To keep the reader guessing and to hold the attention. Blurring these boundaries between Fiction and Non-Fiction has always been a great way for authors to make their points, yield their arguments, and to keep interest. If authors did not utilize this particular technique, most non-fiction accounts would become boring and uninteresting to a reader who did not want to learn about the particular. It is completely acceptable as long as the readers are told of the fictional aspect of the work. This is not one of the easiest techniques to use but if written correctly, creating a fictional account cannot be considered anything but excellent writing.
Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying.
This leaves the reader to find his own theme in the novel. If the author desires a stronger direction, omniscient narration overcomes this hurdle by obviously showing intentions and motives. However, this power to manipulate characters often tempts the author to editorialize; many modern critics have argued "that the author should be less in evidence and more willing to let us interpret the story ourselves." (Burnet, 88) This leaves us with first-person narrative, which is easiest for the author to write, yet as in essay writing, use of the word "I" tends to allow the reader to dismiss the character’s feelings. It allows for total insight into the character, yet this reliance on one individual for information will likely result in a biased view.
Although he never permits to say it directly, he is also right in noting that close reading of The Faerie Queene provides a much broader ranger of allegory. The examined stanzas are somewhat deceptive; they are short seemingly unimportant introductions that do not contribute to plot. However, in keeping with the true double nature of Spenser’s writing they contribute so much more than that to the text. Spenser uses the stanzas as a gateway for us to begin our study of his characters. Each close reading provides the reader with a different allegory, and it is through these multiple interpretations that Spenser manages to reveal part of his overall political, religious, and moral messages.
In particular, it robs those who disagree with these silenced opinions. Mill then turns to the reasons why humanity is hurt by silencing opinions. His first argument is that the suppressed opinion may be true. He writes that since human beings are not infallible, they have no authority to decide an issue for all people, and to keep others from coming up with their own judgments. Mill asserts that the reason why liberty of opinion is so often in danger is that in practice people tend to be confident in their own rightness, and excluding that, in the infallibility of the world they come in contact with.
The evaluation of these claims requires a discussion of the nature of philosophy. I find that Murdoch and Nussbaum agree on the ability of literature to contribute to moral understanding, but disagree on the issue of what philosophy is. Therefore, they disagree on the question of whether certain works of fiction are also works of philosophy. I argue that the task Nussbaum assigns philosophy is too broad. Through the use of critical and reflective methods, philosophy should examine and sort moral claims.
To the contrary, the author?s admittance of the characters as fictional creations whom he has pondered very deeply lend ... ... middle of paper ... ...ly ignored, it is important to understand Kundera?s purposes outside of this historical context. This is the fundamental purpose of the intrusive author figure in The Unbearable Lightness of Being: to strip the traditional novel of kitschy, political codes and grind beneath the surface to greater, more complicated questions of existence that, while unanswerable by the author, are more fruitful pursuits than historical or political messages. The philosophy can be summed up in Sabina?s mantra, ?On the surface, the intelligible lie; underneath the surface, the unintelligible truth.? Works Cited Angyal, Andrew. ?Review: The Unbearable Lightness of Being.?
In “The Case for Torture,” Michael Levin presents logical fallacies that originate at the authors desire to relate the importance of his message. Though his specific argument is a very plausible solution to a taboo problem, the manner in which he presents it has some fallacies that cause it to be unsupported Levin argues that torture should be used on terrorist in order to save people from terrorism. He further implies that this is the morally correct thing to do, because it ensures the good of the people. While his argument would be plausible in a utilitarian society, it is formidable within the cultural ideals of America as democratic societies typically tend to obscure techniques that violate natural rights and or ethics. Hence, Levin works excessively in order to convince his audience of his position.
Superstitions let the reader feel more connected with the characters in the novel and give the characters more of a human persona that makes the novel incredibly pleasurable. “Critics argue that superstition is not based on reason, but instead springs from religious feelings that are misdirected or unenlightened, which leads in some cases to rigor in religious opinions or practice, and in other cases to belief in extraordinary events or in charms, omens, and prognostications. Many superstitions can be prompted by misunderstandings of causality or statistics” (Haun). Superstitions take the place of reason, where no other explanation is possible. The explanation that is ultimately accepted is one that’s based on one’s own experiences and travels.
Rather than admit no exceptions, it is important to carry a flexible philosophy based on real evidence. In holding an absolute belief, Pangloss and Martin believed in something that encouraged them toward a lackadaisically skewed outlook. In this novel, rigid philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless and destructive, an important point Voltaire was trying to make through satirical means.