0
What else can I help you with?
Are there similar idioms to 'two sides to every coin'?
Yes, some similar idioms include "two peas in a pod", "two birds of a feather", and "two sides of the same coin". These idioms all convey the idea that two things are closely related or have complementary qualities.
What does Plato believe needs to happen to bring peace and harmony cities and to the human race?
Plato believed that philosophers should rule as kings in order to bring peace and harmony to cities and the human race. He argued that only through the guidance of philosopher-kings, who possess wisdom and virtue, can societies achieve justice and stability. Plato believed in the importance of proper education and governance to create a just and harmonious society.
To trust and doubt is not the same as to trust or doubt It is not optional to move from the doubt to the trust because both positions complement each other for which one must dare to challenge?
This is such a philosophical question! It is true that although opposites, "trust" and "doubt" complement each other. From doubt, we learn what and who to trust. From trust, we learn what and who to doubt. To trust yet to also doubt is a third category compared to "to trust" or "to doubt". In fact, there are few situations in which we completely "trust" or in which we completely "doubt". Instead, we are usually riding a continuim between trust and doubt during most interactions and experiences. From experience, both positive and negative, we learn to challege what we doubt, as well as challenge what we trust. However, humans find it harder to challenge things they've already decided are trustworthy, unless some betrayal of that trust occurs. For example, we come to trust a certain brand of product tastes good. We might strongly disagree with someone who says that brand tastes bad, and we might place the negative comments under some qualifying info, like, "people's taste buds are different". But then, one time we experience that the product we trust does indeed taste horrible! Rationally, you know the problem may have been in that one isolated package. Yet, when you reach for it the next time in the store, you withdraw your hand, remembering how horrible it was last time. You have lost your trust in that brand. Some people would say we must challenge our doubts and learn to trust. But every day, we choose and decide based in part on doubts. "Will Cake Mix A taste better than Cake Mix B?" "Will the girl I like also like me?" "Does the teacher like me?" Doubts shape how we behave, whether well or poorly. Doubts we know; we can list them easily to justify how we think, talk, act, plan, etc. What we trust, though, we unconsciously realize can change in one moment, through one betrayal. So if our doubts are more conscious, as things we can list quite vocally, wouldn't it be more important to "dare to challenge" what we trust and consciously know why we give it our trust? Why do you trust one friend over another one? Why do you trust one teacher more than another teacher? Why do you trust one restuarant more than one closer to your house? Why do you trust your brand of shampoo? The water you drink? The food you eat? Note that trust is not "like versus dislike". Trust involves much more than "like". Trust implies a committment between "me" and "the other person" or me and a brand or between me and something I value. Trust implies, to varying degrees, that "I know you (whether "you" is a friend or is a product). Trust implies, in some way, that I have given what I trust some power over me, whether the power is to influence or to love or to buy. If I trust Brand A of Frozen peas, in my trust I give the brand power so that I buy it over and over again. If the trust I give involves influence, like with a teacher, I have subconsciously said "yes" to learning from that teacher through influence and instruction. If it involves love, I have given trust to another person to love me back and to not deliberately hurt me. But often what we trust is unknown and why we trust is unknown---even if we think we know why we trust. So since I can rattle off all the reasons "I doubt" something or someone, I would dare myself to challenge what "I trust", simply to really know why I have given my trust to a particular person or thing.
What did Charlemagne do for the serfs and the rights of serfs?
Life on a manor is the medieval version of a relationship which occurs, between landlord and peasant, in any society where a leisured class depends directly on agriculture carried out by others. Such landlords may be patricians living in their Roman villas (seen by many historians as the original version of the European manor) or feudal knights ensconced in castles and fortified manor houses (a development dating from Carolingian times).Records suggest that the work of between fifteen and thirty peasant families is required to support one knight's family (and correspondingly more for a baron holding court in a castle). The relationship between the knight and his peasants is the manorial system.The knight has force on his side. Even in normal circumstances he may be able to terrify his peasants into subjection. In unruly times - characteristic of much of the Middle Ages - his armour becomes even more significant. The peasants need his protection from marauding enemies. They are less likely than usual to assert themselves.On the other hand a cooperative labour force is more productive than a resentful one, so the lord of the manor may be inclined to use his natural advantages with moderation. And occasionally, when labour is in short supply - as after the Black Death in the 14th century - the peasants themselves acquire a measure of economic strength.The resulting balance of power varies greatly in different places and times. There is an important distinction between free peasants (theoretically able to leave a manor at will, though economically often unable to do so) and serfs. Serfs are the descendants either of slaves who have been given a measure of freedom, or of free peasants who have accepted legal restrictions in return for the lord's protection.Serfs are slaves only in the one crucial sense of being tied to their lord's land. That distinction comes to seem a quibble where serfdom continues into modern times (as in Russia in the 19th century), outlasting the abolition of true slavery.The system of labour and of rent which develops on a medieval manor is also immensely variable. It is further complicated by the fact that part of any manor (the demesne) is farmed by the lord on his own account, using peasant labour, and part is cultivated by the peasants for their subsistence - paying the lord some form of rent, whether in natural produce, days and weeks of their own labour, or money.Gradually, as in any long-established social system, the lords devise more and more dues to supplement their revenue. These may be direct taxes (such as 'heriot', the lord's right to the best beast every time the head of a peasant family dies) or fees for the functions of the manorial court.The manorial court: 9th - 15th century ADThe court is the judicial basis of the manorial system. In the decentralized and unruly regions of medieval Europe, some measure of control is achieved by giving lords legal powers over the peasants on their manors.A large estate will consist of many manors, acquired not only by feudal grant but also by marriage, purchase and even outright seizure. The lord or his representatives move from one manor to another, holding court and consuming the produce gathered since their last visit. The court dispenses justice for crimes committed on the manor, hears civil disputes between tenants, and collects rents, fines and fees.Fees are claimed by the lord of the manor on a wide range of events in the life of the community. They may be required for the issue of a legal document, for the buying and selling of property and even - most notoriously - for permission to marry.These rights over the community last long after the economic basis of the manor has crumbled. They are the final residue of feudalism, and the most resented. Beaumarchais' radical comedy The Marriage of Figaro (staged just four years before the French Revolution) hinges on the question of whether the count will give permission for the wedding - or will attempt to revive a less authentic seigneurial right to the bride's virginity.This supposed right, known as the jus primae noctis(right of the first night) or droit du seigneur (right of the lord), gives an intriguing glimpse of the nature of the manorial system at the time when feudalism is declining into decay and corruption.There is no evidence that any lord ever claimed this outrageous prerogative, but there are several cases of people in the late Middle Ages paying money to avoid the exercise of the jus primae noctis. It is an unusually imaginative example of the feudal system of rights and privileges, with their inherent potential for abuse.Farming the manor: 9th - 18th century ADThe Frankish empire under Charlemagne is the source of feudalism and the manorial system. It also introduces a related revolution in agriculture.Rotation of crops to conserve the soil has been a standard part of agricultural practice since the Neolithic Revolution. The classic method is the simple two-field system. Of every two fields, one is planted each year (in Europe with wheat, barley or oats). The other is allowed to lie fallow, grazed by the cattle and fertilized by their manure.The Franks introduce a major improvement, extending the rotation to three fields. One field is now planted in the autumn with winter wheat or rye. One field is planted in the spring with oats, barley or vegetables such as peas and beans. The third field is left fallow.The new arrangement requires summer rain for the crop planted in the spring, so it is suitable only in the cooler regions of Europe. It seems to have been introduced, perhaps in the late 8th century, between the Loire and the Rhine.The advantages are considerable. The most obvious is an increase of one third in the crop (previously 50% of the land was producing each year, now the figure is 66%). The work of preparing and harvesting the fields is more efficiently spread out through the year. The ripening of crops in two seasons rather than one reduces the risk of famine from freak weather.And there is a benefit, in terms of health and variety, in the addition of vegetables to a previously all-grain diet.Strip-farming and enclosure: 9th - 20th century ADThe fields of a medieval manor are open spaces divided, almost imperceptibly, into long narrow strips. Only the fields being grazed by cattle are fenced. The others are open and are identifiable as separate fields only by the crops which they bear. The unusual detail is that the single crop in each field is separately farmed - in individual strips - by peasant families of the local village.Some of the strips may also belong to the local lord, farmed for him by the peasants under their feudal obligations. But more often the lord's land is in a self-contained demesne around the manor.Strip-farming is central to the life of a medieval rural community. It involves an intrinsic element of fairness, for each peasant's strips are widely spread over the entire manor; every family will have the benefit of good land in some areas, while accepting a poor yield elsewhere.The strips also enforce an element of practical village democracy. The system only works if everyone sows the same crop on their strip of each open field. What to sow and when to harvest it are communal decisions. The field cannot be fenced, or the cattle let into it, until each peasant has reaped his own harvest.Ploughing too is a communal affair. The heavy wheeled plough needed for northern soils is expensive, as are horses to pull it. So a team of horses and plough works successive strips of an open field for different peasants. The long narrow shape of the strips reflects the difficulty of turning the team at each end.In addition to the open fields, each village or manor has common land where peasants have a right to graze cattle, collect wood, cut turf and perhaps catch fish.From about the 13th century there are pressures on this agricultural system for two different reasons. One is the wish to rationalize the use of the land by changing each peasant's rights from scattered strips to a unified plot surrounding a family cottage. There is considerable resistance to this, because it eliminates the old safeguard by which good and poor land was evenly shared out.The other motive is the greed of lords of the manor, who regularly attempt to enclose the common land and incorporate it in their own demesne.Enclosure of common land causes particular unrest, not only for the loss of an ancient right but because the poorest peasants (those who lack a share in the open-field system) rely on these pastures and woods for subsistence.The issue becomes a crisis at different times in different parts of Europe, in some places even in the 20th century. But the trend is everywhere the same - transforming the open fields of the Middle Ages into the fenced, hedged or walled fields of the individual farms which are characteristic of today's landscape.Landlord, tenant and labourer: from the 13th century ADThe gradual move towards enclosure brings with it a change in the employment system in European agriculture. The feudal relationship of lord and peasant (with payments to the lord made in the form of labour, sometimes commuted for money) gives way to a system of landlord, tenant and labourer which is entirely based on money. The tenant pays money to the landlord for the use of his land; the landlord pays money to the labourer for his work.In broad terms the free peasants, who have owned a share of the land in the open-field system, become the tenants. The serfs become the labourers.The new system probably begins during the prosperous 13th century. With the growth in national and international trade, the subsistence farming of the feudal manor is unable to meet the demands of the market. England is one of the first regions to make the change, owing to its prosperous trade with Flanders in wool (by its nature sheep-farming is ill-suited to the open-field system). In the 14th century a different pressure continues the process; shortage of labour after the Black Death leads to an increased use of wages to pay for work done in the fields.The change gradually introduces the system of land tenure and labour which has prevailed in most of Europe ever since.
What do gregor mendels peas have to do with the study of heredity?
The peas had passed traits down like red or white and short or tall.
What is the study of heredity?
Genetics is the study of heredity. It was largely started by the work of an Austrian monk called Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas showed that there are predictable patterns in the way traits are inherited. Since then we have uncovered much of the molecular basis of inheritance.
Is the study of heredity?
Genetics is the study of heredity. It was largely started by the work of an Austrian monk called Gregor Mendel. His experiments with peas showed that there are predictable patterns in the way traits are inherited. Since then we have uncovered much of the molecular basis of inheritance.
What living thing did Gregor Mendel study the characteristics?
Gregor Mendel studied the characteristics of pea plants. He is known as the father of modern genetics because of his work with pea plants, which helped establish the principles of heredity.
What animal did Gregor Mendel study?
Gregor Mendel studied pea plants in his experiments on the inheritance of traits. Through controlled breeding experiments, he discovered the basic principles of heredity, known as Mendelian genetics.
What was Gregor Mendels main experiments?
Gregor Mendel conducted experiments on pea plants to study the patterns of inheritance of traits. He crossed peas with different traits, like round vs. wrinkled seeds or yellow vs. green seeds, and carefully analyzed the offspring to understand how traits are passed from one generation to the next. Mendel's work laid the foundation for the field of genetics.
What kind of plants did Gregor Johann Mendel work with and why?
Gregor Mendel used pea plants in his experiments to study heredity
What rhymes with Grendel?
Spindle Mendel, the monk with the peas and heredity study. enkindle
Why did Gregor Mendel study peas?
Gregor Mendel studyed peas because he notaced that they reproduced fast and he could studdy the different trates pased on from parent to offspring easyer.
What do gregor Mendel's study of peas have to do with heredity?
If I remember correctly..... Through Mendel's pea lab, he discovered and proved that every living organism inherits half it's genetic traits from it's mother and the other half from it's father.
What organism did gregor mendel use to conduct his experiment?
Gregor Mendel conducted his experiments on pea plants (Pisum sativum) to study heredity. He chose pea plants because they were easily grown, had observable traits that were easy to control, and exhibited clear patterns of inheritance.
What do Gregory Mendel's peas have to do with the study of heredity?
It Simbolises the birth right of a human. Like the sperm and the egg.
