Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? – Arnold Friend Analysis Essay

Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? – Arnold Friend Analysis Essay.

In many religions, the major representation of an evil spirit, ruler of Hell, and rival of God is of course the Devil. His power to distress humans both with physical sickness and with spiritual corruption is inexplicable. However, the idea of a man with such power and knowledge has been used in stories and films alike. In Joyce Carol Oates’ short story, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?” Oates depicts Arnold Friend as the Devil; we can see this through his physical description, strange seduction, and his supernatural knowledge of Connie.

The bodily features of Arnold Friend suggest he is the devil in disguise. During the whole event, Connie recognizes the way Arnold Friend “wobbled in his high boots” (196). She believed that he may have been a drunken stumbling man until she identifies “one of his boots was at a strange angle, it pointed out to the left, but at the ankle” (197). Nevertheless, Connie continues to examine his boots, and comes to the conclusion that “his feet did not go all the way down” (197).

Illustrations of the Devil propose that he walks in a bent manner; legs twisted in a bizarre way, and have feet that angle into goat hooves. A clear reference to the Devil is present in the form of Arnold Friend walking style and appearance of his boots.

Coupled with the physical features, Arnold Friend’s attire implies an extra layer of his disguise. In most stories and films, the Devil is always among us, but in disguise. By dressing as a teenager, he is able to give the impression that they both are relatively the same age, and is able set a common ground with Connie. For instance, Connie enjoyed “the way he dressed, which was the way all of them dressed: tight faded jeans stuffed into black, scuffed boots, a belt pulled his waist and showed how lean he was” (193). Arnold Friend uses this look to gain Connie’s assurance of him. However, Connie seems to pay no attention to it because he appears to look a lot like a common boy.

Equally important is the use of Arnold Friend’s mysterious sunglasses to conceal his identity. The metallic glasses only give off a mirror-like image, but in miniature which Connie felt uncomfortable with “because the glasses made it impossible for her to see just what this boy was looking at” (192). He could have been staring at her figure, behind her, or straight into her spirit. The eyes that were masked behind the glasses were “pale, like holes that were not in black but instead of light” as if he were always wearing his glasses to hide his identity (193). In most stories of the Devil, the use of clothing and accessories to conceal his true identity is used; the same is true in Oates’ story.

Also depicted in stories and films of the Devil, he often uses items of desire against the characters to lure his victims into doing as he pleases. Arnold Friend uses his brightly painted open jalopy as a tool to tempt Connie into going for a ride with him. Connie finds some humor in the written messages, but especially the “DONE BY A CRAZY WOMAN” on the rear fender (192). In fact, she finds every part of his jalopy attractive: its hilarity, its splendor, and its deep mysteriousness. However, the same idea is true with the story of Adam and Eve. The Devil, which is disguised as a snake, used the desire of fruit to persuade Eve to defy God’s wishes.

In fact, if the Devil is going to catch the attention of his victims, he must first speak in a familiar nature to gain their confidence. Arnold Friend uses Connie’s language, which is radio, to sway her assurance. He continues speaking “in a simple lifting voice, exactly as if he were reciting the words to a song,” a way that she can connect with (193). Shortly after, he begins to adopt “the voice of the man of the radio,” it becomes clear that she begins to recognize to tone of his voice (195). Thus, communication through Connie’s language brings more association between her and Arnold Friend.

As a result of gaining his victim’s confidence, the Devil must then flatter them, telling them exactly what they want to hear. Arnold Friend attempts to flatter Connie explaining “I took a special interest in you, such a pretty girl” then reassures her with a smile (193). During, Connie emphasizes how much everyone prefers her sister June over her by stating “If June’s name was mentioned her mother’s tone was approving, and if Connie’s name was mentioned it was disapproving” (191). Arnold Friend hints he wants nothing to do with her sister, “that poor bitch-nothing like you, sweetheart!”, and in a way that is precisely what Connie wants to hear (195). In any case, inquiring that he prefers Connie over her sister or any girl for that manner, Arnold Friend maintains the conversation with her and continues to sway her in his favor.

In addition to the Devil’s bag of tricks, he often knows all there is to know regarding his prey, and his supernatural knowledge begins to tie everything together. Arnold Friend definitely seems to possess such powers, and begins to tell Connie he knows her “name and all about you, lots of things” (193). He starts to specifically describe how her family is “drinking, sitting around” at the barbecue (195). Yet, the way he goes about revealing it to her seems bizarre.

For example, he instigates Connie with the idea that he can visualize by “squinting as if he were staring all the way to town and over to Aunt Tillie’s back yard” (195). In fact, he begins to illustrate “there is your sister in the blue dress, and high heels”, and “your mother’s helping some fat woman with the corn” (195). For this reason, Arnold Friend appears to be a deranged individual, who follows and stalks his subjects, but Oates gives the impression of a great projection of Satan.

All things considered, Oates’ use of Arnold Friend to represent the Devil and preserve an illustration of evil. The shocking tale of a young girl taken away to hell, but not by a man she knows yet by a man who came from no where. This seems like a tale that could be far from reality, but the Devil will for eternity come from hell to collect his souls when life slips into presence of sin.

McMahan, Elizabeth, Robert Funk, and Susan X. Day. Literature and the Writing Process. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall PTR, 2006. 188-99.

Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? – Arnold Friend Analysis Essay

Posted in God

Philosophy of Ernest Nagel from a First Person Essay

Philosophy of Ernest Nagel from a First Person Essay.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God–the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God’s existence that have been put into text.

All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God’s true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this debate probably never will mitigate. Many theologians and academics honestly admit that no matter what any philosopher may assert regarding this topic, whether or not a certain person believes in God’s existence is a question of faith and nothing more.

I am naturally inclined, then, even after reading the heavyweight philosophers of religion, to ponder this pressing issue. After all, what one person may gather out of serious consideration of this problem could totally alter his or her life. Even though I have been raised in the Episcopal Christian faith and have attended church regularly, I have never really taken the time to scrutinize the very existence of a being I have been worshipping for my whole childhood. Reading the famed selections in this course has alerted my attention to the topic, and this major philosophical problem continues to eschew my understanding.

One would think that, because I have been raised a Christian and have been exposed to the doctrine and theory of Christianity, I would quickly lean toward the arguments for God and be more easily persuaded by them, hoping to find a defense for spending nearly every Sunday morning in the chancel at church. Actually, I am not automatically persuaded toward the theist position thanks to an atheist argument; the philosopher whom we have examined this semester who complicates this issue for me is Ernest Nagel, an atheist professor who wrote an outstanding defense of atheism. I found that his defense made atheism appear a much more attractive way to think than any theistic religion. I was not impressed, though, with his contentions against the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm, and thus I refrain for now from venturing to the atheist way. Because of Nagel, I now have ambivalence towards believing in God, even though reading his work did not change my broader belief.

One object of heated debate between convinced believers in God and convinced atheists is the Problem of Pain or Theodicy Problem, which asks how evil and suffering can exist in the world if an all-powerful and all-good God is overseeing what happens in his world. There are a few arguments that theists have constructed defending God’s existence in spite of this obvious conflict between doctrine and reality. Some of them, even though they have become classic arguments, are ridiculous; for example, Nagel confronts the argument stating that “the things called evil are evil only because they are viewed in isolation; they are not evil when viewed in proper perspective and in relation to the rest of creation” (605). This argument can be easily destroyed by a man of reason, and Nagel does so mainly by holding that “it is irrelevant to argue that were we something other than what we are, our evaluations of what is good and bad would be different” (606).

Calling the argument “unsupported speculation,” (606) Nagel easily downturns this faulty response to the Theodicy Problem. What I found most admirable about this section of Nagel’s “Philosophical Concepts of Atheism” was his own solution to the problem–simply that it cannot be resolved: “I do not believe it is possible to reconcile the alleged omnipotence and omnibenevolence of God with the unvarnished facts of human existence” (606). Since Nagel has demonstrated that the Theodicy Problem cannot be taken down, it remains a solid argument for atheists and a very good disproof of the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. I have not seen a response to this problem so effectively stated, honest, and convincing. Nagel’s arguments concerning the Theodicy Problem show that atheists think in a much more straightforward and practical fashion than do theists.

The way Nagel uses the words “unvarnished facts of human existence” (606) leads to another attractive element to atheism and to his work–Nagel appeals to the earthly life, and only the earthly life, in describing how atheists think. Instead of reaching out to another world or deity that does not even certainly exist, atheists “often take as their ideal the intellectual methods employed in the contemporaneous empirical sciences” (607). Because atheists use empirical evidence obtained through science, i.e. use evidence that certainly exists and can be sensed, all of the thinking they do is based solely on what clearly and distinctly exists in reality. To atheists, says Nagel, “controlled sensory observation is the court of final appeal in issues concerning matters of fact” (608). Not all of theist thinking is based on something that is proved to exist, since God has not been absolutely proved to be, so the essential base of the theist thought is composed of supposition and theory.

Atheists simply ground their logic in what is certainly known, and no assumptions found their reasoning. Even in matters of human morals, atheists think practically: “The conceptions of the human good [atheists] have advocated are conceptions which are commensurate with the actual capacities of mortal men, so that it is the satisfaction of the complex needs of the human creature which is the final standard for evaluating the validity of a moral ideal or moral prescription” (608). Nagel also excellently applies practicality to atheism in the way he describes “the stress upon a good life that must be consummated in this world” (608). Nagel dismisses the need of “some unrealizable other-worldly ideal” (608) so well that atheism appears supremely attractive among all the other religious modes of thought. Since Nagel implements practicality so well and perpetuates the question of the Theodicy Problem in “Philosophical Concepts of Atheism,” I found not only Nagel’s text, but also the atheist way very reasonable (literally) and intellectually striking.

While Nagel superbly makes atheism appear much more attractive as a way of thinking than a theist religion because of its practicality and direct method of reason, I do not think he deals with St. Anselm’s argument for God’s existence well enough. Nagel refutes Anselm’s Ontological Argument by saying, “the word ‘existence’ does not signify any attribute” (601). I starkly disagree with this position. I think, as does René Descartes, that existence in reality is a descriptor. When we, for example, reflect upon the life of one who has died, we experience that person as he or she exists in our understanding and in our imagination by remembering him or her; although this individual is no longer existing in reality, he or she still exists, but on another plane of being. I am aware that this is, indeed, a highly debatable topic, but I am quite convinced that existence is an attribute, and thus I find that Anselm’s assertions withstand Nagel’s assaults. Even though the fact that atheists are practical, down-to-earth thinkers attracts me, I am still not convinced that God does not exist. For the time being, then, I will retain my theistic beliefs and remain a churchgoer, even though I now have ambivalence toward theism.

I am not convinced that God does not exist because of some other reflections, shared especially by many within the scientific community. My current beliefs regarding God’s existence, those that I find more convincing than even the Ontological Argument, follow an deductive chain of reasoning; the argument I support most is the near impossibility that everything in creation came about by accident. The chances for molecules and cells, the very building blocks of the incredibly intricate natural creation, to come together entirely by themselves are so extremely slim that it is hard to believe that the world and all that lives in it are products of chance.

The fact that the planet Earth is in exactly the right spot in space to support life, the fact that there are just the right amounts of chemicals and substances to sustain biological life on Earth, and the fact that there is only one species with the intellectual firepower to overcome physical inferiorities and become the ruling class of organisms on the planet all contribute to the suspicion that there may be a certain genius that planned out this harmonious structure of life. This is a tough argument for atheists to refute, but then again, it still could have been chance–it still could have been that one in a billion trillion times that happened. With that in mind, a great secondary argument is Anselm’s Ontological Argument, a piece of reasoning I think both Nagel and Gaunilo fail to overcome. If it ever is overcome, I may begin to take steps across the bridge to the atheist way.

Work Cited:

Cahn, Steven M., Patricia Kutcher, George Sher, and Peter J. Markie, eds. Reason at Work: Introductory Readings in Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Florence, KY:
Thomson Learning, Inc., 1996.

Philosophy of Ernest Nagel from a First Person Essay

Posted in God

The Gods Must Be Crazy Essay

The Gods Must Be Crazy Essay.

The movie ” The Gods Must Be Crazy ” describes a tribe from the people of the Calahari, a place in Africa, coming in contact with a coke bottle dropped from a plane. A tribesman is struck on the head and thinks it is a gift from the gods. Shortly the tribe discovers wonderful uses of the bottle, but they also find later on that there is anger and violence whenever one is using it while someone else needs it and wants to use it.

So one bushman decides to walk to the end of the earth and return the bottle to the Gods.

Later on we see men of a terrorist called Semboca in an attempt to assassinate the president. Semboca and his men are followed throughout the movie by the counter terrorist forces until he and his men catch Mrs. Thompson, a lady who came to teach English, and the children she was teaching. From here on all the plots of the movie start to become more unified towards helping Mrs.

Thompson and the children from the Semboca and the terrorists.

Two main themes were seen in this film. The first is that different cultures find happiness and approach human problems differently. Like in the movie, we can see how the tribe was happy and satisfied with living in nature, and when the problem of the bottle came, the tribe stopped the use of the bottle although it was useful to them; peace was more important than the advance in technology. The second theme is that modern life is full of laws and rules to be followed by people. Otherwise it would result in suffering. Moreover, solutions are never complete. Meaning that there is no solution to a problem that would eliminate this problem completely.

Bushman culture traits were shown in the film through the way people of the tribe acted and lived. For example, people of the Calahari tribe used words that represented different symbols for different words in there language. Moreover, they lived in small numbers, a maximum of 50, and they kept roaming, searching for food in different places. They lived in small cottages and they depended on nature for their living.

In addition, we can notice that bushman culture is a complete opposite of the culture in the United States. First of all, we can notice of the people of the Calahari refused the advance in technology to retain peace when they decided to return the bottle to the Gods. On the other hand in the United States they would keep an advance in technology but they would put laws and rules that won’t solve all solutions and won’t retain full peace. Second of all, people of the Calahari use a language that includes symbols to refer to things they want to explain, while in the United States people are likely to use letters that form words to express certain ideas.

Finally, I look at this film and find it a meaningful and interesting film because it leads to good themes in a comic way. Moreover, I find it useful in a Human Geography class because it makes a good comparison between modern and old cultures and shows how an old culture without advances in technology can retain a more peaceful and resentful life.

You may also be interested in the following: nasty c gods must be crazy

The Gods Must Be Crazy Essay

Posted in God

“The Rockpile” by Jessica Ruelle Essay

“The Rockpile” by Jessica Ruelle Essay.

“The Rockpile” was written by James Baldwin, a black American writer of the 20th century. This short story takes place in a street of Harlem around the 1930’s. James Baldwin shows us, through the life of a black family, the conflicts that can appear in human relationships, but also the presence of temptation and sin. This essay will analyse the themes that are mentioned above, but also how, by some particular literary style effect, the writer plunges his readers in his own world.

One of the main themes is family relationships. We are in a Protestant family in which the father does not seem to be very often at home. But he still has a predominance in his family’s life. John seems to be really scared of him, more than Roy. This is probably due to the fact that Gabriel does not love John as much as he loves Roy, because John is not his son. Gabriel knows what is wrong and what is right, because he represents God, he is a Reverend.

Therefore, he should be a good father, but he beats John and Elizabeth. In fact, it seems obvious that they are in danger from the moment Gabriel is back home. “John stood just before him; it seemed to her astonished vision just below him, beneath his fist, his heavy shoe. The child stared at the man in fascination and terror” (p.15).

John stands before Gabriel as if he was before God, the one who punishes you for your sins. Elizabeth uses Delilah as a shield twice: the first time when she comes down to tell Gabriel what happened, and the second time after she has told him what she thought about him. Another point is that both of the parents overreact to what happened to Roy. They react as if he was going to die when he just has a superficial scar. The children have got not enough freedom. The only freedom they enjoy is to sit on the fire escape when they father is not at home; if he was home, they would not have any freedom at all. To summarize, this family is characterized by the presence of a wicked father, but also by excessive reactions, and finally by the lack of freedom of the children.

Another main theme is the one of temptation and sin. Roy is tempted to go and play at the place where the rockpile stands, and this for different reasons. First of all, his mother told him not to go there. When you forbid children to do something, you can be sure they will do it, because they do not know why it is forbidden. Besides, the rockpile has something mysterious in itself, “it was a strange place to find a mass of natural rock jutting out of the ground”(p.9). Every child is fascinated by mysterious things. When Roy’s friend come beneath the fire escape to call him, Roy can’t resist and he leaves. This may symbolically replicates the structure of the very first sin commited by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

There is also a contrast between John and Roy’s family and the people outside: everybody outside seems to be a sinner, except the church-members: “…below them, men and women, and boys and girls, sinners all, loitered; …”(p.10). But there are sinners in their house too: Elizabeth was pregnant before she met Gabriel: “…her children and Gabriel’s: Roy, Delilah, Paul. Only John was nameless and a stranger, living unalterable testimony to his mother’s day in sin”(p.15). But nobody blames her. John, who is not a sinner, is blamed instead of Elizabeth and of Roy. He is like Jesus; he is sacrificed for the other’s sin. Temptation is present in the story and is represented by the rockpile. Besides, sin is everywhere, even in a Christian house.

James Baldwin uses black American language to plunge us in the reality of Harlem. His readers are literally transported in that street, in that house. He uses an omnipresent narrator, which means the narrator knows everything. Besides, we know from the beginning what is going to happen: the narrator warns us. James Baldwin really takes us by the hand and shows us his world, using his own language.

As a conclusion, this short story shows us how life could be in a Protestant family living in Harlem in the first part of the 20th century. Because of Roy’s fault, it shows the presence of sin in almost each character, and the cruelty of Gabriel not considering John as his own son. The literary style of James Baldwin reinforces the power if this meaningful text. The one who lets temptation enter in his life is weak, but we are nothing but human beings, are we not?

“The Rockpile” by Jessica Ruelle Essay

Posted in God

Pascal’s Wager Essay

Pascal’s Wager Essay.

There are many things in this world that we have no means to confirm. This is especially true when we are talking about things that are spiritual in nature, such as the existence of God. While no living person has claimed that he has seen God using the limits of his sight, there is no way to prove otherwise. Since I don’t believe in God, I would surely be in trouble if Pascal’s wager turns out to be correct.

He states that it is better to believe in God because there is nothing to lose if God exists.

In fact, if it turns out that God does exist, the one who believes will have a reserved slot in heaven. While Pascal has a point, his argument is not in the least bit persuasive. I am an atheist not just because I chose not to believe in God. It’s just that I can’t see the proof of His existence anywhere.

I can’t imagine that there is an omnipotent God who watches over all of us. But Pascal’s wager suggests that atheists like me should leave their “sinful” ways and start believing in God because it is the most logical and beneficial choice.

Why should I choose to believe just for that reason? Pascal should have provided tangible evidence of God’s existence and cited other convincing reasons to make me believe in God. Thus, I have to disagree with Pascal’s wager because his argument does not provide sufficient reasons to believe in God. In fact, his reason to believe is childish and shallow. Another reason why I disagree with Pascal is that his wager is flawed in many ways. First, it assumes that God is a rewarding or punishing god when he has no basis to state this.

Since nobody has seen God, then nobody can claim that he has seen God award or punish anyone. And if God does turn out to be a rewarding or punishing god, it suggests that reward or punishment would be based on belief alone. It disregards how one spent his life on earth, regardless of whether he believes in God or not. Second, it overlooks the fact that many religions claim that their god is the only god. Therefore, we cannot determine through Pascal’s argument what would happen if there is one true God and we chose the wrong God to believe in.

Pascal’s Wager Essay

Posted in God

“The gods must be crazy” Movie Analysis Essay

“The gods must be crazy” Movie Analysis Essay.

The film, The Gods Must Be Crazy raises a great number of points which are relevant to the fundamental concepts relating to Society and Culture. The points raised are all used through comparison of the Kalahari Tribe’s society and that of The Civilized White Society.

The Kalahari Bushmen live in small family groups in complete isolation from the rest of the world, and this has led to the belief that they are the only humans on earth. As they live off the land, the bushmen has no concept of ownership, anger, violence or guilt as the land supplies them with everything they desire, and they have never had the need for such harsh emotions.

They have no concept of law, punishment or rulers, and live in harmony with both themselves and the land. They have strong belief in their gods, and when anything unexplainable happens, for example a plane in the sky, they believe it is just gods up in the sky.

The film starkly contrasts the peaceful harmony of the Kalahari Bushmen with the rushed, needlessly organized erratic way of life of White Society. The film states that while the Kalahari Bushmen adapt to their environment and live successfully because of it, White society has found the need to adapt the environment to themselves. As each generation has different needs, the environment is constantly changed, until it has come to the point that the adolescence of White Society has to take exams just to learn to survive in this created environment. White Society too has religion like the Kalahari Bushmen, but unlike the unquestioning Bushmen, whites have questioned their religion almost to destruction. Unlike the trusting Bushmen, whites have to have an explanation for everything, which has resulted in suspicion of the unexplained.

Because of the stresses of living in such an environment, the movie suggests that White Society has lost contact with the simplicity of life. Scenes of whites are often sped up to create a sense of rushed unthoughtful ness, and many scenes involve violence. The film rightly demonstrates that whites use violence and war to solve conflicts, which is often unsuccessful and damaging. The conflicts within this film were mainly because within the one society lived more then one different cultures, which did not harmoniously live together. The Bushmen, on the other hand, all a connected society, successfully resolve conflicts by talking within the group to come to a beneficial result.

The only serious conflict within the Bushmen tribe was seen with the arrival of the bottle. As there was only one of this man-made object, everyone wanted to use it and the emotions of greed and jealously was evoked. Instead of fighting extensively over it, they resolved the problem by deciding to throw the “evil thing” off the side of the earth. The bottle itself was carelessly thrown from a plane by a white, who had no regard for it at all, where as the Bushmen valued it for its many uses, they recycled it. This also demonstrates how the Bushmen care more for their environment. The fact that it was an object from White Society that brought conflict into the tribe is symbolic of how white society is dominating many different cultures, and adapting the new society into that of white, and that this is often un successful and results in conflicts.

Other ways that living in such a stressful White Society has negatively affected the self identity of individuals is reflected through out the movie.

White Society has had an effect on people’s minds and sanity, who just can’t cope and keep up with the hurried strict social and political laws and rules. This is demonstrated through the scene when Kate Thompson enters a bar and is asked by the person next to her “are the voices in my head bothering you?” Although this is seen as comical in the film, it is a realistic sad result of what White Society can do to people.

Also, in White Society, people are judged by where they live and what they do for a living, not for who they really are. This has given people misconceptions about not only others, but themselves, as they become confused about whom they really are. The Kalahari Bushmen however, judge the individual purely on their traits on personality. This results in the Kalahari bushmen being more open and trusting of strangers then whites are, as demonstrated when the bushmen shoots the goat, and the first meeting between the bushmen and the Kate.

The different uses of technology by the two separate societies, and the results of this technology is also explored in the film.

The Kalahari Bushmen have simple technology such as spears and the use of rocks for grinding and mashing food. This is all the technology the Bushmen need to live in their environment and it is always used wisely and with care. White Society, on the other hand, is portrayed as having an excessive amount of technology, which often is not only dangerous to the whole society, but changes the way an individual person acts and sees the world. For example the invention of guns in White Society leads to much violence and unnecessary deaths, as demonstrated in the shooting of the parliamentary leaders. Guns are also used to manipulate people by rousing fears of death, such as when the gangsters take the children hostage.

Technology has also changed peoples perceptions of the world and the way people think. The Military man takes his gangster hostage blindfolded into a helicopter. The engines are started, while the helicopter remains on the ground, while the man is interrogated. When he does not respond he is pushed from the helicopter onto the ground. Because of his associations with the noise of the helicopter, the man believes him self to be above ground and can feel himself falling, so he confesses. This demonstrates how people form preconceptions from technology, and assume things that are false.

Technology has also helped to expand White Society to all over the world. The earth has become a small place because of the invention of advanced travel, and this allows cross cultural and society communication easy for White Society and allows them to learn about others unlike them. The Bushmen however, without technology like cars or even radio, believe the world to be a small place, and live happily within their own confined society.

Overall, this Film is very relevant and useful for Society and Culture, as it explores the Fundamental Concepts in great deal, as well as being smart, funny and entertaining!

“The gods must be crazy” Movie Analysis Essay

Posted in God

Philosophy of Human Nature Essay

Philosophy of Human Nature Essay.

Evil can be used in two ways- when someone has done evil and when someone has suffered evil. Since God is good, God does no moral evil; however, because God is just, God punishes the wicked and thus causes the evil of punishment. People are the cause of their own evildoing. Furthermore, because learning is good a thing, we do not learn evil. It is people’s inordinate desires that drive their evildoings. There are two laws- eternal law and temporal law.

Both laws are good and guarantee people to live perfectly.

To live perfectly and well, we need to know that we are alive, that we live with reason and understanding. And when the impulses of the soul are guided by reason, a person is perfectly ordered- eternal law. However, it is possible that the reason or mind does not rule. According to Augustine, this can only happens if a person’s own will and free choice make the mind a companion of cupidity.

It is up to us to decide whether we want out will to be good or bad, and whether we desire things we can lose or we can’t lose.

Thesis (What is the central point of the reading? Use no more than three sentences. ): Augustine claims that people do evil by the free choice of our will. Your questions So if God is all good and omnipotent, then why will God allow anyone to do evil by the free choice of their will? If we are images of God, and God is all good and omnipotent, shouldn’t we be all good and not act in ways that conflicts with God’s image?

Philosophy of Human Nature Essay

Posted in God