It can be implied from this that Wolsey had the ability to obtain Henry’s annulment, but failed due to his lack of effort and his half-hearted approach. Furthermore, source 1 supports this view, first implying once again that Wolsey had good contacts and that he had the ability to influence them, “Stafileo has changed his opinion”. However, a lack of effort can still be seen here as he only instructed Stafileo of the facts. It is likely that source 2 is more reliable than source 1 as it was a letter written by the Duke of Suffolk who was not directly involved in the ‘Great Matter’. As the source is also from a letter, it is unlikely the Duke of Suffolk would not have feared angering Wolsey as otherwise the letter would have been private.
There are several sources of anti-intellectualism. Religion is an obvious one, of course, since being intelligent and learning makes one less likely to accept arguments from authority, and to question unproven assertions. An intelligent, learned man has no need for religion – therefore, we don’t want any intelligent, learned men (to paraphrase The Fountainhead‘s Elllsworth Toohey). Besides “normal” religion, there’s also the usual mystical, new age thinking, according to which the mind is “flawed” and imperfect, incapable of perceiving any real “revelations”, which you supposedly can only grasp with “your heart” or “your spirit”. The mind is human, and therefore imperfect, while the heart/spirit are filled with “the cosmos’s love” or any other generic, meaningless terms.
), who said “It is exercise alone that supports the spirits and keeps the mind in vigor.” On the other hand, some people hold the notion that exercise is not of specific value to the spirit or the body and they believe that is useless waste of energy. Mark Twain, American writer and humorist (1835-1911), is evidently an advocate of the second opinion as he
“When you're a beautiful person on the inside, there is nothing in the world that can change that about you. Jealousy is the result of one's lack of self-confidence, self-worth, and self-acceptance. The Lesson: If you can't accept yourself, then certainly no one else will.” In Joan Didion’s essay, with the help of periodic sentences and metaphorical language, she explains that self-respect does not come from others but from within oneself; it cannot be achieved when one is averse to oneself. Didion was looking for outer gratification, but through the ordeal of being rejected, gains the knowledge that self-respect is proper value of one’s character, and learning to love oneself. One can only be truly happy when one learns to accept oneself.
Social status has been justified in Clueless. Elton like Mr. Elton in Emma, is unable to consider Tai as a romantic contender, as he says to Cher ‘Me and Tai I mean, we don’t make sense right? Me and you, well, make sense’. First person and second person narrative has been used to reflect the emotions of the speaker .He rejects Tai because she is not up to his standards in terms of reputation and being posh. Heckerling transforms the reason for Cher’s rejection of Elton to age rather than social class; this highlights the cultural values through social
Its view is invalid, mainly because there isn’t a South Vietnamese opinion to back it up, that the South Vietnamese government had gained in credibility. This makes the source’s credibility pitiful, as he provides no proof. The only Hess provides is that of an American General, who probably wouldn’t say anything that went against his side, which would question his successfulness. And he does as I thought. He says that “with Tet, the Government of Vietnam had won a major battle for the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese” which is a statement I find to be criminally wrong, not only because of the reasons pre-mentioned but because he has hindsight.
Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas. It may help the moral agent virtuous but it does not give any answerers relating to an ethical crisis. Scholars such as Aristotle, however, would disagree with this point saying that each individual has to habitually do what is right for a period of time as a result of habitually doing what is right we naturally do what is good. In time, this leads to the growth and well-being of everyone in society. Because of this I would say that this weakness isn’t strong enough to say
However, other people may disagree with this and believe that a deontological ethical system is not defensible because it cannot encourage human beings to act morally, as they will not gain enough satisfaction out of doing so, as they would in a teleological ethical system where the ultimate end or goal is human happiness. People may say that it can be hard to keep to deontological ethics when we cannot see how they will immediately benefit us, making teleology much more appealing. In my opinion deontology can be defended because deontologists do not judge actions by their consequences, this is a positive aspect of deontology because it does not allow people to do bad things to secure good consequences, if we really consider human happiness, at first it sounds appealing and simple. However, if all actions were done to secure human happiness then many evil deeds would be permitted, for example it may secure a psychopath with maximum happiness if he can rape and murder women and children. Therefore teleology would permit this as it would maximise the psychopaths happiness.
The directions religions points at aren’t all entirely spiritual, simply shown in equality matters of prosperity and freedoms for masses and states, the supportive state policies. Jung states that partaking in the “en masse” systems like religions or nations who worship any sort of divine powers cannot be terminated with logical dialogue, you simply cannot determine their issue. because mass-mindedness by interpretations disregards sensibility and train of thought in human beings and approves more of the emotional aspects in this
In fact, so many people are focused on not failing, that they don’t really aim for success. To this success driven society, failure isn’t just considered not an option, it is deemed a deficiency. “It is our meta-mistake: We are wrong about what it means to be wrong. Far from being a sign of intellectual inferiority, the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition (K. Schulz)”. When we actually take the time to think about all of the great thinkers throughout history, failure isn’t a new or extraordinary thing at all.