Should important decisions be made by parents for teenage children?

This is something that will vary by household.  Every situation is unique, and every culture has its own approach to growing up.  We usually view growing up as a gradual release of responsibility.  This means that at some point along the way the parents will relinquish some responsibility to the children.  When that happens depends on the parents and the children.

Children need to learn how to make decisions on their own.  If they do not learn how to make small decisions, and then larger ones, they will not be successful adults.  The rise of “helicopter parenting” in our culture has brought attention to parents who try to protect their children from all possible harm and make all decisions for them, but parents making decisions for their children is nothing new.  Again, it depends on the culture and the time period.

Legally, parents have the right to make decisions for their children while they are still minors and under 18.  However, responsible parents will teach their children how to make good decisions from a young age.  Teenagers often have other influences in their lives that lead them to lose perspective.  Parents sometimes need to intervene and make better decisions.  The teens may not realize until later that their parents saved them from disaster.

Are Supreme Court Justices allowed to vote in presidential elections?

Supreme Court Justices have the right to vote in presidential elections. They also have the right to vote in any other election in which citizens are eligible to vote. This is a precious right that should not be taken away because a person is in the judiciary or has any other governmental position. The president, vice-president, members of the cabinet, senators, and representatives all have the right to vote. 

What Supreme Court Justices should not do is express their opinions publicly about presidential candidates, or for that matter, about presidents. They have been known to make remarks at private events from time to time, but they should be careful. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg realized this after she commented on Donald Trump and then apologized for her remarks. The Supreme Court should at least appear to be above the fray of politics, even if it is not.

What is the main conflict in My Side of the Mountain by Jean George?

I would say the main conflict of My Side of the Mountain is an external man vs. nature conflict. In the beginning of the book, Sam Gribley decides to live on his own out in the wilderness. He does this in a manner befitting an extreme survivalist because when he leaves civilization, he has minimal supplies. Sam doesn't take food or a lot of tools. He leaves New York in May with “a penknife, a ball of chord, an ax, and $40,” as well as flint and steel for making fires.

That is an exceptionally small amount of gear. I like camping, but Sam puts me to shame. Throughout the novel, he is continually in conflict with the nature that surrounds him. Not only does he have to deal with the challenges of finding decent shelter, but he also has to hunt and forage for food. Because his diet is so meager, Sam struggles with vitamin deficiencies and very low calorie intakes. As winter approaches, Sam discovers his meager supplies cannot adequately deal with winter conditions.

Toward the end of January I began to feel tired, and my elbows and knees were a little stiff. This worried me. I figured it was due to some vitamin I wasn't getting, but I couldn't remember which vitamin it was or even where I would find it if I could remember it.

As the book moves toward its conclusion, Sam's conflict turns into an internal conflict. Sam must decide to continue living on his own or return to his family.

Please explain the notion of ontology as an alternative to culture within Anthropology.

Culture, as we know it today, has been defined for us from an epistemological perspective: what we know about reality (or truth) can be realized either through empiricism (experience) or through rationalism (reason). From an epistemological perspective, culture is what we know of the world, where there is only one human reality supporting a plethora of worldviews.

The ontological turn to anthropology, on the other hand, favors the perspective that there are many worlds and multiple realities (beyond that of human reality). The ontological strategy is an effort to approach these other realities with an open mind. In other words, the epistemological approach favoring either empiricism or rationalism (culture as defined by humans) can be invalidated in the search to embrace new realities.

Consider that in How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human, Eduardo Kohn proposes the idea that the native Amazonian Runa people should engage with the sylvan realities within their midst, namely the spirits, animals, and ghosts that dwell in the tropical forests. The ontological approach basically seeks to readjust our human perception of reality to include non-human perspectives and analyses.

In Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's ontological approach to anthropology, he aims to encourage scientists to embrace the Amerindian concept of perspectivism, where reality is based on multiple concepts, and all are equally permissible. For example, he claims that manioc beer is to humans what blood is to jaguars. In other words, the jaguar does not 'believe' that blood represents manioc beer to them, but rather, blood is beer to them. For more on the ontological approach to anthropology, please refer to the links below.

Do you think that Canterville Chase in Oscar Wilde's "The Canterville Ghost" is haunted?

Canterville Chase is indeed haunted, as we learn in the opening chapter of "The Canterville Ghost." The former resident of the house, Lord Canterville, for example, tells us that his great-aunt, the Dowager Duchess of Bolton, was "frightened into a fit" after a ghost appeared to her while she dressed for dinner.

We also know that Canterville Chase is haunted because, in Chapter Two, the Canterville ghost makes his first appearance in the story. He tells us that he has enjoyed a  "brilliant and uninterrupted career of three hundred years" and, during this time, he has scared numerous residents of Canterville Chase. In one incident, for example, a butler shot himself in the pantry after seeing a green hand tapping on the window-pane. In another, Lady Stutfield committed suicide after being strangled by the ghost. 

Even the sceptical Otis family cannot refute the evidence of their eyes and ears. While they are not frightened by the Canterville ghost, he appears to them on several occasions. Furthermore, in Chapter Five, Virginia Otis becomes the ghost's ally when she helps him to rest eternally in the Garden of Death. 

Would you consider the nymph a realist or romantic in "The Nymph's Reply to the Shepherd" by Sir Walter Raleigh?

I find the nymph much more realistic than romantic.

Let's first clarify the difference between realists and romantics.

Those with realistic perspectives, like the nymph speaking in the poem, see things as they are. They don't imagine fanciful versions of reality; they just accept it the way it is and recognize the sad realities of life. In the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, realists "regard things as they really are, rather than how they are imagined, or desired to be, sometimes to the point of cynicism."

On the other hand, those with romantic perspectives, like the shepherd to whom the nymph in the poem is speaking, see the world in a more sentimental, optimistic, and imaginative way. They like to interpret the world in a wondrous, even magical way. The Oxford English Dictionary says romantics are "responsive to the promptings of imagination or fancy regardless of practicality."

Next, let's take a look at how the nymph reveals herself as a realist in this poem. What does she say that shows how she sees the world in a practical and even unimaginative or cynical way?

1. In the first stanza, the nymph basically says, "Sure, I'd come live with you and be your love, IF the world were forever young, and IF all shepherds like you always told the truth." Her implication is that the world, and love itself, are not as youthful and pure as the shepherd thinks—plus, she knows that the shepherd might be lying. She's not willing to be swept away in the beautiful promises and offers he's made to her.


2. In the second, third, and fourth stanzas, the nymph talks about how all things die, even someone's love for someone else. Nothing lasts.


3. In the fifth stanza, the nymph basically says she won't be persuaded to be the shepherd's lover, no matter how lovely the things are that he offers her.


4. In the sixth and final stanza, the nymph comes back to the idea that IF we lived in a world in which youth, beauty, love, and joy could last forever, THEN she might agree to be the shepherd's lover.

So as you can see, the nymph is a realist. She recognizes all things fade away with time, even love. She doesn't put faith in the shepherd's implied promises to love her forever.

As Scout looked out from the Radley porch, she regretted that she and Jem never gave Boo anything in return for his gifts, but they did give Boo...

The main thing the children give to Boo Radley is friendship. Boo Radley had been very lonely. He never left his house, and no one ever seemed interested in caring about him except for Dill, Jem, and Scout, who attempt to reach out to him.

Dill is the one who pushes the hardest for getting Boo to come out of his house. Dill understands loneliness, so that is probably why. He appreciates Boo’s situation and does not consider him a monster.

“All right then. What’d you write him?”

Dill said, “We’re askin‘ him real politely to come out sometimes, and tell us what he does in there—we said we wouldn’t hurt him and we’d buy him an ice cream” (Chapter 5).

Boo Radley really responds to these small acts of friendship. He does not mind the children reenacting his story. He seems to find them amusing and appreciates the attention. This is why he begins leaving the Finch children gifts in the tree. In Boo Radley’s lonely life, Scout and Jem are a breath of fresh air.

Summer, and he watched his children’s heart break. Autumn again, and Boo’s children needed him.

Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them. Just standing on the Radley porch was enough (Chapter 31).

Boo Radley is childlike in his own way. He relates to the Finch children because they are kind to him. They reach out to him, so he reaches back. They give him the courage to come out of his house, which he had not done since he was a teenager. He gives them the gift of their lives when he saves them from Bob Ewell, and they give him the gift of friendship.