Criticisms in “In the Penal Colony” Essay Example for Free

Criticisms in â€Å"In the Penal Colony† Essay The antediluvian apparatus and ancient legal system in Kafka’s â€Å"In the Penal Colony† describes the current state of humanity in the colonial era.   Through the use, along with the circumstances surrounding the machine, Kafka portrays slavery and colonialism in the world and the consequences of failing to abolish such ways. The people of the colony are represented by â€Å"the Soldier†, â€Å"the Officer†, â€Å"the Explorer†, â€Å"the Condemned man†, and â€Å"the Commandant†.   By giving them these names, Kafka has essentially dehumanized them much like those who have been condemned to working in penal colonies; they only have functions, not names.    The harsh bureaucratic ways of the colony can be seen through the punishments handed out as told by the Officer who is: much more interested in the technicalities of the execution than the niceties of legal procedure. The actual execution is to be carried out by a complex apparatus designed by the former Commandant of the penal colony and maintained by the Officer. The machine tortures the condemned man in a process that brutally mimics and transforms the sexual act. The condemned man is strapped naked onto something akin to a bed and the top part of the apparatus, a set of knife-like needles, automatically descends, piercing his body and excreting a fluid that inscribes the sentence upon his flesh. For the first six hours of the writing process, the condemned man suffers only pain (149) but as the needles pierce his internal organs more deeply, he achieves a form of enlightenment that culminates in death. (Kohn 5) The way in which the punishment is filtered through the legal system of the penal colony is also rather questionable.   The Officer says, â€Å"I have been appointed judge in this penal colony†(145) and uses his principle of: Guilt is never to be doubted.   Other courts cannot follow that principle, for they consist of several opinions and have higher courts to scrutinize them.   That is not the case here, or at least, it was not the case in the former Commandant’s time.†(145) to rule over his judgments.   For the condemned man, he has no chance to defend himself and prove his innocence by virtue of the system in place.   They are always going to be found guilty for the sake of being guilty so they can have an execution take place and bring some kind of grotesque excitement where, â€Å"hundreds of spectators—all of them standing on tiptoe†(153) could bear witness to them. Aside from the archaic methods of criminal procedures, Kafka also presents the reliance on antiquated technology through this work in the presentation of execution machine to portray the costs associated with running a penal colony for slave labor during his time.   We first get a glimpse of the harsh realities of the machine and the cost to upkeep it when the soldier breaks the wrist strap and the Officer says, â€Å"This is a very complex machine, it can’t be helped that things are breaking or giving way here and there; but one must not thereby allow oneself to be diverted in one’s general judgment†(151).   He continues saying: the resources for maintaining the machine are now very much reduced.   Under the former Commandant I had free access to a sum of money set aside entirely for this purpose.   There was a store, too, in which spare parts were kept for repairs of all kinds. (151)†¦Now he has taken charge of the machine money himself, and if I send for a new strap they ask for the broken old strap as evidence, and the new strap takes ten days to appear and then is of shoddy material and not much good. (151) There was an entire store dedicated solely to maintaining the machine it much like penal colonies were such a hindrance on the economies of the nations that controlled and maintained them. As the story progresses, we can see how the ways of the penal colony are being phased out when we hear the Officer tell the Explorer: there’s no time to lose, an attack of some kind is impending on my function as judge; conferences are already being held in the Commandant’s office from which I am excluded; even your coming here today seems to me a significant move; they are cowards and use you as a screen, you, a stranger.(153) The Officer views the Explorer with a great deal of clout believing he can restore the penal colony to the greatness that it once enjoyed.   However, the Explorer knows the harsh realities of the colony and refuses to play along with Officer to help him bring the colony back to its previous state.   Instead we see the Explorer as, â€Å"a kind of outsider,†(157) a change in attitudes throughout the world looking in on the colony.   The Officer finally realizes that the Explorer is not there to help him restore what once was, and he submits himself to his own machine.   As the machine is inscribing ‘be just’ into his body, it fails due to its complex nature and failing state, much like the failing state of the colony, and kills him.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Through close readings of â€Å"In the Penal Colony,† we gain an insight as to what Kafka was trying to accomplish with this work.   His nation, Germany, as well as many others in the world at the time had undertaken colonialism and establishing penal colonies to better their nations.   However, Kafka illustrates the failing nature of these establishments through their rudimentary justice systems and monetary reliance on the host nations economies.   Instead of bettering society through what was being provided by the slave labor, the social order of the world was being torn apart keeping them afloat. Works Cited Kohn, Margaret. Kafkas Critique of Colonialism. Theory Event. 8.3 (2005): 5. Print.

Turing: Concept of Computation :: Computers Computational Systems Papers

Turing: Concept of Computation Turing's analysis of the concept of computation is indisputably the foundation of computationalism, which is, in turn, the foundation of cognitive science. What is disputed is whether computationalism is explanatorily bankrupt. For Turing, all computers are digital computers and something becomes a (digital) computer just in case its 'behavior' is interpreted as implementing, executing, or satisfying some (mathematical) function 'f'. As 'computer' names a nonnatural kind, almost everyone agrees that a computational interpretation of this sort is necessary for something to be a computer. But because everything in the universe satisfies at least one (mathematical) function, it is the sufficiency of such interpretations that is the problem. If, as anticomputationalists are fond of pointing out, computationalists are wedded to the view that a computational interpretation is sufficient for something to be a computer, then everything becomes a digital computer. This not only renders comput er-talk vacuous, it strips computationalism of any empirical or explanatory import. My aim is to defend computationalism against charges that it is explanatorily bankrupt. I reexamine several fundamental questions about computers. One effect of this computation-related soul-searching will be a framework within which 'Is the brain a computer?' will be meaningful. Another effect will be a fracture in the supposed link between computationalism and symbolic-digital processing. If the standard by which to measure the explanatory value of a view were its revolutionary character, then Turing's (1936) analysis of the concept of computation would be highly valued indeed. Whereas the science of mind was once dominated by behaviorists, today it is dominated by computationalists. For computationalists, the mind/brain is a computer. As computationalists came to shoulder the burden for explaining how the mind/brain works, Turing's analysis of what counts as a computer became the standard by which to justify empirical claims about whether something is a computer. According to Turing, all computers are digital computers and something becomes a (digital) computer just in case its "behavior" is interpreted as implementing, executing, or satisfying some (mathematical) function 'f'. Because Turing's analysis is considered the foundation of computationalism, which, in turn, is the foundation of cognitive science, there can be no doubt that Turing's analysis has revolutioni zed the scientific study of the mind/brain. That much is not in dispute. What is, rather, is whether computationalism is explanatorily bankrupt. Although attacks against computationalism come in a variety of flavors, what bridles Searle (1990) and other anticomputationalists the most is the sufficiency of Turing's analysis of what counts as a computer.

Coach Knight vs Coach Krzyszewski Essay

In the contemporary business world, there are many different styles of leaderships. All of them are approaches used by individuals, which are based on their values, preferences and beliefs but also on organizational culture and norms which encourage some styles and discourage others. Leadership styles work most efficiently if they are adapted to the demands of the situation, the requirements of the involved people and the challenges facing the organization. There is a difference in ways leaders approach their employees. In the analysis of Coach Knight and of Coach Krzyszewski’s leadership types, the authors sketch two successful leaders who were great achievers despite huge differences in their leadership styles. Couch Knight led through intimidation and tough discipline while Coach K. through positive reinforcement, trust and confidence. a) Describe Coach Krzyszewski’s leadership style. What are his basic assumptions about motivation, leading and human nature? Coach Krzyszewski had one rule, he and his basketball team followed: â€Å"Don’t do anything that’s detrimental to yourself. Because if it’s detrimental to you, it‘ll be detrimental to our program and to Duke University.† He believed that having too many rules keep leaders from making decisions, and instead of allowing them to be flexible and dynamic, they limit them. He is truly a leader with few simple rules which help him to build a successful team and become one of the famous trainers in the basketball history. As the West Point graduate he breathed the three main virtues: honesty, honor and discipline. And discipline was one of the basic traits every one of his team players had to learn. Being one of the best Coach Knight’s students, he never underestimated the importance of preparation. He also expected the same from each of his boys â€Å"(†¦) to do what they are supposed to do in the best possible manner at the time they are suppose to do†. Coach Krzyszewski assisted his team at each exercise and game; he studied and practiced with them any possible strategy. But he was more than just trainer of his team. He managed to establish an instant trust and common respect within the whole team. He invested time in â€Å"getting inside player’s head, understanding, where (the player) comes from and helping him get to where all need to be as a team†. His taught and practiced an open and close communication with and within his team; he didn’t use whistle and always looked straight into ones eyes when one was talking to him. This principle was lived by everyone in the team, including the Coach. This way he encouraged and enforced the honest communication. Yes – Coach K. was imprinted by honesty, another West Point virtue. His primary motivator was not fear but values, and the biggest among them were: friendship, family and love. Father to three daughters and a whole basketball team, as he used to joke, he didn’t shy away from showing his feelings for his players and the game. And as fathers are, although caring and advising, also just and punishing in the situations which required such actions. This Coach truly believed that people are good, self-motivated and they deserve being treated with respect, love and care – these were the values he learnt at home where â€Å"sharing with one another and caring for one another was all about it†. b) Describe Coach Knight’s leadership style. What are his basic assumptions about motivation, leading and human nature? Comparing to his student, the master Coach Knight was a so called: â€Å"tough guy†. He motto was: â€Å" follow the rules, do exactly what I tell you and you will not loose.† He did not accept any opposition and told his players often: â€Å"Boys, you have to listen to me!†. Coach Knight did not accept from his players anything but the best, and this – all the time. He was intense and passionate about all he did. He was never satisfied with their results, and he pushed them always more to the edge of their physical and mental capabilities. There was no place for a mistake, he had no understanding for imperfection; he used to say: â€Å"If a coach tolerates a mistake, kids will be satisfied with mistakes†. As a former West Point disciplinarian, Coach Knight never stopped to be a soldier and his passion for winning never left him. He led and won his little battles using his own team, thus probably often called by his fans: â€Å"General†. Very demanding, obsessed with hard work and preparation, he used punishment and threat as his primary motivator. His definition of discipline was: â€Å"to do what you have to do, and do it as well as you possibly can, and do it that way all the time.† The same motto, that one of his best students: Coach K. acquired and followed in his successful life as a basketball coach – how differently though! Father to two boys, he didn’t treat them differently than his basketball players – motivating them the same way by using harsh language, push-ups, shouting and intimidation. Being a tyrant, he still was a parent with the â€Å"tough love† approach. In his own special way, he took care of his â€Å"boys†, even if he didn’t show it openly. When one of his players got injured in an accident, he raised money to support him and his family. Even if very few of his students appreciated his way of showing the affection, many of them stayed in touch with him after they left school, what he considered as the best reward for being a coach. Many of them became great players and many years after, thanked him and credited him as one of the most important mentors they ever had. Coach Knight, the great achiever, believed that people can never be successful without being strictly supervised, threatened and pushed over their limits. c) Who is more effective? Why? It is easy to compare leadership styles of both coaches, Coach Krzyszewski and Coach Knight, since they are so different from each other. And it is hard to believe that one of them was the teacher of the other one. To answer the question which of these styles is more effective is not so easy and straightforward though. Both men are passionate about their jobs, very disciplined. Both care very much about their players beyond the basketball court. They are successful in their long carriers, have their followers and fans and are acknowledged not only as top basketball coaches but as leadership teachers. Both are authentic and equally effective as leaders, although there may be different situations when one or the other leadership style, they present, is preferred. d) Under what conditions would you hire Coach K? Coach Knight? I believe that the leadership style of Coach Krzyszewski would be much more appreciated in organizations where team work, creativity, openness, good communication and flexibility are encouraged. Organizations, which motivate and support their employee’s development, let them take the responsibility and decide the way to achieve it. Coach Knight would be a very good choice for companies with clear structures and centered responsibilities, where the compliance is rewarded and any signs of rejection are punished. He would be a perfect leader for groups where individual and highly performing work is preferred over team work and communication, as for example: in a sales team. In such groups, each member works against time and responsibility for the accomplished work is centered. Leaders in these types of organizations do not use feedback to encourage their employees, and motivation is based on threat and fear. Organizations, where one is respected and not necessarily liked, would very likely consider hiring Coach Knight.

What Was The Cold War - 1726 Words

â€Å"What was the Cold War?† HIS 122-DS11. December 9, 2014. Katrina Dillow What was the Cold War? When did it happen? Who was involved? What happened during the Cold War? The main focus of this paper is to open the realization that the Cold War was not what most people believe it to be, a short period of time when no conflicts actually took place. In reality, the Cold War took place over a period of more than 30 years and involved considerable death and destruction. What was the Cold War? This question is commonly answered, as the name implies, as a war where no fighting took place. Most people believe that the Cold War took place after the Vietnam War and ended a couple of years later and that nothing happened during that time†¦show more content†¦Kennan, who was stationed at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, was needed. After a deep analysis, Kennan stated that the Soviet Union should be dealt with patience and persistence and that the Soviet expansion should be â€Å"contained†. This advice of â€Å"containment† of the Soviet Union was to remain vague throughout the Cold War, and thus, possibly causing many unneeded conflicts. All over the world Communism spread its rule. Whether the United States was wrong in trying to stamp out the fires, is up for debate. One thing is clear, the United States did not have the power to stamp out all of the fires that had been spread. When did the Cold War Happen? The common-held belief of the Cold War starting after the end of the Vietnam War and lasting only a few years is incorrect. The Cold War really started from the end of World War II and did not end until the fall of the Soviet Union. As mentioned before, relations with the Soviet Union had been uneasy for some time, but the United States was preoccupied with World War II. When the end of World War II came, a power vacuum created by the defeat of Germany and Japan was created. With the friction between the U.S. and Soviets already present and the appearance of this power vacuum, a full on conflict emerged. This conflict would