How does the understanding of the origins and spread of nationalism Essay

How does the understanding of the origins and spread of nationalism inform our reading of Frankenstein - Essay Example Frankenstein saw the light of the day when the modern western World was beginning to evolve. The people desperately needed a change and were fed up of the royal harassments. Most of the monarchies did not care for the welfare of the people and had no concrete plans to improve the living conditions of the people. The French Revolution evolved within the minds of the people, waiting for an opportune time to strike. This book was written during the Romantic movement of the early 19th century. The issues raised then are relevant even today. Mary Shelly is more or less prophetic in her observations as for the causes that led to the evolving of the spirit of Nationalism. If one turns the pages of blood-soaked history of humanity, the conclusion is obvious. An individual’s aspirations should be fulfilled peacefully by the rulers and those occupying the seats of power. If that does not happen, what would be the results when those aspirations are attained by violent processes by adopti ng most irresponsible procedures! The concepts of individual freedom and respect for one’s dignity—these are time-tested concepts for the healthy growth of the society. Any political philosophy that tries to suppress these ideals by force will not last for long. We have seen the rise and abrupt fall of Nationalism evolved by adopting Communist ideology in Russia and some other western countries. The procedures and developmental strategies being officially encouraged by the Communist regime of China would put the Capitalist countries in the backseat. When Mary Shelley (then Mary Godwin) wrote Frankenstein in 1816, political conditions were such that the human spirit was tested to the brink. The prominent authors of the time took to serious writing on the concepts of uniqueness and self-realization. The individual’s emotions amidst their daily struggles became good story topics. These topics had the back up of direct experiences and hence they

Sartre's Defense of Existentialism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Sartre's Defense of Existentialism - Essay Example Nevertheless, Sartre’s response to the objection that his existentialism makes all choice arbitrary is not only good but also sensible. Sartre interprets the objection that confronts him and his existentialism – â€Å"It does not matter what you do† – in three ways: â€Å"First they tax us with anarchy; then they say, ‘You cannot judge others, for there is no reason for preferring one purpose to another’; finally, they may say, ‘Everything being merely voluntary in this choice of yours, you give away with one hand what you pretend to gain with the other’† (Sartre 13). The first objection – the idea that â€Å"they tax us with anarchy† – translates as â€Å"to say that it does not matter what you choose is not correct† (14). Sartre then responds to this objection by using logic: â€Å"If I do not choose, that is still a choice† and one therefore â€Å"cannot avoid choosing† (14). To this, Sartre adds the idea that â€Å"it is impossible for [one]†¦not to take complete responsibility for making a choice† (14). The people who object Sartre’s existentialism tell him one thing – that there must be some definite law that governs decision-making and that true free will does not exist. For example, they may argue that when a man comes face to face with a lion, then the idea of free will is somehow overridden by the instinct to run, and therefore one can say that there is no free choice in such a situation. Free choice, for these people who oppose Sartre, may only be confined to everyday decisions about petty things such as which clothes to wear and which food to eat. Nevertheless, how Sartre responds to them is not only good but also sensible in that logic tells us that when one flees from a lion, then one definitely still makes a choice – the choice of fleeing. Although the idea of instinct may somehow seem to negate free choice in th is particular situation, it actually does not because the only thing visible is the choice to flee for whatever basis there is to it. Whether there is a basis for such a choice or not, for Sartre, it is not important and that one’s choice may be â€Å"determined by no a priori value† (14), and can therefore be an irrational one. Others may partly agree that an action such as fleeing a lion is indeed a choice but they would then require reason for it, or something a priori on which the choice must be based. Nevertheless, Sartre is sensible enough to say that not all choices may be based on anything a priori such as reason. Why? What is the problem with having an a priori basis for a choice? Sartre explains this through the story of a pupil of his who has chosen to live with his mother instead of fighting the enemy (7). Those people who object to Sartre’s existentialism believe that there must be a basis to every choice, but they do not recognize that whatever bas is they use, it is still they who make that choice of using that basis, as Sartre contends. Sartre’s method of refuting this objection is excellent: he explains the vagueness of the Christian doctrine as well as Kant’s Categorical Imperative if these two established doctrines were used as an a priori principle on which the young man’s decision must be based. Sartre points out that although the Christian doctrine teaches one to â€Å"act with charity,†