Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Psychology. Show all posts
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Psychology of Yoga
Yoga just like Psychology utilizes the mind to achieve its end-purposes.
Just like psychology or the methods of psychology, yoga also makes use of the mind in a variety of ways. This is because Yoga needs to employ the practice of two important processes: 1. concentration or dharana and, 2. meditation or dhyana.
Dharana, as defined by Patanjali, refers to the "binding of consciousness to a single point." In order to attain Dhyana is attained by focusing the awareness on a single sensation such as breathing. This act will lead to meditation or dhyana. This state enables the inner senses to develop and unite with the larger truth. Meditators sometimes experiences stillness, bliss, and harmony.
Benefits of Yoga
A heightened sense of awareness enables practicers to experience positive effects. Daily and continuous practice of yoga often leads to beneficial results. The benefits derived from yoga are numerous and varied. Common among the yoga benefits are enhanced physical well-being, emotional and mental health and state of bliss. Those who are experts in practicing yoga often attain samadhi or an advanced state of meditation where the practitioner becomes conscious of inner bliss.
Among the Western nations, where individualism is strongly adhered to, propagation of yoga practices came about due to the need to find oneself or find meaning and purpose for one's existence and to unite the different facets of self.
It is important to note that Yoga's main emphasis is the promotion of general well-being. Although it is not exactly discussed here but yoga even showed some promise in treating a variety of conditions. Due to its holistic approach in attaining well-being, yoga teaches people to acquire a new lifestyle, a better way of thinking, and a healthier way of life.
Is Plato a Feminist?
Plato and Feminism
Plato to a certain extent espoused the feminists’ view of women being equal to men. Some of Plato’s views on The Republic support this claim particularly in book 5 where Plato tackles on Socrates’ view that women make potential good guardians or philosopher-rulers of the state. His assertion that a person should be judged on his or her soul and not on external appearance is the basis for this claim.
Plato’s view on feminism is further entrenched by the views he held 1) that woman’s biology ought not to settle the question of her destiny and (2) that women’s intelligence and reason ought to be called upon in the running of the state. These two served as the basis for believing that to a certain extent Plato supports the feminists’ views.
In book 5, Plato discusses the possibility of equality among men and women. He does not want to limit the woman’s role as merely inferior to that of man. Just because the women’s bodies are made differently do not necessarily follows that it would make them different from and inferior to men. As a matter of fact, Plato believes that some women are capable of being equal to the best of men if not superior. Due to that, the best state must provide women the opportunity to govern. This chance should not be withhold upon women on the basis of gender alone.
In Book 5 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates suggests that women have the makings of becoming effective guardians or having the ability to fulfill the role of philosopher-rulers of the state just like men. This view might be unpopular even opposed by most men during Plato’s time because this was not the custom uphold in that period of Athenian society and history. Women were then treated as properties and often viewed as inferior to men in status.
This view on the equality of men and women preached by Plato must have took his contemporaries by surprise. What makes it even more surprising is the fact that those who are familiar with Plato know his tendency to be undemocratic and antiegalitarian. This simply means that Plato does not believe in equality in social functions. He explicitly adheres to the view that one class of people is presumably superior to other classes. Plato’s inegalitarianism view further stresses that some people are by nature equipped to rule, others assist them, and still others to be ruled. This concept entails that there are different natures, found in different kinds of souls.
In keeping with Plato’s view on inegalitarianism, he delineates the principles behind a society rooted in justice: 1) different kinds of people have different natures and 2) both individuals and the state are best served if people perform the functions for which their natures, complemented by the appropriate education, best suit them. People need other people because one could not everything well. As a matter of fact, everyone can only do one thing well. Justice is existence of harmony in such conditions. It necessarily follows then that Plato believes that by virtue of justice men and women are supposed to fulfill different responsibilities and functions which are not necessarily determined by their gender. Gender therefore is irrelevant to the state of soul of a person. The soul is an innate aspect of the person, one which is not dictated upon by society or gender but by the individual inclinations or the manifestations of the soul. The person is born with the kind of soul he or she has and her/his amount of responsibility depends on the type of soul he/she has whether ruler, auxiliary or multitude. For instance, if a man and woman have a physician’s soul then they have the same nature regardless of the fact that they don’t have the same gender.
In book 5 of the Republic Socrates maintains that there is no reason women should be excluded among the philosopher-rulers. This is in consonance with the principle that “different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same”. A man’s virtue then is not brought about by his sex. Virtue is virtue regardless of the person’s gender.
Plato asserts that no facts about a person’s body imply facts about the person’s nature or soul. Even if some bodily facts reveal something about the person’s nature, their sexuality is not one of these facts. Plato then believes that the soul/body distinction allow him to “see beyond” a person’s sex. The soul and body then are two different kind of things.
The reason why this statement is considered contradictory is due to the fact that he often makes comments on what he viewed as the shortcomings of womanhood. Plato often utilizes the female gender as a way to stress his philosophical point. Plato adheres to the belief that the soul is more important than the body. Paying too much attention to bodies will corrupt the soul. As an example to this he points to the women as the embodiment of corrupted souls. Women are believed to be the vain kind. They are believed to be more interested in the pursuit of beautifying one’s appearance instead of enriching the soul. Women also, more often than not, allow emotions to overpower their reason. This is the weakness Plato is pointing out in his examples that he believes is often embodied by a woman. Women have the tendency to use emotion rather than reason. “A woman , young or old or wrangling with her husband, defying heaven, loudly boasting, fortunate in her own conceit, or involved in misfortune or possessed by grief and lamention” provides a poor role model for a young man and the worse model is “a woman that is sick, in love or in labor” (Republic 395).
According to Plato to have more concern for the body than the soul is to act like a woman. The opposing views that Plato holds on women are due partly to his drive to make a clear distinction between the soul and the body and not necessarily on the gender of the person. It is not an assessment of the sex of a person but rather on preaching on the significance of soul as personalized by the characteristics of men and women.
In order for Plato’s pronouncements to be consistent it necessary to separate Plato’s prejudice against women from other forms of oppression. This is the irony that Plato presents despite being dubbed as the first feminist philosopher.
As previously pointed out, Plato sees the soul and body as two different things. Souls are not visible, cannot be observed through senses and could not be decayed. Bodies on the other hand are visible, seen by the senses and undergo decay. Socrates summarizes this distinction in Phaedo
“(The soul is) most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas (the) body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble and never self-consistent.
The soul not is different kind from the body, it can exist without it. At death, the invisible, indissoluble soul separates from the visible decaying body (Phaedo 64c, 67d; Gorgias 524b; Laws 828e, 927a).
The dialogues point out important lessons about the soul and the body that supports the fact that Plato does not judge a person’s soul through gender. Being a philosopher-ruler is not determined by the kind of body one has which is either male of female. This is so because as what Plato pointed above, the state of one soul is separate from the body and the former can exist without the latter. The soul is independent from the body. The state of the body does not and will not determine the state of the person’s soul.
This position suggesting that women be allowed to govern the polis, as expected, elicited unfavorable response even for the democrats of Athens. Plato does not attempt to make political assertions though. The premise of such concept is based on its logical and metaphysical implications. In short, he was merely pointing out a basic truth otherwise overlooked by his contemporaries and that is, the sex is irrelevant to the state of the soul of the individual.
It does not subscribe to existing arguments on equality. Plato never attempted to convince the democrats to allow women to help formulate the policies of the state. Ironically, his assertion is derived from two metaphysical arguments that emphasize inequality: 1). People are by nature different and because of that should be educated separately to be able to assume different roles in the polis. 2). People with special skills can spot particular talents or skills that are vital in a specific pursuits, these people should become leaders. To sum it all up, the arguments that support equality of some women to some men are the same arguments needed to establish the inequality of some women to some men.
Plato’s eqalitarianism may stress that women are as fit to rule as men. Yet his inegalitarianism view points out the fact that people play different roles as some are made to rule, others to help the rulers and still others to be ruled. This means that souls may be equal and distinct such as being a male or female but that does not discount the fact that there are different kinds of souls. Or that the souls are made for different functions but not necessarily affected by the gender of the person.
This simply means that we cannot tell from the kind of body a person has the kind of soul he or she has. Both souls of men and women maybe meant to rule, others to help rule and still others be subject to rule but the body does not reveal the kind of soul by virtue of his being male or female alone.
Being male and female therefore is irrelevant to the soul you have. The physical self does not reveal the kind of soul one has. This argument stressing equality between men and women could undermine his own inegalitarian view which espoused the inequality among the philosopher-rulers, supporters and the majority. Pointing out the irrelevance of sexual identity is a contradiction to the idea that people could belong to groups. Since Plato believes that souls need to be grouped according to their skills or natural abilities, the elimination of gender in choosing the grouping somehow contradicts the idea of grouping.
The dialogue in The Republic provides a way to escape this perceived dualism or the irony in Plato’s preaching. Firstly, the philosopher-kings and queens are equipped with the special skills from training and nature “to distinguish the baseborn from the trueborn” (Republic 536), and the welfare of the state depends on this capacity.
For when the knowledge necessary to make such discriminations is lacking in individual or state, they unawares employ at random for any of these purposes the crippled and baseborn natures, as their friends or rulers (Republic 536).
The rulers’ duty to “assign(ing) to each the status due to his nature” is described as a delicate task and should be handled with the greatest care. As a matter of fact, they must be ready to confront the painful and even “thrust (their own sons) out among the artisans or the farmers” if they do not have their parent’s nature (Repbulic 415).
To put it simply, philosopher-rulers have the skill and nature to spot potential guardians or philosopher-rulers. They can also tell which talents are needed to accomplish a certain task.
Secondly, even though Plato stresses that we can’t see from the person’s gender the kind of soul he or she has but still, how one conducts himself or herself is revealed by his/her body. Thus, although nature is not revealed through gender, it is revealed through the activities a person does.
Plato always looks into the way philosophers should conduct themselves and what activities they accomplish. This is a crucial requirement in the development of a philosopher’s souls. He believes that those with special skills behave differently from others that is why he continuously stresses the need for education. Philosophers-in-training need to be tested over and over again to see if their souls are up to the task from the littlest to the biggest things. They must continuously check themselves or subject themselves to discipline to be able to develop their natural skills. For instance, to see if they remain “immune to such witchcraft and preserve (their) composure throughout,” demonstrating their skill to become good guardians or rulers of themselves and the culture they received (Republic 413).
While one’s body can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the soul of a philosopher, a woman is a philosopher will by her nature avoid the entrapments brought about by her own body; and her education, which is the same as that of her male equals, will strengthen her natural resolve. Thus whatever differences there are between men and women are irrelevant when it comes to qualification for the guardianship of the state. The following quote from Book 5 of Plato’s The Republic best captures the essence of Plato’s view on feminism:
“We see now why Plato’s example of carpenter (Republic 454) is so telling: Socrates is trying to get Glaucon to understand that if we think carefully about who is fit to be a ruler of the state, what matters is not whether you are male or female but what kinds of pursuits you are suited for, what kinds of activities you can do well, and how you respond to challenges to self-control. What matters is not what kind of body you have, but what you do with it, and how well you can control it. If you have the kind of soul that a carpenter does, you don’t have the kind of soul a ruler does; both rulers and ruled might be male or female. We can only tell that some women have the souls of philosopher-rulers if they do what philosopher-rulers do and not what carpenters say or male or female slaves do.”
Plato to a certain extent espoused the feminists’ view of women being equal to men. Some of Plato’s views on The Republic support this claim particularly in book 5 where Plato tackles on Socrates’ view that women make potential good guardians or philosopher-rulers of the state. His assertion that a person should be judged on his or her soul and not on external appearance is the basis for this claim.
Plato’s view on feminism is further entrenched by the views he held 1) that woman’s biology ought not to settle the question of her destiny and (2) that women’s intelligence and reason ought to be called upon in the running of the state. These two served as the basis for believing that to a certain extent Plato supports the feminists’ views.
In book 5, Plato discusses the possibility of equality among men and women. He does not want to limit the woman’s role as merely inferior to that of man. Just because the women’s bodies are made differently do not necessarily follows that it would make them different from and inferior to men. As a matter of fact, Plato believes that some women are capable of being equal to the best of men if not superior. Due to that, the best state must provide women the opportunity to govern. This chance should not be withhold upon women on the basis of gender alone.
In Book 5 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates suggests that women have the makings of becoming effective guardians or having the ability to fulfill the role of philosopher-rulers of the state just like men. This view might be unpopular even opposed by most men during Plato’s time because this was not the custom uphold in that period of Athenian society and history. Women were then treated as properties and often viewed as inferior to men in status.
This view on the equality of men and women preached by Plato must have took his contemporaries by surprise. What makes it even more surprising is the fact that those who are familiar with Plato know his tendency to be undemocratic and antiegalitarian. This simply means that Plato does not believe in equality in social functions. He explicitly adheres to the view that one class of people is presumably superior to other classes. Plato’s inegalitarianism view further stresses that some people are by nature equipped to rule, others assist them, and still others to be ruled. This concept entails that there are different natures, found in different kinds of souls.
In keeping with Plato’s view on inegalitarianism, he delineates the principles behind a society rooted in justice: 1) different kinds of people have different natures and 2) both individuals and the state are best served if people perform the functions for which their natures, complemented by the appropriate education, best suit them. People need other people because one could not everything well. As a matter of fact, everyone can only do one thing well. Justice is existence of harmony in such conditions. It necessarily follows then that Plato believes that by virtue of justice men and women are supposed to fulfill different responsibilities and functions which are not necessarily determined by their gender. Gender therefore is irrelevant to the state of soul of a person. The soul is an innate aspect of the person, one which is not dictated upon by society or gender but by the individual inclinations or the manifestations of the soul. The person is born with the kind of soul he or she has and her/his amount of responsibility depends on the type of soul he/she has whether ruler, auxiliary or multitude. For instance, if a man and woman have a physician’s soul then they have the same nature regardless of the fact that they don’t have the same gender.
In book 5 of the Republic Socrates maintains that there is no reason women should be excluded among the philosopher-rulers. This is in consonance with the principle that “different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same”. A man’s virtue then is not brought about by his sex. Virtue is virtue regardless of the person’s gender.
Plato asserts that no facts about a person’s body imply facts about the person’s nature or soul. Even if some bodily facts reveal something about the person’s nature, their sexuality is not one of these facts. Plato then believes that the soul/body distinction allow him to “see beyond” a person’s sex. The soul and body then are two different kind of things.
The reason why this statement is considered contradictory is due to the fact that he often makes comments on what he viewed as the shortcomings of womanhood. Plato often utilizes the female gender as a way to stress his philosophical point. Plato adheres to the belief that the soul is more important than the body. Paying too much attention to bodies will corrupt the soul. As an example to this he points to the women as the embodiment of corrupted souls. Women are believed to be the vain kind. They are believed to be more interested in the pursuit of beautifying one’s appearance instead of enriching the soul. Women also, more often than not, allow emotions to overpower their reason. This is the weakness Plato is pointing out in his examples that he believes is often embodied by a woman. Women have the tendency to use emotion rather than reason. “A woman , young or old or wrangling with her husband, defying heaven, loudly boasting, fortunate in her own conceit, or involved in misfortune or possessed by grief and lamention” provides a poor role model for a young man and the worse model is “a woman that is sick, in love or in labor” (Republic 395).
According to Plato to have more concern for the body than the soul is to act like a woman. The opposing views that Plato holds on women are due partly to his drive to make a clear distinction between the soul and the body and not necessarily on the gender of the person. It is not an assessment of the sex of a person but rather on preaching on the significance of soul as personalized by the characteristics of men and women.
In order for Plato’s pronouncements to be consistent it necessary to separate Plato’s prejudice against women from other forms of oppression. This is the irony that Plato presents despite being dubbed as the first feminist philosopher.
As previously pointed out, Plato sees the soul and body as two different things. Souls are not visible, cannot be observed through senses and could not be decayed. Bodies on the other hand are visible, seen by the senses and undergo decay. Socrates summarizes this distinction in Phaedo
“(The soul is) most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas (the) body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble and never self-consistent.
The soul not is different kind from the body, it can exist without it. At death, the invisible, indissoluble soul separates from the visible decaying body (Phaedo 64c, 67d; Gorgias 524b; Laws 828e, 927a).
The dialogues point out important lessons about the soul and the body that supports the fact that Plato does not judge a person’s soul through gender. Being a philosopher-ruler is not determined by the kind of body one has which is either male of female. This is so because as what Plato pointed above, the state of one soul is separate from the body and the former can exist without the latter. The soul is independent from the body. The state of the body does not and will not determine the state of the person’s soul.
This position suggesting that women be allowed to govern the polis, as expected, elicited unfavorable response even for the democrats of Athens. Plato does not attempt to make political assertions though. The premise of such concept is based on its logical and metaphysical implications. In short, he was merely pointing out a basic truth otherwise overlooked by his contemporaries and that is, the sex is irrelevant to the state of the soul of the individual.
It does not subscribe to existing arguments on equality. Plato never attempted to convince the democrats to allow women to help formulate the policies of the state. Ironically, his assertion is derived from two metaphysical arguments that emphasize inequality: 1). People are by nature different and because of that should be educated separately to be able to assume different roles in the polis. 2). People with special skills can spot particular talents or skills that are vital in a specific pursuits, these people should become leaders. To sum it all up, the arguments that support equality of some women to some men are the same arguments needed to establish the inequality of some women to some men.
Plato’s eqalitarianism may stress that women are as fit to rule as men. Yet his inegalitarianism view points out the fact that people play different roles as some are made to rule, others to help the rulers and still others to be ruled. This means that souls may be equal and distinct such as being a male or female but that does not discount the fact that there are different kinds of souls. Or that the souls are made for different functions but not necessarily affected by the gender of the person.
This simply means that we cannot tell from the kind of body a person has the kind of soul he or she has. Both souls of men and women maybe meant to rule, others to help rule and still others be subject to rule but the body does not reveal the kind of soul by virtue of his being male or female alone.
Being male and female therefore is irrelevant to the soul you have. The physical self does not reveal the kind of soul one has. This argument stressing equality between men and women could undermine his own inegalitarian view which espoused the inequality among the philosopher-rulers, supporters and the majority. Pointing out the irrelevance of sexual identity is a contradiction to the idea that people could belong to groups. Since Plato believes that souls need to be grouped according to their skills or natural abilities, the elimination of gender in choosing the grouping somehow contradicts the idea of grouping.
The dialogue in The Republic provides a way to escape this perceived dualism or the irony in Plato’s preaching. Firstly, the philosopher-kings and queens are equipped with the special skills from training and nature “to distinguish the baseborn from the trueborn” (Republic 536), and the welfare of the state depends on this capacity.
For when the knowledge necessary to make such discriminations is lacking in individual or state, they unawares employ at random for any of these purposes the crippled and baseborn natures, as their friends or rulers (Republic 536).
The rulers’ duty to “assign(ing) to each the status due to his nature” is described as a delicate task and should be handled with the greatest care. As a matter of fact, they must be ready to confront the painful and even “thrust (their own sons) out among the artisans or the farmers” if they do not have their parent’s nature (Repbulic 415).
To put it simply, philosopher-rulers have the skill and nature to spot potential guardians or philosopher-rulers. They can also tell which talents are needed to accomplish a certain task.
Secondly, even though Plato stresses that we can’t see from the person’s gender the kind of soul he or she has but still, how one conducts himself or herself is revealed by his/her body. Thus, although nature is not revealed through gender, it is revealed through the activities a person does.
Plato always looks into the way philosophers should conduct themselves and what activities they accomplish. This is a crucial requirement in the development of a philosopher’s souls. He believes that those with special skills behave differently from others that is why he continuously stresses the need for education. Philosophers-in-training need to be tested over and over again to see if their souls are up to the task from the littlest to the biggest things. They must continuously check themselves or subject themselves to discipline to be able to develop their natural skills. For instance, to see if they remain “immune to such witchcraft and preserve (their) composure throughout,” demonstrating their skill to become good guardians or rulers of themselves and the culture they received (Republic 413).
While one’s body can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the soul of a philosopher, a woman is a philosopher will by her nature avoid the entrapments brought about by her own body; and her education, which is the same as that of her male equals, will strengthen her natural resolve. Thus whatever differences there are between men and women are irrelevant when it comes to qualification for the guardianship of the state. The following quote from Book 5 of Plato’s The Republic best captures the essence of Plato’s view on feminism:
“We see now why Plato’s example of carpenter (Republic 454) is so telling: Socrates is trying to get Glaucon to understand that if we think carefully about who is fit to be a ruler of the state, what matters is not whether you are male or female but what kinds of pursuits you are suited for, what kinds of activities you can do well, and how you respond to challenges to self-control. What matters is not what kind of body you have, but what you do with it, and how well you can control it. If you have the kind of soul that a carpenter does, you don’t have the kind of soul a ruler does; both rulers and ruled might be male or female. We can only tell that some women have the souls of philosopher-rulers if they do what philosopher-rulers do and not what carpenters say or male or female slaves do.”
Is Plato a Feminist?
Plato and Feminism
Plato to a certain extent espoused the feminists’ view of women being equal to men. Some of Plato’s views on The Republic support this claim particularly in book 5 where Plato tackles on Socrates’ view that women make potential good guardians or philosopher-rulers of the state. His assertion that a person should be judged on his or her soul and not on external appearance is the basis for this claim.
Plato’s view on feminism is further entrenched by the views he held 1) that woman’s biology ought not to settle the question of her destiny and (2) that women’s intelligence and reason ought to be called upon in the running of the state. These two served as the basis for believing that to a certain extent Plato supports the feminists’ views.
In book 5, Plato discusses the possibility of equality among men and women. He does not want to limit the woman’s role as merely inferior to that of man. Just because the women’s bodies are made differently do not necessarily follows that it would make them different from and inferior to men. As a matter of fact, Plato believes that some women are capable of being equal to the best of men if not superior. Due to that, the best state must provide women the opportunity to govern. This chance should not be withhold upon women on the basis of gender alone.
In Book 5 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates suggests that women have the makings of becoming effective guardians or having the ability to fulfill the role of philosopher-rulers of the state just like men. This view might be unpopular even opposed by most men during Plato’s time because this was not the custom uphold in that period of Athenian society and history. Women were then treated as properties and often viewed as inferior to men in status.
This view on the equality of men and women preached by Plato must have took his contemporaries by surprise. What makes it even more surprising is the fact that those who are familiar with Plato know his tendency to be undemocratic and antiegalitarian. This simply means that Plato does not believe in equality in social functions. He explicitly adheres to the view that one class of people is presumably superior to other classes. Plato’s inegalitarianism view further stresses that some people are by nature equipped to rule, others assist them, and still others to be ruled. This concept entails that there are different natures, found in different kinds of souls.
In keeping with Plato’s view on inegalitarianism, he delineates the principles behind a society rooted in justice: 1) different kinds of people have different natures and 2) both individuals and the state are best served if people perform the functions for which their natures, complemented by the appropriate education, best suit them. People need other people because one could not everything well. As a matter of fact, everyone can only do one thing well. Justice is existence of harmony in such conditions. It necessarily follows then that Plato believes that by virtue of justice men and women are supposed to fulfill different responsibilities and functions which are not necessarily determined by their gender. Gender therefore is irrelevant to the state of soul of a person. The soul is an innate aspect of the person, one which is not dictated upon by society or gender but by the individual inclinations or the manifestations of the soul. The person is born with the kind of soul he or she has and her/his amount of responsibility depends on the type of soul he/she has whether ruler, auxiliary or multitude. For instance, if a man and woman have a physician’s soul then they have the same nature regardless of the fact that they don’t have the same gender.
In book 5 of the Republic Socrates maintains that there is no reason women should be excluded among the philosopher-rulers. This is in consonance with the principle that “different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same”. A man’s virtue then is not brought about by his sex. Virtue is virtue regardless of the person’s gender.
Plato asserts that no facts about a person’s body imply facts about the person’s nature or soul. Even if some bodily facts reveal something about the person’s nature, their sexuality is not one of these facts. Plato then believes that the soul/body distinction allow him to “see beyond” a person’s sex. The soul and body then are two different kind of things.
The reason why this statement is considered contradictory is due to the fact that he often makes comments on what he viewed as the shortcomings of womanhood. Plato often utilizes the female gender as a way to stress his philosophical point. Plato adheres to the belief that the soul is more important than the body. Paying too much attention to bodies will corrupt the soul. As an example to this he points to the women as the embodiment of corrupted souls. Women are believed to be the vain kind. They are believed to be more interested in the pursuit of beautifying one’s appearance instead of enriching the soul. Women also, more often than not, allow emotions to overpower their reason. This is the weakness Plato is pointing out in his examples that he believes is often embodied by a woman. Women have the tendency to use emotion rather than reason. “A woman , young or old or wrangling with her husband, defying heaven, loudly boasting, fortunate in her own conceit, or involved in misfortune or possessed by grief and lamention” provides a poor role model for a young man and the worse model is “a woman that is sick, in love or in labor” (Republic 395).
According to Plato to have more concern for the body than the soul is to act like a woman. The opposing views that Plato holds on women are due partly to his drive to make a clear distinction between the soul and the body and not necessarily on the gender of the person. It is not an assessment of the sex of a person but rather on preaching on the significance of soul as personalized by the characteristics of men and women.
In order for Plato’s pronouncements to be consistent it necessary to separate Plato’s prejudice against women from other forms of oppression. This is the irony that Plato presents despite being dubbed as the first feminist philosopher.
As previously pointed out, Plato sees the soul and body as two different things. Souls are not visible, cannot be observed through senses and could not be decayed. Bodies on the other hand are visible, seen by the senses and undergo decay. Socrates summarizes this distinction in Phaedo
“(The soul is) most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas (the) body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble and never self-consistent.
The soul not is different kind from the body, it can exist without it. At death, the invisible, indissoluble soul separates from the visible decaying body (Phaedo 64c, 67d; Gorgias 524b; Laws 828e, 927a).
The dialogues point out important lessons about the soul and the body that supports the fact that Plato does not judge a person’s soul through gender. Being a philosopher-ruler is not determined by the kind of body one has which is either male of female. This is so because as what Plato pointed above, the state of one soul is separate from the body and the former can exist without the latter. The soul is independent from the body. The state of the body does not and will not determine the state of the person’s soul.
This position suggesting that women be allowed to govern the polis, as expected, elicited unfavorable response even for the democrats of Athens. Plato does not attempt to make political assertions though. The premise of such concept is based on its logical and metaphysical implications. In short, he was merely pointing out a basic truth otherwise overlooked by his contemporaries and that is, the sex is irrelevant to the state of the soul of the individual.
It does not subscribe to existing arguments on equality. Plato never attempted to convince the democrats to allow women to help formulate the policies of the state. Ironically, his assertion is derived from two metaphysical arguments that emphasize inequality: 1). People are by nature different and because of that should be educated separately to be able to assume different roles in the polis. 2). People with special skills can spot particular talents or skills that are vital in a specific pursuits, these people should become leaders. To sum it all up, the arguments that support equality of some women to some men are the same arguments needed to establish the inequality of some women to some men.
Plato’s eqalitarianism may stress that women are as fit to rule as men. Yet his inegalitarianism view points out the fact that people play different roles as some are made to rule, others to help the rulers and still others to be ruled. This means that souls may be equal and distinct such as being a male or female but that does not discount the fact that there are different kinds of souls. Or that the souls are made for different functions but not necessarily affected by the gender of the person.
This simply means that we cannot tell from the kind of body a person has the kind of soul he or she has. Both souls of men and women maybe meant to rule, others to help rule and still others be subject to rule but the body does not reveal the kind of soul by virtue of his being male or female alone.
Being male and female therefore is irrelevant to the soul you have. The physical self does not reveal the kind of soul one has. This argument stressing equality between men and women could undermine his own inegalitarian view which espoused the inequality among the philosopher-rulers, supporters and the majority. Pointing out the irrelevance of sexual identity is a contradiction to the idea that people could belong to groups. Since Plato believes that souls need to be grouped according to their skills or natural abilities, the elimination of gender in choosing the grouping somehow contradicts the idea of grouping.
The dialogue in The Republic provides a way to escape this perceived dualism or the irony in Plato’s preaching. Firstly, the philosopher-kings and queens are equipped with the special skills from training and nature “to distinguish the baseborn from the trueborn” (Republic 536), and the welfare of the state depends on this capacity.
For when the knowledge necessary to make such discriminations is lacking in individual or state, they unawares employ at random for any of these purposes the crippled and baseborn natures, as their friends or rulers (Republic 536).
The rulers’ duty to “assign(ing) to each the status due to his nature” is described as a delicate task and should be handled with the greatest care. As a matter of fact, they must be ready to confront the painful and even “thrust (their own sons) out among the artisans or the farmers” if they do not have their parent’s nature (Repbulic 415).
To put it simply, philosopher-rulers have the skill and nature to spot potential guardians or philosopher-rulers. They can also tell which talents are needed to accomplish a certain task.
Secondly, even though Plato stresses that we can’t see from the person’s gender the kind of soul he or she has but still, how one conducts himself or herself is revealed by his/her body. Thus, although nature is not revealed through gender, it is revealed through the activities a person does.
Plato always looks into the way philosophers should conduct themselves and what activities they accomplish. This is a crucial requirement in the development of a philosopher’s souls. He believes that those with special skills behave differently from others that is why he continuously stresses the need for education. Philosophers-in-training need to be tested over and over again to see if their souls are up to the task from the littlest to the biggest things. They must continuously check themselves or subject themselves to discipline to be able to develop their natural skills. For instance, to see if they remain “immune to such witchcraft and preserve (their) composure throughout,” demonstrating their skill to become good guardians or rulers of themselves and the culture they received (Republic 413).
While one’s body can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the soul of a philosopher, a woman is a philosopher will by her nature avoid the entrapments brought about by her own body; and her education, which is the same as that of her male equals, will strengthen her natural resolve. Thus whatever differences there are between men and women are irrelevant when it comes to qualification for the guardianship of the state. The following quote from Book 5 of Plato’s The Republic best captures the essence of Plato’s view on feminism:
“We see now why Plato’s example of carpenter (Republic 454) is so telling: Socrates is trying to get Glaucon to understand that if we think carefully about who is fit to be a ruler of the state, what matters is not whether you are male or female but what kinds of pursuits you are suited for, what kinds of activities you can do well, and how you respond to challenges to self-control. What matters is not what kind of body you have, but what you do with it, and how well you can control it. If you have the kind of soul that a carpenter does, you don’t have the kind of soul a ruler does; both rulers and ruled might be male or female. We can only tell that some women have the souls of philosopher-rulers if they do what philosopher-rulers do and not what carpenters say or male or female slaves do.”
Plato to a certain extent espoused the feminists’ view of women being equal to men. Some of Plato’s views on The Republic support this claim particularly in book 5 where Plato tackles on Socrates’ view that women make potential good guardians or philosopher-rulers of the state. His assertion that a person should be judged on his or her soul and not on external appearance is the basis for this claim.
Plato’s view on feminism is further entrenched by the views he held 1) that woman’s biology ought not to settle the question of her destiny and (2) that women’s intelligence and reason ought to be called upon in the running of the state. These two served as the basis for believing that to a certain extent Plato supports the feminists’ views.
In book 5, Plato discusses the possibility of equality among men and women. He does not want to limit the woman’s role as merely inferior to that of man. Just because the women’s bodies are made differently do not necessarily follows that it would make them different from and inferior to men. As a matter of fact, Plato believes that some women are capable of being equal to the best of men if not superior. Due to that, the best state must provide women the opportunity to govern. This chance should not be withhold upon women on the basis of gender alone.
In Book 5 of Plato’s Republic, Socrates suggests that women have the makings of becoming effective guardians or having the ability to fulfill the role of philosopher-rulers of the state just like men. This view might be unpopular even opposed by most men during Plato’s time because this was not the custom uphold in that period of Athenian society and history. Women were then treated as properties and often viewed as inferior to men in status.
This view on the equality of men and women preached by Plato must have took his contemporaries by surprise. What makes it even more surprising is the fact that those who are familiar with Plato know his tendency to be undemocratic and antiegalitarian. This simply means that Plato does not believe in equality in social functions. He explicitly adheres to the view that one class of people is presumably superior to other classes. Plato’s inegalitarianism view further stresses that some people are by nature equipped to rule, others assist them, and still others to be ruled. This concept entails that there are different natures, found in different kinds of souls.
In keeping with Plato’s view on inegalitarianism, he delineates the principles behind a society rooted in justice: 1) different kinds of people have different natures and 2) both individuals and the state are best served if people perform the functions for which their natures, complemented by the appropriate education, best suit them. People need other people because one could not everything well. As a matter of fact, everyone can only do one thing well. Justice is existence of harmony in such conditions. It necessarily follows then that Plato believes that by virtue of justice men and women are supposed to fulfill different responsibilities and functions which are not necessarily determined by their gender. Gender therefore is irrelevant to the state of soul of a person. The soul is an innate aspect of the person, one which is not dictated upon by society or gender but by the individual inclinations or the manifestations of the soul. The person is born with the kind of soul he or she has and her/his amount of responsibility depends on the type of soul he/she has whether ruler, auxiliary or multitude. For instance, if a man and woman have a physician’s soul then they have the same nature regardless of the fact that they don’t have the same gender.
In book 5 of the Republic Socrates maintains that there is no reason women should be excluded among the philosopher-rulers. This is in consonance with the principle that “different pursuits to different natures and the same to the same”. A man’s virtue then is not brought about by his sex. Virtue is virtue regardless of the person’s gender.
Plato asserts that no facts about a person’s body imply facts about the person’s nature or soul. Even if some bodily facts reveal something about the person’s nature, their sexuality is not one of these facts. Plato then believes that the soul/body distinction allow him to “see beyond” a person’s sex. The soul and body then are two different kind of things.
The reason why this statement is considered contradictory is due to the fact that he often makes comments on what he viewed as the shortcomings of womanhood. Plato often utilizes the female gender as a way to stress his philosophical point. Plato adheres to the belief that the soul is more important than the body. Paying too much attention to bodies will corrupt the soul. As an example to this he points to the women as the embodiment of corrupted souls. Women are believed to be the vain kind. They are believed to be more interested in the pursuit of beautifying one’s appearance instead of enriching the soul. Women also, more often than not, allow emotions to overpower their reason. This is the weakness Plato is pointing out in his examples that he believes is often embodied by a woman. Women have the tendency to use emotion rather than reason. “A woman , young or old or wrangling with her husband, defying heaven, loudly boasting, fortunate in her own conceit, or involved in misfortune or possessed by grief and lamention” provides a poor role model for a young man and the worse model is “a woman that is sick, in love or in labor” (Republic 395).
According to Plato to have more concern for the body than the soul is to act like a woman. The opposing views that Plato holds on women are due partly to his drive to make a clear distinction between the soul and the body and not necessarily on the gender of the person. It is not an assessment of the sex of a person but rather on preaching on the significance of soul as personalized by the characteristics of men and women.
In order for Plato’s pronouncements to be consistent it necessary to separate Plato’s prejudice against women from other forms of oppression. This is the irony that Plato presents despite being dubbed as the first feminist philosopher.
As previously pointed out, Plato sees the soul and body as two different things. Souls are not visible, cannot be observed through senses and could not be decayed. Bodies on the other hand are visible, seen by the senses and undergo decay. Socrates summarizes this distinction in Phaedo
“(The soul is) most like that which is divine, immortal, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble and ever self-consistent and invariable, whereas (the) body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, dissoluble and never self-consistent.
The soul not is different kind from the body, it can exist without it. At death, the invisible, indissoluble soul separates from the visible decaying body (Phaedo 64c, 67d; Gorgias 524b; Laws 828e, 927a).
The dialogues point out important lessons about the soul and the body that supports the fact that Plato does not judge a person’s soul through gender. Being a philosopher-ruler is not determined by the kind of body one has which is either male of female. This is so because as what Plato pointed above, the state of one soul is separate from the body and the former can exist without the latter. The soul is independent from the body. The state of the body does not and will not determine the state of the person’s soul.
This position suggesting that women be allowed to govern the polis, as expected, elicited unfavorable response even for the democrats of Athens. Plato does not attempt to make political assertions though. The premise of such concept is based on its logical and metaphysical implications. In short, he was merely pointing out a basic truth otherwise overlooked by his contemporaries and that is, the sex is irrelevant to the state of the soul of the individual.
It does not subscribe to existing arguments on equality. Plato never attempted to convince the democrats to allow women to help formulate the policies of the state. Ironically, his assertion is derived from two metaphysical arguments that emphasize inequality: 1). People are by nature different and because of that should be educated separately to be able to assume different roles in the polis. 2). People with special skills can spot particular talents or skills that are vital in a specific pursuits, these people should become leaders. To sum it all up, the arguments that support equality of some women to some men are the same arguments needed to establish the inequality of some women to some men.
Plato’s eqalitarianism may stress that women are as fit to rule as men. Yet his inegalitarianism view points out the fact that people play different roles as some are made to rule, others to help the rulers and still others to be ruled. This means that souls may be equal and distinct such as being a male or female but that does not discount the fact that there are different kinds of souls. Or that the souls are made for different functions but not necessarily affected by the gender of the person.
This simply means that we cannot tell from the kind of body a person has the kind of soul he or she has. Both souls of men and women maybe meant to rule, others to help rule and still others be subject to rule but the body does not reveal the kind of soul by virtue of his being male or female alone.
Being male and female therefore is irrelevant to the soul you have. The physical self does not reveal the kind of soul one has. This argument stressing equality between men and women could undermine his own inegalitarian view which espoused the inequality among the philosopher-rulers, supporters and the majority. Pointing out the irrelevance of sexual identity is a contradiction to the idea that people could belong to groups. Since Plato believes that souls need to be grouped according to their skills or natural abilities, the elimination of gender in choosing the grouping somehow contradicts the idea of grouping.
The dialogue in The Republic provides a way to escape this perceived dualism or the irony in Plato’s preaching. Firstly, the philosopher-kings and queens are equipped with the special skills from training and nature “to distinguish the baseborn from the trueborn” (Republic 536), and the welfare of the state depends on this capacity.
For when the knowledge necessary to make such discriminations is lacking in individual or state, they unawares employ at random for any of these purposes the crippled and baseborn natures, as their friends or rulers (Republic 536).
The rulers’ duty to “assign(ing) to each the status due to his nature” is described as a delicate task and should be handled with the greatest care. As a matter of fact, they must be ready to confront the painful and even “thrust (their own sons) out among the artisans or the farmers” if they do not have their parent’s nature (Repbulic 415).
To put it simply, philosopher-rulers have the skill and nature to spot potential guardians or philosopher-rulers. They can also tell which talents are needed to accomplish a certain task.
Secondly, even though Plato stresses that we can’t see from the person’s gender the kind of soul he or she has but still, how one conducts himself or herself is revealed by his/her body. Thus, although nature is not revealed through gender, it is revealed through the activities a person does.
Plato always looks into the way philosophers should conduct themselves and what activities they accomplish. This is a crucial requirement in the development of a philosopher’s souls. He believes that those with special skills behave differently from others that is why he continuously stresses the need for education. Philosophers-in-training need to be tested over and over again to see if their souls are up to the task from the littlest to the biggest things. They must continuously check themselves or subject themselves to discipline to be able to develop their natural skills. For instance, to see if they remain “immune to such witchcraft and preserve (their) composure throughout,” demonstrating their skill to become good guardians or rulers of themselves and the culture they received (Republic 413).
While one’s body can be an obstacle to the proper functioning of the soul of a philosopher, a woman is a philosopher will by her nature avoid the entrapments brought about by her own body; and her education, which is the same as that of her male equals, will strengthen her natural resolve. Thus whatever differences there are between men and women are irrelevant when it comes to qualification for the guardianship of the state. The following quote from Book 5 of Plato’s The Republic best captures the essence of Plato’s view on feminism:
“We see now why Plato’s example of carpenter (Republic 454) is so telling: Socrates is trying to get Glaucon to understand that if we think carefully about who is fit to be a ruler of the state, what matters is not whether you are male or female but what kinds of pursuits you are suited for, what kinds of activities you can do well, and how you respond to challenges to self-control. What matters is not what kind of body you have, but what you do with it, and how well you can control it. If you have the kind of soul that a carpenter does, you don’t have the kind of soul a ruler does; both rulers and ruled might be male or female. We can only tell that some women have the souls of philosopher-rulers if they do what philosopher-rulers do and not what carpenters say or male or female slaves do.”
Yoga and Metaphysical Faith
Yoga is based on faith. Knowing its metaphysical foundations lets one appreciate it all the more.
The modern practice of yoga usually comprises of elements customarily derived from Hinduism. These elements include the following: moral and ethical principles, postures that will make the body healthy, spiritual philosophy, use of guru in giving instructions, mantra chanting, breathing quietly and meditation to achieve calmness of mind. These elements are used to be able to facilitate the needs of non-Hindu practitioners.
Different traditions used yoga for a variety of purposes. In Hinduism, yoga is intended as a group pf practices that will enable people to attain closer ties with god or union with god. In, Buddhism, yoga is not meant to foster god-centered relationship but to gain more wisdom, compassion and insight.
In Hindu yoga the terms Self-Realization and God-Realization are often synonymous. This is so because the attainment of self-realization often leads to attaining god-like nature or characteristics.
Yoga is meant to arrive at the ultimate goal of achieving freedom Moksha from sufferings the world wrought and to stop the cycle of birth and death or Samsara. Yoga requires mastery over body, mind, emotional self and the overcoming worldly desires. Through yoga we attain knowledge of what is real and true.
The Yogi or the practitioner of yoga must reach a state of enlightenment where thought stops and one experiences perfect union of the person's soul or the Atman with the highest Reality or Brahman as preached in the Vedanta philosophy; or with a particular god or goddess as advocated by Hinduism and some types of Buddhism. Enlightenment also pertains to the disappearance of the limited ego and the direct and permanent insight of the oneness of the universe.
An average person not in the state of enlightenment, yoga aids the person in attaining spiritual awareness or nurturing spiritual qualities such as compassion and insight. Yoga is often associated with Hinduism but adherents to yoga believe that it is not a religion but delineates the applicable steps which can help people irregardless of religion.
The metaphysical foundations of Yoga are necessary components in the actual practice of Yoga. A person who embarks on the practice of yoga and does not equip himself with the knowledge on its philosophical basis would end up merely acting out a routine. He is similar to a machine, doing things mechanically assuming that he or she is doing yoga. The attainment and truth should be at the heart of every yoga practice.
What You Should Know About Road Rage and Aggressive Driving
Aggressive driving pertains to display of aggression by a driver. The term is often misinterpreted as similar to ‘road rage'. There is a marked difference between the two terms though. Although both stem from aggressive behaviors, the New York State Police have stated that there is an important difference.
The New York State Police defines Aggressive Driver as one person who:
Operates a motor vehicle in a selfish, bold or pushy manner, without regard for the rights or safety of the other users of the streets and highways.
Road Rage, on the other hand, as defined by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and used in a study published in 1997 was taken to be:
an incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or passenger injures or kills another motorist, passenger, or pedestrian, or attempts or threatens to injure or kill another motorist, passenger, or pedestrian.
New York State Police have stated that "Road Rage", such as using the vehicle as a weapon or physically assaulting a driver or their vehicle, is NOT aggressive driving. Such acts comprise criminal offenses, and are penalized under the law as grave offenses or violent crimes. The term road rage should refer specifically to the criminal acts of assault.
Is Aggressive Driving Increasing?
The American Automobile Association, Foundation for Traffic Safety wanted to address the problem on shortage of available information with regards to aggressive driving trends or the scope of the problems of aggressive driving and road rage by commissioning a study on aggressive driving in the United States in 1996.
The result of the study was compiled and published in March 1997 together with two studies by the Group Public Policy Road Safety Unit of the Automobile Association in Britain.
Aggressive Driving Study -
(AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety)
The study was conducted in the United States focused on incidents of violence that were due to traffic altercations and the use of vehicles as weapons. The cases included were some of the most violent incidents which were reported in a police crime report or newspaper article. These comprise only a small portion of the incidents which would fall under aggressive driving.
From January 1, 1990 through September 1, 1996, 10,037 extremely violent incidents occurred:
Year Extreme Aggressive Driving Incidents
1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,129
1991 . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 1,297
1992 . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 1,478
1993 . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 1,555
1994 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1,669
1995 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1,708
1996* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201
Total . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 10,037
* Figures for 1996 were for an eight month period only. The projected total for the year is almost 1,800.
Profile of Aggressive Driver
There is not one specific profile for the aggressive driver. The majority though falls under the ages 18 to 26 years of age, not-so educated males with criminal histories such as violence and drug or alcohol problems. Most of them had recently undergone emotional or professional problems.
A startling number though revealed that hundreds of these people branded as aggressive drivers were actually successful men and women with no crime, violence or substance abuse records. Drivers between the ages of 26 and 50 were also noticeable. And 86 reported incidents where the drivers aged 50 to 75 years old. Study reveals that a seemingly minor traffic problem leads to an aggressive driving incident which is due to some stressful events in an individual's life which ends in extreme violence.
Gender Differences in Driving
Men and women reveal a number of driving behaviors that influence their attitudes, safety and insurance risk. Many factors are behind these differences such as neurochemical structures and hormonal processes brought about by evolution and universal socialization practices. Each plays a role in explaining why men and women drivers differ when it comes to records in accidents and insurance claims. Studies conducted over a period of time in different countries revealed that differences between male and female drivers in terms of crash rates are noticeable in a wide range of countries, including the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa, with males being significantly more at risk than females.
Similar differences are apparent among male and female pedestrians and accidents taking place at home and work. The differences do not reveal the levels of competence and driving skill of men and women. The differences in aggressive driving history actually are due to the most basic differences in specific areas of behavior and psychological functioning.
Extensive studies conducted point to the undeniable fact that men, and young men in particular, tend to be more aggressive than women (in all known cultures) and they express aggression in a direct, rather than indirect, manner. This behavior has a very significant effect on driving. It encourages the competitive and hostile behavior which leads to higher probabilities of accidents such as crashing.
Levels of deviant or rule-breaking behavior are seen to be markedly higher in men than in women. This behavior is apparent in a young man's tendency to have greater frequency of violation of traffic regulations, such as speed limits, traffic controls, drink-driving, etc.
More often than not men, on average, manifest higher levels of sensation-seeking and risk-taking attitudes in a number of settings. This ingrained sex difference has a hormonal and neurochemical basis. It is not brought about simply by socialization or experience.
The differences between male and female when it comes to their penchant for taking risks while driving can be explained, at least in part, using the evolutionary psychology perspective. This view suggest that much of neural circuitry of the human brain evolved to come up to the requirements set by societies and cultures. We evolved from a culture that is very different from our own as that of a hunter gatherer - that existed for over 99% of our evolution as a species. Despite our advancement to the 21st century, our human brains are basically still ‘stone-age' brains. The brains of men are women are different in certain crucial aspects.
Stone-age man may not have cars or know how to drive but his hunting, aggressive and risk-taking past - qualities that enabled him to survive and mate has been handed down to our present males. This is his way of passing his genes to future generations and which manifests in certain instances in today's male such as in the way a man drives his car.
A report published by the Department of Gender and Women's Health at the World Health Organization has demanded that these fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the need to develop policies that are relevant to each gender should be recognized.
This increased level of risk among young men is not just limited to driving. The WHO (1999) and (2002) report shows that men are also more likely to die from falls, drowning, poisoning and a range of other events. Only in the case of deaths in fires are women seemed to show a slightly higher figure than men. The report also shows that injury and fatality rates are higher among men for every type of road injury victim in several developing countries. In Kampala, Uganda, for instance, the ratio for males and females is between 2 and 7 to 1 among injured vehicle drivers, passengers and pedestrians. In the United States male drivers have more possibility of getting injured or killed in road accidents than females. Figures showed that male accounts for 71% of all driver fatalities. This figure is consistent since 1975.
To a certain degree these differences are explained by the greater exposure of males to potential accidents because there are more men who are licensed drivers and have greater annual mileages than women. But this factor however do not account for the fact that levels of male driver injuries and fatalities and those resulting from being a pedestrian, passenger, cyclist etc. are almost similar. This goes to show that the risk-proneness of men while driving is directly reflective of their risk in a number of other settings not just in driving. The number of driver deaths fell substantially between 1977 and 1995 but the relative male/female ratios remained substantially the same throughout the period. (See also Mayhew et al (2003).
Differences between men end women in terms of their driving behavior and accident rates have long been revealed in the UK, mainland Europe, the United States, Australia and in many other countries. In all studies and analyses, without exception, men showed a higher rate of crashes than women. This gender difference is particularly noticeable for those 25 years below. Somehow this is also evident among older drivers. The difference between the sexes in terms of the number of fatalities resulting from road crashes is similarly marked.
The scale of this difference between the sexes is very substantial. Chipman et al (1992), for instance, show that men have double the number of crashes (per 1,000 drivers) than women. Waller et al (2001) also note that in addition to having a higher number of crashes, men encounter their first crash earlier in their driving career and are more likely than women to be held to blame for the incident. Norris et al (2000) and others believes this greater level of crash-proneness is due to higher driving speeds among men and less regard for traffic laws.
Waylen and McKenna (2002) observe that the pattern of road accident involvement also differs between the sexes. Men are more likely than women to be involved in crashes that occur on bends, in the dark or those that involve overtaking. Women, on the other hand, have a greater frequency of crashes occurring at junctions than men. This supports the suggestion by Storie (1977) that men are more at risk from accidents involving high speed while women are at more likely to be involved in accidents resulting from perceptual judgment errors.
Studies revealed that in the age category 20-29 years the fatality rate for males (including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) was 535% greater than that of females. The difference between the sexes declined sharply with age - the difference between men and women in their sixties and older being insignificant. This is consistent with the findings of Maycock et al (1991) that the greatest difference between males and females in this context is in the 16-20 and 21-24 age groups.
The WHO report and other research documents put forward various reasons to explain the observed sex differences in the risk of injury or death while driving. These, overall, fall into three distinct groups, indicating differential levels of:
aggression
speeding and violation of traffic laws
sensation-seeking and risk-taking
Triggers of Road Rage
Part of the aggressive driving problem may be the roads themselves. The roads are more crowded these days. The number of vehicle miles driven each year increases by 35% in the past ten years, and more vehicles are plying on the roads. Yet the number of miles of roadway has increased by only 1%. Also, people are busier. Time is an important factor and the road congestion causes frustration for those pressed for time.
According to the media, there are a number of instances manifesting aggressive driving or "road rage" on the public highways. There is mounting concern among motorists about this problem. The American Automobile Association (AAA), Potomac Club commissioned a survey in early 1996 to determine what issues drivers were most concerned about in the Washington, D.C. area. About 40% of drivers revealed that they considered an aggressive driver as a major threat to traffic safety.
Road rage may have little effect on the total road fatality statistics but, as the Western Australian study reveals, it may form a significant part of violence between strangers and is therefore an occurrence that should not be ignored. The authors of the Western Australian study identified five ‘triggers' that may trigger a road rage incident:
Coming across slow drivers;
cutting in or overtaking by other drivers;
stereotyped sex roles (males believe females are incompetent drivers);
accidents between vehicles; and
competing for parking spaces.
Minor incidents may explode to violence due partly to the stress of driving. Road rage incidents tend to happen often in heavily congested traffic areas and are often committed by people that spend long hours on the road. Moreover, the environment inside the car ‘cocoon' decreases the ability of both victims and aggressors to neutralize potentially violent situations by pacifying gestures and language. Without the conciliatory acts, each act of driving could be seen by the angry driver as aggressive and insulting consequently causing an aggressive response.
Knowing what triggers the road rage behavior may enable us to understand the psychology behind road rage. The act of cutting in or overtaking may anger some people who think their ‘status' is being challenged. A Western Australian study reveals that:
violence is then seen as a necessary and justified response to what is perceived to be an injustice, usually some form of degradation or threat to the value of the self. Violence is thus a defense of honor and a means of restoring the self.
The use of violence to respond to a perceived injustice or to defend one's well-being is probably as old as the human species itself; to some extent such reactions are an evolutionary defense mechanism intended to enhance the chance of survival.
Other Findings
Crowded roadways and pent-up frustration lead to aggressive driving
How you feel before you can even start your vehicle will determine the level of stress while driving.
Humans are territorial by nature. When this territory is invaded, people instinctively try to protect themselves. Some drivers bring this tendency too far by asserting dominance in the road and chasing another driver. This behavior could lead to fatal consequences.
An earlier study conducted in 1992 by the Automobile Association (AA) in Britain examined lifestyle factors of young men who had previously been identified as "safe" or "unsafe" drivers. The study revealed that mood influenced the "unsafe" driver to a greater extent than it did the "safe" driver. It also revealed that being in a bad mood had a negative effect on driving behavior, especially for the "unsafe" driver, who was more likely to react to the actions of other road users.
This supports the view that some people are more likely to succumb to "road rage", but it does not mean that "road rage" cannot be controlled. Although the 1992 study was specific to young men, the 1995 study indicated that there was very little age or gender difference in the prevalence of "road rage".
Conclusion
Men and women are different. The differences in driving behavior are shown by the greater tendency of males to take risks, exhibit aggression and seek thrilling sensations. The results of these differences are shown very clearly all over the world in the form of higher accident statistics, more expensive and frequent insurance claims and higher rates of convictions for offenses such as dangerous and drink-driving.
These differences may be brought about by socialization, but they are rooted in more basic human factors. Evolutionary psychology provides a strong basis for these back to the almost similar cognitive structures required by our hunter-gather ancestors in the past.
In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence that tendencies towards certain types of behavior, including less-safe driving, are deeply ingrained in men. The conclusion of the Department of Gender and Women's Health at the World Health Organization calling for recognition of the fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the development of gender-differentiated policies in relevant areas has valid basis and should be heeded.
The New York State Police defines Aggressive Driver as one person who:
Operates a motor vehicle in a selfish, bold or pushy manner, without regard for the rights or safety of the other users of the streets and highways.
Road Rage, on the other hand, as defined by the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety and used in a study published in 1997 was taken to be:
an incident in which an angry or impatient motorist or passenger injures or kills another motorist, passenger, or pedestrian, or attempts or threatens to injure or kill another motorist, passenger, or pedestrian.
New York State Police have stated that "Road Rage", such as using the vehicle as a weapon or physically assaulting a driver or their vehicle, is NOT aggressive driving. Such acts comprise criminal offenses, and are penalized under the law as grave offenses or violent crimes. The term road rage should refer specifically to the criminal acts of assault.
Is Aggressive Driving Increasing?
The American Automobile Association, Foundation for Traffic Safety wanted to address the problem on shortage of available information with regards to aggressive driving trends or the scope of the problems of aggressive driving and road rage by commissioning a study on aggressive driving in the United States in 1996.
The result of the study was compiled and published in March 1997 together with two studies by the Group Public Policy Road Safety Unit of the Automobile Association in Britain.
Aggressive Driving Study -
(AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety)
The study was conducted in the United States focused on incidents of violence that were due to traffic altercations and the use of vehicles as weapons. The cases included were some of the most violent incidents which were reported in a police crime report or newspaper article. These comprise only a small portion of the incidents which would fall under aggressive driving.
From January 1, 1990 through September 1, 1996, 10,037 extremely violent incidents occurred:
Year Extreme Aggressive Driving Incidents
1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,129
1991 . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . 1,297
1992 . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 1,478
1993 . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . 1,555
1994 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 1,669
1995 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1,708
1996* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201
Total . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 10,037
* Figures for 1996 were for an eight month period only. The projected total for the year is almost 1,800.
Profile of Aggressive Driver
There is not one specific profile for the aggressive driver. The majority though falls under the ages 18 to 26 years of age, not-so educated males with criminal histories such as violence and drug or alcohol problems. Most of them had recently undergone emotional or professional problems.
A startling number though revealed that hundreds of these people branded as aggressive drivers were actually successful men and women with no crime, violence or substance abuse records. Drivers between the ages of 26 and 50 were also noticeable. And 86 reported incidents where the drivers aged 50 to 75 years old. Study reveals that a seemingly minor traffic problem leads to an aggressive driving incident which is due to some stressful events in an individual's life which ends in extreme violence.
Gender Differences in Driving
Men and women reveal a number of driving behaviors that influence their attitudes, safety and insurance risk. Many factors are behind these differences such as neurochemical structures and hormonal processes brought about by evolution and universal socialization practices. Each plays a role in explaining why men and women drivers differ when it comes to records in accidents and insurance claims. Studies conducted over a period of time in different countries revealed that differences between male and female drivers in terms of crash rates are noticeable in a wide range of countries, including the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa, with males being significantly more at risk than females.
Similar differences are apparent among male and female pedestrians and accidents taking place at home and work. The differences do not reveal the levels of competence and driving skill of men and women. The differences in aggressive driving history actually are due to the most basic differences in specific areas of behavior and psychological functioning.
Extensive studies conducted point to the undeniable fact that men, and young men in particular, tend to be more aggressive than women (in all known cultures) and they express aggression in a direct, rather than indirect, manner. This behavior has a very significant effect on driving. It encourages the competitive and hostile behavior which leads to higher probabilities of accidents such as crashing.
Levels of deviant or rule-breaking behavior are seen to be markedly higher in men than in women. This behavior is apparent in a young man's tendency to have greater frequency of violation of traffic regulations, such as speed limits, traffic controls, drink-driving, etc.
More often than not men, on average, manifest higher levels of sensation-seeking and risk-taking attitudes in a number of settings. This ingrained sex difference has a hormonal and neurochemical basis. It is not brought about simply by socialization or experience.
The differences between male and female when it comes to their penchant for taking risks while driving can be explained, at least in part, using the evolutionary psychology perspective. This view suggest that much of neural circuitry of the human brain evolved to come up to the requirements set by societies and cultures. We evolved from a culture that is very different from our own as that of a hunter gatherer - that existed for over 99% of our evolution as a species. Despite our advancement to the 21st century, our human brains are basically still ‘stone-age' brains. The brains of men are women are different in certain crucial aspects.
Stone-age man may not have cars or know how to drive but his hunting, aggressive and risk-taking past - qualities that enabled him to survive and mate has been handed down to our present males. This is his way of passing his genes to future generations and which manifests in certain instances in today's male such as in the way a man drives his car.
A report published by the Department of Gender and Women's Health at the World Health Organization has demanded that these fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the need to develop policies that are relevant to each gender should be recognized.
This increased level of risk among young men is not just limited to driving. The WHO (1999) and (2002) report shows that men are also more likely to die from falls, drowning, poisoning and a range of other events. Only in the case of deaths in fires are women seemed to show a slightly higher figure than men. The report also shows that injury and fatality rates are higher among men for every type of road injury victim in several developing countries. In Kampala, Uganda, for instance, the ratio for males and females is between 2 and 7 to 1 among injured vehicle drivers, passengers and pedestrians. In the United States male drivers have more possibility of getting injured or killed in road accidents than females. Figures showed that male accounts for 71% of all driver fatalities. This figure is consistent since 1975.
To a certain degree these differences are explained by the greater exposure of males to potential accidents because there are more men who are licensed drivers and have greater annual mileages than women. But this factor however do not account for the fact that levels of male driver injuries and fatalities and those resulting from being a pedestrian, passenger, cyclist etc. are almost similar. This goes to show that the risk-proneness of men while driving is directly reflective of their risk in a number of other settings not just in driving. The number of driver deaths fell substantially between 1977 and 1995 but the relative male/female ratios remained substantially the same throughout the period. (See also Mayhew et al (2003).
Differences between men end women in terms of their driving behavior and accident rates have long been revealed in the UK, mainland Europe, the United States, Australia and in many other countries. In all studies and analyses, without exception, men showed a higher rate of crashes than women. This gender difference is particularly noticeable for those 25 years below. Somehow this is also evident among older drivers. The difference between the sexes in terms of the number of fatalities resulting from road crashes is similarly marked.
The scale of this difference between the sexes is very substantial. Chipman et al (1992), for instance, show that men have double the number of crashes (per 1,000 drivers) than women. Waller et al (2001) also note that in addition to having a higher number of crashes, men encounter their first crash earlier in their driving career and are more likely than women to be held to blame for the incident. Norris et al (2000) and others believes this greater level of crash-proneness is due to higher driving speeds among men and less regard for traffic laws.
Waylen and McKenna (2002) observe that the pattern of road accident involvement also differs between the sexes. Men are more likely than women to be involved in crashes that occur on bends, in the dark or those that involve overtaking. Women, on the other hand, have a greater frequency of crashes occurring at junctions than men. This supports the suggestion by Storie (1977) that men are more at risk from accidents involving high speed while women are at more likely to be involved in accidents resulting from perceptual judgment errors.
Studies revealed that in the age category 20-29 years the fatality rate for males (including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc.) was 535% greater than that of females. The difference between the sexes declined sharply with age - the difference between men and women in their sixties and older being insignificant. This is consistent with the findings of Maycock et al (1991) that the greatest difference between males and females in this context is in the 16-20 and 21-24 age groups.
The WHO report and other research documents put forward various reasons to explain the observed sex differences in the risk of injury or death while driving. These, overall, fall into three distinct groups, indicating differential levels of:
aggression
speeding and violation of traffic laws
sensation-seeking and risk-taking
Triggers of Road Rage
Part of the aggressive driving problem may be the roads themselves. The roads are more crowded these days. The number of vehicle miles driven each year increases by 35% in the past ten years, and more vehicles are plying on the roads. Yet the number of miles of roadway has increased by only 1%. Also, people are busier. Time is an important factor and the road congestion causes frustration for those pressed for time.
According to the media, there are a number of instances manifesting aggressive driving or "road rage" on the public highways. There is mounting concern among motorists about this problem. The American Automobile Association (AAA), Potomac Club commissioned a survey in early 1996 to determine what issues drivers were most concerned about in the Washington, D.C. area. About 40% of drivers revealed that they considered an aggressive driver as a major threat to traffic safety.
Road rage may have little effect on the total road fatality statistics but, as the Western Australian study reveals, it may form a significant part of violence between strangers and is therefore an occurrence that should not be ignored. The authors of the Western Australian study identified five ‘triggers' that may trigger a road rage incident:
Coming across slow drivers;
cutting in or overtaking by other drivers;
stereotyped sex roles (males believe females are incompetent drivers);
accidents between vehicles; and
competing for parking spaces.
Minor incidents may explode to violence due partly to the stress of driving. Road rage incidents tend to happen often in heavily congested traffic areas and are often committed by people that spend long hours on the road. Moreover, the environment inside the car ‘cocoon' decreases the ability of both victims and aggressors to neutralize potentially violent situations by pacifying gestures and language. Without the conciliatory acts, each act of driving could be seen by the angry driver as aggressive and insulting consequently causing an aggressive response.
Knowing what triggers the road rage behavior may enable us to understand the psychology behind road rage. The act of cutting in or overtaking may anger some people who think their ‘status' is being challenged. A Western Australian study reveals that:
violence is then seen as a necessary and justified response to what is perceived to be an injustice, usually some form of degradation or threat to the value of the self. Violence is thus a defense of honor and a means of restoring the self.
The use of violence to respond to a perceived injustice or to defend one's well-being is probably as old as the human species itself; to some extent such reactions are an evolutionary defense mechanism intended to enhance the chance of survival.
Other Findings
Crowded roadways and pent-up frustration lead to aggressive driving
How you feel before you can even start your vehicle will determine the level of stress while driving.
Humans are territorial by nature. When this territory is invaded, people instinctively try to protect themselves. Some drivers bring this tendency too far by asserting dominance in the road and chasing another driver. This behavior could lead to fatal consequences.
An earlier study conducted in 1992 by the Automobile Association (AA) in Britain examined lifestyle factors of young men who had previously been identified as "safe" or "unsafe" drivers. The study revealed that mood influenced the "unsafe" driver to a greater extent than it did the "safe" driver. It also revealed that being in a bad mood had a negative effect on driving behavior, especially for the "unsafe" driver, who was more likely to react to the actions of other road users.
This supports the view that some people are more likely to succumb to "road rage", but it does not mean that "road rage" cannot be controlled. Although the 1992 study was specific to young men, the 1995 study indicated that there was very little age or gender difference in the prevalence of "road rage".
Conclusion
Men and women are different. The differences in driving behavior are shown by the greater tendency of males to take risks, exhibit aggression and seek thrilling sensations. The results of these differences are shown very clearly all over the world in the form of higher accident statistics, more expensive and frequent insurance claims and higher rates of convictions for offenses such as dangerous and drink-driving.
These differences may be brought about by socialization, but they are rooted in more basic human factors. Evolutionary psychology provides a strong basis for these back to the almost similar cognitive structures required by our hunter-gather ancestors in the past.
In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence that tendencies towards certain types of behavior, including less-safe driving, are deeply ingrained in men. The conclusion of the Department of Gender and Women's Health at the World Health Organization calling for recognition of the fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the development of gender-differentiated policies in relevant areas has valid basis and should be heeded.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Individual vs. Group Counseling
Counseling is an important aspect of inner healing or to effect behavioral change. In order to make this process effective two methods are offered: individual or group.
Counseling is a process whereby the relationship and communication provided allows development of understanding of one's self, explore possibilities, and initiate change. It is motivated by care and concern for the well-being of the recipient, and aim at bringing about behavioral change, problem-solving, personal growth and development when properly implemented.
Advantages of Individual Counseling
The advantages of an individual counseling as opposed to group counseling are multiple:
First, it allows the counselor to work in isolated issues.
Second, the counselor caters only to one client.
Third, the information gathered is easier for the counselor to figure out and to be able to apply which treatment approach is most useful to the client and target behavior that needs improvement.
The client’s thoughts and behaviors may not be distorted compared with group counseling as several pattern of thoughts and behaviors from other group members in making choices and decision making.
The client has the power to change his life for the better based on the choices he make.
In addition to this, he can control his behavior and that the level of commitment and how hard he is willing to work will dictate how successful he will be in developing new behaviors that clearly communicate his needs in accordance with William Glasser’s Reality Therapy.
Disadvantages of Individual Therapy
The disadvantages of an individual therapy include the client’s choice is solely from him.
The client may not able to generate ideas from other members' pattern of thoughts and behaviors just like in a group setting especially if others have similar issues and experiences which could help him make better choices and decision making.
Group counseling is more in consonance with the Control Theory, later named Choice Theory, forwarded by William Glasser. This theory states that a person’s behavior is inspired by what that person wants or needs at that particular time, not on an outside stimulus.
That all living creatures control their behavior to fulfill their need for satisfaction in one or more of these five areas: survival, to belong and be loved by others, to have power and importance, freedom and independence, and to have fun. The most important need among the five is love and belongingness. Group counseling promotes this kind of feeling. Being connected to others is encouraged in group counseling.
Advantages of Group Counseling
Group counseling is better than individual counseling when it comes to developing new behaviors that clearly communicate their needs and help in attaining fulfillment in the reality. Group therapy considers the key elements of what the group are looking for and what will make their life better, what the group will do to bring about what they want and how they are able to make alternative options and come up with common plan.
Group counseling also provides members with the opportunities to learn with and from other people and to be able to understand own patterns of thoughts and behaviors, as well as those of others. Other people may see attitudes and behavior patterns that are limiting and difficult to see in self.
A group is an opportunity to receive genuine support, honest feedback, and useful alternatives from peers. It also enables members to experiment and work towards improved attitudes and ways of coping with stress. A group may also help individuals with relationship concerns and general difficulties in dealing with other people.
Humans are social creatures by nature and that our primary need is to love and belong. It is therefore essential that we have the capacity to develop and maintain relationships because it is through people that our other needs can be met.
Presenting problems are a result of poor, unfulfilling, or conflict-ridden relationships or the absence of relationships. William Glasser's Choice Theory is applicable in group counseling wherein the group may be able to make effective choices and take greater responsibility.
Disadvantages of Group Counseling
Group counseling has some disadvantages:
too such as reflecting too many feelings and listening to far too many long stories;
insufficient group member movement and involvement ;
not using creative techniques to get and hold the attention of the group members;
not supporting techniques with theory and focusing the group sessions insufficiently.
Given the above advantages and disadvantages for individual or group format, it is up to the patient which one serves him or her best.
Psychological Realism of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
The psychological realism of the book “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” By James Joyce is evident in the fact that the entire story revolves resolutely on its main character,
Stephen Dedalus. “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” is actually a semi-autobiographical account of the author’s life as a young man.
The novel is written as a third-person narrative with less dialogue. The narrator seems attached to the main character. The book's opening lines present popular examples of Stephen's thoughts and conscious experience when he is just a child. Take these lines for instance, “Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo. . . ..
The first few lines of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man shows Joyce's attempt to describe the scene through the eyes of a very young boy. He littered the sentence with languages associated with children such as "moocow," "tuckoo," and "nicens."
Aside from the childlike speech, Joyce also makes use of syntax of his sentences and paragraphs to show how a child thinks. The train of thought is also another indication that the story comes from a child. There seems to be no sense of direction or sense of time in his narratives. As if he is just mumbling those words for no reason.
Joyce’s style in writing realism is distinctive and unique. It differs from other works that delves on similar topic. What sets this story apart is that most of the action occurs predominantly in the mind of the protagonist, Stephen. In order to make that portrayal believable, Joyce creates and employs a technique called interior monologue, or stream of consciousness wherein the arbitrary thoughts of Stephen are being quoted such as those found in the first pages of the book.
Stephen invariably relates the story to himself as he becomes the Baby Tuckoo in his father’s story and the song he hears become his song. There is a progression of Stephen’s thoughts as the story unfolds. Joyce’s style is less child-like as Stephen matures. This is apparent in Stephen’s language who as a little boy would mutter "nicens little baby tuckoo" and as a young artist who notes in his diary promises of forming "the uncreated conscience of my race."
Throughout the book, the author skillfully maneuvers language and prose to depict Stephen’s thoughts and how the events in his life affect him through the eyes of the narrator. Joyce’s lenghty accounts in some chapters can be attributed to the fact that he chooses to portray the Stephen’s subjective experience using language instead of presenting what occur in a prose narrative. Joyce is also known to use quotation marks instead of dashes.
The way the story moves forward also differs. Most novels use chronological progression or flashbacks. Joyce instead uses a series of experiences that may appear to be unrelated but are in truth interrelated through symbols, images and languages.
Images and symbols that are oft-repeated are designed to convey Stephen's innermost feelings. Take for instance, a rose or the color of rose which represents the young man’s quest for romance and beauty; the color yellow stands for utter dislike from unpleasant experiences or realities; and birds or flight, an allusion to the young man’s craving for creative freedom. Sometimes these symbols are used by the author to represent the threat of being punished and loss of independence. These images are drawn from religion, philosophy, and myth which Joyce masterfully intertwined and represented in the tale.
Realism wasn't the only influence found in Joyce’s works. Allusions and symbolisms such as those inspired by French poets like Stephane Mallarme and Arthur Rimbaud, whom he greatly admired in his younger days, also abound in his book. Joyce employs these evocative poetic imagery to portray various meanings. This strategy enables Joyce to use words to suggest psychological implications.
One of the most quoted allusion used by Joyce in the story is the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. The entire novel is actually structured around this famous myth. The constant reference to the story of Daedalus and Icarus inculcates in the minds of the readers the parallelisms in Icarus and Stephen’s lives.
This famous story in Greek mythology is about a father Daedalus who creates wings of feathers and wax so he and his son can escape the labyrinth. As they fly to freedom, Icarus discontent and curiosity bid him to fly higher. The wax on the wings however melts and Icarus plunges to his death. The same way that Stephen in the story strives to move away from his father’s grasp to follow his destiny as an artist. This perfectly sums up the protagonist’s quests for creativity, self-discovery and independence. This is the central theme which resonates throughout the story.
Stephen's name is another allusion derived from Saint Stephen who was known to have conflicts with religion. Stephen Dedalus has the same conflicting desire within him – to be free of Catholic and Irish conventions which he feels to constraint him.
The amalgamation of words, images, and symbols makes A Portrait of the Artist quite a complex taste for most readers’ palate. One has to dig deeper beyond the surface in order to fully comprehend a complex character such as Stephen Dedalus. It's not easy to peal all the layers of the novel and get to the bottom of things.
Stephen's mind seems a mad jumble of places and ideas. Joyce doesn't explain them either. The story does not progress in a usual manner. Scenes overlap; time is unspecified. It's up to the reader to make the necessary associations in order to fully understand the story. This may prove to be a huge challenge to most but the effort would be all worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)