Cicero does not offer any alternate answers to roman society, which robs him of being truly a unique and bold political philosopher. This is not to say however some of his doctrines are untrue, just that he is somewhat blinded by his roman beliefs and assumptions. The assumptions of Cicero can be noticed when one inspects his view of the ideal governing body, which he expresses through Scipio (in the commonwealth). Although Cicero presents very convincing arguments for a Composite government, clearly his view is possibly only due towards his belief in the roman structure of government.1 Cicero was limited to roman borders of experience, and this point was best illustrated by his disagreement with Aristotle's writings on the decay of states. Cicero was unable to think on the level of Aristotle's logic.
He does not want the reader to know the difference between the two because in his opinion that fact is irrelevant. O’Brien obviously thinks outside the box and has everyone questioning reality. However, this fact is truly ironic, because the point is not to care what type of “truth” it is, but to instead feel the raw beauty of the emotion and to accept it as the truth. While trying to define “story-truth” and “happening-truth,” a couple chapters in particular focus on the idea of truth, “How to Tell a True War Story,” “The Man I Killed” and “Good Form.” O’Brien believes that the most important thing for a reader is to experience the emotion of the story, be it “story-truth” or “happening-truth,” as long as the real emotion is conveyed and understood by the reader, then it is as true as it could possibly be. In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story”O’Brien elaborates on how the differences between the “story-truth” and “happening-truth,” A true war story is never moral.
Homer’s Iliad can be used as a lens through which to view Rambo: First Blood. The use of the Iliad’s protagonist Achilles as a comparison to Rambo further illuminates the complexities in the character struggle of Rambo. Whereas Achilles has eternal kleos glorified through Homer’s song to gain by taking vengeance and fighting, Rambo will never be seen as an honorable heroic veteran of war. Rambo is an ostracized and disillusioned man who struggles not for honor but for survival in the “civilized” United States just as he did in war torn Vietnam. In neither Rambo: First Blood, nor the Iliad, are the protagonists compelled into action voluntarily; though by fighting Achilles had more to gain than Rambo.
There are two main fashions in which the Aeneid is read by Scholars today. The main difference between these two theories is each's respective treating of Aeneas' obstacles. The first views Aeneas as a classic epic hero, that is, to view him as fated to the grand destiny of founding Rome, and Aeneas carries out that destiny successfully, in spite of a few unfortunate hardships. The other view regards the obstructions that Aeneas is subjected to as, instead, evidence from the gods and other powers that Aeneas' quest is, as purported in an essay by Steven Farron, “brutal and destructive” (34), instead of trivial occurrences. This view referred to as the dark reading of the Aeneid.
End Notes 1 Jeffery A. Grunsburg, Divided and Conqured (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979). 3, 6-7. 2 Vivian Rowe, The Great Wall of France (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1959). 17 3 Grunsburg 9 4 “An Unprepared Nation: France Finds Hitler to be a Foe.” France’s Entrance into World War II.
His counterclaims to some theories are rather redundant and weak. He clearly disagrees with Nietzsche’s take on truth, but did not provide convincing backup claims to defend his position of why the question “What is truth?” is unnecessary. In addition, Lynch’s argument towards the redundancy theory is also not clear and satisfactory enough because simply dismissing objections as blind generalizations gives a sense that he has nothing better to say to defend his position. One of the theories mentioned believes that power is the source of motivation behind truth to which I have to disagree. There are many factors, like self-interest, morality, and knowledge, that motivate the will to truth and power is only one of the many and cannot be used as the overarching factor.
Overall, Odysseus is clearly not a leader due to his hubris, inability to lead, and inability to control his emotions. Goal: Elaborate when needed I believe that I have met my goal as I have attempted to elaborate by including details from the text and have explained what the two types of hubris are compared to just stating hubris. I also believe that I have explained why Odysseus is not a hero following each quote and have explained my definition of a hero. Using my definition of a hero and the proof that I have stated, the reader can understand why Odysseus is not a hero.
Outcomes are not always the best vantage point from which to judge a man. Creon did not have the advantage the reader has of seeing final outcomes, indeed we must remember these outcomes were contrived by Sophocles, to illustrate his point of view. Is it not conceivable that in real life, these outcomes are far from assured, indeed a bit preposterous ? So then to summarize, Creon simply made his best decision, and that decision was with in his right to rule as the recognized sovereign. On the surface, Antigone is the classic tragic hero, it is she that Sophocles wants us to be drawn to.
While Machiavelli keeps the need for a leader to have independence, seriousness, loyalty, and intellect; he rejects the necessity of generosity, mercy, and honesty, in favor of the outward appearance of these virtues. While Machiavelli’s viewpoint differs from the common ideology of his time and of classical antiquity, he does not disagree with all of the virtues. One such virtue is independence. Machiavelli spends the beginning of his treatise discussing principalities and defending them. A wise and successful leader, he says, should not use auxiliaries or mercenaries, as they will always lack unity and their true loyalty is always uncertain.
But he is quick to call once again on the “cruel King” (I, 50), who has sentenced him to his fate, after begging the natural world to hear his cries and not punish him, no longer to injure his bones by “burning cold” (I, 33) the chains that bind him or let “Heaven’s winged hound” (I, 33) feed upon him. His words echo his earlier sentiment, found in Aeschylus’ work, where he mourns himself, as a “spectacle of pity” (14) who must suffer the “disease of tyranny (13) . In his quest and the earlier part of his imprisonment, Prometheus still longed to engage and relate to the Olympian, as “a counterpart of himself” (Frye 96), as one god contesting with another for power over and influence on the world. This struggle resulted in the imprisonment of Prometheus, because he craved to incite a revolution, where he desired not to transform the degenerate system of Jupiter but overturn it. Frye reminds us that “Jupiter’s real impetus is toward chaos rather than order” (96), as understood through the initial conversation between Prometheus and the Earth, where he identifies her as a “living spirit” (I, 139) but she is fearful of that description... ... middle of paper ... ...wer-hungry and egotistical spirit-self within him, which had fastened him to the rock, the altar on which the Priest-King Jupiter had punished him without relief with the power given him.