It takes away the mental filter in a human’s mind that allows them to realize what they are doing could be unhealthy. According to Susan David, the author of the article “Don’t Worry, Be Gloomy”, “It’s not too big a stretch to suggest that being excessively happy could kill you. You might engage in riskier behaviors like drinking too much, binge eating, skipping birth control, and using drugs”(David 124). Neglecting the negative effects of certain actions could change a person’s life for the worst in a drastic way and could even result in death if taken too far. Therefore, being overly happy and cheerful acts as a blinder for people when it comes to certain things.
However, some may suggest a third-person objective view, delivering readers nothing to guess the conclusion on, or rather an omniscient or first-person multiple vision POV so readers got everything alternatively to nothing. Although an objective view would certainly save the mystery of the story, it would most likely form a harder to read narrative. The twist would not be spoiled from the thoughts of the characters, but readers would also lose the personal perspective of the wife, ultimately what sets up the shock of the ending. Another alternative point-of-view one might suggest is one of a third-person omniscient narrator, or still first-person but in multiple vision. Contrastingly, it conveys to readers more than the story already provides, changing it from a personal tale with a twist ending to a birds eye view of the husband’s life, not just what the wife sees.
Perhaps the act of murder could be seen as a success to Brutus, since he did do so for the greater good and not for personal passion, leading to him thinking that what he did was right because it was not for himself and was what a Stoic would do. However, he did not understand that a true Stoic will not attempt to change anything since he will accept everything in nature’s course. Thus, by analyzing the pursuit of Stoicism of Brutus to determine the reasons for his downfall, we can decipher whether the failure of Brutus was his own fault. Brutus’ downfall was his own doing because his actions solely depended on how much they satisfied his desires. Brutus’ desires and failure to be a stoic is seen from Act 1 Scene
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences. Smart also discusses how act-Utilitarianism is often associated with hedonism, and that
Socrates, A great philosopher of the ancient era, gave explanation to life through the use of questioning, some of which ironic, contradicting what he had previously learned so that he could further develop the truth. This function of irony to develop thought is not used solely in the philosophical world, but also in the world of literature. Nathaniel Hawthorne is one of these authors to do so. In his novel The Scarlet Letter Hawthorne utilizes irony to build up to and to explain the truths of the intertwining mysteries of his tale. The act of explaining truth in literature can be a challenging one, and there is many variations as to how to meet this confrontation, whence we see the use of irony in Hawthorne’s text.
René Descartes, a rationalist philosopher finds uncertainty in almost everything including his senses, memory, body and the physical world. Everything besides the fact he is a res cogitans (thinking thing). He puts forth this idea in his second meditation of his most famous works, Meditations On First Philosophy, published in 1641. This analytic style of writing opens by considering any belief that was the slightest bit doubtful, as false. Descartes felt the need for this “hyperbolic doubt” in order to reach an impartial truth.
Some questions involve death, nature, each individual’s purpose, happiness, and sorrow. One specific concept she tackles concerns the sacredness of our world and its relationship to mystery and science. She argues that mystery is infinite, and counter to what many believe, she says that it is implausible for the Earth to lose its sacredness because of humanity’s obsession with uncovering mysteries about the world. In other words, science is not “the enemy of the sacred” (Moore 153). While the world confirmed Pluto’s existence, several unconfirmed mysteries about the universe arose.
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.
Even though you could say they knew about the consequences (as evidenced by Macbeth’s considering why it is wrong and wondering what would happen if they fail), so they weren’t blinded by their ambition, this is untrue because they were blind in the sense that they could not judge well the pros and cons of killing Duncan and could perceive correctly. This proves that whenever given the opportunity to do well, we should always think about the consequences on what could happen if we go too far. We need to look at it from every angle and ask ourselves “Is it really ok to cheat or am I overzealous? How is this going to end? Am I really doing what is right?” It’s important to aspire and be determined, but we need to make sure we are not blinded by our ambition, because even if we think we are seeing clearly now, hindsight is 20-20.
Sometimes, breaking the rules seems important to solve problems. However, know when it is a good idea to break the rules and when it is not a good idea to break the rules is part of critical thinking. If your creative idea is to find a solution, to be an inventor, it is has to follow certain rules. For Eve and Adam, this was the main reasoned that their creative idea didn’t work. The broke God’s rules that he set up for them.
Scientists accepted any reasonable theory that was best at the time because nothing can be proved absolutely. One thing that Warren and Marshall might have done differently to have their theory accepted quickly is better communication. When Warren and Marhall presented their theory, scientist wanted good evidence and explanations, however, the researchers didn 't provided them. The researchers didn 't know how to explain their theory which lead to nobody believing them. Scientists didn’t want to accept a theory with dreadful explanations.
If the latter is the case, then maybe what I 'm doing by bringing that to light is a favour to you both. Dubois scanned her message again. It was only short, but displayed no evidence of fear, and neither was it pleading, and he 'd have expected nothing else from a forensic psychologist than a worthy adversary. It was one of the reasons