Hamilton made an effort to impress and called the attention of his readers to make the propose that ''Good men'' will want to make the right choices in bright of their ''true interest'', at the same time the competitor of the constitution will be ruled by passions, deceit and even weak minds. He frankly warns his readers against any ‘’impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of the
King uses a wide variety of rhetoric, logic, and emotion in his writings to show that he has a passion for what is being said. Any person can spit out history, but when the speaker has first hand experience in discrimination, the words rolled off his tongue become more powerful. The methods he used include, and are not limited to, metaphors, symbolism, past experiences… Although he uses all forms of technique incredibly, I found that his emotion was stronger in his speech due to his greater attempt at persuasion, whereas in the letter, he seemed to show a more precise writing style. Dr. King not only had a way to open your minds and see from his perspective, he also put his personal experiences into his writings to more effectively change the way people think for the greater
I gravitate towards the points made by Stewart in the article. She looks for solutions to the problems while Teller simply critics everyone and everything except for himself. For example, while Teller dismisses the idea of importance of incorporating critical reading, Stewart’s point that a student must have critical reading skills in regards to argumentative writing in order to properly learn argumentative structures resonates with me (Stewart, 2016). I feel that a student is a better writer when they have mastered the skill of critical reading. Adding to this idea, Stewart believes that anyone can become a good writer with the proper amount of practice and feedback.
While Plato presents a broad argument that emphasizes the importance of pursuing truth over eloquent words and oration, W.E.B. DuBois presents an argument specifically to African Americans, urging them to value a higher education that is centered around seeking truth in the face of civil dispute. However, their arguments for valuing truth are similar because they both urge their readers to seek truth over wealth and to not simply follow the opinion of the majority, especially when considering matters that affect the soul. Plato’s argument for pursuing truth begins in the dialogue “Apology” in his famous work known as the Five Dialogues, a series of conversations portraying Plato’s mentor Socrates and his profound philosophical
It is clear to infer that the most important value of literature is ethics/morals, but after studying the facts, it is obvious that experience is the most relevant value of literature as shown in "Macbeth" by William Shakespeare and Sonnets "Astrophil and Stella" and "Sonnet 39" by Sir Philip Sidney. It is important to know the value of literature because it connects individuals with larger truths and ideas in everyday life. Literature creates a way for people to record their thoughts and experiences in a way that is accessible to others. Ultimately, It is clear, that experience is the most important value of literature without experience, nobody would have even known who Anne Frank was. If she would have never written her experience in her diaries about being a jew and hiding from the
Emotionales vs. Rationales We all have our own way of understanding ethics. Socrates and Confucious also had their own way of looking at ethics. Socrates thought that rational knowledge was the decisive factor of human life, which was "acquired through a faculty of reasoning". On the other hand, Confucious thought that kinship love was the decisive factor of human life without leaving out the importance of knowledge and thinking out. They both are very alike but also have their differences with very good reasonings to support their understanding of the decisive factor of human life, although they might lean toward one thing in the end to actually define the deciding factor of human life.
In philosophy, there are many different ethical theories on which we are believed to reason in everyday decision making. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Aristotle all developed theories in which they believe we should follow in order to live full ethical and moral lives. Kantianism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics are all unique theories, but with careful consideration, we can conclude that although virtue ethics generalizes the idea of a well rounded moral individual, There are still many issues that make it just as unreasonable and impractical as the other theories. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a view codified by John Stuart Mill who was a student of Jeremy Bentham who originally introduced the concept. The
Aristotle believes that experience is necessary; and what is known to us and our experiences leads to the human good, which is why what leads to happiness can so widely vary. Virtuous actions also known as habits impacts your character. If you have good character your weakness of will is avoided because we use habit to make decisions and to deliberate. On to my next point which is the relation between prudence and justice. From Aristotle’s point of view justice is the most important virtue; And there is no difference between political science and ethics because its all a matter of justice.
Gorgias happens to be one of his collections of dialogues involving Socrates and other characters. This dialogue is aimed at finding the true meaning of rhetoric by trying to identify and expose the defects of sophism synonymous in Athens during the period. Conventional Athens revered the ability to persuade people in political and legal fields, and this is the reason for the existence of many rhetoricians at the time. Indeed, these orators converted themselves to teachers offering knowledge for these skills, perhaps to become relevant or become famous. Gorgias was one of these rhetoricians who had moved to Athens after hearing of its academic and cultural superiority.
He once wrote, “...if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else, clearly this must be the good and the chief good (Aristotle 1).” Aristotle believes that the choices we make our for the sake of something else if not for ourselves, but the choices that are presented are not in hopes of evil, but good. Another example taken from the same book that Aristotle writes is, “To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment (Aristotle 1).” Most men and women in today’s society do not want to be seen as bad and hope to even be identified as a good person so they are able to live their lives with enjoyment and not in a way that someone who is immoral lives their life. He realized that the good within ourselves will bring out an easy and a joyful life if it is used. He also believed that the government was not truly moral, yet a “master act (Mod2 lecture 7).” He was not the only one who believed this to be