How does Gregor's mother react to seeing Gregor for the first time after his transformation in Kafka's The Metamorphosis?

Understandably, Gregor's mother has a very difficult time accepting her son's metamorphosis into a giant insect. She is upset when she first sees him. The first time she witnesses what he has become, she is so horrified that she passes out cold. Her husband and daughter, worried by her frail state and poor health, try to keep her from witnessing the depth of his transformation, but to no avail.  

Of course, Gregor's mother wants to help him and be supportive of him, but she cannot bear the sight of him. The interesting thing is that she still feels love for him. She wants to protect him from the world's cruelty, even though she herself is having a hard time hanging on to her conviction that they keep Gregor. His sister, Grete, who initially took care of Gregor, now wants him gone, but his mother defends him, insisting they keep his furniture. She holds out hope that Gregor will one day return to his former self. 

`int (ln(x))^2/x dx` Find the indefinite integral.

`int (ln(x))^2/xdx`

To solve, apply u-substitution method. 

Let,

`u= ln x`

Then, differentiate it.

`du=1/xdx`

Plug-in them to the integral.

`int (ln(x))^2/xdx`

`= int (ln(x))^2 * 1/xdx`

`=int u^2 du`

Then, apply the formula, `int x^ndx=x^(n+1)/(n+1)+C` .

`=u^3/3+C`

And, substitute back `u=lnx` .

`= (ln(x))^3/3+C`

Therefore, `int (ln(x))^2/x dx = (ln(x))^3/3+C` .

What is the main theme of the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding?

The main theme throughout the novel Lord of the Flies examines the inherent evil that is present in each individual. Golding explores how humans have a natural affinity for violence and savagery when given the opportunity to interact in an environment without rules and regulations. At the beginning of the novel, the boys attempt to create an organized, democratic society in order to survive and possibly be rescued. As the novel progresses, the social order gradually breaks down as the boys become increasingly brutal. Jack becomes the tyrannical leader of his group of savages and encourages violence and barbarism. Golding uses the "beast" on the island to metaphorically represent the boys' wickedness. Only Simon understands the true nature of the "beast," but is unfortunately murdered when he is mistaken for it. Golding believes that humans are inherently wicked individuals, and that without society's laws, people would resort back to their savage, primitive instincts.

What strong social statement is Bradbury making about the future of humans in a technological world in Fahrenheit 451? What does he feel society...

While many science fiction writers are techno-optimists who assume the advance of technology will improve human wisdom, Bradbury is a pessimist who sees the technology of mass media and electronic entertainment as leading to stultification of the human spirit and a tyranny of the lowest common denominator of thought. He sees the very difficulty of books as their virtue and the ease of consumption of television as leading to a dumbing down of the populace.

In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury argues that mass media becomes a narcotic (similar to Marx's notion of religion as the "opiate of the masses") and that the way it contributes to its mental pacification of the populace is by avoiding anything that might give offense to anyone and thus anything that might awake people from their mental torpor.

On these grounds, Bradbury is especially opposed to all forms of censorship. Although when he wrote this book, the dominant anti-censorship battles had to do with issues of sexuality and religion, he would have found equally abhorrent recent efforts to stymie free speech under such guises as "trigger warnings" or "hate speech". He would not feel that college students should be protected from things they found offensive. Instead, he would argue that being offended is a form of active engagement and that the job of the writer is to make readers think and react—even if some readers are offended in the process. 

He feels that to save society one must sustain the possibility of dissenting voices saying things that make us feel uncomfortable and that challenge accepted beliefs and certainties. 

Did Einstein become Jewish to get caught by the Nazis?

There is no evidence that Einstein “became Jewish” or converted to Judaism in order to be “caught by the Nazis.” Furthermore, there is no reason to think that he, or anyone else, would actually want to do so.

All of the evidence shows us that Einstein’s family was Jewish. There is no evidence that Einstein converted to Judaism. Moreover, it does not seem at all logical to think that Einstein did convert. He was a secular Jew, which means that he did not practice Jewish religious rituals or observe Jewish religious law. It makes no sense that someone would convert to Judaism and then not follow Jewish teachings.

Additionally, it is very difficult to imagine anyone would have wanted to be “caught by the Nazis.”  Because Einstein was Jewish, he was forced to leave his homeland.  He lost his job (though he easily found another in the United States) and had his property confiscated when the Nazis came to power in 1933. (Luckily for Einstein, he was already in the US at that time.) It is inconceivable that someone would voluntarily change their religion specifically in order to be persecuted.

There is no reason to believe Albert Einstein converted to Judaism for any reason, let alone that he did so in order to be persecuted by the Nazis.

Describe the opposing attitudes toward Great Britain that colonists held prior to and during the Revolutionary War. How did different social groups...

There were different attitudes in the colonies toward Great Britain prior to and during the Revolutionary War. Each group had reasons for supporting the side they did. Since you have asked several questions in this post, I will mainly focus on your first statement and briefly touch upon the others.

There were people who believed we should remain loyal to Great Britain. These people believed that Great Britain had the right to run the colonies in any manner that they wanted. They believed that Great Britain took a risk in establishing and in running the colonies. This gave them the authority to do what they felt what was necessary in order to make them successful. These people also were concerned there would be chaos if Great Britain was defeated.

Some people wanted to remain loyal to Great Britain for economic reasons. The colonists got many products from Great Britain that were not made in the colonies. Some people worked for the British government. These people would have lost their jobs if Great Britain was defeated.

Other people wanted to remain loyal for religious reasons. The King of England was the head of the Anglican Church. These people felt they couldn’t disobey the King since he was the leader of the Church of England.

The Native Americans and some slaves tended to be on the side of the British. The Native Americans didn’t trust the colonists and feared the colonists would take away their land. Some slaves supported the British because they were promised their freedom if Great Britain won the war.

There were other people who believed we needed to be free from the rule of the British. They believed the British were violating the rights of the colonists. They felt the tax laws were illegal because the colonists had no representatives in Parliament that could vote on the taxes. They felt the British were trying to control them by preventing the colonists from moving to the new lands that we had just gained from France as a result of the French and Indian War. They were unhappy with the Proclamation of 1763 and with the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act required the colonists to provide housing for the British troops that were enforcing the unpopular Proclamation of 1763.

More people began to feel the colonists should be free from the British rule after there were violent confrontations with the British. People became concerned after five colonists were killed in the Boston Massacre. After the Intolerable Acts were passed to punish the colonists for the Boston Tea Party, the colonists formed their own militias as they expected some fighting to occur. After the battles at Lexington and at Concord, during which both sides suffered casualties, many people believed it was only a matter of time before we would declare our independence. Throughout the war, these people believed we were fighting for our rights and to stop the abuses of the British government.

Each group of people had various reasons for supporting the rule of the British or for joining the colonists in their fight for freedom.

What is Shakespeare's art of characterization?

Shakespeare’s art of characterization—his power of creating personality through diction, revealing psychology through the words his characters speak and think—is the essence of his genius, and the reason for his enduring importance. As if often observed, the narratives of Shakespeare’s plays are almost all adapted from prior sources. His great originality consists in the richly textured and verbally exuberant characters, major and minor, with which he populates those familiar stories.

The most important early step in developing an appreciation for Shakespeare is acquiring sufficient confidence in understanding his language and its meanings that one is able to distinguish between the diverse voices of his characters. For many  students, unfamiliar with Elizabethan/Jacobean vocabulary and the rhythms of iambic pentameter speech, all the characters might sound as if they speak in an identically “old-fashioned” or “elevated” idiom. But once reading or hearing Shakespeare begins to feel more natural, one finds that Claudius sounds vastly different from Gertrude, Horatio from Polonius, Ophelia from the gravedigger—and all of them are light-years removed from Hamlet himself, who is probably the most searching, penetrating, and sophisticated intellect that Shakespeare ever created.

Entire libraries have been written about Shakespeare’s art of characterization, so no comprehensive answer to your question is possible. But I’ll direct you to two critical viewpoints that may be suggestive and helpful in pondering the nature of this art.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel made one of my favorite remarks about Shakespeare when he observed that his great characters are “free artists of themselves.” That is to say that Shakespeare’s most memorable men and women—beginning with characters like Berowne in Love’s Labour’s Lost and the titular tyrant of Richard III, and climaxing with amazingly vital figures like Hamlet, Macbeth, Falstaff (Henry IV), and Iago (Othello)—are improvisational poets, clowns, raconteurs, and philosophers of amazing brilliance, performing in the dramas of their own lives. They strive with the full force of their souls to author, analyze, revise, and direct this drama before our very eyes, to alter it, control it, or simulate and reproduce it (like Hamlet with his Mousetrap). The entire plot of Othello is essentially an elaborate deception, a play within a play devised and improvised by Iago, with Othello, Desdemona, and Cassio ensnared as his unwitting actors.

The second critical notion I want to reference for you is one from Harold Bloom, who quotes that wonderful line of Hegel’s in his book Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. Bloom locates Shakespeare’s ultimate originality of characterization in a phenomenon he calls “self-overhearing” and discusses throughout the book, the phenomenon by which a character (such as Hamlet) observes himself speaking, or thinking, and is changed or enlightened by this process of self-expression and self-definition.

Bloom’s idea is closely related to Hegel’s; Shakespeare’s characters are aware of themselves as dramatic personalities, players in a drama they don’t fully comprehend but which they are trying to revise, enacted on a stage as large as the whole history of the human race. The soliloquy is Shakespeare’s primary tool in portraying the art of self-overhearing—an art, Bloom argues (and I agree), that is not confined to Shakespeare but that every one of us practices, alone or in the presence of others, every day.

What makes Shakespeare’s characters so very different from us—even as they feel things we feel and help us to understand ourselves more deeply—is that the soliloquy allows them to express their inmost thoughts and conflicts through language, whereas most of us, when we are alone, think through difficult matters silently, in a verbally vague and fragmentary way. This, too, marks them as “artists.” Diction, word choice, and poetic language are the wellspring from which Shakespearean character arises.

Listening to these characters think about and try to define their own lives and their own natures, you discover zestful and visionary creative minds in action. Shakespeare was not just a great artist, but a creator of great artists, with desires, values, ambitions, and imaginative sensibilities all their own.