Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Essay Example for Free

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Essay A. What is the difference between a contribution income statement and a traditional income statement? Contribution income statement is an income statement that classifies cost by behavior (fixed cost and variable cost). Traditional income statement is sometimes called the functional income statement. It is an income statement prepared in the multiple-step or single –step income statement format which conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and can be used for external financial reporting. The main difference between the two is that the contribution income statement list variable costs first, followed by fixed costs. Keeping in mind that GAAP and does not permit businesses to use the contribution income statement for financial accounting – it is used only for internal decision making purposes. B. What is the difference between absorption costing and variable costing? Absorption costing is a costing method where product cost includes all the costs to acquire products and get them ready to sell regardless of whether the costs are variable or fixed. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles requires business to use absorption costing for financial accounting. Variable costing is a method of costing where only the costs to acquire products or to get them ready to sell that vary with output are treated as product costs. In other words, only variable product costs are treated as product costs. For manufactures, the difference between absorption costing and variable costing is significant. For example, when Caterpillar uses absorption costing to determine the cost of manufacturing, its product cost includes the direct material, direct labor, variable manufacturing overhead, and fixed manufacturing overhead cost incurred to make the bulldozer. These costs are added to inventory and they are not expensed as cost of goods sold until the bulldozer is sol. However, when Caterpillar uses variable costing, product cost, includes only direct material, direct labor, and variable manufacturing overhead costs. Under variable costing all of Caterpillar’s fixed manufacturing overhead cost is treated as period cost. When Caterpillar uses variable costs are added to inventory (direct material, direct labor, and variable manufacturing overhead). Under variable costing, Caterpillar expenses fixed manufacturing overhead as it is incurred just like it does other period cost such as selling and administrative expense. F. What is the contribution margin ratio and how does it differ from the contribution margin? Contribution margin is the amount remaining after all variable costs have been deducted from sales revenue. It is an important piece of information for managers, because it tells them how much of their company’s original sales dollars remain after deducting variable cost. Contribution margin ratio is the contribution margin expressed as a percentage of sales. Contribution margin ratio can be calculate by dividing the total contribution margin by total sales or by dividing the per unit contribution margin by per unit selling prices.

Balance Score Card As A Performance

Balance Score Card As A Performance Leading organizations has been successfully using performance measurement to gain insight into the organization and the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs, processes, and people. However, they do not stop at collecting and analysis of data rather, these organizations use performance measurement to force improvements and successfully transform strategy into action. Therefore, they use performance measurement for managing their organizations. The balanced scorecard (BSC) is the most widely applied performance management system today. The BSC was originally developed as a performance measurement system in 1992 by Dr.Robert Kaplan and Dr. David Norton at the Harvard Business School. Unlike earlier performance measurement systems, the BSC measures performance across a number of different perspectives-a financial, a customer, an internal business process, and an innovation and learning perspective. BSC was introduced at a time when businesses were evaluating performance only through a financial scope and the different perspectives added a new dimension to the performance management concept. However over the years a number of alternatives have been introduced to replace BSC such as Applied Information Economics (AIE), Performance Prism, Results based management Model etc. This is mainly due to the changes in the environment which is beyond the four quadrants of BSC and basic implementation issues experienced in BSC. The Balanced Score Card has to go through a transformation in order to survive and revive itself as powerful performance management tool. Balance Score Card Introduction The field of performance management in todays day and age is vital to any organization. This importance can be defined through John E Jones quote What gets measured gets done, what gets measured and fed back gets done well, what gets rewarded gets repeated. John E. Jones. Performance Management can be of two main aspects. In one view, the performance of the company as a whole and further the effectiveness of the management of their capabilities of running the business successfully are looked at while in another view performance management system of evaluating employees to help them reach their respective goals and thereby ensure that the company meets the companys overall objectives. When the word â€Å"measurement† comes to our mind, it has always been through a financial scope. There by performance of an entity was always measured through measures such as Return on Investment (ROI), Earnings Per Share (EPS),Gearing Ratio, Net Profit After Tax (NPAT), and Sales Turnover etc. However when the environment became gradually more competitive and complex there were more stakeholders involved in a business. The customers were one of the main stakeholders interested in the activities in the organization. Their demand evolved and along with that how they perceive performance also too dramatic change. They were no more content with only financial evaluation of the organization; measures such as market share, customer satisfaction, productivity, and innovation etc were more appealing. It was during this transition, the balance score card was introduced by Dr. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and David Norton as a performance measurement framework that added strategic non-financial performance measures to traditional financial metrics to give a more balanced view of organizational performance. The balanced scorecard is a strategic management tool used for translating an organizations strategic objectives into a set of performance indicators distributed among four quadrants. Some of these indicators are maintained to measure an organizations advancement towards its vision and other indicators are maintained to measure the long term drivers of success. Through the balanced scorecard, an organization monitors both its current performance and its efforts to improve processes, motivate and educate employees. Balance Score Card History The balance score card has been known to be created by Kaplan and Norton however there is a historical twist to this as for my findings on www.wikipedia.com. The first balance scorecard was created by an independent consultant called Art Schneiderman in 1987.He participated in a research study in 1990 led by by Dr. Robert S. Kaplan and was able to describe his work on balanced score card. Subsequently, Kaplan and David P. Norton included anonymous details of this use of balanced scorecard in their 1992 article on Balanced Scorecard. Kaplan and Nortons article wasnt the only paper on the topic published in early 1992 but the 1992 Kaplan and Norton paper was a popular success, and was quickly followed by a second in 1993.The balances score card was widely spoken of only through their articles and journals. Kaplan and Norton researched on BSC through a project involving 12 companies. Thereby BSC became Kaplan Norton Balance Score Card and they were identified as the creators. Balanced Scorecard has been awarded a prize by the American Accounting Association as the â€Å"best theoretical contribution in 1997†. Balance Sore Card Perspectives As explained earlier BSC is a tool which monitors organizational strategies by using a combination of financial and non financial measures. It is designed to interpret strategy in to objectives and measure it across four balanced perspectives, namely Financial, Customer, Internal Business Process and Learning and Growth. The BSC directs to develop metrics, collect data and analyze as for these for quadrants in order to have an overall perspective. The pictorial view of the perspectives is as follows: The Financial Perspective This perspective reviews if the strategies of the company contribute towards the bottom line of the company. The virtue of Balance Score Card (BSC) is that it represents both leading and lagging performance measures. Traditional lagging indicators include financial measures, such as revenue growth and profitability. As it implies financial data is mostly historical data and organizations are measured based on its past performance. This perspective clearly describes how the organization looks to the shareholders. Few of the measures that can be used are : Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) Return on Investment (ROI) Market Share Revenue Growth Profitability Economic Value Added ( EVA) The Customer Perspective This aspect reviews how customers perceive the organization. And today, the buzz word in the corporate world is customer service. The importance given to this concept is immense due to the competitiveness and the buyer bargaining power. Therefore customer focus, customer satisfaction, on time delivery etc are leading indicators. Poor Performance from this perspective is a leading indicator of downfall in future business even if the financial indicators are healthy. In developing metrics for satisfaction, customers should be analyzed in terms of kinds of customers and the kinds of processes for which we are providing a product or service to those customer groups. Metrics for the customer perspective could include: No.of Complaints On Time Deliveries Repeat Purchases Customer Acquisition Customer Retention The Internal Business Process Perspective This assesses the quality of people and processes. This perspective refers to internal business processes which the company should improve in order to achieve its objectives and give customers both satisfaction and productivity. Traditional methods only looked at improving existing systems however the balanced scorecard has the ability to identify entirely new processes that the business should succeed, in order to achieve customer satisfaction. The measures for this have to be developed very carefully as understanding the business process is crucial. The measures should focus on internal processes that will have the greatest impact on customer satisfaction and achieving business objectives. Potential measures for the internal perspective include: Amount of reworking Increase in productivity % of defects Increase in capacity utilization The Learning Growth Perspective This perspective concentrates on the areas an organization must improve, on continuous improvement, and creating value in the future. The focus is on the intangible assets of the organization. The future of any organization today lies on how innovative and evolving it is, thereby this perspective encourages this aspect. Further the perspective includes employee training and corporate cultural attitudes related to both individual and corporate self-improvement. The following metrics could be used to measure success in relation to the innovation and learning perspective: No of New Products introduced No of Trainings done per period Research Development as a % of Sales Employee suggestion which were implemented Critical Evaluation of the Balance Score Card An organization without a performance management system is like a ship in the deep blue sea without a compass, not knowing if the direction it sails is correct nor knowing how to improve its direction. Therefore the purpose of measuring performance is not only to know how the entity is performing but also to enable it to perform better. The Balanced Scorecard concept measures whether the companies are aligned with its larger-scale objectives in terms of vision and strategy. It focuses not only on financial outcomes but also on the human aspect as explained earlier under the introduction and the perspectives area. Thereby the BSC provides an overall view of the organization and the business. This is contrasting to the traditional method of being only financial oriented only. The measurements used in the separate perspectives are explained in the earlier section. The balanced scorecard is not only a measurement system but is a management system as well. It enables organizations to clarify their vision and strategy to its employees and translate them in to operational goals or action plans. The evolution of BSC from its simple performance measurement framework to a strategic planning and management system is gradual. Further the BSC is also useful to communicate the expectations expected from the employees. This can be done through clearly defining the measures or KPIs to be achieved by individual or department. To elaborate this in order to achieve overall objectives of the organization of Sales growth by 10%, Employee A,B C of Production Department can contribute by keeping the lead time of goods 98% as expected or better than customer expectation. Employee D E of Sales team can target to ensure customer complaints are attended to within 24hours which is an industry norm. As explained in this, the Sales growth of 10% is expected to come through attending to customer order on time (lead time) and customer service (handling complaints). Cascading the organizational objectives to the lowest level employee will pave the way for success. As explained the balance scorecard has evolved over the years to be identified as a â€Å"strategic linkage model† or a strategy map. The strategy map enables organizations to clarify their strategy and assist organizations with creating their BSC framework and measures. A generic corporate strategy map is provided below to illustrate the â€Å"Strategy Map† concept. The balance score card has the ability to identify the key areas which can make a huge impact in an organization. The critical success factors of each perspective can be identified through the well defined measurement criteria. As for the results of the KPIs the management has the ability to identify the superior and weaker link of the organization and take action to correct the situation. A business might be performing well with increased sales, however the production team might have a ratio of increased defect rates. This might not reflect in the top line as the production team ensures the sales are not slowed down by covering up with increased production. If the internal process is not reviewed properly the production defect rates will not highlighted. This is where the BSC becomes a critical tool to identify critical success factors. The balanced scorecard approach can be used and applied at both the individual and the organizational level. It provides a balanced approach to evaluate the employees performance in a comprehensive manner. Traditionally, measuring the employee performance refers to only the comparing of their action plans and behaviors with the standards set. However the BSC actually measures the results of their actions like profits, increasing market share. It considers the progress towards achieving the goals and objectives of the organization and the effectiveness of the process. Thereby, the balanced scorecard gives the full view of the employees and the organizational performance and it helps to align the employee performance plans with the organizational goals. The Balanced Scorecard provides a stage for feedback and in turn a process for learning as well. Feedback about products, new learnings discoveries can be included in to the scorecard. Based on the measures employees can be given feedback and also training in order to improve the processes. This helps to refine the processes on a continuous basis with the use of the feedback. Thereby once a balanced scorecard system is in place, it allows for ongoing monitoring of goals and objectives. BSC benefits to maximize co-operation between teams. Employee helps one another to achieve their respective overall KPIs. This helps to build the team culture in the organization. The BSC drives a performance drive in to the business with its set objectives and continuos feedback. And if the objectives are linked to rewards, employees are very well motivated to achieve the set targets. The BSCs ability to give a wide view of the business operations makes it a formidable tool in the business world. The four perspectives of the scorecard permit a balance between short term and long term objectives, between desired outcomes and the performance drivers of the outcome, between soft measures and hard measures. However having gone through the positives of the Balanced Score Card, this tool has its negatives as well. The Balanced score card in was introduced in the early 90s and now the business environment has seen many changes. Has the Balanced Score Card got all requirements to still qualify as good performance management tool in current context? , will be discussed in detail in the following section. The organization through different elements in BSC analyzes the organizations performance and these measures are vital in creating a good balanced scorecard. Once the balance score card is implemented, you can not presume the business environment to be the same. In current context the volatility of the business environment is so rapid therefore the nature of your business can change in time, which means the BSC too has to be modified accordingly. It is a time consuming affair to maintain a scorecard but if it is not done properly the organizations ability to evaluate its employees will become an issue. The business should be able to give a considerable time to upkeep or maintain the scorecard, if not; it might not be a good solution for the business. The balance scorecard attempts to involve employees from all levels in the organization by cascading the vision and strategies. Despite inherent attempts to empower employees, the balanced scorecard is still seen to be based around a centralized, prescriptive model. Even though BSC focuses on dynamism and constant feedback it would still react slow to bottom level suggestions based on the organizational culture and background. In their book in 2007, Kaplan Norton (2007) mentioned that implementing a BSC would take a minimum time line of 26 months. Another weakness in BSC or a question which remains unanswered is how well the BSC will function in a dynamic environment. Organizations today are going through a paradigm shift. Internet and Information Technology as a whole has made the world a global market. Thereby the businesses also have to adapt to different environments, new changes in order to survive. Is BSC a model which is fast enough for this adaptation? , is a query in most peoples mind. Currently any measurement tools have to be modified taking in to account the dynamic changes in the environment in order to make it a pervasive tool. As discussed in the previous areas the BSC is designed to measure performance through four major perspectives. However questions are raised now whether these perspectives are sufficient to measure a business performance. As indicated in the BSC History this model was introduced in the early 90s, however the organizations and the environments they perform in have moved much further and there are many other concepts which are significant for an organizations long term sustainability. As an example the Green concept was only a thought in the early 90s but today its a way of life for organizations. Even customers are concerned in how respectful their brands are to the environment. Corporate Social Responsibility is another indicator that organizations have stepped out of the traditional financial performance criteria, and they are actually weighed for the contribution they make to the society. It is used as a way of marketing too. These areas have a special place in the annual report an d it is the pride of any organization to report their contribution to the society and the environment. Further ethical practices play a main role in reporting and in anything an organization does. After the Enron issue ethics have been discussed in the corporate tables and it does matter in blue chip companies to be ethical towards its stakeholders and shareholders. However these elements have not been touched upon on the balance score card. Another observation on BSC is on the weight given on the four perspectives, the standard weight given may not be applicable to all organizations. It might vary from industry to industry and even internal divisions might have varied measures, thereby based on the importance of the perspective has to be reviewed before weighs are assigned. Based on the research by Kaplan Norton (2003) it has been found that using about 20 -25 measures is the usual recommended practice. Figure 3 drawn from an article written by Dr David Norton illustrates the weights assigned for each perspective, with greater emphasis on internal business process, as it is the primary source through which the strategy of the organization is implemented. The balance score card weights should not be a pre defined and should be a management decision based on industry norms etc. At IFS which is an organization keen on research and development and learning, the emphasis on the internal process and learning and growth perspectives will be high. However if we take a bank, Financial stability, Customer service and the Internal Processes are all vital and require high weight. Thereby it is crucial on understanding the concept properly on assigning weights as it is a crucial part of BSC. The stakeholders form the main category of any organization, because they are the group of people who will be affected from the decisions made by the organization. The customers perspectives have been included in to the Balanced score card however the other main categories which I felt lacking in BSC are the suppliers and the competitors. The suppliers are key to a companys source of raw materials and supplier management can bring monetary benefits to the organization. Organization should always keep a tab of its competitors and scores should be kept to follow up on direct competitors. As adding more perspectives will complicate the BSC, I have suggested a recommended way of handling this under recommendation section. Though the balanced score card could be reward the employees it is criticized when performance evaluation and incentives are related to it. It has been found that when rewards are linked to the scorecard directly, productivity drops considerably. This is mainly due to the fear by the employee that he/she maybe made responsible for factors which is beyond their control. Thereby they may tend to keep a margin or levy when agreeing upon targets in order to achieve the targets and get the incentives in a relaxed way. However this is not critic on the BSC concept, it is an issue with the implementation. Another criticism is that the Balanced Scorecard does not provide a bottom line score. The scores are not assigned based on any proven economic or financial theory. The bottom line score does not give a unified view with clear recommendations. It acts only as a simple list of metrics and how they are interpreted will vary from organization and industry. Therefore the implementation and the management commitment and intelligence in interpreting the measures play a main role in the success of BSC. Further to elaborate on this for BSC it is not usually sufficient to use generic measures used by other organizations. Each business should strive to identify the firm specific measures that are appropriate to implement their strategies and achieve the vision of the company. This relies upon the competency of the management. Further many companies use only lagging measures which shows results of a past event. For the balance score card to be successful the business should include leading measures as well, which will indicate the future of the business. Many managers get carried away with BSC by only including non financial measures however to reap the full benefit of BSC managers have to include future indicators (leading measures) as well. A research conducted by Claude Levy, a professor at the Free University of Amsterdam reported that the failure rate of BSC implementation is 70% and this is mainly due to the many number of metrics and employees not having an understanding of the metrics. Due to its long duration in implementation many organizations use a balanced scorecard system. However this cost a lot of money in training time and additional money for any consultants that are needed during the process. Therefore the initial cost in implementing the balanced scorecard is huge. Balance Score Card Recommended Improvements Based on the evaluation above I suggest the following to improve the current balanced score card. The main stakeholders such as competitors and suppliers should also be entered in to the BSC. As including another area will complicate the score card, I suggest these stakeholders are identified under internal business process however even 2-3 measures/KPI each has to be assigned for each stakeholder under this area. Many alternative tools have been designed based on the BSC framework and the â€Å"Performance Prism† is one such customized BSC framework which takes in to account five perspectives, which includes stakeholders as well. The BSC design should be broader in order to accommodate the environmental aspect, Society and Ethics. However complicating the BSC with many perspectives will not serve the purpose either. Therefore the balanced score card should have an industry specific format with assigned measures. This standard could be used for the firm and customized if required. The measures used should be between 25-30 maximum with the newly included areas as well. Too many measures mean most of the time nothing gets measured at all. The weights assigned to the perspectives should be decided based on the firm and the importance of the processes relevant to the business. I feel that it is hard to pre-define the weights in todays context and it should be a management decision, however in order to ensure order prevail they could get audit support on assigning weightage. On implementation of the BSC it is of utmost importance that the objective of the concept is clearly communicated. Further if the measures/KPIs are discusses with line managers and staff before entering it to the scorecard the employees will feel ownership towards the KPIs. And thus can avoid any issues later arising when rewards are linked to KPIs. Linking incentives to the achievement of these KPIs is a motivator, and I feel should be an integral part of BSC. The BSC will not be successful if it does not include leading measures as well as the lagging measures. At the end of the day it is all about improving your future. Thereby there should be a specification on BSC that out of the total measures even 40% should be leading measures and that there should be even one for each quadrant. The balanced scorecard or any other performance management tool is driven by a well defined strategy of the organization. It is the understanding of the linkages between the objectives and metrics that is the foundation of the BSC. Thereby if the business is not equipped with a good strategy and competent management team, I feel the BSC is not the performance management tool for them. The balance score card with its metrics should be an automated system. In present scenario, unnecessary issues can be resolved if a balanced scorecard software is installed. The organization should also give adequate time for training the staff. Conclusion The Balanced Score Card is the pioneer tool in focusing on a range of perspectives which included financial and non-financial factors. The tool is built to focus on past and future of the business with its lagging and leading measures. However in an ever evolving business environment, the BSC has failed to evolve with time. And the balance scorecard depends heavily upon how it is used or interpreted. Therefore the management commitment towards BSC is vital for its success. The biggest critic for BSC is that its disability to be maintained in a dynamic environment. The industry specific BSC designs will be more applicable and more flexible. And these formats can include the perspectives relevant to that industry. For example for the power generation industry the environmental perspective should be mandatory. Further if the Balance Score card software is used the time factor for implementation can be reduced. The weights assigned to each perspective should also be firm specific and the KPIs should be reviewed on a constant basis in order to ensure that they are real time KPIs. The balance score card is still a popular tool among many mainly due to its simple to understand concept. All organizations are trying to gain an advantage over the other at all times, therefore if one organization takes the first step towards another performance management tool, the Balance scorecard will see a slow death.

Free College Essays - Symbolism in Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter :: Scarlet Letter essays

The Scarlet Letter - Symbolism Nathaniel Hawthorne uses symbolism several times in the book, The Scarlet Letter. Some examples of this are when they talk of the scaffold, the brook, the forest, and the sunshine. The one that I will discuss is the sunshine. Hawthorne uses sunshine in the novel to symbolize purity and hope several times throughout the book. In one scene of the book, Pearl requests that Hester grab some sunshine and give it to her to play with. Hester then replies, "No, my little Pearl! Thou must gather thine own sunshine. I have none to give thee." (p.104) Hester has no sunshine to give Pearl because she has committed adultery and is not pure. Another example is when Hester and Pearl are taking a walk through the forest when a dark cloud came over the sky and Pearl said, "Mother," said little Pearl, "the sunshine does not love you. It runs away and hides itself, because it is afraid of something on your bosom." Pearl says this just innocently playing around, not having a clue of exactly how right sh e is. She says that the sun fears the "A" and avoids the impurity of it at all costs, even disappearing from the sky. Later in that walk, Hawthorne again shows how the sun refuses to be around Hester and her sin. Hester tells Pearl to run off and catch the sun and so she sets off at a great pace and, in her innocence, she seemingly catches it and stands right in the midst of it. Hester comes over and attempts to come over bask in the sunshine and Pearl says, while shaking her head, "It will go now." Hester replies, "See! Now I can stretch out my hand and grasp some of it," but "As she attempted to do so, the sunshine vanished." This shows how the sun, being pure, adorned the Pearl in her innocence, while it shunned Hester for her impurity. Hawthorne shows the symbol of sunshine best in the chapter appropriately titled, "A Flood of Sunshine." In this particular scene, Dimmesdale and Hester are discussing what Dimmesdale will do about the current situation with their relationship. Dim mesdale announces that he will leave the community, and he must do it alone. In the heat of the moment Hester declares that he will not have to go alone, and she takes off her bonnet and throws down the

The Great Departure :: Great Departure Essays

The Great Departure Daniel Smith’s, The Great Departure illustrates very well the United State’s evolution from a traditionally isolationist nation to an interventionist nation. WWI literally dragged the U.S. out of its isolationist shell and placed the U.S. at the forefront of international politics. The pressure to join WWI was resisted greatly by the Wilson administration and the country as a whole. Smith does an excellent job at presenting the factors that influenced the U.S. to enter the war and at conveying the mind set of American leaders during this time and the issues they faced pertaining to the war. The author illustrates the factors of interest or the eventual causes involvement in WWI in chapters II, III, IV. He offers good points to the issues and now I would like to discuss some of the issues he has mentioned. Propaganda was a tool used by Germany and the allies to influence the U.S., whether that propaganda was used to keep the U.S. out of the war or to try and draw the U.S . into the war makes no real difference. The extent of propaganda in the U.S. is shown by the Dr. Albert’s briefcase affair and the German execution of Nurse Edith Cavell and other atrocities of war carried out by either side. The author, while recognizing the importance of these propaganda stories and the heterogeneous culture of the U.S., underestimates the actual impact on public sentiment it actually had I feel. The U.S., "the great melting pot" had an enormous immigrant population, to underestimate the effect of propaganda on a population that had close personal ties to their homeland, and their ability to influence the actions of government in a democratic republic is a mistake. President Wilson was operating under this assumption that the people would influence the government when he neglected to accept any of the Senator Lodge’s changes to the peace treaty. While I agree with Smith that this is not the reason the U.S. joined the allies in WWI, I feel the heterogenous makeup of the U.S. population is possibly the major influence the U.S. had to move away from an isolationist state. Balance of Powers was another great factor that influenced the U.S. in its views of WWI. The U.S. and the world had come to rely on the principle of balance of power to ensure peace, security and trade throughout the world, and it was no doubt that a victory by the Central Powers would catapult Germany to superpower status and upset the balance of power in Europe and thus the rest of the world.

Use of Dialogue in The Sun Also Rises :: Hemingway Sun Also Rises Essays

Use of Dialogue in The Sun Also Rises The remarkable thing about the book was its liberal use of dialogue and how Hemingway used it to carry the reader through the book. There was no plot in the book in the sense that there was no twists, intrigue, or goals for any of the characters and the dialogue was the only thing that moved the reader through the book. Hemingway used so much dialogue that it was difficult at times to follow who was saying what, but I believe this didn't matter because any of the characters, except for maybe Jake, could have been carrying on those conversations. I say anyone except Jake because he was different than all the other characters in more ways than just being the narrator. He obviously had received a wound from W.W.I that caused him to be sexually scarred and thus set him apart from anyone else. Jake seemed to be an observer who was watching the lives of his friends unfold and happen around him, but without his participation. I read that Hemingway had purposely re-written the book in first person and this was probably to spell out that Jake was an observer and was thus aware of what was written on the pages. There is a scene towards the end of the book where Jake finds all of his friends eating at a restaurant and thinks to himself that he is too far behind to catch up. Jake always seems behind, or at least only a marginal player put so in his position because of his injury. He must have had relations with Brett before the injury and was a "player" before it, so this leads to the assumption that Jake purposely removed himself from being a participant. As I was reading I was trying to make connections and read into the story to try

American Dream Narrative

Georgeanne Harter AP Language and Composition Tlumack – 2X 11 March 2013 My Personal American Dream In the book, The Epic of America, written in the year of 1931, author James Truslow Adams was the first to give a â€Å"clear† definition of what the American Dream really is. He stated that the American Dream is â€Å"that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement† (Truslow 214).Although his definition describes what the American Dream is, it does not explain what everyone’s American Dream is throughout the world. This is because each person has their own idea of a perfect life, therefore giving them their own distinct Dream and ways to achieve it. For some people, the ideal and perfect life may mean finally leaving their home country and traveling to America to be successful and prosperous. For others, it may mean getting married, having two beautiful chi ldren living in a three bedroom house with a white picket fence.Although several people may have the same outcome they would like to accomplish, it is how they get there that distinguishes them from the rest. As a young, only child, I determined what I wanted my American Dream to be and that was to grow up underneath the influence of my parents and have the perfect family with a dog, but I still have yet to make it there. Sometimes, some people just have to wake up and realize that their American â€Å"Dream† is more like an American â€Å"Nightmare. † I was doing everything in my power to make sure I kept a good realtionship with my mother and father.Seeing as I was only in first grade when I realized what I really wanted my life to be like, I made sure I did everything possible to keep my parents happy, which in turn would be a cause for a good relationship. I was doing well in school and I very rarely ever got into trouble so I figured I was on the right track. It w as one day after I came home from a wonderful day at school, when I noticed things at home were rapidly rolling downhill. Immediately, I came home to two annoyed parents, who no sooner became to argue leading to them both screaming at ach other at the top of their lungs. These arguments came to be more frequent. At that point, being so young and an only child, I thought these occurrence were all my fault and thought it would be best to try and fix things. That plan quickly backfired on me when, one day, my father stormed out of the house with rage. I was lost and confused and wanted things to be better so I could continue with my idea of a perfect life, but it seemed as though my parents did not want to partake in my efforts. I figured sooner or later one of them would give in and that ended up being my father.I knew that he still loved me no matter what but he had to get out of the house. He began to realize the mental damage that these arguments were causing me. When I was seven y ears old, my parents were officially separated and when I found out, it crushed me. Rather than holding my head up high and keeping a positive mindset, I let it hang and attack every perfect thought I ever had in my mind. Immediately following the loss of my father’s presence in the house, I went into a stage of shock. It took me a little while to bounce back because I missed him.He was my best friend and I was his. A while later, the feeling of not wanting to be with my mother grew inside of me, more and more each day I woke, and I was having a hard time figuring out why. Not too long after, my parents officially got divorced. It wasn’t until much later when my family isolated the problem. As hard as it was for me to believe, my mother, Eileen, was actually diagnosed with a mental disorder. It is called Psychosis which is known for its loss of contact with reality. It is marked by delusions, hallucinations, incoherence, and distorted perceptions of reality.Although it was extremely unfortunate for all of us to experience, the disorder answered my question as to why there were so many screaming matches between my parents. Although her mental health was not deteriorating at a fast rate, I quickly realized that I was not interested in living with her anymore. Even though my â€Å"Dream† was pretty much shot, I just was not living my childhood the way I wanted to when I was with her. In the summer of 2006, when I was nine years old, I decided that I missed my father too much and wanted to move in with him.It was nice because I was still attending the same school and still had all the same friends. I loved Eileen very much and I know she loved me too, it’s just that her mental disorder did not allow her to convey it properly. Being at such a young age, I did not realize that she can’t help it. This disorder is who she is and there is really nothing that can stop it. As I tried very hard to free Eileen from my mind, I began to foc us more on my school work and continuing my life with my father and it was great. I was the happiest I had been in a very long time.Several months after I had moved in with my father, he told me that he had met someone while he was at work. He had been talking to her for a while without me knowing of it because he wanted to make sure that it was someone he was interested in having in our life before he introduced me to her. Her name is Mya. When I met her, I immediately noticed everything he loved about her. She was and still is a beautiful, intelligent, and strong woman who didn’t let anything or anyone else define her and I quickly understood that those were the reasons why he was so enamored by her.Before really thinking about everything that was so quickly occuring, I was just estatic for my father because he was finding someone to love and is happy with again. I took a step back and realized that I no longer seemed like my father’s first choice, although he told m e I was. I was acting extremely immature and began to grow a large attitude towards Mya. In my mind, I had to compete with her for my father’s attention. One evening, the three of us decided to go out for dinner. This way I could get to know Mya a little bit better. Needless to say, I blew up and the three of us had an all time low point.We had a long talk about whether or not I could handle something like this in my life. As I was crying my eyeballs out, I expressed my true feelings; that I really wanted her to stay in my life but more importantly my father’s. I was so happy to see him happy and she was the reason why. We agreed on that night that we would focus on building a family bond because not too long later did my father propose to marry her. In the summer of 2007, my father and I moved to Virginia where Mya lived and the three of us found the best house to move into.I was really grateful for her stepping in and taking over as my mother figure, especially since I was at such a young age. Although I still had several attention and attitude problems, they were becoming far and few in between and we were working on having a great realtionship. It was definitely a difficult task, though. Starting my American Dream over again sounded like a good idea so I did just that. I focused in school and did everything I was supposed to do, making my parents happy and also setting up for a great relationship. To this day, I am still experiencing a struggle with Eileen.Due to her mental state, I have a hard time having the mother-daughter relationship that I have always wanted. Even though I know she cannot help the way she is, I have pretty much ceased all communication with her. Her brain is just not wired the same as mine and there is nothing I can do to change that. We think differently and that hinders my plan to becoming successful. It’s just what’s best at the moment. I have Mya now to look up to and although it will never be the same because she is not my biological mother, it is pretty darn close and that’s all I can ask for.Of course I miss and love Eileen, she’s my mother and always will be, but I have to do what I have to do to ensure that I set up a successful life for myself in the future and keeping her out of my everyday life for the time being will allow me to accomplish that. Back then, I thought thought my life was turning into the American â€Å"Nightmare† but I guess the most recent occurrences was just God’s way in telling me to keep my head up because currently, I am on my way to getting back on track to achieve my American Dream. Works Cited Adams, James Truslow. The Epic of America,. Boston: Little, Brown, and, 1931. 214. Print.

René Descartes (1596â€1650) Essay

Renà © Descartes is often credited with being the â€Å"Father of Modern Philosophy.† This title is justified due both to his break with the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian philosophy prevalent at his time and to his development and promotion of the new, mechanistic sciences. His fundamental break with Scholastic philosophy was twofold. First, Descartes thought that the Scholastics’ method was prone to doubt given their reliance on sensation as the source for all knowledge. Second, he wanted to replace their final causal model of scientific explanation with the more modern, mechanistic model. Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This â€Å"hyperbolic doubt† then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at anepistem ological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that â€Å"I exist† is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find. Once this conclusion is reached, Descartes can proceed to rebuild his system of previously dubious beliefs on this absolutely certain foundation. These beliefs, which are re-established with absolute certainty, include the existence of a world of bodies external to the mind, the dualistic distinction of the immaterial mind from the body, and his mechanistic model of physics based on the clear and distinct ideas of geometry. This points toward his second, major break with the Scholastic Aristotelian tradition in that Descartes intended to replace their system based on final causal explanations with his system based on mechanistic principles. Descartes also applied this mechanistic framework to the operation of plant, animal and human bodies, sensation and the passions. All of this eventually culminating in a moral sys tem based on the notion of â€Å"generosity.† The Modern Turn a. Against Scholasticism Descartes is often called the â€Å"Father of Modern Philosophy,† implying that he provided the seed for a new philosophy that broke away from the old in important ways. This â€Å"old† philosophy is Aristotle’s as it was appropriated and interpreted throughout the later medieval period. In fact, Aristotelianism was so entrenched in the intellectual institutions of Descartes’ time that commentators argued that evidence for its the truth could be found in the Bible. Accordingly, if someone were to try to refute some main Aristotelian tenet, then he could be accused of holding a position contrary to the word of God and be punished. However, by Descartes’ time, many had come out in some way against one Scholastic-Aristotelian thesis or other. So, when Descartes argued for the implementation of his modern system of philosophy, breaks with the Scholastic tradition were not unprecedented. Descartes broke with this tradition in at least two fundamental way s. The first was his rejection of substantial forms as explanatory principles in physics. A substantial form was thought to be an immaterial principle of material organization that resulted in a particular thing of a certain kind. The main principle of substantial forms was the final cause or purpose of being that kind of thing. For example, the bird called the swallow. The substantial form of â€Å"swallowness† unites with matter so as to organize it for the sake of being a swallow kind of thing. This also means that any dispositions or faculties the swallow has by virtue of being that kind of thing is ultimately explained by the goal or final cause of being a swallow. So, for instance, the goal of being a swallow is the cause of the swallow’s ability to fly. Hence, on this account, a swallow flies for the sake of being a swallow. Although this might be true, it does not say anything new or useful about swallows, and so it seemed to Descartes that Scholastic philosophy and science was incapable of discovering any new or useful knowledge. Descartes rejected the use of substantial forms and their concomitant final causes in physics precisely for this reason. Indeed, his essay Meteorology, that appeared alongside the Discourse on Method, was intended to show that clearer and more fruitful explana tions can be obtained without reference to substantial forms but only by way of deductions from the configuration and motion of parts. Hence, his point was to show that mechanistic principles are better suited for making progress in the physical  sciences. Another reason Descartes rejected substantial forms and final causes in physics was his belief that these notions were the result of the confusion of the idea of the body with that of the mind. In theSixth Replies, Descartes uses the Scholastic conception of gravity in a stone, to make his point. On this account, a characteristic goal of being a stone was a tendency to move toward the center of the earth. This explanation implies that the stone has knowledge of this goal, of the center of the earth and of how to get there. But how can a stone know anything, since it does not think? So, it is a mistake to ascribe mental properties like knowledge to entirely physical things. This mistake should be avoided by clearly distinguishing the idea of the mind from the idea of the body. Descartes considered himself to be the first to do this. His expulsion of the metaphysi cal principles of substantial forms and final causes helped clear the way for Descartes’ new metaphysical principles on which his modern, mechanistic physics was based. The second fundamental point of difference Descartes had with the Scholastics was his denial of the thesis that all knowledge must come from sensation. The Scholastics were devoted to the Aristotelian tenet that everyone is born with a clean slate, and that all material for intellectual understanding must be provided through sensation. Descartes, however, argued that since the senses sometimes deceive, they cannot be a reliable source for knowledge. Furthermore, the truth of propositions based on sensation is naturally probabilistic and the propositions, therefore, are doubtful premises when used in arguments. Descartes was deeply dissatisfied with such uncertain knowledge. He then replaced the uncertain premises derived from sensation with the absolute certainty of the clear and distinct ideas perceived by the mind alone, as will be explained below. b. Descartes’ Project In the preface to the French edition of the Principles of Philosophy, Descartes uses a tree as a metaphor for his holistic view of philosophy. â€Å"The roots are metaphysics, the trunk is physics, and the branches emerging from the trunk are all the other sciences, which may be reduced to three principal ones, namely medicine, mechanics and morals† (AT IXB 14: CSM I 186). Although Descartes does not expand much more on this image, a few other insights into his overall project can be discerned. First, notice that  metaphysics constitutes the roots securing the rest of the tree. For it is in Descartes’ metaphysics where an absolutely certain and secure epistemological foundation is discovered. This, in turn, grounds knowledge of the geometrical properties of bodies, which is the basis for his physics. Second, physics constitutes the trunk of the tree, which grows up directly from the roots and provides the basis for the rest of the sciences. Third, the sciences of medicine, mechanics and morals grow out of the trunk of physics, which implies that these other sciences are just applications of his mechanistic science to particular subject areas. Finally, the fruits of the philosophy tree are mainly found on these three branches, which are the sciences most useful and beneficial to humankind. However, an endeavor this grand cannot be conducted haphazardly but should be carried out in an orderly and systematic way. Hence, before even attempting to plant this tree, Descartes must first figure out a method for doing so. Method Aristotle and subsequent medieval dialecticians set out a fairly large, though limited, set of acceptable argument forms known as â€Å"syllogisms† composed of a general or major premise, a particular or minor premise and a conclusion. Although Descartes recognized that these syllogistic forms preserve truth from premises to conclusion such that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, he still found them faulty. First, these premises are supposed to be known when, in fact, they are merely believed, since they express only probabilities based on sensation. Accordingly, conclusions derived from merely probable premises can only be probable themselves, and, therefore, these probable syllogisms serve more to increase doubt rather than knowledge Moreover, the employment of this method by those steeped in the Scholastic tradition had led to such subtle conjectures and plausible arguments that counter-arguments were easily constructed, leading to profound confusio n. As a result, the Scholastic tradition had become such a confusing web of arguments, counter-arguments and subtle distinctions that the truth often got lost in the cracks. (Rules for the Direction of the Mind, AT X 364, 405-406 & 430: CSM I 11-12, 36 & 51-52). Descartes sought to avoid these difficulties through the clarity and absolute certainty of geometrical-style demonstration. In geometry, theorems are deduced from a set of self-evident axioms and universally agreed upon  definitions. Accordingly, direct apprehension of clear, simple and indubitable truths (or axioms) by intuition and deductions from those truths can lead to new and indubitable knowledge. Descartes found this promising for several reasons. First, the ideas of geometry are clear and distinct, and therefore they are easily understood unlike the confused and obscure ideas of sensation. Second, the propositions constituting geometrical demonstrations are not probabilistic conjectures but are absolutely certain so as to be immune from doubt. This has the additional advantage that any proposition derived from some one or combination of these absolutely certain truths will itself be absolutely certain. Hence, geometry’s rules of inference preserve absolutely certain truth from simple, indubitable and intuitively grasped axioms to their deductive consequences unlike the probable syllogisms of the Scholastics. The choice of geometrical method was obvious for Descartes given his previous success in applying this method to other disciplines like optics. Yet his application of this method to philosophy was not unproblematic due to a revival of ancient arguments for global or radical skepticism based on the doubtfulness of human reasoning. But Descartes wanted to show that truths both intuitively grasped and deduced are beyond this possibility of doubt. His tactic was to show that, despite the best skeptical arguments, there is at least one intuitive truth that is beyond all doubt and from which the rest of human knowledge can be deduced. This is precisely the project of Descartes’ seminal work, Meditations on First Philosophy. In the First Meditation, Descartes lays out several arguments for doubting all of his previously held beliefs. He first observes that the senses sometimes deceive, for example, objects at a distance appear to be quite small, and surely it is not prudent to trust someone (or something) that has deceived us even once. However, although this may apply to sensations derived under certain circumstances, doesn ’t it seem certain that â€Å"I am here, sitting by the fire, wearing a winter dressing gown, holding this piece of paper in my hands, and so on†? (AT VII 18: CSM II 13). Descartes’ point is that even though the senses deceive us some of the time, what basis for doubt exists for the immediate belief that, for example, you are reading this article? But maybe the belief of reading this article or of sitting by the fireplace is not based on true sensations at all but on the false sensations found in dreams. If such sensations are just  dreams, then it is not really the case that you are reading this article but in fact you are in bed asleep. Since there is no principled way of distinguishing waking life from dreams, any belief based on sensation has been shown to be doubtful. This includes not only the mundane beliefs about reading articles or sitting by the fire but even the beliefs of experimental science are doubtful, because the observations upon which they are based may not be true but mere dream images. Therefore, all beliefs based on sensation have been called into doubt, because it might all be a dream. This, however, does not pertain to mathematical beliefs, since they are not based on sensation but on reason. For even though one is dreaming, for example, that, 2 + 3 = 5, the certainty of this proposition is not called into doubt, because 2 + 3 = 5 whether the one believing it is awake or dreaming. Descartes continues to wonder about whether or not God could make him believe there is an earth, sky and other extended things when, in fact, these things do not exist at all. In fact, people sometimes make mistakes about things they think are most certain such as mathematical calculations. But maybe people are not mistaken just some of the time but all of the time such that believing that 2 + 3 = 5 is some kind of persistent and collective mistake, and so the sum of 2 + 3 is really something other than 5. However, such universal deception seems inconsistent with God’s supreme goodness. Indeed, even the occasional deception of mathematical miscalculation also seems inconsistent with God’s goodness, yet people do sometimes make mistakes. Then, in line with the skeptics, Descartes supposes, for the sake of his method, that God does not exist, but instead there is an evil demon with supreme power and cunning that puts all his efforts into deceiving him so that he is always mistaken about everything, including mathematics. In this way, Descartes called all of his previous beliefs into doubt through some of the best skeptical arguments of his day But he was still not satisfied and decided to go a step further by considering false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. So, by the end of the First Meditation, Descartes finds himself in a whirlpool of false beliefs. However, it is important to realize that these doubts and the supposed falsehood of all his beliefs are for the sake of his method: he does not really believe that he is dreaming or is being deceived by an evil demon; he recognizes that his doubt is merely hyperbolic. But the point of this  Ã¢â‚¬Å"methodological† or ‘hyperbolic† doubt is to clear the mind of preconceived opinions that might obscure the truth. The goal then is to find something that cannot be doubted even though an evil demon is deceiving him and even though he is dreaming. This first indubitable truth will then serve as an intuitively graspe d metaphysical â€Å"axiom† from which absolutely certain knowledge can be deduced. For more, see Cartesian skepticism. The Mind a. Cogito, ergo sum In the Second Meditation, Descartes tries to establish absolute certainty in his famous reasoning: Cogito, ergo sum or â€Å"I think, therefore I am.† These Meditations are conducted from the first person perspective, from Descartes.’ However, he expects his reader to meditate along with him to see how his conclusions were reached. This is especially important in the Second Meditation where the intuitively grasped truth of â€Å"I exist† occurs. So the discussion here of this truth will take place from the first person or â€Å"I† perspective. All sensory beliefs had been found doubtful in the previous meditation, and therefore all such beliefs are now considered false. This includes the belief that I have a body endowed with sense organs. But does the supposed falsehood of this belief mean that I do not exist? No, for if I convinced myself that my beliefs are false, then surely there must be an â€Å"I† that was convinced. Moreover, even if I am being deceived by an evil demon, I must exist in order to be deceived at all. So â€Å"I must finally conclude that the proposition, ‘I am,’ ‘I exist,’ is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind† (AT VII 25: CSM II 16-17). This just means that the mere fact that I am thinking, regardless of whether or not what I am thinking is true or false, implies that there must be something engaged in that activity, namely an â€Å"I.† Hence, â€Å"I exist† is an indubitable and, therefore, absolutely certain belief that serves as an axiom from which other, absolutely certain truths can be deduced. b. The Nature of the Mind and its Ideas The Second Meditation continues with Descartes asking, â€Å"What am I?† After discarding the traditional Scholastic-Aristotelian concept of a human being as a rational animal due to the inherent difficulties of defining â€Å"rational† and â€Å"animal,† he finally concludes that he is a thinking thing, a mind: â€Å"A  thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling, and also imagines and has sense perceptions† (AT VII 28: CSM II 19). In the Principles, part I, sections 32 and 48, Descartes distinguishes intellectual perception and volition as what properly belongs to the nature of the mind alone while imagination and sensation are, in some sense, faculties of the mind insofar as it is united with a body. So imagination and sensation are faculties of the mind in a weaker sense than intellect and will, since they require a body in order to perform their functions. Finally, in the Sixth Meditation, Descartes claims that the mind or â€Å"I† is a non-extended thing. Now, since extension is the nature of body, is a necessary feature of body, it follows that the mind is by its nature not a body but an immaterial thing. Therefore, what I am is an immaterial thinking thing with the faculties of intellect and will. It is also important to notice that the mind is a substance and the modes of a thinking substance are its ideas. For Descartes a substance is a thing requiring nothing else in order to exist. Strictly speaking, this applies only to God whose existence is his essence, but the term â€Å"substance† can be applied to creatures in a qualified sense. Minds are substances in that they require nothing except God’s concurrence, in order to exist. But ideas are â€Å"modes† or â€Å"ways† of thinking, and, therefore, modes are not substances, since they must be the ideas of some mind or other. So, ideas require, in addition to God’s concurrence, some created thinking substance in order to exist (see Principles of Philosophy, part I, sections 51 & 52). Hence the mind is an immaterial thinking substance, while its ideas are its modes or ways of thinking. Descartes continues on to distinguish three kinds of ideas at the beginning of the Third Meditation, namely those that are fabricated, adventitious, or innate. Fabricated ideas are mere inventions of the mind. Accordingly, the mind can control them so that they can be examined and set aside at will and their internal content can be changed. Adventitious ideas are sensations produced by some material thing existing externally to the mind. But, unlike fabrications, adventitious ideas cannot be examined and set aside at will nor can their internal content be manipulated by the mind. For example, no matter how hard one tries, if someone is standing next to a fire, she cannot help but feel the heat as heat. She cannot set aside the sensory idea of heat by merely willing it as we can do with our idea of Santa Claus, for example. She also cannot change its internal content so as to feel something other than heat–say, cold. Finally, innate ideas are placed in the mind by God at creation. These ideas can be examined and set aside at will but their internal content cannot be manipulated. Geometrical ideas are paradigm examples of innate ideas. For example, the idea of a triangle can be examined and set aside at will, but its internal content cannot be manipulated so as to cease being the idea of a three-sided figure. Other examples of innate ideas would be metaphysical principles like â€Å"what is done cannot be undone,† the idea of the mind, and the idea of God. Descartes’ idea of God will be discussed momentarily, but let’s consider his claim that the mind is better known than the body. This is the main point of the wax example found in the Second Meditation. Here, Descartes pauses from his methodological doubt to examine a particular piece of wax fresh from the honeycomb: It has not yet quite lost the taste of the honey; it retains some of the scent of flowers from which it was gathered; its color shape and size are plain to see; it is hard, cold and can be handled without difficulty; if you rap it with your knuckle it makes a sound. (AT VII 30: CSM II 20) The point is that the senses perceive certain qualities of the wax like its hardness, smell, and so forth. But, as it is moved closer to the fire, all of these sensible qualities change. â€Å"Look: the residual taste is eliminated, the smell goes away, the color changes, the shape is lost, the size increases, it becomes liquid and hot† (AT VII 30: CSM II 20). Howeve r, despite these changes in what the senses perceive of the wax, it is still judged to be the same wax now as before. To warrant this judgment, something that does not change must have been perceived in the wax. This reasoning establishes at least three important points. First, all sensation involves some sort of judgment, which is a mental mode. Accordingly, every sensation is, in some sense, a mental mode, and â€Å"the more attributes [that is, modes] we discover in the same thing or substance, the clearer is our knowledge of that substance† (AT VIIIA 8: CSM I 196). Based on this principle, the mind is better known than the body, because it has ideas about both extended and mental things and not just of extended things, and so it has discovered more modes in itself than in bodily substances. Second, this is also supposed to show that what is unchangeable in the wax is its extension in length, breadth and depth, which is not perceivable by the senses but by the mind  alone. The shape and size of the wax are modes of this extension and can, therefore, change. But the extension constituting this wax remains the same and permits the judgment that the body with the modes existing in it after being moved by the fire is the same body as before even though all of its sensible qualities have changed. One final lesson is that Descartes is attempting to wean his reader from reliance on sense images as a source for, or an aid to, knowledge. Instead, people should become accustomed to thinking without images in order to clearly understand things not readily or accurately represented by them, for example, God and the mind. So, according to Descartes, immaterial, mental things are better known and, therefore, are better sources of knowledge than extended things. God a. The Causal Arguments At the beginning of the Third Meditation only â€Å"I exist† and â€Å"I am a thinking thing† are beyond doubt and are, therefore, absolutely certain. From these intuitively grasped, absolutely certain truths, Descartes now goes on to deduce the existence of something other than himself, namely God. Descartes begins by considering what is necessary for something to be the adequate cause of its effect. This will be called the â€Å"Causal Adequacy Principle† and is expressed as follows: â€Å"there must be at least as much reality in the efficient and total cause as in the effect of that cause,† which in turn implies that something cannot come from nothing (AT VII 40: CSM II 28). Here Descartes is espousing a causal theory that implies whatever is possessed by an effect must have been given to it by its cause. For example, when a pot of water is heated to a boil, it must have received that heat from some cause that had at least that much heat. Moreover, som ething that is not hot enough cannot cause water to boil, because it does not have the requisite reality to bring about that effect. In other words, something cannot give what it does not have. Descartes goes on to apply this principle to the cause of his ideas. This version of the Causal Adequacy Principle states that whatever is contained objectively in an idea must be contained either formally or eminently in the cause of that idea. Definitions of some key terms are now in order. First, the objective reality contained in an idea is just its representational content; in other words, it is the â€Å"object† of the idea or what that idea is about. The idea of the sun, for instance, contains  the reality of the sun in it objectively. Second, the formal reality contained in something is a reality actually contained in that thing. For example, the sun itself has the formal reality of extension since it is actually an extended thing or body. Finally, a reality is contained in something eminently when that reality is contained in it in a higher form such that (1) the thing does not possess that reality formally, but (2) it has the ability to cause that reality formally in something else. For example, God is not formally an extended thing but solely a thinking thing; however, he is eminently the extended universe in that it exists in him in a higher form, and accordingly he has the ability to cause its existence. The main point is that the Causal Adequacy Principle also pertains to the causes of ideas so that, for instance, the idea of the sun must be caused by something that contains the reality of the sun either actually (formally) or in some higher form (eminently). Once this principle is established, Descartes looks for an idea of which he could not be the cause. Based on this principle, he can be the cause of the objective reality of any idea that he has either formally or eminently. He is formally a finite substance, and so he can be the cause of any idea with the objective reality of a finite substance. Moreover, since finite substances require only God’s concurrence to exist and modes require a finite substance and God, finite substances are more real than modes. Accordingly, a finite substance is not formally but eminently a mode, and so he can be the cause of all his ideas of modes. But the idea of God is the idea of an infinite substance. Since a finite substance is less rea l than an infinite substance by virtue of the latter’s absolute independence, it follows that Descartes, a finite substance, cannot be the cause of his idea of an infinite substance. This is because a finite substance does not have enough reality to be the cause of this idea, for if a finite substance were the cause of this idea, then where would it have gotten the extra reality? But the idea must have come from something. So something that is actually an infinite substance, namely God, must be the cause of the idea of an infinite substance. Therefore, God exists as the only possible cause of this idea. Notice that in this argument Descartes makes a direct inference from having the idea of an infinite substance to the actual existence of God. He provides another argument that is cosmological in nature in response to a possible objection to this first  argument. This objection is that the cause of a finite substance with the idea of God could also be a finite substance with the idea of God. Yet what was the cause of that finite substance with the idea of God? Well, another finite substance with the idea of God. But what was the cause of that finite substance with the idea of God? Well, another finite substance . . . and so on to infinity. Eventually an ultimate cause of the idea of God must be reached in order to provide an adequate explanation of its existence in the first place and thereby stop the infinite regress. That ultimate cause must be God, because only he has enough reality to cause it. So, in the end, Descartes claims to have deduced God’s existence from the intuitions of his own existence as a finite substance with the idea of God and the Causal Adequacy Principle, which is â€Å"manifest by the natural light,† thereby indicating that it is supposed to be an absolutely certain intuition as well. b. The Ontological Argument The ontological argument is found in the Fifth Meditation and follows a more straightforwardly geometrical line of reasoning. Here Descartes argues that God’s existence is deducible from the idea of his nature just as the fact that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles is deducible from the idea of the nature of a triangle. The point is that this property is contained in the nature of a triangle, and so it is inseparable from that nature. Accordingly, the nature of a triangle without this property is unintelligible. Similarly, it is apparent that the idea of God is that of a supremely perfect being, that is, a being with all perfections to the highest degree. Moreover, actual existence is a perfection, at least insofar as most would agree that it is better to actually exist than not. Now, if the idea of God did not contain actual existence, then it would lack a perfection. Accordingly, it would no longer be the idea of a supremely perfect being but the idea of something with an imperfection, namely non-existence, and, therefore, it would no longer be the idea of God. Hence, the idea of a supremely perfect being or God without existence is unintelligible. This means that existence is contained in the essence of an infinite substance, and therefore God must exist by his very nature. Indeed, any attempt to conceive of God as not existing would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley – it just cannot be done. 6. The Epistemological Foundation a. Absolute Certainty and the Cartesian Circle Recall that in the First Meditation Descartes supposed that an evil demon was deceiving him. So as long as this supposition remains in place, there is no hope of gaining any absolutely certain knowledge. But he was able to demonstrate God’s existence from intuitively grasped premises, thereby providing, a glimmer of hope of extricating himself from the evil demon scenario. The next step is to demonstrate that God cannot be a deceiver. At the beginning of the Fourth Meditation, Descartes claims that the will to deceive is â€Å"undoubtedly evidence of malice or weakness† so as to be an imperfection. But, since God has all perfections and no imperfections, it follows that God cannot be a deceiver. For to conceive of God with the will to deceive would be to conceive him to be both having no imperfections and having one imperfection, which is impossible; it would be like trying to conceive of a mountain without a valley. This conclusion, in addition to God’s existenc e, provides the absolutely certain foundation Descartes was seeking from the outset of the Meditations. It is absolutely certain because both conclusions (namely that God exists and that God cannot be a deceiver) have themselves been demonstrated from immediately grasped and absolutely certain intuitive truths. This means that God cannot be the cause of human error, since he did not create humans with a faculty for generating them, nor could God create some being, like an evil demon, who is bent on deception. Rather, humans are the cause of their own errors when they do not use their faculty of judgment correctly. Second, God’s non-deceiving nature also serves to guarantee the truth of all clear and distinct ideas. So God would be a deceiver, if there were a clear and distinct idea that was false, since the mind cannot help but believe them to be true. Hence, clear and distinct ideas must be true on pain of contradiction. This also implies that knowledge of God’s existence is required for having any absolutely certain knowledge. Accordingly, atheists, who are ignorant of God’s existence, cannot have absolutely certain knowledge of any kind, including scientific knowledge. But this veridical guarantee gives rise to a serious problem within the Meditations, stemming from the claim that all clear and distinct ideas are ultimately guaranteed by God’s existence, which is not established  until the Third Meditation. This means that those truths reached in the Second Meditation, such as â€Å"I exist† and â€Å"I am a thinking thing,† and those principles used in the Third Meditation to conclude that God exists, are not clearly and distinctly understood, and so they cannot be absolutely certain. Hence, since the premises of the argument for God’s existence are not absolutely certain, the conclusion that God exists cannot be certain either. This is what is known as the â€Å"Cartesian Circle,† because Descartes’ reasoning seems to go in a circle in that he needs God’s existence for the absolute certainty of the earlier truths and yet he needs the absolute certainty of these earlier truths to demonstrate God’s existence with absolute certainty. Descartes’ response to this concern is found in the Second Replies. There he argues that God’s veridical guarantee only pertains to the recollection of arguments and not the immediate awaRenà ©ss of an argument’s clarity and distinctness currently under consideration. Hence, those truths reached before the demonstration of God’s existence are clear and distinct when they are being attended to but cannot be relied upon as absolutely certain when those arguments are recalled later on. But once God’s existence has been demonstrated, the recollection of the clear and distinct perception of the premises is sufficient for absolutely certain and, therefore, perfect knowledge of its conclusion (see also the Fifth Meditation at AT VII 69-70: CSM II XXX).