Recent orders
Criticism of the poem To my dear and loving husband by Anne Bradstreet
Your name
Lecturer
Subject
Date
Criticism of the poem “To my dear and loving husband” by Anne Bradstreet
In her poem “to my dear and loving husband”, Anne Bradstreet gives an expression of the love, commitment and devotion that a wife gives to her husband. The author of the poem uses figurative language, and declarative tone to convey the message that she intended to pass. According to Anne’s tone, we can tell that she wrote this poem to show how much she loved her husband. Her word choice is perfectly emotional and loving. She is metaphoric in her writing and uses analogous writing to define the love between the husband and her. She wrote most fo her literature in an unusually harsh condition where women were disregarded and more so in her community, the puritans. She was afflicted by various diseases including tuberculosis and smallpox, and this did not deter her from expressing her ideas through writing poems. A biographical, historical and feminist analysis of ‘To my dear and loving husband’ will reveal the emotions that ran through her mind as she wrote this poem.
In the Biography of Anne Bradstreet was born in Northampton London in 1612. She got married to Simon Bradstreet at the age of 16 (Rudrum et al,651). Simon was a 25 year old assistant working in the Massachusetts Bay company. They were both puritans. In 1630, Anne and her family flew to America in one of the ugliest scenes of that time. Many people died from harsh climatic conditions and poor living standards. It was a long three month journey that saw many people in the vessel that they were travelling in, perish. Besides the trials and temptations that Anne and her family went through, they were lucky enough to survive the journey. This was the colonial period, and things were pretty tough for Anne’s family. This explains the undying love that Anne had for her husband Simon. In the poem, she expresses “…Then while we live, in love let’s so persever…” (line 11), she tells her husband that she will always love him even in times of difficulty. Anne was a well educated girl who taught several languages, literature and history which explains her love for literary works such as her poems.
In the third line of the poem “if ever wife was happy in a man” (line 3), Anne expresses her happiness that she was married to a loving and caring husband. Anne’s health had deteriorated massively, and she had been afflicted by smallpox. Despite her sickness she was still able to have kids and raise them together with her husband. Anne was a strong and courageous woman because puritan women were never allowed to exhibit their intelligence and charm to their husbands(Rudrum et al,620). Anne’s love for poetry was based on her life’s experiences and love for her family. She was afflicted by many diseases such as smallpox and tuberculosis and despite all these her husband stood by her side.
The historical context in which Anne wrote the poem was in the colonial period. This was in the 17th century. She was an early feminist who self taught herself, and she was a literature enthusiast. Her works of literature show that she was a free thinker who expressed her emotions in the form of writing poems. The poem, ‘To my dear and loving husband’, shows her devotion to her husband and family. An interesting point to note is that Anne wrote this poem at a time when the atmosphere for searching knowledge was harsh, and women were neglected and considered being inferior to their men. They were traditional roles of the family and the quest for women to find knowledge was out of the question. That is why she dedicated this love poem to her husband because he was caring and loving enough to let his wife write the poem. In the fifth line, of the poem “…i prize thy love more than whole mines of gold…” Anne illustrates that her husband is truly precious to her. The use of paradox in the last line of the poem “…that when we live no more, we may live ever…” confirms that she will love her husband even after death. Anne risked her life to express her feelings to her husband contrary to the beliefs and values of the puritans at that time. Bradstreet was a jealous lover. In the fourth line “…compare with me, ye women, if you can…”, she wrote this to make other women envy what she had between her and the husband and that her love was more than the possessions of the east. Bradstreet also claims that her love for her husband could never fade (line 7). In the first line, of the poem Bradstreet writes “ if ever two were one, then surely we…”. When an indepth analysis of this phrase is studied, we see that Anne and her husband were a great team and whatever happened to one happened to both. It was a mutual affair. The poem also tells the reader that love needs perserverence (line 11), “…then while we live, in love let’s so persever…”. This shows that their love did not come on a silver platter and that they had to work for it despite the all the circumstances they came across.
Anne Bradstreet was a feminist during the colonial period. She was a devoted and religious member of the puritan community. In the puritan community, women were regarded to be inferior to their husbands and high levels of obedience were expected from them. No form of charm or intelligence was required from them. Anne was a very courageous woman to go against the beliefs of the community and write a poem that she dedicated to her husband. It was uncommon for women in the puritan community to express love and affection to their husbands. It was believed that women who showed their intelligence were bound to go mad in the puritan community. According to Bradstreet’s life history (Campbell 10), she was a very ambitious lady who taught herself literature and poetry at a very tender age. She was well educated and her love for poetry is evident as seen in this poem. She was a free thinker and expressed her ideas, thoughts and expressions in poetry. She describes her love to her husband as one that cannot be repayed(line 9) “…the love is such I can no way repay…”. the poem exhibits a loving and affectionate message to a husband from his wife something that was very uncommon in the community. Bradstreet went against all odds to look for knowledge in the colonial period even when conditions where very harsh. First as a scholar seeking knowledge and second as a woman who was seen to be an inferior person. Despite her illnesses she pursued her passion for literary works to write poems. In the poem, she prays that heaven rewards her husband for the love that he gave her (line 10) “… the heavens reward thee manifold, i pray…”. Anne uses metaphors to explain the affection that was between the two couples. In one instance, she compares her love to her husband with mines of gold. This shows that she treasures her husband more than anything in this world (line 5). In another example, she uses a metaphor to state that her love for her husband cannot be quenched by rivers. This illustrates that her love for the husband is undying (line 6).
In conclusion, Anne’s love poem is a great inspiration to many people. The poem greatly connects to the audience through the use of metaphors. This piece of literature mainly connects with the audience who are married. It tries to enlighten married people that a happy and successful marriage is not an easy task and both parties should show commitment and trustworthiness. This can be attributed to Anne’s poor health where she was affected by many diseases, but her husband persevered and together they made a family. Many marriages fail because the spouses do not persevere the difficult times that they go through and quite often married people give up too soon. This poem can be a good example to couples who feel that their marriage is not strong enough, and maybe this poem could shine some light. It is a great love poem that women can dedicate to their husbands.
Works cited
Hellen campbell. Anne Bradstreet and Her time. New York: Echo Library, 2007. Print
Alan Rudrum, Joseph L. Black, Holly F. Nelson. The Broadview anthology of seventeenth-century verse & prose. Broadview press, 2000. Print
A content management system is a beneficial tool
Name:
Instructor:
Task:
Date:
A content management system is a beneficial tool
A content management system is a beneficial tool that allows for modification of content and control from a core interface. Sitefinity offers different solutions that relate to content management and e-commerce. Technology is a phenomenon that necessitates proper storage of information and efficient transactions. Sitefinity tools provide emerging and established businesses with systems of managing content on their sites.
It is crucial to highlight that Sitefinity tools help businesses create effective online stores. It utilizes a simple procedure that enables the affordability of such sites. The stores possess adequate simplicity of tracking sales and responding to customers. This tool allows the owner to drag and drop widgets into a site in order to articulate the proper outlook. The site enables widgets for shopping cart, product list, and checkout provisions. The Sitefinity tool ensures the safety of the store by providing usernames and passwords as the only keys for accessing an established site. This is an integrated system that permits a site owner to personalize a store according to the specification of a given customer. In turn, a customer can receive one’s services in a customized mode for a given feeling.
Sitefinity is a marketing platform that has integrated with the social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. This is a system whereby marketing messages are published in the form of word content and images. Facebook platforms have the like feature that customers click to receive updated information on a business entity. In close relation to the social networking sites, Sitefinity tools manage e-mail through appealing designs. This suggests that businesses can customize the reception of e-mail messages according to the specifications of given customers. It also tracks the e-mails to review the response and interaction of customers with the business. E-mails and social networking sites are some of the modern and cheapest tools of marketing that require proper management. They are also beneficial because they allow for tracking systems that assess the attention of the consumer base.
Mobile devices’ integration is an additional beneficial feature of the Sitefinity tool. As technology advances, individuals prefer handsets to traditional computers. Advanced handsets, such as Android powered phones, possess software that permits various applications. The tools are device-specific as they integrate in mobile phones according to the capacity of given software. This is a critical tool for engaging employees in managing applications and websites from their mobile phones.
It is discernible that Sitefinity tools provide emerging and established businesses means of managing content on their sites towards effective business processes. To begin with, this tool enables businesses form stores and modifies sites to the preference of business entities and customers. A business modifies the product catalogs by creating downloadable, shippable, or subscription-based products. This occurs through additions of images, graphics, videos, and other forms of appealing features. The Sitefinity tools provide integrated systems in terms of e-mails and social networking sites. The tools enable the sharing of messages on social networking sites in terms of word content and related images. Besides, this system entails customizing message sending to customers. Social networking sites and emails are cheap and convenient platforms for marketing products. Additionally, the tool permits the integration of marketing software in mobile phones. By ensuring the formation of web sites and applications according to the capacity of giving phone software, the activities in traditional computers can occur in mobile handsets.
Criticism of Socrates in Gorgias
Criticism of Socrates in Gorgias
Student’s Name:
Institution:
Criticism of Socrates in Gorgias
Introduction
The phenomenon “Socrates” surrounds every aspect of politics, culture, economic and social landscape in the current world. Indeed, there are several books on Socrates on every bookshelf in the world. Most of these books written about Socrates are dialogues of which one of them is named Gorgias. As it is already known, all of Plato wrote the books on Socrates. Gorgias happens to be one of his collections of dialogues involving Socrates and other characters. This dialogue is aimed at finding the true meaning of rhetoric by trying to identify and expose the defects of sophism synonymous in Athens during the period. Classical Athens revered the art of persuasion in political and legal fields, and this is the reason for the existence of many rhetoricians at the time. Indeed, these rhetoricians converted themselves to teachers offering knowledge for these skills, perhaps to become relevant or become famous. Gorgias was one of these rhetoricians who had moved to Athens after hearing of its intellectual and cultural sophistication. In this dialogue, Socrates suggests that philosophy is art whilst rhetoric is an expertise founded on sheer experience. He seemed to assert that rhetoric should depend on philosophy if it should become moral (Latour, 1987). Therefore, Socratic believe in Gorgias is that morality is not innate in rhetoric. That rhetoric lacking philosophy is utilized for personal gain. In this regard, this paper outlines Latour’s critique of Socrates in the dialogue between Callicles and Socrates.
Review of Latour’s Critique and Socrates’ Opinions on Body Politic and Science
In one specific dialogue in Gorgias between Socrates and Callicles, the two participants disagree in a way of applying virtue in a society. According to Socrates, a virtuous person should plot any means to see that an enemy does not appear in front of a justice system when he or she finds out that that enemy has erred. Callicles wonders at the concept of morality being championed by Socrates and wonders if he is joking. In sum, this dialogue tries to give different implications of body politic and sciences, in which Socrates argues that science corrupts the politics and that science should be eliminated in order for politics to remain immoral. Latour comes with a critique of these Socrates suppositions mentioning that currently, science has been immortalized by politics.
Latour begins his criticism using the basis of the quote “If Right cannot reign, the Might will conquer.” He asserts that this is not an insignificant phrase, but a concept that has a huge historical background. A proper comprehension of this phrase, according to Latour (1999, p. 216) is sure to allow a better perception of the distinction between the new science from politics. Latour tries to present the relationship between the respect for impersonal natural laws and the battle against immorality, irrationality, and political disorder. This implies that the destiny of reason and that of politics are intertwined and that any assault on reason makes “morality and social harmony unfeasible.” Latour argues that Right is the only element that protects the society against Might is reason and that it should be protected. In sum, Socrates asserts that technology and science will kill the Body Politic but to Latour, the science is the only element that will save humanity and even politics from moral decay.
Indeed, Latour states that inhumanity can be eliminated using something that is inhuman. Socrates construction of inhuman is the geometry whose manifestation escapes human whim. This, according to Latour, can only be science and it can only protect the Body Politic against danger of becoming immoral and gang. For example, the Great Wall of China was designed to guard against an unruly mob. He terms this concept inhumanity versus inhumanity, he further stating that it has been under attack since its inception. The sophists characterized by Socrates became the first people to contest its implication (Latour, 1999, p. 217).
In truth, several people have tried to combine recent and past events and in doing so, allege that there is no link between the natural laws of the universe and the problems facing Body Politic. This happens when making politics safe for the citizens. In Gorgias, Socrates seems to suggest that science is responsible for the many problems facing the planet. Indeed, his supposition is that the addition of inhumanity to existing inhumanity raises civil strife and misery. For instance, Socrates that inhuman acts should be reciprocated with humane acts when he states that a person should protect his or her enemy from the ravages of the laws especially when they are found committing an iniquity. Socrates seems to suggest that science is the undoing of politics and that all should arise, guns blazing, to fight the vice. The bottom of this assumption is that the Body Politic rules and that its concepts of mob rules the world and should not be corrupted. However, according to Latour all the violence and the mob are the elements that contaminate “the purity of science.” Latour suggests that the constant development of science means that it grows into human every day (Latour, 1999, p. 217). Latour suggests that the science is the only thing that can keep politics moral contrary to Socrates suggestion that philosophy is the only element capable of retaining reason and morality in political rhetoric.
In Gorgias, Socrates and Callicles notions differ in that Callicles thinks that the violence in the Body Politic is capable of straightening the mob and all its soldiers and followers, including science. Conversely, Socrates thinks that politics can remain moral as long as the inhuman (science) is eliminated from the influencing it. Latour argument does not differ from Callicles in that both champion for the combination of the Body Politic and the inhuman. However, the difference arises when Callicles suggests that the violence of the body politics that can allow the two to combine. Indeed, Latour suggests that the inhuman, that is that is the science, is the only element that can make the Body Politic human and not the converse. Therefore, Latour suggests that there is a possibility that both the Body Politic and science can work together in tandem. This implies that inhuman can be used against inhuman to result in a humane outcome albeit without the use of any violence.
Most of the dialogue between Callicles and Socrates is about Might and Right. Indeed, both Callicles and Socrates try to state that Right should rule over Might but Might always triumphs over Right. For instance, Callicles provides an example of the Slave and their owner. Although the slaves have greater physical power than their owner does, the owner possesses the nobility, which is the Might, greater than the physical power that the slaves possess. Latour disagrees with Socrates for critiquing Callicles stating that they both imply the same thing, especially in the dialogue where Socrates criticizes the way many witnesses can help someone a case against another one who has no witnesses. Socrates suggests that the weight of the evidence should matter in the case rather than the quantity of evidence. Latour suggests that this notion is the same as Callicles in that Callicles suggests that the mighty should not just possess the might but the brains. Socrates echoes his suggestion when he states that one intelligent person is on top of a hundred fools (Latour, 1987). A comparison with Latour’s claim about science provides one of the best conclusions. Although, Socrates disagrees with science, he agrees with the importance of intelligence or precisely, the quality of intelligence in every aspect of life. In other words, Socrates is agreeing with the utilization of science without realizing it. In his argument, Latour is criticizing Socrates character because he takes too much importance in his ideas to an extent he fails to realize that he is suggesting the same ideas as others. In sum, Latour tries to show Socrates’ character by comparing his words with Callicles’ in their conversation.
In another perspective, Might is seen as one man entering the stage against hordes of people; might is seen as one element. Conversely, when the Truth enters, it cannot be viewed as one element but rather as “an impersonal, transcendent natural law. The element is not against the crowd, but an element revered by most people in that crowd. This poses an implication that it is a “Might, mightier than Might.” According to Latour, the concept of Might against Right can be defined in two ways. For instance, Right can be viewed as the legal system of a particular society. It can also be looked at as Science and Reason. Socrates words involving the court betray his intelligence when it comes to the concept of “inhumanity versus inhumanity” of more specifically using science to rid the Body Politic of its evil and conserve its moral standard. Indeed, Socrates champions for the Right when he criticizes Callicles using the court’s scenario. However, he does not realize that Right can mean Science and Reason or Logic. In essence, Socrates is campaigning for the same thing he is campaigning to be eliminated. Latour shows that Socrates is contradicting his statements. Science and Reason are the only elements that can be adjoined to the Body Politic to keep it from falling pure immanence.
All of the Socrates dialogues are geared to showing his opponents that they are inferior in knowledge than him. Indeed, all his arguments are a contest, which only he can win. In the conversation with Callicles, Socrates used mathematical knowledge to beat his opponent and win the hearts of the crowd. In fact, according to Latour, Socrates used the tyranny of numbers to win the argument. As much as his mathematical arguments forced everyone to side with him, nothing makes this approach of politics and the society adaptable to the excessively harsh conditions of the Agora (Latour, 1999). Callicles arguments angered the crowd. The fact that he alluded to the masses as fools made him an enemy of the crowd he is facing. However, Socrates can be viewed as having the same suppositions as Callicles when he says that it there is no implication if no one else other than him agrees with his ideas. This is a contradiction to his earlier assertion about politics where he alluded that one should care about the opinions of others in politics.
Another perspective of the same scene is that Socrates used mathematical logic to beat Callicles during their argument even though he discounts the usefulness of science in politics. Indeed, taking the Agora as a political scene and the argument between Callicles and Socrates as a political contest it is clear that Socrates used Science to beat his opponent. A proper description of mathematics defines it as a science of numbers. Moreover, the fact that mathematics utilizes logic and reason means that it is one of the Truths defined by Socrates and Latour in their respective responses.
In truth, Latour criticism of Socrates in Gorgias is on point especially when one considers various scenarios during the conversation with Callicles. For instance, Socrates tells Callicles that if he “concurs” with his ideas then what he believes “is the very truth” (487a). This statement is a contrary to his previous statement that “politics entails caring for what everyone thinks (476a).” His supposition that political rhetoric should be adjoined to philosophy to conserve its morality. Socrates statement above does not assure one of the positive influences that philosophy has on political rhetoric. Moreover, it is inherent that Socrates thinks of himself alone contrary to his supposition that he is a philosophical politician who cares about the opinions of everyone else. He states, “I am the only true practitioner of politics…” (521d).
In another part of the dialogue, Socrates explains the importance of statesmanship the goes forward and destroys its elements one by one. Indeed, he states that a statesman “always finds ways for integrity, righteousness and self-control using intelligence” (504d). However, he contradicts his opinion when he states, “There is no expertise involved…” (501a). At first, both Callicles and Socrates that it needs intelligence to become a political leader then after a while Socrates disputes this statement with another statement. In essence, expertise and knowledge are similar and the main foundations of science. Socrates recognizes their importance in politics but does not want to identify with them. All these statements from Socrates in Gorgias are a clear revelation that Latour criticisms over his character are founded.
Latour criticism of political concepts, as portrayed by Socrates in Gorgias, has become a basis of science in politics in the modern society. Indeed, the political landscape has evolved from that founded and relying on philosophies to one reliant on concise statistics; this is called political science. Politicians rely on using scientific methods in gauging the perception of their character in public, their fame, and even the opinions of the masses that have more power than they do during elections in the modern society.
Conclusion
Socrates idealism has no place in a modern political atmosphere where politicians fight for might rather than for the right. His notion, which political rhetoric can only be kept morally upright by philosophy, is also farfetched evidenced by his failure to keep his premises about politics alive. This however does not imply that science is the saviour of political morality. This is because it has been used badly in some sectors of the modern political world. However, the knowledge and expertise provided by science has been very important in politics. This is the reason Latour is right when he recommends the combination of science and politics for the greater good of both disciplines.
References
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Plato (1997 [4th C-BCE]) Gorgias. Translated by Zeyl, J. Donald. In Pluto. Complete Works. Ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.