An analysis of 12 angry men Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

An analysis of 12 angry men - Essay Example An analysis of "12 angry men" Note how the leadership in the movie depend on that which Aristotle had previously given . Also note that Aristotle's formation of rhetoric makes it a component of every human effort, apart from (perhaps) those aspects of technical discussion which are so famous as to be established practically without question. In groups, large or small, the identity and make up of who becomes the leader and who becomes the follower is difficult to explain. In the case of the movie "Twelve Angry Men," the small group is the jury and the verdict they have to find. There is an underlying assumption that the jury will judge their fellow man fairly and without any personal bias. However the imperfections of man make this process less than perfect. It is here, when emotions and logic are inserted into the thought process, that conflict, doubt and questioning of motives start to occur. When the leader, in this case the foreman, takes charge we see his influence and power over the other members of the group (jury) start to take place and eventually the power shifts to another individual, in this case another jury member, an architect. On first look, the jury probably would have unanimously voted for conviction, however, as the discussion progressed, the architect gets the rest of the members to question their quick decision. While the foreman was relying on his legitimate place of power as the foreman, the architect keeps the group talking and discussing the facts of the case, and listening to each other. The foreman stayed focused and kept the discussion going and wanted all voting procedures to be fair, while the architect used rationality and logic and wanted the others to discuss their way to a still unanimous decision, but better defended. The fear of disappointing the group is stronger than perhaps their own judgment, and after the vote was not unanimous for a guilty verdict, each member tried to convince the architect, the dissenting vote, as to why they feel the suspect is guilty. After much discussion, another vote is taken, only this time it is done by secret ballot, and eventually it comes back with another unanimous decision. However, this time it is opposite of its original position: not guilty, here we find Aristotle's leadership rhetoric plays an essential role here as in this scenario as the foreman bases his leadership on Aristotle's rhetoric of leadership he strongly believes that truth needs protection exactly like the perpetration of wrongs. The bad guys will defiantly make use rhetoric...why should the good guys be powerless There is a political sense in this theory too: right thinking leaders like the jury and foreman, those who have well of the most in mind, ought to be able to take effective leadership action like the jury and foreman did in the movie (and must do so).When the group was assembled in the jury room they were polite, organized and civil to each other. They very well knew what their responsibility was as well as they collectively were thinking this was a precise case. The expectations which most of the members of jury were that a decision of guilty would be reached quite promptly and all of them would be able to leave. Compliance with this norm was first evident with the first vote taken, only one of the jury members voted for a guilty verdict. No one wanted to disappoint the group. All of the jury's leadership strengths seem to again reflect Aristotle's leade

The Reasons for The Fall of Satan Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4000 words

The Reasons for The Fall of Satan - Assignment Example Other names frequently given to Satan in Christian belief are the devil, which means slanderer and Lucifer, referring to a fallen angel. The name Lucifer comes from the Hebrew word Heylal2. It depicts a lofty state. Its root means to show or to shine and to give light. Some Bible versions call him the son of the morning star, the bright morning star, Day shining star among others. Lucifer was upon God’s holy mountain in the Garden of Eden where God created and placed the angels. God made Lucifer be a filter or a screen through which Gods glory would shine. He is said to have been the leader of the heavenly choir. However, he never got a chance to walk in what God made him be. Satan is the chief adversary to God and Christ and the supreme Slanderer of God and man. He is the leader of the opposition in the divine government. Sin and rebellion originated with him. His function is to test and call in question, to thwart and to destroy every move of God in His administration of the universe. However, he is totally under God’s sovereign control and can only do what God allows. The Bible refers to two occasions when Satan is cast out of Heaven- once in pre-time or before the creation of time where he fell from the immediate presence of God with his angels and once in the future just before Christ, the Prince of peace comes back to establish His wonderful rule in the earth3. The passage in Isaiah 14 talks about Belshazzar, the king of Babylon4. Babylonian kings, who were successively great enemies and oppressors of God’s people, were known by the name Lucifer, meaning light bearer. Lucifer was another name for the goddess Venus5. Whenever a new king took the throne, he took the ceremonial hands of Baal saying that Baal is ruling and he is his Ashtaroth. It was a marriage between King and deity for they would be one on the throne. Belshazzar took the sacred drinking vessels out of the treasury that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and drank from them. These vessels had been made for the Lord’s priest to use for a drink offering to the Lord.