there was a lot going on here. I believe this is where Seurat wanted his focal point to be. The very center of the painting shows the sharp angles of the sails against the dark shadow of the cloud meeting the water.It is not just the contrast that brings your eyes here, but it is the way the boats are positioned. As with the shore line mentioned earlier, the boats are creating this line in which your eyes Just follow. Seurat uses directional force here starting with the boat on the right and creating this sense of movement towards the boat to the left, leading out into the ocean. He uses the shapes of the sails, and the direction they re advancing, to lead your eyes out, to the background, into the ocean where the rest of the boats are.Actually going into the city to see the original work in person was import ant to me because you can only appreciate this style of art once you are in front of it. Looking up this picture online doesn't do it Justice because the colors are off and it looks strikingly different from the original. Also an important thing to note is you can really see the small and medium dots he used in this painting. When you zoom in online, the resolution is off and it gets blurry before you can see detail.Not to discredit any other artist, but I think this style of painting requires much more time and dedication to create the final image. Overall, I have enjoyed this trip, and the class for that matter, because it showed me there is more to art when you can break it down using the elements and principles and see what the painting is really about. Works Cited â€Å"Pointillism – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. †Dictionary and Thesaurus – Merriam-Webster Online. N. p. , 7 Aug. 2012. Web. 29 NOV. 2013. .
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Othello, By William Shakespeare - 2234 Words
It is not wise to attempt to judge another purely based on their outer shell; the showmanship of one’s character is demonstrated through the goodwill and integrity of their being. Women, while commonly shown to have a weaker sense of character, could also reveal to have some of the greatest shows of genuity. In one of Shakespeare’s famous tragedies, Othello, the story revolves around Othello, a Venetian general, who marries Desdemona, the daughter of a Venetian noble. Iago – whom Othello declares as his ancient – despises him, and thus tries to destroy his marriage along with him. Othello is easily ensnared within the traps Iago sets; this causes great paranoia and distrust among Desdemona, and a series of rash decisions. Othello is†¦show more content†¦Through the tragic events of Othello, Desdemona and Emilia prove they display more strength of character than the male characters with their compassion, courage and honesty. The kindness and compas sion that these two characters emanate truly show their strength through empathy, a trait that is lacking in the male characters. Throughout the play, Desdemona constantly shows her well-meaning demeanor, and stops at nothing to assist a friend. One great example is when Cassio pleas to her to help him in retrieving his job. Her sense of empathy and genuine care for others compels her to help him in any way possible, even if it means putting herself in an unfavourable position. She constantly nags Othello to reinstate Cassio, doing it out of the compassion from her heart: â€Å"Why then tomorrow night, or Tuesday morn, / On Tuesday noon or night; on Wednesday morn. / I prithee name the time, but let it not / Exceed three days†(III.iii.68-71). This kindness shows true strength of character, as an individual with great integrity will also be aware of others, and assist their peers in times of need. This is in stark contrast with the male characters, as they very rarely show ac ts of kindness. For example, the acts of kindness from characters such as Iago are ingenuine, as he uses them to obtain his desires; Desdemona performs these acts purely to aid others, with no personal gain for herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)