In "A Retrieved Reformation" by O. Henry, what does Ben Price represent to Jimmy Valentine?

Ben Price is Jimmy's nemesis. Jimmy would have no problems in the world if it were not for Ben Price, the detective. Jimmy has become so successful at his profession as a safecracker, so adept, so notorious, that someone had to devote his attention to catching and convicting him. Price was the man responsible for sending Jimmy to the prison, where we first meet him. When Jimmy gets his release from the warden and returns to his rented room the next day

Everything was just as he had left it. There on the floor was still Ben Price's collar-button that had been torn from that eminent detective's shirt-band when they had overpowered Jimmy to arrest him.

It is because of his fear of Ben Price that Jimmy makes the fateful decision to move clear out of his present sphere of operations, assume a new identity as Ralph Spencer, and establish a shoe business in a small town as a "front." He has been made to realize that too many people in his present territory know too much about him. That is the price of success. And Ben Price may be thought of as Jimmy's price of success. Unfortunately, Jimmy has committed four serious crimes since his release from prison. This is already enough to put his nemesis back on his track.

 Ben Price investigated the scenes of the robberies, and was heard to remark: “That's Dandy Jim Valentine's autograph. He's resumed business. Look at that combination knob—jerked out as easy as pulling up a radish in wet weather. He's got the only clamps that can do it. And look how clean those tumblers were punched out! Jimmy never has to drill but one hole. Yes, I guess I want Mr. Valentine. He'll do his bit next time without any short-time or clemency foolishness.”

So Ben Price becomes an even worse antagonist. Jimmy falls in love, decides to become respectable, becomes a successful businessman in Elmore, Arkansas and one of the most popular men in that community. Now Ben could not only send him to prison but could destroy all his dreams of happiness. If Jimmy lost Annabel, nothing else would matter to him. And on the day the little girl gets accidentally locked in the bank vault, which only Jimmy has the skill and the tools to open, there stands Ben Price in the main room waiting to arrest him. 

Jimmy shows his love for his fiancee and his strength of character by deciding to go ahead and crack the bank vault in spite of everything. He will be revealing his identity as a master safecracker, not only to Ben Price, but to Annabel and her entire family. He will be disgraced. He will be headed for a long stretch in prison--but it hardly matters if he has lost everything he had gained through his reformation. It turns out to his surprise that by cracking the vault he "retrieves" everything, whereas by not cracking the vault, and letting little Agatha perish, he would have lost everything and gone to prison. Ben Price is human, after all. He realizes that Jimmy is no long a threat but an asset to society, so he uses his own discretion to let him go.

In Lord of the Flies, how much do you think Ralph is to blame for what goes wrong on the island?

Ralph's inability to enforce rules and form a cohesive group focused on the necessities of survival and rescue played a significant role in the demise of civility on the island. Ralph was unable to effectively impose consequences for breaking rules and not following through with tasks which allowed Jack to gradually influence the boys to dismiss the agreed upon assignments. Ralph also gave Jack control of his own group, the hunters, which encouraged Jack to seek further control. Ralph also never punishes Jack for his disrespectful behavior. He allows Jack to push the boundaries of his authority which creates a situation where Jack can openly defy Ralph's commands. In addition to Ralph's lack of authority, he does not provide the boys with any type of positive reinforcement. He gives them no incentive to complete the tasks which encourages the boys to look toward a seemingly more sympathetic, fun leader in Jack. Also, there are several scenes throughout the novel when Ralph himself engages in savage behavior. He becomes enthralled in the opportunity to kill a pig when he joins Jack's hunting expedition and willingly participates in Simon's murder. Ralph's uncivil behavior portrays him in a negative light, and further encourages the boys to act immorally on the island. Ralph's lack of leadership is a major reason as to why the situation on the island decays.

According to Montresor, what makes a perfect crime?

In the opening paragraph of Edgar Allan Poe's short story "The Cask of Amontillado," the first-person narrator Montresor vows revenge against the perceived insults he has endured at the hands of Fortunato. Montresor has planned to murder his so-called friend. For Montresor, the crime of killing Fortunato can only be considered a perfect crime if two things are part of the plan. First, the crime must be undetected; second, the victim must understand exactly who is perpetrating the crime against him. Montresor's crime should go unnoticed and, moreover, he needs Fortunato to recognize Montresor is the one killing him. He indicates this by saying,

I must not only punish, but punish with impunity. A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong. 

In the first sentence of this statement, Montresor uses the word "impunity," which is defined as being without fear of punishment. In the third sentence, he makes it clear that, as the "avenger," he needs to make certain the victim understands exactly what is happening. In the end, Montresor's plan works to perfection, and he claims in the final line that the bones of Fortunato were never discovered.

In Night, what is the relationship between Elie and Moshe the Beadle?

In Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night, chapter one details the relationship between Elie and Moshe the Beadle. Described as a wise vagrant, Moshe is a foreigner in Sighet, making him slightly suspicious to the rest of the Jewish community. Elie, however, considers him a harmless and even wise man.

Elie and Moshe first meet in 1941, when Elie is just thirteen years old. While praying at the synagogue, Moshe asks Elie why he cries when he prays. The conversation begins their relationship as student and teacher. Moshes becomes Elie’s tutor, instructing him in the ways of Jewish mysticism. Elie believes that learning the Kabbalah will answer his questions about God and reality.

In 1942 Moshe and the rest of Sighet’s foreign Jews are deported. Elie is upset, but quickly moves on. It comes as a complete surprise to Elie that Moshe returns after a few months. Moshe tells his story about nearly dying at the hands of the Nazis, but no one, not even Elie, believes him. Elie pities Moshe, believing with the rest of the Jewish community that Moshe’s warnings are the ramblings of a madman.

How has the structure of human and animal eyes influenced how they live?

Rather than the structure of our eyes influencing the way we and animals live, it would be more accurate to say the way we live/the way we engage with our surroundings has influenced the way our eyes are structured. 

Human eyes are adapted for creatures living in tall grass-lands and forests where differentiation between distance, color, and movement were crucial to our survival as a species. Unlike many animals that lived in a similar environment, our eyes and brains became adapted to finding movement and differences in color which allowed us to spot predators that may have been camouflaged in the tall grasses. Our eyes, however, didn't need to see extreme differences in color or even different wave-lengths, such as mantis shrimp which can see ultraviolet light, or raptors whose eyes are extremely specialized for spotting very small prey from hundreds of feet in the air. This leaves us being very good at detecting the "average" spectrum of red, blues, and greens, but not much else.

Animals had to make similar adaptations. Many predatory fish, for example, rather than develop extremely detailed vision, swim low and look upwards using the light trickling down from the surface. If they see a shape moving that is a different color than the surface, they will investigate. On the other hand, most deep sea fish have eyes that have no cone capable of detecting red light, as red light is the first wavelength to completely disperse in the upper waters and won't make it into the deep oceans. Some predatory fish use this to their advantage and have specialized red glowing anglers that only they can detect, leaving their prey shining brightly and completely unaware. 

To recap, the way our eyes and brains interpret light do have an effect on the way we live, but our environments and the way we and other animals survive has had much more of an impact on the way our eyes worked best. Evolution has guaranteed most species the best eyes possible for each of their unique survival conditions. Hope this helped!

How does Heidegger contrast the earth and the world and how does this difference between "on the earth" and "in the world" illuminate what he is...

The essay “The Origin of the Work of Art” by German philosopher Martin Heidegger explores the notion of what art is. He posits that art not only expresses truth but creates it, adding to a community’s shared understanding.

In the passages quoted in the question, Heidegger uses a Vincent Van Gogh painting of a pair of peasant shoes to illustrate the difference between art and other things or “equipment.” This leads to his discussion of the terms earth vs. world.

Heidegger defines world as disclosed meaning, the web of signification and relationships in day-to-day existence. The world is the human sphere of activity, culture, existence. Art is capable of manifesting someone else’s world. By contrast, the way art resists explication comes from the earth aspect. Earth for Heidegger is a somewhat mystical concept, the darkness from which all that exists emerges. The world exists and is illuminated against the backdrop of the earth, that which is concealed and by its nature closed, unknowable. Heidegger explains that Earth “unfolds itself in an inexhaustible abundance of simple modes and shapes.”

The world and earth are in opposition to each other, which Heidegger describes as a striving, the rift and also the common ground between the two. Art exists at this rift because it both proceeds from the knowable world and resists definition. No single interpretation of an artwork can completely capture its entire meaning. In simple terms, the world is that which is open and knowable while the earth is that which is concealed, unknowable.

The YouTube link below further explains this essay and Heidegger’s distinction between the concepts world and earth.

What were the interests of the humanists?

Humanism was an intellectual movement which is generally associated with the Italian Renaissance. Its emphasis was the humanistic arts as set forth by the classical Greeks and Romans. It did not, as most modern people assume, refer to a materialistic and non-theistic philosophical outlook. In fact, most of the Renaissance humanists were thoroughly Christian in their worldview, although they were more apt to criticize the Church than Christians in the middle ages.

As historian Peter Partner explains in Renaissance Rome, Portrait of a Society 1500–1559:

Humanism was not an ideological programme but a body of literary knowledge and linguistic skill based on the "revival of good letters", which was a revival of a late-antique philology and grammar.

The humanists believed that medieval scholars had corrupted Latin and the other humanities (such as literature), so they sought to restore it to its original beauty by "purifying" it according to the way it was used by Cicero and other classical authors.

Similarly, the humanists adopted a policy of ad fontes ("back to the sources") in most humanistic disciplines. By this, they meant that one should emphasize the primary sources of classical antiquity rather than commentaries or re-tellings. This resulted in new and better translations of classical works (including the Bible). The pursuit of ad fontes was made possible by a number of discoveries of primary source texts.