School Systems Helping Prevent Childhood Obesity Essay

School Systems Helping Prevent Childhood Obesity - Essay Example This essay "School Systems Helping Prevent Childhood Obesity" outlines the importance of the school and society participation in the fight against obesity among kids. The major contributing factor to obesity in children is lack of physical exercise and high caloric intake (CDC, 2014). It is common practice that after school children in many homes just watches television or play computer games. In school, the children do not get much play time as they have to cover the specified school curriculum within the specified period. This leaves out any time that children engage in physical activities. This leads to accumulation of calories from their diet leading to increased deposition of fat tissue and eventually, obesity sets in (CDC, 2013). Lack of exercise is aggravated from unsupervised diet. Children are more attracted to junk foods rather than healthy meals. Increased access to junk food results from decreased supervision or ignorant parent and guardians. The increased calories and la ck of exercise are predisposing factors to obesity. Obesity has many negative physical and mental effects and this threatens proper development of the children. Immediate health problem for children and adolescents who are obese include joint pain, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Joint pain result from the increased body weight compared to the surface area of the child. The excess weight due to excess body fat impacts extra weight on the joints increasing the pressure and thus, the pain (CDC, 2014).

Two British newspapers select, construct and present news to readers Essay Example for Free

Two British newspapers select, construct and present news to readers Essay Analyse the way in which two British newspapers select, construct and present news to readers. In this essay I am going to look at two newspapers, one tabloid and one broadsheet, and analyse the different techniques used by them to select, construct and present news to their readers. I will do this by examining their news values, news sources and use of effective layout. I will also look at their use of key concepts in the production of news articles. I plan to look at The Sun and The Times. The definition of a tabloid is: In summary form; condensed. Lurid or sensational. This does accurately sum up what a tabloid is. A tabloid newspaper is a newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material. The language used in The Sun is mainly mono syllabic language using simple language and a large proportion of the space is taken up by mastheads and pictures. This means the stories in tabloids are not only easier to read but also shorter. The language is very sensationalised in tabloids also, this is because they want to sell more papers and making stories more dramatic can do this. The amount of hard news that a paper decides to print is determined by the editorial policy of the paper. Tabloids do feature political stories, though they tend to prefer to focus on personalities of the politicians rather than the actual issues that may be relevant. The language used in broadsheets is very different. The language is mostly poly syllabic and much more subjective. They use more complex language and a large proportion of the space is taken up by text, broadsheets have less pictures and generally smaller mastheads. There is likely to be a much closer correlation between the news in the broadsheets and the TV news. In most cases the lead story will be the same. The order of importance in which the news has been ranked is also likely to be similar in the case of TV news and the broadsheets. Rupert Murdoch owns both the newspapers I have chosen to look at. The editor of The Sun is Rebecca Wade and the editor of The Times is Robert Thompson. Broadsheets are aimed mainly at class A, B and C1s. This is because they often have a higher interest in the issues of politics and finance. They are less likely to want to read gossip and news based around celebrities. Tabloid readers are, however, more of working class, categories C2, D and E and are usually less educated therefore would rather have a gossip page to read that is less challenging and demanding. However often newspapers will runt he same story on the front page. Newspapers have to tailor the story to its target audience. They will adjust the angles at which they look at it. A newspapers sources are also quite important in the way that they effect the way a story is written. Whereas broadsheets sources will be mainly manipulative, a tabloid will have more pluralist news sources. The way in which minority groups are represented in newspapers is very different. A specific example of this is the representation of Muslims since the incident on September 11th. The Sun actually wrote a story trying to stop prejudice toward Muslims in this country and tried to take a differing view to other pares. The Times has a similar view to all the other broadsheets, a very conservative view. Many of these newspapers are printing a bad representation of minority groups. This is more evidential in broadsheets because the people who read them hold more power. By putting across a bad representation of minority groups to these people they are effecting the way these groups are treated. The Times is a conservative paper with quite right wing views. The Sun, however, is now labour although it has been known to change its political standing and has become known as the paper that wins election. It helped Margaret Thatcher to win the conservative election in the 1970s and then in 1997 changed to labour and helped Tony Blair to come into power.

Theories for Ethical Obligations of a Company

Theories for Ethical Obligations of a Company For some, the perspective that the fundamental objective or motivation behind business is to profit is acknowledged point of fact and is past argument. To go further and say that the social obligation of a business is additionally just to make a benefit is prone to verbal confrontation. The point of this paper is to talk about the different perspectives of the obligation of business. Moreover, to investigate the ethical obligations that a partnership may have beyond making benefits for its stockholders. The Friedman view Milton Friedmans perspective is that in an capitalist economy, there is unrivaled one obligation of business- to utilize its assets and take part in exercises intended to build its benefits so long as it stays inside the standards of the game, which is to say, participates in open and free rivalry without misleading or misrepresentation (Friedman, 1983). At the point when one is taking a gander at the obligations of an individual or an association they should first inspect their parts. The directors of organizations have a guardian obligation to act to the greatest advantage of the shareholders. The directors are operators of the shareholders and in this manner have an ethical commitment to deal with the firm in light of a legitimate concern for the shareholders, which clearly is to profit as could be allowed and expand shareholder riches. The shareholders are the proprietors of the association and subsequently the benefits fit in with them. Be that as it may, does that entitle the c hiefs and administrators to act in an exploitative way to advantage the shareholders? As per Friedman (1970), a corporate official (administrator) has a direct obligation to his or her employers, and that is to lead business as per their goals, which is for the most part to profit as could be allowed. In an capitalist society it is uncommon to hear that one has started a new business for reasons other than to profit as could reasonably be expected. The corporate official is the agent of the people who own the business and their primary obligation is to them. As expressed by Miller and Ahrens (1988), Friedman accepts that partnerships are a types of private property and, thus, that they have precisely the same social obligation as different organizations in an entrepreneur economy, that is, to profit as could be expected under the circumstances so long as they stay inside the rules of the game which is to say, takes part in open and free rivalry. Friedmans perspective to overseeing business takes the traditional viewpoint. This is a way to deal with administration that supporters permit the invisible hand of free market strengths, with their allocative and facilitating efficiencies in asset allotment, to manage business for societys enhancement and to direct the activities of business. In its fundamental plan, it embraces that the whole social obligation of a business substance is to make benefits and comply with the law (Bartol et al., 1998, p131). This way to deal with administration battles that it makes the best useful for the best number, and subsequently the administration require not intercede. Other Views Advocates of utilitarianism would consider the activities of administration by utilizing this methodology as ethical, on the grounds that with utilitarianism, the results of an action are thought to be ethical on the off chance that they give more good(or advantages) than harm (or costs). Consequently, Utilitarian thinking evaluates activities by reference to the utility they create. This is further contracted by Financial Utilitarianism whereby the activities which create more noteworthy financial utility (benefits) are considered as preferable activities over those which produce less financial utility. Cavanagh (1990) states that money saving investigation is the overwhelming measure in ninety percent of all business choices. In the event that we take after Friedmans view that the social obligation of business is to be profitable, and moreover, results are measured by expenses and advantages, it seems sensible from an utilitarian viewpoint that the best moral activity is that which boosts benefit (Clark Jonson 1995, p3). Moral selfishness can likewise give a premise to shielding entrepreneur administration choices. With this system, if the assessment of the outcomes concentrates singularly on the individual (partnership) long run interest, and the choice results in a more prominent proportion of good contrasted choices, the choice would be considered as ethical. So expanding the benefit of the organization would be over the long haul enthusiasm of the enterprise and consequently would be considered as ethical. Critiques of capitalism accept that the specific inspirations of liberal societies, self interest and the craving for profit, must lead to absence of concern toward the earth and community in general. Dim (1992) backs this by indicating that nature is in crisis and earnest arrangements are required. I accept that if there are no strict controls on generation in a liberal society, for example, Australia, the regular assets will rapidly be depleted and the common habitat will be contaminated to safe levels which can never be turned around. Various writers contend, on the other hand, that organizations ought not run singularly for the interests of the stockholders. (Donaldson 1982, Miller and Ahren 1988). Maybe, organizations have a social obligation that obliges them to consider the interests of all gatherings influenced by the activities of the business. Administration ought not just think of it as stockholders (shareholders) in the choice making process additionally any individual who holds a stake in the result. Along these lines, another approach to break down the social obligations of business is to consider those influenced by the business choices, and alluded to as partners. Freeman (1984), characterized the term partners as any gathering or person who can influence or is influenced by the accomplishment of the associations objectives(p46). Cases of partner gatherings (past stockholders) are workers, suppliers, clients, loan bosses, contenders, governments, and groups (Goodpaster 1991, p53). Stockholders (proprietors) have a budgetary enthusiasm for the business and clearly expect a money related return. The business influences their livelihood on the grounds that they require cash to live and buy material things. Employees have their occupations and again their livelihood to consider. Consequently for their abilities and work they give to the business they expect a compensation, advantages, security (not to be made repetitive), to be dealt with reasonably and not to be presented to a hurtful situation. Suppliers are likewise considered as stakeholders on the grounds that the business depends on them to give the fundamental crude materials which will focus the last items quality and cost. The supplier needs to be approached with deference on the off chance that they are to react to the needs of the business properly and in like manner. Customers also requires to be dealt with as an esteemed individual from the partner system on the grounds that without them the business would not exist. They give the income that is required for the business to attain to its principle objective – to be productive. The community is another partner in light of the fact that in theory the local community gives the business the privilege to exist. They allow the business the privilege to fabricate offices to work, and they buy the business items. For these and different reasons the business ought to consider the group in their choice making methodology. They ought not dirty the earth in light of the fact that basically they are presenting the group to dangers (wellbeing risks). On the off chance that stakeholder hypothesis is to be utilized to break down the social obligation of companies, the inquiries that may be asked are: Is it so natural to consider all the diverse partners in the choice making procedure? Whats more, provided that this is true, is it truly so not quite the same as the Friedman rationality of where a business social obligation is to profit as could reasonably be expected? Stakeholder hypothesis does not give any power to one partner over another, so there will be times that when one gathering will advantage to the detriment of another. The issue that then emerges is which gathering would be given special treatment? Again a cost-benefit examination will need to occur and one will need to compute the utility of a proposed activity for the partners. Anyway, making into note of the diverse partners would that make those organizations more ethical? Kenneth Goodpaster (1991) made the vital point that simply distinguishing a gathering as partn ers in some movement does not, without anyone elses input, point towards a right or proper ethical examination of the action. This hypothesis is one stage forward from Liberalism (free enterprise/free markets) to one of change radicalism. Liberal responsibility scholars accept that in giving more data enterprises are fulfilling the needs of the distinctive partners. Notwithstanding, if enterprises are going to make the move to getting to be more acommodating of all stakeholders and in charge of their activities, they must split far from the liberal models (instrumental thinking) which are set up and move towards a viable method for thinking. Lehman (1999) expressed Viable thinking is the sort of thinking we use in our regular thoughts to settle on good and ethical choices. Communitarianism Companies (organizations) must figure out how to treat their administration, laborers, suppliers and clients, and additionally their shareholders, as individuals from a community. This undertaking requires the epitome of communitarian standards in the working of each association in the economy, both in the private and open segment. A communitarian needs society to raise individuals with implicit good standards which limit them from evildoing; the law is only a move down, to control anybody whose childhood neglects to stick(Stretton, 1994, p267). So individuals will require a lot of educating from family, superintendents and school or from their every day encounters of life in the event that they are to think all the more essentially and with good standards. Communitarians accept that it takes a ton of history and aggregate activity both to add to the complex society that offers an awesome differing qualities of alternatives, and to raise people with certain, skilful abilities to think and pick for themselves (Stretton, 1994, p267). At the point when these people learn or choose that a few things are great and some are terrible, and from there on sees them as awful or great, their attitude to perceive things in that way will turn into the singulars character (Stretton 1994). At the same time, by having a communitarian method for living would organizations still mean to build benefits, or will they exist just to serve the group? What kind of society would oblige the communitarian standards? Would communitarianism cause the partnerships to act in the general population interest? As expressed by Lehman (date obscure) a more extensive communitarian system looks to realize social change through educated dialog in an open circle; in scrutinizing the supposition of financial development it is recommended that procedural progressivism could be utilized as a corporate cover to sustain unchecked monetary advancement that is dangerous in nature (p 12). Communitarians stress over the inclination to lessen reasonable thinking to instrumental thinking which is the kind of thinking utilized by business analysts to land at ideal arrangements at negligible expenses (Taylor, 1995), and is a focal strand in contemporary liberal and responsibility models (Lehman, date obscu re). Conclusions Organizations may have more than recently the obligation to build benefits, and must consider the earth and group on the loose. This may oblige that we move far from the eager industrialist liberal society that we are living in, in the event that we as a group are to wind up more acommodating of others. For the group everywhere (counting enterprises) to be moral, they may require to be taught by organizations, loved ones around them. Partnerships will need to think further or consider more than simply the stockholders in the choice making procedure. Partner hypothesis may be one stage in the right heading yet communitarians would contend that this is simply change radicalism. Communitarians evaluate of progressivism is that both the Friedman and partner hypotheses are instrumental frameworks and in this way contract our reasoning and work through the thought of a company. On the off chance that we do head in this heading, conventional bookkeeping may need to be improved through the innovation of social and ecological bookkeeping to make partnerships more responsible to the group. Natural bookkeeping may be fundamental if partnerships are to fulfill the responsibility associations with partners (companies giving a record of its activities to partners), and on the off chance that it is to change the cognizance of organizations. Natural bookkeeping eventually calls for companies to give and give motivations to their utilization of nature (Lehman, date obscure, p396 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartol K, et al (1998), Management A Pacific Rim Focus, Sydney, Australia, McGraw Hill. Beauchamp T L Bowie N E (1996), Ethical Theory and Businesses, Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall. Cavanagh G H (1990), American Business Values, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Clark G L Jonson E P (1995), Management Ethics: Theory, Cases and Practice, Australia: Harper Educational. Donaldson T (1982), Constructing a Social Contract for Business, in Corporations and Morality, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Evan W E Freeman E, A Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation: Kantian Capitalism, in Beauchamp T L Bowie E (1988), Ethical Theory and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Freeman R E (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman. Friedman M, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase it Profits†, New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970, reprinted in Donaldson T and Werhane P (1983), Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 2nd Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Goodpaster K E (1991), Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis, Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53-73. Gray R H (1990), The Greening of Accounting: The Profession After Pearce, The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, Certified Research Report, 17. Gray R H (1992), Accounting and Environmentalism: An Exploration of the Challenge of Gently Accounting for Accountability, Transparency and Sustainability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 399-425. Gray R H, Owen D L Adams C (1996), Accounting and Accountability, Prentice Hall. Gray R, Dey C, Owen D, Evans R Zadek S (1997), Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 10, 325-365. Kant I (1990), Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, NY: MacMillan. Lehman G (1995), A Legitimate Concern for Environmental Accounting, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 393-413. Lehman G (1999), Disclosing New Worlds: Social and Environmental Accounting, forthcoming, Accounting, Organizations and Society. Lehman G [date unknown], Disclosing New Worlds: A Role for Social and Environmental Accounting and Auditing, Adelaide: The University of South Australia, 1-42. Miller F D Ahrens J (1988), The Social Responsibility of Corporations in Commerce and Morality, Totowa, NJ: Rowman Littlefield. Stretton H and Orchard L (1994), Public Goods, Public Enterprise, Public Choice, St. Martins Press. Taylor C (1992), The Politics of Recognition, In Gutmann A, Multiculturalism and The Politics of Recognition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 25-75. Taylor C (1995), Heidegger, Language and Ecology. In Dreyfus H L Hall H, Heidegger: A Critical Reader, Blackwells: Oxford , 247-270.

Powerful Theme and Allusions to Sex in Andersons Womanhood :: Anderson Womanhood Essays

Powerful Theme and Allusions to Sex in Anderson's Womanhood    Catherine Anderson's poem "Womanhood" tells about a young girl and her transition to womanhood.   In this intricately woven poem the reader will learn very little about the girl.   Neither she nor her mother are ever named, and no information is given about them or their family life.   What the reader does discover is what lies ahead for her as she begins her first day sewing rugs.   The poem begins a few moments before she enters the gates of the sweatshop that symbolizes her entry into womanhood.   Anderson uses metaphor within this poem to dramatize the difference in what lies ahead for her.   She should be looking forward to a bright and cheerful future, instead, she is faced with the drudgery of a life working in a sweatshop sewing rugs.   Anderson has woven this poem together so there is a link created between the first and second stanzas of the poem.   Each line in the first stanza, describing the carefree attitude of the young girl correlates with a line in th e second stanza illustrating how her life will be far different after she enters the gates of the factory and womanhood.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Within this poem there are many references or allusions to sex.   Most women are considered to have entered womanhood when they have their first sexual experience with a man.   Anderson plays up this aspect of becoming a woman in the poem to symbolize the girl's losing her innocence and youth to work in the sweatshop.   In essence, she is losing her virginity to that same sweatshop.   The first of these allusions to sex is in the opening lines of the poem; "she slides over/the hot upholstery" (1,2).   The young girl is described as sliding over hot upholstery, like girls sometimes do to snuggle up next to their boyfriends when driving a car.   This verse can also be seen as a metaphor for the hot young skin of a beautiful young girl.   Another example of these references is when Anderson describes the girl   as "loves humming & swaying to the music" (5).   This can be seen as the act of sexual intercourse itself.   The rhythmic swaying of bodies can be seen as little else especially when paired with line 25, "rocking back and forth"(25).   This is further emphasized by Anderson by her use of the ampersand signs (&) which she only uses in these two lines.

Adolf Hitler Conspiracies Essay

Did Adolph Hitler really commit suicide on April 30, 1945? Hitler is believed to have poisoned and shot himself along with his newlywed wife, Eva Braun, on April 30, 1945 while in an underground bunker in Berlin. Then, Hitler and his wife’s body were burned outside the bunker. However, many questioned whether this really happened so they have conspiracies on Hitler’s death. Three main conspiracies that really challenge Hitler’s suicide are that the skull found in the bunker did not belong to him, no shots were heard by bystanders in the bunker, and he had an imposter kill himself. So Hitler’s death may have been a hoax due to the evidence from several sources, showing that Hitler may have never committed suicide in that bunker and he had escaped from Germany. The skull that was believed to be Hitler’s, which was taken by the Russian army and preserved by Soviet intelligence, is now proven by DNA analysis to be of a woman under 40 years old. The bodies of Hitler and Eva Braun, Hitler’s wife, after they died, were said to have been wrapped in blankets and carried to the â€Å"garden outside the bunker, placed in a bomb crater, doused with petrol and set ablaze† (â€Å"Fresh Doubts over Hitler’s Death†¦Ã¢â‚¬  3). However, Stalin, who was suspicious about Hitler’s fate, had the Russian forensics team dig up Hitler’s body, but a part of the skull was missing. The Russians eventually found the other fragment to make ensure Hitler’s death. However, American researchers were finally able to examine the skull fragment after it had been under strict possession of the Soviets. The researchers found out the skull fragment belonged to a women under 40 years old because in their DNA analysis of the skull they found that â€Å"the bone seemed very thin; male bone tends to be more robust. Also the sutures where the skull plates come together seemed to correspond to someone under 40† (â€Å"Fresh Doubts over Hitler’s Death†¦Ã¢â‚¬  2). But Hitler was 56 in April 1945 so the skull could not have belonged to him. Braun was believed to have been killed as well so the skull fragment could belong to her and she was 33 years old when she died. Overall, Hitler’s suicide has been greatly challenged by this astonishing discovery about the skull fragment believed to be Hitler’s. Skull Fragment Believed to Belong to a Woman, not Hitler (â€Å"Fresh Doubts over Hitler’s Death..† 1) Nobody actually saw Hitler shoot himself on April 30, 1945. The guards near the bunker claimed they heard nothing, but many of them withdrew their claims because they said Allied interrogators pressured them into saying that. Also some people who claimed to have heard the shot weren’t even there. Otto Gunsche, Hitler’s SS adjutant, claimed to have been in the conference room with Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann and Propagnda Minister Josef Gobbels when he heard the shot, and then he claimed they â€Å"rushed to the anteroom with Gobbels in lead† (â€Å"Adolf Hitler Death and Survival Myths† 2). However, Rattenhuber, commander of Hitler’s SS guards claimed that Gunsche was already in the anteroom when he arrived. So Gunsche could’ve helped Hitler escape from the bunker without anyone else knowing. Also Hitler’s chauffeur Erich Kempka and former Reich Youth leader Artur Axmann claimed that they saw a body being carried out of the bunker â€Å"which was wrapped in blanket and was dressed in Hitler’s trousers, shoes and socks†, but they didn’t get a valid identification of Hitler. If no one actually physically saw or heard Hitler shoot himself, how do they know he really shot himself ? Layout of Hitler’s Bunker (â€Å"Navona Numismatics..† 1) Most of the conspiracies on Hitler’s death have to do with him having a double. Around 2 P.M on April 30, 1945, Hitler had a strange conversation with his personal pilot, Hans Baur. Baur begged Hitler to escape to Argentina, to Japan, or to an Arab country, but Hitler responded â€Å"I am ending my earthly stay.† (â€Å"Adolf Hitler Death and Survival Myths† 2). Notice Hitler said â€Å"earthly stay† instead of â€Å"life† which implies that Hitler was no longer going to be on Earth or that he was planning some sort of escape. Between 2:30 P.M and 3 P.M, Gunsche made a phone call to Kempka and asked him for two hundred liters of gasoline to be at the entrance of the Fuhrerbunker. Notice that Hitler did not make the phone. Could this have meant Hitler had already escaped and his double filled in his place? The Russian’s photo of Hitler’s corpse was indeed not Hitler, it was his double, or Doppelganger, Gustav Weber , who was executed with a gunshot to the forehead, and it’s obvious that it’s not Hitler because Hitler shot himself in the temple. Russian photo of â€Å"Hitler Corpse† (â€Å"Adolf Hitler Death and Survival Myths† 4). Adolf Hitler’s suicide on April 30, 1945 has been challenged by these three conspiracies: the skull found in the bunker did not belong to him, no shots were heard by bystanders in the bunker, and he had an imposter kill himself. In the first conspiracy, researchers were able to examine the skull that was believed to belong to Hitler, but after a DNA analysis of the skull, they found out that the skull belonged to a female under the age of 40 due to its thickness and structure. Then in the second conspiracy, Hitler’s bodygurads and comrades who were in the bunker with him claim to have never saw or heard the gunshot from Hitler’s suicide. In the final conspiracy, Hitler was believed to have a double take his place and commit suicide while he escaped out of the bunker. All three of the conspiracies have valid and credible evidence so if they are true, then Adolf Hitler may have indeed faked his death and escaped from Germany on April 30, 1945.

Happiness depends upon ourselves Essays

Happiness depends upon ourselves Essays Happiness depends upon ourselves Paper Happiness depends upon ourselves Paper Happiness depends upon ourselves according to Aristotle but Epictetus believes that When we remember that our aim is spiritual progress, we return to striving to be our best selves. This is how happiness is won. Throughout Rhetorical History it is evident that rhetoric has served as a functional interaction between people and their environment. In order for there to be a functional interaction there must always be an exigency and a remedy as standard elements of the total environment, as well as a rhetorical interaction to support them both. In this paper I intend to examine the rhetorical situations that moved the rhetoricians Aristotle and Epictetus to construct their rhetorical theories. Epictetus, like most rhetoricians has a theory that is marked by imperfections, called exigencies. These imperfections are problems that Epictetus found while creating his theorys ideals. The main exigency for Epictetus and other Stoics was to show their students that philosophy has a practical purpose of guiding people towards leading better lives. According to Epictetus everyone is not perfectly happy for much, or even all of the time. He wanted to show his students that there is a reason for this being the case and most importantly that there are solutions that can remedy this situation. Another aim of Epictetus teaching was to live well to secure for oneself true happiness. Epictetus theory had to fall on the ears of a receptive audience and he found that in the school he formed for upper-class Romans. With students such as Flavius Arrian, and Herodes Atticus, Epictetus was considered the greatest of Stoics. : Epictetus was said to relate his school to the workings of a hospital where students would come to seek treatments for their ills. In stark reality that was true, people flocked to Epictetus schools because it gave them a solvent to the trials of human life and living in society. Every day they were set up with frustrations and obstacles and Epictetus goal was to teach people to see the happiness through those situations. The students who learned from Epictetus were easily able to turn the things they were hearing everyday into something they could use everyday. We have to deal with hostile and offensive people, and we have to cope with the difficulties and anxieties occasioned by the setbacks and illnesses visited upon our friends and relations. Even people with good fortune had to face the fact of their own death, but that was no reason to not search for true happiness. As with any theory there are constraints marked as a way to remove the seen problem in Epictetus theory. Two types of constraints can be identified in any rhetorical theory, artistic and inartistic proofs. Artistic proofs are defined as those things that are in the speakers control. In Epictetus theory, various artistic proofs can be identified. The language that he chose to use, the emotion that he conveyed through his message, and the reason that he used to arrive at how to formulate both of these things are all examples of artistic proofs. There are also inartistic proofs in every theory. These things would be all the ideas that are out of the speakers control. Examples of inartistic proofs in Epictetus theory could be many things, mostly things going on the environment around him and his society. The class status of the students that Epictetus taught would be an inartistic proof. Had Epictetus been directing his speeches at lower class people who had never been schooled, they may have no idea what he was speaking about. The potential students that are attempting to learn have to be on relatively the same level as the teacher. The historical events can also be an example of an inartistic proof. The mindset of the society and the way that they feel about their government, their peers and their noble classes had a huge influence on how they acted in everyday life. Now that Ive discussed the exigencies, the audience, and the constraints of Epictetus, I will focus on the same characteristics of Aristotle. Aristotle taught some of the most influential rhetoricians of his time and to them he tried to instill the same ideals that he valued so much. The most memorable of these was likely the scientific method that he used to explain why things happened the way they did. Aristotles exigency was marked by urgency mostly because he wanted the people of his day to understand what he did. Reason is the source of the first principles of knowledge, and from this reason Aristotle used the ideas that came about to persuade people of what exactly was going on in their day. Public discourse at the time was used to hinder peoples reason and they could never make decisions on their own if they were not taught how to reason for themselves. Aristotle was a firm believer that the mind is led by language, and he used his language to teach the people about their ability to learn and rationalize ideas. Aristotles main goal was to have a democratic government, and he knew that the people would never get to have one without the knowledge base that they needed to be expressive. Rhetoric is essential to any democracy according to Aristotle and it was important for him to teach all aspects of rhetoric to the people who supported it. The people who were most affected by Aristotles views were the people who heard him speak. At the time of his lectures most of these people were people in the kings court. He was hired by various kings to counsel them and lecture in their courts. The ideas that Aristotle was preaching about at the time were easily accepted because the people were easily impressionable. He believed that citizens must have knowledge and reason to be able to express their ideas. They were dealing with things that were easily explained by the scientific ideals that Aristotle believed in, and therefore he wanted to teach them how to express the ideas that they had about the things that were going on. Aristotle said that All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. This was a simple idea that almost everyone could hold onto. It was explained by logic and was the dominant form of logic for almost 2,000 years. Some constraints were also posed on Aristotles scientific logic. Various artistic and inartistic proofs are identifiable in Aristotles theory. The language that he chose to use was important if nothing else than because he was preaching to men who favored the king he was working for at the time. He had to be very aware of what he was saying in honor of the king. Another artistic proof that Aristotle faced was the emotion that he portrayed in his lectures. People have said that Aristotles ideas would not have been so widely accepted had he not added to them so much emotion while he was speaking. There are also some evident inartistic proofs in Aristotles theory. As in the artistic proofs, the status of the audience members of Aristotles lectures, was very important, but out of his control. He was hired by the king; he could not discriminate who he was appointed to speak to. This brings up another inartistic proof, the government. The government was greatly out of Aristotles control, he was even manipulated by them because he was employed by them. They were however the people who could remove the exigency facing his theory. Both of the rhetors discussed, Aristotle and Epictetus, have similarities and differences in the situations that they faced. Epictetus was more faced with the guidance that he was offering to his students. His issues were more of a moral and emotional case where as Aristotles ideals were focused primarily on science and nature. The audience members that each rhetorician spoke to had personalities of their own as well. While each rhetor spoke to a fairly similar audience, their reasons for doing so were very different. Epictetus knew that he would have to focus his attention to upper class nobles, who had been schooled enough to know vaguely what he was talking about. Aristotle on the other hand, was appointed to teach to the kings court, he had no real decision in who he was preaching to. Aristotle over came this difference by teaching people to teach others. There are also some differences in the artistic and inartistic proofs that each rhetor faced. Epictetus, for example, used a specific language, showed a certain amount of emotion, and the reason that he was trying to convey to his audience. Aristotle believed that emotions were a rational feeling that gets in the way of good reason. Epictetus would have greatly disagreed with this notion that emotions were logical. Epictetus believed that emotions were the way to lead a person to unveil his true happiness. He felt that few people were content with life, but that through his learning they could find solutions to be happy most, if not all of the time. Where Epictetus would try to explain how to overcome the frustrations and setbacks of every conceivable type of complication, Aristotle would spend his time trying to find the truth and showing people how they had arrived at that conclusion. Both rhetors used various means to arrive at the success that they did with the individual audience that they were speaking to. Each one was faced with different exigencies and faced some constraints along the way. However Aristotle and Epictetus both overcame all of these things and were able to teach their message and let it be taught for many years after they were gone. Ashley Mock March 3,2004 Rhetoical Theory Paper #2 593-62-3535 Bitzer, Lloyd, Functional Communication: A Situational Perspective, in E. E. White, ed. ,Rhetoric in Transition (University Park: Pensylvania State UP, 1981) 21-38. James Fieser, Ph. D. , The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Epictetus: Overview: 1 March 2004. iep. utm. edu/ James Fieser, Ph. D. , The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Aristotle: Overview: 1 March 2004. iep. utm. edu/.