O'Brien creates an intentional paradox for his readers when he writes the violent, but grabbing story of Rat Kiley and then at the end of the story, tells the reader that the characters and events of the story did not happen just as he described them, but that they happened in a totally different way to other people. But he insists that the story is true. With this, O'Brien challenges the reader to discover the truth of the event. O'Brien gets the reader to figure out what fiction of this book is actually worth. Firstly, did O'Brien confuse the reader when he said that the events did not happen after the reader became involved in those events?
A philosopher such as Freud would agree with me because he argued that our Conscience is a construct of the mind. Freud did not believe in any absolute moral law therefore the content of our conscience is shaped by our experiences - our conscience is learned. He argued that the human mind is split into three separate parts. The id is basic instincts and desires such as hunger, which are present at birth. The ego balances the desires and needs of both the id and the super ego.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
Paper Number 2: Gaddis Chapter Six While reading Gaddis’ chapter six, he focused on how to question causation. He uses E.H. Carr’s fatal flaw as a big example for the distinction of “rational” and “accidental” causes. Gaddis also gives an alternative view on procedures of causation, and additional procedures historians need to keep in mind when narrate the reality of history. Carr explains rational causes as, “lead to fruitful generalizations and lessons can be learned from them.” While he says that accidental causes, “teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions.” Gaddis claims that Carr clearly confused himself as well as his readers about the differences between the two. Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr.
It is ridiculous to argue that McEwan makes Jed Parry anything other than terrifying. What do you think of this view? Jed Parry as a character raises key questions and ideas in ‘ Enduring Love’ as well as upbringing contrasting emotions amongst the readers. The actions , such as kidnapping Clarissa are evidently seen and are able to form an image of a terrifying human being which we lack sympathy for.Although this is true, there are many factors which I believe are able to reflect on the vulnerability of his character. The whole novel is written from Joe’s point of view which could mean that it is an interpretation that is exaggerated.
Scientists have tried to clone other animals such as mice, cows, cats, pigs and most recently a dog. In almost every experiment, the clone was born with defects, some of them major and some of them minor. In Dolly’s case, she was 1 of 277 clones that actually survived. Cloning is a highly scientific and difficult process. Unfortunately, this process doesn’t always go as planned.
Writer’s purpose is more social criticism than scientific study. Actually he has two arguments – he is against the scientific research itself, and also about the conclusions drawn from that research. Seeks to examine the way we think about gender – where some of our ideas come from. First person approach takes us into this scientist’s thinking as he critiques the evidence and conclusions of his colleagues from a century ago. Summary of Argument 1.
Williams has read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and where Julius Lester does not understand the novel, Williams does. He begins bye recapping the book’s long, history of censorship. “The earliest censors… believed the novel would corrupt the young” (Williams 98). In the story, Huck would spit and do rude things that were believed to be unsuitable for young readers at the time. These opinions have, however, changed.
The difference Jung has with Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality and libido. Jung refused to accept that sexual instinct is the main psychological drive which led him to develop his own theory and therefore his own school of analytic psychology. The two characteristics of these theories I agree with are Alder’s four types of people and dream interpretation aided the treatment of patients. The two that I disagree with are Jung’s analytic psychology and Displacement is one of many defense mechanisms which are when a person is upset or angry with someone else and when he or she comes around other people they are still upset taking their anger out on people that had nothing to do with why she or he is
Freud was convinced that people have powerful hidden mental processes which lead to the foundation of his work later in life. By the mid 1890’s Freud had almost given up hypnosis as he was never considered a great