“People who can turn a lie into a truth have the power to shape reality; that gives them its willing suspension of disbelief is a co-conspirator in this uncanny transformation” (Kirsch). Here Kirsch talks about how whoever has the power of a voice can be the most powerful individual out there. Being able to change other peoples mind itself is a great power but being able to turn the lie into the truth, that can influence those around them is a big factor in helping change the other’s perspective. “The problem with our “post-truth” politics is that a large share of the population has moved beyond true and false” (Kirsch). Here Kirsch is trying to impose that no one in our society cares about what the truth or false is, we have now become a society where reality is where we can turn it into our fantasy which helps in making our life more interesting and truly escape what reality is.
While Alexie also takes on an identity to fortify his argument, it is a completely different identity than Prose. The authors both appropriate a distinctive style and rhetorical devices into their essays, which in turn create strong arguments, captivate the audience, and reveal the writer’s true thoughts and feelings. As stated earlier, Alexie uses numerous rhetorical devices in his essay, Superman and Me. A few of these being: repetition, parallelism, and flashbacks. Alexie poses repetition throughout his essay when he writes, “I was smart.
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
This demonstrates a few things which Socrates might not have considered or have developed following his time. Thus, I have shown that Socrates' argument is not accurate. That is to say individuals once in a while do evil deeds basically in light of the fact that they want to and in this way demonstration voluntarily. This is opposing to the first argument and refutes the last conclusion. Socrates has frequently been titled the wise man by researchers today.
The purpose behind Socrates cross-examination technique was to inquire and open a discussion based on asking and answering questions, to stimulate deeper thought and critical thinking of ideas discussed to counter the charges and make them seem invalid. The implementation of this cross-examination technique occurs when Socrates asks Meletus, “Tell me, my good sir, who improves our young men?”(Apology 24e). Meletus getting embarrassed in front of the jury by Socrates with the claims and comments like, “You see, Meletus, that you are silent and know not what to say” and simply answers, “The laws,” which was not a good enough answer to counter Socrates claims. At this point Socrates began to change the perspective of the trial with some simple intelligent questions. With the consistent questioning of Socrates, Meletus accepted that members of the assembly were all good influences on the youth, but considering the assembly admits all adult males, he mistakenly claims and admits that the entire population of Athens was a positive influence on the youth, except Socrates.
Socrates should be considered a tragic hero because he had an intellectual error, not an ethical one. I think that it is a little ironic that Socrates, the man who was all about intellect, had an intellectual error. Socrates was a man who focused on the truth, and unfortunately he failed to realize that the truth might not be what everyone else was focused on. In relation to what I stated earlier here is some in text evidence; Socrates said “to disregard the manner of my speech- it doesn't matter how it compares- and to consider and concentrate your attention upon this one question, whether my claims are
Authors use several types of techniques to try to show the audience that what the author says is the truth or more commonly known as the theme. The theme uses persuasive techniques, poetics, archetypes, and irony paradox to prove the author's point. A great example of the theme is used in Oedipus Rex when Sophocles argues that arrogance hides the truth. This theme is proven through the examples of hamartia, ethos, and archetype to prove Sophocles's opinions. Hamartia is used to argue Sophocles’s point of arrogance in hiding the truth.
Satire was originally designed to attack vice or folly (Griffin 4). Most of the early work that used satire had a great deal of ridicule and wit in the writing style. This was used to demonstrate the character in a way that was still morally correct. Horace used satirical elements in most of his work to “seeks to laugh men out of their follies” (Griffin 7). This means that the use of satire in many early works was used to criticize an individual until that individual saw the errors in their ways.
The eyes of many, Socrates argued, were of no importance because one should shadow the wise, and pay little importance to public opinion. Socrates states “if the many could do the greatest evil; for then they would also be able to do the greatest good--and what a fine thing this would be! But in reality they can do neither; for they cannot make a man either wise or foolish; and whatever they do is the result of chance” (Plato). I believe that this statement forces Crito to look at the bigger picture. To realize what is just and unjust to get a bigger picture of who we might gather opinions from.
However, Socrates’ next question confuses Crito and which yields an unresponsive answer. Socrates asks Crito, “If we leave here without the city’s permission, are we harming people whom we should least do harm to?” (Plato 50a). This question goes to the heart of the matter at hand, is it just for Socrates to escape? Socrates does not need “to persuade Crito of the truth of what the Laws believer, or even of the rightness of Socrates’ execution,” he just needs Crito to “reflect more thoroughly on justice and law” (Moore). By making Crito consider the Athenian Laws in a different light, rather than pointing out the injustice he believes Socrates is facing, it forces him to look at the grander scheme and the impact of Socrates’ decision on whether to escape or to