A name that can be named is not enduring a name.” (1). This signifies that if one can decipher his or her way of life through the medium of language, then his or her lifestyle holds simplistic, materialistic qualities that do not follow the Way. Due to this statement, one can conclude that spoken or written language that has the ability to be easily described maintains mainstream characteristics, hence deeming a societal, constructed impact on one’s life; a fatal flaw to practicing Daoism. Though not directly stated, this establishes criticism to Western civilization, for those individuals place high esteem on their social standing, lexicon, and singular impact on society.
This literary device consists in exaggerating an idea to add emphasis and to create a strong impression of the real situation of something. The hyperbolic statements are unreal, so they are not likely to be true and they are not meant to be taken literally. For example, when Capote talks about the fury Dick has because of Perry’s insistence that the newspaper is a trap, he exaggerates Dick’s emotion by telling that saliva bubbles appear at the corner of his mouth. “Nevertheless, Perry observed with some misgiving the symptoms of fury rearranging Dick’s expression: jaw, lips, the whole face slackened; saliva bubbles appeared at the corners of his mouth.” (Capote 99).
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning, it is done manipulatively, and it is done on purpose to target people’s ignorance and stupidity. The statement being claimed might appear to be truthful or accurate, but due to an error on the claim it is not considered to be truthful nor accurate. There are various types of logical fallacies, and they are structured to help you identify misleading statements and recognize that there is an error in the information. The trial of Elizabeth Proctor does fit into the idea of logical fallacy.
Many kinds of faulty logic or perception interfere with our ability to think critically, for example, superstition, argument from ignorance, false analogies, irrelevant comparison and fallacies. Therefore, I believe that perception is certainly not reality and most mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logics. Perception is defined as the ability to see, hear or becomes aware of something through the senses (Nature of Logic and Perception). However, since the senses are susceptible to personal interpretation, they are therefore potentially unreliable sources of data. If one is able of rationally thinking through the information that they perceive, then they are more likely to make accurate assumptions.
He maintains a conscious naivety by using derisive underlying sarcasm masked by tactful verbal articulation in response to the authoritative and condescending tone of Herbert's letter, which allows for a persuasive and entertaining argument. Though Seaver uses humor to establish his purpose, he maintains the mutual respect between the two parties, despite him believing the conflict to be childlike and absurd. Since Herbert’s argument can be interpreted in multiple ways, Seaver attacks a fallacious interpretation of Herbert’s argument: the reason he is against the two companies using the same slogan is because consumers will be unable to tell the physical difference between a book and a beverage. Seaver says that “in order to avoid confusion between the respective products due to the slogan, each sales personnel is to make sure that what the customer wants is the book, rather than a Coke,” and adds that he fears “those who read (his) ad may well tend to go out and buy a Coke rather than (his) book.” Seaver also recognizes that Herbert cannot use the threat of the law and therefore ironically mentions his “strong sentiments concerning the First Amendment” and willingness to “defend to the death” Herbert’s right to use the slogan, even though his response was intended to regard his own rights.
One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech. Most of it is useless, a lot of it is offensive, and some of it causes harm because it is deceitful, and because it is aimed at discrediting specific groups.
Among these are the tendency to pull tired metaphors, similes, and other figures of speech out of a hat, resulting in a Tetris level of participation. Then there is the common substitution of long, bloated words that carry the shallow appearance of intelligent thought in the place of shorter, meaningful words that get the point across, but may appear dull if the point is dull. Finally, there is the unfortunate padding of sentences with useless operators that cloud the original meaning with vague and passive phrases. Not only are these bad habits stunting creativity in writing, they are manipulating the
To abridge, interpersonal double dealing hypothesis underscores the many-sided quality of duplicity when individuals talk and react to each other eye to eye. It 's difficult to know for beyond any doubt when somebody isn 't coming clean. In any case, before the trouble of de tection prompts you to deceive Pat-or any other person, besides consider the musings in the brief moral reflections that tail this part. Buller and Bur goon might be noiseless about the profound quality of misleading; ethica1theorists are definitely
The word ‘rambles’, as well as being a synonym for a ‘walk’, can also be used to describe something that is not well organised. The ambiguity of the word suggests that from one point of view we see one thing, and from a different point of view we see another; the same concept as the ‘divided self’. By using these words, Stevenson almost gives the sentence a double meaning, or at least makes it so it requires close attention to see what the real information, as if it is hiding it. In addition to this, the sentence suggests to the reader that Enfield was purposely leading Utterson down the bystreet (which he had travelled down once before). This is clear with close observation, as in Victorian
One particularly striking observation made by Abu-Laban & Nath (2007) is that the selective attribution of citizenship status generally worked to deny the systematic racialized nature of the government’s actions in Arar’s case (pp.86, 88 & 91). While this removal of racialized rhetoric certainly in itself is problematic, I wonder if it is even more costly in depriving society of an opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding broader securitization policies. This article also raised the difficulties in resolving the conflicting mandates of multiculturalism and a culture of suspicion that permeates more than the mentalities of law-enforcement (Abu-Laban & Nation, 2007, pp.74 & 78). This reminds me of Gilbert’s (2007) assertion that “while multiculturalism has been perceived as a security risk, the new security agenda is also a risk for multiculturalism” (p.28). Yet, the question remains as to how to navigate the proper balance between the two, or whether these two concepts can simply not
It fades and appears when it sees fit. Some would characterize this as a drive to better myself, others would call it obsessive in the same way rehearsed words spill from a painted face, dolled up and shiny but still feature a lacked sort of sincerity. The masks I wear vary, but they ultimately serve the same purpose of setting aside my true emotions to press on. Lesser minds could decipher the trick, that it is all an act, that my idiosyncrasies are the furthest possible alternative from what most come to know as “natural ability” and even then they decline, because we are one in the same. People are no different.