I Hope to Explain the Birth of Our Universe :: Graduate Admissions Essays

I Hope to Explain the Birth of Our Universe. Â   Since childhood, the studies of philosophy and science have interested me profoundly. Having read many books on relativity, quantum mechanics, existentialism, religion, capitalism, democracy and post-Aristotelian philosophy, my quest for knowledge has only intensified. Certainly, the purpose of my life is to discover a greater understanding of the universe and its people. Specifically, I plan to better grasp the interrelationship among forces, matter, space, and time. In addition, I hope to find a unified field theory and a convincing explanation for the birth of the universe. Â   During the summer of tenth grade, I took a number theory course at Johns Hopkins University with students from Alaska, California, and Bogota, Colombia. My attendance of the New Jersey Governor's School in the Sciences is another accomplishment that exemplifies my dedication to knowledge. During the summer following eleventh grade, I took courses in molecular orbital theory, special relativity, cognitive psychology, and I participated in an astrophysics research project. For my independent research project, I used a telescope to find the angular velocity of Pluto. With the angular velocity determined, I used Einstein's field equations and Kepler's laws to place an upper bound on the magnitude of the cosmological constant, which describes the curvature of space and the rate of the universe's expansion. Â   In addition to learning science, I recently lectured physics classes on special relativity at the request of my physics teacher. After lecturing one class for 45 minutes, one student bought many books on both general and special relativity to read during his study hall. Inspiring other students to search for knowledge kindles my own quest to understand the world and the people around me. Â   Also, as president of the National Honor Society, I tutor students with difficulties in various subject areas. Moreover, I am ranked number one in my class, and I am the leading member of the Math Team, the Academic Team, and the Model Congress Team. In the area of leadership, I have recently received the Rotary Youth Leadership Award from a local rotary club and have been asked to attend the National Youth Leadership Forum on Law and the Constitution in Washington D.C. Currently enrolled in Spanish 6,I am a member of both the Spanish Club and the Spanish Honor Society. Â   As student council president, I have begun a biweekly publication of student council activities and opinions.

An Analysis of Witi Ihimaera’s Whale Rider Essay

In Witi Ihimaera’s novel â€Å"Whale Rider† we follow Rawiri as he goes through his life watching the growth, incidents and magic of his niece Kahu. Kahu is destined to be the next chief of the Maori in Whangara, New Zealand, a tribe that has descended from the legendary â€Å"whale rider.† However, Kahu is, as Nanny Flowers says, â€Å"Hungry for [her grandfather’s] love,† (Ihimaera 34) and struggles to receive it because she is a girl. The author presents this story through Kahu’s Uncle Rawiri’s point of view, and this outside view of Kahu is brilliant because it creates tension between what the reader, author, Rawiri and Kahu are thinking and allows the reader to fill in the gaps themselves. The story would lack suspense and motivation if we knew Kahu’s thoughts and would lose all aspects of mystery. Whale Rider creates a distorted medium between reality and the character’s minds, which is what keeps the reader guessing, second-guessing and questioning all the way up until the moment of truth in the end. Ihimaera makes it the reader’s job to presume Kahu’s thoughts as opposed to actually providing them. Rawiri comes into play in that that he has had a special connection with Kahu since her birth, and being in a first-person perspective with Rawiri makes Rawiri like the reader in that they mutually want all of the answers. If the novel were from the point of view of Kahu, the main focus, the plot would lose all curiosity. It was thought provoking and interesting to see Kahu strive for her grandfather’s acceptance from before she could even walk. If Kahu narrated then we wouldn’t be able to experience her development from birth, and would lose all of her toddler years. Those years keep Kahu a â€Å"question† and make us, like Rawiri, unable to wait for her to come of age and either become the whale rider or not. Whale Rider carries itself primarily on motivation towards â€Å"the end†. For the readers it is for the book’s climax. For Rawiri, Nanny Flowers, and even Kahu herself, it is for the end of Kahu’s childhood and for the answers to be revealed. Ihimaera does a great job of manipulating the motivation of the reader and intertwining it with the motivation of the characters while also leaving a prism in the middle of reality and literature where some of the  gaps and missing pieces are left to be filled with the reader’s empathy, curiosity and imagination.

Existentialism in Literature Essay

Existentialism in literature is a movement or tendency that emphasizes individual existence, freedom, and choice. While Existentialism was never an organized literary movement, the tenets of this philosophy have influenced many diverse writers around the world and readers can detect existential elements in their fiction. Americans writers like William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck reveal existential elements in their writing. Perhaps the most prominent theme in existentialist writing is that of choice. Humanity’s primary distinction, in the view of most existentialists, is the freedom to choose. Because we are free to choose our own paths, existentialists have argued, we must accept the risk and responsibility of following our commitments wherever they lead. American writers Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson often wrote about these concepts. Existentialism is not dark. It is not depressing. Existentialism is about life. Existentialists believe in living—and in fighting for life. The politics of existentialist writers around the world varies widely, but each seeks the most individual freedom for people within a society. Despite encompassing this wide range of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies, the underlying concepts of existentialism are constant: ? Mankind has free will ? Life is a series of choices ? Few decisions are without any negative consequences ? Some events and occurrences are irrational or absurd, without explanation. ? If one makes a decision, he or she must follow through. So existentialism, broadly defined, is a set of philosophical systems concerned with free will, choice, and personal responsibility. Because we make choices based on our experiences, beliefs, and biases, those choices are unique to us—and made without an objective form of truth. There are no â€Å"universal† guidelines for most decisions, existentialists believe. Even trusting science is often a â€Å"leap of faith. † The existentialists conclude that human choice is subjective, because individuals finally must make their own choices without help from such external standards as laws, ethical rules, or traditions. Because individuals make their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose, they are completely responsible for their choices. The existentialists emphasize that freedom is necessarily accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore, since individuals are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom—and therefore their responsibility—thrust upon them. They are â€Å"condemned to be free. † Many existentialist writers stress the importance of passionate individual action in deciding questions of both personal morality and truth. Personal experience and acting on one’s own convictions are essential in arriving at the truth. 17th-century French philosopher and existentialist Blaise Pascal saw human existence in terms of paradoxes. He believed that â€Å"We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart. † And as many existentialists, he acknowledges that â€Å"It is the fight alone that pleases us, not the victory. † The modern adage that the journey is more important than the final destination applies to this idea. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who was the first writer to call himself existential, reacted against traditional thoughts by insisting that the highest good for the individual is to find his or her own unique vocation. As he wrote in his journal, â€Å"I must find a truth that is true for me . . . the idea for which I can live or die. † Existentialists have argued that no objective, rational basis can be found for moral decisions. The 19th-century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche contended that the individual using free will must decide which situations are to count as moral situations. He believed that â€Å"There are no facts, only interpretations. † . . . and he is famous for this well known adage:â€Å"That which does not kill me, makes me stronger. † The 19th-century Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky is probably the most well-known existentialist literary figure. In his book Notes from the Underground the alienated anti-hero questions experiences in life that are unpredictable and sometimes self-destructive. French writer, Jean Paul Sartre wrote that man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth. There is no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in human life; in this sense life is absurd. We are forlorn, abandoned in the world to look after ourselves completely. The only foundation for values is human freedom, and that there can be no external or objective justification for the values anyone chooses to adopt. † When the Swedish Academy granted the Nobel Prize in Literature to Sartre for his work which, they recognized as â€Å"rich in ideas and filled with the spirit of freedom and the quest for truth, [that] has exerted a far-reaching influence on our age,† Sartre made it known that he did not wish to accept the prize. In a public announcement, in1964, Sartre expressed his regret that his refusal of the prize had given rise to a scandal, and he wished it to be known that his refusal was not meant to slight the Swedish Academy but was rather based on personal and objective reasons. Sartre pointed out that due to his conception of the writer’s task he had always declined official honors so this act was not unprecedented. He had similarly refused other awards offered to him. He stated that a writer’s acceptance of such an honor would be to associate his personal commitments with the awarding institution, and that, above all, a writer should not allow himself to be turned into an institution.