According to King, it is impractical because it slows the process of ending the oppression for all, and it is immoral because it seeks humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. So, violence destroys community and brotherhood by planting hatred rather than love. The third way based on King is nonviolent resistance. He believes in this way no individual or group need give in to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong. According to king, this is the method that oppressed people must follow to win against the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system.
Dimmesdale is just too weak and good-natured to shoulder the kind of blame he is foisting upon himself.He tried to hide his sin and guilt but, his heart literally weakened, and he died. 1a) "Poor, miserable man! what right had infirmity like his to burden itself with crime? Crime is for the iron-nerved, who have their choice either to endure it, or, if it press too hard, to exert their fierce and savage strength for a good purpose, and fling it off at once!” Pg.172 Do not be a hypocrite. Do not put a false point to the world to make it seem like you have no faults.
They refer to this minority as diseased or sick. The second group is the hysterical haters. The “hater” envies those who are able to act out on desires that he himself has to repress. The third group is narcissistic hate where unawareness of a group leads to contempt for them. Although Sullivan feels that this definition is not the final definition of hate, but it serves to better define the word and helps understand the true meaning behind the word.
This is true because when having an opponent at your level that is when you push yourself and your skills to the max. Outcome seekers dislike ties, so what they do is
Ill not fight with thee. (V viii 22). Even though Macbeth realizes his blindness, he is still ignorant in accepting that he was wrong. But never the less, consequences still are taken to action, and Macbeth knows he cannot ignore
This seems like a slight cheat since what Ender is winning is a competition to the death. By putting this into terms of winning, Anderson seems to hide the dangerous aspect of competition here – that competition is about
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
Emerson’s view on consistency is, once again, completely different form the average view from society. He sees consistency as a bad trait and something that everyone should shy away from. I myself believe that Emerson is right in believing consistency isn’t such a great thing. I believe people should be inconsistent and change their mind if they are given a certain amount of proof to change their mind. This is how Emerson sees consistency; he is very much against it and looks down upon those who do not change their minds.
But men generally abandon the care of their most important concerns to the uncertain prudence and discretion of those, whose interest it is to reject the best and wisest institutions; and it is not till they have been led into a thousand mistakes, in matters the most essential to their lives and liberties, and are weary of suffering, that they can be induced to apply a remedy to the evils with which they are oppressed. It is then they begin to conceive, and acknowledge the most palpable truths, which, from their very simplicity, commonly escape vulgar minds, incapable of analysing objects, accustomed to receive impressions without distinction, and to be determined rather by the opinions of others, than by the result of their own examination. If we look into history we shall find that laws which are, or ought to be, conventions between men in a state of freedom, have been, for the most part, the work of the passions of a few, or the consequences of a fortuitous or temporary necessity; not dictated by a cool examiner of human nature, who knew how to collect in one point the actions of a multitude, and had this only end in view, the greatest happiness of
If there is zero chance of the outcome swaying in your direction then at some points you might as well give up. Living with this philosophy will get you nowhere though, because if you always give up early then you may not know how it could have ended. For example if you simply will not win a court case because there is hard evidence of the defendant being guilty, then it might be acceptable for you to call it quits. This could make sense because, if you could spend your time doing something more productive with your time instead of wasting it on a lost cause. You never know how something will end; you must always wait it out till the end.