The ultimate meanings of our lives are chosen by our experiences. The end of our lives “cannot be foreseen and will not be limited by such things as destiny” ("Steinbeck's Nonteleological Perspective"). These are common philosophies of non-teleological thinkers such as Edward Ricketts and John Steinbeck. Steinbeck, the famous literary author of The Grapes of Wrath, incorporates this way of thinking into his many works though his characters: their surroundings shaping them and giving purpose to their lives. The Grapes of Wrath is an example of his non-teleological beliefs being incorporated into the nature of his characters; their fate not being pre-determined, but rather dependent on life events.
Those who oppose cognitivists are called non cognitivists and they believe that when someone makes a moral statement they are not describing the world, but they are merely expressing their feelings and opinions, they believe that moral statements are not objective therefore they cannot be verified as true or false. In this essay I will be discussing the multiple branches of cognitive theories and non cognitive theories in order to answer the Janus-like question whether or not moral statements truly hold objective meaning. Ethical naturalism is just one branch of a cognitive theory in which naturalists believe that ethical statements are the same as non-ethical ones, meaning they are all factual and can
It is a defense of studying each historical period on its own terms, and not imposing one's own moral and social standards on figures and situations that existed with, perhaps, a different set of ethical and cultural concerns. Butterfield’s text described historians who project modern attitudes on to the past, pass moral judgments on historical figures, and regard history as significant only to the extent that it labored to create the modern world. Such judgments are viewed as problematic because they tempt historians not to understand the past on its own terms. Butterfield argues that historians should write aesthetically rather than polemically, exercising "imaginative sympathy" in appreciating the lost worlds of the dead rather than seeking, or expecting, the vindication of their own current positions (92). The "Whig interpretation," as Butterfield calls it, sees history as a struggle between a progression of good libertarian parties and evil reactionary forces, failing to do justice to history's true complexity.
Write down the TWO most important things he says about the writing of history. 1. He says that writings about history leave out details. 2. They don’t tell the story from the victim’s point of view.
“Nihil ex Nihilo, I always say” (Gardner 150). Those are the nihilistic words that Grendel used to profess his belief that life has no purpose. Little did he know, those words would lead to a series of misfortunes that would conclude in his death. John Gardner’s Grendel is a modern work of literature that affirms the importance of human meaning through its downplaying of different philosophical beliefs, which ultimately express that life has no purpose. Gardner begins this modern work with the breakdown of Solipsism; the belief that only the self exists.
Several authors have expressed their opposing viewpoints in their book chapters and essays. Tom Brokaw presents in his introduction to "The Greatest Generation" an overwhelming list of achievements and praise for the GIs. On the other hand, Leonard Steinhorn, in "The Greater Generation" uses similar techniques to criticize the GIs as selfish individuals who were unable to
Ryan Wong 8/21/12 APLAC “All literature is protest.”-Richard Wright. Through this quote Richard is saying that all writing usually conveys a purpose, to persuade, to explain or even to call people to action. In a fictitious novel the purpose is most likely conveyed as a constant moral, or thesis throughout the story. In a review he wrote for the New Masses magazine called “Between laughter and tears”, Wright criticizes Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God. Richard claims that there is no central idea or theme to Hurston’s book, thereby giving it no persuasive, explanatory or call to action-like traits.
Human beings write history and no matter who they are they cannot be fully objective. Trained historians try and bring as much objectivity as they can into their work but nobody can remove all amounts of bias from his or her work. (270) - How does Henry Kissinger define history? What is Howard Zinn’s approach to history, and how does his differ from the description of Kissinger’s type? Be Specific!
However, as I learn to write better I am starting to see why the author uses so many stories and many large words to get his point across. If the author did not go into detail about what he was writing about someone might not get the point that he was trying to get across. After reading Yosemite Mon Amour, numerous times I begin to have a clear understanding of why there is so much detail in the story. I felt that the essay was to long because of many stories that the author had written. At the time of first reading this story it seemed as though the author was jumping around and I had a hard time following where he was going with the story this started right from the first paragraph I had no idea why the author was describing Toyotas, and Winnebago’s and then jumping into describing rain.
Each author’s method in integrating the oral history may be different and, to some degree, inadequate, but the presence of oral accounts in their essays give voice to different perspectives of that time. It is evident, then, that altogether the oral history in each essay holds value and plays a significant role in the integrity of each argument. We must be careful, however, to fully accept the perspectives and arguments the author presents to us as definitively as any individual identity in any historical account, including the author, has the power to misinterpret and miscommunicate historical accounts accidently or