How does Descartes find certainty in the Meditations?

Recall that Descartes’ epistemological goal in the Meditations was to secure a new, solid foundation on which all knowledge could ultimately rest. And he believed that only philosophical inquiry (a proclaimed reliable method) could secure such a foundation. Descartes believed that by assuming the role of a radical skeptic, that is, by rejecting all of his uncertain and possibly false beliefs, he could discover absolute certainty, a single, solid truth on which all knowledge could be built. In essence, the aim of Descartes' methodology is to doubt his way toward certainty.
In a relatively short yet brilliant book entitled Discourse on Method, Descartes articulates his method on how to sort out the kind of beliefs to accept from those beliefs that can be rejected. Although he formulates several rules that would aid him in his quest, Descartes is well-known for one particular rule which states the following: only accept what is clearly and distinctly perceived: do not accept as true anything that can reasonably be doubted.
Descartes’ starting point in the Meditations is his collection of beliefs, many of which he suspects to be uncertain if not false. According to his criterion of truth, he must therefore accept only those beliefs that are “clear and distinct”. Any belief that can reasonably be doubted must be set aside.
It is in virtue of this unique, philosophical method that Descartes is able to "find certainty."

In The Mediations, Descartes determines he can find certainty if he can clear away everything about which he has doubt. What is left standing at the end of this process, he decides, is what he will be certain about. At the end of the process, he determines that the only thing he can be certain about is his own thought: he has what he calls the "clear and distinct perception" that he thinks. From that insight, he comes to the realization that his sense of being comes from his thoughts. As he puts it in a famous formulation, "I think, therefore I am."
The only thing Descartes is certain of is that he thinks. From there, however, he also finds certainty that there is such a thing as a god or Absolute Being, because he determines that he could not think of such a being (which is greater than he is) if it did not first exist.

Between Ralph and Jack, is there any indication about which character may be advancing more rapidly toward savagery than the others?

Ralph and Jack represent the protagonist-antagonist dynamic clearly in Lord of the Flies. Ralph is level-headed—until he becomes frustrated with Jack and his actions—and practical. Of the two, Jack is the closest to resembling the savagery of humans. He represents the instinctive persona, rather than the intellectual and pragmatic.
Jack creates a hunting party rather than focus on getting help, which becomes a point of contention with Ralph. The dynamic between the two boys also shows the competitive nature between so-called "alpha males." However, Ralph maintains his humane and logical characteristic, whereas Jack becomes a renegade.
When Ralph and Jack have a tense confrontation, there is an indication that the situation could have easily escalated into violence. This illustrates the tribal warfare that is present in all cultures. In the end, the progression towards complete savagery is only stunted by the arrival of the ship.

In What Ways is Amanda an Unlikely Heroine?

Of the various characters in the play, Amanda Wingfield seems to inspire the least respect or sympathy. A silly woman who lives in the past and glories in her romantic memories of Blue Mountain and her days as a Southern belle, Amanda torments her grown children with her impossible expectations and nagging. She seems oblivious to Tom’s and Laura’s feelings, and she refuses to listen when they attempt to express them. For Tom and Laura, life in the Wingfields’ shabby St. Louis apartment is often made unbearable by the force of Amanda’s personality and her unrelenting demands.
Despite Amanda’s silliness and overbearing behavior, however, she should not be dismissed as the villainess of the play. There are traits in Amanda’s character that make her more than a caricature of obstinacy and ignorance. Understanding the emotions that motivate Amanda make it possible to see that she, too, deserves some respect and sympathy.
The primary emotion that dictates Amanda’s behavior is fear—fear of surviving the Depression, fear that Tom will abandon the family as his father had left them, and fear that Laura, unable to make her own way in the world, will somehow be destroyed. Amanda lives in fear, and her fear makes her “hateful” to her children. Moreover, her fears are not imaginary; Amanda denies many realities in her life, but her family’s dire situation during the Depression is a reality she faces every day. In her efforts to control Tom and Laura, Amanda is attempting to engineer the survival of her family. When reality overwhelms her, she escapes into her memories of the past.
There is love and courage in Amanda. Unlike her husband, she did not abandon their children, and although she had been abandoned, she did not hate him; his picture hangs in the Wingfield apartment. Amanda’s concerns for Laura’s future are born of love for her daughter. She refuses to listen when Tom speaks of Laura’s fragile nature and inability to function in life because acknowledging Laura’s condition is to acknowledge the possibility that her daughter can’t be saved. Throughout the play, Amanda is cast as a woman obsessed, with the past and with impossible, ridiculous dreams of the future. In the concluding scene, however, as she is seen speaking to Laura, Tennessee Williams portrays Amanda in a way that reveals the woman who lives within her:
… her silliness is gone and she has dignity and tragic beauty …. Amanda’s gestures are slow and graceful, almost dancelike as she comforts the daughter …. She glances a moment at the father’s picture—then withdraws through the portieres.
Tom is gone, and Amanda’s dreams for Laura have been crushed, but in defeat, Amanda’s ability to love prevails.

How is King James relevant to Macbeth?

One of the most interesting elements in Macbeth that is often thought of as a loose end by modern audiences is the question of what happened to Banquo's son, Fleance. Having fled the murderers in Act III, he does not reappear at the end of the play, and the sons of Duncan, the king whom Macbeth murdered, are restored to their throne. This would seem to suggest that the prophecy of Banquo's sons becoming kings has not come true—to a modern audience.
A contemporary audience, however, would recognize that this is not what is being implied. The House of Stuart made a concerted effort to ally themselves with the legendary figure of Fleance, who supposedly fled to Wales and there founded the Stuart line. In reality, Fleance almost certainly did not exist, but his existence was very important to the Stuarts' concept of themselves as the rightful kings of Scotland. In the case of King James, the idea of the Stuarts as part of a long-deposed line who were meant to return and become king is especially important because James had recently been made king of England, uniting the Scottish throne to the English one in a move some felt was controversial. By referencing the Fleance line, Shakespeare pays homage to King James by cementing the idea that the Stuarts were always meant to return and rule, much as James had "returned" to England to become king there, too. It is a confirmation of rightful kingship.

In writing Macbeth, Shakespeare wanted to warn his fellow Englishmen of the dangers of a violent handover of power. Although England enjoyed much greater stability under James I than it had for some time, the king's grip on power was by no means secure, as can be seen from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when James, along with the entire political establishment, came within an ace of being blown to smithereens.
According to the prevailing wisdom, there was something diabolical about assassinating a monarch. Kings and queens were widely held to be anointed by God, and to remove them from their thrones by force was seen as not just treachery, but outright blasphemy. This attitude towards monarchy is reflected in Macbeth's actively siding with the forces of darkness in his plot to murder Duncan and establish himself on the Scottish throne.

The only surviving source of William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, which seems to have been adapted for a court performance for King James, is centralized around the struggles of different power dynamics. This works well in the context of interpolated compliments to King James and his right to rule.
As a nod towards King James as the rightful ruler of both England and Scotland, Macbeth transfers its power symbolically from Scotland to England. After King Duncan’s murder, his son Malcolm flees to England to ask for help. He is “received/Of the most pious King Edward with such grace/That the malevolence of fortune nothing/Takes from his high respect” (Act 3, Scene 6, Lines 27-9). King Edward is recruiting the English forces to help Scotland get rid of Macbeth, their tyrant king. “Upon his aid,/To wake Northumberland and warlike Siward,/That by the help of these—with Him above/To ratify the work” (Act 2, Scene 6, Lines 30-3). This puts the English king in the position of the divine savior. Scotland is sick, and England has got the cure. At the end, everything is put right by the power of pure England and its divine king. Holding Macbeth’s head, Macduff announces that “the time is free” (Act 5, Scene 8, Line 55). Macbeth’s evil has been swept away out from Scotland and replaced with a rightful ruler. Malcolm says, “My thanes and kinsmen,/Henceforth be earls, the first that ever Scotland/In such an honor named” (Act 5, Scene 8, Lines 63-5). Already, the old Scottish ways are being replaced by the greatness of England. Although Malcolm is crowned at the end rather than Fleance, the witches’ prophecy was known to be true by Shakespeare’s audience, because King James was a descendant of Banquo’s.

What does Tagore's poem "Paper Boats" tell us about the ways of children?

Tagore's poem "Paper Boats" tells us that the ways of children are highly imaginative. In this poem, the child speaker plays with his paper boats. He envisions putting pieces of paper with his name and village written on them in these fragile vessels and setting the boats to sail far away. He hopes that the boats will land in "strange places" and that the people there will become aware of who he is.
The speaker also loads his boats with flowers and sets them off, hoping they will come safely to land. He imagines as well that a friend in the sky sends down the clouds to race with his boats. He also dreams that fairies sail his boats at night.
In addition to showing how imaginative children are, the poem shows how they long for connection with other people and places. Children anthropomorphize nature—the child thinks the clouds are racing his boats—and they believe in the supernatural. All of this blends together in the child's imagination as one harmonious whole.
This magical and optimistic sensibility, open to all possibility, lends this poem its tone of lightness and joy.

A​ $10,000 bond quoted at 103​ 1/2 is selling​ for: A. ​$10,104 B. ​$9,662 C. ​$10,350 D. ​$9,897

A $10,000 bond quoted at 103½% is selling for $10,350. The answer to your question is C. In order to find the answer, you must first convert the percentage (103½%) to a decimal. This also requires you to change the fraction (½) to a decimal. In this case, 103½% converts to 1.035. Then, multiply 1.035 x $10,000 to find your answer. Once you complete these calculations, you will find that the answer is $10,350.
A common mistake in calculating the answer to this question would be to misplace the decimal and calculate the percentage as .1035. Alternatively, one could fail to change the ½ percent correctly, or simply make a calculation error. Making these mistakes might lead you to select the distractor choices (A, B, or D).

During Montag's run from the law in Fahrenheit 451, how are light and dark used ironically?

The dichotomy between light and dark is a motif that is used fairly consistently throughout Fahrenheit 451. Light is symbolically paired with fire, and Montag frequently associates it, particularly at the beginning of the story, with fond memories and interactions. He finds a particular comfort in the light of candles, and even compares the warmth of Clarisse's face to that of candlelight. At the end of the story, this dichotomy becomes ironic because, as Montag flees from the mechanical hound, the significance of these symbols becomes completely reversed. In this situation, light becomes a sign of sure capture and death, and Montag must avoid it at all costs. Montag knows that his pursuers are consequence oriented, being only concerned with making it seem as though he has been killed. He realizes that if he can just escape far enough into the obscuring darkness, he will be able to survive the ordeal. In this sense, darkness has ironically become Montag's salvation and existential light.