Comparison of Martin Scorsese's On-screen adaptation and Edith Essay

Comparison of Martin Scorsese's On-screen adaptation and Edith Wharton's Age of Innocence - Essay Example The partners are thrown into a depth of intimacy no one can imagine who has not experienced it. Thesis The film treats the theme of innocence as a minor one while the novel treats innocence as core of moral values and social traditions. Both film and novel concentrates on the theme of marriage and its relation to innocence and moral values. Marriage is dangerous precisely because it can release and feed as many urges as it satisfies — one reason, perhaps, that divorce is rarely the simple matter it promises to be. theme are governed by the strong sense - common to many writers at the time - that one must be sacrificed to the other, that art can only be bought at the price of life. Like the novel, the film directors saw art as at once the extinction and the glory of existence. Wharton depicts Newland’s marriage as: Of course such a marriage was only what Newland was entitled to; but young men are so foolish and incalculable--and some women so ensnaring and unscrupulous--that it was nothing short of a miracle to see ones only son safe past the Siren Isle and in the haven of a blameless domesticity (Wharton 22). Martin Scorsese creates vivid and bright image of the main characters and follows Wharton’s feelings and passion related to innocence. In both works, the central figure in The Age of Innocence is Newland Archer. Like Lily Bart, Archer is by no means altogether likeable or admirable - and it is one of Whartons greatest strengths that she makes us respond to such characters by presenting them with a sort of luminous completeness. Wharton describes his family: "Ah, how your grandfather Archer loved a good dinner, my dear Newland!" he said, his eyes on the portrait of a plump full-chested young man in a stock and a blue coat, with a view of a white-columned country-house behind him (Wharton 17). Fundamentally amiable, Archer is also snobbish, vain, lazy and at times almost fatuous. If the coincidence of names with

Explain the basic principles of MR image production Essay

Explain the basic principles of MR image production - Essay Example The frequencies absorbed in magnetic resonance are in the megahertz (million cycles per second) and gigahertz (billion cycles per second) ranges. The absorption frequencies for any particular substance are directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field. This characteristic is unique to magnetic resonance. There are two distinct subcategories of magnetic resonance. One of these, for which the absorbing particles are electrons, is known by either of two interchangeable names: electron spin resonance (ESR) or electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR). The other category, in which the absorbing particles are atomic nuclei, is called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).2 The resonances are actually the absorptions of particular frequencies and are found in EPR and NMR arises from some of the most fundamental properties of matter. A general theory of EPR and NMR must be derived from quantum mechanics, but a classical analogy provides some insight. In the familiar model, every atom has a massive nucleus containing N positively charged protons and a number of uncharged neutrons. Outside the nucleus are N negatively charged electrons in various "orbits" or "distributions." The number N, called atomic number, identifies the atom in the periodic table. 3 Every electron and proton possesses, in addition to charge and mass, an indestructible amount of angular momentum or "spin," the property that keeps a gyroscope spinning after the driving force is removed. Because moving charge always has magnetic effects, the combination of charge and spin makes every electron and proton a spinning permanent magnet, the strength or "magnetic moment" being several hundred times greater for electrons. A spinning electron can be compared to the spinning wheel of a toy gyroscope. When the gyroscope's spin axis is off vertical, and the bottom end of the axis rests loosely on a support, the unexpected happens. Instead of falling farther from the vertical under the force of the wheel's weight, the spin axis rotates steadily around the vertical at a fixed angle from it, a motion known as "precession." In EPR the electron is spinning and a microscopic magnet. The externally applied magnetic field supplies the extra force, and the electron's spin axis precesses. Resonant absorption occurs when the source frequency is synchronous with the precession frequency. A similar explanation applies to NMR. 4 Magnetic Resonance Image Production Figure 1 illustrates the a simplified block diagram of generic MR imaging mechanism demonstrating the elements essential for the recognition and creation of MR signals and the demonstration of MR images. These components are as follows: 1) The RF mechanism (a) for the production of the magnitude of the RF magnetic field with the help of a coil for transmitting mode, amplifier and a transmitter, b) for the detection of the free induction decay (FID), which is the result of the net magnetization to an RF pulse this is done by the help of a signal demodulator, a coil for

Hume’s critique of rational causation Essay Example for Free

Hume’s critique of rational causation Essay If you look out over the world, everything is held together by something philosophers have called Causation. The rain falls and feed the streams, rivers, and oceans that then evaporate back up into the atmosphere where it gathers in clouds waiting to come back down as rain. When it rains, trees grow, turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, and other living things thrive. The circle of life is but a chain of causes and effects, and Causation is the common sense idea that one thing or event causes another. The idea of causation can be rationally expressed in the following relation: If X, then Y. So, for example, I am used to the light coming on after I flip the switch. In this case, my flipping the switch causes the light to go on. But what if I flip the switch and the light does not come on? I may deduce that this is because the light has burned out. This is because, in my experience, whenever the light does not come on it is because the light has burned out. This is what Hume calls associationism; that is, the tendency that we have, as humans, to link up to things that we normally experience together or in sequence. The difference between rationalist causation and Hume’s associationism is that causation is meant to establish a relation of certainty between the cause and its effect, whereas the latter says that all we can know is that one is a correlate of the other – that is, that in the past X and Y came together in a sequence, but this in and of itself is n guarantee that this will be the case in the future. If Hume is right, then we have no way to know what the future will bring, and cannot make any predictions that might carry the weight of certainty. Hume critique of rational causation is based on his distinction between two kinds of objects of knowledge corresponding to two different and separate bodies of knowledge. He theorizes that there is knowledge that express the relation between ideas, and that this is different from knowledge that has to do with matter of fact things about the world. The relationship between there two epistemological realms is not necessary: that is, we can have certain mathematical knowledge about perfect circles, but this has little to do with human experience. Similarly, the rational idea of cause and effect (if X, then Y) expresses a logical relation, but it is a categorical mistake to assert that this principle can be used to gain or secure knowledge about the world. So, Hume argues that although we perceive one event following another, we can never be certain of it. We cannot say, of things in the world we perceive and experience, that one thing caused another in part because we cannot see (perceive) causation (because it is an idea, or a logical relation). What we perceive is one thing of event that we come to associate (through force of habit) with the other. So, for example, to take Hume’s example: you see a cue hit a ball, and the ball takes off across the pool table and goes into a pocket. Where is causation? If you cannot perceive it, then how do you know about it. (Hume assumes, along with the other Modern British Empiricists that there are no innate ideas and all human knowledge is based on human experience). Hume’s critique of causation is both simple and devastating to the sciences, where causation is the basis for both inductive and deductive logic. Not only can we not predict the future with certainty, but we cannot know causes by their effects (or the past from the present). This took the wind out of arguments for the existence of God that said that given that nature displays a certain order and beauty, that there much be some entity who made or organized nature, and this is what we call God, whom we know only indirectly through his creations (ourselves included). In one fell swoop, Hume took the ground out from under both Science and Religion. But Hume meant to give humans not cause for despair, but cause for hope. We may not know the world through the machinations of reason, but this should not lead us to assert that we do not know is any sense at all. In fact we do and must make all sorts of judgments about the world – it is just that our judgments are not based on certainty or reason. The explanation lies not with the world, but with human nature and human psychology. We would be judged mad if we repeatedly put our hand on the stove just because our past experience cannot with certainty predict the future. What does happen has to do with the way that we experience the world as repeating certain consistent patterns (even if we cannot prove it is so, it is still our experience), and through sheer repetition, we learn how to behave in the world inn such a way as to not put ourselves in dangerous position, and to put ourselves in good positions. Hume’s explanation is better that causation, liberating, because it leaves the future open to possibility – the future is in not wholly determined by the past. So, to take a trivial example: Hume talks about how â€Å"we† might be used to associating flees with dogs because, in our experience, these two things always arrive together. But today, now that most dogs and other pets wear flea protection, we do not necessarily associate dogs with flees (but perhaps only with irresponsible pet owners). This last example shows how from our experience in the world, we form expectations, but these expectations are open ended, changeable, and can be either fulfilled or disappointed. In this same way, on the basis of our past and where we come from , we as human form expectations about our future possibilities, but there is nothing at all to say that these expectations will or will not be fulfilled, or changed. Our expectations, buttressed through habit, may be the basis about out beliefs about ourselves and the world. In this sense of the world, belief is not an innate feeling or knowledge of some otherworldly entity, but it is defined as a being sensitive and attuned to our experiences in the world. Because if we are not, then we form bad habits, false expectations, and an inability to make sense of our very own lives. It should be no surprise, then, the Hume did not believe in God – the postulated original cause for all of existence. No causes in the world, no causes of the world – at least that we can know. There is just the world there, and us experiencing it.

Concentration of sulfuric acid

Concentration of sulfuric acid Abstract My research question, as the topic states, is How would the concentration of sulfuric acid affect the rate of hydrogen gas produced when it reacts with iron? The reason that I want to do this experiment is to prove whether the collision theory in Chapter6.2 of the Chemistry textbook1 is true about the concentration will affect the rate of a reaction. And I also did another extend experiment about whether the temperature will affect the rate of a reaction. After a lot of calculations, and analysis of the experiments data I got, my conclusion is the collision theory is not very suitable on this particular experiment. Introduction In Chapter 6 of IB chemistry textbook about Kinetics, the factors that will affect the rate of a reaction are Concentration, pressure, temperature, surface area and catalyst. I want to choose one of these factors and prove if it will actually affect the reaction rate and I choose the concentration. Then I started to think about the experiment that can show whether the concentration of the reactants will affect the reaction rate. Because my schools laboratory is very limited, so I can only do the experiments that are easy to operate and will not use very sophisticated apparatus. So, after serious consideration, I decided to use the iron react with sulfuric acid, the formula is elaborated below: Fe + H2SO4 > FeSO4 + H2 The reason that I choose to do this experiment is that this experiment can generate gas and the tools to do this experiment are easy to obtain. In Chapter 6 of the Chemistry textbook, one of the techniques for measuring rate is a collection of an evolved gas. Because the rate that the gas generated can represent the rate of the whole reaction, so I just need to measure how fast does the hydrogen gas evolve. Development of the Experiment This experiment is not as simple as it looks like. The first way I use is let iron react with different concentration sulfuric acid, and use a stopwatch to measure the time for each different reaction to finish. But after I give a try of this method, I found out that for a reaction to completely stop will take hours or more, which means this way wastes too much time, so this method is not very practical. The second way that came out of my mind is let the hydrogen gas been evolved to fill a balloon, and see how much time it will take to let the balloon to explode. But as everyone knows, Hydrogen gas can burn, so when the balloon explodes, it may also set off the hydrogen gas, so this method is way too dangerous to operate. The final method I developed is close to perfect (I think), and it is better to be shown by a photograph: In the left part of this photo, the iron and sulfuric acid will generate hydrogen gas; the hydrogen gas will go into the beaker in the middle of this photo through the rubber tube. Because the beaker in the middle has been filled with water, the hydrogen gas go into the beaker will begin to push the water out of the beaker. Because there is another glass tube in the beaker (you can see it in the photograph), water will be push into the graduated flask in the right part of the photo through the glass tube and the rubber tube. I just need to measure the time for a certain amount of water that has been push into the graduated flask, and compare the time taken of every different reaction, I will know whether the concentration will affect the rate of the reaction. Although this method is perfect for me, I still made a mistake when I was assembling the apparatus together: As the photograph above shows, this is the beaker used to let the reaction took place. The mistake I made is: The glass tube is too deep. Because the glass tube is so deep that the mouth of the glass tube is totally immersed by the sulfuric acid, thus the hydrogen gas evolved cannot go through the glass tube, as a result, the hydrogen gas push the sulfuric acid into the glass tube! Luckily, this mistake is not very hard to correct, I just need to pull the glass tube out a little bit, as the photograph shows below: Experimental Procedure Material and instruments: pure iron powder, very concentrated sulfuric acid, gas collecting bottle, conical flask, balance, stop watch, grad cylinder, glass tubes and soft rubber tubes. Because the sulfuric acid I got is very concentrated (98%), so the first thing I need to do is preparing sulfuric acid which has different concentration. Use the grad cylinder to measure certain amount of 98% sulfuric acid. Use the grad cylinder to measure certain amount of water. Add the sulfuric acid very slowly into the water and use a glass stirs keep whisking the mixture. I have repeated these procedures for nine times because I raised the concentration of sulfuric acid by 10% each time, finally I got 9 solutions have different concentration: 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%,70%, 80% and 90%. Use the balance to measure exactly 5g of iron powder. Add the iron powder into the beaker on the left of the photograph. Add the 10% sulfuric acid into the beaker on the left of the photograph. The hydrogen gas will press the water in the bottle into the grad cylinder and use the stop watch to measure the time taken for the hydrogen gas to press out certain volume of water. Add the 5g of iron powder and 20% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 30% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 40% sulfuric acid into the left beaker, then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 50% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 60% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 70% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 80% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 90% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Add the 5g of iron powder and 98% sulfuric acid into the left beaker then repeat step 6 and 7. Data and Analysis From the table above, we can see a very strange trend: When the concentration of sulfuric acid increase from 10% to 60%, the time is decreasing, in other words, the rate of the reaction keeps speeding up; but when the concentration of sulfuric acid reaches 70%, theres no reaction between iron and sulfuric acid at all! At first, I cannot even believe what I saw, so I repeat the reaction between iron and 70% sulfuric acid for several times but eventually lead to the same result: Nothing happened. Then I search this strange thing among a lot of books and websites, and this is called passivation2. Definition of passivation: Passivation is the process of making a material passive in relation to another material prior to using the materials together. For example, prior to storing hydrogen peroxide in an aluminium container, the container can be passivated by rinsing it with a dilute solution of nitric acid and peroxide alternating with deionized water. The nitric acid and peroxide oxidizes and dissolves any impurities on the inner surface of the container, and the deionized water rinses away the acid and oxidized impurities. Another typical passivation process of cleaning stainless steel tanks involves cleaning with sodium hydroxide and citric acid followed by nitric acid (up to 20% at 120 Â °F) and a complete water rinse. This process will restore the film; remove metal particles, dirt, and welding-generated compounds (e.g. oxides). In the context of corrosion, passivation is the spontaneous formation of a hard non-reactive surface film that inhibits further corrosion. This layer is usually an oxide or nitride that is a few atoms thick. Mechanisms of passivation: Under normal conditions of pH and oxygen concentration, passivation is seen in such materials as aluminum, iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, stainless steel, titanium, and silicon. Ordinary steel can form a passivating layer in alkali environments, as rebar does in concrete. The conditions necessary for passivation are recorded in Roubaix diagrams. Some corrosion inhibitors help the formation of a passivation layer on the surface of the metals to which they are applied. Passivation of specific materials: Aluminum may be protected from oxidation by anodizing and/or valorizing (sometimes called Anodizing), or any of an assortment of similar processes. In addition, stacked passivation techniques are often used for protecting aluminum. For example, chromating is often used as a sealant to a previously-anodized surface, to increase resistance to salt-water exposure of aluminum parts by nearly a factor of 2 versus simply relying on anodizing. Ferrous materials, including steel, may be somewhat protected by promoting oxidation (rust) and then converting the oxidation to a metalophosphate by using phosphoric acid and further protected by surface coating. As the uncoated surface is water-soluble a preferred method is to form manganese or zinc compounds by a process commonly known as Parkerizing or phosphate conversion. Older, less-effective but chemically-similar electrochemical conversion coatings included bluing, also known as black oxide. Nickel can be used for handling elemental fluorine, thanks to a passivation layer of nickel fluoride. After we read the above explanation of passivation, the reason why iron does not react with concentrated sulfuric acid is pretty clear: Because concentrated sulfuric acid is extremely oxidizing, so as long the sulfuric touches the surface of iron, it will form an oxidized layer on the iron and this layer will stop iron and sulfuric acid being touch, thus there is no reaction would occur. An Extend of the Topic It seems that this experiment could be end here, but theres another idea came out of my mind: Since concentration cannot always affect the rate of the reaction, what about the other factors? Will other factors be suitable on this very particular case? Then I decided to do another experiment to see whether the temperature will affect the rate of this reaction. Procedure: Use the balance to measure 5 gram iron powder. Add the iron powder into a clean test tube. Add some 98% sulfuric acid into the same test tube. Use an alcohol burner to heat the test tube and observe what will happen. Not everything goes like we expected, and this experiment is not an exception. As you can see, in the photograph on page 15, theres a lot of gas evolved from the test tube, but I can definitely tell you that this gas is not hydrogen gas, there are two evidence I can found to prove that this is not hydrogen gas: We all know that hydrogen gas can burn, right? But when I put the mouth of the test tube very closely to the fire, I cant see any combustion. We all know that hydrogen gas doesnt have any odor, but when this gas evolved, I can smell a very strong pungent and smelly odor. This evidence can prove this gas is not hydrogen gas, but this evidence also leads to another question: What gas is it? I search on the internet and I found an equation that may be relevant to this experiment: 2Fe+6H2SO4(Hot, concentrated)=Fe2(SO4)3+3SO2+6H2O I also found out the reason for why would the experiment react like the equation above in a Chinese website, here is the translation: When the temperature is rising, the oxidized layer on the iron will be destroyed and prevent this layer regenerate. Thus, the concentrated sulfuric acid can react with the iron. Also, the rising temperature cause the sulfuric acid be more oxidizing than when its cold, so this directly cause the oxidation number of iron to increase, and this is the reason that when iron react with hot, concentrated sulfuric acid will generate sulfur dioxide(Which is the pungent and smelly odor I mentioned in the second evidence on page 16). Conclusion The Collision Theory in Chapter 6.2 of the Chemistry textbook, which states The rate at which particles collide is increased by increasing the concentration of the reactants, is not suitable on every reaction. In this case, increase the concentration of sulfuric acid can only increase the reaction rate in a certain range. Increase the temperature of the reactants will not always leads to the increase of reaction rate; instead, increase the temperature may leads to a totally different reaction. In this case, raise the temperature will cause the iron and sulfuric acid to react and generate sulfur dioxide, rather than hydrogen gas. Some limitation of the experiment: After I know iron will not react with 70% sulfuric acid, I decided to do more experiments to obtain the accurate Reaction-Stop Concentration, which must be in the range of 60%-70%, but because the experiments tools I have are very limited, so I cannot raise the concentration by1% at a time as I wanted, which leaves a little bit flaw to this experiment. Normally students should do experiments in the schools laboratory, but because of some reason, the lab cant give us the opportunity to do the experiment, so I have to buy the tools and materials and do the experiments at home, so this cause a lot of inconveniences to my experiments. Bibliography and References Damji, Sadru and Green, John, written place unknown, IBID Chemistry Book 2nd edition. Budinski, Kenneth G. (1988), written at Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Surface Engineering for Wear Resistance, Prentice Hall. Brimi, Marjorie A. (1965), written at New York, New York, Electrofinishing, American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc.

Alexanders Empire :: essays research papers

Alexander's Empire The ancient Kingdom of Macedonia, situated in the north of modern Greece, was established by Perdiccas I about 640 B.C. Perdiccas was a Dorian, although the Macedonian tribes included Thracian and Illyrian elements. Originally a semibarbarous and fragmented power, Macedon became tributary to Persia under the Persian kings Darius I and Xerxes I and thereafter struggled to maintain itself against Thracians and other barbarians and against the Greek cities of the Chalcidice as well as Sparta and Athens. A new stage began with Archelaus (d.399 B.C.), who centralized the kingdom with a system of roads and forts; he also fostered the Hellenization of his people by inviting famous Greek artists, Euripides among them, to his court. Few regions gave much thought to Macedonia. The area was so primitive that it seemed to belong to another age- it was a rude, brawling, heavy-drinking country of dour peasants and landowning warriors. The language was Greek, but so tainted by barbarian strains that Athenians could not understand it. Macedonia remained an outland. Growth of trade in the early fourth century promoted the rise of several cities, yet when Perdiccas III, king of Macedonia, fell in 359 B.C. while fighting the Illyrians the seaboard of his state was largely under Athenian control or in the hands of the Chalcidian league, grouped about Olynthus. Philip (382-36), brother of the dead king, was made regent for the infant heir, soon set aside his nephew, and became outright king. Once power was his, the young monarch swiftly brought order to his domain by armed force when necessary, by diplomatic guile whenever he could, Philip set out to make Macedon the greatest power in the Greek world. Alexander was born in 356 to the first wife of Philip. As a teenager Alexander was educated by Athenian philosopher Aristotle. By the year 337 all of the Greek city-states had been conquered or forced into an alliance by Philip. He was planning to lead their joint forces for an invasion of the Persian empire when he was assassinated in 336. Thus at the age of 20, Alexander became king of the Macedonians. After Philip's death, some Greek cities under Macedonian rule revolted. In 335 B.C. Alexander's army stormed the walls of the rebellious city of Thebes and demolished the city. About 30,000 inhabitants were sold in slavery. Alexander's action against Thebes discouraged, for a time, rebellion by other Greek cities With Greece under control, Alexander turned to his fathers plan for attacking the Persian Empire. In 334 B.C., he led an army of about 35,000 infantry and cavalry across the Hellespont from Europe to Asia.

All Americans Need Access to Health Care Essay -- ObamaCare Essays

America is known for democracy, freedom, and the American Dream. American citizens have the right to free speech, free press, the right to bear arms, and the right to religious freedom to name a few. The Declaration of Independence states that American citizens have the rights including â€Å"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.† America promises equality and freedom and the protection of their rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But with all the rights and freedoms that American citizens enjoy, there is one particular area where the United States seems to be lacking. That area is health care. The United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t have some form of legal recognition of a right to health care (Yamin 1157). Health care reform in the United States has become a major controversy for politicians, health care professionals, businesses, and citizens. Those in opposition to reform claim that health care is not a human right, therefore the government should not be involved. Supporters of reform believe that health care is most definitely a human right and should be available to everyone in the United States instead of only those who can afford it, and that it is the government’s responsibility to uphold that right. Out of all the industrialized countries in the world, the United States is the only one that doesn’t have a universal health care plan (Yamin 1157). The current health care system in the United States relies on employer-sponsored insurance programs or purchase of individual insurance plans. Employer-sponsored coverage has dropped from roughly 80 percent in 1982 to a little over 60 percent in 2006 (Kinney 809). The government does provide... ... Mar. 2011. "It Is Possible for the United States to Achieve Universal Health Care While Protecting Scientific Innovation." Universal Health Care. Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Kinney, Eleanor D. "Realization of the International Human Right to Health in an Economically Integrated North America." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37.4 (2009): 807-818. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. "National Insurance Could Prove Disastrous. (Cover story)." USA Today Magazine 133.2719 (2005): 1-2. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. Yamin, Alicia Ely. "The Right to Health Under International Law and Its Relevance to the United States." American Journal of Public Health 95.7 (2005): 1156-1161. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

Moses Mendelsohn and the Religious Enlightenment

â€Å"His life our standard, his teaching our light† Isaac Euchel wrote about Moses Mendelssohn. Moses was a model for Jews in Germany during the late 1770’s, and a dominant figure in the emergence of the Haskalah. The Haskalah borrowed many forms and categories from the already existing European Enlightenment, but its contents were largely derived from medieval Jewish philosophy and biblical exegesis. Within the novel, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, David Sorkin conveys how Moses made the German Enlightenment compatible with Judaism, and shows Moses to be a more consistent thinker than previously believed; his views on Judaism, natural laws, and natural rights developed early and remained consistent throughout his lifetime. Sorkin accounts Moses’ contributions to Jewish thought in three successive phases: philosophical, exegetical, and political. First, in the philosophical phase, Sorkin reveals the foundations of Moses’ thought. At an early age, Moses read the bible, memorized passages, studied Hebrew grammar, and wrote biblical poetry. All of these activates later were key in the Haskalah. In 1743, at fourteen, Moses moved to Berlin, which was at the center of the German Enlightenment, and theorist Christian Wolff was a dominating influence. Wolff’s focus was to natural theology, where he accounted that God's existence and attributes were the basis for theology and ethics. Influenced by Wolff, Moses sought to apply these Wolffian concepts to Judaism. Moses used his own version of Wolffian philosophy as a means to articulate his full belief in revealed religion. For example, he alluded that God was the source of all perfection and thus the source of metaphysics and natural theology. He thought that Enlightenment philosophy and Judaism complemented each other, and that philosophy served Judaism as an instrument of self-articulation. As a result, he began to write philosophical works in German, and Jewish works in Hebrew. Most important during the start of his career, he introduced a distinction between practical and theoretical in philosophy, which was also influenced by Wolff. Moses stressed a Jew’s primary obligation is â€Å"torah and good deeds†, not philosophical contemplation. To Moses, revelation set distinct limitation on theoretical knowledge, so he concentrated no practical knowledge, which was usually later seen in the form of commentary, since commentary was seen as the legitimate form through which truth is approached. Moses’ early Hebrew works were commentaries in which he attempted to renew the tradition of philosophy in Hebrew, again using ideas from Wolffian philosophy. His first work, The Kohelet Musar, was the first modern journal in Hebrew. Another subject he addresses is the concept of an ideal personality, which was in terms of ones individuals’ relationship to God and his fellowman. To Moses, the ideal is the â€Å"man of faith† who combines religious study, honest occupation, family, and trust in god. Also, in Moses’ early works, he argued the importance of the study of the Hebrew language and the bible. In a commentary on Maimonides’ Logical Terms, he insisted without Torah and tradition, we are â€Å"like a blind man in the dark†, and the true path to knowledge is the combination of torah and logic. Continuing the Wolffian beliefs, Moses asserted that although things might look accidental to man, to God they are all necessary. His early works such as The Kohelet Musar and Logical Terms were both commentaries that embodied Wolfian principles. However, The Book of the Soul, was different in the regard that it was a freestanding philosophical work that Moses withheld from publication. In Moses’ early works, Sorkin notes that the lack of any original content is significant. According to Sorkin, the conclusion of Moses’ philosophical career was with the Lavater affair in 1769-1770. By the end of the 1760’s, Moses’ philosophical position was established and would remain until the end of his life. He created a public dualism by publishing philosophical works in only German, and commentaries on Jewish subject in Hebrew. The Lavater affair contested Moses to support all of his fundamental ideas. Johann Caspar Lavater, a Swiss Protestant pastor infamously challenged Moses to refute the arguments of the theologian, Charles Bonnet, or convert to Christianity, which Lavater referred as a â€Å"Golden Bridge† to Christianity. However, this posed a public challenge to Moses as a philosopher and as a Jew. In response, Moses publically defended toleration on religious and philosophical grounds, but in private, he wrote counterattacks and criticized Christianity. This task was not simple, and he again used Wolffian principles help justify that Judaism was in perfect harmony with natural religion and reason. Sorkin interprets that Moses drove Lavater to end the affair, and made him isolate from the public, and Sorkin named this â€Å"the triumph of toleration†. Although Moses overcame Lavater, the affair also had grave consequences on Moses personally; the affair aggravated his physical and psychological condition. He was a hunchback, and developed a nervous debility, which was linked to his deformity, prevented abstract thinking and grew much worse during this Lavater affair. The next period of Moses’ career, Sorkin names Exegesis, where he focused on making the bible vital to the Haskalah. First, Moses created a commentary on Ecclesiastes that is part of â€Å"wisdom literature,† and thus was able to reiterate his preference of practical knowledge. He constructed a defense of Jewish exegesis on the basis of language, and strived to show how there are multiple meanings, which are reasonable. He said, â€Å"there are four methods of interpreting our holy torah-the literal, homiletical, allegorical, and esteric†, proving that words can bear multiple intentions. Also, in his commentary, Moses introduced divisions that did not follow the traditional chapters and verses in the bible, because he argued that traditional divisions were intended for the â€Å"convenience of the reader†. Another interesting aspect Moses brought up in Ecclesiastes, was that the idea that truth was universal and neutral, whatever its origins, meaning he deemed it permissible to use non-Jewish exegesis. Lastly, in this commentary, language was of importance because Moses used German translations in Hebrew characters, giving equivalents with entire sentence. Sorkin believes he did this to him, Hebrew was the ideal medium for the spread of the practical knowledge, in which laid the essence of Judaism. This Ecclesiastes commentary placed him at the head of the Haskalah’s efforts to revive biblical exegesis. Next, Moses worked for thirteen years on his translation on the Psalms, with the goal of producing an exegesis document of natural religion, translated in German, and would be source of practical knowledge for Jews and Christians. Sorkin brings attention to how Moses uses the term â€Å"edification† in reference to the Psalms, which emphasizes his desire for an exegesis that would encourage universal religiosity. In the Psalms, Moses asserts that the sublime is a form of art, and the highest form of beauty. Moses thus disagrees with the idea that God is â€Å"the most sublime being† because he believed that the sublime was not natural, but artistic, existing as a human creation. Furthermore, he affirms that the sublime’s aesthetic impact is admiration, and its spiritual impact is edification. Unfortunately, the translation of the Psalms was only a success among the Jews, and others stated that, â€Å"nothing could be further from the truth. † Sorkin viewed this as a confirmation that Moses’ best medium is commentary, not translation. During the same thirteen years that Moses translated the Psalms, he also translated, commented, and wrote an extensive introduction to the Pentateuch, titled Book of the Paths to Peace. This translation aimed to convey a literal meaning of the text through a fluent German translation. While Moses remained the key contributor, he had four Maskilim participate, and this made a shift in the Haskalah. This book is divided into three themes: practical knowledge, literal meaning, and the use of history. In the first part of the Book of Paths to Peace, Moses viewed the Pentateuch as the primary source of practical knowledge for the Jews. Sorkin noticed he repeatedly argues â€Å"virtue must be made into a â€Å"second nature† by the continual exercise of moral judgment. Moses asserted that compared to the rest of humanity Israel had a special role, because those who reside in there all â€Å"believe† and the bible is a handbook of practical knowledge. Also, in the Pentateuch, Moses wrote â€Å"man is by nature and social and will not achieve success without help from others of his kind†. Interesting, Moses stressed that God created everything, and he that he is beyond nature, and thus â€Å"science† had no place in a commentary on Creation, which further showed his resistance to theoretical knowledge. Sorkin again demonstrated how Moses kept consistent in his views, since practical knowledge already played in other works. The next portion emphasized the literal meaning as the focus of exegesis. Due to the bible being the primary source of practical knowledge, the need to make its literal meaning known was vital for Moses. His basic premise was that the Bible had a unique oral quality that made it the most effective means of transmitting practical knowledge. He stressed the importance of grammar, and believed only with knowledge of grammar, does Gods’ word both literal and homiletical make sense, because grammar is essential to the tradition of Jewish scriptural transmission. It is this tradition that prevents the Jews from being â€Å"like a blind man in the dark,† and Sorkin points out that Moses used the same metaphor here as he did with Logical Terms. Moses believed that due to the structure of biblical poetry, that it was the most successful method for teaching practical knowledge. The last portion of the Book of the Paths to Peace, Moses established and defended his belief in Judaism through history. History helped establish Moses’ faith. Sorkin alluded that Moses was historical without being historicist, because he recognized history in the Pentateuch rather than the Pentateuch as a product of history. Sorkin notes that viewing history in this fashion was integral to the Haskalah and typical of the religious enlightenment. The Book of the Paths to Peace eventually had wide acceptance, even though some attacked the book. The book was meant to instruct Jewish youth, but since Moses used complex German, it forced students to concentrate on that language instead of the contents. Lastly, The final phase Sorkin accounts for in Moses’ life is his political activism. Moses was politically involved almost his entire career as a thinker and writer. Now, he focused on the state and individual rights from the viewpoint of a Jew living in hardships. Continuing the Wolffian philosophy, he emphasized a politics based on ideas of natural rights to promote legal equality. Initially, Moses arrived in the political arena by being an intercessor. Sorkin found this unsurprising since Moses was a philosopher and writer. Communities sought Moses in times of conflict, and usually Moses’ intercession was successful. For example, the Duke in the community of Mecklenburg prohibited the Jewish practice of early burial. Moses was asked to help, so he served as an intercessor, and the duke granted the Jews the privilege of religious liberty. However, Moses took this matter further, by trying to renew the ritual practice, just as he tried to renew the traditions of philosophy and exegesis. In 1777, Moses transitioned from the politics of intercession to the politics of emancipation, when he responded to the community of Dresden’s problem of Jew’s facing high taxation or expulsion. Moses’ letter asserted that Jews were being excluded from society because of their religion. His work, The Ritual Laws of the Jews was seen as an integral part of his Jewish thought, and referred to as a handbook on practical knowledge. Later, Moses took on dealing with Jewish rights. Sorkin implies that Moses’ advocacy of rights was fundamentally new, yet there was also substantial continuity with his earlier thought. Moses demonstrated that history plays an even more important role in his political thinking than in his biblical exegesis since human liberties were the issue rather than divine work. In order to understand Jews’ situation in terms of rights, Moses translated Rousseau’s Discourse. Moses maintained a balance between individual rights and absolutist state, and asked Christian Wilhelm Dohm to write a tract advocating emancipation of the Jews, and it was widely influential. Moses wrote an elaborate preface to the translation of Rousseau’s Discourse, which was divided into three parts, and titled Vindiciae Judaeorum. In the preface, it was the first time he publicly advocated â€Å"civic acceptance† or equal rights. An occurring theme in the preface was Moses expressing what he did not agree with Dohm’s memorandum, specifically with Dohm’s ban of excommunication. Moses deemed that religious excommunication invaded on civil rights because it involved the political authorities. Since he denied religion’s right to excommunicate, he was set apart from the mainstream of that scholarship. A month after he published Vindiciae Judaeorum, he also published his translation of the Psalms. The Psalms received little attention, while Vindiciae had a huge impact. A pamphlet appeared criticizing Moses’ work, but it was published as a famous Austrian statesman in order to be taken seriously, but truly, a minor writer August Cranz wrote it. Cranz posed more of a challenge to Moses’ faith than the Lavater’s affair; Moses had to realize that Christianity was the true religion and prepare to convert or admit Judaism was imperfect and in need of fundamental reform. Moses reacted to Cranz’s pamphlet by creating Jerusalem, or On Religious Power and Judaism, which Sorkin views as Moses’ fullest elaboration of his views on rights and the nature of Judaism. Jerusalem is divided into two parts; part one addresses Cranz’ contention that in â€Å"repudiating the ban of excommunication, he had repudiated Judaism. Moses argues mainly on the basis of natural rights. Moses’ theory of church and state is rooted in his idea of benevolence. He thought the best state was one whose members were able to govern themselves through education, and the institution capable of providing such education was religion. Moses also went back to Wolffian principle of metaphysics by asserting that liberty of conscience was crucial for the achievement of man’s eternal vocation. In part two, Moses addressed Cranz’s view that Moses left Judaism, and abandoned religion altogether. Moses answered using philosophical views, and switched between his exposition of Judaism and a digression of a specific subject to advance his argument, and to continue his method of writing German philosophy in German, and Judaism in Hebrew. He argued on the basis of revealed legislation. He stated that Judaism is a religion of revealed legislation, not of revealed beliefs. He asserted that only through a second revelation, comparable to the one at Sinai, could God establish the authority necessary to introduce changes into the practice of the law. The two parts of Jerusalem, fit closely together, since many of the themes developed in part one are discussed in part two. To conclude Sorkin’s argument, Moses was a traditional Jewish figure who sought to renew traditional philosophy and Biblical exegesis in Hebrew. Sorkin successfully displayed how Moses made the German Enlightenment compatible with the Haskalah, and stayed constant with his philosophy throughout his life. It is only normal that after reading Sorkin’s Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment that certain parts were more striking than others. Not only are certain aspects of the book especially intriguing, but also, I do not agree with certain theories that Moses posed. Also, I cannot help but compare the Haskalah to the European Enlightenment that preceded it. First, it is miraculous how one person can make a difference in others lives. Moses lived during a time where Jewish communities were suffering from not having equal rights in society. Jews were denied education, certain occupations, citizen status, and were the first ones to be held responsible for problems or crimes. The fact that Moses, with his short stature and hunchback, still had the confidence and ability to make reforms in society is unbelievable. Sorkin only mentioned Moses’ deformity once, and it is of graver importance than that. People who are blessed without any deformities take for granted how easy their life is, and I believe that more acknowledgements should be given to Moses for enduring such a struggle. Also, in Sorkin’s reference to Moses’ deformity, he also mentioned a nervous debility that was linked to his abnormality, which prevented conceptual thinking, and grew worse after the Lavater affair. The fact that this was only mentioned once, and in one quick sentence gives the impression that this was not a serious issue. However, if such a physiological condition occurred in Moses, one would think that since all of his works entailed abstract thinking, since he was a philosopher, that this would have severe consequences on his career. Yet, Moses was able to produce numerous works after the Lavater affair and many of them were highly praised. It makes one speculate, if Sorkin’s information about Moses’ nervous disability is completely accurate. Another part of the book that caught my attention was the aftermath of Christian Wilhelm Dohm’s publication of On the Civic Amelioration of the Jews, even though he was doing Moses a favor by writing it, and it provoked a major debate that made the rights of Jews a public issue, which is what Moses wanted. However, Sorkin displayed many aspects that Moses did not agree with what Christian wrote. For instance, Moses took issue with the notion that artisanry and farming are the sole sources of wealth, and with the ban of excommunication. Moses affirmed that no one could legitimately claim to exercise authority over another’s belief. Sorkin’s writing gave the impression that Moses was angry with Christian for putting certain beliefs in writing. This caught me by surprise because I was under the impression that Christian and Moses were good friends. The fact that Christian agreed to write this document, even though Moses was asked to write it, implied that they were in agreement with what was to be written. The way that Sorkin addressed this conflict in the book further suggests that Christian went against what Moses asked of him, and used this as an opportunity to voice his own opinions on the issue of Jewish emancipation. Furthermore, in a way, one can view Christian as being a catalyst for Cranz’s challenge. The connection is that Christian published work that Moses felt the need to counter in Vindiciae Judaeorum, and thus gave rise to Cranz challenging Moses. Additionally, I discovered that certain areas in the book negated Moses’ entire goal of the Haskalah. First, it is important to recall that prior to the rise of the Haskalah, most Christian thinkers thought Judaism was an irrational dark religion that did not allow for the age of Enlightenment. Hence gave rise to the premise that Jews were incapable of reaching such intellectual levels. Interestingly, Sorkin and Moses both acted in ways that confirm this idea. First, Moses published philosophy in German and commentaries in Hebrew. This action can be seen as if he was making it harder for Jews to reach an enlightened state. By publishing philosophy in German, which most Jews could not read, he further separated them from society. Also, not only were his philosophical works in German, but also they were in such a high level of German, that was very rare for a Jew to be able to write at this level. This also made it harder for Jews to understand his German works. Another instance is seen when the translation of the Psalms was only a victory among the Jews, and while non-Jews stated, â€Å"nothing could be further from the truth. † Sorkin viewed this as a confirmation that Mendelssohn’s best medium is commentary, not translation. Two things are happening in this situation. First, the reaction from society demonstrates that indeed the Jews are not as intelligent as the non-Jews because they thought Moses’ commentary was brilliant, when the majority of the population thought it was not legitimate to be a valid translation. Second, Sorkin’s account that Moses’ best means is commentary, shows that Sorkin is agreeing with the statement that his translation did not contain enough truth, thus putting Moses in the category of not being able to obtain enlightened thought. Next, in comparison to the European Enlightenment, the Haskalah is very different, even though it emerged because of the Enlightenment. The European Enlightenment held faith in the power of human reason to illuminate the world, rather than divine revelation. It encouraged an attitude of critical reflection, rather than an acceptance of received wisdom. Also, the Enlightenment was in sync with the Scientific Revolution in the early 1770’s and created the concept that science is a form of knowledge (Western Civilizations). In contrast, Moses affirmed that the best state was one whose members were able to govern themselves through education, and it was through religious institutions that are most capable of providing such education. This thinking is completely opposite of the Enlightenment, because their goal was to forget about religious teachings, and only learn from science, and other forms of confirmed reason. Another example that is contrasted to the Enlightenment is when Moses pleaded that a general disquisition on â€Å"science† had no place in a commentary on Creation. Members of the Enlightenment used the theory of evolution to explain the creation of the universe, which is all based on science. Also, using Wolffian beliefs, Mendelssohn asserted that although things might look accidental to man, to God they are all necessary, implying that everything on Earth happens for a reason. Again, this is not in accord with the Enlightenment philosophy because they do not refer to a God creating the future of the world, instead they sought evidence and valid truths to prove their beliefs that all is created through science and man labor. Interestingly, there are similarities between Moses Mendelssohn and Immanuel Kant, who was a key figure of the European Enlightenment. Moses became a member of Wednesday Society, which was devoted to political subjects. He often gave lectures; his most common lecture was â€Å"What is enlightenment? Similarly, Immanuel Kant became known by answering the question: What is Enlightenment? † written as a response to the Reverend Zollner. Kant also proposed to eliminate certain church and state restrictions, just as Moses did in Jerusalem. Although a huge difference is Kant believed religion infringed on one’s ability to full reason, while Moses saw religion, specifically Judaism as an integral part of the Haskalah, it is important to notice the comparisons between the two, especially since they are regarded as holding such different ideologies (Perspectives on the Past). Overall, Moses Mendelssohn was a principal figure in the creation of the Haskalah. He was a model Jew, and made many contributions to Jewish life during the end of the eighteenth century. After reading the novel, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment, I now have a better understanding and respect for Moses Mendelssohn and the Haskalah. David Sorkin succeeded in providing information that accurately describes Moses’ philosophical works and showed how Moses made the German Enlightenment compatible with Judaism.