The novel The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger describes the narrator, Holden Caulfield, as an adolescent with many interesting views on society. The narrator has a lot of misplaced rages. When Stradlater and Holden were talking about a girl, named Jane, Stradlater went on a date with, after hearing that his friend has certain relations with this girl he got up off the bed and tried to punch him (Salinger 43). When Holden was younger he had known Jane when he was younger there was no justifiable reason for Holden to attack Stradlater. Holden dealt with the situation in a violent manner because he had built up rage from that conversation.
A reader's response of The Most dangerous Game Characterization: The antagonist of the story, General Zaroff, doesn't come in until the 4th page of the story, when his butler answers the door. General Zaroff, invites the protagonist in for a meal, they sit and tell stories, of hunting, something they both have in common, General Zaroff tells stories of his military background. Due to this we can assume he is a round character, a man with military background, who just wants to spend the rest of his life in peace and hunting on his private island, but that is far from the truth. He has the heads of the animals on his wall, from this we can infer that he is a skilled hunter and is proud of it.as the protaginist and Zaroff talk Zaroff tells him
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances?
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28).
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book ll, is about his idea of how people should live a virtuous life. Throughout this book, he explains that humans learn virtue from instructions and we learn virtue from practice too. Virtue is something that is very important because it is a moral habit that results in keeping our moral values. Aristotle believed that nobody is born with virtue, everyone has to work at it daily. After reading Nicomachean ethics, Book ll, my main conclusion of it is that us as humans are better off being virtuous than simply doing what we feel like doing at any moment in time.
Aristotle uses a “two step formula” to explore this concept. The first step is to isolate and determine what human’s distinctive function is. To explore human’s happiness, it is crucial to explore the manifestation of human nature. What makes humans humans? What are the distinctive activities and functions that we perform that brings us goodness and happiness?
Friendship is an important part of the human life that guides human existence that guides how two humans in mutual understanding and relationship relate to each other. Nehamas and Woodruff (1989) provide Aristotle's description of friendship; that is goodwill that is reciprocated. Friendship is a phenomenon that happens every day in life amongst human beings with people falling in and out of friendship. There exist various kinds of friendships that are founded upon various needs, relations, and reasons. The source of the reciprocated goodwill brings the difference between perfect or complete friendships and imperfect or incomplete friendships.
(Aristotle, p. 119). In this statement he is saying that it doesn’t matter of your status in life we all need friends. You can have all the money in the world but it won’t buy you friendship. In this case your personal possessions can’t make you
The main topic of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is eudaimonia, i.e. happiness in the “living well” or “flourishing” sense (terms I will be using interchangeably). In this paper, I will present Aristotle’s view on the role of external goods and fortune for the achievement of happiness. I will argue that he considers them a prerequisite for virtue. Their contribution to happiness is indirect, via the way they affect how we can engage in rational activity according to the relevant virtues. I will then object that this view threatens to make his overall account of happiness incoherent.
According to Aristotle’s writing called, Nicomachean Ethics, all actions performed by humans aim to gain happiness, happiness is the ultimate end, and that happiness is greatly determined by moral and intellectual virtues. However, I will discuss how some believe that his doctrine of the mean lacks the direction of how one achieves equilibrium of the virtues. In addition, I will explain how Aristotle’s ethics, in fact, does give sufficient advice of how a person can live virtuously. Firstly, Aristotle
In Nicomachean Ethics V, Aristotle addresses the many kinds of justice. One justice that Aristotle points out is call, rectificatory justice, which involves voluntary transactions like trade or involuntary transactions like theft. This is settled in court where the judge ensures both parties get equal gains or losses. “The law only looks to the difference made by injury and treats the parties as equals,— since this kind of injustice is an inequality the judge tries to equalize it”(Nicomachean Ethics 87). Aristotle, provides an example of voluntarily buying or selling something, or any other transaction were someone gains something while the other loses or doesn’t gain anything.
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics.
Friendships are complex relationships, but I would agree will Aristotle that there are three broad categories for friendships: utility, pleasure and virtue. However, I do not believe that these categories are mutually exclusive. Instead, I believe that friendships can be categorized into subcategories, where they can have characteristics from both utility and pleasure. The only pure type of friendship is a virtuous one because this is about caring for the other person’s well being, and not about superficial characteristics. Aristotle believes that this is the only type of friendship that can contribute Eudaimonia, and that utility and pleasure friendships are not essential to a person’s personal happiness.
Aristotle argues that friendships are required to meet the conditions needed to live the most fulfilling life. His idea of friendship goes along the basics as ‘getting along with’ such as you would with neighbours or say you and the staff in your local coffee shop. What counts as friendship is goodwill that is directed towards each other. For example, awareness of the relationship and the relationship must be mutual. Looking through Nicomachean Ethics book VIII and IX, this essay will discuss just how this takes place through the interpersonal relationships of Humbert and Haze, Humbert and Dolores, Annabel Leigh and Humbert and Humbert and Valeria from the novel ‘Lolita’ (Vladimir Nabokov, 1955) and the film adaptation (Adrian Lyne, 1997).
In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires
