Instead, they played what “didn’t exist in the world around them” (113). As their values changed, they began to “reject the role of the entertainer, and held themselves above tastes of the public” (112). According to Leland, nonconformism can take two forms: the relinquishing of privileges and the reclamation of privileges. The relinquishing of privileges is when one waives the privileges in order to shed the responsibilities for its actions. A great example of this is the famous quote by Emerson, “Who so be a man must be a nonconformist…” because “to be great is to be misunderstood” (115).
Brenda Chow breaks the first rule by using many worn out metaphors and similes; Brenda Chow neglects to follow Orwell’s second rule with very poor word choice and delivery; She violates the third rule by being very wordy in her essay, leading to a more confusing and deceptive essay. It’s important for us to recognize the misuse of language so that we do not walk the same path. The best thing Brenda can do to help improve her writing and use of language would be to simplify and be more specific with her diction. Brenda Chow is guilty of using many flat and overused metaphors and similes that have almost lost all of their original meaning. For example Brenda Chow writes “The radio plays old Springsteen, and suddenly there is a lightning flash, a sudden “eureka!”, and the light bulb pulsates urgently over my head; a phrase pops into my mind” (Chow 1) or “It is a diamond in the rough”(Chow 1).
Using hypnosis contradicts this idea because it releases hidden thoughts and feelings. This particular release of thoughts and feelings is shown on page 51, where Prior tells Rivers, "I don't think talking helps. It just churns things up and makes them seem more real." He is not willing to express emotion to Rivers in a fully conscious state, but he is in fact willing to undergo complete physical submission in order to let his true emotions emerge, and face his painful memories. Rivers then wonders if this particular consequence outweighs the benefits of hypnosis.
Explain the criticisms of the Cosmological Argument. The Cosmological Argument has been criticised time and time again, but i am only going to go into two of the most well known criticisms. Hume criticised the link between cause and effect and says that just because we have an effect that doesn't mean we have to have a cause, an example of this is the universe it is an effect but it doesn't necessarily have to have a cause. Hume also said that our senses can be wrong, meaning the way that i may see something can be different to how someone else may see the same thing, and Hume said that when we see an effect it is instantly in our human nature to make an assumption about the cause. This shows that the argument is subjective and not solid
People will think it is temporary but ignoring it will have already hurt the environment. Additionally, not only do people not notice such doublespeak, but even in the event that they identify doublespeak, they may not be against it because they do not understand its bad effects. Furthermore, he uses active words to express how doublespeak will hide reality from people. For instance, in the last two paragraphs, he states that doublespeak will produce “suspicions, cynicism, distrust and hostility”. He tries to get people’s attention to think about how doublespeak will disturb their lives.
This is important to the novel because we later learn that Miss. Dubose is in fact ill and there is a reason for her ill mannered behaviour. This shows the theme since Atticus acted in a hero like fashion rather than the way most of society would have acted. A similar case happens when Bob Ewel spits on Atticus and to that Atticus responds with “”. This also shows how Atticus simply can not see the dark in people.
‘Ritual listening’ is one trap to avoid which is basically just fake listening because the real purpose is to tune out until it is your turn to talk. The ‘Perry Mason’ trap hides an accusation or statement with a question. ‘Why?’ is a similar trap which is also a form of an accusation. The ‘Not?’ question is not truly a question but a way to add your own insight into something. ‘I understand’ is another way to kill communication especially when this statement is made during a conversation surrounding a sensitive topic like death, illness, etc… The last noted trap is ‘Yes, but’ and this is more argumentative than anything.
Nicole Brouwer 2nd hour Honors English Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover “The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.” -Arthur Schopenhauer Stereotyping, superstitions, and being prejudice are all components that lead to misjudging others. Many myths have been associated with different ethnic groups, and it leads to ethnic segregation. An understanding about other cultures may help decrease the negativity and overcomes prejudice. What does being prejudice mean? Why do societies leap at the chance to judge others?
One other logical fallacy that as recognized was circular reasoning, which means the conclusion of an argument is hidden in the argument’s premise. For example, cigarettes are dangerous because they ruin your health. The repetition of the key terms or ideas is not real evidence. (Goshgarian 25) In Murdock’s article, “Terrorist do not simply “threaten” us, nor does Homeland Security merely shield American from “future attacks” these things are true, but it is more persuasive to acknowledge what these people have done and hope to do once more: Wipe us out.” (Murdock “Terrorism” Handout) This specific phrase from Murdock’s article is circular reasoning because terrorist means terror or threaten and security means to keep safe. By Murdock using these words, it’s considered a circular reasoning because of the repetition of what terrorists and Homeland Security supposed to
“Conflict brings out the worst in people” Most of us consider ourselves pacifists and try to avoid conflict whenever possible. However circumstances and chance often intrude themselves into our idyll and draw us into situations where we are faced with conflict. The philosophers teach us that it is precisely such events where the steadfastness of our characters is put to the test and our better qualities are revealed. History however has proven quite the opposite as humans, when in fear, often instead revert to our natural defensive instincts, which sadly enough and all too frequently tend to supersede reason. In the 1950’s the mercurial American Senator Joseph McCarthy singularly embarked on a crusade to free Americans from the spectre