Western Enlight Essay Example For Students

Western Enlight Essay Based on Rousseau’s criticism of Enlightenment ideas, the French Revolution did and did not implement the ways of the Enlightenment. Rousseau sees a number of problems within the thinking of the Enlightenment, preferably when dealing with the arts and sciences. It is for this reason alone that the French Revolution in actuality did not implement the ideas of the Enlightenment. In fact, all of the actions that took place in the French Revolution totally came into agreement with the theories of Rousseau. However after the Revolution and still today, those Enlightenment theories are a main stay in everyday life. The Enlightenment itself was a period of pure reason and rational, where people were to emphasize the right to self expression and human fulfillment, as well as the right to think freely and express their views publicly without being scrutinized. They did this through science and other forms of art, two things, which according to Rousseau are no way of finding virtue. Of course when applying the sciences there are certain outcomes and answers to certain problems. We will write a custom essay on Western Enlight specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now One thing many forget is the possibility of error. According to Rousseau, error is a huge problem when dealing with the sciences. In his First Discourse Rousseau states, â€Å"What false paths when investigating the sciences! How many errors, a thousand times more dangerous than the truth is useful, must be surmounted in order to reach the truth? The disadvantage is evident, for falsity is susceptible of infinite combinations, where as truth has only one form. Besides, who seeks it sincerely? Even with the best intentions, by what signs is one certain to recognize it? In this multitude of opinions, what will be our criteria to judge it properly? And hardest of all, if by luck we finally find it, who among us will know how to make good use of the truth? † (Rousseau, 49) This is a really good point. With all of the so-called enlightened thinkers trying to find out the truth, there is obviously going to be an array of different answers. Some of them could be wrong, better yet, all of them could be wrong; but who’s to judge. Since we don’t know of the truth, there is absolutely no way to prove that someone has found it. Last but not least, according to the end of Rousseau’s quote, if it is found there is not one person who would know how to apply that truth to everyday life. This now brings us to bash number two on the Enlightenment thought. People go through all sorts of schooling to learn what, math, history, and science. That’s all good, but in the search of truth that type of knowledge will not get a person anywhere, â€Å" Cultivating the sciences is very harmful to moral qualities. I see everywhere-immense institutions where young people are brought up at a great expense, learning everything except their duties. Your children will not know their own language, but will speak others that are nowhere in use; they will know how to write verses that they can barely understand; without knowing how to distinguish error from truth, they will possess the art of making them unrecognizable to others by specious arguments. But they will not know what the words magnanimity, equity, temperance, humanity, and courage are; that sweet name fatherland will never strike their ear; and if they here of God, it will be less to be awed by him than to be afraid of him. What then should they learn? Let them learn what they ought to do as men and not what they should forget. † (Rousseau, 56) If the Enlightenment is all about finding the truth through reason and human understanding only, the sciences themselves are sending this whole movement into the wrong direction. According to some of the greatest thinkers such as Socrates, and Plato, the real way to finding the truth is through virtue, or the good life. This schooling, according to Rousseau is a manipulative way of creating false truths in the minds of children. .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .postImageUrl , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:hover , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:visited , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:active { border:0!important; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:active , .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72 .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ue33d5ed91be345264124e375638acf72:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Counter Reformation EssayInstead of learning morals, and learning how to be good, courageous and stand up people, the sciences are showing young ones how to formulate the truth, rather than teaching them how to live a good life and find the truth out for themselves. Rousseau’s next criticism of the Enlightenment, is one that fits real well with the world today. Rousseau insists that any form of Enlightenment produces luxury, â€Å"Granted that luxury is a sure sign of wealth; that it even serves, if you like, to increase wealth. What conclusion must be drawn from this paradox so worthy of our time, and what will become of virtue when one must get rich at any price? (Rousseau, 51) Even in that day and age, money equaled power and respect. It’s the truth and good life that are really at stake here. According to Rousseau, even virtue, which is the main purpose of the Enlightenment, will come second to money, so obviously this Enlightenment is not all its cracked up to be. With this luxury, Rousseau claims that all morals are lost. Everything revolves around the almighty dollar. This statement is not to be taken lightly. Especially in today’s day and age, this proves real. Even if an act is one hundred percent in the wrong; if the price is right, that act suddenly becomes the best of deeds. It’s kind of sad to see that material things can control our train of thought. Rousseau finalizes his theory by stating that this luxury, which is the prize of the Enlightenment, is very destructive not only to morals, but political power as well. By using various David and Goliath type battles that occurred throughout history, Rousseau conveys his hypothesis. In those battles it is the luxurious dynasties such as Rome and England, that fall to people who have no clue what riches are. The only thing that those people had were lots of heart, and shear will power. This should be the way of Enlightenment. It is not the books, or paintings that won the revolution for the French, but shear will power and determination; something that no Enlightenment theory could ever give to a person. The next glitch in the Enlightenment way of thought according to Rousseau, is the destruction of military virtues by the arts and sciences. As stated above there is one thing luxury cannot buy, and that is heart. The modern soldier is one who is fulfilled with the luxury the Enlightenment brings, but what happens when that luxury runs out. The enlightened warrior is not accustomed to roughing it. For he is â€Å"crushed by the smallest need, and rebuffed by the least difficulty. † (Rousseau, 55) The â€Å"raw† soldier on the other hand, one who is unaccustomed to this pampered lifestyle, would be more equipped with his will power and determination, and will fair better in a long and bitter struggle. To put this in simpler terms, take for example your average everyday man watching Monday Night Football. During the commercial he likes to change the channel, but what happens if the remote control is missing. A sudden panic emerges and all hell breaks loose. Yet a man who has never had a remote control would calmly get up and change the channel himself without the use of that fantastic luxury. Last but not least is an aspect of the Enlightenment which like the above, is true even today. Rousseau believed that by following the Enlightenment, appearance was everything. By spreading the arts, men would judge a product by appearance alone and not effort, â€Å"One no longer asks if a man is upright, but rather if he is talented; nor of a book if it is useful, but if its well written. Rewards are showered on the witty, and virtue is left without honors. .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .postImageUrl , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:hover , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:visited , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:active { border:0!important; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:active , .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uf211de532abc22165c832ea59d6fe6cc:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Prints Parades Spheres of All sorts EssayThere are a thousand prizes for noble discourses, but none for noble actions. † It is safe to say that after all of this jargon about Rousseau and his criticisms of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution did and did not implement Enlightenment ideas. The actual Revolution itself applied Rousseau’s criticism on luxury. The rebels were not as powerful in material, but in heart, they totally over shadowed the French hierarchy. On the other hand, everyday life seems to take on the aspects of the Enlightenment. All of the time we see people in school learning math, science, and history. On the streets we see people sporting around in Mercedes Benz, Lexus, and Armani suits. The material things are what makes life go round in this day and age. We see paintings and sculptures gracing the walls of various pieces of architecture. Some of those paintings, only the best, will be honored with prizes and riches and the little man who just enjoys painting will remain a nobody. The rebels in no way, shape, or form applied the Enlightenment to the war. Yet, in the real world the Enlightenment ideas are and will always be the supreme form of knowledge.

Aviation management The WritePass Journal

Aviation management How did Stansted get the go ahead to become London’s 3rd airport? Aviation management ). It became apparent in the 1960s that there was need to meet considerable growth anticipated into the future. This gave rise to proposals for a new airport and expansion of existing capacity. Stansted, a former military airfield in Essex, was proposed as a third airport in 1963 and was thereafter endorsed by a Government White Paper in 1967 (HC Hansard, 1971; Stansted Airport, 2013). A subsequent inconclusive public inquiry led to the setup of the Commission for the Third London Airport, popularly referred to as the Roskill Commission tasked with review of sites for a third airport (Abelson and Flowerdew, 1972; UKCAA, 2013). With its evaluation of the timing of need, the requirement for expansion of capacity, and after a careful study of a total of 80 proposed project sites, four sites were finally chosen, principal among them a new airport at Cublington in the Vale of Aylesbury. It was deemed to offer best access situated in the key London-Birmingham axis away from built-up areas and would cost less than most of the alternatives (Abelson and Flowerdew, 1972). This proposal however met with strong opposition from local people, politicians and middle-class voters making it politically untenable (FT, 2014). An influential member of the Roskill Commission, Colin Buchanan, in dissent on grounds of environmental and planning concerns, proposed a new alternative at Maplin Sands, Foulness in the Thames Estuary. This opened the door to strong political opposition against Cublington with the latter proposal becoming the preferred option of the Conservative government of the day which thus disregarded Roskill’s proposal (FT, 2014; Helsey and Codd, 2012; Mishan, 1970). Maplin had interestingly been considered by the Roskill Commission and had been decisively rejected on the basis of cost (the most expensive option overall), distance and convenience to prospective passengers (the most remote) (FT, 2014; Mayor of London, 2013). With all the political support and progress towards the Maplin proposal, it was not built (FT, 2014; Helsey and Codd, 2012). The cost of the constituent deep-harbour, rail links, motorways, new towns to accommodate workers, and surface route to the airport was an astronomical  £825 million (estimated at  £8,448 million today) (Helsey and Codd, 2012). To many, including the opposition party then – the Labour Party, this was regarded as unacceptable (FT, 2014). With the coming to power of the Labour Party a change in complexion, the Maplin airport project was abandoned in July 1974 (FT, 2014). A reappraisal of passenger projections in the new regime indicated â€Å"over-optimism† in forecasts showing that there was adequate capacity until 1990 at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, aided by regional airports (AOA, 2013; UKCAA, 2013). However, with increasing competition from abroad and passenger numbers once more rising, the need for expansion became apparent. British Airports Authority (BAA), owner of the Stansted Airport, submitted plans for its expansion and with significant lobbying by its Chairman Norman Payne and the enlisting of support from Margaret Thatcher, the Maplin scheme was abandoned in favour of a cheaper plan to enlarge Stansted (Mayor of London, 2013). This option had also been considered by Roskill and had not made the shortlist of key options (FT, 2014). The expansion of Stansted was accomplished a decade after its proposition but was a predictable failure challenged by a lack of success in attracting and supporting long-haul operations by airlines (World Airline Directory, 2001; UKCAA, 2013). It was however to benefit from the emergence of low-cost carriers, principally Ryanair, which were drawn by attractive landing charges which offset consequent inconvenience to their passengers (UKCAA, 2013; Mayor of London, 2013; BBC, 2011). Airport policy in the UK has been a case study of political short-termism with the location of an additional (3rd) airport for London in a dilemma. Heightened by uncertainy over demand and growth estimates and a general lack of bold political action, decisions are challenged by political considerations making inland airports unfeasible and economic considerations making coastal airports unfeasible. This has led to the postponement of requisite action with policy makers often prone to swaying given the intense and incessant lobbying and political pressures. References Abelson, P. and A., Flowerdew, 1972. Roskills successful recommendation. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Vol. 135. No. 4, pp.467 Airports Operators Association, 2013. The Airport Operator, Autumn 2013. BBC, 2011. Heathrow and Stansted runway plans scrapped by BAA, 24 May 2010. Viewed on 30/1/2014 from: bbc.co.uk/news/uk Financial Times, 2014. Londons new airport held to ransom by folly. December, 2013 House of Commons Hansard, 1971. Third London Airport (Roskill Commission Report). 4th March. Vol. 812. cc1912-2078. HC Helsey, M., and F., Codd, 2012. Aviation: proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012. House of Commons Library. Viewed from: http://cambridgemba.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/sn4920-1946-2012-review.pdf Mayor of London, 2013. Why London needs a new hub airport. Transport for London. Viewed from: tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/26576.aspx Mishan, E., 1970. What is wrong with Roskill? London: London School of Economics Stansted Airport, 2013. Press Release. Viewed on 1st Feb 2014 from: stanstedairport.com UKCAA, 2013. UK Airport Statistics – Aviation Intelligence. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. World Airline Directory, 2001. Flight International. Stansted Airport, Stansted, Essex, 27 March  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 2 April 2001. CM241SB, UK Given the urgent need to find a solution to UK airport capacity why do you think the government wishes to delay the process? Political intrigues and myriad arguments still mire the London airport expansion pursuit half a century later with the current Howard Davies Airports Commission set up in 2012 still wading in the long running controversy (FT, 2014). Continued political posturing, hedging and stonewalling still characterizes this pursuit for a viable solution given the readiness to oppose policies espoused by those of different complexions and political stand and complication of issues hindering bold decisions and action (FT, 2014; CAPA, 2013). With reference to previous government airport policies, this section evaluates the desire of government to postpone a decision on the final solution to meet need until after the 2015 general election. In the Davies Commission’s view, the capacity challenge is yet to become critical and there is need for action as there is potential for it to be (The Independent, 2014; Airports Committee, 2013a). These findings contained in its December 2013 interim report (preceding a final report expected in 2015) are based on the acknowledgement of continued growth of air travel, mainly in the South East of England with the need for an extra runway by 2030 and another possibly by 2050. For the short and medium term, the Commission has made a raft of proposals to enhance efficiency of airline and ground operations (Airports Commission, 2013b). Ideally, the latter proposal is arguably most appropriate given that operational and design improvements have hitherto enabled the handling of more volumes than anticipated, extending current capacity and enabling full and efficient use of available resource (UKCAA, 2013; The Independent, 2014). On the Commission’s shortlist of options for the short and medium term include a third runwayand lengthening of an existing runway at Heathrow, and a new runway at Gatwick. The proposal for a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary is side-lined citing uncertainties and challenges surrounding it with the Commission however promising to evaluate its feasibility and to arrive at a decision regarding its viability later in 2014 as well as longer term expansion options at Stansted and Birmingham (CAPA, 2013; Airport International, 2012). The government however says that it will not make a final decision in this regard until after the 2015 general election pushing the responsibility to the next government (CAPA, 2013; FT, 2014). When the Coalition government came to power in 2010, it scrapped former Labour government’s plan for a third runway at Heathrow to which it had been strongly opposed instead favouring the creation of a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary (Helsey and Codd, 2012). Given renewed focus on Heathrow, there seems to be a deliberate decision by government to avoid offending the electorate in its turnaround from its manifesto commitment, as well as to avoid political turbulence in the run up to the forthcoming elections (FT, 2014; CAPA, 2013). It is widely accepted that Prime Minister David Cameron set up the Davies Commission in a bid to postpone or to defuse controversy, maintaining a dishonest ambiguity until after the general election (FT, 2014). Heathrow is a popular preference given the support it receives from the majority of politicians (except those with constituencies on the flight path); business and powerful representative lobby bodies; airlines; air alliances; remote UK regional airports benefiting from international connections; as well as domestic and international aviation representative bodies (CAPA, 2013; FT, 2014). Critics state that the inclusion of other airports is intended at making the proposals not to seem too Heathrow-centric and is aimed at political expediency (FT, 2014, CAPA, 2013). It would have been political dynamite for the Commission not to have made positive clamours with regard to runway capacity warding off accusations of ministers trying to kick the controversy ‘into the long grass’, a scenario which has bedevilled such pursuits for half a century (CAPA, 2013; The Independent, 2014). From the 1967 Government White Paper permitting the expansion of Stansted, through subsequent inquiries and the Roskill Commission in the early 1970s, the quest for expanded capacity continues with arguments going back and forth around similar proposals and sites (FT, 2014; UKCAA, 2013). Expansion at Heathrow is an easy road given that it is relatively cheaper and has less challenges but for the environmental concerns of noise pollution and carbon emissions which cannot be ignored or wished away (Airports Committee, 2013a). The option for expansion at Stansted is impeded by previous capacity limitation by the 1985 White Paper, though it got reprieve in the 2003 ‘Future of Air Transport’ White Paper and an extension of passenger capacity limit by the courts (DOT, 2003). Yet, Stansted has historically been challenged with regard to its support of long-haul flights; preference by airlines; as well as environmental concerns (World Airline Directory, 2001; UKCAA, 2013). The T hames Estuary option despite being the most environmentally sound is challenged by economic considerations regarding not only the cost of building the airport but also the requisite surface links, and costs associated with imminent closure at Heathrow. There is also difficulty in the estimation of effects it will have on demand and airline operations (The Independent, 2014; Airports Commission, 2013b; Airport International, 2012). This scenario highlights the present dilemma facing political players and government, which is what leads to their general uncertainty and a general lack of boldness in approach. Intense lobbying and political pressure has consequently led to the postponement of decisions and the backtracking by government from its pledge. The divide in opinion and arguments causing uncertainty hands politicians a license to continue to do nothing at all. References Airports Committee, 2013a. Emerging thinking: Aviation Capacity in the UK. 7th October. Viewed from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aviation-capacity-in-the-uk-emerging-thinking Airports Commission, 2013b. Short and medium term options: proposals for making the best use of existing airport capacity. 7th August. Viewed from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/short-and-medium-term-options-proposals-for-making-the-best-use-of-existing-airport-capacity Airport International, 2012. Thames Estuary Airport Is Not A Short Term Solution. 4 July 2012. CAPA, 2013. The Davies Commission’s Interim Report on UK airports: the big loser remains UK competitiveness. Centre for Aviation. Department of Transport, 2003. The Future of Air Transport White Paper and the Civil Aviation Bill. Viewed on 14/1/2014 from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers Financial Times, 2014. Londons new airport held to ransom by folly. December, 2013 Helsey and Codd, 2012. Aviation: proposals for an airport in the Thames estuary, 1945-2012 The Independent, 2014. Sir Howard Davies Airports Commission: Air travel could be transformed within a few years – with no more stacking. 17th December, 2013 UKCAA, 2013. UK Airport Statistics – Aviation Intelligence. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority.