Grammar and Composition Drafting Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Grammar and Composition Drafting - Essay Example In my view, technology plays a destructive role in the modern society because it produces weapon with which people kill each other, ruins people’s morality through boosting greed in them, and destroys nature since it is often impossible to control. The middle part of your paper is the body of the paper. It develops the most important points which support your thesis statement. It contains three paragraphs. These paragraphs follow the points listed in the three-step format. Technology produces weapon with which people kill each other. Billions of people have been murdered with the help of technology since the day a shotgun was invented. Patrick Thomson, a Director of the Royal Museum in Sussex, says, â€Å"Who knows how many people would have lived longer but for the ordinary shot gun† (Thomson, â€Å"Destruction Today†). Similarly, Wendy Clifford, an American reporter, believes weapon plays a fatal role in 2 out of 20 domestic conflicts where it is used (Clifford, â€Å"Domestic Violence and Weapon†). Technology ruins human morality through boosting greed in people. When we see new iPads or iPhones advertised on TV, we wish to get these things even if in reality we do not need them. Other examples of greed for more technologically advanced and thus â€Å"better† things include: wishes to change cars, cell phones, software, and television. Technology destroys nature since it is often impossible to control. Nuclear explosions, oil spills, and animal extinction – these are horrible results of technological progress. It seems, if humanity continues to â€Å"develop† with the same pace, our planet Earth will become a deserted place in the following 100 years or even less. All in all, it is hard to find something less ruinous and destructive than technology invented by people. Since weapon kills people, greed for new gadgets â€Å"kills† morality and human inventions destroy nature, technology may be easily believed to play a destructive role in

The Octogon House Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Octogon House - Essay Example e house is credited for hosting one time president, James Madison, and First Lady Dolley Madison following the burning of the White House in 1812 during the War. Today the building has found a completely new use. It is used as a museum and hosts several galleries and architectural and design exhibitions. This paper will analyze the Octagon House in light of its design and features and will compare it to architectural designs of the 1700s and early 1800s. The Octagon House is has three stories, its plan featuring a triangle, two rectangles, and a circle. It was so designed such that its symmetrical wing meshes properly with its lot that is triangular in shape. The building has several rooms including the dining room, treaty room, kitchen, and parlor. The building which has six sides has chimneys and a furnace located on the basement as noted by Lonely Planet (2014). From these features, it is beyond doubt that the artwork was meant to be a residential house for a rich family. Its flat roof is made of cedar-shingle roof and balustrade is surmounted by a cupola as noted by Lonely Planet (2014).Furthermore, the building has its rooms so arranged that they seem to be symmetrical with a spiral staircase situated at the centre of the building. Figure one shows part of the Octagon House. The Octagon House building is simply designed although it is a slight departure from the traditional Georgian design that was common in Washington DC it the late 1700s and early 1800s. According to AIA (2014), the building partly is inspired by the Greek style for its interior while its exterior is partly inspired by the federal style. In this respect, the building is a fine example of the kind of architecture that prominently featured in federal buildings at the time. The building is also partly inspired by English architecture of the time. During the 18th and 19th centuries, many buildings in England were circular or octagonal in shape (Brown 2009). Such houses were perceived to be

Cost-benefit analysis of the ban on drugs in netherlands Essay

Cost-benefit analysis of the ban on drugs in netherlands - Essay Example Cost-benefit analysis of the ban on drugs in netherlands The case under study will consider the use of cost-benefit analysis as one of the economic approach to testing the cost that the society will incur if they opt for either of the mentioned policies (Cleveland, 2008, p. 563). On the other side of the coin, the benefit that each of the two options will accrue will also be measured, and the further systematic test procedure qualifies one to be adopted. Economic policies across the world have been influenced by both political and social factors. It is worth noting that the general welfare of people is given priority. In any economic idea in the society, critical analysis needs to be carried out to ascertain its benefit or loss to the people. Various concepts are applicable in this respect but their uses also depend on the nature of economic variables under question (Chris & Wilhite 2004, pp. 108-9). Cost-benefit analysis is an economic concept that has a wide use. In project appraisal it is one of the recommended methods of testing the vi ability of a project. . It is a double faced in-depth analysis of the various cost that would be incurred in making a given investment policy and comparing with the benefit that would be obtained from successfully undertaking the project under question. Its application is not only limited to economic projects but also covers the political decisions that are pegged on economic results. An example includes decisions by the government to introduce a given statute that will regulate a given behavior of a specific group of people. In this regard, the Netherlands is faced with a policy dilemma of whether to legalize the aforementioned drugs or to put a ban. Some of the challenges that it faces are the issue of a high influx of tourists who pose a threat to the law regulating the consumption of these drugs (Miron & Zwiebel, 2005, pp.67-8). It is, therefore, important to draw a cost-benefit model that would check which way is the best to go. Social cost of prohibition tends to be higher as it triggers various socials ills in the society, which translates to retrogressive economic direction of the country. On the other side, legalization comes with some costs of formulating and harmonizing the legal policy across the various groups of people that include citizens and foreigners without creating any negative impact on the diplomatic relations with other states and the tourism sector (Miron, 2001, p. 851). In estimating the costs, there is a breakdown of various tangible and intangible costs, and this is a characteristic of the legal proposals that the Dutch authorities are trying to put across. Benefits in terms of economic policy also have a wide use and sum up all the positive contributions of a given idea which includes reduction of negative factors. In applying the concept of cost-benefit analysis in the case of this country, we are simply assuming that the cost has a negative sign while the benefits have positive signs. When the two are summed up, a positive sign i s deemed acceptable; the negative result, on the other hand, is considered a burden while zero may mean that other factors are taken into consideration. In relation to the case of imposing a ban on the drugs, a lot of social costs are eminent (Chris & Wilhite, 2004, p. 114; Cleveland, 2008, p. 577). One of them is the

How DuPont Company Changed people's life in Delaware Research Paper

How DuPont Company Changed people's life in Delaware - Research Paper Example DuPont products and services have maintained its capacity and have developed through the years. This paper will provide the insights as to how DuPont changed and influenced the lives of people in Delaware and the world with their innovative inventions. History: DuPont Company The DuPont company was first highlighted in Delaware by Pierre Samuel DuPont who was said to be the most influential character in the world of business and who succeeded in making the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company as the biggest explosives and chemical sector in the United States. They became a supplier of substantial goods and products to other companies that needed DuPont’s products for their line of business as well (Chandler and Salsbury 2000). The company was founded year 1802, and it has maintained its diversity up to this time. Their innovative way of bringing the company to success has led them to extend to 90 countries in the world. The company has continued to prosper in the line of â€Å" agriculture, nutrition, electronics, communications, safety and protection, home and construction, transportation and apparel† (Our Company 2011). Innovations and Highlights of DuPont There were many inventions of DuPont that made a name; one of which is Nylon introduced in the world year 1938. Neoprene was also made by DuPont with their efficient team of chemical engineers and was made known year 1931 (Bellis 2011). DuPont was first focusing primarily as a chemical company that specialized on explosives. They played a major role in the World War II era (Winkler 2005). It is said that DuPont developed from an â€Å"explosives manufacturer† to products that used â€Å"explosives chemistry.† Examples of these products are paint and stuff that were made of cellulose (Ndiaye 2007). Mueller (2011, 325) stated the known earliest inventions of DuPont such as Viscose Rayon in year 1920; Cellophane in year 1924; Synthetic Ammonia in year 1926; Teflon in year 1943 and seve ral others. DuPont’s inventions brought recognition worldwide as these are essential components that were needed by other business sectors as well. DuPont’s dedication and focus made them an in demand supplier of these business firms. DuPont’s efficiency even expanded outside the world as the company supplied invented materials for astronauts and space missions. One significant usage of DuPont’s invention of Nylon took part in the Apollo 13 space suits, in the year 1964. On the other hand, the space suits utilized in the Apollo 11 were made using DuPont’s inventions such as â€Å"DuPont Nomex fiber, Teflon fluoropolymer, Kapton polyimide film, Mylar polyester film, Lycra spandex, neoprene and Nylon† as well. Another invention was also used by the NASA for their space travels in 1960. Krytox was used as lubricants by the spacecrafts used in NASA space travels. One of the best assets of Krytox is that it does not ignite flames and it is confir med to be safe. The Kapton Polymide film from DuPont is used for the space machines of NASA in controlling vibration. It is also used â€Å"flexible circuits† for electronic gadgets (Fact Sheet 2011). The DuPont trademark remained and developed in these inventions through the years, and made a new world in Delaware. The company made significant changes in Delaware that brought significant development in the lives of its people. Life Changing DuPont As the

Plato, Machiavelli Essay Example for Free

Plato, Machiavelli Essay Machiavelli says the prince only has to seem good, not be good. Plato insists that seeming is bad, being is good. Nicolo Machiavelli is known as being an realist who accepted that fact that humans are brutal, selfish, and fickle while Plato was an idealist who believed people could be ruled by a philosopher king who ruled over the warriors and tradesmen of his ideal republic with rationality. In his view the philosopher-king was in charge of making the state a utopia in that everyone had his/her place and all worked together for the common good of the state. Machiavelli said that this was a foolish idea. Machiavelli philosophy of government was centered on the ruler. He believed the king, or despot, had the right to do whatever was necessary for his own gain, or whatever the monarch considered the good of the state which he called Virtu’. Machiavelli believed the only purpose for a ruler was to make war, and protect its citizens from attacks by other states. He advocated the slaughter of surrendered generals in order to crush hopes of revolution even rationalizing that it was worth the risk of revolution should it anger the people. Machiavelli believed a ruler should be immoral using deception and illusion for power and never allowing the people to know the â€Å"real† him In Machiavellis time, as it is today, the States whole reason for being was to serve the citizens. The ruler, therefore, is justified in doing whatever is necessary to maintain the country or state, even if it is unjust. In Platos time, man served the state. According to the viewed that ethics and politics are the same, or at least co-terminous. There was no distinction between private life and public life, as there is today. Plato argues a ruler can never be unjust. Plato argues against this type of ruler, who rules solely by might. Plato tries to prove that it is always better to be just than unjust , claiming that there is a strong connection between justice , personal happiness and the well being of the state. Machiavelli underlines the fact that moral principles are not necessarily connected with the efficiency of the act of ruling . If the principles of morality and justice need to be broken in for the state to be prosperous , than this is how things should be done. In the end, Plato and Machiavelli lived very different lives, contributing to their differing thoughts on the world. Plato grew up in the upper aristocratic class but was adopted by Socrates. As he followed Socrates, he learned all he would need for his later life as a philosopher when he essentially wandered around Greece without pay. In this way he was untouched by wealths corruption. Machiavelli, on the other hand, grew up in a wealthy Italian home and lived well supplied for by his patrons. The wealth that he was accustomed to was the main cause for his philosophy centered around personal gain.

Hart, Fuller and Devlin Theories of Law and Morality

Hart, Fuller and Devlin Theories of Law and Morality Introduction This essay will explore the theories of Hart, Fuller and Devlin and consider there views on the link between law and morality. It will consider the debates mounted between Hart and Fuller and Hart and Devlin and what these debates add to our understanding to the link between law and morality. It will be argued and concluded that morality plays an important and essential role in our understanding of our legal responsibilities. It will recognise that there has been a long association between morality and law and that traditionally law has been associated with religions, customs and divinity. The Hart – Fuller Debate To understand Hart’s criticism of Fuller it is important to familiarise and understand the eight principles of the â€Å"inner morality† of the law that Fuller asserts and how in his view law and morality are intertwined. Fuller asserts that: A legal system must be base on or reveal some kind of regular tends. As such law should be founded on generalisations of conduct such as rules, rather than simply following arbitrary adjudication. Laws must be publicised so that subjects know how they are supposed to behave. Rules will not have the desired effect if it is likely that your present actions will not be judged by them in future. As such, retrospective legislation should not be abused. Laws should be comprehensible, even if it is only lawyers who understand them Laws should not be contradictory. Laws should not expect the subject to perform the impossible. Law should not change so frequently that the subject cannot orient his actions to it There should not be a significant difference between the actual administration of the law and what the written rules say These criteria are in the form of moral rules of duty. Fuller expresses them as principles or goals; generality of laws; promulgation of laws; minimising the use of retrospective laws; clarity; lack of contradiction; possibility of obedience, constancy through time; consistency between the words and practice of law[1]. Hart’s criticism of Fuller’s eight principles of â€Å"inner morality† of law must be understood. These principles, which loosely describe requirements of procedural justice, were claimed by Fuller to ensure that a legal system would satisfy the demand of morality, to the extent that a legal system which adhered to all of the principles would explain the all-important idea of â€Å"fidelity to law† In other words, such a legal system would command obedience with moral justification. Fuller’s key idea is that evil aims lack a â€Å"logic† and coherence that moral aims have. Thus, paying attention to the â€Å"coherence† of the laws ensures their morality. The argument is unfortunate because it does, of course, claim too much. Hart’s criticism is that we could, equally, have eight principles of the â€Å"inner morality† of the poisoner’s art. Or we can improvise further[2]. We can talk of the principles of the inner morality of Nazism, for example, or the principles of the inner morality of chess. Fuller’s explanation of the Nazi regime is insufficient and flawed, and we must take on Hart’s analysis. Fuller argues that the Nazi regime was so intrinsically evil that it could not be law, this it is argued, is not a sufficient conclusion. The point is that the idea of principles in themselves with the attendant explanation at a general level of what is to be achieved and consistency is insufficient to establish the moral nature of such practices. This was that there is an important sense of legal justification that claims made in the name of law are morally serious. At the least, the person who makes a genuine claim for legal justification of an immoral, Nazi-type legal system must believe that there is some moral force to his claim. Against Fuller, Hart insisted that the identification of a directive as law indicated nothing about the moral authority of that directive and thus nothing about whether that directive should be obeyed[3]. Consequently, claimed Hart, official and citizen disobedience to immoral directives would be facilitated not by pretending that such directives failed to qualify as legal just because of their perceived iniquity, but rather by internalising the fundamental positivist insight that law and morality were conceptually distinct. Because of this conceptual distinction between law and morality, Hart argued, a directives legality said nothing about its morality[4] The Hart- Devlin Debate Again, it is important at the outside to understand Devlin’s approach to law and morality, before considering Hart’s criticism of his approach. In â€Å"The Enforcement of Morals[5]† Devlin supported the view that law should not tolerate that which the reasonable man finds disgusting. Society needs a moral identity, because it is the moral values of society that make it cohere. For Devlin, even private acts of immorality can weaken the fabric of society if they are sufficiently grave. The balance that Devlin seeks to achieve is placed in the context of the political morality of contemporary society, where toleration is itself a prime moral principle. Thus there â€Å"Must be toleration of the maximum individual freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society[6]†. Devlin’s justification for the legal enforcement of morality is an extension of the harm principle to a perceived threat to society, rather than harm to other individuals. This seems quite a reasonable proposition. However this test is one that masquerades as (1) a relevant test for the principle and (2) an objective test. Devlin’s reasonable man is not asked in sociological terms what immorality is actually threatening to society. He is asked, instead, what he feels disgust at. Further he asserts that whilst the reasonable man test is employed as a way of alienating a courtroom issue from the subjective opinions of parties to a particular legal issue, it does not necessarily have the same effect in this situation. Devlin employs the term reasonable man to give the impression of objectivity. However it is a fiction to suggest that there is a reasonable man when it comes to difficult moral issues. The reasonable man of legal fiction is one who employs practical reason and due consideration when acting. However, all the practical reason and due consideration in the world will not change the preferences an prejudices that embody disgust. On the issue of homosexuality, many people intellectually feel that people’s sexual orientation is not a matter for legal intervention, but they nonetheless find homosexual acts to be repellent. The reasonable man test is thus a spurious validation for prevailing societal aesthetics, rather than a test of what society fe els to be threatening[7]. Devlin’s view should be contrasted with the view of Hart. In Law, Liberty and Morality[8], Hart recognises that there does not seem to be any real widely shared morality, and there can be no freedom if we are compelled to accept only those things that others approve of. Hart notes that there are certain constants of the human condition, which he terms the minimum content of natural law, such as the vulnerability of human beings. If we disregard these sociological facts it would be tantamount to suicide. But beyond these facts, society is faced with a choice of what rules to adopt in order to protect us from the frailties of the human condition[9]. Hart seems to assert that since the development of a society is a collective odyssey, the values that a society has adopted for its preservation and progress constitute a shared morality of sorts. This does not mean that the norms that a society has accepted and retained are ones that are logically necessary for the achievement of social preservation. However, they are instrumental in the maintenance of social cohesion. For this reason he would not accept Devlin’s analogy of deviation from moral norms with treason against society[10]. It may be that a change in morality can result in friction, but i t need not result in the collapse of society. Hart also adopts the harm principle, but denies that consent can be used as a mitigating factor. Equally, immoral acts in public may be harmful to others and, as such, open to legal censure, whereas acts in private should not be a matter for the law. His justification is that while the first is the legitimate prevention of harm, the latter is the enforcement of the societal will over the individual. Hart finds paternalism justified, but not enforce morality per se. Conclusion These theories forwarded create good arguments both for and against the inclusion of morality in law. A more complex case for the non-separation of laws and morals have been made more recently by Detmold: â€Å"Hart’s mistake†¦. Was to try to run two incompatible analyses together; the analysis of sociological statements, where existence can be separated from bindingness and thus from moral statements; and the analysis of internal normative statements, where it cannot. The Concept of Law suffers throughout from a failure to separate these things[11]† This is a true anylasis of Hart’s theories, and it was said at the introduction that it would be concluded that morality was a necessary part of the law and indeed it was important in helping society to understand its moral obligations, this is concluded. However it is difficulty to reach these conclusions, when the definition of morality is considered, it is such an abstract concept is it even possible to pin it down to a definition? It suffices to say that there is no requirement to look outside information or reason in order to find and answer to some moral dilemmas. Often moral feelings run against he grain of other people’s views and even our own reasoning. As such, morals defined in this way are capable of producing infinite disagreement, since different people’s consciences dictate different things. Considering morals in this light suggests that there is absence of universal agreement, if this is the case, how can they effect our understanding of our legal obligations? This would mean that the legal obligations of one person are not necessarily that of another person, this said it follows that what is legally wrong finds its basis somewhere and it is suggested that this base is morality. Although it should be recognised that no all laws are moral- this means that our understanding of the legal/moral argument whilst added to by the debates of Hart, Devlin and Fuller, is not concluded, and it is unlikely that it ever will be. Bibliography Journal Articles Curzon L, (1992) â€Å"Jurisprudence: The Hart-Fuller Debate† Student Law Review 1992 6 (Sum) 55-56 Hayry H, (1991) â€Å"Liberalism and Legal Moralism: The Hart-Devlin Debate and Beyond† Ratio Juris 4(2) 202-218 Schauer F, (2005) â€Å"The Social Construction of the Concept of Law: A Reply to Julia Dickinson†, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (493) Books Devlin P, (1965) â€Å"The Enforcement of Morals†, Oxford University Press, Oxford Detmold M J, (1984) â€Å"The Unity of Law and Morality: A Refutation of Legal Positivism†, London: Routledge Kegan Paul Doherty M, (2003) â€Å"Jurisprudence: The Philosophy of Law†, Third Edition, Old Bailey Press Fuller L, (1969) â€Å"The Morality of Law† Yale (reprinted 2003) H L A Hart, (1963) â€Å"Law, Liberty and Morality†, Oxford University Press, Oxford Lloyd D, (2001) â€Å"Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence†, Seventh Edition, London, Sweet and Maxwell 1 Footnotes [1] See Fuller L, (1969) â€Å"The Morality of Law† Yale (reprinted 2003) [2] See Doherty M, (2003) â€Å"Jurisprudence: The Philosophy of Law†, Third Edition, Old Bailey Press [3] See further Curzon L, (1992) â€Å"Jurisprudence: The Hart-Fuller Debate† Student Law Review 1992 6 (Sum) 55-56 [4] Schauer F, (2005) â€Å"The Social Construction of the Concept of Law: A Reply to Julia Dickinson†, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (493) [5] Devlin P, (1965) â€Å"The Enforcement of Morals†, Oxford University Press, Oxford [6] See Devlin P, (1965) â€Å"The Enforcement of Morals†, Oxford University Press, Oxford [7] See See Doherty M, (2003) â€Å"Jurisprudence: The Philosophy of Law†, Third Edition, Old Bailey Press for further discussion on this point [8] H L A Hart, (1963) â€Å"Law, Liberty and Morality†, Oxford University Press, Oxford [9] Lloyd D, (2001) â€Å"Lloyd’s Introduction to Jurisprudence†, Seventh Edition, London, Sweet and Maxwell [10] For further discussion generally see Hayry H, (1991) â€Å"Liberalism and Legal Moralism: The Hart-Devlin Debate and Beyond† Ratio Juris 4(2) 202-218 [11] Detmold M J, (1984) â€Å"The Unity of Law and Morality: A Refutation of Legal Positivism†, London: Routledge Kegan Paul

Siddharthas Stages Analysis

Siddharthas Stages Analysis Siddhartha Tries to Learn Enlightenment Through Teachers Siddhartha started his life a Brahman, declared to be a special gifted Brahman from birth, extremely eager to attend teachers lessons to becoming enlightened on his path to total enlightenment. He had gone to his father when he was a young Brahman and learned to the capacity of the teachers knowledge. Though he believed hed exhausted his teaching at his home, he was not satisfied and requested from his father to allow him to leave to travel with the Samanas, throwing away any and everything that was handed to him as a noble man. His father was immediately furious upon request and denied him. Siddhartha responded by standing for a day, in the same position, unrelenting, to show he had made his mind up and he was serious about the decision. His father, though hesitant, saw the commitment he showed and agreed to let Siddhartha leave with the Samanas. He left to learn with the traveling monks their teaching of asceticism, a rejection of the body and physical desire. Siddhartha adjusts qu ickly because of the patience and discipline he learned in the Brahmin tradition. He learns from the Samanas how to free himself from the traditional trappings of life, losing the desire for; property, clothing, sexuality, and any sustenance except that required to survive. He thinks to find enlightenment, he must eliminate his Self, and successfully does so, renouncing the pleasures of the world. Siddhartha grows tired of the path of self-denial and sees that the oldest members of the Samanas have yet to attain true spiritual enlightenment, so just as he and his follower and best friend Govinda did before with the Brahmins, they must move on to another teacher. At this time, the monks begin hearing of and spreading talk of a new holy man named Gotama the Buddha who is said to have attained the total spiritual enlightenment called, Nirvana. Govinda convinces Siddhartha they should seek out Gotama. They inform the leader of the Samanas of their decision, in which he responds in a dis pleased manner, but is silenced by Siddhartha when he gives him an almost hypnotizing gaze to silence his disapproval. Siddhartha and Govinda find the camp of Gotamas followers and are welcomed. Its not long before Siddhartha identifies Gotama as a monk with an aura around him, and he and Govinda are instructed in the Eightfold Path, the four main points and other aspects of Buddhism. Govinda is convinced into joining Gotama as his follower while Siddhartha still had doubts, and notices a flaw (or contradiction) in Gotamas teaching: how can one embrace the unity of all things as the Buddha asks, if they are also told to overcome the physical world. Siddhartha concludes he must go, and leave Govinda, upon his request, to find the answers he needs. He had learned fasting and patience in this first learning exposure. He had put off the worldly pleasures so quickly and lost himself, he thought he would need to re-find himself in order to experience these pleasures to banish them entirel y. Siddhartha Learning From Himself He decides to learn a life free from meditation and the spiritual quests he has been pursuing, and instead learn from the pleasures of the body and material world. In this journey, he meets a friendly ferryman fully content with his simple life. Siddhartha tells him he has no valuables to exchange for the ferrymans kindness, which he is responded by the ferryman asking for Siddharthas friendship when Siddhartha returns to the river. Siddhartha agrees and departs, then coming to a city, and before entering, comes into contact with a beautiful woman being carried, whom greets him kindly while glancing at the aged and unkempt man. She entices him and he decides she would be the best to learn the world of love from so he cleans himself up and goes to her to seek her wisdom, however, she denied him, until he proved he could fit into the material world. She tells him to take the path of the merchant, and with her help, Siddhartha finds employment with a merchant named Kamaswami, to learn t he trade. While he learns wisdom of the business world and masters such skills, Kamala becomes his lover and she teaches him what she knows of love. Siddhartha stays for many years, and is soon a rich man enjoying the benefits of a privileged life. He gambles, drinks, dances, and has anything that can be bought in the material world at his disposal. But he is detached from this life and only sees it as a game. He soon gets caught in a cycle of unhappiness and tries to escape it by gambling, drinking, and having sex even more than before. He has a dream of Kamalas rare songbird dead in its cage and understands the material world is killing him without providing the enlightenment that he has been searching for, and once he finally thinks the game is over, he just leaves. He does not take anything with him other than the clothes on his back, and tells no one of his departure. He obtains the knowledge of the pleasures hes been attempting to diminish, so that he may now rid himself of th em. Now that he has accomplished this, he is ready to move to whatever journey his life brings him to next. Siddhartha Finding a Wise Teacher and Finding Satisfaction He blankly, and sick at heart, wanders until coming upon a river. He looks and the water and decides drowning himself would be best, and as hes about to succumb to death, he hears om and pulls himself from the water, then throws himself onto the river bank and falls asleep. He sleeps for two days to awaken to a monk watching over him, that he immediately recognizes to be Govinda. He thanks him for watching his slumber and once again departs from his friend to search for the ferryman. He finds him and gets onto the ferry, exchanging banter with the ferryman and recalling their previous meeting and is asked to stay with the man Vasudeva. He agrees to have Vasudeva be his teacher, but once Siddhartha knows to direct the ferry, Vasudeva tells him there is nothing he can teach him, and he will have to find the teacher responsible for Vasudevas virtue(s) on his own. After some time, Siddhartha asked Vasudeva learned from the river, in which he is confirmed and praised for realizing the riv ers teachings by Vasudeva. Siddhartha spends his time ferrying men across the river, and listening to the rivers many voices. After a while, there is news of Gotama being on his deathbed spreading around, calling Kamala out for a chance to seek council with the great Buddha. She brings her son with her as she travels to find Gotama, but while she rests and her son plays, she is tragically bitten by a poisonous snake and slowly succumbs to death, and before leaving, Siddhartha stumbles upon her and holds her as she passes. She confesses to him that the boy with her is his child, and the boy goes with Siddhartha to stay with him and Vasudeva. The boy learns to ferry the boat, and after some time he abandons Siddhartha and takes the boat to a city where he starts his own journey. Siddhartha mourns his son leaving, and ponders going after and finding him and arrives in front of the city thought to harbor him. But realizes the wisdom Vasudeva gives him and understands his son must learn his path on his own, and instead of entering the city he leaves. He mourns for a while longer, and resumes his teachings from the river, upon which Vasudeva makes his departure into the forest, leaving Siddhartha as the ferryman. Siddhartha has at this point become very wise and lives his days out on the river, ferrying men across. A familiar man joins him on the ferry, who he finds to be Govinda. Govinda asks him of the knowledge hes acquired, and is given knowledge from Siddhartha on his values of everything around him. Siddhartha learned the value of the world and materials around him, to appreciate every aspect of everything and be accepting of this resolve.