She is bounded to him emotionally and inwardly, thus she invariably believes the best of him. Her utmost loyalty to him is a result of her naive, obedient and passive nature. Her love for him is unconditional, and her senses are dimmed due to her absolute devotion to Othello. Consequently, she approaches and analyzes his anger, and their arguments emotionally rather than logically. She was loyal to Othello even after he committed murder to her, which is utterly against the moral values .
Huxley's ideas that our society is numbed by things that we love and that everyone is almost happy to be somewhat oppressed is almost too real. It is pretty easy to see and make connections after evaluating our society that we live in. I agree with Neil Postmans assertions claiming that Brave New World is most relevant to our society. One of Postman’s claims that i related to is “people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” this is expressed in the book by the simple quote “community, identity, stability”(1). It relates to Postman’s assertion because the “identity” means that people need to accept who they are in order to keep society functioning properly.
We all are guaranteed to fall into Death’s grasp, and we all must act for or against God’s existence. Pascal believes that the intelligent choice is the belief of God - we all have the ability to acquire the possible infinite gain of heaven, with only the small but difficult sacrifice of some things in life. Descartes’ writings also talk about the belief in God. Descartes states that there are generally no undeniable beliefs or propositions, and that the existence and nature of the external world cannot be fully known or understood. Pascal believed in heaven as possible infinite gain, however Descartes believed that the nature and existence of an external world as something that cannot be fully known or understood.
Observing the love and affection between others only increases the effect his own solitude has on him. He is aware of his otherness and knows that he is “shut out from intercourse” (84) with the people he holds so dear. It can be argued that this is the point where the creature’s humanity is the strongest throughout the course of story. He has a basic understanding of human societies, he speaks and reads their language, shows compassion and, most importantly, seeks their company and friendship. In his knowledge that social belonging is the missing component to his own happiness, he confronts the people he secretly observed only to, once again, be met with fear and anger (94-95).
He merely loved her shell, how she is represented superficially. Ironically, men mostly fall in love by women’s appearance at first and soon get disappointed easily when they reveal something unexpected or unfavorable. If it still does not affect his decision, it may be called ‘true love’, because nothing can interrupt his confidence. However, Dorian begins to doubt what he saw and finally neglects his first feeling, which is nonsense. Does it can be called love?
For though love is the great opposing principle which McCullers embraces in her fictional critique of our civilization the failure of love and love seems always to fail leaves man encapsulated in a state not very distinguishable from anguished solipsism. The fate of her lowly heroes however always chosen among the
Creon’s “moral imaginations” and “deliberative rationality” causes him to have a complete absence of internal conflict towards the aspect of familial ties. Nussbaum points this out as a contradiction with the state and civic interest and Creon’s “practical wisdom”. Unfortunately, this led to his downfall due to his rigid outlook and simplification of his ethics as Nussbaum reveals. Creon’s downfall is presented by the death of his son Haemon. This ultimately leads to Creon’s rejection of his “practical wisdom”, as Nussbaum accentuates, and the disharmony caused by deinon; meaning, as Nussbaum says, that Creon was portrayed as “awe-inspiring” but is later confronted with a dilemma that he no longer could control, which lead him to abandoning his narrow sighted
Before he vanishes from the text, he has given up making any impact on the world or lives around him: “Decisions are never really made—at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all-round assholery. […] It does annoy him that he can be so divided, so perfectly unable to come down on one side or another” (GR 802). Since he does not support any side, Slothrop is described as one of “the glozing neuters of the world” (GR 802). Historically, for Puritans neuters are people “that halt betweene two opinions […] the Lord abhorres such lukewarme tame fooles” (Hooker qtd. in Miller 58), and whose “‘[d]eadness of heart’ was the most insupportable curse” (Miller 58).
Shelley indicates that his teachers also deserve a cut of the blame, as they quickly disregard the principle that highlights responsible mentoring. They were meant to help “educate, mentor, and advise students” (Resnik) such as Victor, but clearly failed to do so. They dismiss his interest in alchemy without explaining why such a study is dangerous or harmful, not only to individuals, but to the whole of the community. At the school, M. Krempe dismisses alchemists as “nonsense” while M. Waldman tells Victor that these studies “promised impossibilities and preformed nothing” (Shelley). Never once did they discuss the dangers, they just spoke of their dislike for the field, and how they found it to be worthless and unhelpful in relation to their studies.
The reader is never told any information about the death and the aftermath in hope of reducing the chance that they will judge the smallest Wiggin. The forgotten dead only reinforces Kessel’s idea that the book is written to make readers feel bad for the Speaker for the