It’s more entertaining than surprising to watch John struggle with his pride, as he attempts to convince himself that he is a man of God who simply committed a deed as a will of social deterioration, rather than a blasphemous mistake that would call into question his character. Christian men of the seventeenth century were entirely reliant on the social constructs of not only having a tough stereotypically male nature, but also holding on to faith as a means of filling in his heart. This is seen by his demand that Mary tell Judge Danforth the women are liars, as he is not willing to complete the task himself. Danforth, sees through the plot and traps John by telling him that his wife, Elizabeth, is pregnant. The moment is furthered when Abigail enters the room, and gets rid of John’s hope at convicting her by accusing Mary herself of being a
Sir Gawain disrespected the lord whom was housing him when he decided to keep the sash a secret. This decision also contradicted his oath to speak truth at all times because he did not disclose his gift the lord, and therefore indirectly lied to the lord. Sir Gawain fails to uphold the chivalrous code through his prioritization for self-preservation over honoring his commitment to fellow
The society has chosen to sacrifice “high art” for stability instead of allowing true happiness (226). Lastly, Mond tells John that the journey to universal happiness “...[is] never grand,” and the y encountered many struggles along the way (227). He also states that their journey to freedom wasn’t nearly as triumphant as other communities. Today, humans are trained to be selfish in nature and tend to subconsciously be self oriented.
Therefore, man must live within the confines nature allows man to live in, meaning nature is the ruler of man. London also introduces the themes of instincts, primitivity, judgement, and foolishness. All these themes in the story are interconnected as they play into the central conflict. The fact that the man decides to ignore the advice of others in traveling in conditions he shouldn’t is not only a neglect of better judgement and instinct but shows the foolishness within the man as he believes he has the upper hand against the forces of nature. We also can see that in the story the dog is a symbol and representation of instinct.
Neither one of the ideas that they have for the government will work for the world today, because the world is not as good and peaceful as Lao-tzu describes in Tao-Te Ching, and not as chaotic or mean as Machiavelli says in The Prince. Lao-Tzu’s writing is mainly based off the religion Taoism. This type of religion believes that the way of the universe is the natural way of life and that it shouldn’t be interfered with by man. Lao-Tzu believes that one shouldn’t have total control of the government, that everything should run its course as it is supposed to do not as the humans want to make it. He believes that the ruler should be carefree and should not rule forcefully but be kind and silent.
In a similar fashion, what is emphasized here as Greene’s existential bias, may be regarded by some as religious bias. Religion is not simply a detached observation of rituals for its own sake. Rather it is a way of life. It always stands in need of existential verification in the lived life of man. On the other hand, through the dual need of handing it down, religion produces schools of thoughts and bodies of beliefs which lead in different directions from man’s concrete existence.
In both the stories, the lead characters did not want to do what they did eventually. They did not do that from their heart but rather were forced to do so either to maintain faith in people and prove that he was doing good for the people, in the first essay or to avoid taking a lot of time and avoid being ashamed of oneself in the second essay. In both the essays, the leading characters seems to be protagonist with good heart however the situation that was created forced them to kill the elephant in the first essay and to lie in the second one. In “Shooting and Elephant” he did not want to upset the Burmans and in “Salvation” he did not want to upset his aunt. The scenario of the events and the nature of conflicts of the essays were different.
His impression on the law shifts in the climax as compared to his views in the genesis of Anthem. This shift in thought creates a prodigious contrast when in reference to Equality’s morality and the morality that his brothers share. The disparity is evident. Equality 7-2521 is an individual who clings onto his own understanding and intellect. He may live in a society of collectivism and a demand for obedience, but he favors his values.
Sita was blinded by the context of his book in such a way that he completely failed to consider the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi and simply branded him as a failure since. In addition, the context influenced his work in such a way that he used it to insult the faith of other people besides indicating that the constitution of India allowed people to convert into any religion if they wished to. He completely ignored other factors that influence behaviors such that he concluded Pope John Paul II invites for a televised question-answer program was a sign of loss of power. Clearly, such activities are affected by the advancement in technology and changes in culture but not necessarily by a loss of power or
Socrates as a wise man understands that if religion forms humans’ personality and views on surrounding, then it means that there is no place for you as a human being. Thus, Socrates tries to argue with Euthyphro to find the definition of goodness and asks Euthyphro questions. Euthyphro gives several definitions of goodness such as prosecuting his own father is an act of goodness, but Socrates quickly responses to him that it is only instance but not the definition. Then, he replies to Socrates that goodness is something that is pleasant to gods. However, Socrates is not satisfied with such definition and responses to Euthyphro that many of conflicts exist among the gods and what is pleasant to one god might be unpleasant to another.