For instance, without doing at least a preliminary literature review first, one might find that the central research question chosen has already been written about extensively and with a great deal of concurrence among the scholars, thus making it an unsuitable topic as the argument is far too easy and obvious. Since a solid research question rests on the writer’s ability to make a valid and contestable argument, only the literature review process would reveal that a topic is either “done to death” or has life left for a new reworking or new way of conceptualizing it.

In addition to revealing these possibilities (or lack of them) a literature review forces the writer to engage with other scholars who have worked with the same topic and to consider the nature of their research (for example, it’s limitations) and use this to further solidify the final product. This in turn leads to the revelation of new avenues in terms of broader theories to look at more closely and points to related sources that might not have been immediately discovered.

In terms of my own topic related to the effects of supervisors on employee morale in the workplace, I found that my initial research question, while interesting to me, was far too broad. An initial scan of the literature available revealed that this was indeed a topic that had been written about extensively and with the same conclusion—that yes, there is an observable impact on how employees relate to their supervisors (on many levels), thus reading several pieces on this topic led me to realize my topic needed refined far further.

The next step I took was to look at the many pieces I had gathered as many possible sources and to look for common themes in some of them. As this process continued, I was able to use a thematic approach to narrow down my topic and this guided me through long process of deciding what among this existing literature was still worth arguing and what would make the most valuable contribution from my questions. This process also prompted me to research theoretical principles I came across that were unfamiliar and required a process of sub-research areas. These secondary concerns then helped me form some rudimentary secondary/supporting questions. In short, writing a literature review is important because it forces evolution of the first working hypothesis—sometimes into something barely related to the initial idea.

Related Articles

An Annotated Bibliography of Creative Writing Resources

Difference Between Research Questions or Hypothesis

The Purpose of Social Research

This analysis of the problem of evil will first address some of the weaknesses inherent to asking such questions as they rely on the assumption that we understand exactly what God is. After this critique is offered, a more general assessment of how we cannot ever know God is discussed in this or any other context. What emerges in this questioning of the problem of evil is that there while such a philosophical approach is inadequate for attempting to “prove” with any kind of empirical certainty that God does not exist, it nonetheless provides the potential of asking deeper questions about the nature of evil and including human beings and the notion of free will in the debate.

It is, after all, human beings who enact evil and this continues whether or not there is a proven God, so perhaps philosophy might be best reserved for examinations of human moral and immoral behavior and motivations rather than grappling with questions to apply to a formula that is inherently flawed in its design.

The problem of evil encompasses one of the most compelling philosophical questions that seek to whether or not God exits by examining several causal relationships that explore the nature of god, evil, and the possibilities such a God would have to notice and then expel evil, but in the end, the results of such questioning are hinged on questions that may make false and unreliable suggestions about what god is or is not, which means that the final result of the reductionist argument is not valid. However, despite the lack of validity one finds within questions about God and the problem of evil based on faulty questions, using the ideas expressed in the problem of evil to guide further inquiry about the topic of how evil can exist if there is a higher power that is omniscient is incredibly useful and leads to more interesting questions. The main weakness with the problem of evil is that the argument itself is constructed using concrete notions of what God is (despite the interjection of “if” as in “if god is omniscient”) and what evil is. It seems that to form a slightly more reliable measure of whether or not God exists using reduction to eventually boil down to answer, there would have to be more known and proven about God.

One of the first elements that should be addressed in a discussion of God and the problem of evil is the matter of omnipotence and supreme moral good. Although one can argue that the ideas expressed in questions about the problem of evil revolve around a distinctly Christian notion that evolved well before the Enlightenment period, of God as one who is all-knowing and morally perfect, this might make a sound international or inter-faith argument a bit weaker. Still, if taken at face value, the problem itself questions how, if there is a supremely knowing and supremely “good” and morally perfect god, evil can exist and more specifically, how a god that was good was allow evil. If there was such a thing as an all-powerful God, such a figure would assumedly recognize the vast amounts of evil that take place and would understand this evil in the context of his own perfection of understanding of what perfection would encompass. Such a God, being omnipotent, would also be able to detect evil, as he would know all and would have the ability to put an end to evil once and for all as presumably he would have the supreme knowledge and ability to enact any great change he wished. What is most complex about God and the problem of evil is that if a God was one who was perfect, he would not only be able to recognize all forms of evil but would be able to get rid of all traces of it at any point he wished, not just for the benefit of humans, but because he as a perfect figure would have a desire to rid the world of evil.

Despite a few of its weaknesses which will be discussed below, the problem of evil argument presents an interesting way to question whether or not God exists, even if it cannot provide a sound or perfectly acceptable answer. After all, there is no way for any mathematician, scientists, or philosopher to ever come close to designing some infallible formula to answer such an ethereal question. What the questions surrounding the problem of evil do is set up the ideal scenario—that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect and then, by suggesting that a God would both recognize the presence of evil and allow it to continue, or not recognize it all would mean that God is not one of the aspects defined that made him God in the first place. In other words, this logical only holds if God is imagined as a “figure” that has substance, understanding, makes conscious decisions—this idea does not account for alternate views of God who could be, for some, a withered old tree in the middle of a clearing rather than an ephemeral being who watches us all at once, knows everything, and has a supreme moral will.

The elements just stated serve as prefacing questions to the real debate which is, if there is a god who is omnipotent and who is morally perfect, how could he allow for evil to take place? This continuation of evil could mean a couple of different things, all of which would serve to weaken many foundations of the Christian faith. For instance, the problem of evil states that the continued presence of evil must mean that either God is not know that evil is occurring, does not have to ability to prevent evil, or simply does not have any will to bother making evil stop. The reductionist argument that takes all of these “facts” in mind about God and then reduces them down to a formula that is much like if x exists but is dependent on y to be valid, then x cannot exist. Certainly, in this argument, God does not exist. However, while the questions of the problem of evil are thought-provoking, in themselves they do not provide a reliable formula for determining whether or not God exists, instead it is more a philosophical exercise that creates more questions than answers. One of the most profound problems with the “problem of evil” argument is that, as noted earlier, it is too sure in its assumptions about what God is and heavily relies on the Christian tradition of the all-seeing, all-knowing God who actively rejects evil in biblical tradition. Furthermore, in these many assumptions made about the nature of God and evil, there are far too many places where weaknesses in the conditions that lead to the final reductionist argument that God does not exist. Problems with the questions themselves mean that the answer is not valid, which does discount this theory as being any kind of reliable measure about whether or not God exists.

There is no way to empirically prove a formula that either confirms or denies the existence of God, no matter how carefully constructed it might be. If I were to give my own overall assessment of this theory, it would be that it is provides a useful roadmap for asking more comprehensive questions about God and how evil (especially to such drastic degrees) can exist but little else. The fact is, when it comes to theological philosophy, we have spent thousands of years taking wild stabs in the dark—there is no way to prove or analyze that which we cannot see. Even more importantly is the argument that if there actually is some kind of omnipotent, perfect being that is guiding us or at least observing us, who are we, as mere mortals to seek to define and understand what this being’s purposes are? To further highlight this idea, we could still have a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing, and has the ability to stop evil when he sees it but who chooses not to so that humans can exercise freewill. Perhaps, more interestingly, this God considers our “right” to exert freewill and make our own way more morally correct and more aligned with the divine than interfering directly to prompt us to change the course of our lives and world. Again, there cannot be answers when we seek to define God because it might very well be that if such a divine entity existed, he or she might have motivations that are far too great for our minds to grasp and accept.

It seems that the best way to consider objectively the problem of evil is to take an anti-establishment stance in terms of organized religions and unified theories of what God is. For thousands of years religions have identified their own diverse deities and have used such deities to construct systems of moral behavior and action that are appropriate for that culture. Arguing that the problem of evil either proves or disproves God could only be adequately done so (although proof would still never emerge) the person making such an argument did so from the perspective of one with a clear notion of exactly what God’s motivations were. Since we can never know that if a God exists, such a figure would conform to our ideas of what we think God should embody (moral perfection, complete reign over our lives, omnipotence) we can never fully understand evil. All that we do know at this point is that human beings have the ability to make their own decisions that are free. Perhaps then, until some major event happens that somehow puts the God puzzle together for us and lets us finally see if the notion of God is fallacy or truth, philosophy as a discipline should spend more time examining freewill and the concept of human goodness and evil to come up with a paradigm that will help us in the here and now. We need philosophy to pose questions about our lives, cultures, and inherent motivations and embedded ideas in order to progress as citizens of our communities and the world.

Related Articles

On Breaking a Man-Made Law

Subjectivity, Empiricism, and the Paradox of the Correct Religion

The Creationism versus Evolution Argument : An Eternal Stalemate

What emerges in a comparison between these two historically significant works is that each society had great value placed on spirituality and the divine, albeit in very different ways. Furthermore, both of these societies had differing views about what it meant for one to be heroic or noble that can actually be effectively paralleled. Although there are several differences in the social orders of each of these epics, there are some fundamental aspects of both societies that are in alignment with one another, which suggests that there might be some overarching truth that is sustained throughout the ages as it reflects concerns that are always present in our societies.

Despite vast differences, In The Iliad and The Canterbury Tales, which are works that encompass periods in world history that are incredibly different in almost every cultural respect (for example, one comes from a polytheistic culture whereas the other emerged from a distinctly monotheistic one) there are some elements of social order that are in synch with one another. One consistent theme between the works of Chaucer and Homer is the significance of the divine in everyday life. For the society reflected in The Iliad, the gods and goddesses had a direct hand in the mortal tribulations depicted and were central characters in the conflict and resolution. Homer’s sense of the dominant social order for his account of a time that was before his own had gods who were directly and explicitly involved with the lives of his characters. As a matter of course, the culture was directed by this presence and the characters understood themselves to be the pawns and charges of a host of gods and goddesses, oftentimes with conflicting needs. As an epic which directly reflects this social order, the culture presented in the Iliad is one that places man and the gods in direct communication and sometimes even battle with one another’s wills. This is an eternal and futile struggle, but one worth documenting and passing on as it speaks volumes about the volatility of this period.

In The Canterbury Tales, divinity is also an important issue and serves as the background the pilgrimage in the first place, although the influence of the divine is less keenly felt by far. Instead, since the social order of medieval times stressed the importance of an all-knowing god who was implied as a constant presence rather than directly seen, felt, and communicated with by mortals as in The Iliad. This lack of direct communication with god (not to mention he fact that this is just one, rather than multiple gods, all with conflicting viewpoints) changes the entire focus of the social order reflected in this epic poem. Instead of focusing on the god/mortal issues, the Canterbury Tales examines issues that are distinctly mortal and earth-bound in nature. Marriage, love, honor—all of these are issues that while based sometimes on religious principles, are not matters where god is directly in communication with the individual characters. The social order is thus the same in that divinity is a central driving force for the characters, but far different in scope as the religious and divine context is entirely different. These two epic accounts of social orders and cultures are, however, similar in the sense that the social orders presented recognize themselves as subject to the demands of a higher authority and neither are by any means secular. By nature of this fact, both tackle questions of god(s) indirectly by presenting cultural-based scenarios that provide complex points of analysis. For instance, in The Canterbury Tales, readers are forced to reflect on the nature of religion and God in the context of so many accounts of clergy dishonesty and in The Iliad, the characters try to work out how to best fulfill a destiny that the gods themselves have a direct hand in.

One striking similarity between these two social orders presented outside of the divinity issues is that of what is takes to define a noble or good person. In The Canterbury Tales, for instance, the Knight and his tale are seen as being representations of a culture that placed great emphasis on personal bravery, chivalry, loyalty, and fair treatment in love and war. Through the character of Achilles, the most valued aspects of a culture’s hero are explored as well, although there are differences since Achilles is arguably a flawed human being. Both cultures tend to place bravery and skill in war as important, although to varying degrees; since Homer’s world was much more likened to great periods of long, bloody war, the traits of a warrior as most valuable to the social order were emphasized. In Chaucer’s case, while the Crusades certainly were wars, the heroes in these stories were based on Christian concepts as well as a blend of older traditions that emphasized chivalry, for instance. In short, however, social order is greatly defined in an epic by its heroes and both the heroes of these tales (most notably the Knight from Canterbury Tales and various figures such as Averagus from The Franklin’s Tale as well) embody deeply-embedded cultural values—many of which can be easily extricated from the concepts of religion and divinity as discussed.

The concept of an epic also implies that there is a great task at hand; a quest that needs fulfilled. While in Homer’s case the quest is perfectly defined through the plot, in Chaucer’s, the quest varies by storyteller. However, no matter what the final end goal of the journey towards a great truth or ultimate destiny is, the passage to that end in any true epic cannot occur without broad references to cultural norms. Both of these stories, despite disparities in when they were written reflect several important truisms about the cultures they present. If we were to look closely, it would become immediately clear that many of the same basic values—the quest for heroes that most suitably define our culture and its social structure and values, as well as a keen desire to keep connected to our spiritual selves—is consistent with contemporary times. In other words, one addendum to the definition of epic that has been offered is its timeless nature. In revealing one historical culture, an epic should also reflect the current one.

Related Articles

Character and Divine Influence in The Iliad and The Aeneid

Fate, Conflict, and the Will of the Gods in Homer’s Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid

The Narrow Role of Women The Odyssey by Homer

The Development of the Character Telemakhos in The Odyssey

The reader receives certain cues throughout the novel that those philosophies behind literature that reflects the scope of Russian history of the “old regime” of romanticism and clear-cut class distinctions are empty. Several scenes depict the two philosophies and tend to show the old generation’s philosophy as leading to disorder, dreaming (versus action) and a lack of purpose whereas the scenes that present the rejection of these ideas as more meaningful and goal-oriented. Still, Turgenev demonstrates how both philosophies are inherently flawed as they are too extreme for the coming social changes.

Like other examples of Russian literature, simply defining nihilism is a struggle for some of the characters in Turgenev’s novel as it is a concept that is so far removed from the daily realities of Russian life—especially if one is the owner of an estate or of a more privileged class. One revealing scene that speaks to the diverse ways the nihilist philosophy is received is when it is defined by the two characters that most represent the old order in Russia—Nikolai and, to a much greater extent, Pavel. When Arcady tells his father that his friend is a nihilist they are shocked as they try to divine meaning from the root word, which is “nothing.” While Nikolai, who is less provoked already by Bazarov, is gentler when he assumes it must mean a man who will “admit nothing” (24) Pavel is more severe in his definition, stating that it must mean, “better still—a man who will respect nothing” (24). This idea of a lack of “respect” for the old ways is what drives and then deepens the chasm between Pavel and Bazarov which only worsens with time.

With the exception of Bazarov, who is the only one to live according to his nihilist beliefs, none of the central characters in Fathers and Sons seem quite capable of identifying or defining what nihilism is exactly. Even Arcady, who the reader learns quickly is far more of a follower than true, dedicated adherent to the core ideals of nihilism, is not committed to the philosophy. Rather, Arcady is dazzled by the audacious life of his friend, whom he admires but cannot fully imitate due to his ingrained, inescapable true nature. Despite the fact that Arcady goes on to deliver a more balanced definition, stating that a nihilist is “a man who admits no established authorities, who takes no principles for granted, however much they be respected” (25) it seems that his less than self-assured status (when compared to his mentor/friend Bazarov who is an “expert” on this matter) shows through. He is unable to fend off the old guard’s attacks on the seemingly meaningless, disrespectful philosophy without his friend nearby. Eventually, as Arcady begins to recognize the true extent of the differences between his own innate (versus admired) philosophy and sees that he is most comfortable existing within the comfort of the old, accepted order after all, it becomes clear that being a true nihilist is something that only Bazarov can do. Unfortunately, this makes him a rather lonely man.

While the ultimate bent of the novel is toward recognizing some value in the philosophy of nihilism, this is by no means a suggestion that the philosophy is infallible. For that matter, there are some incidents in the book that lead the reader to see that nihilism is too severe to be practicable and that it does not provide a practical framework for living. One of the most noticeable examples of this is in the way that Bazarov is unable to reconcile his worldview with what might innate, inborn romantic tendencies. Even though Bazarov, in his rejection of the ideals of romanticism and the previous generation’s adherence to romantic love in art, action, and literature, scorns Pavel’s life story, he actually falls victims to the same “weaknesses” of reason himself. After hearing Pavel’s story, Bazarov says, “I maintain that a man who has staked his whole life on the card of a woman’s live, and then, when he has lost it, turns sour and lets himself drift—a creature like that is not a man but just a male animal” (38). However, in his relentless criticism of this weak behavior that lacks rationality and reason, he eventually comes to understand it through his relationship with Anna. The narrator states that, “In his conversations with Anna he used to indulge to an even greater extent than usual in his scathing indifference to everything savoring of romanticism; but when left to himself, he became indignantly aware of the romantic strain in his own composition” (109).

Fathers and Sons attempts to define nihilism by allowing several main characters, all of whom represent an important subset of Russian society at the time, to provide their own definition. While nihilism is not attacked as weak and outdated in the same way that the romantic and dreaming generation’s ideas are, it is not touted as a solution either. Even though the non-nihilist, romantic philosophy that is dedicated to the beauty of Pushkin, the value of class systems, and the worldly (versus Russia-centric) culture and language is depicted as being established and practiced by many in the novel, that order is falling apart. More importantly, there are several scenes that depict disarray and chaos as the life of the romantic dreamer does little to assist with the new situation of freed peasants and a new class system. This philosophy is shown to be outdated given the challenges for Russia that lie ahead but interestingly, the philosophy of nihilism is now shown to be a panacea for the problems at hand. Even though nihilism embraces the peasantry more than the aristocratic-minded older generation, this is still ineffective as a philosophical system.

Related Articles

Russian History

Thematic Contrast in War and Peace by Tolstoy

Analysis and Review of Fathers and Sons

Themes and Plot Analysis of “The Snowstorm” by Pushkin

The Armenian Genocide and the U.S. Response

Work Cited

Turgenev, Ivan. Fathers and Sons. Edited by Jane Costlow. New York: Signet Classics, 1997.

Conrad, who was well traveled, very likely used his adventures to supply some concepts for main characters and settings in his novels, including Heart of Darkness, and other lesser known works like Outpost of Progress.

As one scholar notes, “The event was fully reported in The Times and Conrad, who was in London at the same time, probably read about the scandal” (Watt 265) and moreoever, the similariities between the real case of the Jeddah and those that take place in Lord Jim are far too similar to discount in any way, even though Conrad would never publicly state that the Jeddah was indeed the inspiration for his tale (Watt 260). However, dispite the irrefutable historical alignment of the two stories, if this was indeed the primary model Conrad used, there are a number of significant alterations Conrad made to the story that not only changed the context of the real event, but for literary purposes, made the focus of such as story completely different. While the inquiry following the true event of the S.S. Jeddah was concerned with a number of complex factors that ultimately influenced the decision of the crew to abandon the ship, including the presence of the captain’s wife on board and the rough weather, to name only a couple, Conrad’s story eliminates these factors entirely. The result of these omissions is that the reader is confronted with a tale not about a decision or an event-based narrative, but rather a complex commentary about human nature or, as one scholar puts it, “the psychology of cowardice” (Greany 79).

As suggested, there are striking similiarities between the acutal events that took place on the S.S. Jeddah in 1880 and the events depicted in the novel. The basic elements of the two stories, true and fictional, are aligned quite perfectly on a surface level. In both accounts, the ship is British manned by a white crew (although there are a few minor exceptions to this) carrying roughly one thousand Muslim passengers to Mecca. In both tales there is a breach in the hull of the ship that threatens the integrity of the ship and sinking is expected. Also, in both accounts there is the similarity in the abandoment of the ship by the white crew and the associated crime of leaving the passengers to die and a subsequent revelation that the ship did not sink, thus revealing the truth about the crews on both ships. However, despite these basic similarities, which are enough to equate the tale of the S.S. Jeddah to the ship in Conrad’s story, the differences that exist in the narratives are quite significant and change the entire focus of the story from a news event with many complex factors influencing the crew’s decision to abandon ship to Conrad’s very singular account of one man’s hasty decision and the aftermath.

Whereas in the actual Jeddah, a number of important factors influenced the course of events, in Conrad’s story, the story is motivated by the perecptions and hasty actions of one man and one singular force; Jim and his quick decision. As Greany suggests (70) “Conrad is careful to eliminate all of the extenuating circumstances that emerged at the official inquiry…. No such shreds of mitigating evidence disguise Jim’s naked culpability, which is exposed with all the ruthless clarity of a laboratory experiment.” Accordingly, in the true account of the Jeddah, there are many reasons cited as the reason for abandonment; the most significant of which were the presence of the captain’s wife on board and concerns about her safety which were cited to be one of the primary causes for the captain’s decision as well as the violent reaction of the passengers, all of whom were well aware of the dangerous possiblity of sinking. The official wreck report states these factors as the reasons for the crew’s abandonment of the ship and the number of factors at play were all very complex. In the true account, the passengers were well aware of the status of the ship, were trying to help bail it out, and more importantly, only got violent when they noticed an abandonment effort taking place which was, according to the captain, simply because he feared for his wife’s life. Again, none of this is at play in Lord Jim and the responsibility is isoltaed to just Jim, for the most part.

In Canto 30 of Dante’s Inferno, the reader is led through a lengthy, crowded section of hell where a collection of souls who are suffering eternal punishment for a wide range of sins are clustered together, mired in their own collective filth, which reflects some of the religious imagery of the times.

This “valley of disease” that serves as the setting for this canto is characterized by rot, decay, and disfiguring, foul illnesses that are often symbolically related to the crimes of the sufferer. For instance, the only character who is given any extensive dialogue in order to aid in his characterization, Master Adam, is swollen with a disease called dropsy, which is symbolically related to his crime of being “swollen” with the stink of greed during his life as a counterfeiter.  He describes and taunts the other souls around him who are, much like him, miserable, but unable to do anything but lash out at others around them. The characterization of the entire place presented in this canto then reflects not only its inhabitants, but the crimes they committed, which label them as being diseases upon society. From incest to fraud, this gathering of sinners is unlike any other found in this poem by Dante. Part of the reason for this is that the author uses broad and symbolic characterization to communicate his ideas as opposed to a more focused, character-specific approach as used in previous cantos where one character was the subject of scrutiny.

In terms of characterization, instead of relying on mere language to communicate his sentiments about the plights of the multitudes in the bolgia that is filled with disease, Dante the poet relies on metaphor and symbolic characterization to present readers with notions regarding crime and the most appropriate form of punishment . By connecting issues of crime, punishment, and the animalistic, base nature of criminal behavior itself, the poet not only offers commentary on how the punishment in hell fits the crimes in life, he is also able to create characters who are defined by what they symbolize as opposed to by what they say in a narrative sense. In addition revealing that which is animalistic, Dante the poet literally interprets the crimes these citizens of hell physically. The ultimate effect of the combination of animal characterization and the use of symbolic characterization of the crimes committed is that the reader understands associations between crimes and their most just, fitting punishments. Hence, it is only just that this den of souls suffering for a multitude of sins that vary in scope and severity are diseased.  The final effect of these characterizations is a deepening of the reader’s understanding of naturalism as it exists in this text. Suffers become literal interpretations of what their most grotesque sins and are characterized and presented in an “everyday” manner as enacting the torturous results of their mistakes in life.

The overall effect of this canto is on the reader is that it becomes possible to see these characters as individuals guilty of base crimes that can be tied to animalistic or instinctive desires (lust and greed). With their fitting punishments do, although it could easily be argued, is to gather up any of the “remaining sins” that had not been covered in the text and lump them together into the pit of disease. The characterization of the setting itself is that of a random collection of people who were themselves diseases upon society. These souls are now left to linger in their filthy torment along this “dismal road” that stretches on for eleven miles but is thin and crowded. Interestingly, the setting itself causes a change in the character of Dante as he is scolded by Virgil for succumbing to their petty gossip. It seems  that the base, primal drives that landed many of the souls present in this region are also drives that Dante possesses, even though he has nothing but disdain for the reeking souls he surrounded by.

It is much easier to begin to see Dante’s new character trait that emerges toward this end of Inferno to have dismay for these dead rather than outright pity. The characterization of many of the other souls he has encountered do encourage the reader to sympathize with what drove them to their sins and while some have deserved more scorn than others, the characterization of this den of people who were blights upon their society discourages that in the reader and in Dante. The final effect of this canto is to communicate through characterization (as opposed to dialogue or narration) the conception of fitting punishments for sins committed during one’s life and to ultimately characterize sin as base human desires that are not rejected by the higher moral force in all of us.