His objective, however, is not to garner sympathy; it is to showcase his manipulative talents, to expose the gullibility and selfish depravity which underlie many displays of religious belief, and to shock, mock and violently strip his listeners of their illusions. In the Canterbury Tales, the Pardoner is the cynical but authoritative voice of truth at its most foul. If a man is clever and perceptive -- if he is not prone to self-delusion, if he has keen insight into himself, into others and into human nature -- then that man will have an ability to manipulate and exploit others -- that is, a consequent temptation to be villainous - that dimmer bulbs will lack. In blunt terms: knowledge is power, and power corrupts. The converse is also true: if a man is willing to commit himself to villainy, he will be more likely to discover, through exploiting them, the weaknesses, depravities and delusions with wh... ... middle of paper ... ...lieve it.
As well, a Machiavellian villain is someone who can be categorized as duplicitous or deceitful. Jacobsen does not elaborate as fully on this point however, that is not to say there is no evidence in the play. Jacobsen does say that, “No ideal of civic virtue or social solidarity animates the innovator’s pursuit of power; he cares only to achieve “peculiar” or private ends, and he inﬂames the private resentments of the other characters, turning them against one another” (527). Iago rejects morality and is concerned only with achieving his goals to defeat Othello and displace Cassio. The reason he allows himself to remain subordinate to Othello is that, “In following him I follow but myself---- / Heaven is my judge, nor I for love or duty, / But for seeming so for my peculiar end” (1.1.60-62).
The Fool attempts to show the king the folly of his ways. He is essentially calling Lear a bitter fool, insinuating that his foolishness will be the cause of such bitterness. This comment is taken lightly, but only because the Fool is a satire of the king himself, and thus is the only one allowed to criticize him. Lear has a preconceived notion that he will be able to give up all of his land and his throne, and yet still somehow hold on to the power that he is so accustomed to. Alas, the king does not listen.
He was given a choice, a crossroad, but the choices he makes were reflected on his personality. Through his hubristic and deterministic disposition, he led himself into a dark spiral of the consequences of bad choices by questioning unwilling people. People with the greatest power will find the greatest downfall. Oedipus is guilty of hubris; he is a man of excessive pride. For a supposedly intelligent person, he made the choice of running away instead of confronting his "parents", thinking that he can outsmart the prophecy.
He is perceived as “honest” Iago, but this is a product of his deception. He claims to be motivated by truth and never completely tells a lie; yet, he is committed to telling the truth for his own purposes. Moreover, he is two-faced. His narcissistic side is seen in asides, where he divulges schemes to ruin Othello and Cassio. Beginning to plan their downfall, Iago reveals, “But I, for mere suspicion in that kind, Will do, as if for surety.
Though told by a self-confessed liar and hypocrite, the tale has a powerful moral and imaginative effect. How far do you agree with this view of the text? Chaucer’s pardoner is an enigmatic, paradoxical figure, both intriguing yet repulsive. From the very beginning of his Prologue the Pardoner makes no attempts to hide his “ypocrise,” instead taking a perverse pleasure in the extent of his corruption. As seen in the portrait of the Monk in The General Prologue, Chaucer allows the Pardoner to condemn himself.
Tiresias stands as a model in the play for the individual who is able to see the meaning beyond plot of events although his is blind, and Oedipus represents the oblivious arrogant individual who is never content because they need to be the unsurpassed individual. In the play, Sophocles illustrates the downside of a personality like Oedipus who desires to see the truth by ending the play with the brutality of gouging out his own eyes. Ultimately, the play reinforces that seeing the truth is harmful and being content with what you have, without greedily striving for more, can help avoid fate and a related deposition.
Imagine Dostoevsky, a man considered to be (and self proclaimed) of new found faith, ripped to shreds of contradiction and falsehood because of a ridiculous man, and his dream. The crucifier is Wasiolek, who stems off the traditional train of sacrament, and demands the interpretation of The Dream of the Ridiculous Man to be different. Only a radically brave critic could accuse Dostoevsky of "placing some cherished truth in the mouth and being of a self-interested person," and be respected for it. Wasiolek's arguments and evidence behind his personal discoveries of Dream of a Ridiculous Man are merits that I find refreshing. Before reading his article, I too was a close minded traditionalist in believing the story as sacrament.
Rather, Tiresias states that he is a slave of Loxias: the ambiguous one. In whatever manner the mechanics of Tiresias' prophetic sight function, to understand the nature of truth, they must include deciphering the ambiguous. As a true slave of Loxias, he is incapable of directly telling Oedipus the truth but always speaks enigmatically. An extreme annoyance to Oedipus, such seemingly vague speech may be the only way that the truth may be expressed. Tiresias is thus fluent in the language of truth and is speaking to Oedipus, who claims to excel in deciphering riddles, in the clearest manner.
He illustrates the conniving, baleful, and evil quintessence within Othello by lying to Roderigo, Othello, and Cassio to facilitate his own selfish desir... ... middle of paper ... ...o infinite possibilities. Humans unconsciously know this fact and try everything to protect such a precious treasure. If the mind is weak so is the person standing on the tumultuous of decision in any aspect of life. A person is only as strong as their mind’s will power. It is naïve to believe that a mind shares no doubt in its capabilities, but that doesn’t mean humanity has to submit to that doubt.