Funniness And Plato Disjointedness

Odysseus did not tell the full truth to his men, he slept with the goddesses and he was impatient. If Odysseus would’ve told the truth and done what the gods told him to do, he would’ve gotten to Ithaca faster. Based on the story and the facts, Odysseus was prideful, unloyal and irresponsible, therefore, I deem that Odysseus is not an archetype hero. Odysseus was prideful. He thought that he could beat anyone who came up on his path.

In “Juggler” by Richard Wilbur, the speaker highlights how the juggler’s act brings up the audience and how he amuses not only the crowd, but also the speaker. The speaker uses diction and detail throughout the poem to describe the juggler as entertaining and defiant towards gravity and earth. The word choice that the speaker uses helps him show how he entertains the crowd. At first, the scene is set as low. The speaker begins talking about “falling” and “forgot” but as soon as the juggler comes in, he comes to “shake our gravity up.” The juggler begins to juggle the balls and do extraordinary things with them like “wheel on his wheeling hands” and “swinging.” When the juggler comes in the scene suddenly alters and become joyful.

Stereotypical Satire Satire can make a passage more entertaining in the way it makes the reader laugh, more informative in the way it contrasts the heavy subjects, and more of a riveting read. Edward O. Wilson uses satire to do these things, drawing in on the two stark sides of environmentalism, illustrating the impossible ridiculousness of such discussions. He uses satire to poke fun at the opposing sides, writing as a radicalist on either the far right or far left. With his use of satire, Wilson draws in the reader, gets them laughing, and then brings up some both very true and very important issues, deluding them through satire as to not turn away the reader, conveying just how meaningless environmental squabbles are. Wilson starts

In an age where seemingly everyone is accepted, Holden’s struggles to embody masculinity stand in sharp contrast to today’s masculinity that remains fluid and welcomes everyone. In many ways Holden and Salinger’s antiquated views on masculinity only served as catalysts for self-harm as they both struggled to accept themselves or ask for help. Ultimately, they both failed to realized masculinity is not derived from popular culture, but from

The humor in this movies was funny to me because it was brutal, the joke scene like they were out of nowhere and was very out key, Dead pool was your casual try to help everyone he can but can 't help himself, throughout the movies Dead pool crack wise and make fun of himself and those around him made sex joke.It 's a clinical condition, he 's not a stand-up comedian whose jokes need to work on landing the joke, he 's mentally deranged and use comedy to play off this he say, but I believe it out of tragedy. in order to keep himself sane. however with all my approval it was not a perfect film but this story itself is a bit too derivative to really do its highly unconventional

Hazlitt’s repetitive use of parallel structure solidifies the perspective that a tragedy and a comedy are two sides of the same coin. Hazlitt states, “We weep...we burst into laughter...We shed tears...we burst into laughter….” This anaphora unifies the view saying "we" to include everyone. This experience isn 't applicable to certain people, but to mankind who will experience all this. He also phrases with similar syntax such as "laughs and weeps," "unreasonable and unnecessary," "sad or merry," and "vanity or weakness." These reoccurring phrases are juxtaposed to support the idea that they are inseparable.

Why Thrasymachus never agrees with Socrates I think that one reason that the Socrates and Thrasymachus talk past each other so much is that their views of justice are derived from their prior beliefs. Most of their prior beliefs are not explicitly discussed in the discussion – In fact, prior beliefs are usually left silent in debates, which causes misunderstanding when differing prior beliefs result in a difference in the beliefs being debated. Thrasymachus’ prior beliefs Although Thrasymachus never explicitly says so, I suspect that Thrasymachus believes that there is no God, or at least he lives as if there were none. The reason that pointing this out is important is not so that theists can know that they can ignore Thrasymachus (as they would consider this prior belief to be clearly wrong) or as a way of condemning his view, but because it is a prior belief that strongly influence’s Thrasymachus’ view of justice.

He feels that it is necessary to notify the audience about the true reason behind the quality of this epic. Throughout the criticism, the tone is content because Renoir constantly approves of the poet’s “genius” techniques. “The very consistency with which that technique is used suggests in the Gawain poet an exceptionally fine sense of space distribution as well as an unmatched talent for transferring a visual experience into a poetic utterance” (Renoir 93). As portrayed in this quote, Renoir believes that the Gawain poet successfully utilizes his talent and fine senses to describe visual scenes in great detail to enthrall the readers. Renoir constantly expresses a pleased behavior towards the writing style of the poet by providing compliments to the technique used throughout the epic, which evidently shows that this criticism has a content tone.

Those jokes are pointless, yet the person at the end of the joke has to question if it truly was a joke, or if there is actually something wrong with them. These kind of negative thoughts are planted like seeds into one’s mind and with every seemingly harmless joke, the he or she begins to slowly see his or herself as worthless. Everyone’s words hold value to another person, so do not speak unless the words coming out have merit and are fully meant. It is not difficult to think before speaking and to have respect for others. This concept of talk less, say more, has slowly disappeared in American culture and it is essential to being a decent human being.

He explains the process of an individual separating themselves from their own developed prejudices, which demonstrates the capacity of cultivating a sense of delicacy. The term delicacy, when Hume uses it, refers to the condition of one’s mental faculties as they can improve their attention to fine detail and consequently, obtain a rich perception when viewing all the complexities of an artwork. As Hume states, “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character…” (Hume 264). This quote illustrates the character that results from one’s practice of separating their thoughts in a way that allows for clear judgments. However, it takes a lot of practice to reach this level of mental sophistication because one can become susceptible to being misled by their prejudices in a direction that ignores the subtle elements of a piece of art, which would indicate their level of delicacy.