“I shall make a proclamation, speaking as one who has no connection with this affair, nor with the murderer” (Sophocles 14). It is perceived here that to Oedipus, he has no relativity to the death of Laius or to his murderer, but the truth is that Oedipus does have all the connection there is to have with both because he is the murderer of Laius. “Insult me, go on-but that, you will find, is what makes me great” (Sophocles 30). It is intended here that Oedipus doesn’t care if Tiresias insults him because he believe he has already saved Thebes and believes he will rid the city of Laius’ killer, but it is unintended that the insults are actually the truth of Oedipus, that they are the answers which he is looking for which ultimately dooms Thebes because Oedipus doesn’t realize he is Laius’ murderer. “If it turns out that he tells the same story as you-then I, at least, will be cleared of responsibility” (Sophocles 58).
He implores the jury to look into the face of the accused man to determine his innocence. Here he is discriminating Kabuo for his nationality. The jurors tend to side with him accept for Alex Van Ness. In my opinion I don’t see the support or any evidence in his saying and don’t side with his facts. Nels Gudmundsson closing statements says he notes that there is no evidence to suggest Kabuo plotted a murder or had a motive to murder.
Prejudice is incurred by the hate we feel towards people whose customs and behaviour differ from our own; the fear of the unknown is the basis of all prejudice. Words are only powerful if we give them meaning, therefore, prejudice and racism are only powerful if society defines the fuel of racism. When Atticus states, “It’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person it, it doesn’t hurt you,” (Page 108, Lee) it exemplifies his refusal to put stock in derogatory slang because he knows that only uneducated people would use such language whilst discussing the behaviour of another human being. Atticus told Scout and Jem that being called a “nigger-lover” does not matter because it has no meaning to Atticus.
Morality in Julius Caesar Morality in Julius Caesar The removal of Caesar from office by assassination in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar attempts to justify an unethical act by focusing on the motivation behind the actor instead of the righteousness of the act itself. Throughout this play, the empirical immorality of murder is ignored. A man’s ethics are surely corrupt when the taking of another’s life for the sake of politics is merited. Therefore, Shakespeare ought not have erroneously depicted the slaying of Caesar as a satisfactory method of seizing control of ancient Rome. Brutus compares Caesar, whom was soon to be crowned, to "a serpent’s egg which hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous" who must be killed while still in its shell.
This explanation I find, is lacking in evident in the literature. He is remove from his throne because of his persistent nature and a promise he made to his subject to stop at nothing to find Laius's murderer, and to in keeping that promise. Oedipus as a king could have gone back to his words once he discovered the horrible truth, he however never did. His subject(the Chorus) gave him chances to do so: “I would be mad, / a reckless fool / to turn away my king.” (ll. 693-695) He cast himself out, not his subject nor the gods.
If fate indeed determined destiny then what was to happen would have happened and Oedipus could have done nothing to prevent it, the play would be boring and Sophocles no more than a simple play write. From the eyes of the reader Oedipus could be deemed reckless and careless. On the other hand, from Oedipus’ viewpoint he was doing the right thing all along. He left who he believed to be his parents, killed a group of who he assumed were bandits and started an inquiry into what he believed would save his city and avenge a fallen king; These are astonishingly human actions, with no grounds for being judged as “tragic flaws” in any sense of the term. What Oedipus’ true flaw was is not a single characteristic but a coupling of intense pride and a vicious temperament.
This admission exposes that fact that Herodotus admits that all of the knowledge he offers in stories is not his own, thus proving the fact that he was the “father of history” and that any lies that were inadvertently told belonged to his sources of information and were surely not his own. This statement served as a personal disclaimer and reminds me of the American saying “don’t shoot the messenger”. Many of those who designate Herodotus as the “father of lies” are blaming him for inaccuracies that he reported while forgetting that he was only the messenger and did not compile the information himself. For example, Herodotus reported that the Persian army that rallied to fight against Greece was “numbered no less than 2,641,610 fighting men” (285). The Knox text suggests that Herodotus inferred this
Lord Henry responds to this by noting that Dorian was beginning to moralize, and this was a negative thing because he believed that the books and art themselves did not make morals, therefore art could not be poison. Lord Henry argues, “As for being poisoned by a book, there is no such thing as that. Art has no influence upon action. It annihilates the desire to act. It is superbly sterile.
In the world we live in, it seems that every other person is out for self gain They will step on anyone and do whatever it takes to get what they want, but does that make them purely evil? What if in their final moments they go something good? Or if their evil ways are result’s of circumstances that they can no control over? It’s a hard line to draw and in King Lear Shakespeare explains why through the use of conclusions. The most important conclusion Shakespeare has drawn about the nature of humanity in King Lear is the fact that evil is not something the gods have cursed you with at birth but it is something that you choose for yourselfACt .