Prove cathartic Essays

Prove cathartic Essays Prove cathartic Paper Prove cathartic Paper Aristotle wrote in Poetics that tragedy should contain incidents arousing pity and fear and thus prove cathartic for an audience. To what extent does the plot of Arthur Millers play, All My Sons allow for this? Arthur Miller (1915-2005) in All My Sons (1947), journeys the key concept of catharsis through the intricate character of Joe Keller; our tragic hero and his hubris flaw, the concept of Hamartia, the generating of pathos through language and most importantly the formula of tragedy, described by Aristotle, bringing about catharsis. All My Sons starts at the end of summer in suburban America, after World War Two. The events of the play, described by Miller, occur on a single set, the backyard of the Keller home, a secluded atmosphere, considerably the American Dream. Furthermore there stands the stump of an apple tree, as its trunk and branches lie toppled beside it1. Miller here, emotionally engages us into the play with the use of pathetic fallacy, increasing our emotions by building tension and giving opportunity to the futures of tragedy. The audience no longer feel safe behind the American Dream but instead are presented with a faade of respect, somewhere much sinister , preparing the audience for the upcoming tragedy. Miller uses this same technique again when Joe Keller, our protagonist, notifies: Gonna rain tonight. 2 Miller builds fear in the audience, suggesting something unpleasant about to happen. Nevertheless as the audience learn more about Joe Keller, we see that he is an ego-centric man, whose mental attitude does not go beyond his own sphere. Where society is dysfunctional, Kellers choice simply remains to ignore them and their changing platforms: heres a guy is lookin for two Newfoundland dogs. Now whats he want with two Newfoundland dogs? . The audience in turn pity for Kellers character, understanding his lack of knowledge in relation to the macrocosm therefore leading us towards what may be a cathartic experience. Perhaps different audiences react differently to Keller as a character. It is debatable that Keller does not understand the subtleties of life because he is lazy, selfish and his outlook is materialistic, therefore perchance building exasperation in the audience and receiving no compassion. Or perhaps as an audience we become harsh and forget to realise that Joe Keller is financially comfortable. But beyond this the audience still pity Kellers inertia as he struggles to move on. Similarly Kate Keller cannot move beyond the inertia she is trapped within. She is in denial about Larrys death which has driven her to spirituality, her emotional crutch: Hes not dead, so theres no argument! 4 This makes the audience pity her sub-conscious state and empathise with her hope for Larrys return. It could be argued as to what extent we can cope with her denial and her rejection of reality. Progression sees Miller introduce us to the bliss of hope, this is important to the cathartic journey, as we hope for some re-alignment of morality or achievement of justice. Hope is first presented through Frank Lubey, a superstitious character, who brings us closer towards catharsis through the melancholic life he lives and the hope he brings within the play for fellow characters, besides the hope the audience already bear: (Looks up at the sky) These stage directions are evidence of Franks hope and transcendence into a world of his own. Nevertheless, Chris Keller is a warm man who cares for his father and becomes Millers mouthpiece in demonstrating the world beyond the Keller home. He strives for independence and security but constantly gets held back from his parents and is put into an inertia of his own: every time I reach out for something I want, I have to pull back because other people will suffer. 5 This is part of Millers plot where pathos allows the audience to feel emotions of pity evoked by Chriss helplessness and thus prove cathartic. The audience also fear as to what step Chris might take in the future because of his suffering: Ill get out. Ill get married and live some place else. Maybe in New York. 6 The audience also empathise with Chris, as the family secret prevents him from breaking free and therefore the audience hope for Chris life to be re-aligned and end happily with his marriage to Ann. However this news arouses trepidation in the audience and characters because they do not understand as to how Kate might react because of her fragile state and her stubborn will. This is evident through Kellers dialogue and Millers apprehensive language: Well, you want to be sure Mother isnt going to -7. At the very end of Act One the audience are left feeling a strong sense of fear for Joe Keller when he is made aware of George Deevers return. The audience understand Kellers vulnerability and his lack in understanding the complexities of life therefore he sees no harm in Georges return, but is it debateable as to whether Keller might know how much of a risk it could be on a sub-conscious level and as to what George might be here for? Miller has made this is evident through the stage directions, exemplifying the fear: (frightened, but angry): Yes, Im sure. The fear left with the audience to experience at the end of Act One becomes pivotal in the role of experiencing catharsis. Miller has instantaneously given us the opportunity to empathise with the characters and in turn fear for them thus we are given a sense of foreboding, vital for ultimately experiencing catharsis in any tragedy. In the opening stage directions of Act Two Miller, again, uses pathetic fallacy to suggest the progression in the plot and perhaps the catastrophe still to come suggested metaphorically by Miller: leaving stump standing alone 9 Though as the play progresses a growing sense of anxiety is created in the audience by Miller. We can see this through Sue Bayliss a character chosen by Miller to represent the wider community. This lets the audience fear even more for Joe Keller as a character because it becomes apparent that not everybody overlooks his guilt: Theres not a person on the block who doesnt know the truth. 10 In Act Two Miller finally decides to present a rush of emotions which soon psychologically engage the audience as well as the characters Chris, Ann and George. Millers use of short, forceful sentences build tension and anxiety in the audience that we soon become eager to reach some sort of resolution, where inner peace can be found. This is witnessed through Georges dialogue and we soon learn to identify with Georges character because we recognize his impatience to reach a cathartic ending: But the morning passed. No sign of Joe. So Dad called again. 11 Georges transcendental state also suggests trouble constructing an impression of fear upon the audience: (Calling as George pays no attention ). Considering Georges character we could deduce that he is a caricature used by Miller to start the tragedy and thus the journey to catharsis. After the anxiety we experience, Kates sudden entrance to the involvement of catharsis builds tension and hope for resolution. But then Miller entraps us into a network of terror once more when Kate slips her tongue disproving Kellers alibi, this brings hope for Chris and George as we, the audience, hope that they will find out the truth and move on out of the inertia: He hasnt been laid up in fifteen years.

Campaign 2000.

Campaign 2000. Campaign 2000Democratic candidate Al Gore should have defeated republican candidate George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential election, but failed because of a weak campaign. Al Gore's political experience and vast knowledge of America's economy should have given him a commanding lead in the election. Gore's campaign did not show his positive qualities to the public causing American voters to favor Bush during the election.Gore is a consistent man, yet his campaign focused primarily on being liked and accepted by the American public while Bush's campaign portrayed his knowledge on current issues to the public. Both candidates had different views on the major issues affecting America today. Al Gore opposes outlawing abortions while Bush is in favor of outlawing it. Gore and Bush both had different opinions on education. The Quinnipiac polls reported that the public opinion on which candidate would do a better job on education was fifty-three percent Gore as opposed to the thirty-seven p ercent favoring Bush.Florida Supreme Court Building, Tallahassee, Flori...During the 2000 presidential election Gore won the Popular Vote 50,996,862 to 50,456,062 but lost the Electoral Vote 267 to 271. Controversy arose throughout the United States due to a large number of ballots that were not counted in the state of Florida. The United States Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to have a recount and they decided to choose a winner. Since the electoral votes have such a drastic effect on the outcome of the election, Gore's win in the popular vote did not matter.Al Gore should have won the 2000 Presidential election but did not leave a good lasting impression on the public as to the difference he can make in America. Gore's views should have been the key focus of his campaign since many American's share his same beliefs. The minor mistakes...

Understanding Christianity from an Aristotelian point of view Essay

Understanding Christianity from an Aristotelian point of view - Essay Example This paper will compare and contrast the characterization of God in the Summa Theologica and the neo-Platonist view. Both the summa theological and neo-Platonism account for the existence of a superior being or God. In the summa theological, Aquinas advances arguments that seek to establish and prove God’s existence (Brian 22). Aquinas states that there is a God simply because the world itself needs him as an explanation. The first part of the Summa Theologica concludes by Aquinas quipping that God cannot fail to exist. Aquinas proposes that the world cannot function with such efficiency without a grand architect who is God (Edward & Aquinas 39). The smoothness with which the world functions cannot be created by chance but must be the product of God’s work. Aquinas in his first three arguments aims at explaining the existence of God by accounting for the change in the physical world, the presence of the physical world, and existence in itself. Neo-Platonism also accepts the existence of the one who is infinite (Albert 30). The one gets painted as the source of life and the sole cause of the only real existence. The one is the source of all life. The one is beyond all forms of being. The one gets portrayed as the most reality and a source of less real things. The one is a divine power that is complete and self-sufficient (Remes 132). The Summa Theologica and neo-Platonism acknowledge the existence of a superior being who is all-knowing. The summa theological derives its characterization of God from an Aristotelian point of view (Brian 103). The neo-platonic conception of the one gets derived from Plato’s teachings. The Summa Theologica rejects the idea of the neo-Platonists that knowledge of the Supreme Being gets based on ideas and forms that exist in the mind (Aquinas & Edward 93). Aquinas disputes Plato’s view that knowledge gets derived from the mind alone. He suggests that knowledge gets derived from the soul which has intellect in its composition. He argues against Plato’s view by suggesting that if knowledge only got derived from the mind alone, then the soul would be of no use to the body. Aquinas affirms the need for the body in the acquisition of knowledge and rejects the theory of innate ideas forwarded by the Platonists (Brian 74). Neo-Platonists argue that the knowledge of the one gets contemplated by the mind, which generates ideas and forms (Remes 100). By generation of ideas and forms, the knowledge about the one gets divided and multiplied. The knowledge about the one gets transcended into the physical world through the world soul. The world soul according to the neo-Platonists is separate from the individual human souls (Albert 145). Summa Theologica differs with neo-platonic concepts on the basis of how the knowledge of God gets inferred to human beings. Both the Summa Theologica and the neo-platonic concepts on the characterization of God agree that the mind assists in the acquisition of knowledge. The mind acquires knowledge about God by creating images. Aquinas refers to these images as ‘phantasms’ in the Summa Theologica (Aquinas & Edward 123). Aquinas argues that the mental images about God get based on sensual experience, and this creates universal ideas and principles.