What makes a place a home Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

What makes a place a home - Essay Example A house is simple a dwelling place but a home is said to be a livable place where families and friends can enjoy the company of each other, sharing intrinsic and intangible values such as peace, happiness and especially, love. Looking further into the contradictions, this paper will discuss in detail how the aforementioned characteristics turn a house into a home. A house simply caters to one’s physical needs. Since shelter is one of man’s basic needs, a dwelling place then becomes necessary but having a place to stay does not always mean a person has a home. A house is devoid of values such as peace. For instance, one has a sanctuary to call but it is only a place to cover him from the heat of the sun, the pouring of the rain or the cold winter nights. The place may give him the needed protection from the weather but it may not give him peace of mind because of other dangers such as robbers, murderers and other criminal acts. Therefore, the man may always be in fear. O n the other hand, a place is called a home when it provides a peaceful and comfortable habitation. A home give the dweller peace of mind because it does not only provide shelter through the changing seasons but also give an emotional and psychological assurance that the person will be far from any danger. In addition, this can also be extended to the condition of the dwellers themselves. For instance, in a house, the people living in it may always be fighting even over trivial matters. Therefore, the place only serves as a place for the family to find shelter. Nevertheless, a home will not only do that but will also give a welcoming atmosphere to all the people living in it. This becomes true when the people there are at peace with each other, making each other feel comfortable in order for them to make others stay and not want to move away. Secondly, a home is a dwelling place filled with happiness. There are so many things that bring people happiness such as food, valuables and a good company. A house filled with such things make up a home. One cannot say an abode is a home when it merely serves to provide shelter, being lacking in other important things. A place where there is no available food brings bad experiences such as pictures of a hunger so that one would not dare go to when he is in need of food. Lack of food is one of the reasons of many fights among family members. A mother trying to earn money to buy food for her two children can easily get mad at her husband who is wasting all his money on alcohol and drugs and does not even try to find a job. In such case, there is no peace and therefore, there will be no happiness. A place where entertainment and other valuable materials are not available as well cannot be fully called a home because material possessions bring happiness to people especially in these modern times. In relation to the discussion on peace, happiness will also be absent when peace is deprived in the house. In other words, when one is at peace with himself and his dwelling place, his residence can be called a home. Moreover, when he is at peace with the other people in the house, happiness is shared among them and therefore the place is called a home. Lastly, a lodging is called a home when there is love. Peace and happiness may be experienced by a lone dweller but love is only experienced between two or more people. From such definition, it could be said that a house cannot be fully called a home when there is no love that is shared in it. Therefore, a person who lives alone in a beautiful and comfortable house where all his needs are provided for does not live in a home but a house. The loneliness felt in such a place explains why one person would not want to abide in the residence forever. Some

Socrates and his theories Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Socrates and his theories - Essay Example Contrary to other philosophers, Socrates devoted his life to serve his people without charging fees (Plato 34). Therefore, to state that Socrates had no or little participation of democracy in Athenian government is entirely true. Socrates perceived democratic form of governance as corrupt, unjust, and he profoundly differed with its ideologies. As a philosopher, Socrates believed in practicality and critical thinking in order for one to improve his or her life. He opposed the idea of the majority being in government, which is one of the fundamentals that form a democratic government. According to Pericles, Socrates lack of recognition in equality through participation of the majority makes him less a democratic citizen (Plato 40). Cleon as portrayed by Thucydides was a diligent supporter of the democratic system of government. In his speech Cleon, upholds the negative aspects of the Athenian rules. Cleon strongly believed that anyone who opposed the Athenian government is subject to punishment (Thucydides 25). Cleon delivered his speech opposing the Mytilenian revolt against Athens. In his speech, Cleon emphasized on certain aspects of democracy discussed by Pericles in his famous funeral oration. These aspects include the implementation of the death row sentence. It is my opinion that as much as Cleon convinced Athenians through his speech that democracy is the answer to peace, order and equality. However, it is vital to consider the opinion of the minority for democracy to be effective and sufficient. Socrates did not support Athenian democratic government because of its ignorance of the minority. In fact, he considered it a tool of oppression. Socrates would highly disagree with Cleon’s speech full of egotistical claims in favor of democratic government. This is because in his speech Cleon does not mention the installation of moral values among the citizens to ensure orderliness. Rather, he emphasizes on the execution of the law whether it is just or bias (Thucydides 30). His speech contrasts Socrates belief in the power of knowledge and critical thinking as opposed to following and serving the law blindly (Plato 56). In his speech Diodotus, stressed on the importance of reasoning before implementing a rule. Diodotus urges the Athenian parliament to reason and strategize before passing a judgment on the Mytilenian revolution. Diodotus opposed Cleon who stood by the rules of law. It is my understanding that Diodotus realized that strategy and tact are essential in implementation of power or rules. As in the case of Athens, they faced a challenge in integrating the other states in their system of governance. This was result of lack of strategy and tact (Thucydides 50). Diodotus in his speech argued that by wise reasoning Athenians would subtly subdue the other states without the use of force. Diodotus argument concurs with Socrates principles of governance and power. Just like Diodotus, Socrates believed in rational conflict solv ing methods. Moreover, in his theories Socrates states that, through critical reasoning, a state can achieve anything it intends to acquire without the use of force. Socrates also believed in knowledge as a tool for personal development. However, Diodotus and Socrates differed in terms of participation in politics. Diodotus was an active figure in policy making while Socrates concerned himself with acquisition of knowledge (Kamtekar 80). In the case of the Mytilenian debate, Diodotus