“Accepting the reality of our sinfulness means accepting our authentic self. Judas could not face his shadow; Peter could. The latter befriended the impostor within; the former raged against him.” (Brennan Manning). If someone cannot handle how society used to be in Huck Finn’s time, then they should not read the book instead of ruining it for the rest of the public. People like to criticize work that tells of historical events and does not provide authentic details, so Mark Twain would have been doing this novel an injustice by not including the N word in his book.
Wilmer Ortiz Ortiz 1 John Benvenuto English 102 March 8, 2013 The Unseen Line Between Life and Death Throughout history we have seen evidence of man’s obsession with mortality. In an effort to understand the unknown, writers create stories through literature that give readers an explanation they can grasp. This writing about our impermanence shows just how insecure and un-accepting we can be of this unavoidable fate. Literature often has the ability to show just how vulnerable humans can be, and yet somehow manage to find elegant, beautiful and dignified ways to show. Three
Paper Number 2: Gaddis Chapter Six While reading Gaddis’ chapter six, he focused on how to question causation. He uses E.H. Carr’s fatal flaw as a big example for the distinction of “rational” and “accidental” causes. Gaddis also gives an alternative view on procedures of causation, and additional procedures historians need to keep in mind when narrate the reality of history. Carr explains rational causes as, “lead to fruitful generalizations and lessons can be learned from them.” While he says that accidental causes, “teach no lessons and lead to no conclusions.” Gaddis claims that Carr clearly confused himself as well as his readers about the differences between the two. Gaddis claims that not explaining clearly the distinction between rational and accidental causes is the more serious problem with Carr.
Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation. Frankfurt’s statement holds water, because it is a documented argument that elegantly depicts the fight between lies or bullshit being more problematic. I agree with Frankfurt, because I myself am guilty of bullshitting my way through a few essays I have written in the past. I believe bullshit is worse than lying because you don’t think as much about the topic you are speaking about. When you lie about something, you put a lot of thought into it and decide yourself whether the truth or a lie is better for you.
Textbooks are not appropriate references for this purpose. Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty. Copying material from another source and pasting the words from that source into a paper is not acceptable. The objective of research and writing is to read source material, digest the content of that information, and then write a summary or persuasive presentation about the topic or case using the writer’s own words to support various opinions or
Textbooks are not appropriate references for this purpose. Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty. Copying material from another source and pasting the words from that source into a paper is not acceptable. The objective of research and writing is to read source material, digest the content of that information, and then write a summary or persuasive presentation about the topic or case using the writer’s own words to support various opinions or
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
O'Brien creates an intentional paradox for his readers when he writes the violent, but grabbing story of Rat Kiley and then at the end of the story, tells the reader that the characters and events of the story did not happen just as he described them, but that they happened in a totally different way to other people. But he insists that the story is true. With this, O'Brien challenges the reader to discover the truth of the event. O'Brien gets the reader to figure out what fiction of this book is actually worth. Firstly, did O'Brien confuse the reader when he said that the events did not happen after the reader became involved in those events?
How does the author prove his/her thesis? • Does the author explain why detractors from his/her thesis are incorrect or weak arguments? NOTE: The thesis may not be a sentence clearly established in the opening of the book. You may have to think about this. • Discuss the author’s use of evidence to prove his/her thesis.
After reading this I began to think that is could not possibly be true. If people were to abandon knowledge and wisdom, then I believe that there would be no benefit. However, the author seems to think so. In the next line, it states, “cut off benevolence, abandon righteousness, and the people will return to being filial and kind (19). I can make the connection between this chapter and chapter twenty-nine in that, both chapters discuss the issues with human beings repulsive activities and behaviors.