The Disdain of Total Equality Total equality may seem fair and justifiable in the eyes of some people, but in many cases it turns out to be little more than a form of oppression, in which a group of people limit the abilities of others. Throughout the story Vonnegut speaks of this necessity for equality and the means that the government goes to achieve it by using devices called ‘handicaps’; one example of this is George’s earpiece, “A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.” Vonnegut’s simile here creates a sort of loud diction, which expresses the sheer discomfort invoked by these restraints on the person wearing them. The governing body in this society views this as the solution to a problem, one that happens to be relatively impossible to solve, this is how Vonnegut incorporates satire into his story. He is poking fun at the age old concept of ‘equality,’ one that has inspired wars and movements alike; he accomplishes this by creating a system to make everyone equal, a system that happens to be just as stupid as the idea of ‘total equality.’ Under this system equality is achieved, but it is at the cost of individual freedom and a society full of stupid people, this in-turn creates the situational irony found in the story.
Plato: The Republic and Euthyphro Dilemma These three past weeks I have learned about Plato and his dialogues, one of them is the Euthyphro dilemma. In his dilemma he tries to discover the nature piety. The answer that Euthyphro gives is that what is good is what is loved by the gods. Here we can see a contradiction that Socrates points out which is that some gods love and hate the same things at the same time. This would turn morality into something subjective.
Beatty tells Montag that with “a bigger market there is less controversy” however some of the authors were full of “evil thoughts” and they created and wrote content and compositions that were derogatory to many ethnicities and religions which caused dispute and arguments among many minorities. So the books stopped selling and books were banned- they “were dishwater”- so censoring books and tv programs was to ensure equality among people. By eliminating information and keeping people docile and passive with meaningless
Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil. My motivation for presenting my own definition stems from my frustration in Thrasymachus’s inability to see justice as something much more than a form of legalism Thrasymachus starts his definition by stating that justice is the interest or advantage of the stronger (338c). Immediately after being questioned by Socrates on this definition, Thrasymachus quickly clarifies that the stronger are in-fact the rulers and that justice is in the interest of them alone (339a). Socrates forces the examination of this definition, and results in Thrasymachus then defining interests as the laws that rulers make (338e). From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b).
This makes the audience think that Mr Birling is wrong about everything else and he can’t be trusted. This is how Priestly shows and tells us that most of these middle and upper class people are wrong and have to change. Another thing Mr Birling says is: “Germans don’t want war.” This suggests that Mr Birling is completely wrong and
Emerson’s view on consistency is, once again, completely different form the average view from society. He sees consistency as a bad trait and something that everyone should shy away from. I myself believe that Emerson is right in believing consistency isn’t such a great thing. I believe people should be inconsistent and change their mind if they are given a certain amount of proof to change their mind. This is how Emerson sees consistency; he is very much against it and looks down upon those who do not change their minds.
The author addresses the problem in the black community and brings up an idea of blind eyes to see recognize the problem and imagine for a better future. People are blind to see the real problem or intentions of others. Thus, there are betrayal and mistrust. However, many Brothers criticize the speech to be incorrect or unsatisfactory. They are bitter because the author didn’t say what he was required to say.
Socrates uses a rather elaborate argument to show this definition is also insufficient. If the gods approve of something because it is holy, their approval cannot be what makes it holy, he says. If an act is holy because the gods approve of it, we still do not know what makes it holy or why the gods approve. It seems that any attempt to define holiness by the will or approval of the gods is bound to fail. Even in contemporary society, we tend to associate morality with some kind of divine will, but through the Euthyphro, Socrates seems to suggesting we think along another line altogether.
He does this in an attempt to soften the people of Maycomb and make them think in a non-racist way. In the real world, there are several examples of people buying into an assumption and believing it even though it contradicts their morals. This is called stereotyping in the real world. Stereotyping is when a person lacks information about a person or group of people, and creates a usually false piece of information to fill the abyss that is the lack of knowledge. A plethora of stereotypes exist in the world, all of which are perfect examples of the stereotyping Mr. Gilmer did in the Tom Robinson trial, saying that all blacks lie.
He further states that in order to validate a definition, one must first seek whether the definition extensive enough to include all of the items distinctly share the attributes of the defined word. Then the definition must be narrow enough exclude those items that exhibit one or two similar attributes. Oswalt further explains, Etymological a Greek word of myth is mythos which is used to describe a false legend of the gods. Sociological approach does not say if an idea is true, but whether the proponents of the idea is consider it to be true. Literary is the third kind of historical philosophical definition.