Essays

Aaah, yes, essays. Most people have written these, particullarly in school. All of mine have been written in school, or at least for school, and all the ones posted here were written for my GCSE or AS English Courswork ( except for the ones that weren't.)

The theory of Cartesian Dualism states that the mind and the body are two fundamentally different and distinct entities which possess equally fundamentally different properties from one another. The properties of the mind are observed as mental characteristics, whereas the properties of the body are observed as physical characteristics. The overall being, being comprised of mind and body, is connected via a causal relation, along with an intermingling thesis between the two substances.

This theory is supported by Leibniz Law, which states that two things can only be considered one and the same if everything which is true of one is true of the other, and vice versa. For example, ice and water are not the same thing because we can say that “ice is solid” but we cannot say that “water is solid”. More relevantly, the law can be applied to Cartesian Dualism in two distinct arguments:

The first of these arguments is The Argument from Doubt, which states that, while we cannot doubt the existence of the mind (or at least our own minds, based on the Cogito “I think therefore I am”) we can doubt the existence of the physical body (based on arguments such as the Dreaming Argument and the Demon Argument from Meditations) and thus there is something which we can say of the body which we cannot say of the mind (i.e. “The body can be doubted”) and vice versa (i.e. “The mind cannot be doubted). Therefore, according to Leibniz Law they cannot be one and the same thing.

As though this argument were not proof enough, we are also furnished with The Argument from Divisibility. This argument, also making use of Leibniz Law, states what while the body takes up space and is divisible (i.e. we can dismember the body completely without taking away any of it essential physicality) the mind does not take up physical space, and cannot be divided. Here again, we are given something which we can say of the body which we cannot say of the mind (that it takes up space and is divisible) and thus we prove, according to Leibniz Law, that the mind and the body are distinct and separate from one another.

Despite these proofs; some problems do arise. One of these is the “Explanatory Net of Science”. This rather weak argument is based around JJC Smart’s pronouncement that, in light of the success which science has had in the physical realm, the idea that consciousness is something beyond science’s grasp is “frankly unbelievable”. Clearly though, this argument is counteracted completely by the theory of Cartesian Dualism itself, as it is only natural that the mind would be outside of sciences grasp while the body was not, as they are two completely and utterly separate substances, which have completely and utterly different characteristics.

This rebuff, however, brings us to a weightier problem faced by substance dualism: The Problem of Interaction. Surely, if the body is strictly physical and the mind is strictly mental then it is impossible for them to have any effect on one another? Descartes himself seems stumped by this question, seemingly only to suggest that they interact through the pineal gland, but here he has missed the point: The question is “How do they interact?” not “Where?”.

Descartes also says that this is “one of the great mysteries of the universe”, and indeed in itself it does not disprove the theory of Cartesian Dualism. After all, it does not conclusively prove that there is no connection between mind and body, or that one or the other is nonexistent. Scientific theories of energy seem to contradict the idea of a mind, but they no more disprove Substance Dualism than Substance Dualism disproves them.

So, the Problem of Interaction represents a chink in the armour of Cartesian Dualism, but it does not disprove the theory, as such. Similarly, The Problem of Other Minds raises an issue which Descartes finds himself unable to address sufficiently, while not truly damaging the theory of Substance Dualism – as it is more a problem with the Cogito than with Dualism itself.

The argument follows these lines: I know that I have a mind, as soon as I ask myself the question “Do I have a mind?” I know that I do, otherwise I would be unable to think about having a mind. However, the Cogito which I use to discern this is strictly first personal. While I can quite comfortably say “I think therefore I am”, I cannot say “You think therefore you are” as your thoughts, if indeed you have any of a mind in which to have them, are totally inaccessible to me. As I have no evidence, then, for the existence of your mind I cannot know that you have a mind – or that anyone else has a mind.

 Still, this argument is not damning to Cartesian Dualism. Scientists would argue that we can only hypothesize that other minds exist, and if we treat “other minds” as a hypothesis it is in principle impossible to observe whether or not our “hypothesis” is true or not, and so it is not a hypothesis at all – but this simply links back to the weak-kneed “Explanatory Net of Science” argument, which as has been said is blown out of the water by the very nature of Substance Dualism, and the way in which it states that the mind and the body are distinct and possessed of completely different properties.

 To conclude: Cartesian Dualism states that the mind and the body are two distinct substances, although they share a causal relationship. Leibniz Law can be used to support this theory through the Argument from Doubt and the Argument from Divisibility, and while problems do arise in the Problem of Other Minds and the Problem of Interaction, they are by no means major enough to seriously disprove the theory of Substance Dualism.

In both ‘The Woman in White’ by Wilkie Collins, which was written in 1860, and ‘The French Lieutenant’s Woman’ by John Fowles, which although it was published in 1969 is set over a century earlier in 1867 and written in the style of a novel from that era, women are presented in terms of the Victorian ideal of feminine beauty. 

For example, in ‘The Woman in White’, the character of Marian is presented as ‘perfection in the eyes of a man’ when she is seen from a distance, being described in terms of ‘the unaffected grace of her attitude’ and ‘the easy elegance of every movement of her limbs’. However, once the narrator – Walter Hartright – sees her clearly we are told that ‘the lady is ugly’ because she has ‘a masculine mouth’ and ‘the dark down of her upper lip was almost a moustache’. 

This reflects the failure of the character to live up to the Victorian ideal of feminine beauty, as she does not fit the expectation which would have been contemporary to the time in which Collins was writing, that a woman should be a strictly feminine being. Since she possesses masculine traits, which were they present in a man might be admirable, she is deemed ‘ugly’ and ‘altogether wanting in those feminine attractions of gentleness and pliability’. 

Conversely, in ‘The French Lieutenant’s Woman’, the titular character of Sarah Woodruff is described in terms of ‘the innocence of the creature’. Like Marian in ‘The Woman in White’, Sarah is presented as failing to match up to the ideal of femininity in that she is ‘without the then indispensable gloss of feminine hair-oil’, and more importantly that she is a social outcast because of the events that led to her being named ‘The French Lieutenant’s Woman’ . 

This generally positive presentation, in the midst of the Victorian setting, in spite of the flaws of a woman who ‘cared more for health than a fashionably pale and languid-cheeked complexion’, is a part of the satire of Victorian values which John Fowles creates in his novel. Still, this reflects the general attitude of the period which was that women had no function other than to look good, to the extent that being ‘fashionably pale’ was more important than their own health. 

Since both novels are set in, the Victorian era, although only ‘The Woman in White’ was actually written during the era, it is natural that the female characters should be presented in the terms in which women were viewed at the time. This is why they are both seemingly criticised for their ‘masculine’ qualities, Marian’s ‘ugly’ face and ‘prominent jaw’ and Sarah’s ‘strong nose, heavy eyebrows’ and ‘outcast’ status. 

However, both characters are presented as possessing aspects of the ideal of feminine beauty, although in both cases it is as Collins says of Marian ‘beauty incomplete’. For instance, we are told that ‘there was something intensely tender and yet sexual in the way in which [Sarah] lay’ in spite of ‘her being unfairly outcast’ and she seems to be more flawed for being active in ‘an age where women were semi-static, timid, incapable of sustained physical effort’ than for anything else, as in her sleep she is possessed of an innocence which provokes ‘an equally strange feeling – not sexual, but fraternal, perhaps paternal’  in the character of Charles Smithson. 

Similarly, Collins tells us that Marian’s ‘bright, frank and intelligent’ expression ‘appeared to be altogether wanting in those feminine attractions of gentleness and pliability, without which the beauty of the handsomest woman alive is beauty incomplete’. These two characterisations reflect the way in which the Victorian’s viewed women as being ‘semi-static, timid, incapable of sustained physical effort’, with the idea that a woman should not be so provoking ‘a sensation oddly akin to the helpless discomfort familiar to us all in sleep, when we recognise yet cannot reconcile the anomalies and contradictions of a dream.’ 

Of course, a key difference in the presentation of this view is that it is a contemporary view for Collins, who writes about ‘those feminine attractions of gentleness and pliability, without which the beauty of the handsomest woman alive is beauty incomplete’ in the present tense, as they are his own views (or at least the views of his narrator) while Fowles, writing over a century later in the more ‘enlightened’ time of the nineteen sixties writes about ‘the then indispensable gloss of feminine hair-oil’ and ‘an age where women were semi-static, timid, incapable of sustained physical effort’ in the past tense, as (assuming he held views in accordance with those popular at the time he was writing) he would not agree with the ideas. 

Additionally, Fowles has the benefit of hindsight in terms of the period which Collins, as a contemporary writer, does not have; to the extent that he is able to say that ‘the whole Victorian Age was lost. And I do not mean he had taken the wrong path’, while for Collins the ‘Victorian Age’ is the present time, and it cannot be said to be ‘lost’ as it has not yet ended. 

In conclusion, while women are presented in terms of the Victorian ideal of feminine beauty in both ‘The Woman in White’ and ‘The French Lieutenant’s Woman’, and are presented as ‘outcast’ and possessed of ‘beauty incomplete’ because they possess ‘masculine’ qualities, this is done with an undertone that this is the ‘correct’ view by Collins, the contemporary author, and with a distanced approach and a kind of condemnation of the view by Fowles, who writes over a century after ‘the Victorian age was lost’.

Insert descriptive text which supports the above header. Insert descriptive text which supports the above header.
Insert descriptive text which supports the above header. Insert descriptive text which supports the above header.

  The film "The Sixth Sense" was written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan in 1997. Shyamalan uses a mixture of both the thriller genre and the supernatural genre. The film is based around Dr. Malcolm Crowe (played by Bruce Willis), who is a respected and successful psychologist who is murdered by one of his former patients in the opening scene, and Cole (played by Halley Joel Osment) who is a young boy who has "the sixth sense" and can see dead people who fail to realise that they are dead and need help to do so. As the story unfolds Cole learns to accept the sixth sense, realising that if he helps the ghosts then they will not trouble him, and Malcolm realises that he himself is dead and comes to terms with leaving his wife and passing on.

  In the opening sequence a dark mood is established. As we open we see a light bulb fading in from the darkness. We then see Mrs. Crowe through a wine rack filled with red wine; this shows us that they are well of, with the red colour indicating Malcolm’s rapidly approaching death. When we cut to the lounge we see both characters putting on extra clothing, this telling us that it is cold. There are red cards o the mantle piece and the frame of the plaque is red, still implying death. As we see the bedroom we see the broken glass and hear the beeping phone, we then quickly cut to the stark white of the bathroom, establishing a sterile environment, with the semi-naked Vincent Grey, who is angry with Malcolm for "failing him" and so shoots him.

  As we see the light bulb at the beginning of the scene we establish a bleak and foreboding mood. The red wine, red cards one the mantle piece and red frame around the plague, which Malcolm receives, implies death and the supernatural activity, which is going on. When Malcolm and Anna are sitting in the lounge she is slightly lower down than him, implying his superiority over her and her admiration for him. As they are reflected in the mirror-like plaque we see the cosiness and love of the situation, it also implies that Malcolm will shortly die and that they are together for the last time. The fire in the room connotes cosiness and warmth. The glass shattering which we hear and later see connotes that the lives of the characters will soon be shattered. The battered old sweater which Malcolm puts on shows us that he is comfortable and at home. The sterile white conditions of the bathroom show a lack of emotion, and cold heartless lack of feeling.

  In the opening sequence Malcolm and Anna are portrayed as being very much in love, with Anna seemingly slightly subservient to Malcolm, saying how she understand why he had to be her in second place to his work. Vincent Grey however is portrayed as being very angry and upset, with his actions making it clear that he is insane or at least mentally unstable. He is mostly naked to show that he is vulnerable and has white flecks in his hair to show that he has been subjected to trauma. In contrast to this Malcolm seems clam, collected and in control, even remembering Vincent. Anna, on the other hand, seems shocked confused and bewildered. We easily get the impression that Malcolm and Anna are very happy and comfortable with each other, they clearly know each other well as Malcolm can tell immediately when Anna’s mood changes upon seeing the shattered glass. It is made obvious that Anna cares about Malcolm as immediately after he is shot she tries to stop the blood flowing out of his wound and save his life.

  In the opening sequence the camera is used in many different ways. Firstly we have a close up on the light bulb through the wine rack, giving the feeling that the audience are in the room with the character. There is a low angle shot to show vulnerability, and a close up on Anna to show her emption. In the living room we have a medium shot to show the mise-en-scene, which shows the closeness of Anna and Malcolm, with a very framed. Close ups on the reflection in the plaque are used to show the closeness between them. The reflection in the frame gives us a very framed view of the characters showing love, and the last time that they will be in the "frame" together. The camera angles in the bedroom show Malcolm’s vulnerability, and the scene ends with the camera looking down on Malcolm as he dies showing the power of death. Throughout the scene low angle shots are used to show vulnerability.

  Throughout the scene low key lighting is used to create a feeling of disturbance and unease, There are shadows in the cellar, but as the scene continues the shadows stop, creating a ghostly mood. The lack of shadows is unsettling as it is unnatural. The chandelier is used to show wealth and opulence. The light bulb at the beginning of the scene shows life. The strong, harsh light in the bathroom is in stark contrast to the bedroom. The bathroom has high key lighting to create unease, it looks sterile showing a lack of emotion.

  As the credits are displayed sinister, eerie music, which builds up and then becomes gentle again, this music finally peeks at the end of the scene after Malcolm is shot. In the living room, where Malcolm and Anna are reading the plaque, we hear the glass shatter (a diegetic sound) the peaceful, relaxed atmosphere is disturbed, the sound is very unsettling. The characters conversation shows their emotion, with the peaceful tones between Malcolm and Anna in the living room and Vincent’s screaming and shouting. The sound of Vincent pounding on the doorframe is quite frightening and disturbing, as are the gunshots as Malcolm is shot. The non-diegetic music when Malcolm is trying to clam Vincent builds up to a crescendo when Malcolm is shot.

  Editing is also used in the scene. The credits are shown with small white letters on a black background, fading in and out quickly. In the cellar there is no special editing, only simple cuts, this establishes the flow of action and also establishes normality. There is then a quick jump to the stairs, throughout the part of the scene in the lounge and the bedroom simple cuts are used, furthering the feeling of normality and calm. Suddenly the shot jumps to the broken glass, establishing that things aren’t good, the there is another jump to the bathroom, after which the scene is very disjointed and jumpy, creating a tense and edgy atmosphere. The camera jumps quickly from Malcolm to Vincent to show the awkwardness of the situation. After Malcolm is shot the scene dissolves into the next one.

  An opening sequence is designed so that the viewer is drawn into the story and they will continue to watch the remainder of the film. The opening sequence will also need to introduce the audience to the main character of characters and give the audience a vague idea of the remainder of the story.

  I enjoyed the opening sequence and found it interesting and exciting. It made me want to watch the rest of the film as it made me wonder what would happen next.

An Analysis of The Character of Iago in William Shakespeare's "Othello"    

        In 'Othello' Shakespeare presents Iago as the villain of the piece, but he does so in a rather unorthadox and somewhat ground-breaking. manner. Throughout the course of the play, it is Iago who confides in the audience through soliloquy; something usually done by the hero in a play. Hamlet, the eponymous tragic hero of 'Hamlet, Prince of Denmark' is a prime example of this.

 

            Through these soliloquies, we learn a great deal about the character of Iago, the actions of the character, and the motives behind these actions. For instance, in Act One, Scene Three of the play we learn through Iago's sololoquy that he believes Othello to have slept with Emilia:

 

                                     'I hate the Moor,

And it is throught abroad that 'twixt my sheets

He's done my office' I, iii, 384-387                                                                                                                                              

 

            This goes together with the explanation with which Iago furnishes Roderigo in Act One, Scene One of the play, in which he says

 

             'For "Certes" says he,

"I have already chose my officer"            

And what was he?                                 

Forsooth, a great arithmatician               

One Micheal Cassio, a Florentine -          

A fellow almost damned in a fair wife -   

That never set a squadron on the field    

            Nor the division of battle knows' I, i, 11-24         

 

In this he purports to audience what the main motives behind the 'villainous' actions which are undertaken by the character of Iago during the course of the play.

 

            Some have argued that through having Iago relate the multitude of reasons and motives that are presented throughout the play, Shakespeare intends to give the impression that the character does not actually have any real motive for his actions and is in fact playing the role, in the words of Coleridge, of the 'Motiveless Malignant', in other words, he is carrying out his evil schemes for their own sake. It is true that many motives are presented, and some of them quite unusual - such as the idea that Othello has slept with Emilia, which seems to be baseless, being mentioned solely by Iago save for a mention of it in Act Four, Scene Two of the play by Emilia herself in which she says:

 

               'Some such squire he was       

That turned your wit the seamy side without,                   

And made you suspect me with the Moor' IV, ii, 145-147

 

This is the only shred of evidence offered in the entirity of the play that the idea that Emilia has been unfaithful to Iago with Othello is not solely a figment of Iago's imagination, and even this is inconclusive: as it would seem that Shakespeare intends to imply that Iago has raised the issue with Emilia in the past. Also, through the similarity suggested between the way in which Iago suspects Emilia's unfaithfulness, and the way in which we know Othello to have suspected Desdemona, it would seem that the suspiscion is, indeed, groundless.

 

            However, it is my opinion that the complex, tangled web of reasonings and motives behind Iago's actions is related to the complexity of the character, which is not simply a cliched, diabolical villain but is a full-fledged multifaceted character, which is indeed presented in a somewhat sympathetic light up until the final scene of the play. For example, one of the main reasons why Iago carries out his nefarious schemes is that he believes, or at least claims to believe that Emilia has been unfaithful to him with Othello, which is of course the very same motive which drives the 'hero' of the play, Othello, to murder his own wife, Desdemona.

 

            The character of Iago is, in many ways, a working class hero. Shakespeare clearly presents the character as being working class, both through his lowly position of 'Ancient' in the Venetian army, and the fact that his wife, Emilia, serves as an attendant to Desdemona. The other characters in the play are clearly upper class: Desdemona is the daughter of a senator, Montano is the Governor of Cyprus, and even Othello and Cassio, who are outsiders to Venetian society (due the former being a Moor and the latter being a Florentine) not only posses higher military ranks than Iago, but higher social status too.

 

            If one views the character of Iago in terms of his class position and social status, it becomes somewhat clear that his actions serve to facilitate the downfall of those higher-class rankings than himself. For example, from the first scene of the play until the scene in which he finnally kills him, Iago plays the rather foppish Roderigo for a fool, and his schemes centre around the destruction of Othello, Cassion and to a lesser extent, Desdemona. The character's attitude towards the upper classes is illustrated in Act One, Scene One when Shakespeare has Iago saying:

 

'We cannot all be masters, nor all masters          

Cannot be truly followed. You shall mark             

Many a duteous and knee-crooking knave            

That doting on his own obsequious bondage,       

Wears out his time, much like his master's ass,    

            For naught but provender, and when he's old cashiered.   

Whip me such honest knaves.' I, i, 43-49           

                                                                       

            It would seem then, that much knowledge of the character of Iago could be gained from the first act of the play, particullarly Act One, Scene One in which the character takes the central role, with the eponymous 'hero' Othello not appearing in the play at all until Act One, Scene Three. However, the other key scene, which defines the character, is Act Five, Scene Two of the final scene of 'Othello', in which his scheming is revealed to the other characters and he murders Emilia.

 

            In this scene, if it is taken at face value, Shakespeare presents Iago as the very embodiment of evil, the devil incarnate. Throughout the course of the scene Iago is describes a a 'villain' repeatedly. Shakespeare even has Othello saying that:

 

'I look down towards his feet; but that's a fable.   

            If that you be'st a devil I cannot kill thee.' V, ii, 283-284  

 

            However, on closer inspection of the scene it can be said that it completely and utterly disproves the 'Motiveless Malignant' theory; given that it seems somewhat obvious that the character himself is supposed to believe that it is blatantly obvious what his motives are, as when an explanation is 'demanded' of Iago, Shakespeare has his 'villain' respond by saying:

 

'Demand me nothing. What you know, you know. 

                        From this time forth never shall I speak a word' V, ii, 300-301     

 

            This clearly implies that the other characers, or at least the character of Othello know, or at least are believed by the character of Iago to know, what the motives behind Iago's actions were. This might suggest that Iago truly believes that Othello has slept with his wife, or that the reason behind his malicious deeds was the fact that he was passed over for promotion to the position of Lieutenant in favour of Cassio, or even both.

 

            In addition, if we consider that Iago's motive has been to undermine those of a higher social status than himself then this is consistent with the hypothesis that he is taking revenge for the fact that Cassio was appointed Othello's Lieutenant instead of him. From this perspective, it seems as though Iago, and not Othello, is the tragic hero of the piece, his tragic flaw being his master plan, which grows and spirals out of his control, eventually bringing desctuction upon its own creator.

 

            Alternatively, it could be perceived that the repeated, perhaps even excessive use of the word 'villian', along with other terms of revilement such as 'viper', 'Spartan dog' and 'demi-devil', in Act Five, Scene Two are an attempt to strengthen the presentation of Iago as the villain of the piece, and has been written in this way because Shakespeare felt that he needed to strengthen the presentation of the character as such, since during prior points in the play he had been presented in too sympathetic a light to truly be considered a villain.

 

            In conclusion, while at first glance Iago may seem nothing more than a one-dimensional 'villain' or a 'Motiveless Malignant', if the character is examined more closely it is revealed to be far more complex, with a multitude of motives and reasons for his actions, and can be interpreted to be a working class hero as his actions work against characters of higher social status than him, rather than any sort of villain. The actions of the character during the final scene could, possibly, be a part of Shakespeare's attempt to make the character less sympathetic to suit the upper class audience, or it could be interpreted as the character being pushed over the brink of madness by the exposure of his plans.