Recommended: Virgil and homer underworld
Since this was a timed essay I made a lot of mistakes, and it was also very difficult to revise
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
In Crito, a play by Plato, Socrates and Crito deliberate about the justifications of breaking out of prison. Crito provides numerous evidences that should appeal to Socrates emotional side by bringing up his friends and family, however, Socrates maintains his composure. Instead he contributes a logical and concise argument to act justly by staying in prison and accepts his punishment for ‘corrupting the youth’, among other things. I believe that Socrates argument is most effective due to his content, which is filled with logic and reasoning to prove his premises, as well as his style; not filled with flare and insignificant common phrases. Socrates most effective strategy is his use of logos, he always uses rationale and logic to decide his next point or explain his most recent assertion.
Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure.
Socrates and Euthyphro meet at the Agora, and begin discussing what brings them to the king-archons court. Euthyphro begins telling Socrates, that he is bringing a case against his father who murdered a servant. Socrates is astounded that Euthyphro is bringing an indictment against his father, and asks for wisdom concerning a statement of piety so that he may fight his own accusations impiety. Euthyphro first proposes that “What is dear to the gods is pious, what is not is impious.”
In William Shakespeare’s tragedy Julius Caesar, Mark Antony uses rhetorical devices such as paralipsis, rhetorical questions, and verbal irony in his speech to the plebeians in order to plot them against the conspirators. During his speech to the plebians, Antony uses paralipsis in order to kindle curiosity and interest in the audience. Antony mentions to the plebians that he had Caesar’s will with him but tells them, “Have patience, gentle friends, I must not read it; It is not meet you know how much Caesar loved you” (3.2.152-153). By drawing attention to Caesar’s will, something Antony desperately wants to show the plebeians, but then dismissing the idea of reading it, Antony uses a type of verbal irony called paralipsis. Antony is aware that the contents
In Dante’s Inferno, the character of Virgil acts as a guide through Hell and Purgatory. In addition to this, it is almost universally agreed that Virgil is a depiction of the full extent of human intellect and that he also acts as a microcosm of how a good government should act. There are many reasons for this belief, such as how helpful he is throughout the two books he is in and where he is located in hell. The author Dante does something extra with Virgil and the character Dante though. Virgil is a representation of the Empire like Rome that Dante wanted to be established, and his relationship with Dante is a microcosm of the Church and the State.
Socrates’ Arguments in the Crito In The Crito, Socrates argues that he should not escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He says that the really important thing is not to live but to live well. Therefore, by escaping prison, not only will he suffer the consequences but also his family, his friends, and the city of Athens. Socrates argues that the city of Athens would be affected if he escapes from prison.
When the poet Virgil wrote the national epic The Aeneid between 29 and 19 BC, all written works and conduits for creative expression were monitored by Roman ruler Augustus Caesar – a real-life contention between passion and control. Throughout the excerpt on pages 139 and 140 of Fagle’s translation (which covers themes such as fate, the gods, and divine intervention, and piety), Virgil explores the underlying theme of conflict between desire and duty, emotion, and reason. Exploring irony, the comparison of Dido and Aeneas’ traits, and pietas being a decision, Virgil shows Aeneas to be a flawed, enigmatic epic Roman hero who personifies the human conflict – passion versus control – of the Aeneid and the Roman empire itself. To begin with, it’s
The Crazy Iliad In life a very good skill to have is to be able to persuade people because it can help out someone in the future of their life situations. This skill is also important when going into war, and persuading people to fight or agree on something someone believes is true. In the Iliad, Homer’s characters’ use persuasion against each other multiple times in the story. The characters in the Iliad mostly use ethos, pathos, and logos when persuading each other to understand what they believe is true.
To be just or to be served an injustice and obey, this is the very basis of the philosophical dialogue between Socrates and Crito. The Crito begins as one of Socrates’ wealthy friends, Crito, offers Socrates a path to freedom—to escape from Athens. Through the ensuing dialogue, Socrates examines, as a man who is bound by principles of justice, whether an unjust verdict should be responded to with injustice. In the dialogue between Socrates and Crito, Socrates outlines his main arguments and principles that prevent him from escaping under such circumstances. Socrates is under guard when Crito visits him, thus the plan to escape.
This makes the argument better because some people would agree that charter schools are a better alternative to public schools and some may think different. 3. This is an effective argument because many presidents were in office in the twentieth century and some people could find another president more charismatic than Ronald Regan. 4. This sentence is not argumentative enough because research can prove
I took the time to write out an outline for this essay to help manage the chaos that is my writing, unlike my other essays for the course. As I said before, I have learned to question the structure of my paragraphs. For example: when I was revising the Composing Process essay, I noticed that a set of paragraphs could be rearranged and partially rewritten to improve the structure and make the essay flow better. However, I would argue that my Justification video assignment demonstrates my assertion better than my revised essays. From the beginning, I laid out a clear path that my Justification video needed to follow.
1. After reviewing the comments that my peers and Ms. Collier gave me, I have noticed what aspects of my essay need work. From Ms. Collier, most of my comments were around the development of my essay. Specifically, I think that to construct and develop a better idea focused around my thesis, I should include a more in depth rebuttal. From my peer reviews, I should work on my analysis more.
I delete the statistic part in my essay because it has been pointed out in office hours that it feel like two essay instead of one. Also, I added more lines to explain why I chose silence since my audience might not be clear about that. Making those changes, I think I’m breaking apart from the 5 paragraphs
