So in my opinion he can’t be a tragic hero because his action weren’t what caused his death or misfortune, it was his nobleness. According to the newer tragic hero rules Maximus could make the cut but to me the original rules are what are meant to go by and not making one of the mandatory rules makes him therefore not a tragic hero. Yes, he was noble, had a lot of integrity (fatal flaw), had it bad from the start, and died but he didn’t having a turning point where he finally decided he was going to change his actions because they were causing his misfortune. He was prideful and noble from beginning to end. Therefore, Maximus is not a tragic hero.
The difference between the unjust and the just is that, while a just constitution promotes the good of everyone, the unjust promotes the good of only a select few. As we have established, if the primary role of the state is to secure and maintain the most possible happiness for the people, the surely an unjust state would not be a state capable of achieving this goal. Monarchies seem the ideal constitution to Aristotle because the virtue of the monarch is not diluted by the potentially selfish desires of others. However, this is also the least stable of the
The good life can be defined as a way that someone plans to live virtuously by having a great education, enough money, and helping others. In other words, the good life means to me when life looks like a blessing than a burden. This essay aims to provide more than one answers about what makes people live a good life mean. Human beings, since their apparition is often misleading, what it is really mean a good life. We have been seen on the television or magazines that having a good life means being rich or famous when many of them, in reality, are miserable by a problem that wouldn’t affect ordinary people.
Although he disagrees with traditional reasons for taking suicide to be immoral, he nevertheless agrees that suicide is in fact immoral. In his characterization of the “free man” at the end of part of the Ethics, Spinoza argues that a perfect rational being “always acts honestly, not deceptively”. Spinoza reasons that if a perfect rational being misleading, he would do so “from the dictate of reason” but then it would be rational to act in that way, and “men would be better advised to agree only in words, and be contrary to one another in fact”. One problem that this argument raises is conflict between Spinoza’s claim that a perfect rational being would always act honestly and his claim that such a being would never do anything that brought about its own
The answer to this question lies in the nature of human beings. Human beings naturally want to be satisfied with themselves and feel the sense of self-worthy. Moreover, doing good deeds makes you feel proud of yourself. Therefore, in order to be satisfied with themselves human beings do good actions. Doing good actions makes human beings feel good about themselves.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he describes his feeling and thoughts on pleasure; he discusses that pleasure is good and that the feeling of eudaimonia is connected to pleasure. Eudaimonia, also know as the term for happiness in Greek, means “a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous” (dictionary.com). Aristotle describes happiness as the main purpose of all human lives and that it is absolutely the essential goal for all humans. I disagree with Aristotle’s statement that a life of pleasure cannot be the best life because just because a person finds pleasure in different ventures other than being virtuous doesn’t make them an animalistic person. Aristotle indicates that pleasure is the most necessary part of unimpeded activity, but pleasure on it own, can be unintended from an activity; in which pleasure itself would develop from activity without any type of drawbacks.
I’m sorry I ever questioned you. I guess you don’t need to fight monsters and win over gods to be a hero. Katniss: Thank you. You know, I wasn’t trying to be a hero. I was just trying to do the right thing and protect innocent people from bullies out to profit on their weakness.
Mead's statement comes to life in light of the immediate thought associated with success in people: being both personal and huge success. Furthermore, success between close groups is not often taken lightly, as it defines a clear obstacle to personal success. However, humans do have the ability to appreciate the success of others due to a general desire for a better society for all of humanity. At first, it may seem that Mead's generalization is a harsh reflection of the human reaction to success, but it means so much more than that. Mead did not exclude the fact that humans are capable of appreciating others.
However, since Malcolm was not aware of Macbeth's prior contemplation he could not have connected this monstrousness to butchery, so I do not feel as if this is a reason that justifies Malcolm's insult. In fact, from Malcolm's perspective, it may even have appeared to be an impulsive act - this should have been a reason to go slightly easier on him, not label him a
One measure of success is how cheerful a person is. For some people, they might feel their happiest when they have luxurious items. However, this is not true for everyone and consequently not a true measure of success. Happiness for most people is a cheerful and loving
Have you ever been around someone that is so judgmental of other you wonder what makes them that way? You know they’re a good person, but maybe they don’t realize how crucial of other’s they are being all the time. Just because someone looks different from you and I, does not mean that they are a bad person or a slob. That person that you were so judgmental about could be the one saving your life one day. Most people I know today don’t really care to be the center of attention.