Government laws are necessary for our communities because if people do not agree with the government, it does not mean government decision are incorrect. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau talks about government and points out the flaws in the government system. On the other hand, in “ The Grapes of Wrath,” Steinbeck talk on the birth of civilization from physical and governmental issues. Although, many cases Thoreau and Steinbeck perspectives on government contradicts with each other however they both share similar thoughts about self-government. In contrast, Thoreau begins his essay by criticizing the government system, and he believed that government is ineffective because of the stringent and barbarous laws.
Great writing can come from a far range of time periods, some of which were marked by accepted racism and sexism. This doesn’t change how well the piece is written, but it does change what can be taught through the piece. For instance, look at Mark Twain. He lived in a time before women could vote and before the civil rights movement changed interracial interaction. If a teacher tried to use Twain’s novel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, to teach their students values today, it would be hard to divorce Twain’s controversial views from his non controversial views.
In the essay “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate The Smart Kids” by Grant Penrod he goes on to explain why anti-intellectualism exists in our society and why intellectuals are despised instead of praised for their hard work. He writes “Certainly the image presented by modern celebrities suggests that intellectualism has no ties to success and social legitimacy”(760). What Penrod is saying is that media glorifies non-intellectuals which in result makes intellectuals lose their ambition to continue with their accomplishments. Intellectuals conform to the idea that there is people who are looked up to who don 't have intellectualism so why should they? What is revealed is that Conformity hurts those individuals that may think differently and makes them lose particular characteristics that make them who they are.
We can see this in the essay “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate The Smart Kids” by Grant Penrod explains why anti-intellectualism exists in our society and why intellectuals are despised instead of praised for their hard work. He writes “Certainly the image presented by modern celebrities suggests that intellectualism has no ties to success and social legitimacy”(760). What Penrod is saying is that the media glorifies non-intellectuals which in result makes intellectuals lose their ambition to continue with their accomplishments. Intellectuals conform to the idea that there are people who are looked up to who don 't have intellectualism so why should they? What is revealed is that Conformity hurts those individuals that may think differently, and makes them lose particular characteristics that make them different.
According to Pope, “Dulness” presides over the literary creations of the hack writers and is promoted by patrons who cannot appreciate art and publishers who prioritize profitability. Thus Dulness is when the literary spirit lacks talent, imagination and good taste. Pope believed that the introduction of the printing press would have a negative impact on the society and in order to protest against the deterioration of Augustan literature, and subsequently the society, Pope deploys The Dunciad as a
Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels, is fundamentally skeptical of philosopher John Locke’s views as expressed in his writing, The Second Treatise of Government. Locke holds the belief that when individuals are pursing self-interest within the realm of economics and politics that they are serving the common good regardless of intent. However, Swift disagrees and uses satire to express his hesitancy. The reason for Swift’s skepticism is that his purpose differs from Locke’s. Locke uses individualism to justify private property as a common good so that men may profit, whereas Swift depicts individualism as corrupting to human morality in order to further discredit modernity.
In explanation, to young Montag, this would be justice because everyone needed to be equal, so there was no need to have bright kids in his class. However, this was a false sense of justice because what Montag did was wrong, and he did it out of the belief and the social conformity that strived to make everyone equal. Likewise, in Good night, and Good Luck, McCarthy had a false sense of justice when he was carrying out his investigation; he just accused anyone who could have been a suspected communist. Correspondingly, “despite a lack of any proof of subversion, more than 2,000 government employees lost their jobs as a result of McCarthy’s investigations” (History). Consequently, due to McCarthy’s high-powered standings and his need to create “justice,” he was able to accuse anyone he wanted without any evidence.
Nietzsche even pointed out that liberalism, like religion, can be used as a form of legitimation (Cristi, 2010). A modern liberal state is founded on “consent” of the people (ibid). The problem with this is that it cannot guarantee the compliance of every individual (i.e. if they do not feel obligated to obey the laws) and this would eventually lead the state to its downfall (ibid). Likewise, Weber argues that because of the democratic ideas brought in by the French Revolution, “people are reluctant to accept that anyone is entitled to rule except the people themselves” (Shaw, 2008).
They are simply flat with redundant phrases. Here Milton is morally exalted. It is due to the fact that Arnold is more concerned with his duty to the society- how to live – rather than with his duty to literature – how to appreciate. R. A. Scott James remarks, “Arnold’s powers of appreciation might be twisted by his preconceived schemes of moral excellence.” This line in Arnold’s artistic make-up from time to time conflicts with a purely disinterested judgments. We see the same bias in his dislike of “Scotch drink, scotch religion and Scotch manners” and in his harsh treatment of Keats in regard to Fanny Browne.
Jose Rizal, the Spanish rulers’ method of governing a conquered country was a failure because it led to a lot of negativity and they used the Philippines as an advantage instead of educating the people of it and developing it through the science of self-government. In fact, they abused the Filipino people by means of exploitation because they required them to work for labor and military services. During their governance, there’s an existing law that if you say something against the government it is considered as a crime, which violates the right of the people to voice out their thoughts about the government. In short, their governance was busy with saving for themselves or being self-centered, which made the Filipino people to be ignorant hence; they were blinded on establishing a national