The comment in question and interest to a situation that I find humorous. When searching for examples the results tend to border on the absurd. For my example in this assignment we examine 1963 episode of the BBC’s ‘The Sky at Night’ program. In this program scientist Arthur C. Clarke predicted the within ten years of the broadcast that “…in a few generations, all serious astronomy will be conducted either on the Moon or in space” (Penny4NASA, 2014). This example shows the importance placed on space exploration during that time frame, and how optimistic views prevailed.
What the author may mean by this statement is relevant to the entire book. The overarching premise of the chapter is arguably the inclination to want to predict the future.
An individual’s lack of outlook on their foresight has a direct effect on their fear level, as it relates to making difficult decisions in life. The author describes himself as “being a boy” for “scarcely a moment”, alluding to the confidence level he has in life, implying that he is fearful of the uncertain future. The
He shows that fear clouds the mind, thus making it absolutely imperative to maintain reason and logic throughout life. Fear will always end in a fate worse than death for those who survive it.
In his book The Future of Life, Edward O. Wilson uses a satirical approach to exemplify the reasons that extremely bias passages are unproductive and somewhat ridiculous. The two passages given represent two opposing views: one from an extreme environmentalist viewpoint, and the other from an extremely conservative or "people-first" point of view. Wilson's use of satire and mockery creates bias in both passages by including hyperbolic and unacademic justifications in order to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the arguments.
Keyes, B., (1996, April) Nostradamus: Could he see the future? Retrieved March 10, 2003 from http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/Nostradamus/.
Throughout the book the author implies that through persevering through adversity, following omens, and overcoming one's fears, everyone has a chance to achieve their dreams.
It seems that he is mostly skeptical about his future. Likewise, it is like Marinetti’s Manifesto of Futurism, there is a focus on the “omnipresent speed”, which is illustrated through the main character’s focus on the ideas that flow from his pen (Futurism 147). He forgoes thinking about his family to focus on the thoughts that pour from his mind onto the paper. Therefore, all he has is the life he is creating in the present moment, and he is not separate from his thoughts. This is a rejection of tradition or the past; the old should die. Any of the connections he has had formerly should be cast aside, all that should matter is anything that flows from his pen. It is a focus on the present, but it is on his present “self”. This may be the main character’s way to understand reality, that if he forgets all his connections with others, he can focus on himself and distinguish reality from the present moment without getting confused with former or weaker realities. Altogether, the focus on the future is a part of autonomy for the main character.
He is saying that, theoretically, the growth of reason would come with knowledge. People would be less inclined to have a lot of children because they would no longer be afraid of losing them to unnatural things. People would then be more inclined to focus on their happiness and expanding their
Analysis: This quote has the affect of creating a foreboding mood as if something dreadful is about to happen to gene and the landscape is warning him.
The knowledge Cassandra possesses, the knowledge of the future, is useless, for the fact that no one believes her prophecies. Knowledge is not mutually inclusive or exclusive of belief. Knowledge without belief is truancy. Belief without knowledge is naïveté. The presence of belief without knowledge leads to reckless action. To be motivated by things that are false will make every resulting action wrong. The contrary is also true. When knowledge is present without belief, there is nothing because belief is required for action to occur. The belief that a difference will be made inspires action and to not believe that something will change means that nothing will be done. In the first stanza, Cassandra evidences this phenomenon. She knows the future, but has a “head full of doubts” which leads to nothing being done to prevent her prediction of death from coming
One claim that Rappoport makes is that humor can either be offensive or funny depending on
concept and luckily this prediction was false and it is not a part of present
He sees that, as the world is becoming a smaller place via immigration and increasing technology, different civilizations are beginning to mix together. This isn’t necessarily a good thing, as differences between each civilization such as their history, language, customs, and culture can cause fighting and strong opinions against each other. He also states that “the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities.” This could be bad, because things that are special and only found in one place, could be found all over the world because of advance in technology such as shipping via plane or boat. For example, Italy is known for pizza and for Italian food, but because of technology, we are able to order a pizza whenever we want to now. When these advancements started, it could have led to a loss of identity for that civilization and frustration by the
...free thought to a degree that has never before been available to us. This will bring about a new age of enlightenment, so to speak. He concludes by saying ‘the sea, our sea, lies open again; maybe there has never been such an open sea.’
My rein is loosened. I am master of my Fate. When the hour comes, Watch me dance along the narrowing path, Glazed by the soles of my great precursors. My soul is eager. I shall not turn aside. (Soyinka, 2002:10).
.... Our knowledge does not allow us to predict the future (although Halley was able to predict the coming of the next passing of the comet). This means that we don’t know whether the phenomena, which has been modelled, will be relevant in the future or whether it’s only applicable to current experiences (the Malthusian model). In the natural sciences, we can only assume the knowledge we have found to be a true generalisation for previous experiences, and true for future experiences until proven false after which it is supplanted by a new theory. In the human sciences, it is possible to obtain knowledge from truths from various sources to predict a reason for the occurrence, however it is only applicable until the sources are shown to be false or the experience has been altered, from which a new model must be obtained for the new experience and the old model discarded.