He also mentions that a “high five” is a gesture of showing appreciation. He provides the readers with an interesting clever main argument; however, he does not provide enough reasoning to support his sub-arguments. Furthermore, he occasionally uses misleading examples that weaken his argument instead of supporting it. In his article, Riggle (2016) explains that awesomeness is
In Parallel Lives by Plutarch, he portrays Alexander the Great as an outstanding moral individual and an excellent leader of his people. Although Plutarch illustrates Alexander as a wise, compassionate, and ambitious individual, his defense of Alexander against the people who think of Alexander as a bad leader is weak and inefficient. Plutarch’s defense of Alexander’s fallible qualities, such as his drinking problems and his apathy to his people at the later part of his life is questionable and easily disproved, weakening his argument that Alexander is a truly admirable person. The majority of the beginning of Alexander is dedicated to the description of Alexander’s background and his experiences as he grows up into a mature and ambitious
Bad guys can be great leaders, Osama Bin Laden is proof of that, but being a great leader doesn't necessarily mean that people are going to be considered as "great." Bin Laden and Hitler were both incredibly great leaders, but neither of them are looked at as great. Alexander was looked at as great both during and after his time, while a small few saw Hitler and Bin Laden as great, they are looked back on as evil to the point where people almost dehumanize them. Alexander was dehumanized in the way of being divine. I think the way in which we are dehumanizing these very similar people says something about the way people see thing today vs. how they did then.
What decides whether or not someone is great in history? Is it that that they accomplished many great things or is it that they are a person that is outstanding and morally good person? If look at an average individual it is able to be seen that they are great on some level but first the person judging them will have to decide to judge them based on their character or accomplishments. That decision can change one’s lookout look on that person’s life and whether or not they are considered great. Peter the Great was someone that I believed deserved his title of Great as leader and a King.
He claims that all of comedy is unequivocally human, and that the purpose of laughter is to correct those who are imperfect in a society that strives to be perfect, which can be agreed upon through the film. However, Bergson also makes sweeping claims that even contradict himself in his essay that humor is entirely intellectual and absent of any emotional connection, and goes on to argue that humor is social. It might also be crucial to add that both the essay and the film were produced a century ago, and the nature of comedy has possibly been adapted and modified in this time. Much of Chaplin’s slapstick comedy feels dated, but we still understand what is and is not humorous in his films. It can be implied that it is nearly impossible to specifically pinpoint the origins and practices of humor in an ever-changing and incredibly diverse society, but Bergson makes a decent attempt in his essay, and Modern Times can be used as only one example of thousands of comedic films through which the essay can be
However, my definition of hero is much broader than a few superheroes- my definition of a hero is anyone who makes a large, positive impact on one's life, or is an exemplar to others. This definition is probably different than many others, as an abundant amount of people associate courage and just courage with heroes, but as you can tell from my definition, I do not. When it comes to the word "hero", however, I believe it all narrows down to one's perspective. For example, by being someone's good friend, you can be a hero to them. That same person might not really impact someone else's life, and from that person's point of view, that same person who is a hero to
Two opposing views of the hero, Othello, and villain, Iago, have dominated criticism of Othello this century. On the one hand, A. C. Bradley presented positive analyses of Othello, whom he saw as blameless and not the primary responsibility for the tragedy. According to Bradley, Othello was ‘the most romantic figure among Shakespeare’s heroes … [he] does not belong to our world’. Bradley’s Othello is a man of mystery, exoticism and intense feeling, trustful, open, passionate but self-controlled, ‘so noble … [he] inspires a passion of mingled love and pity’ which none of Shakespeare’s other heroes is able to inspire. Bradley also argued that the newness of his marriage makes his jealousy credible.
Debbie Lee Professor Edgar Muniz English 1C 1 February 2018 Antihero An antihero is a person whose traits and actions are in opposition to a person who is a hero. Someone who is heroic may be celebrated for their positive traits including courage or achievements. While a selected heroic figure may be very rare and unrelatable, an antihero is someone who is unheroic and not looked upon. However, they can be easily be represented as the common and ordinary because they are not perfect, which makes it easier for us to connect in one way or another. No matter how cynical or irrational their ideas might appear to be, we can comprehend their thoughts depending on whether or not we agree with those ideas.
The Webster's definition of a hero is “A person who is admired for great or brave acts or fine qualities”, this also happens to be one of the qualifications of being an epic hero. There are many things that can be used to compare and contrast Beowulf as an epic hero and a modern day hero, but you’ll find that the human idea of a hero was primarily the same in 700 CE as it is now although the job descriptions of hero’s have changed. In today’s time a person is usually considered a hero if they help the public good, like a police officer, soldier, firefighter and so on. In Beowulf’s time a person was considered a hero if they were a great warrior. When looking at the characteristics of what makes Beowulf an epic hero and the characteristics
“Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided.” -Aristotle It’s never an easy task to coax another person to do your bidding, be it a simple favor or a request that will rewrite history. Some of us, however, are more capable at the art of persuasion than others. Take Cassius of the Shakespearean play, “Julius Caesar”, whose fiery words would ultimately convince his half-brother, Brutus, to assassinate the power-hungry Caesar. Although it was full of flame, Cassius’ speech wasn’t