Firework by katy perry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Firework by katy perry - Essay Example The song Firework was written by Katy Perry, Ester Dean, Sandy Wilhelm, Tor Hermansen, and Mikkel Eriksen. While this is the case, the song is always assumed to have been written by Katy Perry. The song recorded by Katy Perry was meant to inspire people, especially the youth, to overcome their insecurities and fears (Gundersen par. 5). Perry reminds her audience that within them is a spark that can ignite them and make them shine (AZLyrics.com par. 5). Perry’s personal experiences greatly relate to the song having been brought up in a Christian family. Her mother restricted her from listening to or even singing secular music. She was brought up in an environment that only encouraged gospel music, which in her view was quite restrictive. Perry made several attempts to produce albums that would drive her to fame in vain. She however did not give up, instead choosing to ignite her fireworks until she became famous. Later in life she threw her restrictions and fears to the wind an d has been a great success in the secular music realm, both locally and internationally. She is internationally celebrated as a renowned actress, song writer, and recording artist with many awards to her name. Perry reflects social ideas in that she seeks to empower people to live beyond their common fears and shine. While the song does not respond to a historical movement, it represents the current state of affairs in society – many people struggling with various issues that limit their potential. The audience should know that Perry has struggled to become a success story. The target audience of the text includes all people, the youth especially, who feel like giving up their dreams. The target audience of the text is captured by the words â€Å"Do you ever feel, feel so paper thin; Like a house of cards, one blow from caving in?† (AZLyrics.com par. 1). The text in this regards excludes the audience of people who are feeling good or who

Platos Analogy of the Cave Essay Example for Free

Platos Analogy of the Cave Essay Plato was a Greek Philosopher, who was a student of Socrates. The Analogy of the Cave in Plato’s Republic was written as a dialogue between Socrates and Plato’s brother Glaucon. In the Analogy of the Cave, Plato describes the prisoners who lived an isolated life in the confined space of a cave. Plato’s Analogy explains a philosopher’s journey to knowledge and the difficulty that he faces along the way and the prisoners in the cave who have not embarked on the journey to true knowledge and are living their lives, only seeing what is on the surface, and what they want to see. The Analogy relates to Plato’s Theory of Forms, which explains how the forms possess the ultimate reality. The World of Forms is the unseen world in which everything is constantly evolving and changing. The Analogy however, is the attempt to enlighten the prisoners and explain the philosophers place in society. He uses the story to explain the need to question everything like a philosopher does in order to distinguish between the unreal, physical world and the real spiritual world lit by the sun. The sun is the ultimate good and Plato gives the name of good the demiurge. The cave is a symbol of the world; it represents the World of Appearances based on what people see by their senses. It is an illusionary physical world in which people are trapped by ignorance and false truths. It is a world where people ignore the truth and are unenlightened. The prisoners are in this illusionary world where they think that what they are seeing is reality however it is not reality at all. In the cave there are shadows of truth and echoes of reality. It is filled with illusions. It is a world of senses where the prisoners have gained empirical knowledge which is flawed. Plato thinks that the prisoners’ situations are no different from ours, as we do not see the forms clearly, only the physical world. Plato believed that everything exists in its true, perfect form outside of the cave in the world of the forms. The Cave; the physical world imprisons a person by stopping them seeing the forms. The cave represents a world where everything comes to an end and will eventually die, however in the world of forms nothing will die or end. Everything is transcendent and evolving. People who leave the cave gain true vision and see reality. The cave can also represent  the body in which our souls (the prisoners) are trapped. Our souls constantly yearn for the World of Forms in which nothing ever decays. The cave may also represent society and the prisoners cannot see the world for what it really is as they are trapped in the claws of society. The prisoners are humans who have a lack of knowledge and are oblivious to the truth and reality. They are in an illusionary world. The prisoners are mankind or at least human thought and existence. They are chained mentally by culture; trapped in society and physically around their necks and feet, which means they are not able to move around. This means that their minds cannot wander elsewhere and they remain fixed on the shadows/their reality. The chains also represent humanities inability to become enlightened and our consciousness. Their reality is the shadows of truth and the echoes of reality. They have never seen true good, true reality; the sun. They represent human beings like us as they are ignorant and oblivious to the truth and the world of forms. Their minds are full of ignorance and false impressions. They have beards which show that they have been there since childhood, and that the darkness is all they know. The prisoners sit facing the wall and have spent their lives watching the shadow play. For them the appearance seems real, as they have never seen anything else. We have sympathy for the prisoners as they have been misguided and are oblivious to the ultimate good; the demiurge. They are people who accept everything at face value and never question or try to understand. Their lives are empty and meaningless. The people who carried the statues helped to shape the prisoners’ views however they also were thought to share the same views as the prisoners. In the ‘Republic’, Plato criticized philosophers and politicians who lead the people but do not actually know the truth. The people carrying the statues are like the philosophers and politicians; oblivious to the World of Forms. The prisoners also represent our souls, which are yearning to get to a higher place. They are trapped inside the body, which is a physical form. The shadows are made from ‘all sorts of vessels and statues and figures of animals’, a mere shadow show orchestrated by the unseen men. They are the shadows which create the false images of distorted truth. They are the limits of reality. The prisoner’s senses are misguided by the shadows. The shadows are deceitful; they are the false way people see things. The shadows that the prisoners look upon represent the perceived truth; the prisoners did not have the knowledge to look beyond the superficial, and only had the capacity to believe in shadows. We are also told about the fire. It burnt behind and above the prisoners. In front of the fire there was a puppet stage for the men to carry the object behind, this would cast the shadows. The only noises the prisoners would hear were the echoes of reality, and the only things the prisoners would see were the shadows of truth. The puppeteers are ignorant for carrying on teaching the prisoners false knowledge. The fire in the cave represents the power of the sun. The fire has the ability to illuminate the false truths inside the cave; it magnifies what the prisoners can see, which shows them what to believe in. The fire represents false and incomplete knowledge and is also deceitful. It represents the illusions that keep us in the dark from truth. The journey out of the cave is the journey to truth and reality; it demands that you must challenge your pre-conceived ideas. The prisoner’s journey out of the cave, his ascent is faced with hardships and struggles; escaping the chains, past the fire and up the steps. The reason the prisoner is described as being ‘dragged out the cave’ is because the journey is distressing and he is being forced out. Plato said ‘The object of knowledge is what exists and its function to know about reality’. It explains how reality is the world of forms and the job of the philosopher is to get knowledge, this is what the prisoner does when he goes out of the cave. He is the one who breaks away and makes the journey out; he is the philosopher who wants to know what is really going on. He wants to see past the distorted truths. ‘And those who strive for reality and knowledge are philosophers’. The escaped prisoner could represent Socrates (Plato’s tutor). The journey out of the cave symbolizes the journey of an average person into the world of knowledge and wisdom through philosophy. This is achieved by looking into the depths of meaning and searching for answers. The journey is uncomfortable as it requires the prisoner to challenge his beliefs. When the prisoner first breaks free he is in tremendous amounts of pain as his muscles have been unused for so long, and he is able to look directly at the fire rather than  just at the shadows. The path outside the cave is rocky, steep and unstable as the things that the prisoners once knew as reality are all becoming unclear. Once the prisoner is out of the cave, he is faced with the sun. The sun represents complete knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment. It represents the World of Forms, which the soul yearns to reach. It represents the ultimate good, the ideas/forms; the demiurge. It reveals the world to the prisoner, and how things can be if you come out of the shadows. It represents truth, beauty and justice. When the prisoner see’s the sun, he becomes temporarily blind; this represents the enlightenment because he has discovered a world past the shadows. A world which is real. The sun lets him see the true beauty of things, not the shadows that he saw before. Plato suggests that in this world, the sun gives both life to being as without light, we and the plants and animals would not grow and flourish, and provides light by which these things can be seen. The sun is the source of truth and reason; it represents the perfection of realities. Through the sun we will see the truth, real beauty and real justice. He comes to see a deeper reality, a reality marked by reason. Once the prisoner has embraced his new found knowledge, he wants to maintain it and no longer live a life of confinement trapped inside a cave. Once he sees reality, he makes a painful readjustment back into the darkness of the cave. This journey back is also painful as once he has seen reality, he does not wish to reminisce in the deceit of the past. However he is a good man, who gains true knowledge and wishes to enlighten the others. He could represent Socrates going to enlighten Athenian Society. When he gets to the prisoners, he seems mad, as he describes a new strange reality. They laugh at him and mock him, and reject him to the point of threatening to kill him. Their disagree shows how previous philosophers such as Socrates were penalized and laughed at for their beliefs and ultimately killed. Plato’s Analogy of the Cave is a representation of the human condition, under the circumstances of our basic beliefs and behaviors in society. It represents the lack of human knowledge, and the difference between the two  worlds. It shows that in the World of Appearances, everything we see or experience are shadows of The World of Forms, they are impure. They show that we live in a world full of flux and decay and we are just matter. The World of Appearances is a Visible World and a Finite World whereas The World of Forms is an Unseen World, full of phenomenons, forms and ideals. The World of Forms is constantly evolving and changing; ‘You cannot step into the same river twice’. The World of Forms is outside the cave, and it is where everyone aims to go. The soul yearns for a higher place.

10 Years After The Reovlution :: essays research papers

The so-called "Velvet revolution " ended the communist control of Czechoslovakia in late 1989. On November 17 the formal government allowed a demonstration, where people commemorated the 50th anniversary of a cruel suppression of a student demonstration in German-occupied Prague. However, history repeated itself and the students were brutally beaten by police. As a result a large protest movement developed. Demonstrations and strikes occurred across the whole country under the leadership of Obcanske forum, which was leaded by Vaclav Havel, a dissident playwright and Charter 77 signer. Following the political turmoil he became the new president of Czechoslovakia. Ten years after the Velvet Revolution many political and social changes have occurred within the former Czechoslovakia. The first major change was the peaceful split of the country to form two separate states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia as we know it today. Following this split much of the former communist infrastructure was disbanded including many state run industries in an attempt to make them more efficient and encourage investment. Former communist legislation preventing the freedom of speech was also passed out of law allowing people to express their political views and criticize government policies. For many people these changes introduced a great improvement in their standard of living. A wide variety of goods soon appeared in privately run shops which previously had only been available in western shops. People were also allowed to travel freely, which had been banned under the communists to prevent the breeding of discontent when people saw what was available in other countries. The country also prospered following increase foreign investment as western companies keen to exploit new markets entered the country for example the takeover of Skoda by the German run Volkswagen. However, the Velvet revolution did have some negative effects. The rationalization of state run companies meant that many people were put out of work

Review of “Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict”

Review of â€Å"Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict† Mark R. Long Morris Graduate School of Management Review of â€Å"Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict† The article (Burke 1969) describes a number of methods for negotiating and handling conflicts. In this article the author describes both effective and ineffective methods ranging from force to withdrawal. Each method is defined by a number of examples. The most effective technique, Confrontation Problem Solving, is identified and described in terms of its characteristics. The second best resolution technique defined in Table 1 is Forcing while the worst technique was also Forcing. Forcing was the second best resolution technique under the Effective Resolution column at 24. 5%, following the best technique at 58. 5% Confrontation Problem Solving. Forcing also was the worst resolution technique at 79. 2% under the Ineffective Resolution column. Forcing was seen to be effective by the â€Å"winners† of a win-lose conflict. It was seen by â€Å"losers† of a win-lose conflict to be ineffective. Forcing is perceived as an effective method of resolving conflict by the victor, but not by the vanquished. From the first four examples in the text (Burke 1969) the best example is number 4. This example highlighted the fact that through problem solving both parties can benefit. Working through their differences they reached a solution that was optimal to both of them. This created a win-win scenario. With neither side feeling the â€Å"victim†, a better resolution was discovered. They can now build on this success to resolve the next problem without any carryover of negative history between the parties. From the remaining examples in the text (Burke 1969) the worst examples are numbers 5, 6, 7. All three illustrated Forcing as a method of conflict resolution. A win-lose situation is created. In each of the cases the superior prevails over the subordinate. This creates a win-lose situation where only one side perceives the outcome as positive. Win-lose outcomes are less likely to be accepted voluntarily. One person gets what they want and feels vindicated, while the other person loses out and feels cheated or a failure. The outcome is that future conflict resolution will be prejudiced and may not lead to an optimal resolution. To summarize the thirteen characteristics of Confrontation as a conflict-resolving you first need to recognize that Confrontation is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties through collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather than a war to be won. The important distinction is to view this as both parties versus the problem, rather than one party versus the other party. This method focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather than emphasizing strategies designed to conquer. Full problem definition, analysis and development of alternatives precede consensus decisions on mutually agreeable solutions. The parties work toward common and super-ordinate goals. These goals can only be attained by both parties pulling together. There is an emphasis on the quality of the long term relationships between the parties, rather than short term accommodations. Communication is open and direct rather than secretive and calculating. Threat and coercion are proscribed. The assumption is made that integrative agreements are possible given the full range of resources existing in the relationship. Attitudes and behaviors are directed toward an increase of trust and acceptance rather than an escalation of suspicion and hostility. The Confrontational approach requires a very high degree of patience and skill in human relations and problem solving. The article concludes that conflict is not a bad thing in contrast to the text (Meredith and Mantel 2009) concerning the win-win approach to negotiation. The article suggests that a more realistic approach to conflict views conflict as necessary. That conflict can be used to define a problem more accurately and used to seek the best alternative for resolution of the problem. Without conflict there is no change. Change implies conflict because vested interests are challenged. Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a problem feels they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation, win-win outcomes. Conflict is an inevitable fact of human existence. If we work to understand and manage it effectively, we can improve both the satisfaction and productivity of our social relationships. Effective conflict management is indispensable if coordinated efforts and productive results are to be achieved. Since conflict may have functional as well as dysfunctional consequences, it is essential that individuals explore various methods and techniques of conflict management. Individuals that can increase their use of problem-solving in interpersonal conflict can create a better working experience and achieve more constructive consequences. References Burke, R. J. 1969, Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict, PM Network, Personal Administration, July-August 1969, International Personnel Management Association. Meredith, J. and Mantel, S. 2009, Project Management: A Managerial Approach, (7th Edition), John Wiley and Sons

Fleur Adcock: Analysis of Instead of an Interview Essay

‘Instead of an Interview’ by Fleur Adcock, is a poem essentially about the divided sense of identity she has inherited: from both family (or historical) emigrant experience and personal deportation. In the poem, the issue is complicated, as Adcock explores the loss and alienation that emerges from the choice of long-term separation from family. It begins with descriptive visual imagery, where Adcock attempts to familiarise herself with the childhood images of â€Å"The hills†, â€Å"water, the clean air†, and â€Å"a river or two†, â€Å"certain bays†, and â€Å"those various and incredible hills†. The description almost seems like a ramble, which evokes a fresh and exciting experience. Although we learn later on in this poem that she addresses England as her â€Å"home†, this stanza largely bears feelings of nostalgia. The â€Å"ah† in the last line of the stanza re-emphasises her expression of relief, relaxation and comfort, after her first visit back to New Zealand after 13 years. Through this poem, Adcock offers â€Å"snapshots† of her family’s past, and the struggles of family, marriage, and life. In the second stanza, we see Fleur warming up to the familiarity of New Zealand – the â€Å"streets I could follow blind†, and other â€Å"familiar settings†. There seems to be a sense of distress, as Fleur is engaging in parts of her past that she has tried to forget about. Coming back to her birthplace appears to be more overwhelming, than comforting. It seems like she had gone away because she hadn’t like it enough to stay. Whether good or bad, â€Å"the dreams (she’d) not bothered to remember† kept creeping back automatically as she passed â€Å"familiar settings†. She further relates this attachment with the atmosphere of the country: â€Å"ingrained; ingrown; incestuous: like the country. The elaborated vowel sounds enhance the warmth of the stanza, drawing the reader closer to Adock’s personal feelings. The semicolons serve as caesuras, creating dramatic pauses for emphasis. The slightly grotesque terms – â€Å"ingrained†, â€Å"ingrown†, â€Å"incestuous† – are used to emphasise the vividness of her hometown memories, as if they were carved into her thoughts. The three adjectives and the caesuras have a rapid flow, which then shifts to a lingering rhythm with â€Å"like the country†, composed of three words. This sudden change in rhythm brings about a grand atmosphere or aura, especially ue to the end-stopped line, since this breaks the flow and changes to a new stanza. The use of â€Å"country† enhances this importance – her memories and country complement one another, emphasising the size and enormity of these â€Å"ingrained†, â€Å"ingrown†, and â€Å"incestuous† memories. Another significant and extremely personal connection mentioned in this stanza is, â€Å"my Thorndon† – Thorndon being the capital city of New Zealand. The personal pronoun â€Å"my† emphasises a sense of belonging and possession, as though she wants to point out that this country is a significant part of her childhood. In the third stanza, Fleur is genuine to mention all the wonderful things ‘another city’ in New Zealand offered to her: â€Å"a lover†, â€Å"quite enough friends†, in terms of relationships. Her use of caesuras is evident once again in the third line: â€Å"bookshops; galleries; fish in the sea†. She is heightening the reader’s interest with her clever use of punctuation, once again emphasising the different and essential memories of her country. The reader is able to identify from this line Fleur’s many areas of interest. She seems to enjoy the company of nature – natural imagery is abundant in this particular stanza. The â€Å"gardens†, â€Å"fish in the sea†, â€Å"lemons and passionfruit† signify her love for nature. It is evident that these authentic memories are destroyed due to urbanisation; as she mentions in the earlier stanza – â€Å"half my Thorndon smashed for the motorway†. The trees and gardens were ruined over the years and replaced by synthetic and unnatural materials. Hence, her sense of possession has strengthened, with whatever piece of nature and memory that remains. ‘Instead of an Interview’ exposes Adcock’s sense of an identity split between New Zealand and Britain. This alternating change in culture evidently created confusion with Adcock identifying herself. Adcock explained to her niece, â€Å"home is London; and England, Ireland, Europe. â€Å"Perhaps she is entirely attached (maybe temporarily) to the British culture, since she has practically lived there her whole adult and professional life. After visiting her birth town, all the childhood memories came flooding in; perhaps she resisted them because she is still so confused about where she really belongs. The idea of ‘home’ being a â€Å"loaded word† re-emphasises her befuddled state of being. Adding to that, the poem ends with a question ark: â€Å"have I made myself for the first time an exile? † This use of punctuation leaves the reader puzzled, with plenty of questions, because the speaker herself is unsure about her identity. For the first time, Fleur feels she has made herself an â€Å"exile†, which is the state of being expelled from one’s native country. This is a serious dilemma and seems as though she wrote this poem in a slightly sentimental hangover from having visited New Zealand after 13 years. What is misleading is that the poem comes across as Adcock’s way of saying she does not like to talk or be interviewed but rather to show her emotions through her poems.