In conclusion, Candide and Pangloss have many similarities and many differences. The main similarity of the two is that they are both the object of Voltaire’s satire and they are representing his folly of optimism. The main difference is that Candide finally gives up Pangloss’s philosophy and adopts the farmer’s philosophy, while Pangloss who no longer believes in his own philosophy won’t admit it and says he still believes in it. Overall Candide and Pangloss are very comparable and contrastable in throughout the whole story. Even though they are two totally different characters they hold a lot of the same values.
He also here appears to imply a value judgement- that the media intended to influence the shaping of men and through an idealised perception. Thirdly he argues that in the late 1980’s the new man was repressed and that the retributive man was the public face of masculinity. While the validity of Rutherford’s arguments in his own time is certainly open to debate for its inaccuracies and oversimplification over the portrayal of masculinity, it is contended that much of it is also invalid when applied to the contemporary media portrayal of men. It is proposed, here, that while the modern media still utilises these polarised images of man, it allows for a more well-developed and rounded conception to be ordained- masculinity is not necessarily conceived as one or another. It is also contended that these images are also not always used as an ideal, as Rutherford naively argues- there portrayal in the modern media is used for more than aspiration in purpose.
Othello is not just the pure perfect guy he is perceived to be and Iago is not just the evil vindictive character he is believed to be but rather both of these men are far more interesting than that. They both have the necessary qualities that get them through life and potentially threaten their lives. Through their actions and interactions with the other characters that they really are is shown. Othello seems to have a really rough time finding the truth in people. The reasoning behind this is simply the way he acts around people.
Even as of today with all the modern technologies and the development of sciences, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question "does God exist?" Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes' theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God?
Pop culture’s demonstration of “bromances” typically mirrors society’s backward views, in that males with extremely close relationships are constantly put into situations permeated with instances of derisive homosexual undertones for comedic effect. These portrayals and the manner in which the characters handle such situations actually blight the importance of male bonding that these various media try to uphold and ultimately further male heterosexism, homophobia, and purposefully exclude women from the equation entirely. It is time to squash the overly complicated notions surrounding bromances and represent male friendships in a respectful, non-discriminatory manner.
There is no greater illusion of reality, to man, than the act of seduction because at its core, seduction optimizes illusion. There is a place in the brain of man that drives him to develop his own understanding of the world. He does not understand it so he seeks stability in himself through a series of manipulations that develop a sense of alpha superiority- creating a self-made god of his own universe. Seduction is the process that he uses to achieve this. It is primal, it is ritualistic and it is engaging enough that man buys in fully to the invitation to indulge his ego.
Standish’s portrayal of sexual frustration and the habit of making lascivious jokes were entertaining for the audience, yet not engaging. This was due to Zac’s mainly repulsive actions, spoken thoughts and general insensitivity. The audience to be able to further understand the characters and empathise with them through such humour as to some he was an emotionally accessible man. The lascivious nature of Zac succeeded in providing entertainment to the audience and lightening the dramatic mood.
Another reason why Iago can be using sexual imagery is that Othello is a man that is not convinced on words alone but more along the lines of seeing is believing. Othello is a man that relies on empirical proof rather than hearing it from someone verbally. Probably knowing this, Iago might have foreseen this and knew that to make Othello tick he needed to but some sexual imagery to convince him about the affair. Not just sexual imagery that Iago uses but also beasty imagery to describe people to bring out the ugly side of them. His vulgar and potent language coerce Brabantio to ignore judgment and reasoning and charge Othello of bewitching his daughter by marrying Desdemona behind his back, even though he probably viewed Othello as a respectable general before this happened.
This implies a scepticism of man's worth, importance and value; and may range from the quizzical through the ironical to the cynical. 4. Any trend in the direction of expressing unhappiness, disappointment, resentfulness or bitterness about human life, by inverting these feelings and presenting the causes of them as matter for laughter or jest.... 5. A corresponding attitude towards traditionally funny subjects which insinuates that in some way they are serious, or that the stock response to them bypasses pain at human shortcomings or wickedness; or that this stock response depends on a lack of sympathy or insight which an author can make us aware of without abolishing the comic situation. * * * They [the problem plays] have another important themes or terms in common, and all have some echo or parallel in Hamlet.
There is no way of knowing that he was homosexual, but there are many implications that he at least had strong affections toward men. The question is: How was this reflected in what is generally considered to be Melville's greatest work, Moby-Dick? Or one could even ask, how does the homoeroticism, ever present in Moby-Dick, reflect on Melville's own sexuality? Because homoeroticism, or rather, male friendships are such a large theme in Moby-Dick, one might also think to ask what it all means to the greater message of the book. The parallels between Melville's own sexual identity and the sexual identity of his protagonist, Ishmael are quite strong.