Humanities Homework Help

Hello, I want someone to write my essay for me.

EVERYTHING WORDS MUST BE DIFFERENT. NOT A SINGLE WORD CAN BE THE SAME THING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE PLAGIARIZING. IF YOU PLAGIARIZE, i WILL WITHDRAW .

Please aos checker your grammar before submitting to me

Also, there must be no grammatical errors.

Here is the essay. Again, reword the whole essay!! ‘

1. In the chapter of structuralism Parker outlines Saussure’s claim that difference creates meaning, by the way we compare things. People have created a way of understanding through many variables, one example of comprehension is familiarity such as the way people identify their mothers. Every mammal and aves are able to identify their mother at birth mainly due to a hormone called oxytocin. Oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus and is stored in the pituitary gland. In both sexes it plays an important role in intimacy, sexual reproduction, and during and after childbirth it creates social bonding. Oxytocin is acquitted in mass amounts after the distension from the cervix and uterus during labor. The hormone is also released in lactation to stimulate a bond between mother and child, thus creating an awareness of who the infant should trust. In relation to Saussure’s claim about difference creating meaning, shows how the older someone gets the more prone he or she is to understanding things through a series of comparison.

The principle of binary oppositions came from Ferdinand de Saussure a Swiss linguist. Saussure died before he was able to publish his ideas that later made him famous, but his colleagues however were able to later publish his work. Saussure’s claims on difference gives a meaning on things that we cannot acquire without the comparison of two different things. For example there is no way of understanding how hot works unless someone can explain the process of cold. Furthermore both hot and cold are complete opposites, one cannot understand how one works without the other. There is an endless number of oppositions other than hot and cold that give certain things in life meaning, such as left and right, north and south, up and down, etc. these comparisons give structure to perception.

Saussure described the overall system of language, as a system of signs, each sign consisting of a sound like image. Language is not a list of words that apply to an object, but instead a concept of sound like images Saussure called a signifier. Thus that sound like image represents what Saussure called the signified. The link between the signifier and the signified is depended on an arbitrary connection, but different languages use contrasting words to represent the same concept. The understanding of a signifier such as a cat can only be recognized by processing its from another similar signifier. The way the word car is recognized is by the way it differs from bat, cab, cut, and so on, not due to a deep rooted connection to a precise signified that convention has attached it to. English has about 40 phonemes, which is a limited set of sounds that people hear as marking meaningful differences. Speakers of English have grown an unaware comfort to these phonemes, and without these phonemes people would no be able to hear the essential differences in sounds of two similar sounding words.

Shakespearean actors would roll an r, but it would cause no confusion compared to the unrolled r as the same phoneme. Compared to the Spanish language where they could represent different phonemes, and the word with a rolled r can signify something different from an identical sound without the rolled r. When is comes to writing two people may write the letter r differently but the letter r is recognized the same. If the writing system was constructed differently then two different people who write down the letter r could signified it as two diverse letters. Thus creating the recognition of signifiers, which is not due to an inherited quality but a system of difference created by other signifiers. Difference is then created by the system of comparisons and relations to produce meaning. We can only understand something fully by comparing it to other things in a system of structures so that language is a form and not a substance.

Language is not like frosting on a cake; just a layer that on top of something that is more important, it constructs the things that we use to describe. Structuralists see reality as constructed, not as an illusion that language makes up an underlying essence that covers over or labels. Humans construct their reality through language and by the coordination with other human beings. The way human beings create a model of the social world and how it functions, show how their experiences are rationalized. The way people shape themselves is by interactions, how someone was raised, and how others perceive one. The perceptions of reality are colored by a system of beliefs and backgrounds throughout someone’s life. What makes something real depends on what is socially acceptable; people participate in the construction of reality. The way someone behaves does not depend on objective reality of a certain situation but on the subjective interpretation of reality. The consequences put in line due to a behavior make the act of doing wrong real.

Each person creates a view of a person or a situation through his or her perception of reality and it gives them a notion to act accordingly. Through the structuralist view the world is not something that we discover it is rather something we produce and construct through language. That is why when learning a new language we learn a new way of seeing and understanding. Through different cultures it influences the perception of reality and creates conceptual patterns that gives an understanding of storytelling. Stories or myths represent a surface structure that creates a boarder of deep structure and a overall system of relations that all cultures can share. There is not reality independent of language and if someone believes there is then he or she would be considered a essentialist and there is no way to back up essentialist view without using language.

2. Base and superstructure fits with the quote “it’s not the consciousness of men that determines their social being, it’s the their social being that determines their consciousness”. In the quote Marx is trying to say that someone can’t wish they’re way out of their reality or current state. Though religion and other forms of idealism it claims that something is wrong with someone’s thought process unless he or she believes in the religious figure and ask for help through faith or prayer. Marx disagrees and feels that instead of wishing or praying for something or a situation to change one must go out and claim what he or she desires. Marx also believes that people set boundaries for what they are able to think and every idea or image someone has is a mashup of things on earth. It is hard to imagine something someone has never seen before.

Through the ideologies of German philosophy it is known that history can be viewed from two sides: one through the history of nature and the history of man. As long as the human kind has existed nature and man have correlated with each other. The premise of the commencement of the human race is not arbitrary; there is an actual basis where abstraction can be made only through imagination. The first premise of human history is the understanding of existence of the human race and the relationship to the rest of nature. Humans can be distinguished from other animals by consciousness, religion, and materialistic desires. What an individual expresses what they are coincides with what they produce and how it is produced.

The relation of human society there consists of two parts: the base and the superstructure. The base is divided into forces and relations of production, such as employer/employee work conditions. These certain relations determine society’s relationships and ideas, which becomes the superstructure. The superstructure is a series of culture, institutions, the power of politics, roles, and state. The relation between the base and superstructure is not casual, due to the superstructure influence on the base. As people acquire the need to produce food, shelter, and clothing, work is assigned to different people, which created the division of labor. Through the division of labor different classes competing interest grew. Agriculture grew enough to make surplus crops, which led to trade until capitalism took over feudalism. The bourgeoisies were created as a new class of capitalist merchants that exploited a class of workers called the proletariat. The capitalist gained their money by the purchase of goods or labor to produce profit. The process of capital started where profit would be made by using money to make more money.

The base and superstructure divides the world between classes of people who use labor to produce goods then sell their labor, and create another class who use their capital to purchase labor through wages. Marx expressed how an authentic consciousness is linked to one’s true positions in history. Marx felt that the political economy is the engine of the mind. When it comes to political and the political economical circumstances it leads to the ideological forces that render people from what one thinks of life, power, and self. Ideologies of oneself creates an understanding and justification of the current distribution of wealth and power throughout society. Compared to societies that pertain to unequal distributions of wealth and power, ideologies create an acceptance to these inequalities as inevitable. People that are viewed in society as subordinate came to believe in their subordination, this belief comes from ideologies, which creates false consciousness. Thus this condition of inequality creates ideologies that disorient people’s feelings about their true aspirations, loyalties, and purposes.

Humans are the producers of their own conceptions and ideas, but through society people are conditioned to believe their productive forces define him or her. Marx view on awareness perceives a meaning that the blindness of one’s conscious thoughts prevents one from being aware of their true humans needs and ideas that reside from within. According to Marx these human needs and ideas are rooted in the whole social structure of the human race, which directs someone’s consciousness in specific directions. Reality often gets distorted by rationalizations and fictions in society and dissolves the awareness of true human needs. A human consciousness is a reflection of the political economy and he or she’s thoughts are not determine consciousness.

Marx views that people have formed the foundation of the political economy and accepted the languages and laws. Through this political economy a separation of labor, private property, land, rent of land, and profit of capital were enlisted. As power magnitudes society falls into a system of two classes; the property owners and the propertyless workers, the political economy expresses the formation of private property. Through the formulas of private property laws are passed, but no demonstration is shown as to how the nature of private property was formed. Political economy does not explain why there is a division of labor and capital, or capital and land. Greed and the war amongst the greedy is the only thing political economy sets in motion. Mainly due to how it does not give an understanding to how movement is connected throughout society. The worker becomes poorer while producing wealth to the company, by the workers production increasing power and size. The objectification of labor is embodied in an object, which has become a material by the products of labor. Objectification can be viewed as the loss of the object and bondage to it. A loss of realization is apparent in labors to a point where workers can lose realization and starve to death. The more a worker puts he or she’s life into an object, the longer the workers life no longer belongs to them but to the object. The alienation of the worker towards a product means that the labor becomes an object that is an external existence, but it only exists outside the worker. The object becomes something alien to the worker and creates a power of its own confronting him. Labor cannot live without the objects, therefore the worker becomes a slave to he or she’s object.

3. In Plato’s Gorgias Socrates attempt to convince Polus that rhetoric is not really a power one can use to better oneself, Polus first argues that people who do malevolent things in life are happy. He then goes on to explain how people who do what they want, even if it is considered unjust to the people of the city, live happier lives. Polus continues to discuss how if someone does something that is considered baleful, but escapes punishment for the wrong act, the person may continue to live a blissful life. Socrates disagrees with Polus and goes on to discuss how people who do malice things are unable to live happy lives, because they are trapped in the sorting’s of their wrong doings. Socrates also adds that someone who does spiteful things and doesn’t receive any form of punishment for he or she’s corrupted actions is more shameful than someone who is chastened for their evil actions. Socrates believes that justice should always be served and person punished for their wrongful acts will live a happier life. Socrates then discussed how Archelaus committed grave crimes without paying what was due and by doing that lead to his unhappiness. Where as Polus believed that Archelaus was a happy man even though he did unjust acts, due to the reasoning that he was allowed to do the unjust acts.

Socrates debates about the seeking of true definition of rhetoric and the flaws of oratory. The art of persuasion in Athens was widely used in political and legal advantages. This gave rhetoricians the ability to promote themselves as teachers of the skill oratory. Socrates believed that the use of oratory is based mainly on skill that is obtained through experiences in life and not gained by actual knowledge or morality. Without the tie to philosophy rhetoric is simply used to persuade for only personal gains in life. Socrates stresses how rhetoric is a form of flattery and that is uses pleasure as bait to catch the folly. These forms of flattery are directed at the soul by claiming the body with the use of pleasure principles; flattery can manipulate the body and make the soul isolate from itself. Socrates comparison between sophistry and cosmetic in which it is a misleading art and could possibly have good use in society. The association of rhetoric and cookery shows that rhetoric deceives the ignorant into believing things that are unjust.

Socrates tries to discover the truth by a series of questioning, the truth for Socrates can be found through deliberation with others. The knowledge in ones soul can come to the conclusion about someone’s beliefs, though truth is not based on acceptable beliefs. Socrates believed that people need philosophy to give an understanding of what is right and what is wrong in life, and oratory cannot lead to justified ways in society. Socrates would rather be refuted than refute another and that a rhetorician is more convincing to an audience that is ignorant to the subject matter than an audience that an expert of the given matter. In order for something to be legitimate one must have evidence or knowledge on the topic and not go by a system of beliefs. Socrates is trying to get Gorgias admit that persuasion comes in two forms one that creates belief without knowledge and the other knowledge. Socrates also points out and gets Gorgias to admit that an orator is merely just a persuader and doesn’t have any regards to what is just or unjust.

Callicles’ point about the powers of rhetoric is that the people who posses more power control the less so by means of force, and the ones who are considered better rule over the worse. Cellicles then gets into the conception of persuasion by verbal trickery can lead to a false appeal and deceive the innocent. Cellicles feels Socrates’ commitment to the search of truth through philosophy is childlike, because he doesn’t devote himself to the things he preaches. Callicles then states that Socrates uses his speech to set traps and change the meanings; he also creates significance to people’s words where they did not intend on it having that kind of meaning. Furthermore, Callicles then urges that Socrates believe that good is created by human convention as opposed to the ways of nature. Callicles ultimately states that the inquiry of philosophy through adulthood is disgraceful, and he says that Socrates’s crazy use of other people’s words is ridiculous and embarrassing.

Socrates view on real power is the act of doing just things and admitting to doing something and suffering the consequences. Socrates believes in the philosophy that happiness comes from doing what is right and understanding that wrong doer live in a state of unhappiness. Going back to Archelaus, even though he was allowed to punish, kill, and exile people it does not make him a happy man argued Socrates. Polus felt the opposite say that he had the power to do so and didn’t have to live under a formation of laws and rules so he must have been a happy person in life. Polus felt that power was granted to people who were able to do the things they wanted and did not have to deal with any forms of punishment. To Socrates believes that real power is the ability for someone to tell the truth and own up to he or she’s action by accepting the punishments the crime entitles. Thus owning up to wrongdoings gives someone the power of redemption, so they can be viewed as a noble person for doing what is just and acceptable in society.

Socrates view on rhetoric is that it is an indispensable tool for securing the ideal of unlimited power and unbridled pleasure. Polus views rhetoric’s as people who possess power and that it is a powerful art, they can do what they see fits. Socrates disagrees with Polus statement by stating how rhetoric’s are not really powerful and they do not do what they may wish, compared to Achelus they do what they seem to see as fit. For Socrates the good is different from the pleasurable, while some might see the good being the same as the pleasurable.

4. Parker’s description of Derrida’s method of deconstruction shows how Western civilization has fallen into a misconception about the supposed fixity of meaning existing between signifiers and signified Deconstructionist believe in multiple meanings compared to structuralist who believe in relatedness. The structuralist formula of defining the sign as the signified fused together with the signifier then leads into free floating signifiers. As for deconstruction a singular more stable meaning makes a path for a more ceaseless play of language that pertains to multiple meanings. Deconstructionist describe how meaning is disseminates, the act of dissemination cannot be defined, due to the fact that it would limit it’s meaning. Dissemination refers to how meaning scatters, spreads, and multiplies it also accumulates certain meanings that can also be lost. Destruction cannot destroy anything it just alters the way people view things and offers more not less. Deconstructionists don’t believe in a system that can’t be undefined or that it is possible to understand cultural objects with a single explanation.

The signifier is the pointing finger the word or sound image; the word itself is just a jumble of letters creating a familiar sound. The signified is the concept, the true meaning that is indicated by the signifier. The signified does not need to be a real object but something that can refer to the signifier. The signifier is more stable and the signified varies between people and context. Plato viewed ideas as the root concept that a signifier without a signified has no meaning and the signified can change with each person or context. Saussure believed the relationship between the signifier and signified is arbitrary and called this unmotivated. Saussure reflectionist view that the signifier will reflect the signified thus the signified creates a trigger for understanding a word or phrase. The signifier and the signified act as an interpreter when it comes to understanding of a sign. The notion of a signifier without a signified creates a noise, where as a signified without a signifier is impossible. A linguistic sign is not a link between a thing and a name, but between a concept and a sound pattern. The sound is not actually something physical the sound pattern is distinguished from the element associated within the linguistic sign.

Deconstructionist ways of interpretation often follow an understanding called double reading, which is a singular interpretation free from multiplicity and deconstruction. Derrida believes in mistaken belief that there is a self sufficient/ non deferred meaning as the metaphysics of presence. There is not enough to expose and deconstruct the way in which opposites work and then stop on a cynical position. Derrida makes the claim that writing came before speech and that people put too much emphasis on speech itself. Derrida as phonocentrism refers to the emphasis put on speech, which is the belief that signifiers can contain essence of their signified. Derrida feels that Western culture is photonocetic and that Western cultures people take for granted the identities and meanings that rest in the sound of the voice. The voice is expressed as a person’s essence and it gives someone the ability to reveal him or herself in an essential way.

The figuration or free play of language sets up writing so adversities are set as a status of proliferation or signifiers. These signifiers cannot hold writing down to secure meanings that give a privilege of writing over speech. Derrida system of representation outlines a formula of signified and the signifier, where the signifier always floats freely away from the signified. Speech can find a way outside of representation and become a true signified apart from the representing signifiers. There is no origin or endpoint to signifiers, we can only keep adding and multiplying signifiers. The free floating signifiers can only guarantee that there will always be an absence between the signifier and signified. Derrida’s made up word is that there will always be difference and a gap between the signifier and signified. The gap between the signifier and signified is inevitable, but keeps meaning from ever settling. To Derrida there is no beginning, no origin, and no ending just a continuous circulation and deferral. The difference between two concepts is that language can never arrive at one term or the other or the other but only keeps deferring them in a signifying endless game.

Derrida intended for all his writing to have social meaning and responding to his critics he made the social commitments more explicit, sometimes drawing an Algerian Jew. The representation of an undetermined quantity of signification voids any source of meaning. Floating signifiers mean different thing to different people, which may stand for whatever their interpreters want them to mean. The notion of floating signifiers came from the concepts such as race and gender; it is a way of asserting a word that is more concrete than the concept it describes. The concept might not be sable but the word is and can be applied to non-linguistic signs. For example The American flag can be represented as patriotism to that nation, the flag can either create good or bad significance. Words can leave their differential relations and detach from the world, because there is no stable anchoring that fixes meaning in relation. There is no escaping difference and infinite uncertainty, but for motivated criticism. Language created the movement of supplementary or reveals a lack in itself. Every deconstruction thought through its limits more patiently even when rejected strongly.

Westernization creates concepts such as simulacra the understanding of contemporary technology and media in daily life and through the aesthetic experience. The hyperreal creates a stimulation of the real the grows more true than the real, for example during a storm victims take cover in their homes and cut off from the rest of the world, without the use of electricity they will have no way of know what’s going on in the world around them. For some people their lives on social media seem more real than their lives lived directly with people.