“A true war story is never moral [...] if the story seems moral, do not believe it” (page 68). Tim O’Brien explains to us that if one of the stories teach you something; the story was stretched, if it makes us feel good; it was a lie. Even if the writer tried to make the story true, the mind blocks the heart stabbing and the brain boggling details from what happened in order to save yourself tragedy, so the so called “True Story” isn 't all that true.
The fact that synthetic a priori knowledge is known by us suggests that important truths can be known by the pure reason. However, rationalist metaphysics was not followed by the author Immanuel Kant in asserting that pure reason has the influence to take hold of the mysteries of the world. Instead, the author suggests that whatever we perceives in mind shapes the reality. As per author the mind do not inactively receive information provided by the senses. Instead, it actively shapes and makes sense of that information.
This charge states that Socrates does not believe in the gods of Athens, but instead practices “ new spiritual things” . Meletus has accused him of being an atheist. “ I can not be sure whether you mean that I teach the belief that there are some gods- and therefore I myself believe that there are gods and am not altogether an atheist, nor am I guilty of that- not, however, the gods in whom the city believes, but others,and that is the charge against me, that they are others.” (Apology31) Socrates then questions him asking how can he be a atheist but practice new spiritual things at the same time, you can not practice both as they are incompatible. Socrates once again finds a way to embarrass Meletus, while Meletus contradicts his
Pascal was another precursor of Catholic sorts, Nietzsche was anti Christian and Dostoevsky was anti- semitic and anti- Catholic. And when we consider Kafka and Camus as existentialists we are safe to consider that one essential feature shared by these men is their fervid individualism. The basis of existential thought is marked by dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy. Existentialism is a timeless sensibility that can be discerned in the past, but only in recent times it has hardened into a sustained protest and pre-occupation. Sartre and Heidegger deny god’s existence and provide the inner odyssey of the self as the primary concern.
Mark twain demolished coopers romanticism in his novels. Cooper’s tone was also criticized as being reactionary, romantic and pedagogical in tone. Sydney Krause States that all of the harsh criticism and the bad talk about Cooper is not the words of a person with good judgment. She is not saying that Mark is wrong, but that he is over stressing the criticism and even though she does agree with him in some ways Cooper is still an amazing writer (“James”). John McWilliams also believes that Mark twain‘s attack on Cooper is not justified.
In spite of the fact, that Bradley also proved his points by giving examples from the text. Leavis called Bradley’s criticism on Othello “extravagant in misdirected scrupulosity” (p.136) and accused Bradley for lacking knowledge. The reason Leavis assume of misunderstanding by Bradley is that Bradley didn’t fully understand the text, therefore the evidence he give lacks ‘weigh’ (p.136). Bradley’s wrong interpretation of text was due to the lack of understanding of words on text, which happened due to him being sentimental, and that’s the reason he excessively ‘misdirected’ (p.136) the quality of moral integrity in Othello. Leavis disagree with the Othello being centre of the play “Othello”.
However, although Hawthorne criticized the Puritans’ rigidity, he did not take the directly opposite view and embrace a life with no moral guide at all. According to critics Joyce Moss and George Wilson, Hawthorne was at least part of the transcendentalist movement, which pushed for individual freedoms and independence of thought from religious traditions (357). He believed there are no exact rules that are correct for everyone to follow in order to guarantee a solidly moral life. In fact, following someone else’s rules, Hawthorne felt, was the surest way to live a misguided life. Critic Mark Van Doren adds that Hawthorne did not believe there is no such thing as sin, but he did believe that to sin is a violation more against oneself than against God.
In other words, it goes against the existing traditions, and any established authority or norms: social, religious, political and any moral principles. Nihilistic philosophers deny any basis of objective truth thus, any ground of law to checkmate human actions are condemned. For them there is no rational justification for moral principles, and as such, they do not encourage any form of loyalty to norms. Radical nihilism argues for the conviction of the absolute un-tenability of existence when it comes to the highest value one can recognise; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit “a beyond, or an in-itself” of things that might be divine or morality
Philosophers such as Albert Camus and Thomas Nagel believe in the ideology that life is absurd. In his publication “The Absurd” Nagel, questioned why sometimes people feel that life is absurd and how should we respond once we are aware of life’s absurdity. Throughout this essay we will discuss what Nagel believes is the best way to answer these questions. To begins his argument, Nagel explains how sometimes people believe that ‘what we do now will not matter in a million years’ which he states is a poor argument because he believes that if our present actions are absurd then their mattering in the distant future can hardly give them meaning. Because if something is to matter
In order to perceive logic through the process of a rationalist it has to be fallacy proof and should be free from critical thinking. Biasness and emotions have no place in rationalism. People confuse free thinking and rationalism but the literal meaning does not connect them together. Free thinking is a non restrictive definition on the other hand rationalism is a restrictive