| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MARX SHELLEY": |
|
|
Marx and Shelley, 2002.
An analysis of alienated labor according to Marx and Shelley.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper uses Marx's essay on alienated labor to analyze Mary Shelley's tale of Frankenstein and his monster. After completing this analysis, the author reflects upon what Dr. Frankenstein and Victor Jr. and Shelley would think about Marx's analysis of alienation.
| |
|
"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" ( Kenneth Branagh ) and "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley, 1995.
This paper compares the film director Kenneth Branagh's and book author Mary Shelley's depictions of "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Frankenstein" respectively: Characters, relationships, plot, focus, images, pacing and style
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The recent motion picture version of Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein hews closely to the plot of the novel while failing to capture its essential purpose. The full title of the movie is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, but the possessive does not mean that this version can be considered mary Shelley's vision. Janet Maslin of the New York Times notes this when she writes that the film will not strike anyone as chiefly Mary Shelley's invention. Its principal architect is Kenneth Branagh. . . [who] takes on the godlike, idealistic young scientist's role while also directing this "Frankenstein" as an overheated romantic fable .
An examination of the book and the film shows where the attitudes ... "
| |
|
Differing Views Of Human Nature according to Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, 1990.
Compares conceptions of human nature as proposed by Marx and Freud. Marx's conception is based on economic interactions and the relationship of humans to labor, Freud's conception is rooted in theoretical constructs of the mind producing observable beh
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
" Differing views of human nature are found in the theories of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The two writers address diverse aspects of human life, with Marx centering on the economic and political and Freud on the inner life of the mind and the ways in which that manifests itself in human behavior. The two men have as their starting point a conception of human nature which shows why human beings behave as they do, and for both men the reasons for human behavior are hidden from view, hidden from the understanding of the majority of people responding to them. For Marx, the hidden force is economic and involves the relationship of the human being to labor, while for Freud the hidden force is found in theoretical constructs of the mind which govern different aspects of thought and behavior and whose interaction produces the behavior we can see..."
| |
|
Masculine Revisioning in Kenneth Branagh's "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", 2002.
This paper detects the deviations Kenneth Branagh instills into Mary Shelley's seminal work in his 1994 film adaptation reflect his own attempts at "masculinizing" her seminal work.
3,155 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The essay uses psychoanalysis as a method of comparative discourse, in order to see more clearly the variances and motives between Shelley's and Branagh's texts. The author claims that while Branagh's adaptation affords perhaps the most accurate retelling of the plot of Shelley's text, the lens by which he interprets the tale bends the focus, elaborating upon certain underlying narratives while suppressing or overlooking others. The essay maintains that "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" demonstrates an attempt to revise and rewrite the story in order to place emphasis on more culturally masculine concerns and anxieties, and is far from being the definitive cinematic imagining of Shelley's work. Moreover, he feels that by looking closely at key deviations in Branagh's interpretation and presentation, one can observe a systematic re-envisioning which seeks to displace and usurp Shelley's argument against masculine ideals.
From the Paper
"Stephen Behrendt contends that Victor Frankenstein and his monster reflect Mary Shelley's anxiety over the public role of authorship in a male-dominated society. As objects of discourse, women were continually reminded of their "proper" and "natural" place in private familial and public extrafamilial interaction" (Behrendt 71). Victor's "unnatural" process of creation a man assuming the maternal role of biological life-giver mirrors Shelley's socially constructed sense that she behaved unnaturally in assuming the role of artistic creator. Victor's hysteria and the Creature's disfigurement embody Shelley's horror at her own articulation a horror unconsciously generated by the dictums of a patriarchal world. Victor demonstrates his hysteria when he confesses that "a kind of enthusiastic frenzy had blinded me to the horror of my employment; my mind was intently fixed on the consummation of my labour, and my eyes were shut to the horror of my proceedings" (Shelley 162). "
| |
|
Marx and Engels Today, 2007.
This paper questions whether Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels would have been influenced by Albert Hirschman and Robert Putnam.
1,936 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper questions whether Marx and Engel's theories of economic and social equality would be as readily accepted today as they were in the authors' day. The writer analyzes Marx and Engel's theories, with particular emphasis on "The Communist Manifesto." This is compared and contrasted to Robert Putnam's social capital perspective. The author feels that if Marx and Engels had read Putnam's ideas they might have been inspired by some of the benefits of capitalism, possibly altering their manifesto to include certain elements of democracy. The paper also examines the ideas expressed in Albert Hirschman's "Exit, Voice, and Loyalty." The author also believes Hirschman's philosophy would have impacted Marx and Engels as well. The author concludes that if Marx and Engels had lived to see recent history, their vision of a new, just society based on economic plenty shared by all would have certainly changed.
Outline:
About the Communist Manifesto
Putnam's Notion of Social Capital
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"It makes sense that if Marx and Engels were alive in today's society, they would have much different trains of thought. Given their philosophical natures, they would likely be influenced by many of today's contemporary thought leaders, such as Albert Hirschman, author of "Exit Voice and Loyalty", and Robert Putnam, author of "Democracies in Flux". This paper aims to provide a background on the ideas of "The Communist Manifesto" and offer some insight on what Marx and Engels may have changed based on reading these two contemporary works. "
| |
|
Hegel and Marx, 2008.
This paper compares the philosophies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx.
2,445 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Karl Marx is considered in modern philosophy to be a left-wing Hegelian. The author points out that Marx disagreed with Hegel regarding the idea that the driving force in history is centered on man's intellectual prowess or spiritual need for connectivity. The paper relates that the fundamental disagreement between Hegel and Marx focused on God and property. The author underscores that Hegel believed God was at the center of theology but Marx totally replaced God's presence in society with the concept of the power of private property. The paper concludes that to say that Hegel did not believe in private property and Marx did is erroneous because Hegel also believed that private property was a means to satisfy man's needs: They simply differed on the use of such property.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Marxism
Hegel's Theory
Agreements and Disagreements
Present Day Scholars
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Reality is a contradictory and changeable force. It is with dialectical logic reality is understood for its dynamics involving what is going to be developed. Neither philosopher is a believer of Machiavelli whose writings centered around the way in which history teaches. Hegel and Marx believed that history does not really recur since the motivation of man changes. Human beings are a species that permits higher levels of consciousness and actualization. It is in this school of thought that history is believed to hold progress. Conflict of any kind is a part of progress."
| |
|
Weber and Marx, 2006.
A discussion as to whether Max Weber entirely negated Karl Marx's conception of class inequality.
980 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Max Weber disagreed with Karl Marx's historical and materialist analysis of the dialectical nature or cyclical quality of class conflict within every society. The paper further points out that Weber's more subtle understanding of the concept of 'class', which included dimensions beyond purely economic interests, made class revolution more difficult in his analysis. The author points out that Weber did not negate all of Marx's analysis; rather, he added fundamental components to Marx's analysis of class conflict that disturbed Marx's notion that economics was the root of all human turmoil and strife. The paper stresses that Weber's writings underline the unpredictable importance of ideological and cultural power, an aspect of human life largely ignored in Marx or dismissed as a mere, self-serving tool of the economic elite.
From the Paper
"For example, someone like Bill Gates might rank high in wealth and social power and prestige (through philanthropy) but low in direct, political power (as Gates' corporation has been the subject of anti-trust lawsuits by the government) A public intellectual like Cornell West may not have enough money to really use his money to exert considerable influence upon society, but have intellectual prestige and influence with politicians and media figures. A news anchor like Katie Couric might have more political and social prestige than a wealthy billionaire investor like Warren Buffet."
| |
|
Emile Durkheim's and Karl Marx's Views of Religion, 2006.
This paper shall examine the views of both Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx as they pertain to religion.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Religion plays a key role in the works of both Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx and a close look at their respective views on religion are therefore very important. With that in mind, this paper argues that, while both Durkheim and Marx are not strong advocates of religion, Marx is especially sharp in his denunciation. In particular, whereas Durkheim does see some salutary effects associated with religious practice - such as the promotion of social solidarity as well as a collective moral code - Marx views religion as being basically an appendage of the capitalist establishment. More than that, Marx's vision of both religion and of capitalism is so unflattering that he compares the former to an ancient Near Eastern religious sect which favored the sacrifice of children to an obscure deity.
| |
|
Marx the Individual, 2007.
This paper discusses Karl Marx and the subject of individualism.
2,064 words (approx. 8.3 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that Karl Marx is best known for his incisive analysis and acidic criticisms of capitalism, including the ideology that reinforces and legitimizes it. The writer points out that Marx is especially critical of modern theories of individualism. The writer discusses Marx's critique of individualism as developed and demonstrated in the political writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the greatest champions of individualism. The writer explains that Karl Marx is known for his "Communist Manifesto" and "Capital", writings that would change the course of history. The writer concludes that ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking is a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke.
From the Paper
"Most of Marx writings suggest an understanding of the world that is not in terms of individualism as Hobbes and Locke, despite their differences, have championed. This ties into Marx's ideas that eventually the classes that are dominated by the capitalists will come to rise and overthrow the system and create a much more communal society- communism. However, before this can become a reality Marx has to define the world in different terms than Hobbes and Locke. People have common interests and unite behind those interests to Marx; those interests are being exploited as workers or being the capitalist doing the exploiting trying to protect and further one's interests. Therefore people are united by a common interest one way or the other. There is no individual freedom as the system, whether feudal or capitalist, tells people what they should do and how they should further themselves. The natural state of freedom is not existence to Marx. Furthermore, Marx does not believe that people are necessarily at a state of war, but rather are acting rationally in a system dominated by classes and the need to accumulate resources. Ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking is a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke."
| |
|
Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, 2000.
A look at the backdrop of the nineteenth century which bred Marx's theories, the vision of Marx and the way his ideas were applied.
1,515 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 2 sources, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Karl Marx, born in Germany in 1818, had tremendous influence throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The communist and socialist ideologies, the communist revolution in Russia, and the spread of communism throughout the world were all a result of Marx's social and economic theories. These theories were developed as a result of the situation of the working class in Europe during Marx's lifetime. .."
| |
|
Durkheim and Marx, 2007.
An analysis of the differences in Emile Durkheim's and Karl Marx's philosophies.
988 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the central philosophical differences between Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx and explains that these are what eventually culminate in Marx's "Marxism" and Durkheim's indeterminate status in sociology. The paper explains how the differences between Marx and Durkheim's interpretations of social institutions reveal the weakness inherent to both. Durkheim chose to take a purely mystical perspective regarding society; it was the outcome of abstract notions and social norms. Marx, on the other hand, saw it as purely a materialistic structure; it was based upon tangible and physical realities. The paper contends that neither can be completely accurate, but both maintain a level of truth as well as value for the future.
From the Paper
"Emile Durkheim's reasoning skill and complexity of thought have made him one of the most renowned and celebrated social theorists of all time; however, rather unlike most other sociologists who have received similar levels of praise like Marx or Weber there are very few scholars today who could be termed "Durkheimians." This suggests that there is fundamentally something about his thought that is remarkable apart from the conclusions he reached: Durkheim's power to illicit deep thought and analysis from his readers comes through, largely, the questions he raises about society. Ultimately, it would seem that his terrific ability to view human society from a tangential perspective has allowed him to pose key questions about facets of our lives that commonly go unnoticed."
| |
|
Weber and Marx on Labor, 2004.
Argues that both Marx's and Weber?s writings remain relevant to the explanation of many aspects of advanced industrial capitalism.
2,601 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores Marx's and Weber?s writings on estranged labor to determine if the labor theories both men used to analyze capitalism and the plight of workers in the 19th century can also be applied to 21st century capitalism. The first part of this paper discusses Marx?s theory of estranged labor, as written in "The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844". In the next part, the paper then examines Max Weber?s dissatisfaction with the Marx?s reliance on economic theory to explain the corrupting forces of capitalism. The next section then applies Marx's and Weber?s theories to modern capitalism. Weber?s writings on rationalization and the bureaucracy are then used to analyze various examples of ?corporate greed.? In the conclusion, this paper argues that the examples discussed show how advanced capitalism continues to foster the growth of alienated labor, rationalization, and the bureaucracy.
From the Paper
"In the 19th century, leading social theorists such as Karl Marx and Max Weber believed that because its many inherent contradictions, the capitalist system would inevitably fall into a decline. More than a century later, however, the capitalist system is far from dead. Rather, it appears to be further entrenched, encircling the world in the stranglehold of globalization."
| |
|
Karl Marx and His Challenge of Liberalism, 2008.
An examination of Karl Marx's challenge to liberalism in "The Communist Manifesto."
1,831 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Karl Marx challenged liberalism in works such as "The Communist Manifesto", in which he condemned capitalism and predicted that the exploited working classes of capitalistic societies would become alienated and overthrow the system of capitalism. The paper explains that Marx was convinced that once liberalism was discredited and capitalism was overthrown, there would be a brief period of rule by the dictatorship of the proletariat and then the classless society of communism would emerge. The paper also discusses how Marx believed that working class Germans should be the chief focus of his revolutionary efforts because the political consciousness of the proletariat in Germany was more developed than in any other country in Europe. The paper then examines liberalism and its impact on society, in order to fully analyze Marx's challenges to liberalism.
From the Paper
"Marx believed that many political, economic, and social changes would be necessary in the aftermath of a proletarian revolution, for in his view, the only way the proletariat could free itself from exploitation was to abolish capitalism. In achieving this goal, the proletariat would have to destroy every remnant of bourgeois liberal culture because this culture perpetuated their misery. Family, religion, the worship of personalities, morality, and the legal system would all have to be abolished. According to Marx, the result of this abolishment would be "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the development of all.""
| |
|
Marx and Weber, 2006.
This paper examines the theories of both Marx and Weber about social classes and limitations.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 3 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a revised paper organized to display clearly its contents. The paper provides a favorable conclusion concerning Weber's superior concept of class that is broader than that of Karl Marx. The paper examines Marx and Weber's concepts of social class and limitations, turning to a Canadian immigrant's satisfaction with a proletarian occupation, despite the higher education.
From the Paper
"The ideas of Karl Marx and Max Weber are familiar to us, in terms of how social classes differ, or how their members are identified. However, models must be examined for their time, and in awareness of exceptions. For instance, Marx saw an individual's class as determined, quite narrowly, by the relationship to the means of production in economies, he expected them to be directed by some sort of ruling class that controlled capital. Indeed, Marx almost divided the whole of 19th century Europe into categories of 'rulers' and workers."
| |
|
A Look at Karl Marx's Alienation, 2002.
A critical examination of Karl Marx's theory of alienation.
1,885 words (approx. 7.5 pages), 1 source, $ 60.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this essay the author goes head to head with Karl Marx?s view of alienation. The contradictions which Marx makes on alienation of labor are pointed out and used to figure out what conception of the human essence Marx uses to rest his theory on. The author points out flaws in Marx?s essay and offers alternative solutions.
From the Paper
"Karl Marks who lived between 1818 and 1883 wrote the Estrange Labor manuscript in 1844. Being only 26 years of age he challenges the works of the great philosopher Hegel. In his manuscript he considered himself to be a young Hegelian philosopher. Marx explains his beliefs on what he believes to be the key elements of estranged labor, mainly alienation from nature, alienation from product of labor, alienation from the activity of labor, and alienation from species. Hegel believed that trough the use of labor to create objects we could satisfy our bodily needs. He believed that our reason allowed for criticism to improve upon the objects, which allowed the mind to evolve toward pure reason and ultimately freedom. Hegel also noted that freedom was the essence of freedom. Marx does not completely agree with Hegel because he felt his theory was too abstract and ignored important concepts of social organization for production. Marx believes that philosophy in the past had mystified the real contradictions of human existence."
|
|
|
