I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency…. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men” (p. 968, Thoreau).
This supports the view that Wolsey strengthened Henry’s control of his kingdom as it shows a firsthand view that Wolsey was able to secure order and peace during his rule as Cavendish saw ‘order, quietness and obedience’. Order, quietness and obedience are all factors which show that the kingdom was secure and thus, Henry was in a stronger position and there was no resistance to him. The provenance of this does however counter the idea that Source 4 is reliable to support the view as the nature of the source was an account written on Wolsey’s life after his death. This suggests that the source could not be entirely reliable as the account was written after Wolsey’s death meaning the account could have the purpose of reflecting on Wolsey’s life in a positive manner to respect him and his family and praise his contributions rather than
Henry pleads with the people to not deceive them. In the remaining paragraphs of Henry’s speech, reasons are given as to why he supposes that war is not only unavoidable but that it had actually already begun. In doing everything to avert the situation at hand, they were now prostrated in attempting reconciliation to England. Even though they had taken this position of the matter, England acted in response with tyrannical hands toward them. Henry viewed this response as violent and an insult.
Gandhi told his people no matter how badly they were attacked, never retaliate violently. His call to action is that of the mind and spirit, not of the physical. He believes that if people sit, be still, and remain in a state of peace, they can resist violence and war. Sanjari 2 Gandhi also uses stronger connotation to make his argument that the people in the government go hand in hand and they in a partnership. “You are our sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects.
There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent.” George Washington was not afraid to take a leap of faith, to step in the dark, confident all the while. “Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse.” George Washington was empathetic and charitable, though he never sought anything in return. “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.” President Washington knew that to succeed, he had to take in account everybody’s point of view, and remain as unbiased as he could. He had his faults, however few, but he conquered those just like he conquered his enemies and his doubters. He faced them head on, using honesty and good values in one hand and cunning and power in the other.
The aberrant perspective of Gilgamesh which I am presenting may seem divergent and atypical when analysed in accordance to our modern values and principles, but to Gilgamesh this would be quite natural. The values and ethics that contemporary readers hold shape their perspective of characters as they respond in various ways to the adventures that said characters undertake. A perfect example of this is when the narrator speaks of the state of Uruk and says “No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all”. From this, the contemporary audience frames Gilgamesh as an immoral tyrant, as their value of free will is being challenged. However, Gilgamesh’s intentions were in the interest of the people, as he moulded the sons into warriors to protect the city.
1. The Mandate of Heaven is inherited from virtuous king to virtuous son, but if at any time a descendant does not follow the example of his ancestors, he will lose the Mandate (“Human Record” P. 33, ll. 12 - P. 34, ll. 6). According to king Wu, Heaven granted authority and legitimacy to a ruler as long as he looked out for the welfare of his subjects, if he did not do this and he ignored the warning signs of flood, famine, invasion, or other disasters, Heaven could withdraw this “Mandate” and transfer it to another, more worthy ruler and family (“Earth and Its Peoples” P. 53, ll.
Edgar in King Lear is a prime example of this situation. Edgar was entirely innocent he had no intention of harming his father or being anything but loyal. However, evidence fabricated by his brother Edmund deemed him guilty by his father. “A credulous father, and a brother noble, Whose nature is so far from doing harms That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty My practices ride easy. I see the business.
As a parental figure, the Lord knows “how unwelcome advice generally is,”but reassuredly consoles his son “that I can have no interest but yours.” This qualification is subtle but important, establishing Lord Chesterfield as a beneficent presence, not as an intrusive force. The clearest examples of Lord Chesterfield’s use of understatement lie in the imperatives handed down to the son, as if to say “don not think…do not apprehend…” Lord Chesterfield wishes to expunge all possible misconceptions held by his son about his parental philosophy. The Lord is “not the censor” & does not “hint” how absolutely dependent you are upon me.” What he does instead is “point them out to you as conducive…” The Lord reveals his dubious morality to his son in his appeals to the son’s education as grounds for a competitive spirit and an overall complex that would have made Feud shrink. All of the education conferred upon the son, we are told, was done so upon the expressed assumption that “I do not confine the application which I recommend, singly to the view and emulation of excelling others…” In essence, the Lord conveys to his son a sense of an inherited privilege meant to elevate him above all in every possible
At first glance, it appears that the Houyhnhnms have successfully achieved a perfectly governed and structured society. However, as Swift opens up and examines the Houyhnhnm’s actions and beliefs, he exposes the irony of their hegemonic society that prevents them from achieving utopia. The Houyhnhnm society, when looked at upon the surface, is clearly strong, stable, and fair. The Houyhnhnms believe that nothing should be done in excess, and that benevolence to all of their own kind is the key to sucess. They believe that there is no such thing as an opinion, because no creature can proclaim a statement to be true, so all they trust is truth and fact.