“Neil was unable to discuss his opinions and options with his father, and Mr. Perry was unwilling to look at Neil’s outlook on life, as it did not appear as Neil had a concrete idea of what he wanted to do. This cyclical pattern led Neil to conclude that suicide was the only way to gain control of his life and stand up to his father” (“Analysis of Neil Perry"). Neil’s logic to his suicide is shown by the
Dylan Thomas ' poem Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night is about a son’s bereavement and the acceptance of his father dying. Thomas knows death is inevitable, therefore, he uses persuasion to get his father to resist his imminent death. Thomas uses examples of different characters, and how they fight the oncoming of death to aid in that plea. Anger and frustration sets the tone of this poem, he wants his father to live and not give up on life. While wise men, good men, wild men, and grave men have differences they each learn too late, and lament their lack of foresight, even they “do not go gentle into that good night,” instead they “Rage, rage against the dying of the light” .
This displays that the narrator, or son, chose to go down the path of education after his father died. He feels as though he owes it to his father to live his dreams. Another part to this story is the mother’s relationship with her husband and children. It is clear that she strongly is against anyone doing something other than fishing with their lives. Why is it that she strongly dislikes anyone going against fishing, while her husband is the total opposite?
War has changed him to the extent in which he can no longer call the place where he grew up home. Bäumer visits with his mother and recognizes that ideally this is exactly what he wanted. "Everything I could have wished for has happened. I have come out of it safely and sit here beside her." (159) But ultimately he will decide that he should have never gone on leave because it is just too hard to be around his family and see how different he has become.
When he wanted the Indians to fight True Son, they didn't. So instead he told True Son he had to leave and not come back. If he came back, he would be killed. Parents have to make difficult decisions for their children because they care for them. If they didn't make decisions, something could happen to the children.
Nevertheless, if the analysis is rigorous enough, we will reach some propositions the justification of which will not be possible; rather, they are the foundations for any justification. To justify a decision means that one has reasons to specify why he/she did so. Why he/she preferred doing this instead of any other possibility. The end we reach in the analysis of our behavior is a sort of rocky floor beyond which it is senseless going on. This rocky floor is the basic certainties on which our conduct is structured and grounded.
One sincerely wants to see the Narrator chose his friend over his headquarters and it is extremely sad when that does not happen. When first reading the story I remember wanting the Narrator to put the gun down, unfortunately this is a very real story in which the main character is set on saving himself despite the fact that it is not what he wants to do in his heart. Though I would never be in this circumstance, I would hope to have the guts that Forster speaks of to stick with a friend rather than bend to the will of a larger entity. Works Cited Ioannides, Panos. “Gregory.” Across Cultures: a Reader for Writers.
Hegel goes a step further than De Beauvoir however, as he posits that freedom requires the taking of a risk, for he holds that, only when risked, can life be held as valuable. Hegel claims that to be free is to eliminate the other, thereby eliminating the possibility for dependence on this outside entity. De Beauvoir would likely disagree as she elucidates upon the idea that freedom requires cooperation and therefore finds itself bound within the social. De Beauvoir claims an interdependence as she believes “it is other men who open the future to me, it is they who, setting up the world of tomorrow, define my future” (p.86). This view contradicts Hegel’s belief that elimination of the other brings one freedom to a certain extent, yet it does appear to echo his view that, within the master-slave dialect, the master cannot truly claim freedom as the master must regard the slave’s life as valuable and meaningful for their acknowledgment of his freedom to be of any worth.
The reader can experience a more firsthand account of war by seeing it from Chamberlain’s point of view, who is not a professional solder. After reading this novel, the reader begins to realize what war actually means. To Lee, it is fighting for a way of life, while for Grant, it is the value of the Union and it’s dwindling future. The reader also realizes the hardships that come from war. For Lee, it would be not being able to see his family grow, while for Grant, it would be his struggle with alcoholism and depression.
In my essay I will explain Williams’s argument on utilitarianism and how he is lead to believe it is an attack on an agent’s integrity. I will also explain why he thinks it can force us to abandon our personal projects. Within my essay I will also explain the theory of right conduct explained by Timmons in the book Moral Theory. I will also explain the notions of personal responsibility explained by Williams, as well as the notion of personal projects and commitments and the notion of integrity. Theory of right conduct for utilitarianism defined by Mark Timmons in the book Moral Theory is that, an action A is obligatory if and only if A has a higher utility than any other alternative action that the agent could perform instead.