Morrie always emphasized the value of family and love, while King Lear saw these as trivial pursuits which at best can be used to elevate his ego. Morrie was disappointed by the way things were in his society, while initially King Lear did not care too much for it and accepted it. Morrie viewed death as completely natural and even an ideal way to live, while King Lear still wanted to live the life of a king despite dividing his land between his daughters. Despite being very different in both character and beliefs initially, both King Lear and Morrie came to acquire true wisdom by experiencing a fact of life which we regard as a phenomena; death. Both these wise men once differed in values when it came to life.
Ambrosio said “Both are equally fundamental and neither should be dismissed in relation to the other.”(Ambrosio). Hero The hero approach is a self fulfilling journey in the meaning of life. For example current debates about evolution follow the hero view where there is an impersonal reality to life. Another is the pro-choice debate, where the creation of life is of no value or the free market capitalism where some people live a life of luxury while others, who could be mentally ill or handicapped, live a life of poverty. Saint The saint approach is an inward journey to the concern of others and the well being of mankind.
Alexandra Loza Eng 101-042 Corissa Eisenman The Myth of Universal Love Universal Love is impossible because the love between families is a natural human instinct, rather than a decision, and also because we are raised by family that teaches cultural traditions and customs that will carry on throughout our lives. Asma’s opinion of universal love was that it was a good idea because “Helping a stranger in need makes you feel better about yourself” but in reality it would not do anything because there’s no guarantee that a stranger would do the same thing back for another stranger. “The Myth of Universal Love” by Stephen Asma deals with this argument stating the advantages and disadvantages of choosing either
In his cutting critique of industrialization, modernization, and society as a whole, Henry David Thoreau explains the relationship between a man’s self and the revealing characteristics of nature as distinctly hindered by the distractions of society and technology. The encumbrances of an industrialized existence and the quest to obtain property force men to live dormant, unaware of the moral and spiritual growth that can be found in nature. Thoreau insists on a spiritual reconnection with the natural world, and alludes to a rebirth of self. He sets his own spirituality in the beauty, that is, actuality, of nature. Through several key metaphors, Thoreau asserts his views onto the reader’s, and dramatically introduces the imagery in his experiences as a contrast to the toil of a modern man.
Plato argues that Aeschylus’ theories have holes because of deception or death. While living the good life one can logically avoid obstacles such as deceit. Queen Clytaemntestra rule in Oresteia is an example of this. Plato addresses the exact ways to ultimately reach true happiness in the Republic and tells the audience specifically how to achieve the good life. Although there are vague similarities between both plays, we notice the path some characters chose do not lead to the good life no matter how wise they seem to be.
This explains why God did not simply step in and save us from the worst effects of our choices. For humans to have a genuine relationship with God it is only possible to do through our own decisions and this requires freewill, and this is supported by Richard Swinburne and Søren Kierkegaard’s example of the King and the peasant. Freewill is a necessary characteristic according to Soren Kierkegaard as he aims to put forward his idea through the tale of the King and the peasant. The parable is that a King falls in love with a peasant girl and does not want to appear to her as a king as she will be fearful and this would not be genuine love, so he decides to disguise himself as a peasant as a way for her get to know him and genuinely fall in love with him. This is similar to the circumstance of God and human freewill.
In Cosi, the characters who seek to fulfil idealistic ambitions, such as ending poverty or opposing the Vietnam War, also – ironically and hypocritically – exhibit callous indifference to the suffering of those closest to them. Thus Nick and Lucy believe fervently in ‘free love’ and saving the world from oppressive governments. Lucy’s claim that ‘love is an emotional indulgence’ is a reflection of her view that ending the Vietnam war or that ‘bread’, ‘shelter’ and ‘equality’ are more important than staging an opera she derides as, ‘reactionary drivel’. Her views, and hypocrisy, shared by Nick are seemingly driven by compassion but blind her to the needs of those around her. Her affair with Nick destroys Lewis’s hopes of marriage with Lucy, and their dismissal of Lewis’s project in directing ‘Cosi Fan Tutte’ downplays the positive role he plays, improving the lives of the patients.
In the story, Gawain finds himself torn between doing what a damsel asks (accepting the girdle) and keeping his promise. And he decides that not to take a nice gift from a gorgeous lady, whose seductions he already rejected couple of times, would be also considered as breaking the code of chivalry to this lady. She would regard him as a rude and impolite knight. On the other hand, I can also say that his desire to live and save his life was a bigger temptation to him than accepting the love of the
To him, both are tender of heart but submissive to the will of importunate men, this forces them into uncharacteristic vices. Gertrud and Ophelia both desire to be something other than what they are. They both receive Hamlet’s exhortations to begin repentance by abstaining from pleasure. Gertrude and Ophelia are tender of heart, motivated by love and a desire for quiet familial harmony among the members of their courtly society in Elsinore. Another similarity between Ophelia and Gertrud is that they both possess a submissive nature.
The Great Gatsby Essay In The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald showed through the actions of Jay Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan and Myrtle Wilson that the American Dream was in a state of corruption, dishonesty and distruction. Daysi hope for happiness at the cost of others, thinking she has love from others. Myrtle seem to live her dream only at the cost of other people and how she could benefit their own state in life. Her pursuit is materialstic in how she uses people as a means to an end as opposed to an end in its own right. Gatsby's own ignorance about what is real and endless faith in his ability to "win" Daysi for himself and not accept real and valid limitations are reflective of temporal state of being.