Comparing into Battle Essay Example for Free

Comparing into Battle Essay Comparing Into Battle with Spring Off, I find their poets attitudes are quite different. Grenfell who is poet of Into Battle thinks war is a glorious and noble thing, but Owens attitude is very clear and totally different from Grenfells which is that war is evil and brutal. In order to convey their own attitudes and purposes, these two poets all use different language styles and imagery. In the poem Into Battle, Grenfell uses lots of vocabulary of nature and spring as a background, these all help to show a harmony and sense which crease a peaceful tone to describe war, it is good for the reader to agree poets attitude. However, spring also is used in Spring Off, Owen makes a stark contraction between surviving in the war and new life in the spring landscape which surrounds troops. For Into battle, it uses pathetic fallacy positively to show its purpose. The sun gives him warmth, the Glowing earth gives him life, the light foot winds lend him speed etc. these descriptions all let soldiers or even readers to feel energy and power. In the last two stanzas, the poet also gives extra importance through the use of capital letters, like Destined Will is obviously some sort of supernatural force, as a kind of god or power of destiny. In the last section of this poem, there is a lot of figurative, as the burning moment and the thundering line of battle are metaphors to describe the heat and noise of the action. All these create a sense of heat and energy on the battlefield again and it matches his idea of the war. There are several powerful images in Spring Off too, which add to the strength of Owens description, such as buttercups and brambles are personified as explained above. This creates pathetic fallacy which Grenfell used as well and it strengthens the description. Moreover, the language which is used in the poem reflects the contrasts. At the beginning, descriptions all positive, words fed, carelessly slept and eased all shows soldiers movements and suggests they are relaxed and comfortable. However, Owen uses but and shorter, sharper sounds of stood still and stark blank sky to creates contrast immediately. In Spring Off, Owen uses rhetorical question to ask why the survivors don not speak of their dead comrades and talk of their glorious death and convey the massage of the poem which is that there is no glory in this war. These two poems all use natural elements in the poem to express their attitudes of war. Because of different attitudes, I can see that Spring Off is described in a negative way, and Julian writes Into Battle positively. Therefore, it makes two poems style and language and purpose all different.

An Inaccurate Review of The Fall of the House of Usher Essay -- Fall H

An Inaccurate Review of The Fall of the House of Usher David A. Carpenter, in the form of an essay, addresses Edgar Allan Poe’s short story â€Å"The Fall of the House of Usher† by interpreting themes, meanings, style, and technique within the story. His essay review contains many quotes and direct references to both Poe and â€Å"The Fall of the House of Usher;† however, Carpenter’s analysis proves itself to be inaccurate. Carpenter repeatedly writes statements of which he claims are true, but then argues contrary points. His use of â€Å"evidence† is an extension of his self-negating arguments. Based on the inescapable presence of contradictions and â€Å"evidence† that does not support his opinion, Carpenter’s essay is an inaccurate review of â€Å"The Fall of the House of Usher.† In his essay, Carpenter writes contradictory statements and expounds upon them in the form of illogical examples and rationale. Within the first sentence of the â€Å"Themes and Meanings† section, Carpenter claims â€Å"The Fall of the House of Usher† is not a didactic story, but then follows to say that Poe communicates a â€Å"definite moral message† (Carpenter 1986). Clearly, the author of the article does not understand what qualifies a literary work to be didactic—one that contains issues of morality. He also states that the morality portrayed in Poe’s short story is an â€Å"operative universal morality that is ultimately as inescapable as the hereditary forces which determine a person’s life† (Carpenter 1986). Carpenter’s attempt to clarify his idea of the morality fails when he relates it to hereditary forces, which, in this modern age, have little impact on determining one’s life, and are certainly not i nescapable. His logic is presumed an... ... logical events, such as Madeline escaping the coffin she was nailed inside of, despite Carpenter’s previous statements that the story, because of the effect created by the writer, was successful and would not, in general, leave a reader questioning legitimacy. Overall, Carpenter’s article leaves much to be desired. At first glance, sentences are confusing and ideas are hazy. As an author, Carpenter is not convincing of his essay’s general arguments because his statements are assumptions and are not backed up by clear evidence. Contradictions in both his arguments and elaboration reveal Carpenter’s essay addressing â€Å"The Fall of the House of Usher† to be illegitimate and inaccurate. Works Cited Carpenter, David A. Essay review. MagillOnLiterature Database [series online] 1986 9240000421. Accessed 2002 November 4. 2350 Marlow 12.37 - 1 -

Political Climate of the 1970s Essay

Consider for just a moment the following scenario: the United States finds itself embroiled in a war for which no foreseeable end is in sight.   The president finds himself on the low end of the approval polls and the American people are staging protests against the war that the president is dedicated to waging.   While this sounds like it was taken from the headlines of today, and indeed it could be, but it just as well applies to the era of president Richard Nixon and the age of the Vietnam War.   This essay will focus on several facets of Nixon, the war he led, and the scandal that ultimately ended his administration, but created echoes that are heard even today. Political and Social Outcomes of the End of the War in Vietnam The Vietnam War, of course created all of the sadness, caution and concern that all wars throughout history have created.   Additionally, there are definite political and social outcomes from the war that still echo in the American psyche decades after the official end to the war itself.   Politically, Vietnam was a rude awakening for the American political/military machine because this war represented the first time that the US was engaged in a war that it did not win.   While there is lingering debate as to whether the Vietnam War was lost, few can debate that the war was not decisively won by US troops. From this political fallout came several social consequences for the American people.   With the potential that the US could not defeat Communism in any specific way, the American people began to doubt the effectiveness of their government more so than at any other time in history.   Not all people doubted the government’s potency, however, and this gave rise to two sides that would start to debate one another starting in the Vietnam era and continuing into the present day (Gilbert, 2001). Lastly, the end of Vietnam led to a general distrust of the government as a whole, as stories began to leak out about the backroom military planning, lack of accurate information being released to the public, and what many saw as a war that was lost not because of an undefeatable enemy but because of an American military that was too mired in political infighting and self interest to win any war. A Comparison of Nixon’s Policies of Engagement and Cold War Strategies During the Cold War, Richard Nixon held true to one overriding philosophy- â€Å"Peace with Honor†.   Ã‚  This simple statement has far reaching implications because of several considerations about the Vietnamese War.   Eventually, Nixon came to realization that the war was one that could not be won for several reasons.   First, American troops were utilizing conventional military techniques in an unconventional war, fought against an enemy that used hidden tunnels, soldiers without noticeable uniforms, and primitive forms of terrorism such as suicide bombers who would detonate explosives in the midst of American soldiers, killing them by the dozens at a time.   Second, what was really being fought in Vietnam was not another army, but a massive social and political machine called Communism. The forces behind Communism stretched far beyond the borders of Vietnam and represented a foe that would never really be defeated in conventional battle.   What these facts   meant for Nixon, and indeed for the entire nation was that while it may be possible for the United States to be able to withdraw from the war in Vietnam, there really was no way for the war to be won or for Communism to be defeated in the way that physical enemies are neutralized (Katz, 1997).   Nixon’s mindset was indicative of the Cold War strategies used both before and after the years that Nixon led the nation.   It was long acknowledged that Communism was a force that was not able to be fought and defeated like an army might be able to be fought and defeated, but that it would have to compete against and democracy protected and promoted, likewise bringing about â€Å"Peace with Honor† as Nixon advocated. Measure the Impact of the Watergate Scandal on Public Perception of Government Power President Richard Nixon, in the early 1970s, found himself entangled in the Vietnam War but also faced with the possibility that he would not be re-elected to the presidency in the upcoming election. With the pursuit of that re-election in mind, it now is apparent that Nixon was involved in planning, and trying to cover up, the burglary of the Democratic national headquarters in the scandal that would come to be known as Watergate.   In the aftermath of Watergate, public perception of government power was changed forever.   During the 1970s, much of the general public, in particular those of college age, did not trust the government because of what they saw as an unjust war in Vietnam and the accompanying withholding of information about the war itself which was viewed by many as a government conspiracy to deliberately mislead the public in the pursuit of self interests on the part of government officials, from the president himself and downward into the ranks of the US governmen t (Genovese, 2004).   This distrust led to the mantra â€Å"don’t trust anyone over the age of 30†, as young Americans viewed their elders as selfish power grabbers who were using the blood of the youth to serve their own means. The mistrust of the government likewise had effects on the presidency that has repeated itself in almost every subsequent administration since Nixon resigned in the heat of Watergate.   Whether one looks at the Clinton, Reagan, or Bush(es) administrations, there are examples where the Nixon-era suspicion of the government comes out, as allegations are made that the president is more concerned with public approval and his own well-being than he is in being honest and forthcoming with the citizens of the nation (Genovese, 2004).   Skepticism can of course be healthy or destructive, especially in evaluating the government.   The trick, going forward, will be for Americans to recognize the difference between being aware of the government’s actions and petty criticisms that are driven by political self interest and not what is best for the nation as a whole. Conclusion In this essay, the past and present has been brought together.   This linking of history’s events makes it possible to realize that the more things change, the more that they seem to remain the same.   It also makes it possible to understand that events do not take place in isolation from other events that came before them, but there is an historic influence of the past on the events of the present and will eventually affect the events of the future.   This also brings about the old adage that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.   If political leaders and even the average person on the street fail to pay attention to what has happened before and do something better, no good will come of it.

Platos Meno Plot, Analysis, and Commentary on virtue

Although fairly short, Platos dialog Meno is generally regarded as one of his most important and influential works. In a few pages, it ranges over several fundamental philosophical questions, such as: What is virtue?Can it be taught or is it innate?Do we know some things a priori (independent of experience)?What is the difference between really knowing something and merely holding a correct belief about it? The dialog also has some dramatic significance. We see Socrates reduce Meno, who begins by confidently assuming that he knows what virtue is, to a state of confusion–an unpleasant experience presumably common among those who engaged Socrates in debate. We also see Anytus, who will one day be one of the prosecutors responsible for Socrates trial and execution, warn Socrates that he should be careful what he says, especially about his fellow Athenians. The  Meno  can be divided into four main parts: The unsuccessful search for a definition of virtueSocrates proof that some of our knowledge is innateA discussion of whether virtue can be taughtA discussion of why there are no teachers of virtue Part One: The Search for a Definition of Virtue The dialog opens with Meno asking Socrates a seemingly straightforward question: Can virtue be taught? Socrates, typically for him, says he doesnt know since he doesnt know what virtue is, and he hasnt met anyone who does. Meno is astonished at this reply and accepts Socrates invitation to define the term. The Greek word usually translated as virtue is arete, although it might also be translated as excellence.  The concept is closely linked to the idea of something fulfilling its purpose or function. Thus, the arete of a sword would be those qualities that make it a good weapon, for instance: sharpness, strength, balance. The arete of a horse would be qualities such as speed, stamina, and obedience. Menos first definition: Virtue is relative to the sort of person in question. For example, the virtue of a woman is to be good at managing a household and to be submissive to her husband. The virtue of a soldier is to be skilled at fighting and brave in battle. Socrates response: Given the meaning of arete,  Menos answer is quite understandable. But Socrates rejects it. He argues that when Meno points to several things as instances of virtue, there must be something they all have in common, which is why they are all called virtues. A good definition of a concept should identify this common core or essence. Menos second definition: Virtue is the ability to rule men. This may strike a modern reader as rather odd, but the thinking behind it is probably something like this: Virtue is what makes possible the fulfillment of ones purpose. For men, the ultimate purpose is happiness; happiness consists of lots of pleasure; pleasure is the satisfaction of desire; and the key to satisfying ones desires is to wield power—in other words, to rule over men. This sort of reasoning would have been associated with the sophists. Socrates response: The ability to rule men is only good if the rule is just.  But justice is only one of the virtues.  So Meno has defined the general concept of virtue by identifying it with one specific kind of virtue. Socrates then clarifies what he wants with an analogy.  The concept of shape cant be defined by describing squares, circles or triangles.  Shape is what all these figures share.  A general definition would be something like this: shape is that which is bounded by color. Menos third definition: Virtue is the desire to have and the ability to acquire fine and beautiful things. Socrates response: Everyone desires what they think is good (an idea one encounters in many of Platos dialogues). So if people differ in virtue, as they do, this must be because they differ in their ability to acquire the fine things they consider good.  But acquiring these things–satisfying ones desires–can be done in a good way or a bad way.  Meno concedes that this ability is only a virtue if it is exercised in a good way–in other words, virtuously.  So once again, Meno has built into his  definition the very notion hes trying to define. Part Two: Is Some of Our Knowledge Innate? Meno declares himself utterly confused:   O Socrates, I used to be told, before I knew you, that  you were always doubting yourself and making others doubt; and now you  are casting your spells over me, and I am simply getting bewitched and  enchanted, and am at my wits end. And if I may venture to make a jest  upon you, you seem to me both in your appearance and in your power over  others to be very like the flat torpedo fish, who torpifies those who come  near him and touch him, as you have now torpified me, I think. For my soul  and my tongue are really torpid, and I do not know how to answer you. Menos description of how he feels gives us some idea of the effect Socrates must have had on many people. The Greek term for the situation he finds himself in is aporia, which is often translated as impasse but also denotes perplexity.  He then presents Socrates with a famous paradox. Menos paradox: Either we know something or we dont.  If we know it, we dont need to inquire any further.  But if we dont know it if we cant inquire since we dont know what were looking for and wont recognize it if we found it. Socrates dismisses Menos paradox as a debaters trick,  but he nevertheless responds to the challenge, and his response is both surprising and sophisticated.  He appeals to the testimony of priests and priestesses who say that the soul is immortal, entering and leaving one body after another, that in the process it acquires a comprehensive knowledge of all there is to know, and that what we call learning is actually just a process of recollecting what we already know. This is a doctrine that Plato may have learned from the Pythagoreans. The slave boy demonstration:  Meno asks Socrates if he can prove that all learning is recollection. Socrates responds by calling over a slave boy, who he establishes has had no mathematical training, and setting him a geometry problem.  Drawing a square in the dirt, Socrates asks the boy how to double the area of the square.  The boys first guess is that one should double the length of the squares sides.  Socrates shows that this is incorrect.  The slave boy tries again, this time suggesting that one increase the length of the sides by 50 percent.  He is shown that this is also wrong.  The boy then declares himself to be at a loss.  Socrates points out that the boys situation now is similar to that of Meno.  They both believed they knew something; they now realize their belief was mistaken; but this new awareness of their own ignorance, this feeling of perplexity, is, in fact, an improvement. Socrates then proceeds to guide the boy to the right answer: you double the area of a square by using its diagonal as the basis for the larger square. He claims at the end to have demonstrated that the boy in some sense already had this knowledge within himself: all that was needed was someone to stir it up and make recollection easier.   Many readers will be skeptical of this claim. Socrates certainly seems to ask the boy leading questions. But many philosophers have found something impressive about the passage.  Most dont consider it a proof of the theory of reincarnation, and even Socrates concedes that this theory is highly speculative. But many have seen it as a convincing proof that human beings have some a priori knowledge (information that is self-evident).  The boy may not be able to reach the correct conclusion unaided, but he is able to recognize the truth of the conclusion and the validity of the steps that lead him to it.  He isnt simply repeating something he has been taught. Socrates doesnt insist that his claims about reincarnation are certain.  But he does argue that the demonstration supports his fervent belief that we will live better lives if we believe that knowledge is worth pursuing as opposed to lazily assuming that there is no point in trying. Part Three: Can Virtue Be Taught? Meno asks Socrates to return to their original question: Can virtue be taught?  Socrates reluctantly agrees and constructs the following argument: Virtue is something beneficial; its a  good thing to haveAll good things are only good if they are accompanied by knowledge or wisdom (for example, courage is good in a wise person, but in a fool, it is mere recklessness)Therefore virtue is a kind of knowledgeTherefore virtue can be taught The argument is not especially convincing.  The fact that all good things, in order to be beneficial, must be accompanied by wisdom doesnt really show that this wisdom is the same thing as virtue.  The idea that virtue is a kind of knowledge, however, does seem to have been a central tenet of Platos moral philosophy.  Ultimately, the knowledge in question is the knowledge of what truly is in ones best long-term interests. Anyone who knows this will be virtuous since they know that living a good life is the surest path to happiness.  And anyone who fails to be virtuous reveals that they dont understand this.  Hence the flip side of virtue is knowledge is all wrongdoing is ignorance, a claim that Plato spells out and seeks to justify in dialogues  such as the Gorgias.   Part Four: Why Are There No Teachers of Virtue? Meno is content to conclude that virtue can be taught, but Socrates, to Menos surprise, turns on his own argument and starts criticizing it.  His objection is simple.  If virtue could be taught there would be teachers of virtue.  But there arent any.  Therefore it cant be teachable after all. There follows an exchange with Anytus, who has joined the conversation, that is charged with dramatic irony.  In response to Socrates wondering, rather tongue-in-cheek query whether sophists might not be teachers of virtue, Anytus contemptuously dismisses the sophists as people who, far from teaching virtue, corrupt those who listen to them. Asked who could teach virtue, Anytus suggests that any Athenian gentleman should be able to do this by passing on what they have learned from preceding generations.  Socrates is unconvinced.  He points out that great Athenians like Pericles, Themistocles, and Aristides were all good men, and they managed to teach their sons specific skills like horse riding, or music.  But they didnt teach their sons to be as virtuous as themselves, which they surely would have done if they had been able to. Anytus leaves, ominously warning Socrates that he is too ready to speak ill of people and that he should take care in expressing such views.  After he leaves Socrates confronts the paradox that he now finds himself with: on the one hand, virtue is teachable since it is a kind of knowledge; on the other hand, there are no teachers of virtue. He resolves it by distinguishing between real knowledge and correct opinion.   Most of the time in practical life, we get by perfectly well if we simply have correct beliefs about something. For example,  if you want to grow tomatoes and you correctly believe that planting them on the south side of the garden will produce a good crop, then if you do this youll get the outcome youre aiming at. But to really be able to teach someone how to grow tomatoes, you need more than a bit of practical experience and a few rules of thumb; you need a genuine knowledge of horticulture, which includes an understanding of soils, climate, hydration, germination, and so on. The good men who fail to teach their sons virtue are like practical gardeners without theoretical knowledge. They do well enough themselves most of the time, but their opinions are not always reliable, and they arent equipped to teach others. How do these good men acquire virtue?  Socrates suggests it is a gift from the gods, similar to the gift of poetic inspiration enjoyed by those who are able to write poetry but are unable to explain how they do it. The Significance of the  Meno The  Meno  offers a fine illustration of Socrates argumentative methods and his search for definitions of moral concepts.  Like many of Platos early dialogues, it ends rather inconclusively.  Virtue hasnt been defined.  It has been identified with a kind of knowledge or wisdom, but exactly what this knowledge consists in hasnt been specified.  It seems it can be taught, at least in principle, but there are no teachers of virtue since no one has an adequate theoretical understanding of its essential nature.  Socrates implicitly includes himself among those who cannot teach virtue since he candidly admits at the outset that he doesnt know how to define it.   Framed by all this uncertainty, however, is the episode with the slave boy where Socrates asserts the doctrine of reincarnation and demonstrates the existence of innate knowledge.  Here he seems more confident about the truth of his claims.  It is likely that these ideas about reincarnation and inborn knowledge represent the views of Plato rather than Socrates.  They figure again in other dialogues, notably the Phaedo.  This passage is one of the most celebrated in the history of philosophy and is the starting point for many subsequent debates about the nature and the possibility of a priori knowledge. An Ominous Subtext While the content of Meno is a classic in its form and metaphysical function, it also has an underlying and ominous subtext. Plato wrote Meno about 385 BCE, placing the events about 402 BCE, when Socrates was 67 years old, and about three years before he was executed for corrupting Athenian youth. Meno was a young man who was described in historical records as treacherous, eager for wealth and supremely self-confident. In the dialogue, Meno believes he is virtuous because he has given several discourses about it in the past: and Socrates proves that he cant know whether hes virtuous or not because he doesnt know what virtue is. Anytus was the main prosecutor in the court case that led to Socratess death. In Meno, Anytus threatens Socrates, I think that you are too ready to speak evil of men: and, if you will take my advice, I would recommend you to be careful. Anytus is missing the point, but nevertheless, Socrates is, in fact, shoving this particular Athenian youth off his self-confident pedestal, which would definitely be construed in Anytuss eyes as a corrupting influence. Resources and Further Reading Bluck, R. S. Platos Meno. Phronesis 6.2 (1961): 94–101. Print.Hoerber, Robert G. Platos Meno. Phronesis 5.2 (1960): 78–102. Print.Klein, Jacob. A Commentary on Platos Meno. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.Kraut, Richard. Plato. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2017. Web.Plato. Meno. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Dover, 2019.Silverman, Allan. Platos Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University 2014. Web.Tejera, V. History and Rhetoric in Platos Meno, or on the Difficulties of Communicating Human Excellence. Philosophy Rhetoric 11.1 (1978): 19–42. Print.