Instead, it was necessary to prove that the former was merely given the opportunity to view them. Bouchat’s act of send a fax copy of his drawings to the representatives of the Ravens is more than hypothetical and these acts support the Ravens infringement of Bouchat works. The court likewise sustained the fact that Bouchat drawing qualifies for copyright protection, however, the defendants argue that the drawings of Bouchat do not qualify for protection because it does not contain original elements. According to the court, while it is true that the
Then he chooses to adopt the concept of unjust situation to talk about, which he explained is unjust for seller,if it involves severe suffering and deprivation,which however, is avoidable and where political agents are involved but they fail to take measures. He then presents his point that “as the situation that motivates the sale of an organ is an unjust one, the rest of the society (or its political authorities) is not entitled to justify the permission of organ sales by appealing to the benefits that the rest of the society will enjoy from the sales”(Rivera-Lopez, 2006). So, therefore author has delivered his thesis, that it is morally distressing to legalize organ sale as political agents in unjust situation has lost the moral authority to put forward either the Consequentialist or the Autonomy Argument as reasons to
His main argument—his premises—is not diluted by this jump in reasoning. When one finishes this work they are not really contemplating taking his advice to wholly ignore reputation and superficiality, but rather one is reminded to try to pursue nobler aspects of life: truth, wisdom, and self-knowledge. The overall significance of my critique is that a literal interpretation of The Defense of Socrates can be dangerous as it promotes disregard for fellow humans. It can be used as an excuse for scholars to hermit themselves away, never abide by societal norms when interacting with others, and, due to a terrible reputation, never effectively share their ideas with the rest of society. While I am sure that there are not many literalist readers, the fact that this severe deductive reason and broad, dangerous conclusion exist in this work should still be noted as a flaw in sound
This could prove to be very unappealing to the audience, but yet Edson doesn't hold back on building Vivian's character to be more difficult for the audience to receive. I think by going about the main character in this way, Edson poses the question of whether or not an audience can empathize with someone that is unable to do so herself. Edson pushes the audience to recognize that Vivian shouldn't be any less deserving of understanding because she is not the typical saint-like cancer patient. Edson doesn't waste time with introducing the audience to Vivian in a one on one manner by basically destroying the forth wall. This technique serves not only the audience’s connection to the play but also to Vivian.
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.
Parris is afraid of what others might think of him and avoids facing the congregation in order to evade the topic of witchcraft. He expresses this in a conversation with Thomas Putnam, by saying, “ I know that you-you least of all, Thomas, would ever wish so disastrous charge laid upon me. We cannot leap to witchcraft. They will howl me out of Salem for such corruption in my house”(13). With this, Arthur Miller shows how caring too much about reputation can turn people into cowards.
An art should be understood so that its viewers can relate. However, what others see is a vision that is recurrent and dull at times for them. These spectators do not see what is beyond in what they are seeing. The undiscovered side is essentially ignored because the translation is vague enough to be understood. An art in the first place should be relatable not through our interpretation, but on how the artist exemplifies it.
If the verification theory of meaning is rejected, reductionism is rejected ,because one translation cannot be reduced down. Meaningful statements being able to be reduced down into statements about immediate experience cannot really be true because of the lack of ability to understand meaning. Reductionism is simply the translation between two linguistic frameworks possibly from meaningful statement to statements about immediate experience. Quine argues that reductionism is an ill-founded dogma-reductionism that each statement taken in isolation can admit confirmation or disconfirmation. Against this dogma (of reductionism) Quine suggests that “our statements about the external world face the tribunal of sense experience not individually, but only as a corporate body”.
It is the reader’s job to make art reach its full potential. They are born because the scriptor does not have to understand what they produce. This in turn offsets the idea of the cult of the individual because the subjective artist believes that they are the sole origin of their ideas and the purveyor of truth about their work, whereas by placing the reader in higher regard, the role and ego of the artist is dramatically reduced because they are nothing but a mere
The use of the phrase “superficial mimesis of life” is paramount. Yeats’ rejection of depicting “the real world” (Yeats) in art is not due to a “hatred of the real world” (Pasley, 251), such as is suggested Malcolm Pasley; Yeats is not necessarily rejecting naïve realism. Rather, Yeats is acknowledging that the fallibility of the ‘realism’ depicted in theatre. It is a “surface reality” (Carlson); the trend of studying the “intricacies of character” (Carlson) only serves to “sacrifice vision”
What this means is a consumer must equate the specific design to the maker of the product. Product design generally cannot be distinctive because consumers generally do not associate product to the source. In the hearing the court mentioned Qualitex V. Jacobson Products, which said colors can not be distinctive, and they do not immediately cause a consumer to think of a brand or product source. The court also asserted that product design cannot be inherently distinctive. This is because design is intended to make the product appealing, not to identify a brand.
It is important to remember that authorities have no power over outsider artists because 'true ' outsiders are detached from our shared reality. They live in their own world and their originality and value stems from their ability to depict their the world they experience in their art. Wölfli, without colored pencils and magazine, would still have lived in his world and, I would argue, have experienced that world similarly to how he depicted it with crayons and colored pencils. I will grant that it is possible that his art magnified specific aspects of the reality he experienced such that he might have seen more slugs or little birds the more he drew them or that his rate of interest might have grown faster the more he tallied his revenues and expense, but the laws his world obeyed would have basically remained the same with or without his records documenting his
For example, Feste says to Olivia, “I wear not motley in my brain.” (i.v.54-55). So although he may dress like a fool he does not have the intelligence of a fool and therefore should not be seen as someone who is dull. Feste is cautioning against making connections between what can be seen and what cannot, the actions and appearance of Feste do not shed light on his sanity as they are mutually exclusive. He later addresses this point again when interrogating Malvolio, “Nay, I’ll ne’er believe a madman till I see his brains.” (iv.ii.122-123). The impossibility of this request not only drives the point that Feste is incapable of determining sanity because he cannot ever see Malvolio’s brain, but that there is inherent danger in letting him analyze Malvolio’s sanity.
Just as those who are colorblind can not paint, and the crippled can not run, those with a naturally flawed or warped view of what is good can not be virtuous. Similarly, the virtuous can not take credit for their virtue because they are simply gifted with a clearer view of what is good, which is completely out of their control. Eventually, Aristotle does not completely refute this claim, but rests upon his earlier argument that one’s actions control her character: “if each man is somehow responsible for his state of mind, he will also be himself somehow responsible for the appearance” (1114b). If you are willing to believe that a person can change her state of character by habitual repeated actions, then Aristotle’s claim about