« The mirror is quite an interesting and useful tool; they allow people to see themselves in great detail and in ways one would never imagine possible. ...» Document abstract
$4.95
5 word format
Language : english
journalism
research papers
date published
09/04/2008
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 0 times
SummaryThe mirror is quite an interesting and useful tool; they allow people to see themselves in great detail and in ways one would never imagine possible. This greater perspective of oneself is very important for various reasons that run the gamut from physical aesthetics to inspecting oneself for abnormalities. As such, we trust the mirror to be as accurate as possible in relaying information about ourselves and we would find no use in them if they twisted or distorted the original image. As the primary source of information in contemporary industrial society, we rely upon the media to do the very same. As the proverbial mirror of society, we trust the media to faithfully relay accurate information to us so that we may better understand our world. Suppose for a moment that the media better resembled the likes of a funhouse mirror rather than those loyal panes of glass we stand in front of every morning. The consequences of this distortion would most definitely be a cause for serious concern. Crime and criminality are often found at the forefront of television news casts, the front page of newspapers, in our movies and in our video games. The former not being a far cry from the latter, it would seem as though criminal behaviour is indeed quite a popular area of concern to the many of us peering into the societal mirror. However, the nature in which crime is depicted is not often faithful to reality, and therein lies the problem: our faithful bearer of information is, in reality, much more similar to the likes of a carnival funhouse mirror; one that is better suited for amusement rather than serious inspection. Unfortunately, as one of our primary sources of information, the ramifications of this distortion find their way deep into the very policies used in crime control.
Table of Contents
- Society's perception of crime is indeed distorted.
- The entertainment side of the media is often considered less reliable.
- Looking overseas to Britain and Germany, Lucia Zedner (1995) conducted some interesting research.
- Typically, the general public determines crime control policy by voicing concern.
- Sensationalist reporting and distressed citizens are not surprising.
- Further down the proverbial rabbit hole of media inaccuracies.
- It should be clear by now that the media influences the public emotionally and distorts their view of crime.
« Criticism of Bentham’s philosophy and new proposals in order light >>, which are for him the fairest qualities in culture is poles apart from the one of the ...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
literature
book review
date published
23/11/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 8 times
SummaryMatthew Arnold, in his philosophical essay Culture and Anarchy, published in 1869, exposes his view of culture in a generally way, that is to say, that this view could and should be applied to any society or any group of men on the earth.
He wrote it at a time where Bentham’s Utilitarianism was the prevailing thought in the recently industrialized Europe, especially in Great Britain, where the Industrial Revolution had had the greatest impact on society. It is also a period of great changing philosophy, that is to say that the previous forms of thinking didn’t fit in the new society, because even the notion of time was changed. On a dialectical point of view, the transformations of the society, which brought a new dominant group at its head, the middle-class, also brought new forms of thinking, new philosophies.
Arnold, on his side, tries to stand back and redefines basic words in order to give his own definition of culture, as an entity that, applied to everyone, could save the world from the danger of ‘machinery’ it is sinking in.
He redefines then curiosity, in order to find a new basis to prove the pertinence of his proper concept of culture. For him is curiosity not just scientific passion and accumulation of knowledge, but introducing new notions such as « reason » and « the will of God », he starts on a different level from the one which make the Utilitarianist concept of culture.
It is then interesting to study how, throughout this essay, he tries to stand aloof from the liberal thought line, and to show that what he calls the « Philistines » are misinterpreting very important concepts; that leads him to a criticism of Bentham’s philosophy and to new proposals in order to change the British conception of culture, and its mentality towards it.
He wrote it at a time where Bentham’s Utilitarianism was the prevailing thought in the recently industrialized Europe, especially in Great Britain, where the Industrial Revolution had had the greatest impact on society. It is also a period of great changing philosophy, that is to say that the previous forms of thinking didn’t fit in the new society, because even the notion of time was changed. On a dialectical point of view, the transformations of the society, which brought a new dominant group at its head, the middle-class, also brought new forms of thinking, new philosophies.
Arnold, on his side, tries to stand back and redefines basic words in order to give his own definition of culture, as an entity that, applied to everyone, could save the world from the danger of ‘machinery’ it is sinking in.
He redefines then curiosity, in order to find a new basis to prove the pertinence of his proper concept of culture. For him is curiosity not just scientific passion and accumulation of knowledge, but introducing new notions such as « reason » and « the will of God », he starts on a different level from the one which make the Utilitarianist concept of culture.
It is then interesting to study how, throughout this essay, he tries to stand aloof from the liberal thought line, and to show that what he calls the « Philistines » are misinterpreting very important concepts; that leads him to a criticism of Bentham’s philosophy and to new proposals in order to change the British conception of culture, and its mentality towards it.
Table of Contents
- Arnold´s own definition of culture, as an entity that, applied to everyone, could save the world from the danger of ‘machinery' it is sinking in
- Definition of curiosity, to find a new basis to prove the pertinence of his proper concept of culture
- Criticism of Bentham’s philosophy and new proposals in order to change the British conception of culture
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :