"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.
Without their own ambitions, individuals change and inherent different views of motivation expressed within their actions. Different purposes placed upon one will eventually change the way oneself judges things and will definitely silence his own thought in his actions. A purpose that is not of your own is a lie that will follow an individual to their grav. To know one self’s purpose then will the nature of motivation appeal to an individual and reinforce the judicious actions they take towards that very
Calling the reader out on this linguistic practice develops a sense of self awareness. Though hidden in the footnote, to avoid creating a tangent in the overall argument and worse falling to the counterargument that “it's just semantics,” Foster Wallace throws these pieces in as curveballs- evidence that a reader was unlikely to expect nor be prepared to process. While intentionally he intentionally trespasses’ the readers comfort zone of their own communication, he makes his article relate, if only through these footnotes, to the ways in which they’ve previously engaged with the matter. As Foster Wallace situates the reader in the moral conundrum, he draws from the them a greater awareness of self and skepticism of the multiple party’s motivations which contributes to the overall multidimensional analysis of the
It fades and appears when it sees fit. Some would characterize this as a drive to better myself, others would call it obsessive in the same way rehearsed words spill from a painted face, dolled up and shiny but still feature a lacked sort of sincerity. The masks I wear vary, but they ultimately serve the same purpose of setting aside my true emotions to press on. Lesser minds could decipher the trick, that it is all an act, that my idiosyncrasies are the furthest possible alternative from what most come to know as “natural ability” and even then they decline, because we are one in the same. People are no different.
Conformity and rebellion are going against the act of being socially influenced involving yourself in change of behavior or belief to fit in with a group. For example in the book CITR, the main character Holden Caulfield feels as if he is mentally being forced to conform into something he's not. He uses rebellion to try and control this behavior, but it seems to take over. Conformity can be beneficial just as much as it can be detrimental. It's a leading factor driven by a society that can cause changes in the way you act, think, or dress, although it can be discarded by the use of rebellion.
Humility makes people go from important to memorable. In order to have humility, you have to be able to put aside the views of society, you have to be able to forget about the risks, you have to be able to do what is right. When people think of humility, they often get confused with humiliation. Humiliation is being dishonored; Humility is the act of being humble. Criss Jami, an author and philosopher, on humility once said, “The biggest challenge after success is shutting up about it.”
Both characters are unable to truly become part of their desired social group and are eventually forced out by explicit conflict. Alienation prevents people from having clear views of others’ thoughts and personalities, therefore causing them to become misguided and illusioned. Without caution, one’s illusioned viewpoint can lead into further alienation and spiral further and further. Only by creating a physical change in location or circumstance can one break the cycle, instead of hoping the abstraction of alienation can change on its
E.K. Hornbeck writes for the Baltimore Herald as a journalist. He travels to the small town of Hillsboro to write a paper about Cates’s trial. Hornbeck criticizes the residents of Hillsboro for their fundamentalist belief toward religion. He does not listen to other people’s perspective and ridicules people who do not have the same opinion as he does. Hornbeck stands firm in his viewpoints throughout the entire play of Inherit the Wind.
It uses foreshadowing as a way to let the reader learn the signs that pride has lost control. As demonstrated perfectly by the narrator, the prideful, for the most part, only fear losing their pride. The desperation to hold onto it, instead of thinking of things rationally and accepting that there are limits, is what caused the narrator to lose Doodle, despite all of the warnings and clues given as foreshadowing. Pride is both a wonderful, and terrible thing, because without it, there would be no ambition, but too much of it destroys what those ambitions brought. Just how the ibis was carried down in the brute of the storm, Doodle was brought down in the rush of the narrator’s
Imagine if you were Paul Revere's friend and had to climbing up a church tower and you had scared a flock of pigeons you got scared. Would you want to look dawn off the peak of the roof? The two texts i read were Paul Revere’s Ride and The Other Riders. The authors of the two texts were Henry Longfellow and PBS. Though there were many similarities between the two texts, such as both texts involve the same problem of the British coming to attack, similar settings, and Paul Revere riding to Lexington, there were also many differences.
I would agree with the perceptional insights when we decide to engage with people based on what we think we know about a situation. Though we base our interpretation on our own life and not looking at the situation through their life. Like you stated, we will never know what it is like to be that person. This is just like Nagel's bat analogy, we can observe and make inferences, but we will never know what it is like to be the bat. I think the materialistic observation fits in hear as well.