Thank you for that well-reasoned informative response. However, as is consistent with your statement that good and evil exist in all mankind, I wish to delve deeper into the question of how and why some individuals able to overcome their "dark side," if you will, and remain "good," while others succumb to their evil nature. It is evident from the text that Simon, Piggy, Ralph, (even Sam and Eric) do not devolve into savages. However, and this is evident in the book when Ralph questions, why the rules just couldn't be followed, why Jack couldn't just ask for the glasses, etc...., does there exist a defining difference between those susceptible to evil and those who can resist it. What prevented the boys from existing peacefully on the island
Santa-Maria also says that while Franklin promotes the idea of being like Socrates, Franklin is in fact more like Epicurus. Santa-Maria ends his essay by stating that he believes that Franklin’s interpretation of virtue is a failure, and that moral perfection is impossible. I believe that Santa-Maria’s critical essay was very clearly written and thought-provoking. He expresses his ideas very clearly, and has a lot of background information to back it up. It was very easy to comprehend what he believed, and easy to see why he felt this way.
This positions the reader to agree with the writer because evidence is fact. The reader is generally predisposed to accept evidence is true. Swan uses the word ‘independent’ to demonstrate that Hawthorne is not with the ACT, he stands alone. It is persuasive because he is not associated with the ACT, it is his own professional opinion. Swan demonstrates inclusive
Was Cool Hand Luke Honest? One of the most famous quotes from the movie, “Cool Hand Luke” was, “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” I feel that there really was not a failure to communicate, but a failure to conform. Luke’s unbreakable spirit kept him from being the tamed animal the institution wanted him to be. It is because of the spirit he had that I think that he was an honest man. Honesty can be defined in a lot of ways.
His sentences are always blunt and factual, there are never long describing words as Christopher thinks that it is far more logical to just say what you want to say without putting fancy adjectives in there. He also does not understand lies, and he does not like jokes because he thinks they are lies and lies aren’t the truth so they confuse him. Christopher changes in a slow way that a reader would only notice if they compared the Christopher at the start to the Christopher at the end of the novel. The development flows and does not suddenly happen; it progresses over the book. Christopher does not change an awful lot, but it is noticeable that his attitude has become slightly more lenient towards things he did not previously accept at the beginning of the novel.
Pink gains a sense of trustworthiness through his use of credible sources. On the other hand, Babauta has no credibility in his lackadaisical methods, only showing what he does with no belief of success. Not everybody trusts paintings, but people believe photographs. The two authors use different types of diction. Some examples are seen in Pinks essay when he says “Have I eradicated all unproductive behaviour and become a self-disciplined, self-actualizing machine?”(2).
For example, he writes that Pelayo and Elisenda were surprised by the angel’s appearance at first but ‘very soon overcame the surprise and in the end found him familiar.’ Marquez doesn’t provide the reader with the reason why they found him ‘familiar’ so quickly; he just tells us they do. This is a technique familiar in legendary literature such ass the bible, where events seem to happen ‘out of time and without proper explanation. Marquez balances the concerns with the realistic detail and characterisation with a mystical lack of concern for causality and law, touching on both image and language in one story.
What kind of wisdom? It is perhaps such wisdom as could be called human wisdom, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I may be wise; whereas the persons of whom I was just speaking seem to have a sort of superhuman wisdom, for I don’t know how else to describe it, because I do not have it myself; and whoever says that I do speaks falsely and is attacking my character. (par. 8) This is one of the few instances in which Socrates claims to have any sort of wisdom, but he suggests that the wisdom he really has is a subset of wisdom that he calls “human wisdom”. He defines the wisdom he is being accused of having as “superhuman wisdom”, meaning that the
Think about it: whether in personal relationships, or at work, how much do (or can) we trust people who aren't honest with us? And how much of a relationship can we have with someone we don't trust? It all boils down to honesty. It is therefore no coincidence that the words "honor" and "honesty" share the same root, nor that cultures throughout history and world-wide have prized honor so highly. Another important value that operates independently of the "bottom line" is fairness .
He also mentioned a list of metaphors such as “people do not have skeletons in their cupboards”. I found these observations particularly humorous because for the life of me I can’t remember when I was ever taught what metaphor are but I can somehow understand them. I found myself thinking that I look at metaphors in the same way as parables in a bible, they make complicated things make sense! In a way Christopher makes us question the need for such a thing when we can just be direct when the metaphor can be confusing if you don’t understand it. Knowing that humor was lost on him and metaphor seem unnecessary I was surprised that he was accepting of the concept of white lies.