Their overarching beliefs dealing with human nature and structure of government are relatively similar, with slight variations, while the most distinct differences within their ideologies appear when analyzing the purpose of government. Machiavelli and Hobbes’ portrayals of human nature are both quite pessimistic, their main observation being that men are self-interested. This is understandable considering they both wrote at times of turmoil: The Prince was written for the Medici family during the upheaval of the Italian Wars and Hobbs wrote Leviathan in the wake of the Civil War in England. Machiavelli argued that humans were good only when it served their self-interest, claiming that men are “are ungrateful, fickle, pretenders, and dissemblers, evaders of danger, eager for gain (Machiavelli p. 66)” Machiavelli explains that “it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire (Machiavelli p.14)” thus, maximizing power is part of human nature and self-gain often outweighs morality. Hobbes shares this stance but portrays human nature as more inherently brutal.
The ambiguity of language in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” Fiction in English: Nobel Prize Winners since 1950 Like many of Hemingway’s works, “Hills Like White Elephants” is deceptive in its simplicity and rather straightforward plot. An expatriate couple, referred to as the American and Jig, is waiting in a train station for a train that will arrive in forty minutes. As they are having a drink, they are also struggling to communicate their opposing views on the course their relationship should take. The story consists almost entirely out of dialogue and provides the reader with a tension created by the failure of communication. As Charles M. Oliver states that “[i]n spite of what seems to the reader only small talk, it is clear that underneath their conversation is a tension that permeates their relationship” (202).
This image of him portrayed as a heroic man of great importance is the initial turning point in her train of thought when she starts to see him as a good man and potentially good lover. Then, Troilus’s good friend Pandarus, seeing that his efforts trying to get the two together are working instructs Troilus to write a love letter to her. He writes it very modestly and passionately, saying that she is his ‘true lady’, and quoting the Il Filostrato “Although I am a small gift, and of little power, and may be worth much less, I am without fail yours” (105). He finishes the letter, bathes it in his tears and Pandarus runs right off to take it to Criseyde. Criseyde receives it just before dinner time, reads it alone before dinner and after dinner she meets back up with Pandarus.
Homoeroticism is different than heterosexuality in which there may be feelings of desire and longing between two members of the same sex but not necessarily the desire for sex acts. Celia challenges the depth of Rosalind’s love by saying that Rosalind would not be depressed if she had her love. ‘Herein I see thou lov’st me not with the full weight that I love thee’ Here she is talking about romantic love. When Celia is talking about Rosalind to the Duke she describes her relationship with her in great detail. ‘I did not then entreat to have her stay,
John and Joan Durbeyfields marriage which is strongly shown throughout the novel, this was an example of Marriage for love. This is proven and is obvious as they both did not marry for wealth as the family own little and struggle to get by. Instead they have a big family full of love. The marriage between Angel and Tess was a perfect marriage at first, a marriage for love. Tess was marrying out of pure love and affection for this intelligent, freethinking man.
The fact that the wife at the end, reveals that she had planned to stay at home and trim hats for the day, further makes the situation seem exasperating for the husband because all of the arguments were for nothing except the sake of arguing. Also, the subtle humor that develops when the wife prepares to send a telegram to a friend and does not protest her husband’s choice of how he spends his day, resulting in him proclaiming that she is going to meet another man is a subtle way of making fun of the jealousy that some men show in their relationships. The work caught my attention because I found it funny myself when I read it. I would have been able to see the humor, even if it had not been listed as a comedy in the title. It seems that the events
Beauvoir’s analysis of love is ultimately the comparison of the two genders. Within the differences of the genders authentic and in inauthentic love. De Beauvoir labels her theories on two forms of love. Inauthentic love, she believes that love is used as a liberator, where the woman takes pride in her matters over the one she loves (2010). Her love is inauthentic in the way she loves, due to viewing her lover, being godlike, this is inauthentic in the sense that no man is godlike.
The Helmer’s marriage is, on the surface, a very happy marriage. Nora and Torvald are loving and affectionate towards one another. Torvald addresses Nora with a myriad of pet names that she seems to enjoy. One could argue that these names are condescending, but Nora doesn’t seem to mind. It is only when one hears pet names from someone one does not love that they are condescending, and until the climax of the play, Nora genuinely loves Torvald.
While the story of the young lovers is romantic, it is the love shared between Mr. and Mrs. Spring Fragrance that continues to last despite the fact of their arranged marriage. While Mrs. Spring Fragrance has become Americanized in many ways, and supports couples who have grabbed on to romantic American ideals, she views her own marriage and husband to be just as romantic and loving; leaving the reader to believe that both forms of marriage are equally valid, if not far stronger when steeped in the traditions of their own heritage. On a personal note, I find myself wondering about the futures of the two young couples who have confided in Mrs. Spring Fragrance, and
Hazel shares her favorite book, An Imperial Affliction, with Augustus, and together they obsess about the unsolved ending. Augustus manages to somehow get through to the author and when Hazel emails him, he invites her to come to Amsterdam to discuss the ending of the book. A fan’s dreams come true. In the meantime, Augustus and Hazel’s good friend Isaac is losing his eye, the only one he has left, so that he can be cancer free at long last. In the process though, he also loses his girlfriend Monica, who can’t “deal” with having a blind boyfriend.