Despite the King is not physically a character in the play, he counts for a lot. His final intervention, even through his officer’s words and actions, is crucial to unmask Tartuffe and to give Orgon his dignity back, thus resolving the main conflict. Without having a part in Tartuffe, Louis XIV plays a central and significant role. Indeed, he is the real powerful figure in the play, and at the end of the play he intervenes with a silent but strong force to restore the order. The Sun King strongly shows his authority; as a matter of fact, he has the last say as well as the final and decisive power in Tartuffe.
Creon, however, has the thought process necessary to be king, and a good one at that. Creon will be a different type of leader than Oedipus, as they have different morals and ways of thinking and so he will know to avoid the mistakes Oedipus made. Creon is both kind and logical, the perfect mixture for king qualities, something that Oedipus did not have. “I’m ready now, or we might go inside.”(104). Oedipus prefers to be public with all his decisions, letting the citizens know exactly what he is thinking and feeling.
Through the communication with his father and the friendship that he developed with Leka, he realizes that his life is in his own hands and he should not allow any factors to overcome or even undermine himself. At the beginning, he thought if he embraces all the “ standard ideas” that are held by his father, he will feel appreciative and pleasant. However, it is totally in an adverse consequence. In virtue of the behavior that he wakes “ the Polack” from the nightmares, it discloses his bravery of withstanding his father’s extreme theory and his rationally to balance the influences that are imposed by others ( from his father, the pulp mill men, Leka). According to the transformation of Stephen, the writer affirmed his idea that no matter how huge or how compelled the situation is, individuals are the sole persons that can alter their lives.
Brutus put his city and its people n front of him and that was his tragic flaw. Since brutus put his city before himself t stopped him from thinking what was the best himself. If Brutus thought about killing Caesar before actually doing it he may have made a better decision and prevented the death of himself and many others
Roosevelt states, “...the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war” (15). Roosevelt says this in the way he did because at this point in time he didn’t want to physical fight but he knows if the country needs to we will. Roosevelt knows that wars do not solve the problem which is why he simply wanted to aid countries and not physically fight with them, causing the loss of many lives. Roosevelt had four basic freedoms that he wanted to be conserved and saved. Roosevelt believes that freedom is being able to express yourself in the ways you believe and what you believe in.
He was all about strengthening the countries because he thought war was an last resort and was not necessary. He tried new things and tried not to make mistakes that other presidents made.He never gave up.Eisenhower used military aid while President Kennedy used flexible response. Flexible response is an strategy that helped the U.S. Find different ways other than using an bad time of war. As said he favored flexible response but at the same time he used the military as well. He did this by bringing in troops and using our troops to fight in the war.
In expressing his opinions on a prince’s cruelty towards subjects on page 80, Machiavelli explicates that killing people is a permissible punishment because a son will forget about the murder of his father as long as his property is left untouched. However, later, on page 88, Machiavelli articulates that a prince must also refrain from attacking the honor of his subjects for fear of retribution. In killing every suitor, Odysseus assaults the honor of the noble houses of Ithaca. Massacring the sons of all the noble houses leaves Odysseus open to an uprising comprised of a coalition of the murdered suitors’ families as Odysseus realized when he orders that Penelope and Telemachus go with him to their farm to hide. In Machiavelli’s perspective, Odysseus acted rashly, in a fashion that inspires hatred, and leaves Odysseus venerable for an act of retaliation that has the potential to usurp his
This shows the audience what Henrys royal status brings him mentally in the fact that how could an ordinary man be in charge of so many people’s lives and well being. Henry replies by saying that he is not to be held responsible for the deaths that may occur as “ Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.” This is Henry saying that he is just an ordinary man and that he is not a special man who should be blamed for the war and deaths. This encounter shows that Henry can, when hidden, talk and behave like an ordinary man without people getting suspicious as to him being the king. In a few ways he shows this, as Bates and Williams don’t question that his language is not that of an ordinary man and that he can take opinions of others, not thinking himself as being above others opinions as he is the king. It also shows that he has the calmness to be able to take abuse of his actions as king without changing his tone just expressing his thinking behind those
First a hero needs to be always thinking of others and follow the laws of the country. A hero also must be aware of his surroundings and accept help from allies if needed. If they don’t however, then they are either stronger than people say they are or just plain cocky, like Achilles. A hero must be able to show mercy to his foes no matter how bad or corrupted they may be. True heros always show mercy and never kill to show that they are stronger or better
Soldiers can fight an unjust war justly if they obey Jus in bello, only on the grounds of moral equality amongst all soldiers. Jus in bello prevent civilians from being killed, and the moral equality of soldiers also prevent soldiers in captive to be treated as criminals. If these two things are obeyed, regardless of what side you’re fighting for, your war is being fought justly. Attacking enemy soldiers is permissible because of given consent from both sides. By becoming a soldier, you give your right away not to be attacked, under this circumstance a valid consent is given, therefore it's morally accepted to attack enemy soldiers during a war.