Dear Editor, Garrett Hardin’s essay, “Lifeboat Ethics,” although a compelling read, is an appalling example of sloppy conservatism which seeks to manipulate the reader through erroneous, contradictory, bigoted, self-important, and cruel statements. “Lifeboat Ethics” is undoubtedly one of those opinion pieces that is meant to show readers the error of their ways. He all but begs the reader to set aside his or her “kind-hearted liberal” feelings, and provides many examples to walk the reader through his own viewpoint—as any good op ed should. (p. 134). Nonetheless, the omissions and baseless presumptions present in this piece insult the intelligence enough that it is impossible to seriously consider Hardin’s point (which is stunning in its brutality).
Thus we can see that his arrogance and ego reached such a level that he thought of himself as god and forgot that he was a mere mortal. His disdainful challenge to the mighty of the world, allude to his excessive arrogance and pride. This bottomless pit of pride, arrogance, haughtiness and self-consuming narcissism is so apparent that it has been used by many an author as a metaphor when comparing and analyzing characters as illustrated by Allison (2012: 106) for the character of “Daniel Dillion” in “The Cinema of Michael Winterbottom”. The poet uses this juxtaposition in order to add vividness and to enhance the contrast
A ship is “bleed and calm’d” when the wind is taken out of it’s sails, and this reflects how Iago feels at being passed over promotion by Othello. Furthermore, reiterating the point that Iago displays utter contempt for Othello, Iago states that he has to continue with being his “Moorship ancient.” Iago here has used a pun on the respectful word “worship”. His pun mocks both Othello’s race and character. Possibly the only point throughout the play, where Roderigo is perceptive, is where he
Icarus and His Pursuit of Fame The painting “The Landscape with the Fall of Icarus” by Pieter Brueghel and a different painting with the same title by Hans Bol contrast sharply despite the common name. Both authors depict varying perspectives of the Myth of Icarus and as a result, they convey the idea that humans tend to idolize people who do amazing feats but their fame is momentary. The excitement wears off quickly and people move on to idolize the next new thing. Despite the similar name of these paintings, both contrast strongly. For one, Bol’s painting depicts Icarus’ flight whereas Brueghel’s shows his fall.
Half-caste John Agard is saying that people are to obsessed with purity and he is trying to say that people calling him half-caste think he is somehow less pure than them. He is attempting to change that by using phrases like ‘when Picasso mix red and green/is a half-caste canvas’. By using this he is saying you wouldn’t say this about Picasso’s paintings because they are beautiful so why would you say that about a person. The poem is about the poets annoyance and sadness of people using the phrase half-caste. The poem has a sarcastic tone to it and I think it’s to show how he thinks that people are not thinking when they use this phrase, he expresses this by saying “when you say half-caste/yu mean when Picasso/mix red and green/is a half-caste canvas”.
The death of his mother doesn’t even bother him so show sadness. When Meursault realized that his freedom was gone away for good he begin to see things different.”And I felt ready to live again too. As if the blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope: for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.”(Camus Stranger122). The quote explains that maybe he took the world for granted and there was so much to accomplish in the world of freedom. In The Myth of Sisyphus -Sisyphus stole the gods secrets and he was punished for this action.
The speaker as well praising the ship and the occasion praises the enigmatic captain of said ship thus giving the poem its famous title. The twist in the poem is that the joyous occasion is brought to an anti climatic and somber end when the revered captain of the ship is shockingly discovered dead much to the disbelief, chagrin, and consternation of the spectators. Whitman, by making the poem an extended metaphor, and by utilizing apostrophe and repetition addresses concepts such as how idols are observed by the common man, the almost zealous effects of fervent patriotism, as well as how idols martyrdom often transcends the legacy of said idol. Perhaps the most prevalent device in Walt Whitman’s elegy is its extended metaphor , after all a simple elegy to a fallen captain of a ship after surmounting a hardship of immense proportions would not have the same impact as something that delved deeper. Whitman deliberately wrote his poem as an extended metaphor to end of the Civil War and most vitally the untimely assassination and subsequent death of President Abraham Lincoln; “What the reader goes on to find is that the whole story is in fact a metaphor” (Enrico).
Antithesis: A statement in which two opposing ideas are balanced. Example: “This most excellent canopy, the air,…no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors.” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 41-42) Function: After Hamlet confirms that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were sent by the king to spy on him, he offers to honestly tell them of how he is feeling. He states that he is depressed at the moment and finds everything to be lifeless. It is then that he begins depicting the air around them as something beautiful, but turns things around when he states that to him it is merely disgusting air. When Hamlet explains,“ this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul…”, the “why” adds a tone of confusion, hinting that not even Hamlet can explain as to why he feels this way about the air.
Despite all this negativity, it would be a great over-simplification to assume that the overall play ‘presents us with a bleak and cruel world and offers no comfort at the end’, though this is an easy assumption to make given the obvious bleakness that infects the play throughout. Shakespeare does not dance around with back stories for the characters; rather he launches straight into Lear’s grand mistake in the first scene, and leaves the characters actions to imprint on the audience’s mind, introducing them. Lear’s flaws become evident immediately, even if the consequences of such flaws are not fully unveiled until later. Lear’s pride can be dismantled to have many layers; too proud to accept the truth in Cordelia’s words, seeking only mindless, false flattery; too proud to listen to Kent’s wise warnings, hearing only ignorant interruptions. ‘In thy best consideration check this hideous rashness.’ Lear does not only ignore the good advice his good friend Kent is giving him, he also
In the late 1600s, individuals to be considered 'mad' were thought to have been possessed by the devil or some other evil spirit, and so were mocked and considered dangerous and unapproachable (as suggested by Sir Toby in Act 3 Scene 4 “defy the devil”). In some ways, they weren't even thought of as the same species to conventionally 'normal' people. For this reason, an Elizabethan audience may find the joke to be comfortably within boundaries and possess the acumen necessary to find humour within the text and jokes. Another reason a 17th Century audience could consider the joke to be within the boundaries of comedy is the possibility of Malvolio being an ill-considered puritan to them. A puritan is a religious person who's personally opinionated line between what is wrong and what is right is absolute and solid.