Cumulative syntax, in sentences complete the main idea at the beginning of a sentence as in Thoreau s examples he uses them to make a point and explain it, add complexity, pull the reader into the passage and build emotion. :
" Our life is like a German Confederacy,(18) made up of petty states, with its boundary forever fluctuating, so that even a German cannot tell you how it is bounded at any moment. "
The purpose of this syntax is to make a statement on how our life is controlled by boundaries we do not control and ever so they are changing. After the main idea , the ideas are added.
"The penny-post is, commonly, an institution through which you seriously offer a man that penny for his thoughts which is so often safely offered in jest. And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper."
The purpose of this syntax is to show what exactly the penny post is, and Thoreau's defines what it is and explains his thoughts on it .
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Friday, November 22, 2013
Time?
Time is what, is it an illusion of your mind? or as in Wikipedia defined: as a dimension in which events can be ordered from the past throughout the present into the future , or the measure of duration and the intervals between?. Define time , how can you define something which can be proven only through theories , so it is impossible to prove it's existence. Matter, object or simply space, everything or every aspect of life is based on time, if there was no "time" your existence is to be questioned , so in fact time is real? or is one individuals pure imagination on what goes on behind closed eyelids. There can be a philosophical or scientifically meaning, but time is a mere creation of humans where to make our lives easier we divide our moments, events and "life" to live in an accordingly manner.Time does not exist but is a overall aspect of life which is created by humans, but it effects all of the universe.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Bertrand Russell - The Happy Life
In the opening paragraph, Bertrand Russell says, "The happy life is to an extraordinary extent the same as the good life?" What does he mean? Is this statement paradoxical?
The word "Happy" means a feeling of pleasure or contentment , the word "Good" means to have an desire or be approved of. It can been seen how these two relate to each other, on the contrary, Bertrand's opening can be translated as "The pleasurable life is to an extraordinary extent the same as the desired life".Basically stating how if individual is happy in his or her life, to that person it is a good life or good for them.If a person is not satisfied with there life, for example if it is filled with riches, jewels and gifts, fame , fortune the "works", it does not mean the person is happy, so Bertrand would not inflict that they have a good life. Russell's point of view , implies if "happy" then to a certain extent you have the "good life" but if literally speaking most people agree the "good life" consists of materialistic things , big house, cars , fame and not as some who believe if not living largely to an extent you can be "happy". No Russell's statement is not Paradoxical, it depends on who is the reader and how he interprets it , the statement is true if your happy you may have maybe not fully but a portion of the good life, good life can mean its enjoyable so to certain extent you can be happy.
What does Russell mean by his claim that "the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world...disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves" (¶2)?
Humans themselves are selfish, and without realizing that, he is stating that even doing good for someone or having an interest in doing good for someone it's through our own personal interest.True, a human wants to help the poor and donate to charity, even if your helping that cause or person, that self satisfaction is from of being selfish this is not a bad thing but Russell is displaying the truth that once you want to do something for someone or in their interest it is for your own personal gain and interest.
The word "Happy" means a feeling of pleasure or contentment , the word "Good" means to have an desire or be approved of. It can been seen how these two relate to each other, on the contrary, Bertrand's opening can be translated as "The pleasurable life is to an extraordinary extent the same as the desired life".Basically stating how if individual is happy in his or her life, to that person it is a good life or good for them.If a person is not satisfied with there life, for example if it is filled with riches, jewels and gifts, fame , fortune the "works", it does not mean the person is happy, so Bertrand would not inflict that they have a good life. Russell's point of view , implies if "happy" then to a certain extent you have the "good life" but if literally speaking most people agree the "good life" consists of materialistic things , big house, cars , fame and not as some who believe if not living largely to an extent you can be "happy". No Russell's statement is not Paradoxical, it depends on who is the reader and how he interprets it , the statement is true if your happy you may have maybe not fully but a portion of the good life, good life can mean its enjoyable so to certain extent you can be happy.
What does Russell mean by his claim that "the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world...disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves" (¶2)?
Humans themselves are selfish, and without realizing that, he is stating that even doing good for someone or having an interest in doing good for someone it's through our own personal interest.True, a human wants to help the poor and donate to charity, even if your helping that cause or person, that self satisfaction is from of being selfish this is not a bad thing but Russell is displaying the truth that once you want to do something for someone or in their interest it is for your own personal gain and interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)