If you admit that it’s easier to watch television/ movies then what is the difference between you and Mildred?
I definitely think that it is much easier to watch television and movies then it is to read books. When you watch TV and movies, the characters actually act out their roles instead of you having to make it up yourself, which is harder than just watching it. I am a lot different from Mildred though. She doesn’t even know if it would be easier to read books or watch TV because she doesn’t read them because they are forbidden of course. If anyone is caught with books in their house, their house is burnt down to a crisp. She is afraid of even picking up a book. I guess that you can say that Mildred is “obsessed” with watching television and movies. I feel that she feels like she absolutely has to watch it to survive. At least that is what she makes me think when I read this book.
I think that it is not only odd that she thinks of the people on television as family, but I also think that it is crazy. When I first read that she thought that that about those people and did call them family, I literally thought that there was something wrong with her…mentally. Don’t get me wrong…I love to watch TV and movies, but I would never in a million years consider anyone on there my aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. That is just one big difference between Mildred and I. I really don’t know of any normal person who acts like her.
Like I said, television and movies are very easy to watch and there is not much thinking that you have to do because you can almost say that the thinking, in a sense, is done for you. It is easier to see something visually than have to visualize it for yourself. When you read a book, you have to concentrate on who is speaking, but on television and movies you don’t have to because the people in the TV/movie act out their own parts.
Another big difference between Mildred and I is that first of all I read a lot of books and even though I think that watching television and movies is much more easier, I would much rather read a book. I am the type of person who doesn’t like things given to me, but I like to figure them out on my own.
In the book Fahrenheit 451 the theme is a society/world that revolves around being basically brain washed or programmed because of the lack of people not thinking for themselves concerning the loss of knowledge, and imagination from books that don't exist to them. In such stories as the Kurt Vonnegut's "You have insulted me letter" also involving censorship to better society from vulgarity and from certain aspects of life that could be seen as disruptive to day to day society which leads to censorship of language and books. Both stories deal with censorship and by that society is destructed in a certain way by the loss of knowledge from books.
Mildred and her society are pretty peculiar. In the story Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Mildred and her society are crazy and do things completely different. This society has made Mildred self-centered, robotic, and unfeeling.
Mildred is a stereotypical character who only knows what the government and other people tell her. "And in her ears the little Seashells, the thimble radios
Mildred depicts a conventional 1950s woman in the aspect of being completely naive and oversimplified as a character. According to ‘Essential
Second, Mildred is self-centered. One time she is self-centered is when she wants to buy a fourth tv wall. A quote from the story is “That’s one third of my yearly pay,”Montag says. “It’s only two thousand
One thing that is important to note in Bradbury’s writing is, that even though we may have technological advancements in today’s society, for better or worse, we cannot forget the important things in life. Mildred in this story, represented a mindless drone that technology has gotten the better of. Her role indicates that technology may cause the loss of personal interactions between people. We must not forget that without the original ways of doing some things, there may be no way to advance. The loss of personal interaction, can cause the lack of advancement due to the lack of knowledge, therefore, we have to mix the old along with the new. This way we as a society, will not rely too heavily on the reliance of technology in modern and future times.
On the other hand, Mildred is the selfish gold-digger everyone would consider “normal”. She does not express her views of the world, since she spends her days watching and “communicating” with the parlor walls. Because of this, she is very forgetful of personal events and careless of others. Bradbury, 40, Montag thinks back to when he and Mildred first met. “The first time we met, where was it and when?”
First Mildred is self-centered because she doesn't care what happens to others. In this society books are dangerous because they make us think. This quote from the story mildred states “ what’s this? Asked Mildred, almost with delight. Montag heaved back against her arms. What’s this here?” This quote shows how Mildred wanted to get Montag in trouble. Mildred is hoping officer Beatty will look or hear what they are saying This shows how Mildred is only looking out for
The reason for this is twofold; one, it is the element of obsessive love that fosters a breakdown in the natural boundaries that exist in a parental relationship. Secondly, it is the need by Mildred to seek the unrealistic approval from her daughter, Veda, which further exasperates the boundaries, almost wiping them completely away. We see these elements of obsessive love, ...
Throughout most of the play Brutus is constantly internally conflicted. Does he do what he believes is best for Rome or stay loyal to his friend and leader? Should he assist in the murder of one person to benefit many? Although killing Caesar was in the end a bad choice, Brutus always tries to do what is best for Rome and for the people. However even though all of Brutus’ motives are good he still has the tragic flaw of pride, which ultimately leads to his downfall. The reason that Brutus gets caught up in the conspiracy is because Cassias appeals to his pride and flatters him with forged letters from the Roman people saying he is a greater leader then Caesar.
Brutus was a man of noble birth. He had multiple servants and was often referred to as “Lord”, which indicates a certain level of respect for him. He was a very highly thought of person in Rome. At no point did he ever betray anyone, although he did kill Caesar, he did it to better Rome, not to mislead him. Everything he did was for the advantage of someone else. Even after Brutus dies, Marc Antony says “This was the noblest roman of them all; all the conspirators, save only he, did that they did in the envy of Caesar; he only in a general honest thought and common good to all...” This shows that regardless of brutus killing Caesar, he is still considered noble because he had good intentions. Brutus was also the best friend of Julius Caesar, the most powerful man in Rome. Had he been a commoner, Caesar most likely would not have associated with him or trusted him as a friend.
First, Mildred could be described as unfeeling. She does not care and is emotionless to everything that happens no matter what it is. In the novel, a woman kills herself in front of Montag, and because of this he is upset. Mildred’s response to this included, “She’s nothing to me; she shouldn’t have books, it was her responsibility, she should have thought of that.” She does not care that her husband is upset, and she doesn’t feel sorry or sad that someone died. Based on Captain
Mildred is not just self-centered, she is also unfeeling. For example she forgot to tell Montag that clarisse had died, and didn’t seem fazed at all. She is also robotic. When captain Beatty came to talk to Montag, Montag had asked her to leave the room. She did angrily, but she still did as she was told.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.