Romeo as a Flawed Hero Essay - 849 Words

Romeo as a Flawed Hero The word hero has two meanings, firstly that a person would have to be a brave character and is someone who is courageous. Secondly a hero has to be a main person or character in a story, the Protagonist. Back in the days of when the play Romeo and Juliet was set, people would think that characters had a balance, like a set of scales. On one side passion and the other reason. A balanced person was meant to have had an equal amount of both. You can get an idea of how flawed Romeo may be by the way that his character is balanced. At the beginning of the play Romeo is absent this is due to him suffering from love sickness for Rosaline and he†¦show more content†¦But to his foe supposed he must complain, And she steal loves sweet bait from fearful hooks. They discover later on that they belong to rival families. Later that night Romeo is in Juliets garden and over hears Juliet talking on her balcony, Romeo declares his love for her and climbs up to the balcony, (an action that shows he is committed to the relationship and is reckless having no thought to his personal safety). The problem of the family differences seems unimportant beside their love and they agree to marry immediately, (this sudden action shows a sign of immaturity). Romeo visits his friend, Friar Lawrence, the very next morning at daybreak, who consents to marry the couple in secret hoping that this will end the family feud. Romeos conversation with the Friar in Act II, Scene 3 shows that Romeo has altered as a person, (he shows a new maturity in that he knows what he wants i.e. marriage and he also defies the feud which spells trouble and can be seen as a flaw). In Act II Tybalt has challenged Romeo to a duel following their meeting at the ball. Juliets nurse arrives to hear Romeos plans for the wedding. Juliet goes to confession, meets Romeo at the Friars cell and Romeo and Juliet marry later that day. (The fact that this wedding is aShow MoreRelatedRomeo And Juliet Tragic Hero1306 Words   |  6 PagesIn Shakespeare’s classic play, Romeo and Juliet, the prologue refers to the title characters as â€Å"star-cross’d lovers† with a â€Å"death-mark’d love†, showing that the two are doomed from the start (Shakespeare 3). Being from two opposing families that are in a never-ending feud, Romeo and Juliet s love is forbidden. However, throughout the novel, the lovers defy their parents and pursue their fast-forming love with the help of supporting characters, such as Friar Lawrence, who are seemingly presentedRead MoreThe Tragic Tragedy Of William Shakespeare s Romeo And Juliet1684 Words   |  7 PagesA â €Å"tragedy† refers to a piece of literature which constantly proceeds towards a sorrowful ending due to the conflicts among different characters. The death of a hero or heroine is often the tragic ending of a tragedy, as well as other deaths generally caused by the hero or heroine. Tragedy endings often include separation, loss, sadness, and death (McDonald 157). Shakespeare tends to emphasize the importance of each individual’s death in his tragedies. However, these deaths are caused by the peopleRead MoreRomeo and Juliet - an Aristotelian Tragedy of Youth and Love1923 Words   |  8 PagesAccording to Aristotle (335BC), an essential element in the ‘good or fine’ character of every great tragic hero is ‘hamartia’, the fatal flaw. The tragic hero’s fatal flaws inevitably lead to negative consequences in his life. The character of Romeo, the tragic hero[1] of William Shakespeare’s cautionary tragedy Romeo and Juliet, contains three key fatal flaws that condemn him and others to death. Through employing the dramatic techniques of meaningful dialogue, soliloquy, narrative structureRead MoreCompare Relationships Between Romeo and Juliet and Between Desdemona and Othello 1931 Words   |  8 Pagesmost noted plays Romeo and Juliet and Othello Shakespeare explores the essence of tragedy. How regardless of what measures they take my the nature of the play both relationships are doomed before they flourish, The extent in witch obsession clouds the minds of the luckless heroes and by what extent the women seem to be more in control of the men than the other way round. In the plays ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and ‘Othello’ by William Shakespeare, Shakespeare uses the concept of a tragic hero to create twoRead MoreRomeo And Juliet Tragedy Analysis1835 Words   |  8 Pagestragedy is a hero who has been flawed by something. One of Shakespeares greatest inspirations was reading greek tragedies, which mostly consisted of heros having their fates sealed by the Greek Gods, and no moral lesson was ever learned at the end of the stories. This led Shakespeare to write about Christian tragedies, which consisted of people having the ability to choose their own fate, and that there was a moral lesson to be learned in the end. An example of a Christian tragedy is Romeo and JulietRead MoreThe Adventures Of Huckleberry Finn By Mark Twain1058 Words   |  5 Pagesand yet in the book’s most poignant scene, the book’s moral center, he apologizes to Jim for the indignities he has inflicted. Admits Huck: â€Å"I done it and I warnâ₠¬â„¢t ever sorry for it afterwards.† Yet this is also a book without a clear, unambiguous hero. ¨ Now we witness the books racism of the character but we also realize that this character went through  ¨hell ¨ in order to set his friend free. This shows a well known fact said by Huck Finn,  ¨Alright, then, I’ll go to hell. ¨ One critic shows us theRead MoreTragic Drama According to AC Bradleys Theory of Shakespeare and a Comparison of Arthur Miller and August Wilsons Concept of Tragedy2899 Words   |  12 PagesAnother fascinating element of Shakespeares plays is his use of Chance or Accident. These events are the elements beyond the control of the major characters and also not caused by the surrounding elements. It was surely an accident which made Romeo unaware of fake potion as he never received Friars message. Similarly, an attack of Pirates ship on Hamlets just in a nick of time was another uncontrollable event that was beyond anyones control. Although none of these events were intentionalRead MoreThe Tragic Hero and the Tragic Story in William Shakespeares Writing2842 Words   |  12 PagesThe Tragic Hero and the Tragic Story in William Shakespeares Writing Shakespeares tragedies are, for the most part, stories of one person, the hero, or at most two, to include the heroine. Only the Love Tragedies (Romeo and Juliet; Antony and Cleopatra)are exceptions to this pattern. In these plays, the heroine is as much at the center of action as the hero. The rest of the tragedies, including Macbeth, have Read MoreThe Characters of Claudio and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing2261 Words   |  10 Pagesmarriage are the two most prominent ideas in Shakespeares comedies. The two couples are Benedick and Beatrice, an unpredicted match as they appear to be quite the opposite and are forever arguing in their poetic banter. The other couple is Claudio and Hero, the two who seem madly in love yet Claudios untrusting and naive side takes power at one stage, in which the couples relationship seems destined to be doomed. The two characters of Benedick and Claudio are very different in both personality Read MoreMoby Dick By Herman Melville2021 Words   |  9 Pagesheroes in Greek drama have. As I expressed before in my paper I said that Captain Ahab was in contrast with the Greek tragic hero Prometheus, Therefore this means that Ahab, one of the key characters in the novel, can be seen as the hero stated by Chase â€Å"Finally, one may suppose that partly under the influence of Hawthorne he saw that Ahab might not be only a quasi-Shakespearean hero,doomed by an inordinate pride or tragic ignorance,but also the protagonist in a kind of Puritan inner drama,a drama of the

Socrates Vs Niccolo Machiavelli Essay - 1606 Words

Socrates and Niccolo Machiavelli are revered as some of the most influential thinkers of their respective times. Both of these thinkers developed their thoughts while Athens and Florence, their respective cities, faced political unrest. By questioning the people of Athens through their period of turmoil following a shift in government, Socrates was able to formulate opinions regarding how a government should operate and how people should rule. Centuries later during the Renaissance era, Machiavelli’s Italy was in a divided state with the Medici family holding rule over his native Florence. It was during this period when Machiavelli’s harsh views on how a prince should obtain power and use that power came to fruition. Apology and Crito†¦show more content†¦Socrates would view Machiavelli’s prince as unnecessarily strict and limiting to the knowledge that people crave to possess. Machiavelli’s leanings towards the state over the individual starkly c ontrast Socrates’ quest for individual knowledge through questioning. Throughout his trial in Athens and when facing execution, Socrates solidly stuck beside his belief that â€Å"life without this sort of examination is not worth living† (Apology, 38a). Socrates deeply believed in philosophy. He spent his whole life seeking wisdom through moral and political questions and even when addressing a jury with the possibility of execution looming over him he declared â€Å"I shall never stop practicing philosophy and exhorting you and indicating the truth for everyone† (Apology, 29d). The truth and the means of finding it were the most important thing to Socrates. Even though questioning was Socrates’ way to achieve power, he still believed in following the law. Practicing free speech and resisting political tyranny are not harmful as long as they fall within the constraints of the law. In explaining to Crito why escaping execution was not an option, Socrates questions Crito saying, â€Å"Do you imagine that a city can continue to exis t and not be turned upside down, if the legal judgements which are pronounced in it have no force but are nullified and destroyed† (Crito, 50b). In refusing to escape his death sentence Socrates proves hisShow MoreRelatedSocrates Vs. The Prince1842 Words   |  8 PagesSocrates vs. The Prince Niccolà ² Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate

A Nuclear Iran Free Essays

Can We Live with a Nuclear Iran? | â€Å"Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions†- Rudyard Griffiths| Rosalie Abdo, #6719633, POL1102D-Politics and Globalization, Dr. D Pierre-Antoine| Iran, a relatively large third world regime bordering multiple Middle Eastern countries, has for many years been accused of secretly building nuclear weapons. This is a country with extreme radical ideologies that publicly condemns the west and sends weekly threats of annihilation to Israel. We will write a custom essay sample on A Nuclear Iran or any similar topic only for you Order Now Countries around the world are slowly showing their anxiety of such a nation potentially possessing capabilities of immense means of destruction when their ideologies and past actions suggest such aggressive behaviours. Yet there is no proof to say that Iran does in fact own any nuclear weapons, and they have repeatedly expressed that their nuclear facilities are purely for peaceful and technological purposes. First in this paper I will summarize the argument against the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Second, I will do the opposite and summarize the reasoning for the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Finally, I will conclude with the argument that the world can exist with a nuclear Iran. A variety of arguments against Iran owning nuclear weaponry has been voiced. One of the leading arguments is the fear of nuclear hyper-proliferation. Iran is a relatively powerful nation whose footstep is felt and is very engaged in international affairs concerning its part of the globe. The fear of hyper-proliferation is that once Iran officially has proprietorship of nuclear war devices the surrounding countries and nations of the Middle East will commence an arms race. This would be terrible for a multitude of reasons, the first being that certain countries in the region have shown to be extremely unstable. With radical revolutions still fresh in the blood of its populace Egypt and Syria are perfect examples of countries that do not possess a stable form of government. Nuclear weapons in such states pose an extreme risk because of the lack of regulation; those arms of mass destruction could easily fall in the wrong hands. The second is living in a world filled with nukes is not ideal. The NPT Treaty, signed by all of the world’s nations except a select few, was created in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt at increasing the disarmament of the already existing ones. As this treaty was signed by relatively all countries it must logically follow that they believe in its ideals of slowing down potential nuclear warfare. Another argument is that Iran has shown over and over again its aggressive tendencies as well as its support of violent resolutions. Iran regularly threatens Israel with extinction. Iran has sent major weapons to terrorist organizations such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon and radical rebels in the Gaza Strip to use on Israel. Iran also sent weapons to the Syrian President Al Assad’s regime making it considerably harder for the Syrian population to overthrow their tyrannical oppressor of many decades. Lastly, a nuclear Iran could create a hegemonic Iranian power in the Middle East. With its extremely strategic oil deposit position, this would be very bad for the western world considering Iran’s extreme anti-western policies. There are numerous arguments as to why the world can live with a nuclear Iran. One of the leading arguments for it is deterrence. North Korea, a radical regime who threatens to set ablaze the capital of its neighboring country on a weekly basis, possesses quantities of nuclear armaments. Instead of instigating combat the major powers aimed to deter and contain it; so far this has been extremely successful. Even though this terrifying regime holds in their possession a multitude of nukes, Asia is able prosper and has lived in peace for many years. During the Cold War the USSR was considered an extremely radical regime, one that due to the arms race had ownership of massive amounts of nuclear weaponry. Again, instead of creating mass conflict, the US aimed to deter and contain it and was very successful. Another leading argument is that not only would a physical conflict with Iran be excessively costly in multiple aspects, but an attack from outsiders could spur a movement of nationalism and rally the populace of Iran together. Considering the size and capability of the country, the ample population, the probable lengthiness of the affair, and the territorial aspect such as the mountain ranges and distances from ports, this would not be a low-cost event. Many American politicians as well as President Obama himself have stated identical answers; it would be devastating to the American economy. This would not only be a disaster financially, but with the local terrain American deaths would more then be guaranteed. This would also undoubtedly infuriate the citizens into a movement maybe more radical than the ones they currently are in. Even if this event would come to be successful for the west, what would happen after? This would not encourage western values or affiliation and could injure the reputation of America in the Arab world. With Iran’s current budget for its nuclear program being 300 million dollars, which is nothing compared to its oil revenue, it will only take a few years for the country to reconstruct their nuclear facilities and recommence as before. Although both sides of this debate demonstrate considerable deliberation and thought one has come out victorious. The western world can live with a nuclear Iran. This is not to say that it is a decent notion for Iran to construct nuclear weapons. It is not decent for any country to create nuclear weapons as the horrendous destruction caused by these torturous weapons cannot properly be put on a crime scale. The damage inflicted not only obliterates any living organism in the vicinity of the blasts but remains and either slowly poisons to death anything and everything it comes across or mutates it for years to come whether living or not. Iran’s methods of dealing with international relations are abhorrent and should not be condoned. Yet as menacing as Iran appears to be on the global level the repercussions of acting on it and doing anything more than deterrence and containment toward this country is too much of a risk. One of the reasons why the west can live with a nuclear Iran is that although not on friendly terms, Iran has never directly threatened the west. They do have multiple anti-western policies yet they have never threatened their wellbeing. Iran has been very threatening and aggressive towards certain other nations such as Israel, yet Israel is a state that has been established for over sixty years and possesses over 200 nuclear weapons. This is not suggesting a termination of the alliance between the United States and Israel, but more of a slow and progressive estrangement in its aid. As previously mentioned before, a physical conflict with Iran could be devastating on the American economy. Some have argued that a pre-emptive war would not be a necessity for other countries to prevent a nuclear Iran and that by simply initiating tougher sanctions and doing everything that is short of war would be sufficient in thwarting Iran from building nuclear weaponry. There are many problems with this statement the first being that this action has already been done. The sanctions on building nuclear warheads are incredibly strong. The second problem with this is that to have a rule of law that is respected there needs to be an element of enforcement. There can be tougher sanctions put on the regulation of nuclear weapons, but if there is no one to enforce these rules then they are absolutely futile. If this train of thought is logically followed through it becomes apparent that enforcement is necessary in certain cases, war being the necessary implementation. Hence war is a necessity in some cases. This applies to Iran, and the west does not have a budget to follow it through. Another reason why the west could live with a nuclear Iran is that there currently is a country in the Middle East whose possession of nuclear weapons did not initiate an arms race, this country being Israel. Countries like Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all have substantial oil infused treasuries, budgets that could easily commence a nuclear agenda without a second thought. They are residing in the Middle East and did not feel the compulsion or the requirement to initiate an arms race; why would countries fill the need to do so with Iran? There is no evidence that any hyper-proliferation would ever occur. When North Korea declared it was growing a nuclear arsenal the surrounding nations did not attempt to create their own. This is also true with China, when it announced its ownership of nuclear weapons neighboring countries did not react in any sort of arms race. Israel is an extremely controversial country in the morals of the Middle Eastern population. It is more controversial then even Iran’s Shite regime. Many countries do not appreciate its existence, whether they publicly claim so or not. This is not to say that there are countries conspiring in its destruction, but to say that it would have been an easy justification to start constructing nuclear facilities due to the fact that the country is slowly but steadily engulfing all of Palestine. Lastly, the western world can live with a nuclear Iran because as previously stated deterrence has been successful. There are only a select few countries that have ownership of nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, some of these countries are a part of dangerous regimes such as North Korea or unstable governments like Pakistan, yet due to proper deterrence and containment there not only has not been a nuclear war but there is no reason to believe there will be one in the future. Proper deterrence has also been successful in preventing other countries to attempt creating many more nuclear facilities and arsenals. This is what the west should be focusing on, not imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons that do not exist. If Iran declares its ownership of multiple nuclear weapons and its intention to use them, the western world has a right and an obligation to try to prevent this awful scenario for happening. Yet until this day comes, Iran has a right to build nuclear weapons. How to cite A Nuclear Iran, Essay examples A Nuclear Iran Free Essays Can We Live with a Nuclear Iran? | â€Å"Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions†- Rudyard Griffiths| Rosalie Abdo, #6719633, POL1102D-Politics and Globalization, Dr. D Pierre-Antoine| Iran, a relatively large third world regime bordering multiple Middle Eastern countries, has for many years been accused of secretly building nuclear weapons. This is a country with extreme radical ideologies that publicly condemns the west and sends weekly threats of annihilation to Israel. We will write a custom essay sample on A Nuclear Iran or any similar topic only for you Order Now Countries around the world are slowly showing their anxiety of such a nation potentially possessing capabilities of immense means of destruction when their ideologies and past actions suggest such aggressive behaviours. Yet there is no proof to say that Iran does in fact own any nuclear weapons, and they have repeatedly expressed that their nuclear facilities are purely for peaceful and technological purposes. First in this paper I will summarize the argument against the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Second, I will do the opposite and summarize the reasoning for the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Finally, I will conclude with the argument that the world can exist with a nuclear Iran. A variety of arguments against Iran owning nuclear weaponry has been voiced. One of the leading arguments is the fear of nuclear hyper-proliferation. Iran is a relatively powerful nation whose footstep is felt and is very engaged in international affairs concerning its part of the globe. The fear of hyper-proliferation is that once Iran officially has proprietorship of nuclear war devices the surrounding countries and nations of the Middle East will commence an arms race. This would be terrible for a multitude of reasons, the first being that certain countries in the region have shown to be extremely unstable. With radical revolutions still fresh in the blood of its populace Egypt and Syria are perfect examples of countries that do not possess a stable form of government. Nuclear weapons in such states pose an extreme risk because of the lack of regulation; those arms of mass destruction could easily fall in the wrong hands. The second is living in a world filled with nukes is not ideal. The NPT Treaty, signed by all of the world’s nations except a select few, was created in order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt at increasing the disarmament of the already existing ones. As this treaty was signed by relatively all countries it must logically follow that they believe in its ideals of slowing down potential nuclear warfare. Another argument is that Iran has shown over and over again its aggressive tendencies as well as its support of violent resolutions. Iran regularly threatens Israel with extinction. Iran has sent major weapons to terrorist organizations such as the Hezbollah in Lebanon and radical rebels in the Gaza Strip to use on Israel. Iran also sent weapons to the Syrian President Al Assad’s regime making it considerably harder for the Syrian population to overthrow their tyrannical oppressor of many decades. Lastly, a nuclear Iran could create a hegemonic Iranian power in the Middle East. With its extremely strategic oil deposit position, this would be very bad for the western world considering Iran’s extreme anti-western policies. There are numerous arguments as to why the world can live with a nuclear Iran. One of the leading arguments for it is deterrence. North Korea, a radical regime who threatens to set ablaze the capital of its neighboring country on a weekly basis, possesses quantities of nuclear armaments. Instead of instigating combat the major powers aimed to deter and contain it; so far this has been extremely successful. Even though this terrifying regime holds in their possession a multitude of nukes, Asia is able prosper and has lived in peace for many years. During the Cold War the USSR was considered an extremely radical regime, one that due to the arms race had ownership of massive amounts of nuclear weaponry. Again, instead of creating mass conflict, the US aimed to deter and contain it and was very successful. Another leading argument is that not only would a physical conflict with Iran be excessively costly in multiple aspects, but an attack from outsiders could spur a movement of nationalism and rally the populace of Iran together. Considering the size and capability of the country, the ample population, the probable lengthiness of the affair, and the territorial aspect such as the mountain ranges and distances from ports, this would not be a low-cost event. Many American politicians as well as President Obama himself have stated identical answers; it would be devastating to the American economy. This would not only be a disaster financially, but with the local terrain American deaths would more then be guaranteed. This would also undoubtedly infuriate the citizens into a movement maybe more radical than the ones they currently are in. Even if this event would come to be successful for the west, what would happen after? This would not encourage western values or affiliation and could injure the reputation of America in the Arab world. With Iran’s current budget for its nuclear program being 300 million dollars, which is nothing compared to its oil revenue, it will only take a few years for the country to reconstruct their nuclear facilities and recommence as before. Although both sides of this debate demonstrate considerable deliberation and thought one has come out victorious. The western world can live with a nuclear Iran. This is not to say that it is a decent notion for Iran to construct nuclear weapons. It is not decent for any country to create nuclear weapons as the horrendous destruction caused by these torturous weapons cannot properly be put on a crime scale. The damage inflicted not only obliterates any living organism in the vicinity of the blasts but remains and either slowly poisons to death anything and everything it comes across or mutates it for years to come whether living or not. Iran’s methods of dealing with international relations are abhorrent and should not be condoned. Yet as menacing as Iran appears to be on the global level the repercussions of acting on it and doing anything more than deterrence and containment toward this country is too much of a risk. One of the reasons why the west can live with a nuclear Iran is that although not on friendly terms, Iran has never directly threatened the west. They do have multiple anti-western policies yet they have never threatened their wellbeing. Iran has been very threatening and aggressive towards certain other nations such as Israel, yet Israel is a state that has been established for over sixty years and possesses over 200 nuclear weapons. This is not suggesting a termination of the alliance between the United States and Israel, but more of a slow and progressive estrangement in its aid. As previously mentioned before, a physical conflict with Iran could be devastating on the American economy. Some have argued that a pre-emptive war would not be a necessity for other countries to prevent a nuclear Iran and that by simply initiating tougher sanctions and doing everything that is short of war would be sufficient in thwarting Iran from building nuclear weaponry. There are many problems with this statement the first being that this action has already been done. The sanctions on building nuclear warheads are incredibly strong. The second problem with this is that to have a rule of law that is respected there needs to be an element of enforcement. There can be tougher sanctions put on the regulation of nuclear weapons, but if there is no one to enforce these rules then they are absolutely futile. If this train of thought is logically followed through it becomes apparent that enforcement is necessary in certain cases, war being the necessary implementation. Hence war is a necessity in some cases. This applies to Iran, and the west does not have a budget to follow it through. Another reason why the west could live with a nuclear Iran is that there currently is a country in the Middle East whose possession of nuclear weapons did not initiate an arms race, this country being Israel. Countries like Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar all have substantial oil infused treasuries, budgets that could easily commence a nuclear agenda without a second thought. They are residing in the Middle East and did not feel the compulsion or the requirement to initiate an arms race; why would countries fill the need to do so with Iran? There is no evidence that any hyper-proliferation would ever occur. When North Korea declared it was growing a nuclear arsenal the surrounding nations did not attempt to create their own. This is also true with China, when it announced its ownership of nuclear weapons neighboring countries did not react in any sort of arms race. Israel is an extremely controversial country in the morals of the Middle Eastern population. It is more controversial then even Iran’s Shite regime. Many countries do not appreciate its existence, whether they publicly claim so or not. This is not to say that there are countries conspiring in its destruction, but to say that it would have been an easy justification to start constructing nuclear facilities due to the fact that the country is slowly but steadily engulfing all of Palestine. Lastly, the western world can live with a nuclear Iran because as previously stated deterrence has been successful. There are only a select few countries that have ownership of nuclear weaponry. Unfortunately, some of these countries are a part of dangerous regimes such as North Korea or unstable governments like Pakistan, yet due to proper deterrence and containment there not only has not been a nuclear war but there is no reason to believe there will be one in the future. Proper deterrence has also been successful in preventing other countries to attempt creating many more nuclear facilities and arsenals. This is what the west should be focusing on, not imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons that do not exist. If Iran declares its ownership of multiple nuclear weapons and its intention to use them, the western world has a right and an obligation to try to prevent this awful scenario for happening. Yet until this day comes, Iran has a right to build nuclear weapons. How to cite A Nuclear Iran, Papers