Arthurs Unrealism: Monty Python, Gawain and the Green Knight, and the Destruction of :: Essays Papers

Arthur's Unrealism: Monty Python, Gawain and the Green Knight, and the Destruction of Ideals It may be that ideals are necessary for humanity. Without idealized images, codes of behavior, even idealized objects, mankind would have difficulty functioning. There would be a lack of context or criteria with which to judge objects that may be termed less than ideal. However, the problem with idealized images is that they can never be described fully, and certainly never attained. An example is the contemporary ideal of feminine beauty, which has led to countless problems such as depression and psychological dietary disorders among women who perceive themselves to be "inadequate." The more culturally emphasized an ideal is, the more ordinary people are made to feel inadequate. This has led to a trend common to all centuries, that of puncturing ideals by showing them to be less than what they are supposed to be. In art and literature we see manifestations of this mechanism. It is a protective mechanism in a sense, for it prevents total absorption in the ideal, forcing us to see it for what it is, a benchmark and not a realistic goal. Even in the works where men and women achieve the ideal, it is usually accomplished by supernatural means, for a concomitant of the ideal is that it cannot truly exist in the natural and hence imperfect world. Examples of such mechanisms range from the colloquialism "out of this world" to describe the superlative to the common mythological pattern of the religious leader being the son of a god. One of the most enduring myths in the Western world is that of Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. Regardless of the origins of the tales, the fact is that by the time they had been filtered through a French sensibility and re-exported to England, they were representations of not one but several ideals. Courtly love and chivalry and the various components thereof, such as martial prowess, chastity, bravery, courtesy, and so on, were presented as the chief virtues to aspire to, and the knights as role models. Arthur's eventual fall is precisely because of having failed at some level to fulfill these ideals in his life. The Arthurian cycle shows a sporadic awareness of the impossibility of mere humans fulfilling all the ideals that Arthur and his court represent. The story of Lancelot and Guenevere, Merlin's imprisonment by Nimu‘, and numerous other instances testify to the recognition of this tension between the real and the unrealistic.

Common Intention Essay

Section 149 deals with the 5 or more people as that would account for unlawful assembly here section 34 is not applicable. Section 34 talks about common intention whereas section 149 talks about common object such as the common object have a wider scope. Common intention is if two or more person commits any crime with the same intention and under a prearranged plan, but in common object  it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In section 34 Participation of the people in crime is an important aspect, even standing people who indirectly help in commissioning of crime are also prosecuted. But in Section 149 mere membership of the group of an unlawful assembly is sufficient enough for prosecution. Section 34 is substantive evidence and other sections like 302 murder has to be clubbed with it. Section 149 is a constructive crime in itself. Section 34: Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention-  According to Section 34, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. Object of Section 34:-  Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. This section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the individual embers of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of the common intention of all. This section really means that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it individually. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act. Elements of Section 34:  T o attract the application of Section 34, the following conditions must be satisfied:- 1. Some Criminal Act: –  Ã¢â‚¬ËœCriminal act’ used in section 34 does not refer to individual acts where a crime is committed by a group of persons. Where a crime is committed by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all of them, each of them doing some act, similar or diverse, big or small shall be liable for that act. ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ used in section 34 which means the unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which an individual would be punishable if it were all done by himself alone in an offence. . Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: –  The criminal act in question must have been done by several persons i. e. by more than one person. The number of wrong doers should be at least two. Most importantly, if the criminal act was fresh and independent act springing wholly from the mind of the doer, the others are not liable merely because when it was done they were intending to b e partakers with the doer in a different criminal act. 3.

Letter to the Editor about Arthur Schopenhauer Essay

Dear Sir,  Your editorial on the correctness and practicality of Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy in our everyday lives was well very well-written. In it, you have made clear the main elements of Schopenhauer’s philosophy: that existence, far from harmonious, is actually full of conflict, that the will – the innermost essence of every man – is irrational and nothing but a blind impulse toward existence, and that happiness cannot be attained by humankind because the will necessitates suffering (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 42). To solve the problem of existence, you proposed what Schopenhauer himself suggested, and that is the negation of the will as much as possible. This is similar to what Buddhists do in their denial of man’s desires. Thus, like Schopenhauer, you propose everyone should try to rid themselves of their will to attain Nirvana. Sir, as much as I intellectually enjoyed your exposition of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, I would have to disagree with you both. I think that the will should not be denied because it does not necessarily lead to suffering. Instead, suffering must be overcome by changing those who are willing. These refutations are based on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, whose thought I think has more practical applications in life than Schopenhauer’s. Nietzsche greatly admired Schopenhauer because of the wisdom that allowed him to break with the optimism of the Western philosophical tradition which followed Friedrich Hegel. However, Nietzsche’s philosophy developed into a complete and utter refutation of Schopenhauer’s, which he deemed wrong and I deem wrong. For Nietzsche, pessimism was good, as long as it is not the â€Å"weak pessimism† that Schopenhauer adopted (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 44). This kind of pessimism is uncreative and negative and would simply lead men to living lives based on nothingness. What Schopenhauer did was merely to replace Kant’s transcendental world of reason with the will but the basic approach did not change (Strong, 1988, p. 227). I would even venture to say that Schopenhauer’s suggestion when it comes to living life is far more absurd than that of Kant. For while Kant instructed us to use reason in everything we do, Schopenhauer would rather us erase our will – something which is virtually impossible since the will cannot be completely destroyed. It is easy to point out what Schopenhauer’s biggest mistake was in terms of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche’s concept of the master and slave morality draws a line between self-affirming values and self-denying values. The master morality consisting of self-affirming values of selfishness and absolute individualism will lead to the creation of the ideal Superman who will be perfect in mind and body (Mencken, 2003, p. 64-65). On the other hand, self-denying values, which are mainly perpetuated by Christianity, will lead to man’s ruin. Schopenhauer, with his belief that the will should be negated because it necessarily leads to suffering, clearly adopted a slavish attitude toward life. The danger with following Schopenhauer is that his philosophy was a direct result of his own slavish nature, and thus, men would suffer more and perish if they followed it. Schopenhauer took his own psyche and prescribed it to everyone without thinking that his will was not shared by the entire world. Thus, said Nietzsche, people should not be forced to say that â€Å"the world is Schopenhauer writ large (Strong, 1988, p. 227).†   Schopenhauer is also wrong when he said that happiness is impossible for it is nothing but a form of pain and a brief cessation of desire (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). From my own experience, I could definitely say that I have experienced happiness and though it did not last forever, the feeling was not a negative one. It also doesn’t make sense to me why a person would want to move away from happiness simply because it is fleeting. Again, Nietzsche has a better opinion on happiness because to him, happiness is a function of power. Whatever increases power is good and feels good. Therefore, happiness is power and to attain happiness, men should strive to be powerful. The path to happiness is not denying the will but to change those who are willing. Instead of negating the will or curbing our desires, men must always act for the benefit of the generations to be born after him, according to Nietzsche. By practicing life-affirming values, the instinct to apply the will to power becomes sharper. Generations of putting the master morality into practice and getting rid of slavish beliefs would eventually lead to the formation of a new society of supermen with perfected instincts (Mencken, 2003, p. 67). For me, this goal is clearly far superior, more positive and beneficial to humankind than what Schopenhauer proposed. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is basically that of resignation and negation. His ways to achieve the abolishment of the will should inspire revulsion in someone who loves life. Schopenhauer said that the will could be destroyed through timeless contemplation such as what artists do, and by living a life of an ascetic (Nietzsche, 2006, p.11). Nirvana is the ultimate goal of these lifestyles, which is supposed to be a state of perfect nothingness and peace. Schopenhauer defended his view by saying that this state of nirvana might be nothing to a man who still desires, but to a man who has denied his will, the current world we’re living in â€Å"with all its suns and milky way is nothing (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45).† While Schopenhauer was right when he said there will always be suffering, it does not follow that we should adopt his attitude of resignation and negation. It also does not follow that we must abolish our desires and live as hermits and artists devoid of passion. As Nietzsche said, suffering is not something to destroy for it is a productive power. Instead of escaping suffering and struggle, men must overcome these to cancel out their weaknesses and preserve their strengths (Pfeffer, 1972, p. 45). Clearly, Nietzsche was correct again in this aspect as Schopenhauer was wrong. The answer to creating more powerful, happier selves and society is not to eradicate our desires. Instead, we must assert our individualism and selfishness more strongly, not to create chaos, but to build a better future for the generations after us. Schopenhauer was a great thinker but he allowed his slavish nature took control of his ideas. I have no doubt that following his philosophy would only lead to our ruin. References Mencken, H.L. (2003). The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Tuczon: See Sharp Press. Nietzsche, F. W. (2006). The Nietzsche reader, Volume 10. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Pfeffer, R. (1972). Nietzsche: disciple of Dionysus. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. Strong, T.B. (1988). Friedrich Nietzsche and the politics of transfiguration. Berkeley:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   University of California Press.