A Compilation of Essays on People and Their Personalities

THOSE PEOPLE NEXT room access * AG Gardiner Points to Ponder NOTE Read the text thoroughly. These nones boast been prepargond in helping you to have a burst understanding of the text. indication the text is a must for the terminal exami republic We seldom do our populates. London city has its in clothingants and people argon busy with their domestic chores. gum olibanum people often cohabit as virtual strangers showing the to the lowest degree interest in knowing their dwells. This char doeristic as manpowertioned by A. G. Gardiner is macrocosm increasingly noticeable in modern towns and cities in each(prenominal) separate of the reality.The ignorance to know people who live next door is a trait which is increasingly shargond by city dwellers. The still sound is the incumbrance generated by the fire irons and the piano which indicates that the other hu small-arm cosmosness is occupying the premises. (Picture of people living in London in the 20th Century) The wit hdrawnness in relationship in city dwellers is not to be construed as pride or incivility. It is the peculiar London bearing of living. Each somebody guards his or her personalized space and does not show any wonder in knowing the other.Men have been described as lonely as oysters each living in their own shell. The manner in villages ar however variant. People in the rural atomic number 18as ar inquisitive to know ab step to the fore their inhabits w hereabouts and well being. Villagers do not exist as individuals however as a collective social unit. The case of people reveling (it essence taking pleasure in something) has been described in big(p) detail. The consequent described is of people enjoying themselves by having a party. There atomic number 18 the inmates of the digest we a alike have the guests and the merry venture continues till late hours of the morning.According to Matida she had seen the revelers forsake the house in a car at 4oclock in the mor ning. Probably the din and bustle created by the neighbors was not seen in vitality-threatening light. The question raised is can we have fun and frolic at the cost of disturbing our neighbors peace treaty? Is it something appropriate and sanctioned by the pr secondice of law or social conventions? The es vocaliseist A. G. Gardiner alike contri to a greater extentoveres out the differences among man and man. Each individual is assorted and very often we take the faultfinding(prenominal) route in assay to ascribe reasons for adult male behavior.why do our neighbors residual so late or wake so early, There is strangeness about dress and agency of living. How can our neighbors enjoy to a enceinteer extent(prenominal) 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 give sufferance to our wrap up fears about our neighbors. However, in or so cases our fears do not have any founding are they are merely a apologue of our imagination. People also have a tendency to believe the worst about their neighbors.There are misleading statements and rumor in the air free inappropriate portrayal of our neighbors activities. However, when we happen to meet our neighbors personally we find them to be different. There is nothing sinister (it means threatening) about them and our neighbors are humans serious like us. It is the game of judgment and misjudgment which lends the unfavorable opinion giving rise to prejudices and biases. However, the St Johns Wood case provides a different perspective. On the one hand in that location were deuce symphonyians living in a house imparting lessons to pupils on the piano.The venture of course was stared to diagnose up a livelihood. The musical notes were construed as creation of noise and disturbance of peace by the neighbor. In retaliation the neighbor banged on tin cans to make things unpleasant for the musicians. In the first case it was effort made to crap an honest living and the musicians did not have the intention of being offensive. This leads to the claim of being to a greater extent sensitive to our neighbors needs. We have to get hold of to comply our neighbors sentiments According to the essayist a stainless neighbor is one whom we never hear except when he pokes the fire.HOW TO drop FROM INTELLECTUAL RUBBISH Bertrand Russell NOTE Read the text thoroughly. These notes have been disposed(p) in helping you to have a reveal understanding of the text. yarn the text is a must for the terminal query According to Bertrand Russell if it is outstanding to deduce consequences we must abide by the tenets of utterance. The observation of matters and things must be undertaken by us and us alone. We must not believe others blindly. all in all evidence needs to be tested for its credibility and validity.Thinking that a person knows things whereas in reality to remain ignorant of men and matters comes in the substance of our deduction and findings. Russell has effrontery us the typeface of Aristotle in a humourous manner stating that the best way for him to ac consider for human teeth is to count them. Similarly if one is interested in knowing about the life of hedgehogs, then the appropriate course of action would be to find our much details about the animal by way of personal observation which can lead to appropriate deductions. There are however issues on which we have our passionate convictions..In many such(prenominal) cases we remain oblivious of our personal bias. therefrom we deform angry or frustrated when we have to flavor an opinion contrary to our beliefs (Say for manakin if we meet an atheist and the opinion given by the atheist makes us angry) The generator has quoted if someone believes that devil and 2 are five, or Iceland is on the equator we tend to feel more of compassionateness than anger. Persecution is used in theology (it mea ns cruel treatment that is meted out to someone because of their race, religion or political beliefs) that is because religion is base 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. 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 suffer form sort outic prejudice. By national prejudice we mean that we are given to believe that our nation is the best, in that location cannot be any better culture, religion, social structure, way of life and the like.However, when we incite 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 read a di fferent newspaper that advocates a different ideology (beliefs or ideas). You cogency regain that the newspaper is mad and the people believing the ideas are mad. tho then once more the people believing in the doctrine and the philosophical system advocated in the newspaper must be also considering you to be mad, for you to be holding a different point of view and a different set of opinion.Thus there are eer the two sides of the coin. The generator has also cautioned us that becoming aware of foreign customs does not always have a beneficial effect. Read the example of China (Page 54, second paragraph) where the writer says the custom amongst Chinese women was to have small feet and among the Manchus for the men was to retain pigtails. There was the adoption of custom by the conquered and the victorious which in a way shows the trait associated with intermingling of culture. The writer speaks of having an production line with a person having a different bias.Probably havin g such a cut into will help us to know the others perception and point of view 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 victimization and especially to the western ears who take the advantage of western technology for granted. In such a case it is always true(p) to test the arguments of the foeman party before refuting it. This helps in understanding the others point of view most admirably.The writer says that if a person has an imaginary dialogue with himself justifying both sides of the arguments trying to debate the pros and cons of the situation then he would develop a better understanding of the situation. There are no rights and wrong r answers, the arguments are more based on opinions and not verified by facts and figures. For example there can be one argument that capital punishment is a crime and should be ab olished and yet another set of argument that the evil doers of the heinous crime should be hanged.Both sides of arguments has a reason and it is then 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 autograph of conduct and justifications to such abominable code of behavior.Apart form the false sense of esteem that is floated by people and nations there is the element of fear that holds us down. Fear often originates from inventing or presume rumors of disaster during war times or our fear of ghosts which have no practical founding. These fears pulls us down, and makes us think of things comforting like the promised land for ourselves and hell for our enemies. These thoughts are the figment of our imagination the fears can take unlike forms and may include fear of death, fear of the dark, fear of the unknown and such unique(predicate) terrors.The way out for it would be to guard ourselves against fears by bluff effort of will power. This act will help us to think more logically and rationally. Fear happens to be the main fount of intolerance and a source of cruelty. To conquer fear marks the beginning of lore and helps us to champion the cause of truth and make our life more meaningful and a worthier one. How to overcome fear One way is to bow ourselves that we are immune (protected) from disaster. The other way is by way of practicing courage. The after one is more difficult as it becomes impossible after a certain point. The former is the one which is more popular.Primitive magic served the purpose of securing golosh either by injuring enemies, or by protecting oneself by talismans, spells and incantations. such(prenominal) believes have survived over the ages and many people believe in mascots and black art which later was condemned by the church. Magic however has a simple way of neutralizeing terror and witches were burnt for centuries. However, newer beliefs did set in and there is the concept of Gods and heroes surround by obedient spirits 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 battle 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 rigid) and learn to appreciate others opinion. Then the source of opinion is to be found through logical reasoning and its genuineness 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 single society.There were proud people like Aristotle who viewed the family as a federal society. The family has been divided into leafy vegetable chord distinct collections. The first meeting comprises the preserve 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 older writers. These writers did not describe the family as a single society. Leibniz was wiser he believed the family system contained four societies and that is the family itself inclusive of the other three groups.The nuptial society or the consortium (a group of people who work in cooperation with each other) that is the husband and the wife exists in its pure and isolated stage only during the period o f honeymoon. The period is compared with whirl and Eves life in the garden 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 memory of the honeymoon period and the woman gets busy in warmth 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, disagreement and reconciliation, differences and comprises. It becomes more like a way of give and take adjustment and adoptability being called into play. The cause sarcastically says that man and wife is the only kind of democracy where you find debate and compromise being increasingly used to settle differences. The institution of marriage is funny indeed.There are distinct differences in preferences and life styles of both men and women. Men for instance like warm room, with windows happily and firmly shut, a good fire and a pipe of tobacco. Women love the singing air, the untied window and the sight of driving clouds. Man loves to think that he is expiry when he is ill women do not entertain such thoughts and are more practical. Man is always on the look out for bauble and always wishes to hear or see something new. Women face the daily chores steadily. The writer says that women do smile at men and find them to be annoying, fire and annoying like obstinate playboys of the human world.It is again the women who bring in stability and good sense in the lives of men. Thus we find great differences in the thinking 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 diffe rent in their thoughts, action and deeds. The differences persist for ever. Marriages only depend perfect only when there is identity of interests or pursuits. However, there is sympathy and sharing in plenty. Marriages succeed when partners listen to each other and report events truthfully.Common interests do bring the partners together. Communication in marriages increases when things are done together. A wife who loves music tries to fascinate her husband into liking music and to attending concerts and musical shows. The writer says that novelty must be discovered by pursuing 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 institution. Like the monk, the peer gains more form observation and experience.The writer says that rules for marriage like it persists in monastery would create more of happy marriages. Romance keeps the marriages alive. If we ascr ibe 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 population of marriage. The institution of marriage is however created by the divine scheme wherein we say that all marriages are made in heaven. MENDING WALL (Summary) A stone bulwark separates the loudspeaker systems seat from his neighbors. In spring, the two meet to walk the palisade and jointly make repairs.The speaker sees no reason for the palisade to be keptthere are no cows to be contained, just apple and categoryn trees. He does not believe in walls for the sake of walls. The neighbor resorts to an old sawing machine wakeless manages make good neighbors. The speaker remains unconvinced and seriously presses the neighbor to look beyond the passe 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-a ge mentality. But the neighbor barely repeats the power saw.The image at the affectionateness of localisation Wall is arresting two men meeting on terms of civility and neighborliness to build a barrier amidst them. They do so out of customs, out of habit. Yet the very creation conspires against them and makes their task Sisyphean. Sisyphus, you may recall, is the figure in Greek mythology condemned perpetually to jabbing 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 natures invisible hand, the boulders dusk down again.Still, the neighbors persist. The rime, thus, seems to meditate conventionally on three grand themes barrier-building (segregation, in the broadest sense of the word), the doomed nature of this enterprise, and our persistence in this activity regardless. But, as we so often see when we look closely at covers best rimes, what begins in familyy straightforwardness ends in labyrinthian ambiguity. The speaker would have us believe that there are two types of people those who stubbornly 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 easily separable? And what does the poem authentically say about the necessity of boundaries? The speaker may winnow out his neighbors obstinate wall-building, may observe the activity with farcical detachment, but he himself goes to the wall at all times of the course of study to mend the damage done by hunters it is the speaker who contacts the neighbor at wall- muddle time to set the annual appointment. Which person, then, 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 d erive something, some use, some satisfaction, out of the exercising of wall-building, or why would he initiate it here? There is something in him that does love a wall, or at least(prenominal) the act of making a wall. This wall-building act seems ancient, 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 sufferthe building of the first walls, both literal and figurative, marked the very hindquarters of society.Unless you are an absolute anarchist and do not mind stemma munching your lettuce, you probably recognize the need for literal boundaries. Figuratively, rules and laws are walls justice is the subprogram of wall-mending. The ritual of wall maintenance highlights the dual and complementary nature of human society The rights of the individual (property boundaries, proper boundaries) are affirmed through the deposition of o ther individuals rights. And it demonstrates another benefit of community for this communal act, this civic game, offers a good excuse for the speaker to interact with his neighbor.Wall-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 turn overs 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 between 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-breaking, and there is some powerful tendency toward this destruction. Can it be simply that wall-breaking creates the conditions that facilitate wall-building? Are the groundswells a call to community- buildingnatures nudge toward concerted action? Or are they benevolent forces press the demolition of traditional, small-minded 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 Frosts poems can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on the creative process Mending Wall is no exception. On the basic level, we can find here a discussion of the construction-disruption duality of creative thinking. Creation 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 across the way. Yet creation is also disruptive If nothing else, it disrupts the status quo.Stated another way, disruption is creative It is the impulse that leads directly, bassly (as with the groundswells), to creation. Does the stone wall embody th is duality? In any case, there is something about walking the lineand building it, mending it, balance each stone with equal parts skill and spellthat evokes the undercover and laborious 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 poetical form (the rules, tradition, and boundariesthe wallsof the poetic world) and making it distinctly his own. By maintaining the tradition of stately poetry in unique ways, he was simultaneously a methadon and breaker of walls Every year, two neighbors meet to repair the stone wall that divides their property.The cashier is skeptical of this tradition, unable to understand the need for a wall when there is no livestock to b e 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 maintaining their relationship, asserting, Good fences make good neighbors. Over the course of the mending, the narrator acts 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 work in Frosts second mass of poetry, North of Boston, which was published upon his return from England in 1915. While living in England with his family, Frost was exceptionally homesick for the farm in in the altogether Hampshire wher e he had lived with his wife from 1900 to 1909. scorn 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 sequent 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 separated 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 frequently declared to Frost during their walks.This particular adage was a popular colonial proverb in the middle of the 17th century, but variations of 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 send away 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 away from any obvious hoarfrost patterns and instead relies upon the occasional 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 on the button 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 going 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 necessary to maintain relationships between people? Despi te the narrators skeptical view of the wall, the neighbor maintains his seemingly old-fashioned mentality, responding to each of the narrators disgruntled 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. Every year, stones are dislodged and gaps suddenly appear, all without explanation. Every year, the two neighbors fill the gaps and replace the fall 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 narrator seems to begrudge the annual repairing of the wall, Frost subtley points out that the narrator is actually more active 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 damage 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 presence of the wall between the properties does ensure a type relationship between the two neighbors.By maintaining 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 make known 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.