Wordsworth’s approach of the theories of the Picturesque is paradoxical: if in some texts he is criticising them, in others he openly uses them. In the Preface he never actually employs the term ‘Picturesque’, but the effects of the “tendency of life and manners” to which “literature and theatrical exhibitions […] have conformed themselves” driving the works of Shakespeare and Milton “into neglect” (Wordsworth Pref. 5), can be compared to the effects of “false theories” – namely the Picturesque – on the perception of nature: “If our minds be not perverted by false theories, unless those mountains be seen under some accidents of nature, we shall receive from them a grand impression, and nothing more” (Wordsworth, App. 351). The search for “accidents
Yet, from Christian point of view, these questions lead man to see suffering in a positive way rather than negative. This is because what is evil is should be known from the essence of good. Every nature tends its own being and its own perfection, which is a good. It follows that evil cannot signify being or any form or nature. And when man experiences suffering in his life, he automatically starts to search for a cause in order to get deliverance from it, since it does not belong to his nature.
Man observes diversity, which is a big mistake. The Ramayana centres on the principle of unity in diversity. His inability to the see unity in diversity has resulted in all enveloping agitation. The unity in diversity and the divinity behind this unity is thus to be perceived and experienced. Indian philosophy expounds truth, to speak kindly and softly and never utter unpalatable truth.
Like Aristotle, he thinks that God watches over only human species and not animals and plants, for he does not believe that falling of a leaf happens through divine providence or death of an ant is because God has decreed and willed it so, anything related earthly creatures that are not human all happen by chance. This does not mean that Maimonides wants to ascribe God as powerless or weak, for divine providence is connected to intellect. If God cares for humans and not other creatures it is because his wisdom requires it that way. He backs his belief by stating that he has never seen a text in a prophet’s book that says all creatures are watched over by God, because even the fact that human are watched over is an appalling thing let alone animals and plants. He rejects the attitude that suggests there is no difference between man and animals, because he thinks of it as a disturbing notion that destroys the social order, moral and human intellect and virtue.
This is why the philosopher believes that non-existence is preferable. Even animals are in a better condition than us, because their suffering is not exacerbated by ambition and reflection. In the last third of this essay, Schopenhauer presents his thoughts on the origin and organization of our world as explained by Hinduism, Buddhism, the ancient Greeks, Judaism, and Christianity. This is where I found several factual flaws, and at the same time several surprisingly Biblical claims in Schopenhauer’s arguments. He begins by denouncing Judaism, saying that an all-benevolent God would not create a world full of misery.
In line with the tenets of Islam, the attributes separating God from man states that man is subject to fate and cannot reach the level of God, of which other religion claim that man can attain. The important elements that separate Islam art from the rest is believe in no other god but God (Qur'an 2:255). Ettinghausen, Grabar and Marilyn (57) contend that believe in highest form of divinity that man cannot attain is a defining artistic degree between Islamic art and others. As a driving force, Islamic art did not look elsewhere for figurative representation of concepts. For instance, Islamic artist need not the imagery of God because they believe God to be all-powerful, Unseen and nothing compares unto Him (Qur'an 2:255).
The ad implies that the man is perfect because he uses Old Spice and smells “not like a lady.” The commercial lacks relevant data of any sort to warrant this huge claim made. Not a single piece of statistical data exists to back up the claim, in fact, the only evidence to back up the claim is the actor’s ability to produce concert tickets and diamonds before the audience’s eyes. The warrant, or the explanation of the data, does not exist because there is no data to explain. According to Toulmin’s model of argumentation, this ad’s argument or claim contains extremely weak aspects due to the absence of verifications and lack of a warrant. Overall, the ad lacks sufficient data and does not provide any logical warrants, so the main claim falls victim to Toulmin’s
Now, what one-person thinks is beautiful another person can think that it is the worst thing ever created. But, that is the beauty of art, it is beautiful in many ways and speaks to many different people. In addition, he moves on to giving an example of an artifact and how for it to be considered an artifact it has to be created by humankind and it doesn’t really matter if it portrays a kind beauty or skill of that matter. Although, it is nearly impossible to argue with a definition I do not entirely agree with it. If you apply that to the Venus of Willendorf figure.
Eastern Concepts: In the East there is often no explanation as to why evil should exist. Gautama Buddha observed that all of life is suffering, that suffering is caused by desire, and that suffering can be eliminated if desire is annihilated. Concentrating on the human situation, he ignored all matters pertaining to creation and whether there are gods. The Buddha declared that there is no such thing as permanent ego-identity and that the ultimate goal is the achievement if nirvana. In Vedanta Hinduism, Brahma, the ultimate, is beyond good and evil.
Theador W. Adorno argued similarly, stating that nature is “exclusively appearance, never the stuff of labour and the reproduction of life.” (Adorno 1997: 90) He also states that “just how bound up natural beauty is with art beauty is confirmed by the experience of the former.” This suggest that, Like Hume, Adorno believes that the beauty is subjective and dependent on the perception of the beholder. (Adorno 1997: