Plato's Euthyphro

 

The theory of forms that is presented in Euthyphro is an extremely important manner of understanding humanity and the way that they make decisions concerning what they believe to be right. It involves a conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro concerning the meaning of piety, with Euthyphro stating that piety involves what one does at a particular time. For example, at the time of his conversation with Socrates, Euthyphro is seeking to prosecute a wrongdoer, who also happens to be his father (Woods & Pack, 2007, p. 2). This is an extremely bold step because it shows that Euthypro is determined to implement the law despite the personal cost to himself and to his family. In addition, the theory of forms is also shown within the conversation through the desire to ensure that there is an understanding of the manner through which individuals can undertake actions that are pleasing to the gods. Determining what is dear to the gods is essential in the process of undertaking actions that upholds this belief. One of the most significant examples that is given during the conversation through which individuals can ensure that they do what pleases the gods is comparing the actions of Zeus against his father Cronos. Zeus punished his own father because of the latter’s tyranny; leading to a situation where Cronos was overthrown and Zeus took up the mantle of the leadership of the gods (Woods & Pack, 2007, p. 4). While this may have been the case, one of the most significant questions that is asked by Socrates is whether actions should be undertake because the gods love it or because the gods love it because it is pious, especially considering that not all the gods have the same beliefs.

One of the most fundamental aspects of the theory of forms as handled in Plato’s Phaedo is that it involves tackling general issues in such a way that they ultimately turn into one or more general ideas. To debate a single issue can lead to a situation where individuals come to find out that there are other significant issues behind it that leads to further debate concerning the issue. This is especially considering a discussion concerning an issue such as the superiority of either fearlessness or goodness. An argument between the opposing sides cannot take place effectively unless both parties have knowledge concerning their respective points. Therefore, without an understanding of what either fearlessness or goodness is, it cannot be possible for them to have a discussion because to do so would be pointless. If they are proffered with a definition of the subject under discussion, but the definition is one that is riddled with criticism, they can be able to ensure that there is a means through which to bring about an understanding of that the definition is not. A consequence is that criticism allows individuals to look into a deeper meaning of the situation that it being discussed in such a way that leads to the achievement of the ultimate truth, where individuals have to act not based on their beliefs, but based on what the end result will likely be. Therefore, while the criticism of a definition that has been proffered can be disheartening, it also provides a way through which better instruction can be given.

Another aspect of the manner through which Plato handles the theory of forms is that some general notions can end up setting ideal limits or standards. The end result is that individuals can be able to ensure that while they deviate slightly from a notion, it does not go too far away that t creates a degree of confusion. A consequence is that individuals are encouraged not to stick too strictly to their beliefs that they fail to consider the other aspects of life around them. What they believe to be true in one case can end up not actually being true in another, as seen in Socrates’ decision to drink the poison himself, and this has to be put in mind if there is to be a level of honesty with oneself (Plato, p. 52). Undertaking such actions is essential in coming up with a sense of morality in society because the motivations of individuals do not necessarily mean that the end result will either be good or bad. Instead, it becomes essential for individuals to not only critically understand their various standpoints, but also to consider the opinions of others in such a way that while they continue to pursue what they believe to be true, they also seek to consider the motivations of others. In this way, it becomes possible to make informed decisions that cater not only to personal needs, but also to the needs of others in society to such an extent that there is a level of harmony. Thus, while discussing or describing an individual as being one that is improving in the achievement of honesty and loyalty, it essentially means that he is getting closer to perfecting honesty and loyalty.

Another fundamental aspect of handling the theory of forms is that it seeks to advance the idea of timeless truths. The knowledge that individuals have concerning the various aspects of everyday life tend to be tensed truths, and these are based on what they believe. A consequence is that it is difficult to determine whether certain notions are either truths or falsehoods and this is to such an extent that there is a potential of knowledge being based on tensed truths or falsehoods. It is therefore necessary to consider all beliefs from various angles in such a way that ensures that while they are believed to be essential truths, they might also be false to such an extent that they end up having a negative effect on the individuals involved. The case of Euthyphro can be applied in this situation because this individual was ready to prosecute his own father based on the belief that Zeus, the chief Greek god, did the same to his own father. He shows a failure to consider how his actions are not only going to affect his father, but him as well because their relationship will be ruined as a result. Therefore, the observance of what are considered as timeless truths from various angles ensures that individuals avoid undertaking certain actions that might end up creating dilemmas for them while at the same time leading them to make serious mistakes that might affect them for the rest of their lives. What is considered as timeless truth cannot be measured based on how long it has been so and can only be accepted as it is.

      The manner through which the ideas that are contained within the theory of forms are addressed can be considered important in understanding the diverse aspects of life. This is especially considering that the theory of forms is ontology of concepts that seek to ensure that there is the creation of means through which a precise definition can be achieved. A result is that it becomes possible to make sure that those concepts that are considered timeless remain so and these in such a way that advances the understanding, which individuals have of them. They are essentially means through which concepts can be rationalized because they exist independently of the real thing or entity. Through the connection or contact that the human mind or soul has with the ordinary things and events that take place in their environment, they can at times end up attaining level of contact with the ideals and objects of the transcendent world to such an extent that it proves the immortality of the soul. This immortality is what can be considered an essential aspect of Plato’s definition of the Forms.

Pre-Modern and Modern Views of Nature and Death

 

Walt Whitman and Emily Dickinson in their poetry address diverse issues concerning nature and death. These are two aspects of life that all human beings have to live with and have to come to terms with the fact that they will have an effect on them. In this paper, there will be an attempt to compare the pre-modern to the modern view of nature through an analysis of the poetry of Whitman and Dickinson.

One of the most important aspects concerning the views of these poets is that they promote the idea that death is essentially something that has to be feared. This is especially considering that in the modern world, people more often than not, because of the adoption of science as the mainstay of everyday life, are afraid of dying. In addition, the concept of nature is one that is seen to be hostile to human beings and that there is need to bring about its taming. The taming of nature is considered an essential aspect of being civilized; meaning that being in touch with nature is viewed as regressive. Therefore, the modernist view concerning nature and death are essentially hostile to both because human beings do not often have control over these aspects of life.

The pre-modern and modern poetry’s views concerning nature and death have a considerable number of similarities. When it comes to death, both views look upon it as an extremely personal experience. This is exemplified in the pre-modern era where there was the belief that death brought about a level of relief from the problems of everyday life. Moreover, it was intensely personal because it was closely tied to religious beliefs in such a way that there was the promotion of life after death. Whitman, in “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd”, seeks to understand death and questions why God allows it to take place (Whitman). The modern perspective is also fairly personal when it comes to death because it is believed to involve the complete end of a life. In the poetry of both eras, nature is viewed as being beyond the control of human beings, with the latter having to live the best way that they can within it.

Despite the similarities between them, there are considerable differences between the themes involving nature and death in the pre-modern and modern eras. Among the most significant of these is that unlike in the modern era, in the pre-modern era, there was an acceptance of death an inevitable, but this was tempered by the belief that there was life after death. Moreover, acts of nature were believed to be the will of God and because of it could not be questioned. In the modern era, nature is viewed as essentially being hostile to human beings, as seen in Dickinson’s "Apparently with no surprise" where she questions the benevolence of God (Dickinson). This is an important perspective especially the case considering that these beliefs have become influenced by science.

In conclusion, the pre-modern and modern views of death and nature are displayed in the works of Dickinson and Whitman. In the analysis above, there has been an attempt to show the similarities and differences between the beliefs concerning death and nature in these two eras. The result is the realization that despite the similarities and differences, the views were extremely personal.

The State of Nature

 

The state of nature is one of the most debated opinions concerning the nature of human beings by philosophers. This is an extremely important concept because it seeks an understanding of the manner through which humans before the formation of societies behaved. The analysis of the state of nature considered the reasons behind why individuals ended up becoming part of societies, which essentially brought about a situation where there was the creation of the nation-state. A consequence of such a situation was that individuals shifted from a state of nature to a state of society, and the problems that the latter entails. Among these problems are the restrictions that the society puts on the natural rights of individuals, to such an extent that they essentially become subject to a political system. In this paper, there will be an analysis of the state of nature, with reference to the opinions of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau being compared and contrasted.

Among the most important philosophers to undertake to explain this concept are Locke and Rousseau, both of who consider individuals before the formation of societies had better lives than is the case with those who live in societies. Locke and Rousseau both consider the state of nature as having been more conducive for individuals, because they were able to exercise their freedoms better. Locke argues that individuals were able to live the way that they wanted without harming one another because they in the state of nature, they made use of reason. The governance of reason meant that they are able to ensure they attained all their needs without resorting to exploiting one another, as is the case in society (Locke 3). This argument is further advanced by Rousseau, who considers the state of nature as having been the creation of a situation where individuals were not able to harm one another because they did not know each other well enough (Rousseau 50). The arguments made by both Rousseau and Locke show that they take a common stance when it comes to the state of nature, where they believe that individuals had more freedoms, and could act in such a way as to ensure that their interests were catered for.

Locke and Rousseau, despite the similarities of their arguments, also have a number of differences. Locke promotes the idea that in the state of nature, individuals were governed by reason (Locke 3). He essentially suggests that in the state of nature, humans have the capacity to think and determine what it best for them because of the presence of natural laws. This argument is one that seeks to show that the state of nature and the governance of natural laws are essential in the advancement of the rights of individuals. It also considers that this state to be the most conducive because it allows for the supremacy of natural laws over those of society. This is an argument that does not agree with that proposed by Rousseau, who proposes that in the state of nature, individuals are neither good nor bad. Instead, they live in an environment where they are not able to distinguish what it right from wrong. Moreover, Rousseau is of the opinion that individuals in a state of nature are essentially blank slates, who end up being influenced by societies, which are essentially determinants of whether individuals will be good or evil (Rousseau 46). Therefore, Rousseau seems not to believe that the state of nature involves the governance of reason, and this is especially considering that individuals do not know good from evil.

The origins of the political community are explained by both Locke and Rousseau and this is done in relation to the state of nature. Locke is of the opinion that human beings are born free and that they become involved in the political community out of the desire not to be alone. He suggests that humans are created by God in a manner that encourages them to seek companionship, meaning that they are inevitably drawn into a society that essentially develops into a political community (Locke 28). However, despite being a part of the political communities, natural law should take precedence, meaning that it is essential for the natural rights of individuals should be respected at all times. Rousseau, on the other hand, states that the formation of the political community or civil state is responsible for the erosion of the state of nature (Rousseau 167). He considers the latter to be real freedom that is the essential right of all individuals, but with the formation of political society, this freedom is disrupted because of the dominance of one group of individuals over another. The result is that most individuals end up not having the freedoms provided by the state of nature to undertake the actions that they need to in order to bring about the advancement of their own personal needs.

Despite their differences, both Locke and Rousseau provide very pertinent arguments concerning the state of nature. However, the account provided by Rousseau is one that is more convincing because it provides a perspective concerning the state of nature and how this state is affected by the formation of society. One of the most important arguments that Rousseau makes, and is more convincing than that of Locke, is that in the state of nature, individuals are essentially blank slates, meaning that they are unaffected by any form of corruption (Rousseau 50). Instead, they live in an environment where they are governed by their own needs, neither being good or bad. This is an important argument because it shows Rousseau’s belief that society is what brings about the disruption of the state of nature, to such an extent that individuals are pushed towards behaving in a manner that is against their nature (Widerquist and McCall). Furthermore, Rousseau’s argument shows that it is society that has an influence on the development of individuals into either good or evil, because they become affected by the restrictive practices that are a part of the social environment. A result of such a situation is that one group of people achieves dominance over another because they have the ability to enforce their will (Rousseau 259); essentially going against the state of nature where all people are not only equal, but are also free to do as they please.

The natural state of mankind can be considered an essential concept because it seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of the rights of individuals in society. This is especially considering that it involves individuals having natural rights that are inalienable, even within the social structure. The recognition of natural rights is fundamental in the establishment of means through which to ensure that individuals are not only able to live according to their own desires, but do so based on the governance of reason. Reflecting on the natural state of mankind is essential in the establishment of a conversation concerning the effects of society on the rights of individuals. It also helps to bring about a conversation about the need to ensure that there is a respect of the natural rights of individuals in such a way that enables these rights to be recognized even within a social environment, where the restrictions against them are numerous. The attainment of a just society, where individuals have a right to ensure that there is the advancement of their interests by the political class through the application of reason, is essential in the advancement of the state of nature. Therefore, rather than the state of nature being one governed by chaos, a reflection on it is an important means of bringing about a respect for the natural rights of individuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The basic political writings. Hackett Publishing, 2010.

Widerquist, Karl, and Grant McCall. "Myths about the State of Nature and the Reality of Stateless Societies." Analyse & Kritik 37.1-2 (2015): 233-258.

Shakespearean Plays and The Law as an Instrument of Good Governance or Oppression

Introduction

Law is an integral part of most Shakespearean plays and this is especially considering that many of these involve various aspects of the law. Most plays by Shakespeare show that he was an individual that was significantly fascinated by a diversity of legal aspects that are addressed in the way that the characters act. In addition, Shakespeare is an individual that seeks to show that law is an important part of the lives of individuals in society and that it is essential to ensure that they take notice of it. This is especially the case where in Shakespearean plays, law is an integral part of promoting both good governance and oppression because of the numerous legal technicalities that are involved in the process. In this paper, there will be an attempt to show that while law is supposed to be an instrument of good governance, it can also be used to bring about the oppression of certain individuals in society.

Law as an instrument of good governance

In certain Shakespearean plays, law appears to be an instrument of good governance because it enables them to defend themselves from false accusations. Law is an essential aspect of promoting good governance in society and this is a case that is advanced in Shakespearean plays, where individuals are required to be obedient to laws in order to ensure that there is a level of social order (Cunningham, 2017). Plays such as the Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar show that adherence to the law is an important part of making sure that there is the advancement of social order as well as the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. It also promotes the advancement of means through which to ensure that there is the creation of initiatives that promote solution to problems without resorting to violence. The achievement of these goals through the use of law cannot be underestimated because it shows that it is a means of advancing the interests of good governance. Furthermore, law in Shakespeare can also be used in order to ensure that the interests of the weak are protected against the strong while at the same time helping those in positions of power to promote the advancement of justice in their own societies. A consequence of such a situation is that individuals come to the realization that it is only through the pursuit of law that it becomes possible to not only promote good governance, but also justice in the societies within which they live. 

 Law ensures that there is the advancement of justice in society since the individuals involved are provided with an opportunity to make sure that they are able to advance their individual interests without hurting those of others. One of the most significant cases of law as an instrument of good governance is seen in The Merchant of Venice, where despite Bassanio being maliciously accused of owing Shylock a debt, he is eventually proven to be innocent of the charges that have been brought against him and is acquitted (Hadfield, 2016). Bassanio’s acquittal comes about because of the actions of his wife, who disguises herself as a lawyer and successfully defends her husband against the charges that have been brought against him. That Bassanio is found not to be guilty following the trap that is set to ensnare him by Shylock shows that the law actually works and that it can be a means of ensuring that justice is achieved at all times. The capabilities displayed by Shakespeare in these play show that despite the attempt by certain individuals to make use of the law as an instrument of oppressing their fellows, the law can be made use of as a means of promoting social justice. Bassanio’s acquittal also allows for the development of a perspective concerning the motivations behind why certain individuals are capable of making use of law as a means of advancing their own interests to the detriment of that of others. In the end, as in the case of Shylock, these individuals end up being considered to be the villains of the plays and justice is served when they gain their just punishment.

The pursuit of law is essential for good governance in Shakespeare plays because it promotes the idea that individuals have to set aside their personal interests for the sake of their societies. One of the most important instances is seen in Julius Caesar, where the title character repeatedly refuses to be crowned king of Rome because it is against the laws of the state. Caesar is an individual that, despite his personal ambitions, is still willing to ensure that he attains them through the workings of the law rather than forcing them on the population (Jenkins, 2016). He is shown not to want to shake up the republican order that has been instrumental in governing Rome for centuries; resulting in a situation where despite his popularity and the desire by the population to have him crowned king, he refuses to be crowned in favor of retaining the status quo of the city. A consequence of his actions shows that there is need to ensure the advancement of law as a means of promoting good governance because it creates a situation where Caesar is put in circumstances where he is tempted to assume a role that could do away with the good governance of the city of Rome. However, his refusal to undertake the tempting task of being a king shows that Caesar is an individual that, despite being a dictator, seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of good governance in his home city. Therefore, in this play, Shakespeare promotes the idea that law can be used as a means of ensuring that there is good governance even though the instances where the society is willing to give up its interests because of the popularity of certain individuals.

Law as an instrument of oppression

Despite law being an instrument of good governance, there are instances where it can also be used as a means of promoting oppression. In Shakespeare plays, law is an important aspect of showing that situations arise where law ends up being a means of bringing about either the destruction or oppression of other individuals. One of the most significant parts of law is that it leads individuals towards taking advantage of it to ensure that their individual interests are protected over those of the weak (Omrani, 2016). Using law as a means of advancing individual interests at the expense of others often leads to the oppression of the latter. The result is that many of these individuals end up in situations where they are not able to undertake actions with as much freedom as they would like because to do so could bring about the ire of their oppressors. The role of oppressors in Shakespearean plays tends to be given to villainous rulers, as seen in the case of Claudius in Hamlet. However, there are instances where this role is given to individuals that are considered to be outsiders in their societies, as seen in the case of Shylock, a Jew living in Italy at a time when there was wide mistrust of Jews. Therefore, in Shakespeare plays, when law is addressed, it is done in such a way as to show that despite its being considered a source of good governance, it is also a means through which oppression can be brought about in society; essentially being an instrument of injustice.

Hamlet is one of the most significant Shakespearean plays that address the issue of law as an instrument of oppression. This is especially the case considering that the title character, Hamlet, is a victim of oppression despite not only being from the ruling class of his country, but also the son of the previous king (Thomas, 2014). Despite the privilege that he grows up with, Hamlet is shown to be a weak individual, whose uncle takes advantage of in order to assume the throne. Claudius, his uncle, is shown to be a conniving individual that makes use of every means possible to ensure that he not only kills his brother, but also pushes aside his nephew, who is the legitimate successor to his father, and instead assumes the throne himself. In this situation, Hamlet is depicted as being an extremely weak individual that is taken advantage of by his uncle in such a way that he ends up being denied his rights as the heir to the Danish throne. When his mother marries his uncle, it seems that Hamlet has essentially been pushed aside and he is shown to be an individual that harbors a lot of resentment for the injustice that he has suffered. The way that Claudius takes the throne is not only suspicious, but also goes against the law because the succession was supposed to go to the legitimate successor, Hamlet. Claudius’ succession to the throne shows that he has no regard for the law and that he can twist it in such a way that suits his own purposes to the detriment of his nephew.

The Merchant of Venice is another play that shows that law is an instrument of oppression rather than good governance. The case of Shylock’s false accusations against Bassanio shows that the law can be used as an instrument of oppression. Shylock’s malicious nature is brought forth through his desire to use the law as a means of destroying the life of Bassanio, an individual towards whom he holds considerable hatred for unexplained reasons. A consequence is that Shylock ends up seeking to ensure that he makes use of the law as a means of attaining his malicious objectives. When he requires that Bassanio pays him a debt by giving him a pound of flesh, Bassanio’s hands are tied because the orginal agreement between these two individuals stated that it was a requirement (Nam, 2015). Therefore, Bassanio’s hands are legally tied and Shylock makes use of this advantage over an individual that he considers his adversary to ensure that he seeks to end Bassanio’s life legally because the extraction of a pound of flesh would only mean death. The legal process that Bassanio is subjected to as a result shows that law can be made use of as an instrument of oppression rather than of good governance.

In Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice, there is a sense that law is an instrument of oppression rather than as a means of promoting good governance. Individuals are shown to be extremely vulnerable to the law to such an extent that it leads to a situation where they are placed in unjust situations. They essentially become victims of the malicious machinations of others who feel that they can take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. A result is that some characters are not only able to advance their selfish interests using the law, but there are instances where others are duped into undertaking actions that are illegal, leading to the mental oppression of the individuals involved. The case of the title character in Othello is an essential theme because it involves Othello being duped by Iago into killing his wife because of suspicion of infidelity and jealousy (Myers, 2013). Othello can therefore be considered to have committed a crime because of a moment of madness caused by Iago’s influencing him into breaking the law.

Conclusion

Law is an extremely important part of Shakespearean plays and in most cases, it dominates entire plays. A result of this situation is that it leads to the development of means through which to ensure that there is recognition of the various ways of how law can be both an instrument of good governance as well as that of oppression. The contrasts that are displayed in law show that it is essential for individuals to read Shakespeare with a mind open to the the way that legal matters end up affecting the lives of the characters within the plays. In this way, it becomes possible to make a connection of how Shakespeare is relevant to the lives of individuals in everyday life.

A Small Place by Jamaica Kincaid

Jamaica Kincaid in her novel can be said to be structured into four sections each of which is meant to address the diverse issues concerning the island nation of Antigua. Throughout the novel, one will come to the conclusion that the beauty of Antigua that is described by the author is not what it seems. This, it can be argued, is due to the fact that while the island may be full of beauty, it is also ridden with a corruption so great that it has become an integral part of the society. It can further be argued that the main them of the novel is corruption, which is so rife in the Antiguan society that it has led to its underdevelopment. Kincaid describes the beauty of Antigua and makes a sharp contrast of this beauty to the harsh realities which plague this island. When one considers the argument to support this view of her country, one comes to the conclusion that it is all indeed true. One of the arguments that Kincaid makes in support of her argument that Antigua is a corrupt society is based on the fact that while the island has many expensive Japanese vehicles, most of them seem not to be working properly (Kincaid, 7). She further makes the observation of there being various mansions all over the islands, most of which were gained through illicit means. The corruption in the government is so bad that ten years after an earthquake, the public library that was damaged in the event has yet to be repaired. The example of the library’s dilapidated nature, it can be argued, is a symbol of the moral and ethical corruption that is prevalent in Antiguan society.

It can be argued that Kincaid, in her novel, is against tourism as it is packaged by the government and businesses of Antigua because of its insincere depiction of life on the island. While tourists are only shown the beautiful aspects of Antigua, they are not normally shown what has come to be the reality among most of the people on the island; that they are living in deplorable conditions because of the mismanagement of their economy. Kincaid’s arguments seem to be overly critical of the government and all of those who are involved in it, because of their massive corruption which has led to the destruction of the country. In the novel, there is even speculation concerning whether the colonial day may have been better than the present, where everything seems to be going wrong. It can be argued that Kincaid looks upon the government and the people of Antigua in general as being too complacent and accepting of the moral ugliness that it taking place in society, slowly destroying it. In addition to this, Kincaid seems to be highly critical of the culture that the people on the island seem to be practicing and this is because of the fact that most of them practice English culture, which is not their original culture (Kincaid, 12). While the people of the island hated the English treatment of them during the colonial period, they seem to have gone against all logic by abandoning or creating their own culture and have instead adopted the culture of their former oppressors. The latter argument seems to be highly critical of the people of Antigua because it seems to show their feeling of inferiority towards the English despite their resentment towards their treatment of them. It seems that Kincaid is attempting to display the irony that exists in Antiguan society, that while the people hate the oppressor, they love the oppressor’s culture.

Among the most prominent issues that are discussed in the novel is concerning the library, which, despite the ability of the wealthy members of the Mill Reef Club to fix it, they choose not to do it. They instead demand that the library be rebuilt first before they can offer any assistance of their own. It can be argued that the Mill Reef Club, being an all-white establishment does not consider the current state of affairs in the country, being out of their control, to be undesirable, and that they are only being nostalgic for the colonial days, when they were the ruling class of Antigua (Kincaid, 24). The neglect of the library is also a sign, it can be argued, of the state of affairs of the education sector of the country since it has also come to suffer a lot of neglect from the government. Books, it is well known, are the means through which culture is preserved and the fact that the minister of culture has allowed the library to remain as it is ten years after the earthquake is deplorable. In fact, an argument can be made that the minister of culture, despite holding onto a ministry responsible for the cultural development of Antigua does not seem to know what he is doing. In fact, it can be said that he is only in his position because of the pay as well as the prestige that goes with it, not knowing exactly what his docket stands for. It can also be argued that this is a testament of the corruption in government that has made it possible for the development of a lack of the preservation of Antiguan culture in favour of others.

In conclusion, it can be said that Kincaid makes many pertinent arguments concerning culture in the Antiguan society, and how it has come to be affected by the government as well as the people themselves. The depiction of the government in the novel is highly unfavourable because of the fact that many of the government officials seem to be extremely corrupt and because of this, they have made Antigua to be an underdeveloped country. The neglect of the library, which has been given a lot of prominence in the novel, can be said to be a symbol of the destruction of the culture of Antigua in favour of the English culture, which has created a situation of cultural loss within its population. It can therefore be concluded that Kincaid’s novel is about the loss Antiguan culture and the need to maintain this culture for future generations.

Analysis: Persuasion by Jane Austen

Restored hope for Fredrick

In the novel Persuasion, Jane Austen attempt to consider the various aspects of influence that family and friends might pressure an individual into making decisions that are not good for him or her. This is exactly what happens in the novel, where Anne is persuaded by her friend, Lady Russell, her father, and the older sister to break off her engagement to Frederick, who is a clever and ambitious young man, but with no personal fortune. As a result of this, the two go their separate ways and it is only after some eight years that the two meet again (Austen, 12). The fact that neither of them is married is a testament of the love that they share; despite the fact that circumstances have changed for Frederick, who is now an eligible bachelor with plenty of wealth. While Anne regrets her decision to break off their engagement, Frederick, on the other hand, still hurting from her rejection, does his best to ignore her through his not allowing any personal contact with Anne (Fitzpatrick Hanly, 1001). The return of Frederick into her life seems to secretly restore Anne’s hope that they would get back together and she often feels hurt from the way he treats her as well as his attention towards other younger women of her social circle.

Determined to move on and make a new life

When the Crofts rent out her family home because of the debts that Walter, Anne’s father, sustains due to his lavish lifestyle, Anne chooses to live with her own life and completely ignore Frederick’s cold treatment of her. She avoids Frederick as much as possible determined that it is best for her to do so as she has no further hope of having him as a husband; not after her rejection (Austen, 24). This creates a situation where, despite the pain that she is feeling, she keeps on living her own life, even going to the extent of joining her father and her older sister in Bath, despite their low opinion of her. Her determination to move on and make a new life for herself is rewarded through her making the acquaintance of her estranged cousin, William, who develops an interest in her not just as family, but also as a woman (Vandersluis, 88). This helps Anne to come out of her shell and enables her to regain her pride not only in her womanhood, but also in her beauty, of which until William came into her life, she had not been confident.

Making her own decisions

The fact that she chooses to avoid any association with Frederick is the first important decision that she makes on her own as this enables her to think clearly about her life and future. Because of her consequent choices, she is able to regain some pride in herself, which she had lost during her period of separation from Frederick. Since she is able to make her own decision, her life opens up to new possibilities, and not dominated by her feelings of regret concerning her rejection of Frederick through breaking of their engagement. This circumstance enables her to begin her association with her cousin, William, but while the two of them would have made a perfect couple, she chooses not to accept his suit, because she has no feelings for him.

The Grimm Fairy Tales

When on reads the Grimm Fairy Tales, one comes to the conclusion that Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm are attempting to express their feelings about the world and the contradictions that exist within it. This collection of stories reveal the irony of living the human life as well as those of other creatures, some being happy with their lot in life while others remain sad due to their poverty as well as the tragic events that happen in their lives. The Grimm brothers use their stories to display the true nature of human beings; that nothing is ever permanent and that changes occur once in a while. Throughout their stories, one comes to the realization that there is the extensive use of imagery, symbolism, figurative language, style and tone in relation to the development of the themes involved.

The use of imagery is very extensive in throughout the Grimm Fairy Tales especially when making contrasts between the beauty of the world and the ugliness which is contained within it. This can be seen when, in Tom Thumb, the two men, not caring that their offer to buy Tom from his father would end up separating them. In fact, their only concern seems to be able to make a lot of money using Tom and they do not care at all concerning the feeling of alienation that they would be subjecting him to. The image of Tom as a tiny individual is used to show just how much individuals look down upon the less privileged individuals in society and how they make every attempt to exploit these people. It can be said that the image of Tom Thumb as a little fellow shows that despite his size, he is able to survive in a world that is hostile to his existence as Tom uses his wits to ensure that he is able to survive within it. This image may also be used to show the price which human beings have to pay because of their greed as well as their unthinking ambitions, and this instance can also be perceived in Hans in Luck. The image that is presented of Hans attempting to make his life better as well as to have something useful shows how human ambitions can at times be detrimental instead of helpful because he ends up losing all of his wages as well as all that he attained through barter. While this is the case, in most of the Grimm Fairy Tales, the image of happiness is continuously displayed with very few instances where there is any form of sadness, showing that most of these stories were written for the purpose of entertaining children.

Symbolism is a major style used in the development of the theme of the Grimm Fairy Tales and an excellent example of this, is in The Fisherman and His Wife, where the wife, despite having everything wants more; a symbol of her greed. The fact that she continues to demand more from her husband despite having everything that she needs can be considered to be symbolic of human nature, where we are never satisfied with what we have but continue to aspire for more. In addition, in the story Old Sultan, Sultan the dog can be considered to symbolize unwavering loyalty because despite the favor which the wolf did him in saving his life, Sultan decided to bark at the wolf whenever he comes to steal his master’s sheep. Furthermore, the fight between domestic animals and wild animals in this story shows that despite the poor treatment that the former receive from their masters, they are extremely loyal, while the latter are very cowardly creatures.

The Grimm brothers use figurative language to depict the contrasting characteristics of the characters that they depict in their stories, and a good example of this is that of the talking wolf in Tom Thumb which is an oxymoron used to depict the possible unique ability of Tom to communicate with animals. It is well known that wolves do not have human speech and the Grimm brothers depicting it as talking clearly shows the contrast in a situation where it would normally be impossible for normal conversation to take place. Figurative language can be seen all over the Grimm Fairy Tales and it is used to express the points or instances which can be considered to be the most important in the stories.

The tone of the stories can be considered to range from either being neutral to ironical. This is because of the contrast which the Grimm brothers attempt to make between the different characters in their stories, often depicting extreme good and extreme evil. The tone of the stories can be said to show that the world is a very beautiful place to be born into if one does not mind there not being any happiness all the time. The tone in these stories can be said to bring about quite a number of ironical scenarios, where an environment which is described as being beautiful is infested with evil people such as the thieves in Tom Thumb. In addition, the tone of the stories, such as that of The Elves and the Shoemaker, displays the advantages of doing good because eventually, these good acts are going to be rewarded. It can further be said that the tone of the stories depict the true feelings of their writers about the world and how the situation within it affects the different people living in it. The irony in the stories, such as The Fisherman and his Wife, helps to deliver the writers’ message to the reader as well as fostering an understanding of the subject matter involved.

In conclusion, the use of imagery, symbolism and figurative language in these stories greatly contributes to a greater understanding of the stories. They create situations which are familiar to the reader and they allow him to decipher the true meaning of what the stories is saying. Despite what many people who read it may think, they are not the kind of stories to be taken lightly because they are full of lessons. Instead, they have many lessons to give about the reality of human life in the world and the main message which can be made out of it is that there is not guarantee of happiness in the world and that we should live in it as best as we can.

Comparison of Brave New World and 1984

When one makes a study of Brave New World and 1984, one will come to the conclusion that both of these books are political satires which deal with the issues concerning the suppression of human nature in favor of one which is based on absolute control. One would say that both of these books depict the future world as a dreary place within which to live because the means through which the hums society interacts within them is very different from what is the case today. The interaction between human beings has traditionally been the means of transmitting knowledge from one generation to another, but this is not the case because in these societies, the fact that humans are able to interact does not mean that they learn anything from one another. A common depiction of these books is based on the belief that there will be less human interaction in the future, and this is seen in Brave New World, where because of a lack of serious human relationships, such as family, the issues are traditionally discussed more deeply do not take place and instead, there develops a type of society that is socially stagnant. While in the current world, the individuals get to have a better understanding of the issues being discussed because of regular interaction, in Brave New World, the opposite turns out to be true because of the fact that human beings, during the future age, are not conditioned to act independently of each other.

The events which are described in Brave New World, such as the establishment of a breeding program involving different castes of human beings, is not similar to those in 1984. This is because of the fact that in the latter, human beings, while being dominated by a single party whose purpose is to have absolute control of the society, has not made any attempt to alter humans physically. The main procedure used in gaining the absolute control and devotion among human beings is through the rewriting in history so that it is in the favor of the ruling party’s policies and objectives. Because the sources of history in the state described in 1984, known as Oceania, are either vague or scarce in content, it creates a situation where individuals get only a shallow understanding of the subject matter. In 1984, it is seen that because of the destruction of history, knowledge has become static, not being able to grow as it should. In both of these books, those people who possess knowledge or items that contain knowledge of the independent human nature of the past are completely ostracized from society or are put to death because of their perceived threat to the societal order. This makes it extremely difficult for knowledge to be transmitted and the lack of this knowledge has made the people in the societies described in the books disillusioned with life. This is especially true in Brave New World, where individuals have been conditioned by the ruling elite, to consume a drug known as soma, which is a hallucinogen used to ensure that they do not worry about their troubles.

The theme of control is prevalent in both Brave New World and 1984, and this is based on the need for the ruling elite to retain their power in what they consider to be the ideal state. Apart from working towards the destruction of all knowledge that concerns the past of human beings, they also adopt diverse methods to ensure that they have absolute control over the human society so that there are no rebellions. In Brave New World, there develops a caste system where human beings are no longer born in the natural way and are instead developed in laboratories. These are altered during their development so that they can best suit the purposes of the different castes to which they are assigned, with the higher castes being developed with such characteristics as intelligence while the lower castes are purposely given less intelligence so that they can work towards serving the interests of the higher castes. Because of their synthetic development, the lower castes of the society, who form the majority of the population in Brave New World, is not equipped to deal with the issues of day to day life and they have instead become artificial. It is possible that when Aldous Huxley was writing his book, he felt that the latter was the likely scenario that would face the world if there were no sources of human history from which people could get the knowledge and wisdom that they could use to make their lives more meaningful. In addition, it is possible that he believed that the intellectual development of the human race would be brought to a standstill because intelligent thought is often found in those instruments that perpetuate human history.

In 1984, on the other hand, there has developed a thought police whose purpose is to ensure that any material that individuals possess that might threaten the ruling order are apprehended and sentenced to death. The need for the party’s survival has created a situation where children in Oceania are indoctrinated with the need to spy on everyone who might possibly have any information that threatens the regime. This indoctrination is so great that these children end up also spying on and surrendering their own parents to the though police if the latter indeed have any dissenting material. In this way, children have become the means through which the government spies on its citizens and this is a sign that the normal traditional values of family loyalty have been destroyed, leaving behind a situation where there is no loyalty between individuals and families in the society. Independent thought has greatly been encouraged through the study of human history and this has ensured the development of new ideas. Because of this, the governments in both 1984 and Brave New World have ensured that this ability has been immensely diminished. These governments have come to realize that it is only through the study of old ideas that new ideas are developed and this has led to their destruction of material that may contain information that may be a threat to them.

In conclusion, as seen in both books, despite the large reserves of information that can lead to the further development of the human race, the ruling elite has chosen to destroy such information, perceiving it as a threat. In both of these books, the information provided by these governments do not have the qualities which the original sources of information have because most of the information gotten from the sources that are approved are often instant and shallow. These governments do not allow individuals to contemplate on the information which they read and this ensures that they do not have independent thought. The lack of independent thought due to the absence of knowledge has come to put the human race into a dark age of intellectual stagnation, as seen in these two works. When one reads these books, one comes to the conclusion that the ability to think through the learning of the previous work of others is what has helped the advancement of the human race. The inability to think and the reliance on shallow sources of information such as the internet is likely to see the end of the world as we know it. Human beings learn about their past from books and with this knowledge, the take action to avoid the mistakes of their past. Therefore, without adequate knowledge, the human race will probably end up destroying itself because it will not have the ability to learn from its past.

Things Fall Apart - Achebe's Criticism of Pre-Colonial Igbo Culture

Things Fall Apart is the story of a society at a crossroads between the traditional way of life, and modernity, as represented by the coming of the white man and the colonial government. It is the story of Okonkwo, the main character, who struggles to attain his position in society and once he achieves it, this position comes to be threatened by the coming of the colonial government. In writing this novel, Chinua Achebe seems to be criticizing some of the traditional ways of the Igbo society through the various characters that are encountered in the novel. Among the things which Achebe looks at are; the killing of hostages for in exchange for a life taken; the definition of masculinity; and finally, the violence displayed by some of the men in Igbo society.

Among the most prominent of the characters in this novel is Okonkwo, whose personality can be said to be thoroughly masculine and who is used as an example from which all the other men in Umuofia are defined. There are instances throughout the novel where Okonkwo is described as doing things which one would associate with masculinity. He is extremely hardworking and ambitious, whose aim is to build his reputation to the highest level that can be attained in his society. While this is the case, he seems to have an extremely difficult relationship with his son, Nwoye, whom he believes not to be manly enough. Okonkwo is, throughout the novel, seen to treat his son quite harshly, even in very trivial situations. This creates a situation where the relationship between these two is extremely strained and there is a rift between them that cannot be filled. As a result, Nwoye eventually chooses to leave his father’s home and join the missionaries, where he eventually comes to find peace. In this case, Achebe seems to be criticizing the aloof nature of Okonkwo in raising his son, believing that if he shows any affection for Nwoye, then the boy will end up being weak and effeminate.

Achebe criticizes the Igbo practice of killing of hostages from another village in revenge in a situation where a person from the said village has taken a life. He uses the case of Ikemefuna to show his disapproval since this boy was brought to Umuofia as a hostage, where he was put in the charge of Okonkwo. Ikemefuna becomes a part of Okonkwo’s household and is, in fact, treated as an older brother by the latter’s children. However, there comes a time when the Oracle declares that Ikemefuna, has to be put to death in revenge for the killing of an Umuofian years earlier. Okonkwo is the one who gives the deathblow with his matchet despite the fact that he had grown extremely fond of the boy. He kills Ikemefuna not because he has to, but because of the fact that he does not want to be seen as weak by his peers. Okonkwo later feels disturbed by this action and goes to speak to his best friend Obierika, who, ever the voice of reason in the novel, tells him that he should not have participated in the killing of Ikemefuna. Obierika further reveals that he himself did not participate in the putting to death of Ikemefuna, and this can be said to be Achebe’s way of showing his disapproval of the practice.

In Things Fall Apart, violence and a quick temper are associated with masculinity and it is something which is associated to all the men within the society. The most prominent of these is Okonkwo, who, despite his being a kindhearted man; he displays his manly authority by ruling his household with a heavy hand, often beating his wives whenever they do anything to offend him. He is also seen to have a particularly bad temper as seen when he almost shoots Ekwefi after she insults his pride. In addition, whereas the other men of Unuofia choose to submit to colonial rule, Okonkwo chooses to retain the past ideals of his society by remaining violent. This eventually leads to a point when he hacks a colonial officer to death with a machete, thinking that this will lead to the men of Umuofia rising against colonial rule. When this does not happen, he realizes that his way of life is gone, and as a result, hangs himself. In this case, Achebe displays his disapproval of the violent ways of the Igbo culture and how such violence might lead to the destruction of the people.