Recent orders
Problem solving paper Critical thinking
Problem Solving Paper
Critical thinking is a necessary area of every human being since sometimes we are faced with situations that require one to question themselves as well as the decisions made to solve the problems. In some cases, someone may think that they have found a solution to a problem only to find that one is questioning the same answers or decisions made and re-evaluating them. However, critical thinking ultimately gives the best possible solution to a problem because one analyses a problem or dilemma from different angles trying to understand it as well as look for the most suitable way to go about it (Ruggiero, V. R., 2009). The kind of the problem I experienced was in high school where I was faced with the dilemma of being in the drama club or science club which were both very active and interested me equally. The problem was that I had to choose one of them because I still had my studies to concentrate on and I felt that I wouldn’t give both clubs equal attention. Each club required about two hours, two days of the week meetings at varying times with club members.
After a week of pondering what to do, I decided to find out the meeting times of both clubs and found out that they were at different times so I decided to join both clubs with a personal assurance that I will balance both as well as my studies. In the first one month after joining the two groups, I felt like there is too much pressure for me to perform in both as well as my studies. Everything was intensive and at some point I felt like giving up on both of them. However, within the second month, I felt that I gave more attention to the drama club. I found it more interesting and I had a personal attachment to it. On the other hand, I realized I got along more with most members of the Science club and we shared common interests, ideologies and worldviews.
This proved to be a personal challenge to me because I was battling within myself on what to choose. Is it to be in the drama club where I found everything interesting or the science club where I felt more attached to the members as well as their ideologies? The problem now was to either be in the science club or drama club. I could not be in both as I consumed a lot of time in both and I felt my studies were sidelined after joining both clubs because my class performance dropped during that period and this was raising concern at home from my parents. I decide to rethink my decisions once again. So I continued attending both the clubs meetings until the second month lapsed. My main decision lay on how I felt about both clubs. Various emotions came into me every time I attended either club meetings. When in drama club, I always felt excited and filled with expectation despite not having many friends there. It always felt like a competition among members as everyone was trying to outdo each other even if we were supposed to work as a team. In the science club however, there was good relations as well as team work. However, the activities weren’t as exciting as the drama club.
It now became a battle of conflicting personal interests. I pondered some questions in my mind. These questions were: Should I be in a club where I feel appreciated or where my interest lies? What matters most at this point in life? Is it happiness or fitting in? Is it personal interest or maintain good relations? Is it somewhere I will nurture my interest or somewhere I will improve my interpersonal relations? With all these questions lingering my mind, I rethought my decision about joining both clubs. As a certain point I thought of dropping them both since I could not come to a conclusive solution on which club to choose. I eventually took a sheet of paper and wrote down two columns, one for the drama club and the other for science club. I wrote all the good things I like about each club and what I disliked about both clubs too. I still couldn’t make a solid judgment based on this.
I tried to answer the questions I had earlier asked myself. I decided to carry out a personal evaluation test to find out what mattered more to me at that particular time with regard to being in the drama or science club. I decided to choose the club in which I felt I am more talented and can nurture my talent and personal growth. I decided to ask my circle of friends to just anonymously write down what they thought I am good at and what they thought I was poor at. This I thought would help me know where my strength lay so it would be easier to make my final decision. What came out of this was that I was a person who easily gets along with people, creative and good organizer as the stronger traits while the weak traits were that I was too jumpy and impatient sometimes. With this insight, I decided to pay more attention to what interests me and what I look forward to then work on interpersonal relations after that. I eventually chose to remain in the drama club which excited me more.
I managed to work out on relations with other drama members after the final school performance. After we performed a play for the school, I realized I was actually good in bringing out a character as it should be. I was made team leader by the drama teacher and I managed to create better rapport among team members and there was better interaction after that. This problem enabled me to understand critical and creative thinking towards solving a problem. This was through the analysis of the problem; that being, the cause, the various consequences and available solutions to the problem (Johnson, A., 2000). The main ideas that helped in solving this problem are asking friends opinions and analyzing my feeling about the drama and science clubs. I used the input from my friends because sometimes a person is not able to know all about themselves and on the other hand, it is important to get an outsider perspective about oneself sometimes. In my dilemma, leaving the science club was not the best decision, but I had to make a decision after critical thinking which eventually worked out positively.
References
Johnson, A. (2000). Up and out: Using creative and critical thinking skills to enhance learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Ruggiero, V. R. (2009). The art of thinking: A guide to critical and creative thought (9th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
Hamlet is a hero who is not only reflective but also contemplative in nature.
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Hamlet
In most instances, literary artists use various styles to develop their characters. Certain literary works tend to evoke deep scrutiny by the reader especially when the hero in the text shares certain distinct traits with the reader. In his Hamlet, Shakespeare’s intention was to achieve a relative effect in his audience. Using his character, he succeeds in shedding light about different types of behavioral flaws that have devastating implications on the holistic wellbeing of the hero in the long run. Using this, he explores various human flaws that equally affect their functioning in different ways. Hamlet is a hero who is not only reflective but also contemplative in nature. Regardless of this, he exhibits a certain behavioral flaw pertaining to his tendency to act on his convictions. This culminates in a state of imbalance between his passive as well as active natures. Thus although he tries hard to live a humane life, the relative tragic flaws lead him to a tragic end.
As aforementioned, Hamlet exhibits both good and bad characters. Notably, he is a very complex character who displays various behaviors throughout the play. In chapter one, he is presented to the audience as a very sensitive and young prince who mourns his father’s death. His despair is further perpetuated by the fact that his mother gets married to his uncle immediately. At this point, he suffers from immense grief and experiences disabling feelings of frustration and anger. This has a great impact on the reader as it evokes feelings of sympathy. According to Corum, Hamlet is introduced to the audience as being not only complex but also very conflicted (43). Seemingly, his tragedy starts developing at these early stages in the novel.
The intense anger and grief that Hamlet experiences as a result of his mothers marriage makes him to have suicidal thoughts. The suicidal thoughts are a weakness and a demonstration of cowardice. These thoughts later subside hen he realizes that killing is a religious as well as mortal sin. Arguably, his decision not to commit suicide indicates that it is balanced against a sense of morality. This is paradoxical and it implies that the hero is struggling with some inner conflict. Accordingly, the inner turmoil and conflicts contributes significantly to the eventual downfall of Hamlet.
Hamlet also believes that he is responsible for dethroning his uncle Claudius in a bid to become the next king of Denmark. The inherent revenge according to him would enable him to address the pain regarding the incestuous relationship of his mother and finally be able to reinstate the honor of his family. The thoughts are further solidified when his father’s ghost appears to him. The ghost of his father informs him (Hamlet) about his killer; the killer took away his queen, crown and life. This makes hamlet to promise to kill his uncle without punishing or harming his mother. He vows to the ghost that he would pursue the revenge regardless of the cost. According to Griffiths, the adamant decision is tragic and triggers a series of other activities that ultimately culminate in his downfall (65).
After Hamlet has made the promise, most of the vents that occur culminate from his character. In Act III, all the characters that are linked to Hamlet in different ways work against him. When Ophelia meets him, the main intention for this is to allow his father and Claudius to spy on his regarding his mental state. Gertrude on the other hand agrees to hold a talk with him in order to allow Claudius to watch him. Further, his close friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz pledge their allegiance to Claudius and they agree to spy on Hamlet by observing him. At this stage, everybody that Hamlet had trusted and relied upon in the past begins lying to him.
Nonetheless, in his soliloquy, Hamlet contemplates the issue of loyalty in relation to staging a fight against evil. Hamlet at this point in time struggles to maintain acceptable moral standards. This is however in stark contrast with his activities as well as those of the rest of the characters. At this point in time, hamlet is aware that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are Claudius’ spies. With this knowledge, he is able to manipulate the situation to his benefit by providing Claudius with wrong information. He also suspects that the interest of Ophelia in him might not be genuine. With regard to Gertrude, hamlet acts cautiously but puts inconsideration the vow and promise that he made to the ghost.
As the play progresses, Claudius continues with his plot against hamlet. Hamlet on the other hand continues to postpone his decision to pursue revenge. This according to Griffiths goes a long way in reinforcing the hero’s tragic character flaw. He has repeated internal conflicts regarding mankind, loyalty and life and death. These prevent him form pursuing what h had initially vowed to. Although he understands that no one at this point in time supports him, he is reluctant about finding the fastest way to pursue his revenge. Rather, he uses every opportunity that crops up to promote his state of mental illness. This is well exemplified in scene three of Act 111 (Griffiths 56). In this, hamlet comes across Claudius contemplating the murder of his brother and wondering whether he would ever be accorded penance. Hamlet at this stage refrains from killing his uncle and chooses to wait. This is because he believes that just like his father; Claudius also needs to die in a sinful state.
In situations that need thorough contemplation, hamlet acts in a very impulsive manner. A classic example in this regard pertains to the scenario where he thinks that he hears a rat trying to listen to the dialogue that he has with his mother. Without thinking about this, he draws his sword and stabs Polonius. He is however interrupted by the Ghost’s appearance that reminds him of his promise with regard to harming his mother. Seemingly, his actions and activities are to a great extent manipulated that forces that are external to his wellbeing. Another example is apparent in Act 1. In particular, he threatens his friends and chooses to follow a ghost that could be potentially harmful to the forest. This is done without any contemplation regarding the implication of his behavior. To a great extent, this also implies that he experiences an imbalance between rational thoughts and activities. In conclusion, the inner conflicts regarding morality and immorality contributes significantly to the suffering of Hamlet. As it has come out from the study, the inherent gap between rational thoughts and actions influence him to make irrational decisions that culminate to his tragic end at the end of the play.
Works Cited
Corum Richard. Understanding Hamlet: A Student Casebook to Issues, sources and Historical Documents. USA: Greenwood Press, 1998. Print.
Griffiths Huw. Shakespeare: Hamlet. USA: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Print.
The Flood Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible
The Flood: Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible
Comparing the two floods in “The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Hebrew Bible,” there are lots of similarities as well as differences that make the two accounts unique. Among the similarities is that the extent of the floods was global in both accounts. Regarding the cause of the floods, they both have a common cause, and that is the wickedness of man that resulted in the anger of the gods to punish the human race for being disobedient. The gods’ wrath was intended to fall to all mankind, and nobody was to be spared apart from those who joined the arch. In both accounts, the massager sent by the gods was righteous- from the bible Noah and from Gilgamesh, it was Utnapishtim. The message sent to the righteous was that they had to build a boat which had many compartments in it with only one door and at least one window. Another similarity in the boat was that it was to be coated with a pitch, and the human passengers on board were only family members; all other kinds of animals were allowed to enter the boat. In both, the landing spot was to be on mountains (Mt Ararat for Noah and Mt Nasir for Utnapishtim). In the end, both sacrificed after blood and were all blessed.
The main differences in the two accounts are in the means of the announcement in that for Noah, and the message was direct from God while in Utnapishtim, the message was passed in a dream. The other difference is that Noah did not complain after he received the message while Utnapishtim did complain. Another difference was in the height and shape of the boat with Utnapishtim’s boat having seven stories and cubed while Noah’s was oblong-shaped and three-storied. Noah’s flood duration was longer ranging up to 40 days and nights while Utnapishtim’s was short ranging to 6 days and night.
Based on my opinion, I can conclude that the two stories were real, taking into consideration that the two cultures had no prior contact with each other and thus there is no way that they could have shared a common story. With this idea in mind, I also tend to think that there were other similar stories from other cultures that have never been captured, and therefore, it is not just a common idea that cultures used as a storytelling device since the occasions are different.