As I discussed in my formal analysis, the motion in Pathos Hephaestus Eros gives allusions of a hardworking laborer, swinging some sort of tool. The eroded exterior of the metal aides this allusion as it shows the long term wear and tear of the subject’s never ending labor. The three words in the title set the stage for how to interpret this sculpture. First, “Pathos” is a Greek word meant to appeal to and evoke emotions. We often here “pathos” when discussing rhetoric in writing as the tool which writers use to appeal to reader’s emotions and make their writing more enjoyable.
In the Doc B. we see the definition of expression; "the process of making known one 's thoughts or beliefs." This demonstrates that their actions were just made to be acknowledged of because everyone her is open to their own opinion and therefore anyone making a protest is free to do so as long as they don 't go overboard and break a law. Additionally, in doc C we find that the people against the protest are visually racially divided, "that only 24% of white Americans support the 49ers quarterback ..." Just a few amounts of white Americans support this message. I believe that that comes from that fact that they may feel that their opinion is more valid with the skin color difference between the statistics. Getting angry towards a real issue upon the strong nation that we live in, to hold back just because of our skin colors the worst showing of hatred towards a protest started by an African American male.
However, in order to progress it is important to consider these and other questions. Just accepting things for the way they are both restricts and frees the mind. Conversely, to search for answers and believing them wholeheartedly is dangerous. With the rejection of religion, people have turned to science. This conversation appears to be good in many ways, however, the science has simply created another belief system - one just as intolerant.
The reason why is that Anscombe is being too judgemental about thought experiments and suggest they are corrupt and irrelevant to argue. However, if we take the considerations of Walsh’s reply, we see that thought experiments cannot have the power to take over our minds, but rather they supply us with a different take on things. I agree with Walsh in saying that the use of thought experiments can turn our conventional perspectives around and look at situations with new perspectives. What I gather from Walsh is that thought experiments can sometimes provide relief to a situation instead of always viewing issues as
"Mind Over Heart" An action can either be made by reason or be influenced by emotion. The same thing can be said about solving conflicts, we either choose the reasonable path or allow the pressure of the problem to consume us, deterring us from the coherent path. People are often dubbed as rational beings, yet there are times we forget the gift of reason and act solely upon how we feel, overall making us unreasonable beings. The three narratives we have encountered are dissimilar in terms of solving conflicts because one uses reason as a guide on how to face the problem, while the other allows his emotions to blind him from what is right. Agamemnon is one of the key characters of Book One of Iliad, as a matter of fact, you can even say he was the one who made the whole story go round.
During his illustration of his principle, his definition of morality seems to be unstable and ambiguity increases with phrases like “moral difference”, “moral significance”, “moral autonomy”. It is likely that when it comes to significant difference between his principle and traditional values, he tends to use morality to confuse readers and make his statements more mysterious, more highly standardized and in a way, more likely to be trustable because we tend to believe in what we do not fully understand even confusingly. Another ambiguity arises from the exact phrase in the main contention, “same moral significance”, Singer explain it as “not to promote what is good”, it raises another problem that what the distinction between good and bad is and it always remains a debatable
It is human nature to want a comforting and simple lie than a complex and troubling truth. Levitt says that it is difficult to correct the conventional wisdom once it is embraced by society. This is because the wisdom, more often than not, is created by experts in a field of study. The experts will draw conclusions from their observations without checking the facts. Media then goes on to spread the false conclusions, which begins to ring true and accepted by society.
The author allows himself to use the emotionally-painted words and phrases. For example, the phrases like “proper English” or “low people” are the reflection of the author's attitude to the issue discussed in the article. However, the prevalence of the author's personal opinion and overemphasis of the author's idea might be seen as a weakness of the writing as far as the readers might not find out on what the writer bases his claims. Thus, the audience might consider the support provided by the author not sufficient for the persuasion. Besides, Oliver Kamm strongly refers in the article to the ethical side of the problem of grammar pedantry, which might not be supported by his opponents.
An attitude is someone's opinion or thoughts on a subject and subsequently how they feel overall about something. Behaviour is how someone acts or treats something. Given these two definitions we would expect that someone's attitude strongly influences their behaviour, and oftentimes this is true, however there is a distinct difference between how someone thinks they feel and what their behaviour reflects about their thoughts. The method of introspection or examining one's own thoughts can be unreliable as we tend to to explain away faults and are therefore biased to ourselves. People can be in denial or perhaps fear what society may think of their opinions; due to this they may believe their attitude is different to how it is oftentimes this