The Tyger and the Tiger free essay sample

Humans are not all the same, just like animals; although we have many similarities, there can also be many differences. In Life of Pi, we are introduced to a tiger named Richard Parker and in â€Å"The Tyger† by William Blake we are introduced to another tiger. Richard Parker and the tiger from The Tyger are alike and different in many ways; similarities that are significant are concepts such as the way both tigers are feared, their symbolic comparison to fire and how they are use as symbols and the differences that are significant are thing like their behavior, how people feel about them and where the tigers live. Despite the fact Richard Parker and the â€Å"Tyger† are the same species; there are other symbolic similarities they share. A major similarity is found where the writers’ explicitly describe the tigers which trigger the reader’s visual interpretation. Both writers, Yann Martel and Blake William, efficiently convey the point that both tigers are extremely feared by those who come upon them. We will write a custom essay sample on The Tyger and the Tiger or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page In Life of Pi, we see many examples where those who spare a quick glance at Richard Parker fear him. Pi Patel is an example of the immense fear a tiger can provoke in someone; on page q36 Pi recalls â€Å"Any second I expected to see Richard Parker rising up and coming for me. Several times I had fits of fearful trembling. † In The Tyger, William Blake simply lets the reader know of the extreme fear the character in the poem has for this tiger when he writes â€Å"What immortal hand or eye, could frame thy fearful symmetry? † In both of the text we can see that both tigers are extremely feared by the reactions they receive from both animals and people. It is also common sense that one would be scared of a tiger due to their size, strength and beast-like characteristics. Secondly, another characteristic the tigers share are their metaphorical and symbolic comparison to fire. William Blake and Yann Martel both used fire to describe the tigers. The both convey the idea that they are greatly feared by whoever they come in contact with. In Life of Pi, Richard Parker is referred to as the† flame coloured carnivore†(166) and in â€Å"the Tyger†, the tiger is described as â€Å"burning bright†(Line 1). This metaphor works well because the colour that is usually associated with fire is orange which also happens to be the colour of fur on both animals. These metaphors both contribute to the ferocity of the tigers. Although it doesn’t directly say fire anywhere, both tigers are described using fire related terms. Lastly, a significant similarity the tigers share are them being used as symbols. In both of the texts it is questioned whether or not the tigers are really meant to be what they are presented as. In â€Å"The Tyger†, the literary devices and words being used to describe the tiger could be applied to something else, for example when William Blake says â€Å"What the hammer? What the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil? † (Line 13-15), some of the phrases would make more sense if he were to be talking about something else and not a tiger. Likewise, all throughout Life of Pi it is questioned if Richard Parker is actually a tiger the author portrays him to be or if he’s a symbol for something else. It is thought that Richard Parker could be Pi’s alter ego and the tiger in William Blake’s poem is a symbol for things that are beautiful but raise havoc, like money. The fear they provoke in people, their symbolic comparisons to fire and being used as a symbol for other things are similarities Richard Parker and the tiger share besides being the same species. Even though Richard Parker and the tiger from William Blake’s poem â€Å"the Tyger â€Å"are the same type of species, they also have differences. A major difference between the two animals is their behavior. Despite the fact that Richard Parker is a large and frightening beast, he does not act like it. During Pi’s lengthy adventure, Pi mentions on many accounts that Richard Parker does not act like the frightening beast he appears to be on the outside. Pi was confused by Richard Parker’s strange behavior and thought to himself â€Å"The great beast was not behaving like a great beast, to such an extent that the hyena had taken liberties† (172) This quote is key when showcasing the difference in behavior patterns between Richard Parker and â€Å"the Tyger† because people will automatically assume that just because they are the same species, they behave and carry themselves the same way too. Another difference that may be complimentary to their behavior is the animals living conditions. Reading the first and second line of the poem the Tyger; we discover that the Tyger is a wild animal, it says â€Å"Tyger, Tyger burning bright in the forest of the night† (Line 1) In Life of Pi, Richard Parker has been a zoo animal majority of his life; he never had to go hunting to satisfy his hunger or protect himself from potential predators. This is an important difference because the surroundings one is in contributes to the making of their character. Since Richard Parker has been a zoo animal for most of his life and the Tyger is a wild animal, there will be a considerable difference between the two. The last relevant difference amongst the two tigers is how people feel about them. Although Richard Parker is portrayed as a tiger in Life of Pi, he becomes one of Pi’s main companions; On page 207 Pi says â€Å"If I still have hope to live it was thanks to Richard Parker. He kept me from thinking too much about my family and tragic circumstances. But on the other hand, the observer of the tiger in â€Å"The Tyger† isn’t very fond of the tiger beause he says â€Å"What dread hand? And what dread feet? † and â€Å"Did he smile his work to see? † These quotes are basically saying what dreadful type of person could have created this type of thing and if the creator was proud of what he had made. It is easy to tell the observer was not fond of the Tyger because if he were he would not be questioning his reator and assuming he was dreadful. The reactions one gets from something is important because it affects how one behaves. Richard Parker and the Tyger have many similarities but they also share many differences. Some of the similarities they share are things like being feared, being used as a symbol and their comparisons to fire; some of the differences they share are their behavior patterns, how people feel about them and where they come from. It is not beneficial to assume that two a like things are exactly the same because that is not true.

Concept of God According to Descartes Essays

Concept of God According to Descartes Essays Concept of God According to Descartes Essay Concept of God According to Descartes Essay so his view of the soul predated Christianity. Plato (ca. 428-348 B. C. ) saw mans existence as divided into the material and spiritual, or Ideal, realms. Plato reasoned that the soul, being eternal, must have had a pre-existence in the ideal world where it learned about the eternal Ideals (William S. Sahakian, History of Philosophy, 1968, p. 56). In Platos reasoning, man is meant to attain goodness and return to the Ideal through the experiences of the transmigration of the soul. Thus secular philosophies sanction the idea of the immortal soul, even though the Bible does not. Believe it or not, Gods Word teaches something entirely different. History of a Controversial Teaching The doctrine of the immortal soul caused much controversy in the early Catholic Church. Origen (ca. 185-254) was the first person to attempt to organize Christian doctrine into a systematic theology. He was an admirer of Plato and believed in the immortality of the soul and that it would depart to an everlasting reward or everlasting punishment at death. In Origen De Principiis he wrote: The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240). Origen taught that human souls existed before the body but is imprisoned in the physical world as a form of punishment. Physical life, he reasoned, is a purification process to return humans to a spiritual state. Later Augustine (354-430) tackled the problem of the immortality of the soul and death. For Augustine death meant the destruction of the body, but the conscious soul would continue to live in either a blissful state with God or an agonizing state of separation from God. In The City of God he wrote that the soul is therefore called immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel; while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul, takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, 1995, p. 245. ) The influences of pagan Platonic philosophy on Origen and Augustine are profound. Richard Tarnas, in his best-seller The Passion of the Western Mind, points to this influence: It was Augustines formulation of Christian Platonism that was to permeate virtually all of medieval Christian thought in the West. So enthusiastic was the Christian integration of the Greek spirit that Socrates and Plato were frequently regarded as divinely inspired pre-Christian saints (1991, p. 103). Centuries later Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274) crystallized the doctrine of the immortal soul in The Summa Theologica. He taught that the soul is a conscious intellect and will and cannot be destroyed. A few centuries later the leaders of the Protestant Reformation generally accepted these traditional views, so they became entrenched in traditional Prot estant teaching. The immortality of the soul is foundational in Western thought, both philosophical and religious. Belief in going to heaven or hell depends on it. But does the Bible teach that death is the separation of body and soul or that the soul is immortal? Hebrew Understanding of the Soul The Hebrew word translated soul in the Old Testament is nephesh, which simply means a breathing creature. Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines nephesh as the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath The problem with the English term soul is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it is represented in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew system of thought does not include the combination or opposition of he body and soul which are really Greek and Latin in origin. The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible makes this comment on nephesh: The word soul in English, though it has to some extent naturalized the Hebrew idiom, frequently carries with it overtones, ultimately coming from philosophical Greek (Platonism) and from Orphism and Gnosticism which are absent in nephesh. In the Old Testamen t it never means the immortal soul, but it is essentially the life principle, or the living being, or the self as the subject of appetite, and emotion, occasionally of volition. That nephesh doesnt refer to an immortal soul can be seen in the way the word is used in the Old Testament. It is translated soul or being in reference to man in Genesis 2:7, but also to animals by being translated creature in Genesis 1:24. Nephesh is translated body in Leviticus 21:11 in reference to a human corpse. The Hebrew Scriptures state plainly that, rather than possess immortality, the soul can and does die. The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4, 20). The Old Testament describes the dead as going to sheol, translated into English as hell, pit or grave. Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 describes sheol as a place of unconsciousness: For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished King David laments that death extinguishes a relationship with God. For in death there is no remembrance of You; in the grave who will give You thanks ? (Psalm 6:5). The immortal-soul concept isnt part of the Old Testament, but it began to make inroads into Jewish thought as Jews came in contact with Greek culture. In the first century the Jewish philosopher Philo taught a Platonic concept: The death of a man is the separation of his soul from his body (The Works of Philo, translated by C. D. Yonge, 1993, p. 37). Philo followed the Hellenistic view that the soul is freed upon death to an everlasting life of virtue or evil. In the New Testament the Greek word translated soul is psuche, which is also translated life.   Ã‚  Ã‚   In Psalm 16:10 David uses nephesh (soul) to claim that the Holy One, or Messiah, wouldnt be left in sheol, the grave. Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:27, using the Greek psuche for the Hebrew nephesh (notice verses 25-31). Like nephesh, psuche refers to human souls (Acts 2:41) and for animals (it is translated life in the King James Version of Revelation 8:9 and 16:3). Jesus declared that God can destroy mans psuche, or soul (Matthew 10:28). If the Old Testament describes death as an unconscious state, how does the New Testament describe it? No one wrote more about this subject than the apostle Paul. He describes death as sleep (1 Corinthians 15:51-58; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Many people are surprised to find that the term immortal soul appears nowhere in the Bible. However, though the Scriptures do not speak of the soul as being immortal, they have much to say about immortality. For example: You know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him (1 John 3:15). Paul told the members of the congregation in Rome to seek immortality (Romans 2:5-7). He taught Christians at Corinth that they must be changed and put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-55). Paul proclaimed that only God and His Son possess immortality (1 Timothy 6:12-16) and that eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 6:23). The most powerful words come from Jesus Himself: And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:40). True Origin of Immortal-soul Teaching Weve seen in this brief look at the supposedly immortal soul that the Bible teaches no such concept. The idea filtered into Western thought through Greek philosophy. Its origins are older than Athens, in fact as old as man. The concept of the immortal soul was introduced into mans thinking at the earliest beginnings of human history. God told the first human beings, Adam and Eve, that if they sinned they would die and return to the dust from which He had created them (Genesis 2:17; 3:19). Satan, the embodiment of evil, the powerful entity who opposes God, assured them they wouldnt die (verses 1-5). Satan slyly injected into Eves consciousness the notion that God was lying and that she and her husband would not die, thus ingraining the unscriptural teaching of the immortality of the soul into human thought. Satan has since deceived the world on this important understanding as well as many other biblical truths (Revelation 12:9). Much f the world, including millions of people in religions outside of traditional Christianity, are convinced they have- or are- immortal souls and hope they will go to a happy place or state of being immediately after they die. Soul/Nephesh According to Judaism The Hebrew word for soul, nephesh, does not mean what you say it does, if you want to use Judaica as an original source. The fou ndation of Judaism, according to Judaism, is Kabbalah. The Kabbalistic meaning of nephesh/soul is that the one soul of the Creator that has been divided into many parts among mankind and awaits its reunification in the final correction. This is actually the root of our belief that all souls will be eternally okay, in the end. The Biblical Answer to Death Yet the Bible plainly teaches that the dead lie in the grave and know nothing, think no thoughts, have no emotions, possess no consciousness. Does this mean death, the cessation of life, is final, the end of everything? The Bible answers this question too. Although mankind is physical, subject to death, the good news is that God promises a resurrection to eternal life to everyone who repents, worships God and accepts Jesus as the Messiah and His sacrifice. The first resurrection to immortality will take place when Christ returns to establish Gods Kingdom on this earth. Later will come another resurrection- to physical life- for people who had never had a relationship with the Father and Jesus Christ. They, too, will gain the opportunity for immortality. The true final answer is not death but resurrection. From the above it is clear that the concept of immortality of Soul is actually not a Christian concept and there is no reference to it in the Holy Bible. Even if one does not want to rely too much on the above view of the Biblical verse, still one can say that immortality of Soul cannot be a Christian concept because according to Christian belief, the God is the Supreme commander and if our souls were immortal then there would not be any difference between the earthly human beings and the Divine God. And for human beings to be at par with the Supreme Commander is impossible. If one does not want to take this argument also then and stick to the belief that immortality of the soul is actually a Christian concept and Descartes has not proved it according to C. F. Fowler in his book, â€Å"Descartes on the human soul: philosophy and the demands of Christian doctrine,† from Descartes writing it is understood that the Soul is immaterial as against the body which is material. And if the Soul is immaterial then it cannot be put to death from this one can say that Descartes has proved the immortality of the Soul. So either way one can succeed in defending Descartes and say that the Catholic Church made a mistake by condemning Descartes writings.