Plato's Myth of The Cave

Parable of the Cave

 Parable is a symbolic expression of a deeper meaning through scene acted out by human, animal, or mythical character.

Synopsis of the Parable
A group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato's Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

Caeser.. and the Assination of Caeser..

Gaius Julius Caeser.. or else known as Julius Caesar..

Who would not know who this man could be.. 
he is known as one of the greatest dictator during Rome civilization..
During his time as a dictator. He is a fearsome leaders.. all Roman are afraid of him..
even the senators during that time were afraid of what could happen to Rome if he continue to be more and more fearsome.. Including his adopt son.. Brutus.. whom Caeser love like his own son.. Brutus once said this.. "It is not he love Caeser less.. It just Brutus love Rome more.." meaning.. he afraid of his beloved adopted father become less than a human.. and more to a devil himself..

The Assination
Because of some of the Senators were afraid of Caeser power.. During the Crowning of Caeser as a king.. they planned to kill him which led by Cassius, Casca and his own adopted son Brutus.. They stab him brutally..

Et Tu Brute - what Caeser said after Brutus stab him.. meaning You too Brutus..

later that time.. Mark Anthony which is his true friends give a speech which later made the Rome to divided into two group of people.. those who followed Mark Anthony and the others are those who supported Brutus and Cassius..

Mark Anthony said this in his speech..

According to Brutus an honorable man..
Caeser is ambitious..
yet I offer him thrice the crown as a king..
Thrice he refuse..
Is that ambitious??
yet Brutus is an honorable man..

Parody

A parody is a form of work trying to mock, comment or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous or ironic way. Parody can be found in art, music, literature or film. there are a lot of parody movie nowadays. In example..

Vampire suck.. a parody of one of the famous movie in United States.. Twilight  

if you have watched the movie before.. then you will notice that the storyline is so much similar to the real movie.. Twilight.. However, inside the movie.. it is not just trying to mock the movie.. it try to mock other artist as well.. But, it is a good movie though.. well.. that summaries what parody is.. it is more like trying to mock an art or a film of others in your own way.. 
Why did I choose to write about parody is because I like how parody is being accepted around the world.. I feel that parody is a good way of trying to criticizes someone else work and make fun of them.. C: even though parody is not really a good genre.. however, this is how someone give the messages of reality of life.. it is just the way they deliver it in a mocking way..
have a nice day people..

Syllogism. Syllogistic reasoning

Syllogism is what we called as a conclusion. It is more like a logical argument. Syllogism is from Aristotle, a great the teacher for Alexander the Great. He defines syllogism as a “discourse in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so.”

The Basic structure of Syllogism is, it is consists of three parts which is the major premise, the minor premise and the conclusion.

Example:            All A is B                                                            (the major premise)

                               All B is C                                                         (the minor premise)

                               Therefore, A is C                                            (conclusion)

Is it simple enough? If not this is another example.

                               Naqiudin hate vegetables                       (the major premise)

                               Spinach is a vegetable                             (the minor premise)

                                Therefore, Naqiudin hate spinach.       (Conclusion)     

another example, is:

  

good people dont lie.

Jack is a liar

therefore, Jack is not a good people.

All police man are good

Those who take bribe are bad

That policeman take bribe

Therefore, that policeman is not a good policeman 

Is this enough example for you to understand syllogism right? It is quite fun when you start to use syllogism. Some people use syllogism as a tool to use to others for themselves. 

 

My top three Jack the ripper suspect

In my previous entry, I has stated the background info about the Jack the Ripper. Now let me tell about my personal suspect for jack the Ripper cases.

1. “Dr” Francis Tumblety

Francis Tumblety was a seemingly uneducated Irish-American from New York, where he ostensibly trained as a homeopathic physician at Hahneman Hospital. He earned a small fortune posing as a quack “Indian Herb” doctor throughout the United States and Canada, and occasionally travelling across Europe as well. Tumblety was in England in 1888 and had visited the country on other occasions; during one such earlier trip he became closely acquainted with Victorian writer Thomas Henry Hall Caine, with whom it was suggested he had an affair and from whom he tried to borrow money. He claimed to have treated many famous English patients, including Charles Dickens, for a variety of illnesses. He was arrested on 7 November 1888, apparently for engaging in homosexuality. Notorious in the United States for his scams, including selling forged Union military discharge papers during the American Civil War and impersonating an army officer, because of his arrest has led some to suggest he was the Ripper.

2. George Chapman

Chapman was in Poland, but went to the United Kingdom between 1887 and 1888, assuming the name of Chapman (no relation to Annie Chapman, one of the victims). Without question a duplicitous and cold character who undertook several aliases, he was guilty of successively poisoning three of his wives, crimes for which he was hanged in 1903. He lived in Whitechapel, London, at the time of the killings where he had been working as a barber since arriving in England. He was at one time the most favoured suspect. Chapman is supposed by some to have had the medical skills necessary to commit the mutilations (although the level of skill evidenced by the Ripper is a matter of debate, and divided medical opinions at the time). However, the main argument against him is the fact that he murdered his three wives with poison, and it is uncommon (though not unheard of) for a serial killer to make such a drastic change in modus operandi.

3. Montague John Druitt

Druitt was born in Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England, the son of a prominent local physician. He was educated at Winchester College and New College Oxford. He graduated from Oxford in 1880 and two years later was admitted to the Inner Temple and called to the bar in 1885. He practiced as a barrister and a special pleader until his death. His body was found floating in the River Thames off Thorneycroft’s torpedo works near Chiswick on 31 December 1888. Medical examination suggested that his body was kept at the bottom of the river for several weeks by stones placed in his pockets. The coroner’s jury concluded that he committed suicide by drowning “whilst of unsound mind.” His disappearance and death shortly after the fifth and last canonical murder (which took place on 9 November 1888) and alleged “private information” led some of the investigators years later to suggest he was the Ripper, thus explaining the end to the series of murders. 

This is my list for the suspect for Jack the Ripper cases. Whether it is true or not we could not make sure of it. So this case will remain a mystery.

Jack The Ripper Case

 One of the interesting in learning Critical Literacy is we get to apply all the things we learn in the class.. to solve cases which is also very interesting subject..One our task is to apply discourse analysis into Jack the Ripper case.. Let me explain what is Jack The Ripper.
Jack the Ripper is a murders which occurred in the East of London during 1888. during that time it is more commonly known as The Whitechapel Murderer. it is an unsolved mystery which until now we did not know who is Jack The Ripper. This murders had a huge impact on the society in London as a whole.

JTR is very famous??? why??

obviously because it is still unsolved and people around the globe is still applying discourse analysis to see which of the suspect is the real murderer. Since a hundred and twenty years ago, the murderer remain a mystery.

Info about JTR.

Generaly, Jack the Ripper had only five victims. First Mary Nichols, murdered on 31st August 1888. Second, Annie Chapman, murdered on 8th September 1888. Elizabeth Stride, murdered on 30th September 1888. Catherine Eddowes, which is also murdered on 30th September 1888. Lastly, Mary Kelly, murdered on 9th November 1888.

During this time, there are many people with so many speculations and theory who the Jack the Ripper would be. This is also the reason why this case is very famous until today. Every reporter in London were covering this story.

However, the police during that time is not the same with our police right now. they does not use the method our police currently use. One of the problem are the layout of the area where the murder happen. it is full with tiny passageways, and back alleys and it is very dark during that time.

Over the years, the number of suspect for Jack the Ripper case is about a hunderd suspects. some are interesting suspect with motive and ability to kill and some are ridiculous.

Well. who is this man be? why was he kill all those victim? what is his motive? Is he insane? (well yes!) Who is the suspect? I will write it in the next entry...