Thucydides, Greek historian as well as a participant, writes of The Peloponnesian War and offers insight into the Athenians thoughts on why they feel it appropriate to ignore what others consider to be just or right. The Athenians believe that mere strength and power automatically grants them the authority to do as they wish and qualifies those actions as justice; and likewise those who are weaker are left no alternative than to endure what is dealt them (Newton). It is imperative to the Athenians that their subjects never think them weak, so when the Melians offered to maintain a neutral position, in order to avoid becoming involved in the ongoing dispute between the Athenian empire and the Spartan led Peloponnesian League; the Athenian’s response was an absolute no. Justice, in this case, was seen as something that was called for by the Melians, the weaker of two parties, only as a vehicle for self-preservation, and nothing more.
Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning. Lesson 8: Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning : Lesson 8: Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning “Neither conscience nor sanity itself suggests that the United States is, should or could be the global gendarme.” “Coercion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.” –Robert
The ad hominem attacks are not necessary to support his argument that dropping the bomb was the right decision because he refutes opponents’ arguments before resorting to ad hominem, so the ad hominem must have a different purpose altogether. Instead, the ad hominem adds to his argument about the necessity of experience. Fussell explicitly admits his use of ad hominem attacks, which are valid because they occur after the target’s argument had already been refuted and just help connect the disproven arguments to their owner’s lack of experience, which is further associated with an impractical, idealistic mindset. Fussell brings up the arguments of people who opposed dropping the atom bomb on Japan and then argues that their arguments are not valid because they do not have correct information or experience in war. John Kenneth Galbraith believed that the bomb should not have been dropped because he said that the war would end in only a few weeks (Fussell, 18).
The aberrant perspective of Gilgamesh which I am presenting may seem divergent and atypical when analysed in accordance to our modern values and principles, but to Gilgamesh this would be quite natural. The values and ethics that contemporary readers hold shape their perspective of characters as they respond in various ways to the adventures that said characters undertake. A perfect example of this is when the narrator speaks of the state of Uruk and says “No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all”. From this, the contemporary audience frames Gilgamesh as an immoral tyrant, as their value of free will is being challenged. However, Gilgamesh’s intentions were in the interest of the people, as he moulded the sons into warriors to protect the city.
A major movement was the enlightenment. The enlightenment was in direct contrast to these views as it brought about a caviller dismissal of the prejudices that Burke sought to protect. Furthermore contrary to the conservative view the enlightened individuals promoted reason over reasonableness, as they believed this would liberate man from the oppression as the result of old laws. It would be foolish not to write this essay and not address Burke’s views on the French revolution. Burke opposed the instability and the reasoning of the revolution, as well as it’s potential to increase in violence and decline into anarchy, as it later did.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Djabir Yaya Professor Cindy Linden Legacy of Western Society 9/21/2012 Iliad Essay Homer uses some poetic devices to demonstrate that praising a hero can do nothing, but lead to excessive pride and result in violence. Although, sometime people do things that are above normal standard, but we do not need to glorify them since this lead to conflict in our society. There are many ways we tend to glorify individual; sometime we give them trophies while other time we just considered them as an outliers and heroes. Homer uses simile and metaphor to demonstrate the superiority of his main character Achilles to human being, but make it difficult for modern readers to understand his point. Homer uses metaphor with the purpose of showing his main character arrogance by
Imagine someone immediately after 9/11 who had been friends with bin Laden (when he was just a businessman) and who argued against the war in Iraq. Such a person would be judged by his friendship and would no doubt be seen as himself a terrorist; his arguments against the war would be seen as pro-al-Qaeda, and their rationale ignored. Socrates' situation was similar so that even though he was a passionate lover of Athens, and so no traitor or Spartan sympathizer, and though he saw his criticisms as arising from love of Athenian democracy and a wish to improve it, he was no doubt seen as someone whose loyalty was seriously in doubt. It isn't unusual in times of turmoil for people to mistake the criticism that stems from loving a country and wanting it to be better for
Bill Maher is a smart individual but an agnostic can only promote what they know which means not very much when it comes to religion. Bill Maher said “Rational people, anti-religionists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only moderately religious really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price.” To me having a meaning and a reason to
Auden then tosses in the phrase "Those to whom evil is done do evil in return" (21-22) which makes one possibly consider that this may be an allusion, though not directly, to the Treaty of Versailles which in 20/20 hindsight clearly sets those who made the treaty as doers of evil. In stanzas three and four one is shown a more anti-American concept. Auden first makes a reference in line 23 to Thucydides who was one of the first people to suggest that history should always be recorded for what it is and not for the glory of the country that records it; because of such a statement, Thucydides was exiled from his home. Towards America this may reference things such as the old propaganda movies our military used to show which were filled with lies and stereotypes to make us think in a more pro-American way. Stanza four then takes focus upon the boasts of "The strength of Collective Man" (37).