Search

Importance of parents in our life

Tragically, he is no longer able to confirm this account. Your academic papers on the welcome tune on my role model. Our mothers remain at the forefront of our families the poster-ladies of love, warmth and nurturing, and rightfully so. Scrolling through were women like me: The hour and a half crawled by. Essay on my father my role model took me to his house where my uncle and aunt received me warmly. After all, I was there in the house, in the room and I know both my father and mother and what each is capable of a whole lot better than you.



About the Author We may not always know it, but we think in metaphor. A large proportion of our most commonplace thoughts make use of an extensive, but unconscious, system of metaphorical concepts, that is, concepts from a typically concrete realm of thought that are used to comprehend another, completely different domain. Such concepts are often reflected in everyday language, but their most dramatic effect comes in ordinary reasoning.

Because so much of our social and political reasoning makes use of this system of metaphorical concepts, any adequate appreciation of even the most mundane social and political thought requires an understanding of this system. But unless one knows that the system exists, one may miss it altogether and be mystified by its effects.

For me, one of the most poignant effects of the ignorance of metaphorical thought is the mystification of liberals concerning the recent electoral successes of conservatives. Conservatives regularly chide liberals for not understanding them, and they are right. The reason at bottom is that liberals do not understand the form of metaphorical thought that unifies and makes sense of the full range of conservative values.

To understand what metaphor has to do with conservative politics, we must begin with that part of our metaphor system that is used to conceptualize morality -- a system of roughly two dozen metaphors. To illustrate how the system works, let us begin with one of the most prominent metaphors in the system -- the metaphor by which morality is conceptualized in terms of accounting.

Keeping the Moral Books We all conceptualize well-being as wealth. We understand an increase in well-being as a "gain" and a decrease of well-being as a "loss" or a "cost.

When two people interact causally with each other, they are commonly conceptualized as engaging in a transaction, each transferring an effect to the other.

An effect that helps is conceptualized as a gain; one that harms, as a loss. Thus moral action is conceptualized in terms of financial transaction.

Just as literal bookkeeping is vital to economic functioning, so moral bookkeeping is vital to social functioning. And just as it is important that the financial books be balanced, so it is important that the moral books be balanced. Of course, the "source domain" of the metaphor, the domain of financial transaction, itself has a morality: It is moral to pay your debts and immoral not to. When moral action is understood metaphorically in terms of financial transaction, financial morality is carried over to morality in general: The Moral Accounting Schemes The general metaphor of Moral Accounting is realized in a small number of basic moral schemes: Reciprocation, Retribution, Restitution, Revenge, Altruism, etc.

Each of these moral schemes is defined using the metaphor of Moral Accounting, but the schemes differ as how they use this metaphor, that is, they differ as to their inherent logics. Here are the basic schemes. Reciprocation If you do something good for me, then I "owe" you something, I am "in your debt.

The books are balanced. We know there is a metaphor at work here partly because financial reasoning is used to think about morality, and partly because financial words like "owe," "debt," and "repay" are used to speak of morality. Even in this simple case, there are two principles of moral action. Moral action is giving something of positive value; immoral action is giving something of negative value. Thus, when you did something good for me, you engaged in the first form of moral action.

When I did something equally good for you, I engaged in both forms of moral action. I did something good for you and I paid my debts. Here the two principles act in concert. Retribution Moral transactions get complicated in the case of negative action. The complications arise because moral accounting is governed by a moral version of the arithmetic of keeping accounts, in which gaining a credit is equivalent to losing a debit and gaining a debit is equivalent to losing a credit.

Suppose I do something to harm you. Then, by Well-Being is Wealth, I have given you something of negative value. You owe me something of equal negative value. By moral arithmetic, giving something negative is equivalent to taking something positive. By harming you, I have taken something of value from you.

By harming you, I have placed you in a potential moral dilemma with respect to the first and second principles of moral accounting. Here are the horns of dilemma: If you now do something equally harmful to me, you have done something with two moral interpretations.

By the first principle, you have acted immorally since you did something harmful to me. Had you done nothing to punish me for harming you, you would have acted morally by the first principle, since you would have avoided doing harm. But you would have acted immorally by the second principle: No matter what you do, you violate one of the two principles. You have to make a choice. You have to give priority to one of the principles. Such a choice gives two different versions of moral accounting: The Morality of Absolute Goodness puts the first principle first.

The Morality of Retribution puts the second principle first. As might be expected, different people and different subcultures have different solutions to this dilemma, some preferring retribution, others preferring absolute goodness. In debates over the death penalty, liberals rank Absolute Goodness over Retribution, while conservatives tend to prefer Retribution: Revenge Suppose again that you do something to harm me, which is metaphorically to give me something of negative value.

Moral arithmetic presents an alternative to retribution. By moral arithmetic, you have taken something of positive value from me by harming me. If I take something of equal positive value back from you, I have taken "revenge. Restitution If I do something harmful to you, then I have given something of negative value and, by moral arithmetic, taken something of positive value.

I then owe you something of equal positive value. I can therefore make restitution -- make up for what I have done -- by paying you back with something of equal positive value. Of course, in many cases, full restitution is impossible, but partial restitution may be possible.

An interesting advantage of restitution is that it does not place you in a moral dilemma with respect to the first and second principles. You do not have to do any harm, nor is there any moral debt for you to pay, since full restitution, where possible, cancels all debts.

Altruism If I do something good for you, then by moral accounting I have given you something of positive value. You are then in my debt. I nonetheless build up moral "credit. Therefore, I owe you something of positive value.

Suppose you then refuse both retribution and revenge. You either allow me to harm you further or, perhaps, you even do something good for me. By moral accounting, either harming you further or accepting something good from you would incur an even further debt: If you have a conscience, then you should feel even more guilty.

Turning the other cheek involves the rejection of retribution and revenge and the acceptance of basic goodness -- and when it works, it works via the mechanism of moral accounting. This example illustrates what a cognitive scientist means when he speaks of "conceptual metaphor. It also shows that a mode of metaphorical thought need not be limited to a single culture. Cultures in many parts of the world conceptualize morality in terms of accounting.

Moreover, it shows that the same metaphor can be used in different forms by conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to prefer the metaphorical scheme of retribution to that of restitution. Experiential Morality Before we proceed with our discussion of metaphors for morality, we should point out the obvious -- that morality is not all metaphorical and that nonmetaphorical aspects of morality are what the metaphorical system is based on. Nonmetaphorical morality is about the experience of well-being.

The most fundamental form of morality concerns promoting the experiential well-being of others and the avoidance and prevention of experiential harm to others. Here is part of what is meant by "well-being": These are among our basic experiential forms of well-being.

Their opposites are forms of harm. Immoral action is action that causes harm, that is, action that deprives someone of one or more of these -- of health, wealth, happiness, strength, freedom, safety, beauty, and so on.

These are, of course, norms and the qualification "other things being equal" is necessary, since one can think of special cases where these may not be true. A wealthy child may not get the necessary attention of its parents, someone beautiful may be the target of envy, you need to be in the dark in order to sleep, excessive freedom can sometimes be harmful, sadness and pain may be necessary to appreciate happiness, and so on.

But, on the whole, these conditions on experiential well-being hold. And these conditions form the grounding for our system of moral metaphors. For instance, Well-being is Wealth and hence Moral Accounting is based on the knowledge that it is better to the rich than to be poor. Similarly, since it better to be strong than to be weak, we expect to see morality conceptualized as strength. And because it is better to be healthy than sick, we expect to see morality conceptualized in terms of health and attendant concepts like cleanliness and purity.

What we learn from this is that metaphorical morality is grounded in nonmetaphorical morality, that is, in forms of well-being, and that the system of metaphors for morality as a whole is thus far from arbitrary. Because the same forms of well-being are widespread around the world, we expect the same metaphors for morality to show up in culture after culture -- and they do.

Where we find purification rituals, we find a manifestation of Morality as Purity. Because of the widespread fear of the dark, we find a widespread conception of evil as dark and good as light. Because it is better to walk upright than to fall down, we find the widespread metaphor that Morality is Uprightness. In short, because our notion of what constitutes well-being is widely-shared, our pool of metaphors for morality is also widely shared.

Indeed, the commonality of shared metaphors for morality both within and across societies raises a deep question:



And for me my role model are my parents in this essay. My father is my role model are my parents because they posses the quality of a good parent. I know, they are not perfect but they carry the virtue and quality of a parent that everyone could wish for. My role model is my parents (Essay/Paper Sample) March 13, by admin Essay Samples, Free Essay Samples. Facebook 0 Twitter 0 Google+ 0 who is as confident and calm as my father. He has this air of confidence hanging around him at any time, and when you speak to him, even when the worst of situations is unfolding, he ever .

Total 1 comments.
#1 28.08.2018 14:24 Luroca:
Author intelligent dude