These people are called humanist. Many people believe that Ancient Greece is just famous for the movie “Hercules” and those columns on the White House. The truth is, that if the Ancient Greeks didn’t accomplish as much as they had, then life today would be drastically altered. The Greeks are a huge part of our culture, customs, and government. The Ancient Greeks are the most significant to western culture because of its creation of different types of government, ideas on philosophy, and the impact of Hellenistic culture.
The governing authorities again like to use culturally significant figures in the tales of innovation and invention and discovery. Even with such advanced politics and thought, a class distinction still persisted, and though they had seen the benefit of all this technology, there were those in the upper class who felt it was beneath them to use such tools in any way. T Innovation was of great value to both the Han and Romans. The Han placed a higher attribution to culturally relevant creators. For example, Huan Tan, an upper-class Han philosopher wrote in New Discourses (Document III) of an emperor of myth inventing and refining the pestle and mortar for all people.
Firstly, the subjective nature of the topic “we cannot hurt another human being without leaving a scar on ourselves” should be note. This statement evidently ceases to recollect that people live within our society that feel utterly no remorse; these people are commonly labeled as sociopaths. For the most part, sociopaths are unable to function adequately in a society. Secondly, it should be duly noted that hurt is never necessarily a bad thing; whether encountered by ourselves, or brought from ourselves onto another. Emotional (which is the main category of hurt this topic is refers to) pain can be extremely valuable if we take the time to ponder what it may be trying to tell us, or use it in a positive light; to learn more about ourselves, and grow emotionally and spiritually.
This question has often been asked, and the boundaries between craft and art are often contested. Is it that art evokes meanings and emotions far beyond what the viewers observe, while craft remains the underlying basis of art? Or is it that a craftsperson is someone who practices their skilled craft, and an artist is someone who cares about their craft, cares how it looks, how it’s presented, if it will inspire and what is its intended purpose. Some believe craft is the use of materials for something practical that has some individuality but limited imagination. As soon as the creativity hits a higher level and the work assumes its own identity, whether it has a function or not, that is when it becomes art.
The evidence that he provides does reflect his overall statements or arguments. His argument is extremely convincing and even being part of the generation that he is ‘bashing or putting down’ it is hard to disagree with; he makes an eye opening argument that someone from the millennial generation might not have realized before. His bluntness and use of many outside individual opinions makes the article even more persuasive where his word choice is leaning towards a distinct side of opinion. I do believe that the evidence can be looked at a different way. For instance, who is to say that this new approach to the workforce by this generation is so necessarily a bad thing?
For example if they used have breakfast a nine in the morning because they liked to lay in till then, they may wish to do this still but cant communicate that so by finding out habits from the family you have a better chance of fulfilling their wishes. B2 Two ways of making sure that the history, preferences,wishes and needs of an individual using our service are recognised in the care plan by; 1. By asking the individual to check the information that has been put in their care plan and including them in the writing of the care plan so that all their preferences, wishes and needs are in the care plan from the beginning. 2. By regularly reviewing the individuals care plan and what support they receive will ensure that the information and how they want to receive their care is correct.
On the other end of the spectrum, if the film is not a prank, then we are drawn more toward what was trying to be said through the actual storyline of the film, instead of possible motives of those involved in creating it. The ideas proposed in the storyline are things like the significance and meaning of art, how things become canonical or just popular among a mass audience, and even what it is that makes an artist a meaningful creator of art. First looking at street art altogether is in itself a controversial matter. This is because a portion of the population sees this as no art form at all, but instead it
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
Dezueze is more critical, and claims that she will reveal the true effect that precariousness, as brought on by these unique pieces of works, has done and ultimately will do to this specific genre of art. I am not a proponent of her idea that these pieces of art are “precarious”, however I do see them as being very reality shattering for people who may have thought art was limited to things outside of
I argue that having the ability to be controversial is what makes art, art. In truth, "the freedom of expression" is a lie because while we all possess it, we don't speak our mind in fear of being ridiculed or having our opinions written off. Art is the only medium, where one's thoughts, no matter how controversial, can be presented in anyway they want, there shouldn't be a "taking it too far" with art. Everything is appropriate in art. Writers Week is a event that allows people to say things they would not normally say in a school environment, or share thoughts they wouldn't share with people, whether it be the f-bombs 'Mutts' dropped or the swears that student presenters uttered while reading their speeches,their art brought some crudeness into our sugar coated school environment.