Forgiveness can be considered simply in terms of the feelings of the person who forgives, or in terms of the relationship between forgiving and the forgiven. It is usually granted without any expectation of compensation, and can occur without aware that forgiven (for example, a person can forgive another person who is dead or not seen for a long time). In other cases, forgiveness can come through offering some form of apology or restitution, or even just an apology, addressed to the victim, believing that he is able to forgive, according to Forgiveness (2010).
Forgiveness is the complete and utter oblivion of sins, from the heart, is sincere, generous and self-love does not hurt the offender. It does not impose humiliating conditions nor is it motivated by pride or ostentation. True forgiveness is known by actions, not words.
There are religions that include disciplines on the nature of forgiveness, and many of these disciplines provide an underlying basis for the various modern theories and practices of forgiveness.

In simple terms, forgiveness can only be addressed by extending it and the person subject to that gift, in terms of familiarity or friendship of the individuals involved, in some contexts can be given without the grievant compensation or ask something in return with or without response from the offender, or not aware of such action, as in the case of a deceased person or as a psychotherapeutic in the absence of the aggressor, in practical terms, you may need to offer an apology the offender, restitution, or even asking to be forgiven, in recognition of the error, to the knowledge of the victim which can be pardoned.

It is essential to:
1 . Be aware of what happened. Objectively analyze what happened and talking to those involved, for it is sometimes necessary to get help from a professional.
2 . To be humanitarian. Strive to see who has offended a person with strengths and weaknesses, avoid feeling superior or right to judge.
3 . Show humility. Set aside the pride that acts as a barrier to access to forgiveness. Forgiving yourself is to reflect on their own mistakes. This is to accept yourself and come to the conclusion that forgiveness is necessary for everyone.

4 . Keep calm. To remove your anger is a technique for managing stress. Make a couple of breaths and think of something that gives you peace and quiet may be an image related to the nature or someone you love.

5 . Avoid waiting until you’re offered an apology. The other person may think that it hurt you and can see things differently. Forgiving someone means to release all resentments and misunderstandings that have kept living in the past and the present. If offended asked for forgiveness, do not expect the other person to accept it fast. Let take time to analyze it.
6 . Recognize the benefits of forgiveness. Studies have shown that people who forget, have more energy, better appetite and healthy sleep patterns. If you are not aware of the bitterness and resentment that may have the other person, then you will never forgive or leave things behind.
7 . Forgive yourself. Everything begins with self-forgiveness. To be forgiven and to forgive, you have to forgive yourself. For many people, self-forgiveness is the greatest challenge in doing, so it creates a higher level of confidence.

According to some, although this possibility seems less plausible, the word forgiveness comes or could also come from the verb forgive action to destroy, ruin, throw (away) or waste, disperse, or spread, waste, waste. Forgiveness is essential, as the forgiving, which is estimated to have suffered an injury, decides, at the request of the offender or spontaneously, not to feel resentment toward the offender or stop their anger or indignation against it, eventually resigning to seek a punishment or restitution, and choosing not to consider the offense in the future, so that the relationship between offender and offended forgiven are not affected. Also speaking in an improper sense of forgiving a punishment or an obligation, in the sense waive the requirement. In an improper sense one also speaks of forgiving debts or other obligations, according to What Does the Bible Say About Forgiveness? (2011).

Forgiveness is an important process in a person’s life. It can be also viewed as a decision of both, as it will signify the complete forgiveness. I think that reconciliation and forgiveness are not the same concept. People can be reconciled, but not forgiven. As well, people may forgive but choose not to reconcile. Everything depends on the point of view of a person who does not want or can not forgive another person. This way, he decides for himself the way the things will be.

According to Quotations by Subject: Forgiveness (2011)., “Anger makes you smaller, while forgiveness forces you to grow beyond what you were.” Cherie Carter-Scott, “If Love Is a Game, These Are the Rules”.

References

Forgiveness (2010). Retrieved July 28, 2011 from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/forgiveness/
Quotations by Subject: Forgiveness (2011). Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/forgiveness/
What Does the Bible Say About Forgiveness? (2011). Retrieved July 28, 2011 from
http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/bibleforgivenes.htm

The post Reconciliation Essay first appeared on Essay Writing Blog.

Therefore, Socrates develops the concept of the soul that gives life to the body and this concept became fundamental for many philosophical views in ancient Greece as well as western philosophy. On analyzing Socrates’ views on the body and the soul, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Socrates believes in the immortality of the soul, whereas the body is mortal. Socrates says not only that the soul is immortal, but also that it contemplates truths after its separation from the body at the time of death. Needless to say, none of the four main lines of argument that Socrates avails himself of succeeds in establishing the immortality of the soul, or in demonstrating that disembodied souls enjoy lives of thought and intelligence (Long & Sedley, 146). In such a way, Socrates stresses that the soul is immortal and the body is just a substance, which the soul gives life. At the same time, this difference between the soul and the body makes them absolutely different because the soul brings life, while the body brings death because, if the soul is immortal, then the body is doomed to the death. In such a way, the difference is absolute and it is through the unification of these contrasting characteristics of the body and the soul, the human body gets life, while the soul gets its substance for existence since with the help of the body the soul can exist in the real world. Hence, the body becomes a carrier of the soul.

At the same time, Socrates takes the soul giving life to the body to show that a creature’s death involves the continued existence of the soul in question, which persists through a period of separation from body, and then returns to animate another body in a change which is the counterpart of the previous change, dying. According to the last line of argument that Socrates offers in the Phaedo, the soul is immortal because it has life essentially, the way fire has heat essentially. It is plain that both of these arguments apply to the souls of all living things, including plants (cf. 70d, 71d). And in the final argument, Socrates explicitly appeals to the idea that it is the soul that animates the body of a living thing (Bremmer, 213). Socrates argues: What is it that, when present in a body, makes it living? — A soul (Plato, 198). In such a way, the soul gives the life to the body and that makes the body and the soul dependent on each other but their striking difference reveals that they are two different substances, which are just united in the body, when the soul gives life to it.

Furthermore, Socrates does not attribute all mental states to the soul but argues that only some mental states may be attributed to the soul, whereas others to the body. In the Phaedo is significantly narrower than our concept of mind, in that the soul, as conceived of in this particular dialogue, is not, in fact, responsible, or directly responsible, for all of a person’s mental or psychological activities and responses, but only for a rather severely limited subset of them. Socrates attributes a large variety of mental states not to the soul, but to the animate body, such as, for instance, beliefs and pleasures and desires and fears (Bremmer, 219).

Therefore, Socrates distinguishes clearly that the soul and the body are responsible for different mental states to the extent that the body can develop different mental states, whereas the soul remains unaffected by these mental states and does not interfere in the process of the formation of different mental states. In all probability, Socrates attributes different mental states to the body to stress the superiority of the soul, which remains untouched by emotions and different mental states, while the body is vulnerable to the impact of strong emotions and different mental states. Therefore, the soul turns out to be something immortal and superior, while the body is mortal and inferior.

At the same time, the soul is not narrowly intellectual: it too has desires, even passionate ones, such as the non-philosophical soul’s love [erôs] of the corporeal and pleasures as well, such as the pleasures of learning (Long & Sedley, 155). Moreover, the soul’s functions are, as we have seen already, not restricted to grasping and appreciating truth, but prominently include regulating and controlling the body and its affections, such as beliefs and pleasures, desires and fears, no doubt in light of suitable judgments, arrived at, or anyhow supported and controlled, by reasoning (Bremmer, 222). In such a way, the soul performs the controlling function. At this point, Socrates again stresses the superiority of the soul over the body. In fact, according to Socrates, it turns out that the body is vulnerable to basic emotions and actions, whereas the soul controls the body and prevents it from falling into fallacy and inadequate behavior. However, the difference is significant enough and the struggle between the body and the soul carries on. As a result, humans are in the permanent struggle between their body and their soul, for the body generates different mental states, while the soul restricts them and imposes its control and impact on the body. In this regard, the soul has the power over the body because it is the soul that gives life to the body.

Thus, taking into account all above mentioned it is important to place emphasis on the fact that Socrates distinguishes clearly the soul and the body. He puts the soul into an advantageous position compared to the body because the soul brings life to the body. In addition, the soul controls the body, which may have different mental states, which are not good for humans. Even though the soul also has its desires but they are still superior to those of the body and the difference between the soul and the body defined by Socrates reveals the superiority of the soul and the inferiority of the body.

Works Cited:
Bremmer, J. The Early Greek Concept of the Soul, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.
Long, A. A. & D. N. Sedley, (eds.) The Hellenistic Philosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Plato. Phaedo. New York: Penguin Classics, 2009.

The post Difference Between Body and Soul Essay first appeared on Essay Writing Blog.

The connection between the notions and the place of a man inside

Living organisms on our planet, evolving in close contact with inanimate matter and adapting to the environment, have at the same time overtaken it with active transforming and organizing influence and have become a powerful factor in the evolution of the surface area of the planet. The development of life, according to Darwin’s theory, was accompanied by the emergence of new species of living beings (Darwin 112-114). The peak of this process was the emergence of pre-human and later human of modern type who, according to scientists appeared 43-45 thousand years ago. As man has been perfecting himself and his labor, the relationship between human beings has been changing. On this basis the society was formed. Society can only be discussed with the advent of human of modern type or Homo sapiens. The process of origin of man and society is called antroposociogenesis. The progress of antroposociogenesis is mediated not only by the development of human consciousness, but also improvement of man’s labor. This activity serves as a link between man and nature.

Nature is what exists near the human race, what man himself comes from. Peculiarities that are characteristic of man (and society) exclusively are not included in nature. Human is natural by virtue of his physical and biological content. He is super-natural as produces complex forms of mental and social life. Man in the relationship with nature realizes his two unique abilities. He changes the nature and symbolizes himself in it, “records” himself in it.

Nowadays, the word “nature” is used in many meanings. Some dictionaries explain nature as a living matter, everything material, the Universe, all the creation, everything visible, subjected to the five senses, but a more common definition is our world, earth, and everything created in it. The main sustained uses of the term have been determined. Thus, one of them is connected with the attitude to nature as to a habitat; the other involves the transformation of nature into an object of scientific knowledge and practical activities of man. The word “nature” can be used in a broad and narrow sense. Nature in a broad sense is the being, the Universe, all the variety of matter in motion, its varied states and properties. In this case, nature includes the society as well. However, there is another point of view according to which nature is everything that confronts the society, something without which a society, that is, people with the product created by their hands, cannot exist.

The definition of “wilderness” is complex and partially contradictory. When it becomes necessary to refer the term “wilderness” to any particular area, the difficulties are amplified. The question is which wild area should be classified as wilderness, or vice versa. If to stick to absolute purity, in this case, the term “wilderness” should mean the land that has never been touched by man. However, for many people, minimal contact with people and their creations does not ruin the characteristics of the word “wilderness”. The question is about the degree of contact. Can it be affected by the presence of Indians or a herd of cattle? Or an empty tin of beer? Or an aircraft in the sky? The question of degree is an additional problem. Mental criterion for the word “wilderness” is as important as physical. In theory, if a person does not see, hear or feel the smell of civilization, he/she is in the wilderness.

A researcher and campaigner for the protection of wilderness, William Cronon, demanded to understand the term as a territory which is impossible to cross without any motor vehicles in one day (Cronon 72). Aldo Leopold, ecologist and philosopher, has formulated his own standard – the ability of the area to cover a two-week trip.

Leopold defined wilderness as a continuous territory saved in a natural state suitable for hunting and fishing, large enough to take two weeks to pass through it, and with no roads, engineering structures and other creations of man (Leopond 168). While agreeing that most people may approve a motorized access to places of recreation, he at the same time stated the need to take into account the minority that wants to experience the primitive conditions of movement and life in the wild. Wilderness has a positive effect on their health, but the possibility find it is melting day by day. In conclusion, Leopold proposed to make the Gila national forest in New Mexico a protected wilderness area.

However, old problems persisted. What should be really meant by pristine? And how many “visits” can wilderness withstand? Aware of these problems and a tendency of the meaning imparted to the word “wilderness”, depending on the state of mind, mood, it is very tempting to let this word to define itself and to perceive as wild the places that people usually call “wild”.

A possible solution of the problem is the concept of the range of conditions or environments, starting from complete naturalness on the one hand, and full of civilization on the other. This idea of the space between the poles is useful because it involves shades and blending. Wilderness and civilization are antipodes and are mixed in various proportions, determining the features of the territory. The middle part of the spectrum includes the rural or pastoral environment (tillage), which represents the balance of powers of nature and man. One point closer to the pole of wilderness human impact is less common. In this part of the spectrum civilization exists as an external border post. On the other hand, the extent of human exposure increases.

The need to detect the watershed, where virginity becomes civility, becomes less oppressive. Besides, the idea of the spectrum may help to make distinction between wilderness and such concepts as countryside, borderlands and the rural area.

Depending on the context, “nature” may be synonymous with wilderness, or it may mean the city park. The factor of scale is also important for determining wilderness. In this category, the land would be dominating as the environment without a man, a place of wild beasts. The presence of something like cans of beer or even a road would not disqualify the area, but would move it to the pole of civility. On the other hand, in the land ethic of Aldo Leopold, wilderness played an important role of a model of environmental excellence. Civilization has changed the environment to the extent that the unchangeable wilderness gained importance of an “indicator of the normal state, a demonstration of how healthy land maintains itself as an organism” (Leopold 174). Leopold stated that wild places demonstrate what the land initially was, what it is and what it should be like.

Here, evolution functions without interference from the part of a man, providing a kind of standard suitable for measuring the impact of a man on places and consequences of violence. For instance, comparing the countercultural symbol of long hair with wild nature, Snyder claimed that civilization preferred to be cut and clean-shaven, just as it preferred an orderly shaped environment. Hair cut was like pastoral landscape. Natural, uncombed and free hair meant naturalness; and this long hair was equivalent to adopting and feeling the power of nature (Snyder 45-48). The approach alternative to this one and supported by the mankind for centuries meant the conquest of nature or its deception. Snyder and his countercultural adherents believed that the time for change has come. In particular, Snyder hoped that “new, environmentally sensitive, harmony-oriented culture” (Snyder 155) would emerge, together with a new lifestyle based on the proximity to wild nature.

Following the idea of Emerson that “all the nature is a metaphor of human thought” (Emerson 27) and pushed by this metaphorical tool, we suppose that wilderness primarily offers the necessary freedom and solitude. Therefore, the wildlife was the best option for the inhabitance, for the purpose of living, working and creating blessings of civilization. Speaking about the situation of a person in the wild world, Thoreau states the “broad, titanic and inhuman nature grabbed a man in an awkward moment, caught him alone and tries knock out his divine spirit” (Thoreau 26). In other words, the transcendental belief in the symbolic meaning of natural objects has shaken. Thoreau says that wilderness became a more appropriate place for nasty idols than for God, and being imbibed by the titan, the personality as such has gone (Thoreau 34). But simultaneously, this is a rude awakening for a man who is afraid of the wild forest with its loneliness and darkness.

This somehow makes the problem become clear, and the question is thus narrowed to whether it is possible to bring together the savage endurance and intelligence of the civilized man. In other words, whether people can survive retaining all the advantages of the civilization without suffering from its disadvantages. Probably, the answer lies in a combination of wilderness and the achievements of cultural sophistication. Excess of any of these options should be avoided. Viability, heroism and endurance that are traced from the wild nature must be balanced by the delicacy, sensitivity and intellectual and moral growth which are specific civilization and human culture. Here, the natural way of existence is seen in the right proportion of thought and experience; and an ideal person should occupy a central position, drawing both wild nature and anthropomorphized places.

Conclusion

From the very beginning of their history, people have had a conscious thought to what the natural sources of a man and society are, what kind of connection exist between a man and nature, and what human attitude towards nature should be like. All these issues have not yet received a clear answer. But with increasing knowledge about himself, about the surrounding world and his place in this natural system, a man has changed his views on the nature and their relationships. The appeal to the course of history helps tracing the change those attitudes in a wide range: from the proclamation of the ideas on the inseparable connection and harmony with nature up to placing a man on a pedestal which is unattainable for any other living creatures and from which a man supposedly can dispose nature unlimitedly, of his own will and understanding. However, such ideas were relatively quickly debunked by the natural course of history.

The real relationships between nature, wilderness and subjects created by a man suggest that no matter how people tried to rise above nature and ignore the natural conditions of their lives, they are totally subject to these conditions and depend on them. Perhaps, in some cases the situation limits human intentions and makes abandon some plans, but despite the short-term difficulties, a man must finally come to a conscious elucidation of the inevitability of this fact.

Works Cited:

Cronon, William. “The Trouble with Wilderness”. In Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995. Print.
Darwin, Charles. The Origin Of Species. Signet Classics, 2003. Print.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Nature. CreateSpace, 2010. Print.
Leopold, Aldo. “The Land Ethic”, In A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001. Print.
Snyder, Gary. The Practice of the Wild. North Point Press, 1990. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walking. Bottom of the Hill Publishing, 2011. Print.

The post Relationship Between Man and Nature Essay first appeared on Essay Writing Blog.