His depiction of a feared ruler disregards the prosperity of his people and does not account for their pursuit of happiness. They must live in fear and refrain from angering their malicious prince. A ruler should not be concerned with his own prosperity, instead, he should seek to benefit his people. I believe Machiavelli’s opinion on how a prince should rule is evil, and I find no justification in his
He supposedly has extensive insight on, “The rules of justice (BLANK).” With that in mind, he seems to lean further away from justice into anarchy. Apollo is dismissing the methods of the Furies completely and establishes personal motives to save Orestes. So despite his knowledge, he ignores the concepts of justice, and its appointed executers, and creates an anarchy where the lack opposition makes him a slave to himself. So in attempting to preserve justice, he created a verdict that, although it was indirectly justifiable, failed to create a verdict for Orestes that was justly
82-83). If Gilgamesh does not defeat Humbaba, than he will not spend his after life with these other Gods that Ninsun has mentioned. Based on Gilgamesh’s absence in the desired places of the afterlife, the other Gods will conclude that Gilgamesh was not worthy enough to be with the Gods. Since Gilgamesh’s worthiness is dependent upon how well Ninsun raised him, if Gilgamesh is not worthy enough to rest and rule with other Gods, it would show that Ninsun was an inadequate God because she could not raise Gilgamesh to Godly standards. Likewise, Ninsun is as concerned with her status as a mother as her status as a God.
In the story 'The Most Dangerous Game', the character Zaroff states,"The weak were put on earth for the strong 's pleasure." I believe this statement is incorrect. One reason it's incorrect is because there is no such thing as a weak person. Another reason I believe that it's incorrect, is for no one is put on earth to solely please anyone.The last reason I believe it is incorrect, is because the world as a whole has changed. I believe the statement is wrong, because there is no such thing as a "weak person".
And also because Brutus does not have faith in Caesar as a King he loves him as a friend and person, but not as a king. 3. What does it mean about Antony that Brutus refuses to kill him? Brutus thinks that once they cut off the head meaning
In this strong statement, it’s clear that being smart is seen as unacceptable and disregarded. It being seen as an insult to you if you are intelligent makes you not be intelligent, and fit into the normal, wanted lifestyle that authorities enforced. Beatty also exclaimed to Montag that “Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology” (Bradbury 58) This gives you a perspective of Philosophy. Making it seem like it’s something dangerous and undesirable. Beatty giving philosophy and sociology a bad connotation, so that Montag is persuaded not to rebel, and society is not in the wrong.
Antigone wants to bury her brother, but Creon will not let her. Creon and Antigone argue back and forth, multiple times Creon would say that his rules are rules. He was arrogant about his kingship and would not allow to bury Antigone’s brother because of his own pride. His pride overruled any and all reasons that Antigone should be allowed to bury the body even if they were good reasons. As Creon is being introduced to the chorus he states that he will not bury Polynices, and he has brainwashed his court of public opinion so much they add to his overweening pride by saying “Your will is law” (132 Sophocles).
But if you wish it so, we shall obey you. Rather shall we be evil with you than good with all our brothers. May the Council have mercy upon both of our hearts” (Anthem, pg.10). This explains International 4-8818 fear of moral judgement and not wanting to take responsibility for his actions, which explains his failure of pronouncing judgement, according to Rand’s
And why or how we are (or are not) justified believing that it is? A normal human being who does not understand philosophy would find the arguments from the above readings overwhelming as they wouldn’t see the need to over analyse life, they would want to accept what they already know rather than creating arguments over things they cannot even see nor understand. Philosophers cause us to doubt our beliefs as they provide arguments that leave one wondering whether their beliefs are false or not, just as the arguments provided below. According to Descartes (mediation 1, 1641) we are not justified in believing that the world is as it appears, in his first mediation he begins by noting that there are things he once believed in but later learned they were not true. He worries that some of his existing beliefs may be false; therefore set to “tear down” his existing beliefs and rebuild them from scratch.
Creon is not able to comprehend that the people know what’s best for them and what’s best for the city of Thebes. Similarly, while Haemon and Creon are arguing about whether or not Creon should listen to the will of the people and whether or not Creon should rule for himself or the people, they argue: Creon: Am I to rule this land for other or myself? Haemon: It’s no city at all, owned by one man alone. Creon: What? The city is the king’s-that’s the law!