An Essay on The Debate About Who Should Rule.

This article on the debate about who should rule? It discusses the diverse answers of influential political philosophers and political scientists. The study found that Plato argues that philosopher king should be the ruler. In contrast, people cannot take part in the Government. Rousseau supports the rule by the people who must be able to legislate. Furthermore, try to enforce it on yourself before leading to a majority vote. Aristotle believed that no one or any other group was a ruler but ruling it for the public good. While Mill believed that the representative system could create great happiness for the people, and it can be recalled. Finally, Sylvan argues that there was no need for a ruler. Because rulers bring war and exploitation, people can rely on themselves without their ruler to aim for utopia or an ideal society that should be inhabited. As a result, the representative system of the authors' view is the most appropriate form today. Because when a ruler is a tyrant, we can always recall power and choose a new ruler and create great happiness for people as well as possible.

Ál-Farabıdіń baqytqa jeteleıtіn «tórt іzgіlіk» fılosofııasy [Al-Farabi's Philosophy of the «Four Virtues» that Lead to Happiness]

The article is dedicated to the great philosopher al-Farabi's philosophy of the “four virtues” that lead to happiness in the city. The scientist tells the secret of the «four virtues» that lead the people of the city to a happy life in this world and great happiness in the next. The people of this city do not commit crimes, they love to do good, the members of the society are polite and the leader is fair. In order to create such a society, people need to master the «four virtues» – theoretical, intellectual, ethical and practical arts. Al-Farabi personally reveals these four virtues and describes the methods of imparting them to the people. He then explains what «happiness» is and how to achieve it in order for people to be happy. The philosopher describes what it means to be a leader who leads such a good nation to happiness. He is fair, polite, educated, eloquent and a philosopher. Мақала ұлы ойшыл әл-Фарабидің қала тұрғындарын бақытқа жетелейтін «төрт ізгілік» философиясына арналған. Ғалым қала тұрғындарын бұл дүниеде рахат өмірге, о дүниеде асқақ бақытқа жеткізетін «төрт ізгіліктің» сырын айтады. Бұл қаланың тұрғындары қылмыс жасамайды, ізгілік қылғанды жақсы көреді, қоғам мүшелері әдепті, басшысы әділ. Осындай қоғамды құру үшін халық «төрт ізгілікті» – теориялық, ойшылдық, этикалық және практикалық өнерлерді игерулері қажет. Әл-Фараби бұл төрт ізгілікті жеке ашып, оларды халыққа дарыту әдістерін баяндайды. Кейін адамдардың бақытқа жетуі үшін әуелі «бақыттың» не екенін және оған жету жолын түсіндіреді. Философ мұндай ізгі халықты бақытқа бастайтын басшының қандай болуы керектігін суреттейді. Ол – әділ, әдепті, білімді, шешен сөзді және философ.

East West Street: Then and Now

It is a great happiness to be with you today, and I am deeply honoured to be delivering the Lionel Cohen Lecture. That we should come together at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which I have had the great pleasure to visit on several occasions, stretching back many years, adds to the sense of personal significance.

Chapter 8

The next day, waking after eight hours’ sleep—sleep of that deep, sweet, restorative sort that follows great happiness, Angélique ran to the window. The sky was clear, and it had turned warm again after the great storm that had left her feeling very worried...

NARRATING INSANITY IN THE LETTERS OF THOMAS MULOCK AND DINAH MULOCK CRAIK

Scholars have had a difficult time assessing the significance of Dinah Mulock Craik (1824–1887), best remembered as the author of John Halifax, Gentleman (1856). The critical verdict on her life and letters has swung toward extremes. Some critics have seen her, to quote Henry James, as “kindly, somewhat dull, pious, and very sentimental” (172); her novels embody the Victorian values of self-help, moral earnestness, and hard work, and it is assumed that her life did too. Elaine Showalter's and Sally Mitchell's feminist recoveries of Craik's work in the 1970s and early 1980s found that just the opposite was true, and that Victorian sentimentality allowed Craik to voice the subversive desires of her female readers covertly, in a form that was acceptable to the general public (Showalter 5–7, Mitchell 31). This critical tradition tended to overemphasize the melodramatic aspects of Craik's life and career as a means of dramatizing the struggles of women in a patriarchal society. The most recent scholarship eschews Craik's life altogether for the most part, focusing on her novelistic representations of disability, of Irish and Scottish nationality, and of class and enfranchisement. This criticism engages Craik's writing as an interesting cultural artifact rather than as an aesthetic object: her work is once again seen as embodying normative Victorian values, but to what extent the author was the cognizant promoter of these values, and to what extent she was their unwitting filter, and whether it matters, is unclear. But new archival work shows the importance of her life in understanding her career. The Mulock Family Papers, held at the University of California at Los Angeles, underscore Craik's challenges in managing an abusive father, who suffered from periods of dejection followed by periods of great happiness, and who was frequently absent and incarcerated. Craik was intensely private when it came to her personal life, and scholars like Showalter have read her reserve as a bow to womanly decorum in a life otherwise dominated by literary celebrity. But the archive suggests that Craik's taciturnity was instead a strategy for managing the threat of violence and scandal.