Humor in Act 2 Scene 5 of Twelfth Night :: European Literature

In Act 2 scene 5 the mood is very lighthearted and is full of theatrical comedy, we find Sir Toby, Sir Andrew and their friend Fabian hidden away as they await Malvolio to stumble upon the letter supposedly written by Olivia. Even though they are hidden the audience can still see their reactions and hear their comments, which adds to the melodramatic aspect of the scene. The audience is anxious to see what unravels next as they know Maria purposely wrote the letter in order to fool Malvolio. Malvolio's entrance to the scene immediately creates comedy as even before he finds the letter we find him fantasizing about being "Count Malvolio", this notion creates humor as it seems that Malvolio has forgot he is merely Olivia's steward not her social equal despite his is conceited self-righteousness. The farce is enhanced by comments made by the onlookers who insult Malvolio, "Pistol him, pistol him!" Sir Andrew makes this comment, as he himself desires Olivia's hand in marriage. Malvolio lets his imagination go wild creating further humor when he imagines that his "kinsman Toby" will approach and curtsy in front of him. Malvolio finds the letter and notices that it is Olivia's handwriting. Shakespeare creates comedy with his play on words, Malvolio comments on how it is almost certainly Olivia's writing "these be her very C's, her U's, and her T's and thus makes she her great Ps" The use of the sexual innuendo referring to the female genitalia and urination is very clear when spoken aloud which is very amusing. Further comedy is created by Sir Andrews reaction, "C's, her U's, and her T's: why that?" Sir Andrew does not understand the joke, the audience finds this funny but at the same time we also feel sorry for him because he is very dim witted. After Malvolio establishes that "Olivia" writes the letter he then begins to interpret the letter to suit his situation. "`M'--Malvolio! `M'! Why, that begins my name" It is humorous because he believes the letters "M.O.A.I" is an acronym for his name. However the audience knows that it is a device cleverly thought up by Maria that has obviously succeeded in its purpose to trick Malvolio. The reading of the letter creates comedy the requests are outrageous. Malvolio is told to wear yellow cross-gartered stockings "to be opposite with kinsman, surly with servants" and to constantly smile. The thought of this is hilarious considering that Malvolio is a strict puritan and is very malice towards others.

Philosophy of Religion Essay

In this paper, I will evaluate the argument Richard Swinburne offered in support of theism. I will first explain the distinction between regularities of co-presence and regularities of succession and why their understanding is necessary in understanding Swinburne’s argument. After this, I will present the arguments I have derived from the passage given, derived from Swinburne’s book. I will then proceed to identify the issues that determine whether his is a sound theory or not by explaining the premises Swinburne bases his argument on, and conclude by giving reasons why I think these objections succeed. Richard Swinburne bases the argument he offers in support of theism on regularities of succession by first stating that prior attempts by philosophers and theologies of the eighteenth century to prove the existence of God failed because they largely based their arguments on regularities of co-presence. The distinction of these regularities, according to Swinburne, is that while regularities of co-presence are patterns of spatial order at a specific instant in time, regularities of succession are the simple patterns of behavior exhibited by objects because of the external influence by the forces of nature. For example, the orderliness of the various organs within the human body and how they perform in perfect synchrony to complement each other’s functionalities is a regularity of co-presence. Regularities of succession are based on empirically derivable laws of interaction. The action of attraction and repulsion that occurs within the sub-atomic particles within an atom, and how these forces end up determining the formation of matter by biding many atoms together is an example of a regularity of succession. Swinburne offers the natural balance of the universe brought about by the mutual attraction of planetary bodies with respect to the distance between them and their weights as an illustration of the action of regularities of succession. The following is an outline of Swinburne’s argument in favor of theism. All objects within the universe, living or dead, always behave strictly according to the laws of nature (1). This is not however sufficient enough to be the basis of concluding that theism is true. There is a need to establish the cause of regularities of succession. All regularities of succession exist due to the operation of scientific laws (2), but the most fundamental regularities cannot be given an empirical explanation, and since for the purpose of this argument they must be explained anyway, this explanation must be based in the rational choices of free agents. A dancer’s movements are determined by the rhythm of the tune he or she is dancing to, and this being a regularity of succession is proof that all regulations of succession must have an agent. Similarly, an agent must be responsible for the harmony exhibited by the universe as it behaves according to the laws of nature. The universe is so harmonious and it is very wide, the powers of the agent controlling it must be very immense compared to those of the dancer who, with the freedom of choice, moves in synchrony to the rhythm of a tune (3). The most fundamental of scientific regularities, which are regularities of succession, cause other regularities of succession, and even these most fundamental regularities must have a causative agent. There can be no better explanation to the most basic regularities of succession, so we conclude that an agent bestowed with power and intelligence just like men but at a much higher degree is most likely responsible for their action, thus the proof of theism. Swinburne attributes the existence of regularities of succession to an ultimate causative agent. In his argument, he draws a comparison between the rational choice of a free agent in the simpler term and the much more complex operation of the universe, which he himself portrays as very puzzling. In his argument, infinite attributes are assumed to be simpler than infinite attributes. Furthermore, the agent controlling the universe, if its operation is similar to the exhibition of regularities of succession by simpler free agents like men, must also have had a cause. He fails to explain the cause of this agent and his argument in proof of theism contradicts itself, making it unsound. The premises Swinburne raises are largely valid until the conclusion. A reader of his work will find premise one true since scientific research has empirically established the laws of nature which define the action of objects thus making premise (1) believable. It is true, taking human beings as example that regularities of succession are exhibited as the result of rational choice. A dancer will not move to the rhythm of a tune without having made the choice to dance, and this cause-effect approach makes premise (2) very coherent. If then a being is rationally controlling the universe, his powers must be very immense making premise (3) a convincing conclusion developed from the first two premises. Swinburne argues for theism by equating simpler attributes to complex attributes. In premise (3), he inductively derives a higher probability that God exists, but as with all probabilities, any outcome is likely. Simpler attributes to the actions of objects are not given an explanation to why they are true. Swinburne fails to claim that he proves the existence of God is more probable than his non-existence. He builds his argument on the causation of regularities of succession by more fundamental regularities, but fails to give an explanation for the most fundamental of these regularities: that an immensely powerful agent is rationally controlling the universe. There is thus sufficient ground to successfully object to his argument. In this paper, I evaluated an argument Richard Swinburne offered in support of theism. I first explained the distinction he creates between regularities of co-presence and regularities. I then proceeded to explain his argument and the reasons why it is valid. After this, I considered the reasons a person would choose to think that the premises he based his argument on are true and finally presented my objection to the argument by identifying and explaining why premise (3) is not necessarily valid. My conclusion was that Swinburne did not offer a sufficient reason to believe that theism is true. ? Works Cited Swinburne, Richard. â€Å"The Argument from Design†. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology of Contemporary Views. Ed. Melville Y. Stewart. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1996. 233-246.

Is Absolute Freedom Of Speech Necessary - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 605 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/05/18 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Freedom of Speech Essay Did you like this example? During the age of Socrates and Plato, absolute freedom of speech was not believed to have been of paramount significance as the state was considered far superior to an individual. But gradual transformation took place over the centuries with the likes of Voltaire and John Stuart Mill advocating absolute freedom of speech and laying more importance upon exemption from societal norms. However, aeonian debates could not help reach an agreeable conclusion and convergent ideas continue to spring up in everyones mind even today. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Is Absolute Freedom Of Speech Necessary?" essay for you Create order While some suggest absolute freedom is quintessential for a marketplace of ideas to shape a better society, others find a need for restrictive freedom (quite a paradox wherein freedom of speech is advocated, but is not absolute). Which of the two is advisable could largely be left to individual reasoning and belief, but an effort can be made to determine the supposedly better alternative. More often than not, an ideal consideration is impractical and what seems practical is not ideal. Such is the case with absolute freedom of speech. In theory, it seems to be undeniably perfect, but the reality is in stark contrast. Which is why though Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech as a fundamental right, clause (2) of the same article imposes certain limitations on absolute expression of thought; thoughts cannot be confined, but curbing their expression in certain situations is mandated to avoid conflicts and provide a sense of security. Legal scholars propose a harm thesis that offensive utterances harm people the same way that physical blows do, a fact unknown to many and they harbour a false notion that freedom of speech also includes freedom from any consequence. Under absolute freedom, the heightened magnitude of such psychological abuse could only be imagined. Another ramification arising would be absolute freedom to the press and media, contributing to corrupted and fake news production. The only respite may be the absence of one-sided news stories, but it is not worth the high risk of a possible abuse of power. Thus, even the Supreme Court of India has ruled out that free press is not an absolute right; though it may be quintessential for political and educative functions and especially so in a democratic country. But without certain restrictions, the situation would most certainly be unfavourable for the country and for its people as media possesses the power to affect how and what people think. Moreover, with the advent of social media, absolute freedom of speech could result in pandemonium. It would further provide an impetus to the rising crime of cyberbullying, which has been found to be more grievous than face-to-face bullying, resulting in greater suicide rates, especially among teenagers. Furthermore, though absolute freedom of speech preaches a noble cause; freedom of exchange of ideas to all individuals, it has an encompassing range of application, from highly personal to professional issues. As a result, it may be manipulated to act in ones own self interest and lead to innumerable conflicts, especially when relating to religious, racial or national beliefs. Instead of helping create a marketplace of ideas, absolute freedom could create a marketplace of disagreements. In conclusion, absolute freedom of speech would lead to a general disregard of others sentiments while trying to justify ones own. It seems to far-fetched for everyone to consider opinions contrary to those held by them without any argument and with civility like Voltaire who quotes Think for yourself and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too. Until that day arrives, it is for the general benefit of all that freedom of speech is preserved, but not beyond measure.