They all elaborate and personify madness as a derivation of vitality, form of genius, sanity put to good use. You see, if I’m not mistaken, two of society’s most reliable sources contradict between their statements. And yet we haven’t come to the amusing part. Society is unable to differentiate let alone comprehend the difference between such astray notions. Gentleman, reflect and ponder, society should not define madness for us, society itself is mad.
And, in the same way that to become a social human being one modifies and suppresses and, ultimately, without great courage, lies to oneself about all one’s interior, uncharted chaos, so have we, as a nation, modified or suppressed and lied about all the darker forces in our history. We know, in the case of the person, that whoever cannot tell himself the truth about his past is trapped in it, is immobilized in the prison of his undiscovered self. This is also true of nations. We know how a person, in such a paralysis, is unable to assess either his weaknesses or his strengths, and how frequently indeed he mistakes
“Nihil ex Nihilo, I always say” (Gardner 150). Those are the nihilistic words that Grendel used to profess his belief that life has no purpose. Little did he know, those words would lead to a series of misfortunes that would conclude in his death. John Gardner’s Grendel is a modern work of literature that affirms the importance of human meaning through its downplaying of different philosophical beliefs, which ultimately express that life has no purpose. Gardner begins this modern work with the breakdown of Solipsism; the belief that only the self exists.
Flaws and Fallacies In Mark Twain’s essay, “The Damned Human Race,” many flaws appear within his abundant use of analogies. One flaw stems from his use of Hasty Generalization. Twain supports this by writing that “the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for…” which, according to Twain suggests “..that the earl was descended from the anaconda.” (Twain 28). This is a Hasty Generalization, for Twain is basing his conclusion on one result that does not represent the whole population. Since his argument is based on a common fallacy, his essay appears unreasonable and flawed.
“In a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true” (O’Brien 78) In the chapter, “How to Tell a True War Story,” O’Brien eloquently argues that the absolute and objective truth of a story is irrelevant when compared to the visceral reaction it provokes. Most importantly for O’Brien, a war story most closely approaches truth if it disgusts, horrifies, muddles, and forces one to consider some deeper, darker element of human nature that most would prefer remain unexplored. O’Brien bolsters his rationale in his retelling of a Hollywood, romanticized story of a man jumping on a grenade to save his fellow friends: Although the second version of this story, in which the grenade kills the entire group despite the jumper’s sacrifice, quite possibly never have happened, it may “be truer than the truth” (O’Brien, 2009). Like a true war story, it induces discomfort, uncertainty and is unclear in its greater purpose or lesson. This added human element of embarrassment and distress is what makes the second story truer the first.
Similarly, when you look at the intricate and inherent complexities on our planet and in the universe, one cannot help but assume a perfect creator." The problem with this analogy is fairly straightforward. The world, similar to the watch, is not perfect. We see the brutalization and inhumanity that exists, we see the detrimental effects of climate change and mother nature, and if the reasoning follows, we can infer a not-so-perfect
Vonnegut’s pessimistic attitude is geared harshly to the ideology on how everyone should be the same with no winners or losers, all having to succumb to being merely mediocre. When Harrison Bergeron reveals himself, it is at this point we are seeing Kurt Vonnegut’s voice and opinion being emitted from Bergeron. It reveals that Vonnegut being like Bergeron would die rather than continue to abide by a society sullied by hideous and unnecessary laws of
This shows that the society discourages change, which also means no future growth. Unlike in present society where change and growth are considered natural and 'human', Brave New World gets rid of the chance to grow and change as well as the desire, which is an example of humanity being replaced with stability. The hypnopaedia method, which are “words without reason” (p. 28), also acts in dehumanizing societys' people. These words without reason are simply a method to instill the same thoughts throughout any numerous anount of people. Instead of having your own thoughts and own free will do what what you want, you're forced to believe what society wants to believe.
Begone, or let us try our strength in a fight in which one must fall’” (103) No I don’t agree. Frankenstein merely regarded his creation as `a thing such as even Dante could not have conceived', but Frankenstein disregards or ignores the other humanly characteristics that the creature possesses: such as real feelings and instincts. A communion
“Conflict brings out the worst in people” Most of us consider ourselves pacifists and try to avoid conflict whenever possible. However circumstances and chance often intrude themselves into our idyll and draw us into situations where we are faced with conflict. The philosophers teach us that it is precisely such events where the steadfastness of our characters is put to the test and our better qualities are revealed. History however has proven quite the opposite as humans, when in fear, often instead revert to our natural defensive instincts, which sadly enough and all too frequently tend to supersede reason. In the 1950’s the mercurial American Senator Joseph McCarthy singularly embarked on a crusade to free Americans from the spectre