Weather is made up of sunshine, rain, cloud cover, winds, hail, snow, sleet, freezing rain, flood, blizzards, ice storms, and thunderstorms, steady rains from a cold front, excessive heat, heat wave and more (Gutro, 2005)....
The last line of chapter four provides a buffer between the dark, ambiguous imagery of the first three chapters and the light imagery to come in chapters five and six. In the last line of chapter four, Nick describes how Jordan’s “wan, scornful mouth smiled” (80), and pulls her to his face, . Although she smiles, she does not truly display any happiness or excitement toward her relationship with Nick. Clashing, and contradictory, this imagery has aspects of happiness, but also aspects of futility; Jordan is not really interested in Nick’s gestures. The last line of chapter four is also an example of the continued examples of important facial expressions, constituting an ongoing motif in the novel. For example, earlier in chapter four, Nick describes how just a glance at Gatsby would make anyone understand that he was telling the truth. Chapter four provides an important gradient between dark and light, as its possession of both leads into the more hopeful mood in chapters five and six.
On the other hand, as these capacities do have a bearing on the stature of the species overall, it ought to follow that other species with heightened abilities should be accorded value for those things as well. In any case, tactically speaking, one would think that sensitivity and respect for life at different levels would find themselves in common cause. We can all recall examples from human history in which people’s natural sympathies towards others, whom they knew deep down to be like them, were closed off by feats of ideology — and of still more examples where the baseline of those natural sympathies left much to be desired. Our natural sympathies represent an invaluable kind of moral insight to be nurtured rather than squelched wherever they do appear. Without establishing equality , this surely applies to our relationship to animals as well.
f the core elements of life, sensation, and emotion are so widely distributed as to encompass a huge swath of the animal kingdom, what the moral difference between a species with higher capabilities and one without? In his thoughtful 1985 essay “,” the philosopher of biology Hans Jonas takes up three activities attributed solely to humans and explores their deeper implications. As it happens, given what we know today, elephants arguably meet all three tests. Jonas’s standard is worth revisiting in this light — not to diminish its significance for , but to consider what it means for the one other animal, at least, that might share it.
Some of the most upstanding members of society possess unseen characteristics that define them for who they truly are, secrets that they masquerade behind a façade of decorum and extravagance. The casual observer may never know the man behind the mask, but a learned historian can reveal to the world the secrets that some would rather sweep under the rug. , Francis Scott Fitzgerald has always been viewed as a talented, brilliant author. Although outside accounts sometimes skim over the less tasteful aspects of his life, Fitzgerald cannot help but betray his true nature to the reader, if only unwittingly. Perhaps his most acclaimed opus, The Great Gatsby, is actually more autobiographical than fictional. Close reading of the story, when compared to careful research of Fitzgerald’s life, reveals uncanny parallels. By analyzing the 20th century letters of Ernest Hemingway on Fitzgerald (the two had a famous falling out at the peak of the latter’s career), it is quite possible to establish an accurate portrait of Fitzgerald’s life. Then, one can use The Great Gatsby as a lens through which to examine Fitzgerald, exposing his disposition to the reader. Fitzgerald exposes his own personal character traits to the reader by unconsciously inserting himself into the story, in the Daisy/Gatsby romance, the extravagant lifestyle the protagonists practice, and the flaws that he writes into his characters.
The weather is a phenomenally active and unpredictable, often astounding even the most knowledgeable of meteorologists for example when El Nino occurs; yet the significance of weather forecasting is imperative for industry, agriculture and commerce....
The first time will be approximately 12:30 in the afternoon (or around the lunch hour.) The second study will take place at 5:00pm or later in the evening (striving for around the dinner hour or later.) The two times of day will allow the group to determine if the time and length of day (because as our research time progresses the days grow shorter) affect the participantsÕ emotions toward weather.
third objection comes not out of science but from culture and politics: the idea that acknowledging even faintly human-seeming qualities in animals will ultimately serve not to affirm the moral worth of animals but to debase the worth of human beings. The example of Peter Singer shows that this fear is not unfounded. Singer’s classic 1975 manifesto is a passionate call for the protection of feeling animals, and in many ways the founding document of the animal advocacy movement. (He eschews “rights” talk, although this has mostly been lost on his followers and critics alike.)
Of course, similar mechanistic explanations are now often applied to human actions as well. As Poole acknowledges, they are grounded in something real, but do not allow for the fullest understanding of what is going on. In a way, it may actually be more instructive to look at the flaws in this line of reasoning with an animal example, which helps to avoid some of the metaphysical minefields surrounding the issue. Properly nuanced discussions about animal activity can be soundly without being . Animal science that describes their real abilities, where they can receive credit for intelligent or compassionate actions driven by more than mere instinct, would by extension elevate man’s stature too — not flatten it with animals’, but raise them both above the low bar of pure determinism.
Jonas selects these particular traits on the basis that they are known to have existed even in prehistoric man, and even in their most incipient forms are indicators of important mental and spiritual qualities that would seem to make him unique. The first example is the tool, which Jonas notes is “very closely connected with the realm of animal necessity.” And yet, a tool is an artificial construct, not an extension of organic action but a separate object, often crafted with another object, and most importantly necessitating a of what it and its purpose will be in order to be crafted.
onas’s second example, image-making, is a capability which “displays a total, rather than a gradual, divergence from the animal’s.” The activity is biologically useless, he notes, and requires sufficient mental abstraction to distinguish between reality and representation — that is, between the sensations of the present moment that all animals experience and the form of something else in memory or the imagination. Image-making is the transference of this metaphysical idea onto a physical substrate; even for a portrait or some other picture modeled on something real and present, the copy is distinct from the original but linked to it by a nonmaterial concept.
As a behavioral ecologist, I have been trained to view non-human animals as behaving in ways that don’t necessarily involve any conscious thinking and that their decisions have been simply genetically programmed through the course of natural or sexual selection. But in the course of watching elephants, I have always had a sense that they often do think about what they are doing, the choices they have, and the decisions that they are making. For example, when a young musth male is threatened by a high-ranking musth male, his usual response is to drop out of musth immediately. He lowers his head, and urine dribbling can cease in a matter of seconds. Many biologists would explain this phenomenon simply by arguing that males who behave in manner X live to produce more surviving offspring than males who behave in manner Y, and thus the trait for behaving in manner X is passed on to future generations. Thus, male elephants today automatically behave the way they do because they have been programmed through the successful behavior of their ancestors to do so.