Deconstruction Of The Rationalist Philosopher Rene Descartes Philosophy Essay

Deconstruction Of The Rationalist Philosopher Rene Descartes Philosophy Essay This deconstruction of a rationalist philosopher such as Rene Descartes is influenced primarily by a heavy exposure to Nietzsche, Marx, Kierkegaard, and Foucault. Upon a personal philosophical synthesis of these philosophers to my self, a reexamination of Descartes produces astonishment that such work is considered honorable and fame-worthy. Rene Descartes is considered to be the founder of analytical geometry, as well as an important contributor to the scientific method, and finally, a philosopher. However, a philosophical scrutiny of this logician shows reveals that there is some legitimate substance lacking in his analysis and attempts to reach truth, and instead only achieves convictions. Such a realization and conclusion implores to unveil the ambiguity of Descartes philosophy and discredit him as an honorable philosopher (while not touching the mathematician). On the Begging of Questions and Initial Fallibility Rene Descartes opens his meditations by recognizing that his conceptions of the world are largely based on shaky foundations and uncertainties, and thus sets out to apply himself to the general destruction of all his former opinions. In the opening, Descartes describes the nature of the task, Now it will not be necessaryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ to prove that they [his former opinions] are all falseà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [but] the slightest ground for doubt that I find any, will suffice for me to reject all of them. (Descartes, 95) Immediately we are faced with the illegitimacy of such a claim, for it supposes that Descartes is liable to reject all which he doubts. That is, he is liable to reject some true things, and accept some false things so long as he has certainty of them and he would necessarily embrace this. Descartes uses this idea consistently when he claims that that which is known by the senses cannot be accepted as certain or true (and perhaps he is committing one of many fallacies when he implies that certainty equates truth). However, he claims that some things which are known by the senses, such as that he is holding paper, are ridiculous to doubt, for that is the kind of doubt that would have him assimilate myself to those insane persons whose mind are so troubledà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Descartes, 96) Here he most conspicuously begs the question as to what is certain and real, and thus sets the stage for a fest of question-begging which ensues for the remainder of the meditations. A side note concerning his illegitimacy is that when Descartes claims to have doubted everything, he still uses memory and language. Yet how can he trust these faculties especially if he were to apply the same reason to them as he did to his senses that it is imprudent to trust anything which has ever deceived him? Indeed, Descartes cannot doubt everything from the beginning, and for the sake of Construction accepts some premises which are likely to be faulty. (Harrison-Barbet, 127) The Dream Problem Continuing in the deconstruction, Descartes mentions a most interesting point: that there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish clearly between being awake and being asleep. (Descartes, 96) Descartes attempts to eliminate the ambiguity of what is real and not by implying that that which is doubtless in both the real world and the dream world is doubtless in itself, such as algebra, geometry, and astronomy. However, though these mathematics may appear to be true, it is still fairly uncertain which world is the real one. The Evil Genius / God Problem Descartes suddenly introduces the concept of a God. Supposing that there is a being who is all-powerful and by whom I was created and made as I am, (Descartes, 98) Descartes poses the question as to how he can be certain that that which is established, of the indubitably of mathematics, is not the object of deception by a more powerful being, and his existence and nature are of a major concern for the meditations. First, Descartes proposes the possibility that there is not a true God, who is the sovereign source of truth, but some Evil Genius, no less cunning and deceiving than powerful, who has used all his artifice to deceive me. (Descartes, 100) What Descartes means by true God is uncertain here, as is his term Evil Genius, but clearly the latter is an illusionist who is in the habit or practice of deception. Descartes supposes that this Evil Genius is all-powerful, so that if he is real, then God cannot be, and vice-versa, but simultaneously he professes that the suspension of all judgment and building up his knowledge from only that which is certain protects him from the illusions of the Evil Genius. He does not consider the rational implication that this may lead him to an infinite regress of uncertainty, as in the case of suspecting that he is suspecting something to be untrue, for this is most detrimental to the object of building a foundation and structure of certainty. The Cogito Descartes supposes that perhaps there is nothing which is certain, nor certain to exist, except his self his ego. That is, given the existence of a deceptive Evil Genius, and given that Descartes thinks, it must be logical that that which thinks must exist, and therefore, despite any deception, Descartes exists, and thus Descartes has attained a point of reference and the foundation of all of his knowledge. Firstly, however, Descartes supposes the existence of an Evil Genius, and has not refuted the possibility of an infinite regress in which it is possible that he is being deceived about the proposition that Descartes assumes to be true: that an Evil Genius exists, or he does not. There has been a great wealth of criticisms concerning Descartes cogito, that if we were to focus on this, we would be quite repetitious and dreary, and thus this essay will presume the cogito just as Descartes has that is, that he exists, with reference to a single instance of such criticism from respect: [The cogito] commits the error of circular reasoning; for the I in I am is already presupposed in the I of I think, and any necessity it possess is a matter of logic which has nothing to say about actual existent thingsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Harrison-Barbet, 126) Indeed, what has Descartes truly doubted before he makes this claim? Everything except what he needs in constructing, it seems he has already presumed an I, and besides that already has a conception of what thinking is (and necessarily what not thinking is). Indeed, Descartes has not doubted everything as he had attempted. (Nietzsche BGE, 24) This habit of not doubting everything and making leaps in logic serve very well in order to create the Cartesian Structure, which is more the goal than reaching truth, though Descartes seems to imply that a structure and Truth would be equal. The Infinite as Beyond Logic and Understanding In Meditation three, Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God, in which, according to his own logic, he is unsuccessful. One of Descartes unwritten premises is that God can be known by logic. Considering a being who is solely a creator, this may be possible, but Descartes God is characterized by being infinite. Thus the question that is most prudent to ask is if God can be known through logical means. Logically, this would mean that there is something to which God is not superior, and therefore calling him an infinite being and knowable through logic is just contradictory. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith [or belief] we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. (McDonald) Indeed, Kierkegaard makes a worthy reaffirmation of the futility of trying to know something which is above reason through reason. Supposing, however, that Descartes God so desires, then of course he could be known by logic indeed, but what is next to be examined is if the finite can know the nature of the infinite. Descartes has claimed the potential existence of some supreme, infinite being, and is attempting to gain knowledge about him. However, Descartes is a mortal, finite being, who cannot, without the will of God, grasp the will or nature of the infinite. By definition, even if God allowed this to him, God may have just as well disallowed this. That Descartes presumes that God is allowing himself to be known, and also that he allows himself to be known through logic is a presumption which relies heavily upon two very shaky supports: that Gods will is for himself to be understood or known, and that God is not a deceiver. It seems that it is simple for all knowledge claims to have a base which, ultimately, lies in some unproved assumption (even mathematics, according to Russell), but it is precisely Descartes unique doubting method which makes it so that we cannot grant him the benefit of the unproven assumptions which he makes. The attacks upon the knowledge of God through logic presented above can be applied to Descartes suppositious argument that his conception of God cannot have originated within himself. His claim to this argument is that he is finite, whereas God is infinite, and that the idea of something which is more real cannot originate with something which is less real. Here Descartes is not considering the alternative. That is, he is already begging the question that God exists or is real, when he should also consider that perhaps the idea of the existence of God is less real than himself. This would mean that, even according to his argument, his idea of God may be an illusion, thus making him more real and existing than God or the idea of God, whereas this idea is only an idea, and his existence is real. Therefore, he would be the creator of something more imperfect (the illusion), thus being more perfect than the idea of God, which, according to his Cartesian logic, is a legitimate argument which he has failed to consider. In considering that his idea originated from God, he is begging the question that God exists. Furthermore, Descartes claims that he cannot doubt the idea of God because he has a clear and distinct perception that it is true. Once more, despite the shakiness of the presumptions base and logic, with the proof of God, Descartes is successful at beginning to convince himself that there are some things which he can begin to believe and accept. On the Reason for Existence Now, Descartes presents a most interesting argument. He claims that he exists, and that this existence must have a cause, which may be from himself, that he has always existed, his parents, something less perfect than God, or God, and that he could exist for no other reason. (Wikipedia, argument outline) Descartes naivetà © in the matter of refuting his goals will be exploited here. Firstly, he supposes that perhaps he created himself, but refutes this by claiming that if this had been the case, he would have made himself perfect. If I were [God] I should certainly doubt nothing, I should conceive no desires, and finally I would lack no perfection of which I have in me some idea . This is a very adolescent approach to refuting this, for one may simply ask how Descartes knows the nature of God once more. Indeed, If Descartes were God and his own creator, is it not possible that he would make himself ignorant to alleviate his boredom of omniscience? Is it not possible that he would make himself believe that he is human? By Descartes definition, God can do anything he wills, and thus how can Descartes claim to know what God would like? This arrogance is mirrored in a poor refutation of his argument. Perhaps he has convinced himself that he is not God, but this refutation is a very dim one. Furthermore, how does he know the nature of perfection? Descartes is supposing that as he is right now is imperfect. He does not consider that perhaps he is a perfect being: indeed, that perhaps the consideration that he is imperfect, that he is lacking, that he is finite, and doubting everything, perhaps all are functions of perfection, including considering a wrong conception of perfection. This would make Descartes a perfect being, but nonetheless one who is confused and perhaps discontented, but Descartes fails to even consider this, instead reverting to an old idea of perfection, which by now has evolved from simply supremely existing to being doubtless and undesiring too. Descartes other sources of existence will not be refuted because they are so embarrassing, but he then wonders how, given that God exists, he received this idea. He quickly dismisses that it was created by him, begging the question, and asserts that it is an innate idea, and that it was placed there by God at birth. He gives no substance to this claim, and concludes the third meditation with a most disturbing note: that God is not a deceiver. This attempt to shed light upon the nature of God is once more an arrogant question-begging leap. Descartes claims that deception is an imperfection. How he knows this, or how he can possibly know what perfection is, he leaves uncertain and assumed once more. Apparently, it is because he has an idea of perfection, and deception is not as perfect as the absence of deception in his mind. However, it is essential to understand that this very idea is reliant on the premise that this is indeed the case. For if God is a deceiver, then he is essentially equal to the Evil Genius, and may have well placed a wrong idea of perfection in Descartes mind. Descartes claim that deception is imperfect stems from the premise that deceit stems necessarily from some defect, which is a horrendous question-begging root, for he automatically disregards any of these defects as attributes of God simply because that is the way in which he conceives of them. That is, anything which he conceives of as bad, ther efore, is bad. He doesnt question his ability to make this claim. However, this is alright for Descartes, for he is desperate to erect his structure of certainty already why not skip and ignore some steps so long as he can have certainty? On the Benevolence of God Descartes claims that God must be benevolent, and gives substance to this claim by further claiming that God cannot be a deceiver, since deception is imperfect. This idea of perfection stems from his clear and distinct ideas of perfection, which are true by virtue of all of his doubtless claims being true due to the premise that God is not a deceiver. However, Gods benevolence is dependent upon Descartes clear and distinct perceptions, which thus creates a very circular reasoning. And what of the nature of God? Can omnipotence truly coexist with omni-benevolence? Supposing, as Descartes has, that there indeed exists an infinite being who is supreme to all other things ever conceivable and existing, there arises the paradox of an infinite benevolence. Can God be both omni-benevolent and omnipotent? For indeed, if he were omni-benevolent, then he would necessarily have no capacity for malice, and thus once more not be infinite. Can it be possible that Descartes is considering that, if God should so will it, he could not express pure malice? Is God thus limited? Is he then still an infinite God? Perhaps his idea of benevolence was instead opposite to perfection, and he has just proved the existence of the Evil Genius? These utterly absurd assumptions which the finite mortal being Descartes attempts to make about the nature of God are truly disturbing. Indeed, even through logic, what is understandable about God is that we may be wrong in all of our conceptions of him, but we may also be right in some. Indeed, Descartes miserably failed to examine that nothing can be certain about that which is more infinite than our finite understandings. Thus, the premise of the omni-benevolence of God which Descartes claims through his circular reasoning will not be granted to him, and anything further built upon the expectations that all of his clear and distinct ideas are true, and that God is not a deceiver, are built on top of such a shaky foundation that will be considered as unreliable sources of truth and reason. Thus, we have the possibility that God is indeed a deceiver, and both the deconstruction and the early reconstruction will be reexamined. The Evil Genius / God Problem Reexamined Descartes early doubts concerning the Evil Genius and God reappear, and the concept that the Evil Genius and God are the same is a possibility, though it must be admitted, that this is rather unknown. Indeed then, Descartes was correct in doubting everything, for indeed, everything may be a deception and an illusion, and everything he may seem to know has the potential to be false. (The Radical Academy) The Dream Problem Reexamined When considering that God/Evil Genius may be real and existing, and possibly deceiving, the Dream Problem is given a whole new perspective. Indeed, even the things which are true in both the real world and the dream world, such as mathematics, may be deceptions created and placed into Descartes mind by this infinite being. This would mean that Descartes would truly have no knowledge of what is real and what is a dream, if even his conceptions of real and dream are legitimate conceptions in the first place. This leads us to Descartes most genuine statement from the beginning of his treatise, that [maybe] there is nothing certain in the world. (Descartes, 102) Beyond Infinity The reasons for which Descartes arguments following the establishment of the existence of an infinite being are invalid is because he constantly refers to this infinite to propagate that he cannot be wrong in what he conceives because he believe the existing God to be benevolent and not a deceiver. However, since this premise is so weak, his structures of mathematics and sciences, and then in the end senses and other bodies are so unstable that, even if true, are inconsistencies based on a weak premises which do not deserve to be examined. Descartes fails to achieve truth (but not in building a structure). Conclusion: On the Philosophy of his Mind A Structure of Secure Certainty It is most appropriate to mention an analysis of Descartes meditations and what he has achieved. Rene Descartes began his meditations by hoping to eliminate all doubt and achieve certainty. By the end of the meditations, it appears that he has done just this. However, his flaws, incessant question-begging, and absurd philosophical method have been pointed out above, thus raising the inquiry of the coexistence of the absence of doubt and truth. Descartes primary aim was to eliminate doubt, and by the very end he is shown to be doubtless indeed. However, the matter is different when concerning truth. Descartes has mentioned that in his life he has struggled to find something certain, and the Cartesian Structure which he has constructed for himself is perhaps the very thing for which he had been searching. Indeed, Descartes may now rest easily accepting that everything which he clearly and distinctly perceives is true, and that everything he considers, therefore, is essentially true for he believes that he could not be deceived. Yet this goes back to an original concern of rejecting truth or accepting untruth. By the end of the Meditations, it is clear that truth and untruth are for Descartes merely functions of what is certain and what is doubtful. That is, for him, truth or untruth is a quality which an idea gains as one is accustomed to it (such as in the Cartesian Structure), and so long as he is doubtless about it, he is living his philosophy well. Essentially what this means is that, though Descartes may fail at reaching truths logically, at least he removes doubt from himself, and may rest easily. It is for this reason that the Cartesian philosophy is one which is a philosophy solely for Descartes (and perhaps those of similar mental properties). That is, this philosophy, which is based upon comfort in certainty and anti-doubt, cannot have a universal application to all humans, but only for himself, for perhaps he alone can achieve a comfort with this exact method. Thus, Descartes reconstruction provides him with a method for removing doubt, but cannot be used by others to remove doubt, nor to reach much truth, for their psychological states vary from Descartes, who has created a system which works for himself (it is considered that this may work for some others, but these are generally not considered here, thus only slightly mentioned in these parentheses). Thus, has Descartes eliminated doubt? Indeed, yes he has, and it just so happens that he has achieved this psychological state philosophically. However, it is not a philosophical state of truth at all perhaps solely the state of potential truth. For Descartes, however, it is simpler, clearer, and more distinct to conceive of these two as synonymous as he takes a nap from six long and excruciating meditations, allowing him the luxury of defining metaphysical and epistemological as he pleases. His philosophy is essentially the propagation of his psychology in the erection of his Cartesian Structure, that this structure is the very thing necessary to discard doubt. Or in Friedrich Nietzsches words, every great philosophy so far has beenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary unconscious memoir. (BGE, 13)

Internal Look into Infidelity and the Outcomes Essay

Infidelity can happen at the blink of an eye, especially if a person is not aware of their current relationship standings with their partner. A partner may display two types of infidelity, emotional and sexual. Each type of infidelity is seen differently by men and women on an opposite scale according to (Buss, Larsen, and Westen, 1996; Buss et al., 1992; Buunk et al., 1996; Trivers, 1972). The causes for infidelity are somewhat the same for men and women; however, there are a few differences that vary between the two groups. When infidelity has happened the decision is ultimately whether a couple will either focus to stay together or dissolve the relationship. Through a deeper look between the two types of infidelity, along with the perception men and women have about its outcomes, a definite understanding is very clear why and how infidelity usually happens in the first place. Although many relationships survive infidelity, â€Å"The trust is gone, completely gone,† says Mic hael Baisden, relationship counselor and author of Never Satisfied: How and Why Men cheat. â€Å"And trust is the most important thing in a relationship.† The decision will vary from person to person on the continuance with a relationship after the other partner cheats. For myself, it depends on who the person is, my standards often change from partner to partner. Infidelity defined is an action or state of being unfaithful to a spouse or another sexual partner. According to the most prevalent study using the framework of evolutionary psychology a study used by Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992), individuals where asked whether they would be more upset or jealous, if their partner had sexual intercourse or formed a deep emotional bond with someone else. Men and women were very different in their answers. Emotional infidelity occurs when a partner gets involved with caring deeply for a person that that is not their significant other. An emotional infidelity can hurt just as much to the other person as if they had already had sex with the other person involved. Sexual infidelity is the actual act of having sex outside of a person’s current relationship or marriage. When this action occurs, it is almost certain that the relationship will have troubling times ahead. How these two types of infidelities are seen by both men and women vary greatly on the scale. Men are very likely to become upset and end a relationship if  their girlfriend or wife were to have sexual encounters with another man vs. an emotional connection. The same cannot be said about women. According to (Buss, Larsen, and Westen, 1996; Buss et al., 1992; Buunk et al., 1996; Trivers, 1972), women tend to overlook a sexual infidelity but, are more affected by emotional bonds their boyfriend or husband acquires with another woman. Men tend to have a fear of uncertainty with offspring if a woman commits sexual infidelity that in turn tends to make him more susceptible to leaving a relationship. On the other hand, women are more invested in the emotional stability in her partner which in turn makes the woman more angered and upset over an emotional infidelity. The perceived outcomes for the two different types of infidelity are total opposites between men and women whereas the causes for infidelity is somewhat similar. The causes for infidelity are almost the same for men and women. Jennifer Harman, PhD., a professor of psychology at Colorado State University, stated â€Å"People do not just cheat for no reason. It used to be perceived that men were the bigger cheaters, however, according to the National Opinion Research Center study found that women having affairs rose from 14 percent to nearly 40 percent over the past 20 years. Women are in need of passion from their partner. Even the small things from walks in the park to a wine tasting can fulfill dissatisfaction. Petty arguments that hold insecurities and grudges is common for most women to experience. A need for her partner to understand and talk openly about problems and solutions is key for some women to feel connected. Women are also more attracted to men who are confident and ambitious which can sometimes lead to dissatisfaction with their partner if they are not in a manly position. Men also tend to have the same outlook when cheating comes to mind. If a man succeeded in filling his ego tank up an affair would make him feel powerful and desired. Sometimes men cheat because they are not being understood by their partner. If men were more open in communicating feelings freely, this would not be an issue. When men cheat the difference to theirs actions is a need to escape the reality of home rather than leave their relationship. Women, however, are typically silent in their actions but tend to plan an escape route out of the relationship after they begin cheating. The solution to ending a cheating cycle is to either dissolve the relationship or work on overcoming the struggles infidelity has caused on the relationship. Though people  sometimes choose to work things out, many ultimately work together for dissolving the relationship. Overcoming infidelity is very difficult task. Trust is compromised and very hard to regain on many levels and often takes years to rebuild. Without trust in a relationship, it is almost inevitable for disaster since trust is the viewed as the core for holding a relationship together. To overcome this is sometimes not worth the stress, time and patience, especially if this is just a romantic relationship with no children involved or when a marriage is at stake. On the other hand, long term relationship and married couples will often try to work through these troubling road blocks. When a person has more time invested or other things at stake, the decision is more comfortable to make when working things out. Some of these relationships and marriages last after infidelity but half do not. When a couple comfortably communicates and understand the deepness of how infidelity affects a relationship before, they agree to commit the partnership will be more successful. The most important factor is understanding to what extent infidelity can occur as both male and female have shown different tolerances for emotional and sexual encounters. Just having a deeper look into how differently men and women think help to understand their actions. With the listed information in mind, it is just as important to remember that women enjoy time with their partner, openness with information, and a man that is confident in himself. Men have a larger ego that needs to be stroked often, just saying how good he looks, or less nagging by their partner and more open communication they tend to have their needs met. When infidelity occurs because none of these needs is fulfilled, it is almost certain the relationship will not last. Just by knowing these things should make any male or female want to rethink actions or even the possibility of starting or moving ahead in a relationship.

The Analysis And Application Of The Balance Sheet

Financial accounting is one of the most popular major in the world. In the study of accounting, people must know and use expertly the three accounting statement, balance sheets, cash flow, and income statement. It is the most basic and useful skill in one’s career of accounting. But in the four basic financial statement, the balance sheet or called statement of financial position is the only one which describe a single point in time of a business’ calendar year.â€Å"In financial accounting, a balance sheet or statement of financial position is a summary of the financial balances of a sole proprietorship, a business partnership, a corporation or other business organization, such as an LLC or an LLP. Assets, liabilities and ownership equity are listed as of a specific date, such as the end of its financial year. A balance sheet is often described as a snapshot of a company's financial condition. †(Williams,Jan R,ibid,2008)Therefore, this essay will force on the ba lance sheet, it can help student understand the balance sheet better.A standard company balance sheet has divide into three parts: assets, liabilities and ownership equity. â€Å"The main categories of assets are usually listed first, and typically in order of liquidity. †(Daniels, Mortimer ,1980) â€Å"Assets are followed by the liabilities. The difference between the assets and the liabilities is known as equity or the net assets or the net worth or capital of the company and according to the accounting equation, net worth must equal assets minus liabilities.†[Williams, Jan R,2008]†Another way to look at the same equation is that assets equals liabilities plus owner's equity. Looking at the equation in this way shows how assets were financed: either by borrowing money (liability) or by using the owner's money (owner's equity). Balance sheets are usually presented with assets in one section and liabilities and net worth in the other section with the two sections â€Å"balancing†. A business operating entirely in cash can measure its profits by withdrawing the entire bank balance at the end of the period, plus any cash in hand.However, many businesses are not paid immediately; they build up inventories of goods and they acquire buildings and equipment. In other words: businesses have assets and so they cannot, even if they want to, immediately turn these into cash at the end of each period. Often, these businesses owe money to suppliers and to tax authorities, and the proprietors do not withdraw all their original capital and profits at the end of each period. In other words businesses also have liabilities.†[wikipedia, balance sheet]A balance sheet summarizes an organization or individual's assets, equity and liabilities at a specific point in time. We have two forms of balance sheet. They are the report form and the account form. Individuals and small businesses tend to have simple balance sheets. [the original, 07,15,2007] L arger businesses tend to have more complex balance sheets, and these are presented in the organization's annual report. [Microsoft Corporation balance sheet, June 30, 2004] Large businesses also may prepare balance sheets for segments of their businesses.[Global Financing]A balance sheet is often presented alongside one for a different point in time (typically the previous year) for comparison. [Balance sheet comparing two year-end balance sheets] â€Å"A personal balance sheet lists current assets such as cash in checking accounts and savings accounts, long-term assets such as common stock and real estate, current liabilities such as loan debt and mortgage debt due, or overdue, long-term liabilities such as mortgage and other loan debt.Securities and real estate values are listed at market value rather than at historical cost or cost basis. Personal net worth is the difference between an individual's total assets and total liabilities. †[Personal balance sheet structure] â⠂¬Å"A small business balance sheet lists current assets such as cash, accounts receivable, and inventory, fixed assets such as land, buildings, and equipment, intangible assets such as patents, and liabilities such as accounts payable, accrued expenses, and long-term debt.Contingent liabilities such as warranties are noted in the footnotes to the balance sheet. The small business's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities. †[Small Business Administration] There are anther type of balance sheet is US small business balance sheet. It is a small business balance sheet lists current assets such as cash, accounts receivable, and inventory, fixed assets such as land, buildings, and equipment, intangible assets such as patents, and liabilities such as accounts payable, accrued expenses, and long-term debt.Contingent liabilities such as warranties are noted in the footnotes to the balance sheet. The small business's equity is the difference between total ass ets and total liabilities. Guidelines for balance sheets of public business entities are given by the International Accounting Standards Board and numerous country-specific organizations/companys. â€Å"Balance sheet account names and usage depend on the organization's country and the type of organization. Government organizations do not generally follow standards established for individuals or businesses.†[Personal balance] If applicable to the business, summary values for the following items should be included in the balance sheet:[16] Assets are all the things the business owns, this will include property, tools, cars,Current assets,Cash and cash equivalents, Accounts receivable,Inventories,Prepaid expensesfor future services that will be used within a year,Non-current assets (Fixed assets),Investment property, such as real estate held for investment purposes,Intangible assets,Financial assets (excluding investments accounted for using the equity method, accounts receivabl es, and cash and cash equivalents), Investmentsaccounted for using the equity method, Biological assets, which are living plants or animals.Bearer biological assets are plants or animals which bear agricultural produce for harvest, such as apple trees grown to produce apples and sheep raised to produce wool. [Epstein, Barry J. ; Eva K. Jermakowicz ,2007] the liabilities is include: Accounts payable, Provisionsfor warranties or court decisions,Financial liabilities (excluding provisions and accounts payable), such as promissory notes and corporate bonds,Liabilities and assets for current tax,Deferred taxliabilities and deferred tax assets,Unearned revenue for services paid for by customers but not yet provided. Further more The net assets shown by the balance sheet equals the third part of the balance sheet, which is known as the shareholders' equity.It comprises:Issued capital and reserves attributable to equity holders of the parent company (controlling interest), Non-controlling i nterestin equity. Formally, shareholders' equity is part of the company's liabilities: they are funds â€Å"owing† to shareholders (after payment of all other liabilities); usually, however, â€Å"liabilities† is used in the more restrictive sense of liabilities excluding shareholders' equity. The balance of assets and liabilities (including shareholders' equity) is not a coincidence. Records of the values of each account in the balance sheet are maintained using a system of accounting known as double-entry bookkeeping. In this sense, shareholders' equity by construction must equal assets minus liabilities, and are a residual.Regarding the items in equity section, the following disclosures are required: Numbers of shares authorized, issued and fully paid, and issued but not fully paid, Par valueof shares, Reconciliation of shares outstanding at the beginning and the end of the period, Description of rights, preferences, and restrictions of shares, Treasury shares, incl uding shares held by subsidiaries and associates, Shares reserved for issuance under options and contracts, A description of the nature and purpose of each reserve within owners' equity The last part in this essay will introduce Balance sheet substantiation. ‘Balance Sheet Substantiation is the accounting process conducted by businesses on a regular basis to confirm that the balances held in the primary accounting system of record (e. g. SAP, Oracle, other ERP system's General Ledger) are reconciled (in balance with) with the balance and transaction records held in the same or supporting sub-systems.Balance Sheet Substantiation includes multiple processes including reconciliation (at a transactional or at a balance level) of the account, a process of review of the reconciliation and any pertinent supporting documentation and a formal certification (sign-off) of the account in a predetermined form driven by corporate policy. Balance Sheet Substantiation is an important process that is typically carried out on a monthly, quarterly and year-end basis. The results help to drive the regulatory balance sheet reporting obligations of the organization. Historically, Balance Sheet Substantiation has been a wholly manual process, driven by spreadsheets, email and manual monitoring and reporting.In recent years software solutions have been developed to bring a level of process automation, standardization and enhanced control to the Balance Sheet Substantiation or account certification process. These solutions are suitable for organizations with a high volume of accounts and/or personnel involved in the Balance Sheet Substantiation process and can be used to drive efficiencies, improve transparency and help to reduce risk. Balance Sheet Substantiation is a key control process in the SOX 404 top-down risk assessment. ’[University of Victoria (Canada) balance sheet accounts] To sum up, it can be seen that the balance sheet have a lot of point, it worth to resea rch, to think deeply. The balance sheet is the first step of your accounting career, it also is the skill which will follow you whole accounting career.

Challenger Disaster Essays - Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

Challenger Disaster Essays - Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Challenger Disaster The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster was a preventable disaster that NASA tried to cover up by calling it a mysterious accident. However, two men had the courage to bring the real true story to the eyes of the public and it is to Richard Cook and Roger Boisjoly to whom we are thankful. Many lessons can be learned from this disaster to help prevent further disasters and to improve on organizations ethics. One of the many key topics behind the Challenger disaster is the organizational culture. One of the aspects of an organizational culture is the observable culture of an organization that is what one sees and hears when walking around an organization. There are four parts to the observable culture, stories, heroes, rites and rituals and symbols. The first one is stories, which is tales told among an organizations members. In the Challenger Space Shuttle incident there were mainly four organizations thrown together to form one, Morton Thiokol, Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center and NASA Headquarters. All of these organizations had the same type of stories to be told. At Morton Thiokol, they talked about their product and their big deal, which they received from NASA. At NASA, its members retold stories of the previous space missions and being the first people to have landed on the moon. Second are their heroes. At Morton Thiokol, their heroes might have been the founders of the organization or its top executives like Charles Locke or Jerry Mason. At NASA, their heroes might have been Neil Armstrong, staff or any members of the organization. All of these people that were chosen to be heroes set the standards for that organization and conducted themselves for others to follow. Third are the rites and rituals those members of an organization conduct. Since both of these organizations work together to attain the same goal, a ritual for the organization is the celebration after each successful launch and landing of a space shuttle. A rite or ritual shows a since of group unity and friendship among the organizations members. Finally there are symbols that the organization uses, which has may carry a special meaning through its communication. Symbols in these organizations are very important because with these organizations line of work, symbols could mean the difference between life and death. For example, in the space shuttle there are different symbols on their controls. If an emergency light goes on they must know these symbols in order to fix the problem or abort the shuttle. All of these four aspects are centered on the organizations core culture. An organizations core culture is the beliefs about the right ways to behave. When Thiokol and NASA first started to plan for Challengers mission, it was part of their core culture, which ultimately caused the Challenger disaster. To an observer at both of these organizations dealing with the Challenger mission was that everything was perfect and right on schedule. The top executives in these organizations told their employees to be quite and act as if everything was fine. They did this so that the media and the people of the United States would believe and have great admiration for NASA. The Challenger was different then the previous missions because it was the first time a citizen would be going into outer space. At this time in these organizations time, it was essential to their futures to boost Americans opinion of the space program. The executives of these organizations knew how important this mission was t o their success and pushed for the mission to happen and for its employees to convince the people of the programs growth and success. In the direction in organizational culture, worker empowerment was highly stressed although top management did not listen. This was also very important in trying to prevent the Challenger disaster. Both Thiokol and NASA asked for employees opinion on whether the launch should be a go or were their problems that may arise. When the engineers gave their opinion that I was to dangerous for launch, the top executives refused to listen to them and voted to launch asking only for the top executives to vote. In Challengers case, the engineers were the people who knew whether

Free Essays on Afirmative Action

Affirmative Action: Is it the solution? Introduction From the beginning of recorded history, possibly before then, humans have found a necessity for classifying and categorizing every aspect of life. This need for order has been used to efficiently organize and clarify the endless details on Earth. This arrangement of objects in groups has also created a very sinister and volatile mindset that some people live by. This associative manner of classification has lead to the formation of beliefs in race identities, stereotypes, and superiority in the form of racism. Racism is contempt for people who have physical characteristics different from your own (Nanda and Warms 1). This concept is often combined with what is called racialism. Racialism is an ideology based on the following suppositions: There are biologically fixed races; different races have different moral, intellectual, and physical characteristics (Nanda and Warms 1). This is the ideal that many people engage in consciously and the way some people think without even realizing it. The only way to overcome this derogatory belief system is to define the meanings and misunderstandings of racial differences. Race is the term for classifications of people based on opinions about physical characteristics and differences between groups of individuals. The problem with this is that these differences do not really provide distinctions between ancestral lineages. In fact, these subtle differences between so called races, like broadened noses, physical structure, and skin color, are the results of environmental circumstances encountered by early nomadic human groups as they moved and settled in new territories. These traits are the products of many thousands of years of genetic hit or miss. Some of these traits were beneficial to the individuals and some were disadvantageous for survival in the many diverse environments found on Earth. For instance, the most commonly cited differen... Free Essays on Afirmative Action Free Essays on Afirmative Action Affirmative Action: Is it the solution? Introduction From the beginning of recorded history, possibly before then, humans have found a necessity for classifying and categorizing every aspect of life. This need for order has been used to efficiently organize and clarify the endless details on Earth. This arrangement of objects in groups has also created a very sinister and volatile mindset that some people live by. This associative manner of classification has lead to the formation of beliefs in race identities, stereotypes, and superiority in the form of racism. Racism is contempt for people who have physical characteristics different from your own (Nanda and Warms 1). This concept is often combined with what is called racialism. Racialism is an ideology based on the following suppositions: There are biologically fixed races; different races have different moral, intellectual, and physical characteristics (Nanda and Warms 1). This is the ideal that many people engage in consciously and the way some people think without even realizing it. The only way to overcome this derogatory belief system is to define the meanings and misunderstandings of racial differences. Race is the term for classifications of people based on opinions about physical characteristics and differences between groups of individuals. The problem with this is that these differences do not really provide distinctions between ancestral lineages. In fact, these subtle differences between so called races, like broadened noses, physical structure, and skin color, are the results of environmental circumstances encountered by early nomadic human groups as they moved and settled in new territories. These traits are the products of many thousands of years of genetic hit or miss. Some of these traits were beneficial to the individuals and some were disadvantageous for survival in the many diverse environments found on Earth. For instance, the most commonly cited differen...

Is Sims Metal Management making the right strategic initiatives in the Dissertation

Is Sims Metal Management making the right strategic initiatives in the metal recycling industry - Dissertation Example The research was conducted using questionnaire method on the employees, which were 32 in all. The results reveals that the firm has not been practising CSR internally but tries making an external image of a good corporate firm. Moreover, the firm has been indulging in growth strategies with acquisitions, mergers and diversification. The employees also shed a light on how beneficial these strategic moves may be for the firm and whether the firm is taking care of its employees or not. Towards the end recommendations like, taking safety measures for employees, being informed about legislations in the global industry, forming an emergency unit, technological advancements and employee training has been given. Table of contents Chapter 1-Interduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Purpose of the research 1 1.4 Research problem 2 1.5 Research methodology 2 1.6 Aims and Objectives 3 1.7 Layout of the report 3 1.8 Validity limits 4 Chapter 2-Literature Review 2.1Introduction 5 2.1I ndustry Overview 5 2.3 Sims Metal Management Metal Management 6 2.4 Competitive analysis 7 2.5 Demand for recyclable metal 8 2.6 International business management 9 2.7 Supply chain and metal recycling 9 2.8 Pestle analysis 11 2.8.1 Political/legal environment 11 2.8.1.1 Regulations 12 2.8.2 Social Environment 12 2.8.3 Economic environment 13 2.8.4 Economic risks involved 13 2.8.5 Ecological environment 14 2.8.5.1 Structured changes 14 2.8.6 Technological advancement 15 2.9 SWOT analysis 15 2.9.1. Strengths 15 2.9.1.2 Strong structure 15 2.9.1.3 Business development 16 2.9.2 Weakness 16 2.9.2.1 Insufficient safety measures 16 2.9.2.2 Ineffective management 17 2.9.2.3 Complicated legislations 17 2.9.3 Opportunities 17 2.9.3.1 New markets 17 2.9.3.2 New recycling units 18 2.9.3.3 environmental consciousness 18 2.9.3.4 Efficient processes 18 2.9.3.5 Incorporate technology 19 2.9.4 Threats 19 2.9.4.1 Industry threats and prices 19 2.9.4.2 Developing countries 20 2.9.4.3 The legislative barriers 20 Chapter 3- Methodology 21 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Research Paradigm 21 3.3 Questionnaire method 22 3.4 Sample 22 3.4.1 Sample selection 23 3.5 Questionnaire 24 3.6 Data analysis 24 3.7 Privacy of the subjects 24 3.7 Trustworthiness of the methodology used 25 3.8.1 Reliability 25 3.8.2 Validity 25 3.8.3 Ethical validity 26 3.8.4 Generalized validity 26 Chapter 4 Data analysis 27 4.1 Introduction 27 4.2 Internal environment of Sims Group UK 27 4.3 Is the firm growing in the right direction in the economic downturn? 33 4.4 Technological incorporation in the firm 35 Chapter 5-Conclusion and Recommendations 37 5.1 Conclusion 37 5.2 Recommendations 40 5.2.1 stringent safety standards 40 5.2.1 Emergency unit 40 5.2.2 Business strategies 40 5.2.3 growth strategies 41 5.2.4 employee training 41 5.2.5 Technological advancement 41 5.2.6 CSR 41 5.2.7 Legislative information 42 5.3 Limitations of the Research 42 Appendix 43 References 45 Chapter 1-Interduction 1.1 Introduction In cha pter 1, the author gives a detailed account of the research topic explaining why it was chosen. The background of the research is also given along with the reasons why the research was conducted. The methodology of the research has been given in detail along with the research paper layout. 1.2 Background According to Eddolls (2012), Sims Metal Management is an Australian based global concern that recycles metal. The firm has 42 recycling plants in

Forensic Psychology and Criminal Investigation Essay - 9

Forensic Psychology and Criminal Investigation - Essay Example Plea bargaining is seen to let ‘professional’ criminals get off the hook too easily as they are familiar with the criminal justice system (Miceli, 1996). There are evident advantages for guilty offenders to opt for plea bargain as it significantly reduces their sentence as per the Sentencing Guidelines Council (2007) despite convincing evidence. Similarly, imprisonment may be substituted by alternatives such as home detention, probation period, or community service and even immediate release. Sexual offenders can greatly benefit by pleading guilty to violent behaviour instead of sexual charges that would save them from public registration, special discharge terms, and restricted parole conditions. A defendant who is found guilty of a serious felony in a jury trial on average receives a prison sentence twice of that offered in plea bargain for the same crime (Soni & McCann, 1996). The point of time in a trial when a defendant negotiates plea bargain is critical as it sign ificantly affects sentencing. The Runciman Report demonstrated how knowledgeable criminals use plea bargain to their advantage when they are certain of the verdict, which ensues in a cracked trial (Runciman, 1993). Criminal justice systems based on plea bargain subtly rob defendants of their constitutional rights simply on the excuse of lack of time or money to listen. In reality, plea bargaining creates unconstitutional conditions and exerts impermissible burden on a variety of chief constitutional liberties (Baker & Mezzetti, 2001). In consideration of this, Justice Powell contended (OHear, 2007): Plea bargain deprives the defendant of three fundamental rights protected by Fifth and Sixth Amendments, namely, the right of jury trial, self-incrimination, and confronting hostile witnesses. Weak cases are more likely to enter into plea bargains, as it is difficult to