Delbanco’s interpretation that Thoreau creates world that we both need and fear is basically saying that Thoreau creates the perfect world that we would need to best survive and would strive the best in; however this world is something that we as people are not used to and have never experienced so we would be skeptical and scared when it is presented to us. I definitely agree with Delbanco’s statement about Thoreau’s world. Although it would be nice to love in a world where things were based on a man’s conscience rather than government, and the people played a bigger part in how things were ran; it would be something nobody is used to therefore no one would really know what they were doing and who is to say we can trust everyone’s conscience because there are some people in the world with bad consciences. In my opinion Thoreau’s world would only work in
Throughout Lincoln’s approach to bring about equality, he did what he thought was right and he never changed what he believed based on what everyone else thought. Throughout the struggle to bring about equal opportunity, the nation change dramatically. The destruction of certain people having more privileges than another person was the main factor in the enlightenment. Unless a man of any class has earned the right to enjoy their power, wealth, position, or immunity, all of the above should be taken away from them. Under all circumstances, the purpose of going through the entire struggle was to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible
(761-74) This article seems to be building empathy for people who work jobs that pay there employees next to nothing and treat them as they are disposable. Ehrenreich conveys that the companies control the employees through fear and instilling a sense of unimportance. Management from the corporate level treats the employees as if they are second class citizens, treating them as if they are not as important as the upper management of the corporation. I feel a good example of Ehrenreich using ethos in her writing was when she was explaining the way she felt management was treating the employees at the restaurant as if they were children being “lined up in the corridor, threatened with locker searches, peppered with carelessly aimed accusations. (770)” Companies treat their low end employees like this knowing that they won’t leave because they have bills to pay or children to support.
The prime mover is the thing that created everything and exists by necessity, therefore has to exist. It is perfect and cannot change, as the ability to change would mean that it is not perfect. This also means it is pure good as a lack of goodness means you can do better and doing better would require change. The prime mover cannot interact with the physical world and has no plan for us, going against the idea of God, the prime mover most people believe in. The prime mover is the unmoved mover, this is similar to the domino effect were someone (the prime mover) nocks over a domino causing the adjacent dominos to topple as well but the starter of the chain reaction is unmoved itself.
Frank declares that everyone is motivated and all the employees are working towards the company’s success, this is unlikely as each employee will have their own motivations and goals. All the members of the group believe that they have to put aside any arguments for the sake of the group and emphasize being a group more than anything else (p304), this is a problem which is best represented by the bays of pigs disaster. In 1961, President Kennedy and his closest advisors authorised the invasion of Cuba. These advisors were some of America’s best minds; they were highly motivated however they had not reached the stage where they could be frank with each other. ((Janis, I. L. (1982b).
They are as well very credible sources where the evidence came from and everything lines up correctly. The uses of judgmental words I feel try to over persuade the reader and take away from the credibility due to bias in the tone used. Another way I have come to interpret this argument is that the millennial generation is in fact superior and even more hard working than they portray themselves to be. Most the surveys and data collected never showed or had anything about millennials actually working in the workplace so work ethic was not studied. This could be a major contributing factor in really trying to persuade the
I have worked hard to build a trustworthy reputation to safely operate a reactor and perform maintenance, and I also understand that it only takes me making one poor decision to destroy the admiration for my integrity that I have worked so hard to gain. It was once said by the founding father of nuclear power, Admiral Hyman Rickover, “I believe it is the duty of each of us to act as if the fate of the world depended on him. Admittedly, one man by himself cannot do the job. However, one man can make a difference... We must live for the future of the human race, and not for our own comfort or success.”(Rockwell, 1992) I could not agree more with this quote. Ultimately, everyone must work together and perform to the standard that has been set for us.
He means that if the venture needs you to be anyone else but yourself, it will lead to no good. This reveals to me that Thoreau believes strongly in the individual, being yourself, and seeking your own path. This quote is also applicable to modern life because many ventures nowadays require you to conform for some purpose. The second aphorism I remembered is “Our life is frittered away by detail...Simplicity, simplicity.” Thoreau means that our focus and attention to detail now in society and culture do nothing but to waste our lives away needlessly. He believes simplicity is the better choice.
Upon the success of our experiment much depends, not only as regards our own welfare, but as regards the welfare of mankind. If we fail, the cause of free self-government throughout the world will rock to its foundations, and therefore our responsibility is heavy, to ourselves, to the world as it is to-day, and to the generations yet unborn. There is no good reason why we should fear the future, but there is every reason why we should face it seriously, neither
§229. The end of Government is the good of Mankind; and which is best for Mankind, that the People should be always expos'd to the boundless will of Tyranny, or that the Rulers should be sometimes liable to be oppos'd, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their Power, and imploy it for the destruction, and not the preservation of the Properties of their People?... §243. To conclude, The Power that every individual gave the Society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the Individuals again, as long as the Society lasts, but will always remain in the Community; because without this, there can be no Community, no Commonwealth, which is contrary to the original Agreement: So also when the Society hath placed the Legislative in any Assembly of Men, to continue in them and their Successors,