Since we know evil and suffering is a necessary bi-product of human life, we must acknowledge that evil does exist. This proves problematic as it then brings into question the traditional theist’s view of God. However, no traditional theist would accept Hume’s conclusions because it denies God of His perfection. There are ways of sidestepping this issue such as, atheism, deism and polytheism, but none are accepted by traditional theists, and are therefore not a true solution to the problem. A theodicy is seen as a true solution as it defends God’s nature in the face of evil and suffering.
William Shakespeare’s King Lear is a brutal play, filled with human cruelty and madness. It starts with the state of order and control and ends in meaningless disaster and chaos. The play’s series of terrible events raises an obvious question - is there any possibility of justice in the world, or whether the world is fundamentally uncaring or even hostile to humankind. a) In Shakespeare times, society believed that if people are not punished for their crimes, they will go to commit them. Justice is an imperative tool to keep the civilization safe and orderly.
These can be described as the tensions between the ideas of good versus bad, foreigner versus native and brother versus brother portrayed through stories of demonic possessions. The most general issue, which the author presents through the use of demons, is the concern between what is good and evil in the context of beliefs and ways of life. The varying ideas of what is perceived as proper and what could be seen as terrible differ greatly from one populace to the next. For Mark, the suspected author, he makes Jesus’ ideals known of what is right and what is wrong through the attributes of the unclean, demonic spirits and the circumstances surrounding them, yet even his followers don’t quite understand the division between the two. The issue is more explicitly shown when Jesus states, “…but whoever blasphemies against the Holy Spirit can never have
How does Twelve Angry Men suggest that deliberating on a jury is tough and confronting work that challenges the individual to force his/her deep-seated beliefs? Reginald Rose's play 'Twelve Angry Men' was written in a period in which the United States of America were witnessing the widespread, catastrophic misuses of the judicial system. The play begins with all but one of the jurors certain of the defendant's guilt. As it progresses, individuals such as jurors seven and ten reveal the potential flaws of the jury system with their plethora of bigoted views, accompanied by preconceived notions. Furthermore, it outlines how such prejudice and personal experience can impact on an individual’s actions, and can even pressure others to change their own opinions and act on conformity, thus undermining the principles of their social responsibility and active citizenship.
[II.ii:170-195] The sonnet reveals the feeling of frustration and insanity the speaker is feeling as his lust–driven thoughts drive him into “lust–in–action” when he can’t wait for it; and also when he has finished, and is then utterly disgusted by what he has done. [IV.iv:18-32] The piece, full of these angry outbursts, shows paradox throughout it, such as in line 5 when the speaker writes “enjoyed no sooner but despisèd straight,” and in line 6 when he says “past reason hunted; and no sooner had”. At the end of the sonnet, the speaker leaves the reader with the biggest paradox. “All this world well knows; yet none knows well/To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.” The underlined words in this quote show the paradox the writer describes in this sonnet, and once again show the frustration of what is desired, what is had, and what is actually necessary for the speaker. [II.iv:140-171] The situation of the speaker of this sonnet is that of a person who has experienced each stage of lust and desire, and who is now
Grapes of Wrath Analysis John Steinbeck, in chapter 25 of The Grapes of Wrath employs the use of rhetoric devices to forebodingly expose the owner’s brutality towards to workers and the extents to which they will go to keep their land. The use of dark and negative words allows Steinbeck to convey to the reader the grief that the workers are experiencing as a result of the owners cruelty. Steinbeck describes the “sorrow” and “failure [that] hangs over the State” as a result of the great owners cruelty and their constant drive to succeed. By doing this he instills a sense of mourning in the reader and prepares them to sympathize for the greater mistreatments that the workers experience. Steinbeck describes the loss of the worker’s labor as the “saddest and bitterest thing of all”, and continues to further the reader’s aggravation toward the situation through the repetition of “angry”.
b. Dostoyevsky points out the terrible suffering and cruelty there is in the world. How might that undermine Pascal’s argument? “The Wager” by Pascal is a reading about the risk of choosing between the existence of God and the nonexistence of God. Pascal argues that people will have everything to gain if they choose to believe in the existence of God but they will lose nothing if they do believe and are wrong. I disagree with Pascal’s argument and I do not think it is a good one.
The three have very different views but the use of extended metaphors to describe them unifies them. Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth, depicts life to be many things but nothing is more significant when Macbeth says life “is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” This extended metaphor reinforces the notion that life is random and has no relevance at all to anything. The outlook to life is very depressed because the character, Macbeth believes life only leads, “to dusty death,” His life was good but just got worse and worse so Shakespeare uses an extended metaphor to characterize not only Macbeth, but how life is viewed by him. Extended metaphors are very useful for authors for it allows them to interpret things and helps the reader understand what they are trying to get across. Mother to Son, by Langston Hughes is an extended metaphor describing life to be difficult and full of struggles, but they must be tackled head on.
“The law can never save us; and he is nearest to the forgiveness of the gospel who, with a contrite heart, discerns most clearly and feels most profoundly that perfection of the Divine statute which impeaches and condemns him.” Is public punishment really required to feel penitent for your sin? To feel penitent you must express humble or regretful pain or sorrow for the sins or offenses you have committed. This is a very controversial issue between the government and those governed under its laws, the general public. Many people in today's government feel that public punishment isn't required for one to feel penitent for the sin they've committed. However, in a Puritan society, the view on punishment in relation to sin would have been very
Hamlet assumes that Claudius is repenting for killing King Hamlet, as he is in a praying position. Shakespeare reveals that Hamlet does not kill Claudius in this scene because he wants to send Claudius to hell. Hamlet’s inaction at the end of this scene suggests little moral integrity, as the intent behind his inaction is certainly dark and cruel and overshadows his ‘noble’ characteristics until this point in the play. This makes the audience’s pathos towards his indecisive, tormented character decrease and increase towards the antagonist, Claudius, since he is portrayed to be very regretful, vulnerable in his soliloquy. Shakespeare carefully stages and dictates the entrance and exit of Hamlet in this scene to optimise the dramatic irony of the situation.