THE SOCRATIC METHOD AND PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY​

      Education has become one of the main themes of philosophy due to its common points and correlations. Education can be defined as a process of learning and teaching which can be actualized on one’s own or with a teacher using various materials and methods. In its simplest form, philosophy is the search for knowledge and truth by judging and critical thinking. In the history of Greek Philosophy, philosophers used different methods to teach their students philosophy and educate them with their own techniques. Socrates, who known as the founder of Philosophy, constituted a method whose name is the dialectic method or the Socratic method and it was based on making dialogues. Other than this, his well-known student Plato justified a different method, which is almost the opposite of the Socratic method, for effective education in society. He also mentioned his and Socrates's method in The Republic. Throughout the history of philosophy, it is debated by philosophers to decide which one is more productive and applicable in society.

       The Socratic method or the dialectic method is based on the dialogue technique which requires consistently asking and criticizing. Socrates believed that argumentative dialogue between individuals and asking question after question stimulate critical thinking and good reasoning. With that, he also asserted that it helps to solidify students’ knowledge of the case by thinking critically under pressure. But the disputed part of his method was about the belief that claims it can be applied and succeed with everyone. According to Plato’s book whose name is Menon,ın order to prove that, he asked a geometry problem to an illiterate peasant and helped him to find the correct answer by regularly asking questions and criticizing.He believed that through this method the individual can find his own mistakes and think again until he finds the correct answer. Because of that reason, having knowledge about something is not a necessary factor or in other words, it isn’t a priority to achieve the right answer.

        The reason for emphasizing critical thinking and giving less importance to having knowledge in the Socratic method was his thought that asserts knowledge is the only tool to find answers; The fundamental way to learn something is thinking and making criticizes about information by using your mind effectively.His explanation for this idea was knowledge can only take you to a particular place, in order to proceed and to be aware of other options, you have to review and make criticisms about your argument. That may explain to us why most of the education systems don't use ‘Essentialism’ which teaches just by giving information and use ‘Progressivizm’ which provides a contrast with essentialism due to learning by experiencing and thinking for effective learning.  

       As an illustration to the usage of the Socratic method in the classroom, we can exemplify a teacher who randomly picks a student and ask her/him questions continuously. Today, some colleges use this technique due to its efficiency. In Harvard Law School, the professor starts asking question to dozens of students during a class session and then, some of the other students oppose his/her idea or specify the wrong points. In that way, students can see the unobserved parts of the case and represent different solutions. Furthermore, the student may become a more accountable person and join the discussion by reading before lectures. With this in mind, it might be a disturbing situation for a student who couldn't answer the professor’s question at the first time and also it may condition the student to join next lecture because of this experience. In this wise, her/his confidence might be affected badly and this way causes unwillingness to attend the professor’s lectures. In order to prevent this harm, teachers can start to use this technique in elementary school and students can become habituated.

       Plato’s method for education can be contrasted with Socrates’s even though he was educated by him.First of all, Platon believed that education should be used as a tool to protect public order by society.In order do that properly, education should be institutional instead of being individualist and learning must be a process of transferring information which is the opposite of learning by criticizing and experiencing like in the Socratic method.He mentioned his ideas about social structure in the ideal state that is shaped by education in his famous book ‘The Republic’. In the book, he wrote that every individual should be educated according to his nature, capability, and skills. In order to ensure the accordance between capability and education, he classified the society in three groups which are rulers, soldiers or in other words protectors and workers. He thought that the people who have a tendency to work in a job which requires physical ability should be in the group of workers.In the same way, the people who are innate courageous and brave should be in the group of protectors. But, when it comes to the rulers, he believed there must be more specific elimination.Plato thought that rulers should be chosen from among protectors’ group with an examination. In that way, the purpose of education for Plato was defining the appropriate social status of individuals according to their capacity. In that way, every person can devote his life to what is the best fit for him.

       He believed in teaching math, philosophy or geometry to the people who are just in the group of rulers because intellectual aristocracy is the rule of the intellectual elite. He believed that knowledge should be given to the people who can evaluate, criticize, and use it widely.With this in mind, he was against compulsory education and explained it in The Republic with this sentence; Knowledge which is acquired under compulsion obtains no hold on the mind. Forcing someone to learn something without considering his abilities won’t be beneficial for the person or the state. Therefore, education has to be individualistic and done by the correct person.

     Socrates’s philosophy and method in education are different from Plato’s philosophy in many ways. Primarily, Socrates interpreted education as an active process that individuals took part in themselves. In contrast, Plato asserted it was a passive process because the people get all information and acquire knowledge from a teacher and don’t try to find the right answer by criticizing. Secondly, Socrates believed that education has to be non-dogmatic while Plato argued the opposite one ‘dogmatic education’.As a result of reasoning in the Socratic method, he used induction in the learning process.On the contrary, Plato used deduction while teaching something. Socrates taught a lesson by talking and discussing the issue with his students and his philosophy was based on having argumentative conversations. But Plato interpreted philosophy as a whole of truths and taught it by writing and reading.

     As another difference between Plato’s and Socrates’s philosophy in education is the possibility of having an education. Plato thought education has to be individualistic while Socrates asserts it has to be institutional. The reason for this and other clashes of ideas might be their approach to the regime; Socrates justifies democracy, on the other hand, Plato takes the side of autocracy. Because Socrates was justifying democracy, he asserted that everyone should be educated in equal standards and take part in education.For Plato, he considers education as an individualistic process on account of autocracy.He believed that education should be given to the elite which he defined as the rulers. It may seem unfair and hierarchical at first but, if we think about today’s education and the people who work in jobs that they are not fit to do because the job wasn't given to them considering their capacities and  abilities, the idea of hierarchical education might seem right and feasible.

                                  SUEDA DİNÇ

         

   

   

HORMONES AND THE BRAIN

         There are countless differences between women and men which range from our anatomy to how we behave.But these differences start to occur in our brain and then shape our perceptions, behaviours and bodily movements.In terms of the structure of the human brain, the main criterium is the amount of testosterone. When we’re in the eighth week as a fetus, there is no distinction between the sexes; but after the eighth week, some of us are exposed to testosterone in the left hemisphere and as a result of it, this person becomes a male.It means, before the eighth week of our fetal development, we are all female.

       One of the effects of testosterone in our brains is  related to our central nervous system.Testosterone has a significant role in certain behaviors including aggression and dominance.With that, it also increases competitiveness and boosts self-esteem.According to a study which was conducted by Utrecht University,the level of testosterone is directly related with understanding human expressions and cognitive empathetic abilities.The scientists administered the experiment with a test whose name is ‘Reading The Mind in the Eyes’ to see the changes in the subjects’ ability to read emotions.In the experiments, scientists gave  some photographs to the participants and asked them what they felt about the people’s emotions in the photographs.Almost every woman predicted the emotions precisely. Then, the experimenters injected testosterone and showed other photographs to the participants to see the change.The new results were totally different from the former.The participants predicted the emotions of the individuals in the photograph inappropriately.This experiment demonstrated that the amount of testosterone is clearly linked with the ability to empathise and due to that,women are distinctly better than men.

       As a second difference between women and men, we can exemplify our ability to ‘hear’.First of all, we are using our hemispheres in different preponderances.For instance, the prepotency of the left hemisphere,which is responsible for hearing and speaking, is more than the right-hemisphere in women.Men use the right-hemisphere more predominantly.As a result of this biological fact,women are better at hearing than men.In order to pinpoint this truth about our brains, some physiologists conducted an experiment.In the experiment, male and female participants were asked to listen and state what they heard through an earmuff.The tricky side of this experiment was the participants were listening to two words from each side of the earmuff without their knowledge.The females realized the trick and stated  both words correctly; furthermore, they also mentioned which word came from which side of the earmuff.On the other hand, the males were unsuccessful even in understanding the words.Therewithal, they also mixed up the words: if the words were ‘sheep’ and ‘bottle’,they told the experimenters that the word was ‘shuttle’.

     The reason for this discernible difference in hearing between women and men might be about our obligations in nature.The woman who has sentimental communication with her baby, has to be good at hearing in order to understand the needs of the baby by the hums or meaningless words with which she tries to express her wishes for a short time.That is why a mother can differentiate the cry of a baby which can mean that she/he is hungry or needs to sleep.However, the sophisticated abilities of women in hearing and empathizing didn’t always affect their life in a good way.Especially in the Middle Ages, women were considered as witches and enchanters because of their powerful understanding and were punished by the Catholic Inquisition.

      Another difference between women and men is related to  our cognition.There is a common belief that men are better in the fields which require calculations and analytical thinking.Actually, there is some truth in this belief.According to an experiment which was done between males and females to understand their abilities

in three dimensional thinking and mental rotation, men are significantly better than women.In the experiment, participants were being asked to choose the image which was formed by seven squares among the other ones.The other images ,that were similar to the asked one, were turned to different positions and the answer which was tilted to the right was among the other options. At this point, our brain needs to use three dimensional thinking, which is related to the right-hemisphere. As it was mentioned before, men use the right-hemisphere predominantly.At the end of the experiment, both sides chose the right answer but it took 6-9  seconds to find the answer for women while it was 1-3 seconds for the males.This study and other related studies have shown that men are plainly faster than women in tasks which require three dimensional thinking.

        Our first difference emerges in our brain due to the level of testosterone and then starts to shape our anatomies, behaviours,abilities and perceptions.The amount of testosterone that we are exposed to during the fetal development also affects the level of our behaviors’ masculinity.It means, if you are exposed to less testosterone than the normal level as a man, your perception and cognition tend to be like female’s. Knowing all these differences between males and females, we should accept ourselves with our truths and shouldn’t regard these characteristics as something which makes us weak and less capable.

                                                                                                                                                  Sueda   Dinç                          

WHEN TO GET MARRIED

The family is the most important and the smallest social unit in society. There are two sorts of family, extended families and nuclear families. However in both cases, the core of the family is the man and the woman who decide to spend the rest of their lives together and formalize their union in a ceremony called marriage. The ideal age for marriage varies across the world. Some prefer to get married earlier in life others prefer to wait until later in life. The age at which people get married results in some similarities and differences in the union that is formed.

There are various similarities between unions formed earlier in life and those formed later in life. In both cases the couple shares a house, their income and their lives with each other. The factors that keep families together are the same also: love and respect are expected, common interests and hobbies help and a similar world view is essential. Both types of couple decide to spend the rest of their lives together because they share a strong bond, enjoy each other’s company and are willing to share the good times and the bad. Both types of marriage can work and both kinds may fail for various reasons. In short, the basics of marriage are the same in both forms of union.

There are also numerous differences between marriages that take place earlier in life and those that take place later in life. The first difference is family income. People who get married straight out of school have not built a career yet and their means are more limited than people who establish their career and get married in their late thirties for instance. This means that economic concerns may constitute a source of stress for younger couples but not for older ones. The second difference is levels of maturity. Obviously, the older people are, the more life experience they have. The more life experience they have, the more mature they are. Young people are still growing as people and finding their feet whereas older people have developed into fully fledged individuals. To sum up, age does lead to some differences between the two types of marriage.

In conclusion, people get married at various different ages and this can impact the union in various ways. There are early marriages which last for decades and marriages that take place later in life that are over in a couple of years. There are no absolutes. Whatever the case, a happy marriage is very desirable.

BAROQUE VERSUS RENAISSANCE ART

Art can be defined as the expression of an artist’s feelings and ideas in the simplest terms. There are many disagreements about what the aim of art is. While some claim that art is made to acieve pure beauty,  others claim that art is made to give information and raise awareness. As a result of these opinions and sociocultural conditions, there have been different approaches to art since ancient times. The Renaissance and Baroque era are two of the most known approaches to art. These two historical periods have many similarities, yet they also have differences,  which made the historical periods  unique.

To begin with, the Renaissance period had many characteristics that were not observed in any other period in history.  Renaissance art was distinctive in its style of painting and sculpture. Moreover, new techniques were developed such as linear perspective and aerial perspective. There were many great artists of this period like Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Raphael. Da Vinci and Michelangelo painted most notably in accordance with The School of Athens, which expressed the classical ideals of beauty. The Catholic Church had a huge influence on Renaissance art. The Baroque Period began in the 17th century in Rome. That was the era of new discoveries and broader diversity. The aim of the Baroque style was to convey an impression of the sensual, yet naturalistic to the religious paintings. As a result, painters started to decorate the monumental ceilings of many churches. Consequently, many artists started to use vivid colors to evoke sensual delight.

There are some similarities and differences in both the Renaissance and Baroque periods. The Baroque period was generated at the end of the Renaissance era. So, the techniques of the Baroque art period united the techniques used in the Renaissance. The Baroque period continued from the Renaissance with the use of light, color and strong perspective and also religious themes. The Mona Lisa by Da Vinci and The Straw Hat by Rueben are the two examples that show both similarities and differences of these two periods. These two paintings show a young lady in almost identical poses. Moreover, their backgrounds are both foggy and mysterious. But, the background of The Mona Lisa differs from Rueben’s painting due to Da Vinci’s precise details like his use of colors. Rueben uses no distinct background and just focuses on the main subject, the young lady,

In conclusion, these two  periods have some similarities besides their significant dissimilarities. The Renaissance and Baroque periods were both influential in generating the greatest art pieces that the world has ever seen. People should learn about all aspects of these periods and artists, think deeply about them  and enjoy these great masterpieces.

MILAN VS. HONG KONG (A typical 60)

          Milan and Hong Kong are very different from each other. There are some differences between  these cities’ policies. Milan’s governors attach importance to nature, a healthy lifestyle, and ruralization; in contrast, people focus on industry and urbanization in Hong Kong. These cities’ appearances are quite different.

      Milan is the second biggest city in Italy. It is greener than many cities in the world. The main reason for this is that there is a conscious effort to make the city greener in Milan. Firstly, in Milan, if people build new buildings or structures, these structures contain plants or greenery, and they have rooftop gardens and innovative parks.Secondly, one of the good examples is the Trees Library in Milan. The Trees Library provides spectacular natural rooms of different coloured foliage for people. This is created for different purposes like sports or cultural events. Besides, there are communal vegetable and fruit beds in Milan. These are used at the nearby restaurants, and thanks to this implementation, people have a healthy diet.

    Hong Kong was an isolated fishing village in the past. It became a more developed city thanks to industrial activities. Many people immigrate to Hong Kong in order to work in new factories. Developing industry and the increase in the number  of factories caused a concentration of human population, and thanks to all of these, Hong Kong became a developed city. There is a major influx of vehicles and people, in spite of that, urban planning and traffic are  not  big problems in Hong Kong thanks to newer, more efficient, modern transport systems. Besides, Hong Kong is a hub of the hustle and bustle nowadays, and it provides an avid and colorful lifestyle for its own residents. The reason for this is that Hong Kong is a very crowded city, and millions of people visit this city for trade, travel or health opportunities every year. Due to all of these, Hong Kong became a large and lively city.

      Consequently, Milan and Hong Kong are big cities, but they are different from each other. They have different basic features and priorities. People are trying to implement  a more natural and healthier life in Milan; in contrast, industry and trade come to the forefront in Hong Kong.                                                                                          Nesibe Dilekçi

IS YOUR WEDDING THE HAPPIEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE?

An argumentative comparison

Dedicated to “N” and “S” in the hope that they recover from the stress of their wedding and live happily ever after

A wedding is a ceremony held to announce to the community that two people wish to spend the rest of their lives together. It is a public declaration of love and commitment and as such, is cause for celebration. Weddings all over the world are, therefore, described as joyous occasions during which families and friends come together to celebrate the momentous decision of the couple. Logically, their wedding should be the happiest day of the couple’s life and so it is on some occasions, but it is far from being so on others. Wedding ceremonies can be a source of absolute joy but also of great misery. The key criterion is the type of society in which the ceremony is taking place.

In more individualistic societies such as those in the developed world, the individual, his desires, aspirations and proclivities are given precedence over culture and traditions. It is the individual who takes major decisions about his life and decides on the direction it should take. The notion of freedom is the natural culmination of movements such as the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution to list a few, and is now entrenched in the West. There is a second factor that has a bearing on the issue and that is the age at which people get married. Marriage is not the end all and be all of life; people wish to receive a good education and pursue a career as well. This takes time, and when young people finally decide to take the leap, they are mature adults who know exactly what they want and intend to get it. They may, as a result, decide to tie the knot in the Bahamas, on a beach, with a priest and no guests at all. Alternatively, they may prefer a simple ceremony at the registry office or decide to go the whole hog and rent a stately home for the day. As far as choices go, the sky is the limit, no one interferes, and as such, the wedding is a day to remember.

Not so in more traditional, collectivist societies. In such societies, it is the customs, the traditions and social expectations of the society handed down through the generations that take precedence over anything the individual may desire or aspire to. The moment the decision is taken to get married, ritual and time honored practices take over reducing the couple to be married to puppets under the control of the puppet masters, the families and the rest of the community. Every step to be taken is set in stone and any wish to deviate from the prescribed path is met with harsh rebuke. For the puppet masters, marriage is the single most important step in life and concerns the community as a whole, but not so to all the so called “puppets”. Societies don’t exist in vacuums; there is, thanks to globalization, a wealth of opportunities to connect and discover, first hand, the way people live in other parts of the world. Another factor is education: Many young people in such parts of the world go to western countries and the USA to be able to receive a better education and while there, are subject to the influence of a far more individualistic society than the one they were accustomed to. Therein, lies the problem.

Individuals are subject to a multitude of influences throughout their lives; it is these influences along with personal interpretation that molds them into the kind of people they become. Parents of young people in more traditional collectivist societies are the way they are as a result of the cultural influences they have been subjected to. Letting go of such cultural norms as those espoused by the society is not an option. The young people however have been on the receiving end of a medley of cultural influences both from their homeland and from the more individualistic West. As a result, they have very different world views from their parents whose opinions they feel under no obligation to respect or accept. Neither party is interested in a compromise and is set on imposing their own opinions on the other. The resulting clashes come their wedding day cause much pain, angst and rifts that can last for years. The period leading up to the wedding, the wedding day itself and the following days cause stress and misery all round. A modern couple, for instance, would find the need to prove virginity to family members waiting outside the bedroom door the height of indignity whereas for the families, it is a matter of life and death. In short, weddings are not always all they are cracked up to be.

Assuming that one’s wedding day is always the happiest day of one’s life is a mistake. Societies come in different forms; traditions, customs and rituals come into play to varying degrees. Serious problems can occur depending on the extent to which people hold the accepted ways of doing things dear. As always the solution is civilized discussion and compromise or the acceptance of a serious rift.

BOARDING SCHOOLS VERSUS DAY SCHOOLS

Childhood, adolescence and the teenage period are collectively the most important period of one’s life. This is due to the fact that it is during this period of their lives that children receive an education and prepare for their future and the roles they want to play in society. Schools are where young people receive their formal education and there are two types of school: boarding schools and day schools. These two types of institution share some similarities but there are also some major differences.

Being educational institutions providing formal education, these two schools have the same goals. They aim to provide the students with the level and quality of education dictated by the ministry of education. It is this latter organization which sets the syllabi and determines the dates for the centralized tests. This being the case, students in both types of school follow the program determined by the higher authorities. The quality of teachers in both types of school are similar as well as they are required to have a teaching certificate obtained from the Education Faculty of a major university. The extracurricular activities such as sports and student clubs are also features that are shared by both types of school. It seems, therefore, that in terms of the basics, the differences between these types of school are negligible. However, this is not where the story ends.

The differences between boarding schools and day schools relate mainly to life style. Day schools, as the name implies, sends students home once lessons are over. They only take responsibility for the students’ formal education, not for anything that takes place after hours. Boarding schools, however, take charge of the rest of a student’s day as well: they provide three meals a day, make sure students enjoy a well balanced diet, monitor homework and provide assistance with any problems, arrange for leisure time and make sure students are safely tucked in in their dormitories come bed time. The students are allowed to go home at weekends and/or holidays to see their families. The opportunities for communal living provided by such schools also provide valuable social learning and enable students to acquire valuable life skills which will help them in their future life. It seems, therefore, that boarding schools provide a more all rounded education.

To sum up, day schools and boarding schools differ in terms of the aspects of life they have influence over. While the former only focus on formal education, the latter focus on social life, physical and psychological development as well. These two types of school appeal to different types of families with specific needs. Various personal and practical considerations weigh in when making a selection.

TEENAGERS TODAY AND THOSE A HUNDRED YEARS AGO (This is a 60)

This century has brought significant changes to the world.Technological products,mobility and industrial production levels today and those about a hundred years ago are almost incomparable.These socio-political and technological changes have taken a heavy toll on particular social groups,especially teenagers.Due to these,and for many other reasons, there are many differences between the daily lives of teenagers today and a century
ago.
 
    Firstly,today's teenagers are more educated than a hundred years ago.The teenagers tend to question and test,and also tend to be beter informed in contrast to the past thanks to access to education.Moreover,today's teenagers use many types of technological products such as tablets,computers,smart phones both at school and at home.Thus,they have become one of the main target audiences for social media and they waste their leisure
time on social networks instead of doing more profitable activities.
 
    Teenagers a century ago had very little access to technology.They used their leisure time helping their parents around the house.In addittion,financial difficulties did not allow parents to send their children to school,and basically access to education was considered a privilege for male children.According to Maccoby "...more girls, than boys reported that their parents had encoureged them to attend college."(in 1978) This was a major problem in contrast to the present.Increased gender equality among teenagers today can be observed,easily.
 
 
     To sum up,time changes many activities which we can do.There is more gender equality,in terms of access to opportunities,among modern teenagers.In the future,we may live the life that we can't imagine now.

SOCIAL NETWORKING IN THE 1600'sVERSUS NOW

Reading related comparison contrast essay: “Social networking in the 1600’s”, The Prop Room

As a social species whose survival, welfare and overall happiness depend on staying together, cooperating and looking out for each other, an age when there was no social networking is unimaginable. No man is an island and team work often brings out the best in mankind. Communication as a community also has many social, psychological and even educational and political advantages and this has always been the case. ‘Social networking’, in other words, is far from being a new phenomenon; the only thing that has happened is that there have been some changes over the years in certain practical aspects though the basic tenets have remained very much the same. There are far more similarities than differences between 17^th century social networking and the modern day version.

The basic features of social networking were very much the same in the 1600’s although the venue was the coffee house rather than cyber space. The coffee houses in the period, the equivalent of the modern World Wide Web, were the accepted meeting place for people from all walks of life from ministers and great scientists to simple workmen. There, everyone was encouraged to talk to each other, discuss the latest developments both in the country and in science and listen to each other respectfully; very similar to modern day chat rooms. Penny universities as coffee houses were then called were venues for lectures and talks delivered to the public by the great thinkers of the time – think ted talks, courser, udacity or colingo. A lot of people also used coffee houses to receive post rather like e-mail accounts today. In fact it was this system that made the Reformation possible in Germany; not to mention Lloyds and the London Stock Exchange

The basic principles of social networking have remained very much the same; the only thing that has changed is the venue. Gone are the coffee houses which have been replaced by cyber space which has, in turn, enabled the whole world to become one big coffee house or ‘penny university.’ Social networking now involves the whole world where anyone can communicate with anyone else albeit by Skype or via Google hang out. Face to face communication is out and technology assisted communication is in. Technology enables us to do wonderful things now like holding board meetings across continents, remotely treating patients and communicate on a scale hitherto unimaginable.  Yet if one looks carefully, one will quickly see that the basic principles stand firm.

To sum up, there always has been and there always will be social networking although the practical aspects may change. People will continue to benefit from sharing ideas and theories, discussions and cooperation, as team work is in our nature. Time and new developments will continue to transform various aspects of social networking in the future but it won’t disappear.

Provided by: The Oracle

HOW DO WE LEARN? DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY?

Human beings are social creatures and start learning about the physical and social environment which they are born into almost as soon as they are born. The environment in which they live and interact with people expands as they grow ending up by spanning the globe if they end up working for a globetrotting conglomerate for example.  Thanks to globalization, the ease of travel and modern technology everyone now “lives” in the whole world and is expected to be able to function in it. However, learning about this vast physical and social environment has also become much harder. In the modern world, this learning can be direct or indirect and for most it is a combination of both.

The oldest and best way to learn about the world in which we are living is through direct experience. Nothing can beat actually going to Australia and trekking across the outback to learn about the country so that you never forget it. Nothing can compare to going to Norway to watch the northern lights – aurora borealis.  The learning that takes place through hands on experience is more lasting and resistant to forgetting. This is why practice is an important part of teaching and learning in all walks of life. A second advantage of hands on experience is the enthusiasm and joy it produces. This is because direct experience multisensory: a person can smell the air, touch the plants, hear the sounds of nature and the like. In short, direct experience is by far the best way of learning yet it is not always possible.

Unfortunately it is not always possible to travel to Norway or Australia as it can be expensive, time consuming or impractical. When such is the case, a substitute to the direct approach becomes necessary and thanks to modern technology, people can have what is very close to an actual experience in the comfort of their living rooms. Modern 3D televisions bring scenes from all over the world alive. Cable networks provide a wealth of experience broadening everybody’s horizons. There is also the internet, and especially social media, which is destroying boundaries and providing a wealth of information. Daily news on the internet now involves as many videos as articles appealing to all the senses very much like real experience. Indirect learning of this kind is definitely a second best but it is a very close second with the distinctions blurring every day.

In the future, we may be able to put on a headset like gamers wear and actually feel we are in Peru visiting Machu Pichu. Since the technology is already available, it is only a matter of time until we “visit St Petersburg” before supper. This kind of experience will probably make direct learning completely obsolete. For now, however, direct learning and more indirect learning need to go hand in hand.

WHERE TO WATCH A FILM?

Films are one of the first things that come to mind when one wants to go out with friends, go on a date, chill out on the sofa with a bowl of popcorn or on a lazy weekend. They might transport you to a different time, a different place and show you a different way of life; alternatively, they may give you better insight into current events. In either case, they help provide respite from the stresses and strains of daily life; after all, everyone is entitled to a strategic withdrawal to regroup and what better way to do so than by watching a film? In the modern world, thanks to developments in technology, there is no longer any need to traipse all the way to the cinema to do so; there are other alternatives yet each is a different experience and has its place in our lives.

The actual movie theater is still vastly superior to its rivals in terms of the quality of the experience offered. Nothing can rival the visual experience of a 3D movie at the cinema; if you feel your laptop will provide a comparable experience you are much mistaken; no one can claim that “The force awakens” can be better enjoyed at home on a laptop. Couple this with the sound quality and you have a brilliant sensory experience. It is true that one has to actually get off one’s hands and leave the house to see the film but considering how sedentary people’s lives are in the modern world, is that such a bad thing? Then there is the issue of physical comfort but modern movie theaters address that problem as well. The seats in older cinemas used to be the kind you might see in the hall of a Victorian home: absolutely straight and narrow; now they could theoretically sit two of you and are so comfortable that you could sleep in them. Movie theaters cater to every need and try and provide every possible creature comfort; the holder for you drink for example. The only thing missing is your slippers. Lastly, going to a movie theater to see a film is a more social experience you can share with friends or a date and where is the harm in that in a world where virtual friendships trump real ones? In short, the modern cinema experience can be better fun, more social and more comfortable than its alternatives.

With the very best of intentions and no matter how hard one yearns to be able to do it, it is sometimes just not possible to leave the house to go to a cinema. Returning home from a 12 hour stint at the office for example leaves you with just about enough energy to crawl to the sofa. There are also the elderly, some of whom may be housebound, the parents with young families or the insomniac who is twiddling his thumbs at 2 in the morning; these people also have a right to see films but it goes without saying that for them, the experience is a lesser one compared to that of the cinema goers. Although home cinema systems and giant plasma screens are available to those with the means to purchase them, most will just plonk down in front of their computers and make the best of it. The visual and sound quality of films watched in this way is no match for the cinema; the latter is undoubtedly superior. Then there is the social aspect or rather the lack of it; watching a film on the computer is definitely a solitary experience whichever way you look at it. As for snacks, if you could actually be bothered to get up and make popcorn for yourself, you would probably be at the cinema in the first place. The television in the living room is marginally better as the experience could involve  friends or a partner, a cuddle on the sofa and much needed relaxation. At the end of a busy day, when one doesn’t have the energy for an outing, this second best, the home cinema experience, comes into play but everyone would quickly agree that the cinema has various advantages that are superior to anything you can do at home.

To sum up, films have been and will continue to be one of most people’s top choices of entertainment wherever they choose to watch them. While the home experience is definitely more practical and comfortable, the experience at the movie theater is technically better and often more social. They both have their places in people’s lives. The key point here is that the cinema industry is going strong despite everything. 

THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR

A job is an indispensable asset in people’s lives. People have to work to provide their basic needs such as accommodation, food, clothes, education and so on.  Because of the need to provide for oneself and one’s family in society, many different jobs have emerged. Every person can work wherever he wants. However, these jobs are divided into 2 general categories which are the private sector and the public sector. Even though both sectors give people many good opportunities, there are two main differences between working in the private sector and the public sector, which are working conditions and the outputs of sectors.

The first difference is working conditions. In the public sector, people work 8 hours a day and generally they are off at the weekends. However, in the private sector, working hours are basically 8 hours but workers usually work 10 or 12 hours a day. It changes according to the company and type of job. For example, the tourism sector is the private sector. If people work in a five star hotel, they usually work 8 hours a day. However, if they work in a restaurant, they probably work 10 hours a day. Moreover, in contrast to workers who work in the public sector who do not work on official holidays, the private sector’s workers may work on official holidays. It is determined according to companies’ policies. Also, normally companies have to provide their workers’ needs such as security, food, compulsory insurance and transportation.  However, some private companies do not provide transportation services or any fee for it. Unlike these companies, in the public sector, almost all workers are picked up from their neighborhood to come to work. To sum up, working conditions are important in creating an effective work place. Companies should take care of their workers if they want to have quality output.

The second difference is the outputs of sectors. Many people try to have a job in the public sector because they think that if they are accepted, they can work there until they retire. Therefore, they do not have any anxiety about finding a new job. However, the public sector limits workers perspectives in their jobs. Many people in the public sector just concentrate on finishing the day and going home. Also, they do not think about innovation in their businesses. In contrast, in the private sector, workers have to follow innovations because competition is very widespread. They have to think of novelty, they have to act professionally and they always have to think about their competitors to get one step ahead in the competition and not to lose their job. Furthermore, in the public sector, workers are time servers because promotion depends on the working year, worker’s education and vacant posts awaiting to be filled. Also, in the public sector, workers who start to work have to work in different places if they do not get enough marks on the exam. However, in the private sector, workers are more ambitious than the public sector workers and wish to be promoted. Also, they can be transferred from one company to another with better working conditions such as a high salary, more quality customer profiles and an international working environment. Briefly, the public sector limits workers while the private sector gives them all the opportunities to raise companies’ profiles.

As a result, working is necessary not only to provide monetary needs but also to provide social needs. The choice of a work place differs from person to person according to needs, wants and expectations. However, differences between the public sector and the private sector should be taken into consideration when making an assessment. Regardless, people should not allow themselves to get into a rut.

BOARDING SCHOOLS VERSUS DAY SCHOOLS

In the modern world, a good education is necessary to get ahead in life and make something of yourself. This being the case, parents try to provide the best education possible to their children. In most countries in the modern world, there are plenty of schools; education is now a right and no longer a privilege. There are schools where the medium of education is a foreign language, there are those whose focus is science and there are standard schools. However, some of these schools provide an extra service: bed and board. These schools are called boarding schools and exist as a choice alongside day schools. Day schools and boarding schools have various similarities and differences and the choice of school depends on the individual.

All schools are run by the Ministry of Education so they are similar in terms of the quality and type of education that is offered, the syllabus and the teaching methods. All schools, whether boarding school or day school, have to provide all the lessons demanded by the Ministry of Education. What’s more, they have to prepare students for the same standardized tests which take place on fixed days. In these respects, all schools are similar. Schools are also similar in terms of the presence of extracurricular activities, playing fields and the like. All schools have playing fields which students can benefit from. Schools are after all educational establishments which aim to develop the mind and character. And as such, the teachers are also graduates of the same teacher training colleges in the country and make use of similar teaching methods. In short, there is little difference between the two types of school with respect to what is taught and how it is taught. Differences emerge with respect to other related factors.

Boarding schools provide a host of services which day schools don’t need to provide as students in day schools go home at the end of the school day. They have sleeping facilities in the form of dormitories, study halls to do homework and dining halls for meals. All this means far more socialization and more independence from the family. Children are able to do far more together: they do homework, eat and sleep together and thus form close bonds. They also learn to be far more independent as they cannot run to their mothers whenever they have a problem. They do have help and supervision though; they are not completely alone. Supervisors in the study hall help with homework and the Matron deals with any problems in the dormitories. Older students take part in a mentoring system to help the younger students. In short, boarding schools provide a life besides education.

In conclusion, schooling is a service provided by the state but it is up to the individual to choose which particular medium he prefers. Some prefer to go to school solely for the purpose of education but others prefer to spend their leisure time there as well. In the modern world, most students have the opportunity to choose and benefit from all that the specific educational establishment they have selected has to offer.

TEA AND COFFEE

     Tea and coffee are  a significant part of daily life for numerous people. According to legend, tea was first discovered by the Emperor of China in 2737 BC while he was passing over a bridge. When it comes to coffee, it is estimated that coffee  was first found in the Ethiopian highlands and it spread to other continents through the Arabian Peninsula. In terms of effects on people, coffee and tea have differences and similiarities.

    There is serious research that caused scientific debates about coffee and tea. For example,an Australian study has recently shown that the dark tea we consume  regularly is the basis of the strength of our bones and as a result of this, the risk of osteoporosis is reduced considerably. Besides, contrary to common opinion, tea does not damage peoples’ teeth; in fact, the substance called fluoride that tea contains protects teeth and prevents decay. Apart from these contributions, tea helps in decreasing stress and in increasing mental focus and concentration.
    

    With respect to advantages, it is possible to observe the same effect after coffee consumption. Coffee consumption in moderate amounts plays an effective role in the prevention of the risk of some diseases such as parkinson, alzheimer, type 2 diabetes and heart rhythm problems. On the other hand, it is a fact that overcomsumption of coffee may lead to unwanted results such as a rise in blood pressure and changes in sleep patterns. When exam dates get close, students have a reason for drinking coffee. In other words, students feel  in need of coffee to be awake and more conscious, but according to experts our expectations can determine how we feel. It is possible to stay awake without drinking coffee by using our conscious mind and by reminding ourselves of our responsibilities.
   

    All in all, both coffee and tea are good for us in different ways. On account of the fact that moderation is very important in every area of our lives, we should arrange coffee and tea consumption according to this fact. While some people would rather drink coffee than drink tea, some people exclusively drink tea. On the other hand, there are a number of people who drink neither tea nor coffee. As far as I am concerned, these beverages add flavour to our lives and  most people will drink both coffee and tea as long as they live.

CATS VERSUS DOGS

People can keep/have  many kinds of animals indoors such as snakes, tarantulas, hamsters, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc. These animals are fed by their owners in whose life they play an important role . Animals are our good friends and the most popular pets in the world are cats and dogs. Cats and dogs are always loved by people because of a lot of reasons. However, there are always cat fans and dog fans and we can compare cats and dogs according to some qualities.

Firstly, there are differences between dogs and cats in terms of difficulty of care. Dogs require more attention than cats because cats are independent but dogs are not. For example, if you leave your dog alone for more than four hours, the dog is emotionally affected. On the other hand, if you have a cat, you don’t have this problem; it is enough to feed it and clean its litter box. Shortly, if you don’t have time to take an interest in a dog, don’t have a dog. In this situation, it is more appropriate to have a cat.

Secondly, there are significant differences between dogs and cats in terms of cleanliness. Cats are cleaner than dogs because cats lick themselves but dogs do not. For this reason, if you don’t wash your dog, it will smell bad. On the other hand, it is not necessary to wash cats. There is also the business of toilet training. Cats come out on top here as well. You need only show a cat once where the litter tray is and that will be that. Providing toilet training for dogs is a much lengthier process.

Thirdly there are, also differences between dogs and cats in terms of functionality. Dogs can be trained but training cats is difficult because they tend to behave independently. Dogs can help the police in drug cases, they can guard their owner’s home and prevent thieves from robbing it and dogs can also help owners hunt. On the other hand, cats enjoy hunting but on their own terms. You can’t take a cat hunting like you do a dog. Cats are very good at keeping the rodent population under control and have been kept in homes for this purpose for hundreds of years.

In conclusion, having a pet  requires responsibility and for this reason, we must consider the pros and cons before deciding to buy a pet. We must choose the correct and the most suitable animal for both our own and the animal’s sake.

BOSSES

    Pursuing happiness in business life is a hard but also significant issue. Workplace atmosphere may be demotivating or motivating depending on the manager’s attitude. There is a critical number of employees who give up their jobs due to problems with their bosses. While some managers provide the employees with a good workplace, many managers could lead employees to be demotivated. There are a lot of differences between good and bad bosses.

    A motivating boss admits it when s/he is wrong. S/he never blames the employees for a mistake that s/he has made. Good bosses emphasize the employee’s ideas. They follow up these ideas before the company starts planning a new project. Moreover, they communicate directly and specifically with the employees, which is very important for the motivation of the employees. Because they can share the challenges they encounter, they feel more motivated. In addition, good bosses support employee development by giving frequent praise for the accomplishments of the company. Thus, they encourage the employees to be successful and also provide them with a peaceful and comfortable working area.

    A demotivating boss never admits his or her failure. S/he thinks that if there is a mistake, the employees possibly made it and s/he is always right. Demotivating bosses have poor listening and communication skills. For example, let’s suppose that an employee wants to share his or her ideas with the boss. When s/he realizes that the boss does not listen to him or her, s/he feels unimportant, which discourages him or her considerably. Demotivating bosses do not support employee development. They take all the credit for themselves and do not care about the employee’s ideas. In addition, even if employees have done a good job, demotivating bosses never praise them. Therefore, the employees feel discouraged.

    In conclusion, workplace atmosphere is really significant for the employees. The bosses have an important role in creating a workplace the employees feel happy in. A good boss encourages the employees to do good work and provides them with a motivating workplace while a bad boss usually discourages the employees and provides them with a demotivating and also comfortless workplace.

DEMOCRACY VERSUS TOTALITARIANISM

Humanity has always needed tobe governed by a principle. Today, democracy is supposed to be the best political system in terms of providing freedom of speech, , lifestyle, and religion. On the other hand, totalitarianism is also thought to be necessary for making decisions speedily during an economic crisis ora military operation. However, unlimited power is very attractive for everyone and there might be possible and predictable bad results such as Nazi persecution of homosexuals and the Gypsies.Of course, democracy and totalitarianism are almost diametrically opposed forms of government but there is also a similarity concerning  authority. 

The main difference between the two systems  is the separation of powers. In democratic countries, the powers are divided into 3 groups: legislative, executive, and judicial.The representatives are responsible for fulfilling the desires of the citizens. The power is vested in the people. Thus, rights of minorities are protected. This is the main principle of democracy.  In contrast to democracy, the will of the leader is supreme in totalitarian systems. There is no right to rise against the leader. Nobody can guarantee that the citizens are pleased and they suppose their rights are protected by the government.

Secondly, in democracy, freedom of speech is  seen as a means of improvement and encouraged by governments in order to have  a country that all citizensare grateful and happy to live in whereas a totalitarian government silences the people through oppression. In addition, the secret police are a control method in totalitarian systems so the method is a way of spreading fear among the citizens.

On the other hand, there is also a similarity. Both forms of government have the potential to suppress. If a single party receives  majority support, it will be possible that the original system can be disrupted to stay in power. Under the name of democracy, dictatorship might emerge.

In conclusion, democracy and totalitarianism are accepted by different countries. Every citizen wishesto livein a developing and respectable country. However, the place where people don’t have any right to speak for their public and private life cannot be an ideal place to live . Governments and their citizens act together through democracy. Democracy is always better than totalitarianism until a better political system is  found. 

TOTALITARIANISM VERSUS DEMOCRACY

Almost every person in the world has heard the term government which is the system by which a nation, state or community is ruled. There are many types of government, such as communism, oligarcy, theocracy, totalitarianism and democracy.  Totalitarianism and democracy have many differences and some similarities.

In the first place, totalitarianism is a political system where the state holds total authority over a society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. For example, Nazi Germany was a totalitarian government. Unlike totalitarianism,democracy is the government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation  usually involving periodically held free elections. For example, USA has been ruled by democracy. Moreover, democracy institutionalizes the political ideas of equal rights and civil control. However, totalitarianism enshrines the idea that the power of the state must be total;  the will of the leader is law and supreme. Therefore, in totalitarianism one person has all the power and if someone says or does something that is not approved, he will punish them, so other people cannot disobey that person, argue or say something he does not like. Because of these reasons, people are not equal, do not have any rights and cannot be free or speak freely. On the other hand, In democracy, all citizens are equal, they can express any opinion to the government or disagreewith them because the power to govern comes from citizens.

On the other side of the coin, they have similarities too. Both forms of government have the potential to oppress the  people while a democracy typically does not follow this pattern. It is possible that a majority of people could empower a single party that would oppress the minority. Another similarity is the irrational voter can be a stepping stone towards a totalitarian type of democracy. Under certain conditions voters might select a candidate that would improve their lives at the cost of others.When given too much power, the party elected may abuse it and eventually come to control the entire state.

Ultimately, since we can talk, walk or do and say something freely, democracy provides us with security,cares about our thoughts, gives us power and makes everyone equal, itis  the best type of government for all people in the world.

AUTOCRATIC VERSUS DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP

Leadership is defined as the power of an individual to influence others in belief or action.For a company or government to succeed, good leadership is crucial. All employees work under the direction of their managers. Therefore, to increase the productivity of a company some significant decisions should be made by the director. In this case, the kind of leaders may determine the fate of a company. There are two major types of leadership according to their management styles.

One type of the leadership is autocratic. Autocratic leaders take most decisions without consulting others and are the main source of power of the institution. They also tend to be punitive, controlling, power-oriented and coercive because they are only concerned for productivity. Autocratic leaders, also called directive leaders,don’t trust the ability of the followers and thus supervise and control them. The employees of the company managed by an autocratic leader get less responsibility and face less challenge. As a result, they cannot be satisfied with their jobs.Moreover, autocratic leadership has some advantages such as quick decision making, absolute control, focused targets, close supervision and maintaining order and discipline. Briefly, autocratic leaders have the power to control or supervise a company or the government and don’t consider thethoughts of others.

Another type of leadership is democratic. Democratic leaders involve people in discussions and the final decision-making. They tend to be considerate, consultative, participative, employee-centered and supportive because they are concerned for employees. They encourage questioning; open ideas to criticism and treat subordinates’ mistakes as learning opportunities. When subordinates work well, the leaders celebrate accomplishments and hence subordinates are encouraged.  Furthermore, democratic leadership, also called participative leadership, includes subordinates in the decision making process by encouraging employees to be creative, innovative and engaged at a higher level of productivity. In brief, democratic leaders don’t ignore subordinates ideas, thoughts and attitudes and hence boost them.

To sum up, thetype of leader is more important for companies or governments to survive for a long time. Democratic leaders regard employees’ motivation and improvementas crucial. On the other hand, autocratic leaders gather all the power to themselves. Autocratic leaders provide quick decision-making, while the democratic leaders focus on the subject comprehensively. 

DEMOCRATIC VERSUS AUTHORITARIAN LEADERS (This essay would get a 60)

 People affect each other. Some of these people, who are called leaders, influence more people and attract them because of their own characteristic features. These people fall into two categories: they may be autocratic leaders or democratic leaders. Although both of thesetypes of people are called leaders, they have many differences.

First of all, the differences between autocratic and democratic leaders are obvious. While autocratic leaders don’t allow the subordinates to make decisions, democratic leaders consult the subordinates. Unlike autocratic leaders, democratic leaders don’t give orders to the subordinates. Democratic leaders prefer equal participation, inclusiveness and deliberation. In short, democratic leaders and autocratic leaders are exact opposites.

Secondly, autocratic leaders check the tasks they asked the subordinates to do whereas democratic leaders seek creativity in the subordinates. Autocratic leaders don’t trust the followers to do  important tasks. However, democratic leaders always empower the group members. Though autocratic leaders have no tolerance for weaknesses, democratic leaders believe that making-mistakes is necessary to learn.In short, autocratic leaders prefer a top-down form of management whereas democratic leaders don't.

All in all, the features of autocratic leaders are based on power, absoluteness, giving orders, not allowing mistakes even though democratic leaders look out for inclusiveness and democratic principles. At the same time, both leaders have a lot of followers so people need both leaders.