What was Ovid’s View of the god’s Ethical Performance?

Ovid was a Roman poet who lived during the time of Augustus. One of his most well known written works’ is his work known as the Metamorphoses, which was a written work that contained stories that were often ethical revolving around the Roman gods. These ethical stories often showed the gods punishing humans for their wrongdoings, but also showed how those gods behaved, which was often in a questionable manner. From what I have read from Metamorphoses, what was Ovid’s view of the god’s ethical performance?

 On the note of these gods’ ethical performance in general it was quite low. They were actually quite atrocious in their behavior, which Ovid portrayed quite openly in his work. For example, in one of the stories contained in the Metamorphoses, it tells that story of Arachne and Minerva. In this story Arachne who was a gifted weaver, who gained her knowledge from the goddess Minerva was bragging of her skill, and refused to admit that it was partially credited to Minerva. Minerva of course was angry, so she disguises as an old woman, and goes to Arachne. She eventually reveals herself to Arachne, this interaction eventually leads to them both having a contest in weaving. Arachne had better skill than Minerva, and her weaving was flawless. THis angered Minerva more to the point that tore apart Arachne’s work and physically hit her a couple of times, this led to Arachne eventually attempting to hang herself. Minerva felt some pity towards Arachne, so she thus gave Arachne life by turning her into a spider, she also cursed Arachne to be a spider forever and so would her descendants. 

This story in my opinion showed how petty the gods were. Minerva was very prideful and jealous, which led her to act in a violent way. Arachne was no better, but Minerva was far out of line. The other stories contained in the Metamorphoses, showed many examples of godly pride, which often led to them being violent or doing some sort of horrible deed. Also these other stories show examples of gods committing adultery, and other ethically wrong deeds. Which comes into question of Ovid’s view of the god’s ethical performance.

Truly I have no idea what was Ovid’s view of the gods in general let alone on their ethical performance, because he never really showed his personal views in these stories. Regardless, these stories did not ease off on showing the gods in a dark light, for example in the example of the story of Arachne and Minerva, which showed how destructive Minerva’s pride was. Perhaps his view of the gods ethical performance was that of slight distaste, or disapproval.

One can gather so much of an author’s view from their writing, especially if they offer no details on it, Ovid’s Metamorphoses is no different. From the lack of detail on this matter from what I have gathered perhaps Ovid’s view of the gods in regards to their ethical performance is that of slight disapproval, but I truly do not know. 

What is the Problem that Ludwig von Mises Identified that a Socialist Economic Planning Board Faces?

In the relatively free market society we live in over here in the west, business owners are capable of calculating their profits and losses efficiently. These business owners compare their work to the work of other businesses or their competitors to have a better understanding to see if their goods or services are selling less or more than their competitors. This system is known as economic calculation and is very helpful in preventing a lot of economic waste. Since we now know of this system of economic calculation, what is the problem that Ludwig von Mises(a famous Austrian economist), identified that a socialist economic planning board faces?

Like I mentioned above, in a free market society business owners are able to calculate their profits and losses to see if they are making an excess of economic waste. But in a socialistic society, it is very difficult to do this calculation because a government board is making all the economic decisions, which in turn means that they have nothing to compare their economic decisions to because there is no economic competition. The government is distributing what is being produced. This ultimately brings forth plenty of economic waste, poor financial decisions, and the waste of resources.

In conclusion, the problem that Ludwig von Mises identified that a socialistic economic planning board faces is that this board is not able to calculate their economic profits and losses, in the way of comparing those numbers to other businesses, to see if they are being efficient. This is one of the main reasons why a socialistic economy makes more poor economic decisions and more economic waste than say a capitalistic economy. 

Is Income Inequality a Problem?

The word inequality is seen everywhere today especially in the context of income inequality. You probably encounter it discussed on the news, adults talking about it, and notice how it seems to be a very popular subject today. Which most likely means you’ve heard people say statements such as these: “ income inequality must be abolished!” Or, “the reason why the world is so unfair is because of inequality!” But is income inequality an actual issue or not? 

Something that I must note is that abolishing inequality is practically impossible, and the only way to achieve doing away with inequality is with a communist or socialistic economy, which happens to cause a more problematic issues worse than inequality. Because this idea of “getting rid of ” income inequality is impossible, then why do so many people think it is such an issue? Poverty is a terrible thing, and it is tragic to see people who live in these poor conditions, but is the actual inequality the issue?

The truth of the matter is that income inequality is not the problem. Though there are differences in the income rates for different jobs or careers, would it make sense for everyone to make an equal amount of money? Should a top doctor make the same amount of money as someone who works in a fast food restaurant? Absolutely not, we can all agree that would not be right or fair. Which is one of the reasons why income inequality exists, because different jobs make different amounts of income. 

In short, income inequality is not an actual problem, even though many think it is today, regardless of the truth that it is nearly impossible to abolish inequality. If it was achieved it would not be necessarily right, since it implies that people who have higher level jobs should make the same amount of money as someone who works a lower level job. 

What Points is Mary Wollstonecraft Making in the Excerpts I Read From the Beginning of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman? What Would She Liked to See Changed in European Society?

Mary Wollstonecraft(1759-1797), was one of the earliest feminists in history. Her major work, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, contained her major ideas and beliefs on the topic of women’s rights. What were some of the points that Wollstonecraft made in the excerpts I read from the beginning of her major written work? What would she like to see changed in European society?

Mary’s written work was intended to lift women up to the intellectual level of the men at the time. Mary did not like the qualities of the majority of women at the time, who in her opinion were frivolous and weak. Which was her reasoning on why women were not treated justly by men. She wanted women to now lift themselves up so they can be seen as intellectual beings instead of a beautiful object. 

How Does Friedrich Gentz Distinguish Between the American and French Revolutions? Do I See the Influence of Edmund Burke in His Thinking?

Friedrich Gentz(1764-1832), was a German diplomat and writer, who in his written work: The Origins and Principles of the American Revolution, Compared With the Origins and Principles of the French Revolution, compared the American and French revolutions. How does Friedrich Gentz distinguish between the American and the French Revolutions? Do I see the influence of the Irish statesman, Edmund Burke in Gentz’ thinking?

Gentz distinguished between the two revolutions on the note of tradition; both revolutions revolved around tradition but in different ways. For example the American revolution revolved around preserving and defending the old traditions and ways of England such as freedom, which was being changed by the English themselves. The French Revolution on the completely opposite note wanted to destroy and get rid of everything from the past, to demolish everything from the past government, regardless of the fact that some of those traditions are in place for a good reason. Edmund Burke’s influence is seen in Gentz’ thinking because some of the specific points that Gentz made in his comparisons were quite similar to those of Burke’s, who was critical towards the French Revolution.

Thus, the way that Friedrich Gentz distinguishes between the American and French Revolution is by pointing out how both revolutions revolved around tradition one way or another, in opposite ways. His thinking is influenced by Edmund Burke who was critical of the French Revolution.

Was There Any Basis for an Optimistic View of Rome in Livy and Ovid?

Livy and Ovid were two ancient Roman writers who wrote pieces of literature which one way or another revolved around Rome. Livy wrote a series of books on the history of Rome which were titled: History of Rome. Some of the aspects of this history recount are most likely mythological, but regardless it still was a history work. Ovid’s written work on the other hand: Metamorphoses included Ovid’s version of the Four Ages of Man, which was a tale also retold by an ancient Greek writer named Hesiod. Metamorphoses told a series of stories, including one on how Rome came to be in regards to the concept of the Four Ages of Man. With both pieces of literature in mind, was there any basis for an optimistic view of Rome in the figures of Livy and Ovid?

Livy’s History of Rome, began with a story of how Rome was founded by the brothers Romulus and Remus. Their story began with them being raised by a she wolf, and ended in one murdering the other after they had created a town which eventually became the great city of Rome. The idea that a great ancient city and eventually empire was created with the shadow of murderis a pleasant thought. Another story which was included in this history piece was the story of how they brought women to Rome, preventing the dying out and ending of the city. At first this story sounds reasonable enough since the Roman men went to neighboring towns and asked for permission to marry some of the women, this request was rejected, which left these men to come up with a new plan, which was a plan to kidnap some Sabine women, and force them to marry them. This plan ended up working out, regardless of the displeasure of the women and their families, it all managed to work out in the end for the Romans. This story, though more optimistic than the first, is still surrounded with violence, which is not necessarily optimistic.

Ovid’s Metamorphoses, tells a retelling of the Four Ages of Man. This story went something more or less like this: the four ages of man began with the Golden Age which was an age of no sin, and was a successful age. This was followed by the Silver Age which was an age full of farming and animal husbandry; after this age came along the Bronze Age, which was an age full of war. After this age ended the last and final age in this list was the Iron Age, which unfortunately was full of sin and evil. The other stories in this collection of stories were full of violence and showed the evil and destructive nature of man.

Was there any basis for an optimistic view of Rome in Livy and Ovid? First of all to note there is only so much one can gather from someone’s written work but from what you can see through these pieces of literature there is very little basis for an optimistic view of Rome in Livy and Ovid. With Livy you see how Rome’s founding was shadowed by violence with the examples of Romulus and Remus, and the kidnapping of the Sabine women. In Ovid’s Metamorphoses it also shows the destructive nature of man, and how Rome eventually came to be. Neither of these examples are very optimistic and in many ways could be considered pessimistic or negative.

In conclusion, in my study of Livy and Ovid’s writing I have gathered that both men were not exactly optimistic in their view of Rome. In their writing there was very little basis on optimism. Rome’s founding in the accounts of the more factual and the mythological were shadowed with violence and destruction, which is not a good basis for optimism, in regards to Rome.

What are the Arguments for and Against Government Science Funding

Science is a very important field that has affected many of our lives in the long run. Especially today with more technological advances than ever before, science continues to play an even more important role in our lives. In the world of science there are two main forms, government funded science, and science that is not funded by the government. This is still very much debated upon, but regardless what are the arguments for and against government science funding?

The first argument that people most likely will state when discussing the topic of government science funding is that of: “without government support science will not have the funds.” Another similar argument to this is: “private firms cannot claim exclusive profits from scientific discoveries, which means that they will not get involved in funding scientific research in the first place.” With these two arguments in mind here are some of the arguments that go against the first claim or argument. Historically Britain spent very little money funding scientific research in the 19th century. But regardless of this lack of funding from the state they were still ahead in this area than countries such as France and Germany, who spent a large amount of money on scientific research. Also look at the examples of past scientists: was their research funded by the state? The majority were not funded by the state and were instead funded privately. 

Some of the arguments that go against the second claim I stated is that again the majority of scientific research is funded privately, this is because firms are known to exchange laboratory space to scientists in exchange for the scientists to keep up with the latest new knowledge within science. This saves time and money because it keeps the scientists doing their work. As a side argument, government funded institutions in general usually push out the agenda of the government which is a risk to the government funding of science.

To conclude, regardless of the claims that back up government scientific funding, historically the majority of scientific advancements were funded privately. Also the involvement of the state in scientific research historically did not exactly bring forth more scientific advancement. Thus, these are the arguments for and against government science funding.

The Principles of the French Revolution in its First Three Years

The French Revolution(1789-1799), was a very tense and heated situation, which quickly accelerated into full on chaos and destruction. But what were the principles of the French Revolution in the early years of the Revolution, or the first three years of the Revolution?

The first three years of the Revolution was the laying of the foundation of a new government, which included a new constitution. This was the time when the lands of the church were being confiscated, and the church was beginning to receive pressure into changing the way it was run. The first three years were probably the most reasonable and mellow, but after this period of three years things went into further madness, with the execution of many individuals. Thus, these were the principles of the French Revolution in its first three years.

What Happened (Involving the Third Estate) During the Meeting of the Estates General that Set the French Revolution in Motion?

France during the later period of the 18th century was in complete disarray, with financial struggles, and a number of other problems, which ultimately led to the French Revolution. Before the Revolution itself a meeting was held of the Estates General; what happened at this meeting that set the French Revolution in motion?

The Third Estate(the commoners), of the three Estates in the Estates General, wanted equal voting rights, since they had no representation. At the beginning of the French Revolution the people involved wanted to be rid of heavy debt and taxes, while also abolishing the privilege of the aristocrats. The Third Estate also wanted a new constitution of France, which was one of their ultimate goals, which was eventually carried out in 1791.  

The French Revolution was probably one of the most impactful events in European history or at least the history of France. It completely altered the course of the French government, or how France was to be governed; changing it from a monarchy. 

The Process by Which the Market Economy Tends Toward an Improvement in the Standard of Living?

The standard of living is a very important and discussed topic, with some countries with lower standards of living than others. Regardless of whether a country has a lower standard of living than another, the overall standard of living as a whole has improved dramatically in the last one hundred years. But what is the process by which the market economy tends toward an improvement in the standard of living?

The free market encourages the increase of capital goods, which is possible because the free market enables one to invest and save their money. Because this increases capital goods this leaves a greater amount of capital goods for people to consume, for a cheaper price. This leaves people to be able to pursue other interests, to create different consumer goods. This has become much less tedious today because of the technological advances of our time that involve less people to create more things, which increases production, and reduces prices in comparison to wage rates.