A Compilation of Essays on People and Their Personalities

THOSE PEOPLE NEXT inlet * AG Gardiner Points to Ponder NOTE watch the text take forbookual matter thoroughly. These n unrivalleds defend been prep atomic number 18d in fostering you to agree a meliorate understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal exami country We seldom love our in riding habits. London city has its inhabitants and spate ar busy with their domestic chores. gum olibanum mountain oft cohabit as virtual strangers showing the to the lowest degree interest in keen their inhabits. This trait as workforceti aned by A. G. Gardiner is universeness increasingly noniceable in modern t sustains and cities in all parts of the world.The ignorance to know concourse who live next door is a trait which is increasingly sh atomic number 18d by city d vigorousers. The entirely sound is the noise generated by the wake up irons and the piano which indicates that the spick-and-span(prenominal) human being is occupying the premises . (Picture of mountain livelihood in London in the 20th Century) The aloofness in family in city dwellers is non to be construed as experience or incivility. It is the peculiar London expressive style of living. distri justively person guards his or her personal space and does not show whatever curiosity in knowing the other.Men oblige been expound as l onely as oysters all(prenominal) living in their own shell. The vivification in villages atomic number 18 hitherto diametric. populate in the rural argonas atomic number 18 inquisitive to know nearly their inhabits whereab bulges and well being. Villagers do not live as individuals but as a collective amicable unit. The side of people reveling (it core taking pastime in mostwhatthing) has been described in great detail. The possibility described is of people humping themselves by having a troupe. at that place be the inmates of the support we also obtain the guests and the live making continues til l deep hours of the morning. harmonise to Matida she had conceiven the revelers leave the house in a car at 4o quantify in the morning. Probably the din and bustle required by the neighbors was not seen in pr conducticed light. The disbelief increase is squirt we have fun and frolic at the cost of disturbing our neighbors peace? Is it something appropriate and clear by the law or social conventions? The es allegeist A. G. Gardiner also bears out the differences surrounded by man and man. to each(prenominal) one individual is different and very pr tourically we lay claim the judg leadstal route in trying to charge reasons for human behaviour.Why do our neighbors sleep so late or wake so early, on that point is foreignness closely surcharge and way of living. How can our neighbors enjoy much of holidays? Why do our neighbors not dress well or dress so shabbily? The habits of people the friends they associate with, the pets they keep often fork up credence to o ur worst solicitudes about our neighbors. However, in virtually typesetters cases our fears do not have any asylum atomic number 18 they are merely a fiction of our imagination. People also have a list to debate the worst about their neighbors.There are misguide statements and rumor in the air pilesome impertinent portrayal of our neighbors activities. However, when we happen to meet our neighbors personally we decide them to be different. There is nothing sinister (it way threatening) about them and our neighbors are human just interchangeable us. It is the game of judgment and misjudgment which lends the unfavorable popular popular picture giving rise to injurys and biases. However, the St Johns Wood case provides a different perspective. On the one hand on that point were cardinal musicians living in a house imparting lessons to pupils on the piano.The venture of raceway was stared to earn a livelihood. The musical notes were construed as instauration of no ise and disturbance of peace by the neighbor. In retaliation the neighbor banged on tin cans to induct things unpleasant for the musicians. In the first case it was ride made to earn an honest living and the musicians did not have the smellion of being offensive. This leads to the deficiency of being to a greater extent sensitive to our neighbors needs. We have to attain to respect our neighbors sentiments match to the essayist a blameless neighbor is one whom we never hear except when he pokes the fire.HOW TO evade FROM INTELLECTUAL RUBBISH Bertrand Russell NOTE Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prompt in helping you to have a pause understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination According to Bertrand Russell if it is important to deduce matters we must abide by the tenets of observation. The observation of matters and things must be undertaken by us and us alone. We must not believe others blindly. each evidence needs t o be tested for its believability and validity.Thinking that a person knows things whereas in reality to outride ignorant of men and matters comes in the way of our tax deduction and limitings. Russell has ween us the cause of Aristotle in a jocular manner stating that the top hat way for him to deem for human teeth is to count them. Similarly if one is interested in knowing about the breeding of hedgehogs, then the appropriate course of action would be to scrape up our more details about the tool by way of personal observation which can lead to appropriate deductions. There are heretofore so issues on which we have our aroused convictions..In many much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) cases we re primary(prenominal) oblivious of our personal bias. Thus we beat angry or frustrated when we have to mettle an opinion contrary to our beliefs (Say for example if we meet an unbelieve and the opinion given by the atheist contains us angry) The author has quoted if som eone believes that both and two are five, or Iceland is on the equator we tend to feel more of pity than anger. Persecution is use in theology (it way cruel treatment that is meted out to someone because of their race, organized religion or political beliefs) that is because religion is based more on opinion rather than evidence.Take the example of arithmetic and theology in arithmetic you have to have the knowledge to do things the right way in order to get the right answers. The study of mathematics is consequently more logical where answers are deduced scientifically. organized religion or theology is based more on opinions of what the prophet or sages have said and are not based on credible evidence. We the people living in different lands tend to induce striving national prejudice. By national prejudice we mean that we are given to believe that our nation is the best, in that respect cannot be any better culture, religion, social structure, way of animateness and the li ke.However, when we travel and travel extensively and meet people of foreign lands we find things to be different. The appropriate way to know about others opinion is to see a different report that advocates a different ideology (beliefs or ideas). You might call up that the newspaper is mad and the people believing the ideas are mad. But then again the people believing in the doctrine and the philosophy advocated in the newspaper must be also considering you to be mad, for you to be holding a different point of chance and a different set of opinion.Thus at that place are always the two sides of the coin. The writer has also cautioned us that becoming a fighte of foreign rules does not always have a beneficial effect. Read the example of China (Page 54, 2nd paragraph) where the writer says the custom amongst Chinese women was to have small feet and among the homophilechus for the men was to labor pigtails. There was the adoption of custom by the defeated and the triumphant which in a way shows the trait associated with intermingling of culture. The writer speaks of having an argument with a person having a different bias.Probably having such a debate leave help us to know the others perception and point of status more lucidly. Mahatma Gandhi for example believed that deplored railways and steamboats and machinery and all the benefits associated with the industrial revolution. This opinion will sound as contrary to exploitation and especially to the Hesperian ears who take the advantage of western technology for granted. In such a case it is always good to test the arguments of the opponent party before refuting it. This helps in understanding the others point of enchant most admirably.The writer says that if a person has an complex quantity dialogue with him ego justifying both sides of the arguments trying to debate the pros and cons of the pip then he would develop a better understanding of the stance. There are no rights and incorrect r an swers, the arguments are more based on opinions and not verified by facts and figures. For example in that location can be one argument that chief city punishment is a crime and should be abolished and even so another(prenominal) set of argument that the evil doers of the wicked crime should be hanged.Both sides of arguments has a reason and it is so mentally challenging and invigorating to debate the pros and cons of the situation However, we must be wary of opinions, of opinions that flatter our self esteem. For example opinions like there is no question that men are superior, or ones nation is superior, or our values are the best or our culture has no parallels such arguments are baseless and are filled with demerits on a large scale. The rational person will be able to apply reason as to the canon of conduct and justifications to such abominable code of behavior.Apart embodiment the false reason of esteem that is floated by people and nations there is the element of fear that holds us down. aid often originates from inventing or assuming rumors of disaster during war times or our fear of ghosts which have no practical founding. These fears pulls us down, and cast offs us regain of things console like the heaven for ourselves and hell for our enemies. These thoughts are the figment of our imagination the fears can take various forms and may include fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the mystical and such specialized terrors.The way out for it would be to guard ourselves against fears by sheer effort of will power. This act will help us to think more logically and rationally. Fear happens to be the main source of superstition and a source of cruelty. To conquer fear marks the beginning of wisdom and helps us to champion the cause of truth and sack up our purport more meaningful and a worthier one. How to everywherecome fear One way is to persuade ourselves that we are insubordinate (protected) from disaster. The other way is by way of practicing courage. The ulterior one is more difficult as it becomes unrealistic after a certain point. The former is the one which is more popular.Primitive magic served the purpose of securing safety either by injuring enemies, or by protecting oneself by talismans, spells and incantations. Such believes have survived over the ages and many people believe in mascots and sorcery which later was condemned by the church. Magic however has a unproblematic way of avoiding terror and witches were burnt for centuries. However, newer beliefs did set in and there is the concept of Gods and heroes surrounded by good hard drink Plato belief that the next world being governed by the state not because they were true but to make soldiers more willing to die in difference of opinion makes interesting reading.It is thus important for people to learn to be more rational and scientific in their outlook and believe in the power of observation. People are to avoid being dogmatic (it means rig id) and learn to appreciate others opinion. Then the source of opinion is to be found through logical reasoning and its authenticity is to be ascribed. ON MARRIAGE Ernest baker NOTE Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been prepared in helping you to have a better understanding of the text. Reading the text is a must for the terminal examination Summary The family has been portrayed as being a integrity alliance.There were eminent people like Aristotle who viewed the family as a federal society. The family has been divided into three clear groups. The first group comprises the keep up and the wife the second group has in its ambit parents and children and the third group consists of the master of the house and his servants. Thus three different societies have been earmarked by the cured writers. These writers did not recognize the family as a single society. Leibniz was wiser he believed the family system contained four societies and that is the family itself inclus ive of the other three groups.The nuptial society or the mob (a group of people who work in cooperation with each other) that is the save and the wife exists in its pure and stranded stage whole during the period of honeymoon. The period is compared with cristal and Eves life in the tend where the individuals have a blessed time. However, the times changes and priorities change with the birth of the child. This is compared with the loss of Eden. The man has just the holding of the honeymoon period and the woman gets busy in caring for the child. Marriage however enforces strict codes of discipline, demands and its own system of education.Marriage requires adjustment of personalities (that is the husband and the wife) who have diametrically opposite personalities. A common way of life is chalked out. Marriage thus is full of delight and difficulty, dissension and reconciliation, differences and comprises. It becomes more like a way of give and take adjustment and adoptability b eing called into play. The author sarcastically says that spousal is the totally kind of democracy where you find debate and compromise being increasingly used to settle differences. The institution of conglutination is funny indeed.There are distinct differences in preferences and life styles of both men and women. Men for instance like warm room, with windowpanes gayly and firmly shut, a good fire and a pipe of tobacco. Women love the singing air, the open window and the sight of driving clouds. Man loves to think that he is dying when he is ill women do not entertain such thoughts and are more practical. Man is always on the look out for change and always wishes to hear or see something new. Women demonstrate the daily chores steadily. The writer says that women do smile at men and find them to be tetchy, exciting and annoying like obstinate playboys of the human world.It is again the women who sum in stability and good sense in the lives of men. Thus we find great differ ences in the thought pattern of men and women. The writer says that men and women are yoked together in marriages for better or for worse. They however have respect for one anothers differences. The man and the woman remain different in their thoughts, action and deeds. The differences persist for ever. Marriages only seem perfect only when there is identity of interests or pursuits. However, there is sympathy and sharing in plenty. Marriages succeed when partners harken to each other and report outlets truthfully.Common interests do bring the partners together. Communication in marriages increases when things are done together. A wife who loves music tries to influence her husband into zest music and to attending concerts and musical shows. The writer says that gall must be discovered by prosecute common interests like travelling. These acts appear to be substitutes for comradeship, and cooperation. Marriages thus at times become less passionate and remain more like an institut ion. Like the monk, the pas de deux gains more form observation and experience.The writer says that rules for marriage like it persists in monastery would create more of content marriages. Romance keeps the marriages alive. If we ascribe divine influence in marriages then we would not just accept marriages to be a human contract. Agreement of the husband and wife is essential to the existence of marriage. The institution of marriage is however created by the divine scheme wherein we say that all marriages are made in heaven. touch on WALL (Summary) A endocarp argue separates the loud verbaliser system systems property from his neighbors. In spring, the two meet to walk the fence and jointly make readys.The speaker sees no reason for the surround to be keptthere are no cow to be contained, just apple and pine trees. He does not believe in smothers for the sake of walls. The neighbor resorts to an old adage sizable fences make good neighbors. The speaker remains unconvi nced and mischievously presses the neighbor to look beyond the old-fashioned folly of such reasoning. His neighbor will not be swayed. The speaker envisions his neighbor as a holdover from a justifiably outmoded era, a living example of a dark-age mentality. But the neighbor simply repeats the adage.The consider at the heart of pickle debate is arresting two men meeting on basis of civility and neighborliness to build a barrier among them. They do so out of customs, out of habit. Yet the very earth conspires against them and makes their task Sisyphean. Sisyphus, you may recall, is the figure in Greek mythology condemned perpetually to labor a boulder up a hill, only to have the boulder roll down again. These men push boulders back on top of the wall yet just as inevitably, whether at the hand of hunters or sprites, or the frost and thaw of reputations invisible hand, the boulders tumble down again.Still, the neighbors persist. The verse form, thus, seems to canvass conve ntionally on three grand themes barrier- build (segregation, in the broadest sense of the word), the doomed temper of this enterprise, and our persistence in this activity regardless. But, as we so often see when we look closely at halts best poems, what begins in folksy straightforwardness ends in complex ambiguity. The speaker would have us believe that there are two types of people those who cussedly insist on building superfluous walls (with cliches as their justification) and those who would dispense with this practicewall-builders and wall-breakers.But are these impulses so well separable? And what does the poem really say about the necessity of boundaries? The speaker may scorn his neighbors obstinate wall-building, may observe the activity with humorous detachment, but he himself goes to the wall at all times of the year to mend the suffering done by hunters it is the speaker who contacts the neighbor at wall- habitue time to set the annual appointment. Which person, th en, is the real wall-builder? The speaker says he sees no need for a wall here, but this implies that there may be a need for a wall elsewhere where there are cows, for example.Yet the speaker must derive something, some use, some satisfaction, out of the exercise of wall-building, or wherefore would he initiate it here? There is something in him that does love a wall, or at least the act of making a wall. This wall-building act seems antediluvian patriarch, for it is described in ritual terms. It involves spells to counteract the elves,and the neighbor appears a Stone-Age savage while he hoists and transports a boulder. Well, wall-building is ancient and enduringthe building of the first walls, both verbal and figurative, marked the very foundation of society.Unless you are an implicit anarchist and do not mind gunstock munching your lettuce, you probably recognize the need for literal boundaries. Figuratively, rules and laws are walls justice is the process of wall-mending. T he ritual of wall caution highlights the dual and complementary constitution of human society The rights of the individual (property boundaries, proper boundaries) are affirmed through the affirmation of other individuals rights. And it demonstrates another benefit of familiarity for this communal act, this civic game, offers a good relieve for the speaker to interact with his neighbor. paries-building is social, both in the sense of societal and sociable. What seems an act of anti-social self-confinement can, thus, ironically, be interpreted as a great social gesture. Perhaps the speaker does believe that good fences make good neighbors for again, it is he who initiates the wall-mending. Of course, a little bit of mutual trust, communication, and goodwill would seem to achieve the same purpose mingled with well-disposed neighborsat least where there are no cows. And the poem says it twice something there is that does not love a wall. There is some intent and value in wall-br eaking, and there is some regent(postnominal) tendency toward this destruction. Can it be simply that wall-breaking creates the conditions that further wall-building? Are the groundswells a call to community- buildingnatures nudge toward concerted action? Or are they benevolent forces urging the demolition of customs dutyal, piddling boundaries? The poem does not resolve this question, and the fabricator, who speaks for the groundswells but acts as a fence-builder, remains a contradiction.Many of icings poems can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on the germinal process Mending Wall is no exception. On the basic level, we can find here a discussion of the construction-disruption duality of creativity. launching is a positive acta mending or a building. Even the most destructive-seeming creativity results in a change, the building of some new state of being If you tear down an edifice, you create a new view for the folks living in the house crossways the way. Yet crea tion is also disruptive If nothing else, it disrupts the status quo.Stated another way, disruption is creative It is the impetus that leads instantly, sibyllinely (as with the groundswells), to creation. Does the stone wall embody this duality? In any case, there is something about walking the lineand building it, mending it, balancing each stone with match parts skill and spellthat evokes the mysterious and knockout act of making poetry. On a level more specific to the author, the question of boundaries and their worth is directly applicable to Frosts poetry.Barriers confine, but for some people they also encourage freedom and productiveness by offering challenging frameworks within which to work. On principle, Frost did not write free verse. His creative process involved engaging poetic form (the rules, tradition, and boundariesthe wallsof the poetic world) and making it distinctly his own. By adjudgeing the tradition of formal poetry in unique ways, he was simultaneously a m ender and breaker of walls any year, two neighbors meet to repair the stone wall that divides their property.The cashier is atheistic of this tradition, unable to understand the need for a wall when there is no inventory to be contained on the property, only apples and pine trees. He does not believe that a wall should exist simply for the sake of existing. Moreover, he cannot help but notice that the natural world seems to dislike the wall as much as he does mysterious gaps appear, boulders fall for no reason. The neighbor, on the other hand, asserts that the wall is crucial to giveing their relationship, asserting, Good fences make good neighbors. everyplace the course of the mending, the narrator attempts to convince his neighbor otherwise and accuses him of being old-fashioned for maintaining the tradition so strictly. No matter what the narrator says, though, the neighbor stands his ground, repeating only Good fences make good neighbors. Analysis This poem is the first w ork in Frosts second book of poetry, North of Boston, which was published upon his return from England in 1915. plot living in England with his family, Frost was exceptionally desirous for the farm in New Hampshire where he had lived with his wife from 1900 to 1909.Despite the eventual failure of the farm, Frost associated his time in New Hampshire with a peaceful, rural sensibility that he instilled in the majority of his subsequent poems. Mending Wall is autobiographical on an even more specific level a French-Canadian named Napoleon Guay had been Frosts neighbor in New Hampshire, and the two had often walked along their property line and repaired the wall that marooned their land. Ironically, the most famous line of the poem (Good fences make good neighbors) was not invented by Frost himself, but was rather a phrase that Guay often declared to Frost during their walks.This particular adage was a popular colonial proverb in the tenderness of the 17th century, but variations o f it also appeared in Norway (There must be a fence between good neighbors), Germany (Between neighbors gardens a fence is good), Japan (Build a fence even between intimate friends), and even India (Love your neighbor, but do not score down the dividing wall). In terms of form, Mending Wall is not structured with stanzas it is a simple forty-five lines of first-person narrative.Frost does maintain iambic stresses, but he is flexible with the form in order to maintain the conversational feel of the poem. He also shies forth from any obvious rhyme patterns and instead relies upon the effortless internal rhyme and the use of assonance in certain ending terms (such as wall, hill, balls, well). In the poem itself, Frost creates two distinct characters who have different ideas about what exactly makes a person a good neighbor. The narrator deplores his neighbors preoccupation with repairing the wall he views it as old-fashioned and even archaic.After all, he quips, his apples are not g oing to invade the property of his neighbors pinecones. Moreover, within a land of such of such freedom and discovery, the narrator asks, are such borders undeniable to maintain relationships between people? Despite the narrators skeptical view of the wall, the neighbor maintains his obviously old-fashioned mentality, responding to each of the narrators disgruntle questions and rationalizations with nothing more than the adage Good fences make good neighbors. As the narrator points out, the very act of mending the wall seems to be in opposition to nature. both year, stones are dislodged and gaps suddenly appear, all without explanation. Every year, the two neighbors fill the gaps and replace the fallen boulders, only to have parts of the wall fall over again in the coming months. It seems as if nature is attempting to destroy the barriers that man has created on the land, even as man continues to repair the barriers, simply out of habit and tradition.Ironically, while the narra tor seems to begrudge the annual repairing of the wall, Frost subtley points out that the narrator is actually more mobile than the neighbor. It is the narrator who selects the day for mending and informs his neighbor across the property. Moreover, the narrator himself walks along the wall at other points during the year in order to repair the persecute that has been done by local hunters. Despite his skeptical attitude, it seems that the narrator is even more tied to the tradition of wall-mending than his neighbor.Perhaps his skeptical questions and quips can then be read as an attempt to justify his own behavior to himself. While he chooses to present himself as a modern man, far beyond old-fashioned traditions, the narrator is really no different from his neighbor he too clings to the concept of property and division, of ownership and individuality. Ultimately, the front line of the wall between the properties does ensure a feature relationship between the two neighbors.By ma intaining the division between the properties, the narrator and his neighbor are able to maintain their individuality and personal identity as farmers one of apple trees, and one of pine trees. Moreover, the annual act of mending the wall also provides an opportunity for the two men to interact and communicate with each other, an event that might not otherwise occur in an isolated rural environment. The act of meeting to repair the wall allows the two men to develop their relationship and the overall community far more than if each maintained their isolation on separate properties.