Philosophy

Have you ever wondered how things such as objects or materials came about? Who brought them to where they are now, or even if they are real? What evidence is there that justifies these objects are indeed real ; and not creations of our imagination? All these are rhetorical questions , which many philosophers have tried to answer. Many have come close to explaining this, while others completely believe they are only there because we think they are there. In this essay I will explain that the external world does truly exist, and compare two philosophers George Berkeley and John Locke viewpoints on the external world. I will then decide if either one has the right answer and how would someone rebuttal their argument.

The first philosopher George Berkeley argued that “ existence is the thing that is perceived or the one who perceives it” . In order words he feels that what anybody knows about an object or objects comes from our knowledge of that object. He then talks about the belief of God. He expresses if there is no such thing as God then the materialistic objects appear just like God does : instantly come into sight when we call upon it, then slightly vanish when it is no longer needed. But instead, he states that even if we do not require an object, that object will still appear on its own. For example, just because a person can’t see danger doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists. But in fact we have the knowledge of how to react in a dangerous situation. Our mind and body goes in the flight or fight mode to defend ourselves in such situation. Another example would be that desk that was in the classroom would exist , regardless if anyone was there to see it or has encounter it some way.

As for philosopher John Locke, he argue that knowledge is developed through our senses, and we then take that knowledge we developed to bring about ideas. He explain that there are two ways in which our ideas are brought about first by sensation and secondly by reflection. He points out that there are certain properties of an object that resembles an object. He then separates the qualities of things in two groups; spatial properties and secondary qualities such as color, taste, and touch…etc. For example, According to Locke our observations are shape from external objects which he refers to as internal operations of our mind. And only theses two are the component that develop knowledge.

I agree with George Berkeley argument on the external world because of our perception aspect of life. If I walked in a room and we see a table then we walk out and came back in that same room but the table is gone we will assume that someone took the table , or it was just simply moved to a different location; because we just saw it, so we would perceive it’s still there. Someone would rebuttal his argument by giving example of a unicorn or leprechauns at the end of the rainbow. Yes, we know the rainbow is real because we can see it, but if we go searching for the pot gold that is supposed to be at the end of the rainbow and we never find it; should we still assume it’s there? And as for the unicorn part, hypothetically speaking someone says they see a purple unicorn in a corner or outside eating grass, but for some reason I can’t see what the person sees ; so should I allow myself to believe whatever that person see is true?

Earth is nothing like it was initially. Humanity has morphed in ways never thought of before. When a person today takes a glance of their surroundings, they will see change. They will see growth. They will see advancement. Certainly, I agree with Smith’s claim that referring to our ancestors to validate modern activity is invalid. Although our ancestors, at times, are used as a foundation and guidance for today, individuals should not use our forefathers’ policy as an excuse to repeat regulations of the past, because natural selection and adaptation have advanced modern way of life and ideology. Therefore, reiterating an excess amount our past life would result in chaos and failure.

Today, the complexity of the human mind is immense. Policies and beliefs that our ancestors have lived by have been adapted because we’ve learned from our faults; For this reason, standards of the past are not justifiable with the present. Slavery was present in America even before European exploration and grew as America established its independence. People of color were simply not seen as human beings. Henceforth, they were taken and forced to work in brutal conditions with nothing in exchange.

Slavery was a way of life in America. It was how the economy flourished, so many citizens didn’t see the moral problem. However, in 1861, The American Civil war erupted with the issue of slavery being the prime cause. War broke out because people finally opened their eyes and saw that slaves were human too and the oppression they faced was unethical. Citizens learned of and from the wrongdoings of before, and through the thirteenth amendment, slaves were free at last. Their ancestors may have not seen what was wrong with slavery, but that didn’t make it acceptable for them to continue the cruelty. Growth only occurs when there is a will to change the flaws that came before us.

Similarly, the current human race has advanced not only through our ethical beliefs but also through physical means as well. Technology is the craft of new industries, machinery, and knowledge which aid the human lifestyle. Technology is the reason behind our Earth’s expansion and advancement. Technology makes life easier and results in prosperity and comfort for people across the globe. In 1994, Jeff Bezos created Amazon. Amazon is today’s most used online shopping outlet. Amazon makes it efficient for shoppers to quickly search and buy a wide range of goods but also gives other vendors a platform to effectively sell their goods.

This creation has made Jeff Bezos one of the richest men in the world and Amazon one of the largest online retailers. Jeff Bezos’ work is a success because his technological advances provide something new that was never achieved in the past. Bezos sought a way to change the world and pursued it regardless of the normality of the past that others believed should be sustained. Essentially, in support of Smith, our ancestor’s past should not be a basis for modern ways, because humans now are evolved and have different necessities which can only be set if advancements dissimilar from those before take place.

On the other hand, past lives have created a foundation for today because of experience. People do rely on the guidance of their ancestors to avoid previous mistakes or adversity faced. In Native African cultures there is a stress on the importance of elders and ancestors. In the novel “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe, the Igbo people have a strict culture. Members are punished when customs and laws against their ancestral history are broken. This is how the main protagonist, Okonkwo, is exiled. Their traditions revolve around the experience of their elders and satisfying them.

People retrieve guidance from their ancestors, the egwugwu spirit, through the masked ceremonies. The experience of those of the past helped their village thrive, because the adversity their ancestors faced, like the weakening crops, were not repeated. Therefore, in this case justifying behavior of the ancestors is valid. However, at the end of the novel things truly fell apart when their tribe leader, Okonkwo, hung himself after being exiled for breaking customs. The experience is great to have, but not evolving the insight of the ancestors to fit modern times may lead to a disastrous ending in disguise.

In numerous households across the globe, people are more than likely taught to “respect the elders” and remember the people that came before you, including their principles and lifestyle. This is due to the generalization that experience is the mold for intelligence and success, but that is not the case. In conclusion, I agree with Smith and his belief that our actions today shouldn’t be substantiated by activity of our ancestors. I agree with Smith because humans have evolved and can not survive in a world like our past. The people of today are independent; Individuals now have different, multidimensional beliefs and can expand through new technologies and insights. It wouldn’t be a problem to take our ancestry into consideration. However, using the past as justification for today is delusional.

Hard Times was originally written as a weekly serial in a journal called Household Words. It was written in 1854 to depict what life was like during the industrial revolution and reflect the distinctions between the classes during that era. The novel centres around a theme of a convincing criticism of utilitarianism, and every character in the novel plays a role of reinforcing this theme. Utilitarianism doctrine reflects that the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, should be the aim of all social and political institutions — so it is ok for the working people to suffer, as long as the economy as a whole benefits. The novel uses its characters to expose the huge division between the rich and the poor of England and Dickens wanted to focus on the heartless views of the middle and upper classes. Hard Times has been viewed in varied and even conflicting ways by different critics.

One critic of Dickens’s work was E.M. Forster who saw Dickens characters as ‘lovable’ but merely ‘two-dimensional’. Forster also stated that they were drawn in detail, but with no convincing relationship to the real world, and with no inner life. In my opinion, the majority of the characters in Hard Times are ‘flat’ as oppose to ’round’ characters. The definition of a ‘flat’ character for the purpose of this essay is one that is lacking depth and maintains those characteristics throughout the story.

The characters in this novel are developed to reflect different aspects of humanity. Dickens uses his characters and their personalities to depict his moral themes. For example Tom Gradgrind Jr. represents all that Dickens felt was evil. Tom is only interested in looking after number one. He even goes so far as to be willing to sacrifice his sister (Louisa) to better his own social situation when he wants her to marry Boundarby (the rich banker). His philosophy of life revolves around rationalism, self-interest and fact. His father raised his children according to this philosophy, and does not allow them to engage in ‘fanciful’ activities.

The circus people represent fun, fancy and imagination. They are not based on fact. “They cared so little for plain Fact, these people, and were in the advanced state of degeneracy on the subject …” (Dickens). Gradgrind looked down on people who did not believe the facts — he could not understand why people would not accept the facts. “The wretched ignorance with which Jupe clung to this consolation rejecting the superior comfort of knowing, on a sound arithmetical basis, that her father was an unnatural vagabond, filled Mr. Gradgrind with pity” (Dickens).

Sissy Jupe is a member of Sleary’s circus and she represents all the fancy free impulses that Gradgrind’s children were not allowed to cultivate. She represents the opposite of everything that Gradgrind stands for. She remains untarnished. In a conversation with Louisa relating her feelings about her schooling, she talks about how she just does not understand how Mr. M’Choakumchild could feel that if twenty-five people were starving to death and a million were not, that could be described as prosperous (Dickens). Sissy was optimistic and refused to believe facts — she instead lived in hope as depicted when she talked about the return of her father. “That girl believed her father had not deserted her; she lived in hope that he would come back and in faith that he would be made the happier by remaining where she was” (Dickens).

The names Dickens gives to his character’s give hints as to what their personalities are like, for example; Gradgrind (think of grinding facts); Sissy (which implies passiveness and weakness) and Mr. M’Choakumchild (which implies unpleasant personality ie. ‘Choke a child’). Each character is instilled with designated qualities either good or bad. They are not overly dynamic to say the least. Dickens characters in this novel, do not go through significant growth or change. He uses his characters to give us examples of the extremes of human behavior. His characters are overly exaggerated to enable him to portray the theme of the novel.

The characters in Hard Times are not void of humanistic qualities but they come across as shallow. The reader only gets to uncover the first layer of their personality. Gissing reflects Dickens style when he says “I believe him to have been, what he always claimed to be, a very accurate painter of the human beings…” (Gissing). Gissing refers to Dickens as a ‘painter’ of human beings, which is a very two-dimensional metaphor. Dickens characters are like a ‘painting’ — rather flat and straightforward. Most of his characters are not very complex and personify either good or evil. For example Gradgrind’s character reflected a rationalistic and self-serving philosophy on life and we did not see any change in this until toward the end of the story when he gave up his philosophy on fact and became politically active in helping the poor.

Dickens portrays characters in a particular way, he has a very narrow view of society and he places emphasis on class distinctions. “He has not a wide scope; he is always noticeably at his best in dealing with an ill-defined order of English folk, a class (or classes) characterized by dullness, prejudice, dogged individuality, and manners, to say the least, unengaging.” (Gissing). Gissing thinks that even though we may remember the character’s names, that is all that they are to us. They have no depth and the characters do not leave a lasting impression. “Dickens gives us types not individuals; types, moreover, of the most abstract kind, something like the figures in the old Moralities: embodied hypocrisy, selfishness, pride and so on, masking as everyday mortals” (Gissing).

“Dickens method of characterization does not allow for the delicate probing of psychological states of mind; rather its success depends on the artists resourcefulness in creating consistent and empathetically defined patterns of individualized responses to external circumstances…” (Johnson). Throughout many of Dickens stories, his characters maintain similar traits. Examples of this are Sissy who falls into the category of the lost children — in her case, she was abandoned by her father. Gradgrind takes on the characterization of the self-infatuated parent who raises his children according to strict moral guidelines. Louisa resembles the passionate woman who exhibits a divided nature — she marries a man she despises and finally admits she may be in love with another man. Louisa is also envious of Sissy’s ability to demonstrate such passion when she talks about her father.

In conclusion, I would tend to agree that Forster’s statement is accurate. Dickens’ life and his family and friends served as a backdrop for a great many of his characters and as a result do tend to be very two-dimensional. His unhappy childhood, and a life of poverty, colored his view of life and the characters he developed to portray it. My interpretation of his message which he uses his writing to convey is that while logic is useful and important, it cannot override the need for compassion in our life. Through the use of his two-dimensional predictable characters, he achieves a most effective way of expressing this viewpoint.

There are quite a few differences between Meursault’s and Raymond’s characters that are seen throughout chapters 4 and 5 in the Stranger. While Meursault is passive, morally indifferent, and impulsive, Raymond is confrontational, hypocritical and thoughtful. Firstly, Meursault acts passively when Marie asks him if he would marry her. His reply to her question was that if she wanted to marry him, then he would do it. He just went with the flow and agreed to marry her, he lacked an active response. Unlike Meursault, Raymond is very confrontational. He deals with situations in a hostile manner which is seen when he abused the Moorish woman. Additionally, Meursault’s reactions toward important situations make him appear morally indifferent.

When he found out that Raymond beat up the Moorish woman all he said was how, she deserved what she had received. Instead of showing signs of disgust or any expected emotion he simply agrees with Raymond and his decision to abuse his mistress. On the other hand, Raymond is quite hypocritical. He behaved cruelly towards his mistress for doing the same thing she had done to him. Instead of calling it a truce or leaving her, Raymond proceeds to abuse her. The fact that he laid his hands on her is one thing, but to punish someone for what you already have done is utter rubbish. Moreover, Meursault is impulsive with his actions. He does not plan ahead of time: his decisions are based upon his physical needs- hunger, thirst, and sexual desire.

Even though His actions may be impulsive, they are never aimed to hurt anyone. Unlike Meursault, Raymond is more thoughtful about his actions. Although his actions aren’t based upon on his best judgment he does plan upon beating the Moorish woman, As well as have Meursault write a letter to describe his feelings towards her. His actions are deliberate. Camus’ way of contrasting Meursault and Raymond is a way of showing us that Meursault; an immoral person was able to find the true meaning of life. Contrasting Meursault, Raymond did put value to his life on a daily basis, but he did not find true meaning. This contrast of characters that Camus established was to make us understand that even the most pathetic people can find true meaning, at any point of their lives.

In Michael Jordan’s auto-biography “Driven from Within”, he tells his life story throughout his basketball career and the journey he went through to get there. Jordan provides detail and advice that he lived by and what carried him to his success. The main theme in the book is simply “be the best you can be”. Almost all the advice he gave throughout the book seems to lead back to this and it isn’t a surprise since Michael Jordan ended up being the best at what he did. Picture this, you are running a marathon and you’re just only a 1⁄4 mile away from finishing but that voice in your head is telling you to give up and just accept failure.

This is what Jordan referred to as “mind tricks” and thoughts like this will ultimately stop you from achieving anything. “The mind will play tricks on you. The mind was telling you that you couldn’t go any further. The mind was telling you how much it hurts. The mind was telling you these things to keep you from reaching your goal. But you have to see past that, turn it all off if you are going to get where you want to be” (Jordan 178). This is simply Jordan’s way of basically saying to have positive thoughts and if anything just motivate you when things get harder.

All of this leads back to “be the best you can be” because when you motivate yourself, it will lead to improvement and improvement will lead to being the best. When we think of the professional athletes, no matter the sport, we may picture them being this flawless, perfect person who probably doesn’t even know what the word failure means. However, Michael “Air” Jordan himself admitted to failure, “I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed” (Jordan 203).

When it comes to failures, this is what makes up success. When it comes from an athlete like Michael Jordan, you know that this is true. In the long run, failure is what makes you better; in fact it makes you “be the best you can be”. I’m sure we are all used to looking up to that one person that we want to be whether, it is an athlete, a celebrity or some guy off the street. Yes sure, it could be used as motivation and a starting point on what you want to be. However, sometimes you have to step away from that person and focus on being the best you, “It’s a lot harder to become the best you can be when you’re focused on trying to be the best version of someone else.

There’s nothing authentic in that, and if it’s not authentic, then it’s not going to last” (Jordan 42). I like how Jordan used the word “authentic”, it’s something that is genuine, not some old copy. Sure there tons of people looking up to Michael Jordan but who wants another copy when we can have another original. Why would you want to be called “The new Michael Jordan” when you can just be known as something new.

This all adds up to theme, “be the best you can be❞ and when you want to be the best you can be, most importantly be yourself. In the end, “Driven from Within” was more of a book of wisdom and advice than it was a biography. Michael Jordan’s advice stressed on improvement and dedication, he stressed on being the best throughout his whole life. Jordan ended up with several championships, awards and fame all because he kept to his own advice to “be the best you can be”. Jordan started from the bottom and rose to the top with the steps he created to become the best. The best Michael Jordan became ended up being one of the best in the NBA and this is why he is considered a legend on the courts, not only for his performance in the sport but also his intelligence and attitude towards the game.

The Giver and Wanting Mor are both books that are greatly based on the theme of oppression. Both novels follow the protagonists’ journey through an oppressive and unjust world. The Giver is about Jonas, a twelve-year-old boy, and his struggle to have his people feel emotions and feelings. He lives in a world where everything is the same and emotions are under the control of the government. As the Receiver of Memory, Jonas receives all the memories of the past generations and learns the truth about the world Heartbroken and hurt, Jonas devises a plan to run away from his community. With him running away, all of his memories are transferred back to his community members, letting them feel emotion and love without restrictions Wanting Mor is about a teenager named Jameela and the struggles in her life after her mother’s death.

Her oppressive father neglects her by forcing her to leave her home and go to a city where she has nothing. After her father remarries, he does as his wife chooses and leaves Jameela on the streets Alone and helpless, she is taken in by an orphanage where she learns to read and write and slowly brings prosperity back into her life. Her father returns to her so that he can use her skills to improve his life, but Jameela resists his demands and frees herself from his unjust holder Jonas is more oppressed than Jameela because he is not aware of his oppression, his people’s oppression has been going on for centuries and absolutely all aspects of his life are under governmental control. Firstly, Jonas is more oppressed than Jameela because Jonas is not aware of his oppression until he becomes the Receiver of Memory.

It is present from the start of Wanting Mor that Jameela‘s father is her oppressor and that Jameela has knowledge of that Jameela says in the book, “in I would often avoid Baba. He had an unpredictable temper, and I didn’t like the way he looked at my lip, like somehow it was my fault I was born this way”. She knows that her father is her oppressor and that knowledge allows her to avoid him and lessen his oppression against her. In Jonas‘ case though, he doesn‘t find out about all that is kept away from him until he is the Receiver and receives memories. When he finds out about what his government has done to his people, Jonas is changes forever. The Giver says this to Jonas when he inquired about colour, “Once, back in the time of the memories, everything had a shape and size, the way things still do, but they also had a quality called color.”

This textual evidence shows that Jonas isn‘t aware that he is being deprived of colour and he only finds this out while becoming the Receiver. Prior to his training, Jonas doesn’t know what colour is because his oppressive leaders do not want their people to see colour. Secondly, the people in Jonas‘ community have been oppressed for generations. In the book, the Giver says to Jonas: ”It’s a very distant memory. That’s why it was so exhausting–I had to tug It forward from many generations back. It was given to me when I was a new Receiver, and the previous Receiver had to pull it through a long time period, too.” (Lowry, pg. 83) This quote shows that it has been many years since Jonas‘ world has ever had any freedom as the Giver says he has to pull the memory from generations back, a memory as simple as riding down a hill of snow, in this case. As well, throughout the book, the Giver uses the phrase, “… back and back and back…”

In the book, it is an inside joke between Jonas and the Giver but it shows the stark reality of the situation that the community members are in. It shows that they have been in Sameness, have been oppressed, for centuries without end. In Jameela’s case, however, her father only assumes control over her after her mother dies, and due to the power she has that Jonas and his people don’t, Iameela frees herself from her father’s grasp at the end of the novel. The other oppressor in Wanting Mor, the Taliban, only assume control over Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. Finally, the government controls all aspects of life for the people in Jonas’ community. In the book, it is mentioned how specific amounts of food are delivered to each family unit, jobs are assigned to each citizen, spouses and children are given to the citizens, and how pills are given to control specific thoughts and feelings.

In the book, Jonas thinks to himself: “Even the Matching of Spouses was given such weighty consideration that sometimes an adult who applied to receive a spouse waited months or even years before a Match was approved and announced. All of the factors–disposition, energy level, intelligence, and interests–had to correspond and to interact perfectly Jonas’s mother, for example, had higher intelligence than his father; but his father had a calmer disposition. They balanced each other. Their Match, which like all Matches had been monitored by the Committee of Elders for three years before they could apply for children, had always been a successful one.” This shows the precision and effort put into the oppression of Jonas’ people. The Council of Elders spend years looking for a spouse, wasting time and energy. Every detail about the person must be considered to give them a spouse while, in a free world, spouses are chosen by the people who are going to get married so that they can live happy life.

Jameela though, has the freedom to eat as much food as she can get, have as many children as she wanted, and not have her thoughts and feelings interfered with, and have a say in who she marries. Jonas’ condition shows the ultimate level of oppression where nothing is in the hands of the person and the government manipulates their citizens to think that oppression is good for them. In conclusion, Jonas is more oppressed than Jameela because Jonas is not aware that he is being oppressed, his people have been oppressed for generations, and he doesn’t have control over anything that goes on in his life.

The moral to consider from both novels is that oppression does not provide anything positive for the population. It brings on unnecessary results and unintended consequences. It deprives people of their freedom and doesn’t let them live their lives to the fullest. Oppression comes from a lack of security and self—confidence of a person or leader. A person thinks being unfair to people around them will give them closure and provide them time to become complete while everyone else suffers. They are drunk with power and cannot comprehend what is going on, since they are cowardly hiding in the background. Oppression is a horrible practice and has no place in our modern society. For those who still oppress, are living in the past and need to move on with their lives.

A Case of Discontent

In Willa Cather’s short story “Paul’s Case,” the main protagonist Paul is a seemingly carefree young man. In truth, Paul despises his mediocre, middle-class life and wishes for the finer things in life. His egotistical mindset not only stresses his relationship with his father, it also prevents Paul from appreciating what he has.

By allowing himself to only see the negative, Paul is unable to find happiness and projects this distain onto the world around him. Understanding who Paul is helps the reader gain insight into why his life came to an untimely end and why his final moments expose a powerful lesson. Initially Paul appears to be extroverted; an outgoing, troublesome man who views the world in silent admiration. However, as the story progresses his true nature soon reveals itself.

Cather parallels both sides of Paul’s personality throughout the book. To others, Paul appears seemingly well-mannered; in reality he pays no mind to the desires, feelings, or thoughts of others, worrying only of himself. In fact, it is not until the middle of the story that he reveals he has sisters, yet never discloses anything about them, including their names. Here, in this small detail, Cather perpetuates the idea of Paul’s narcissism.

Cather also utilizes Paul’s final moments to show the audience his true self: “There flashed through his brain, clearer than ever before, the blue of Adriatic water, the yellow of Algerian sands” (Cather 85). During his last thoughts Paul is focused on all of the unfinished accomplishments he left behind instead of the family that will grieve him after he is gone.

This small, fleeting moment before his death truly epitomizes Paul’s inner being and his egocentric personality. His thoughtless self-nepotism only serves as an acidic catalyst in the relationship between him and his father. Ultimately, his self-important predilection and distain for his father expunge their relationship.

The relationship between a parent and a child is part of an intricate balancing act that can nurture or poison the attitude and personality of a child. Nature, too, has a role in how a child’s mind develops. Paul’s father is not faulted for his lack of parenting. It is Paul’s innate hubris that prevents understanding. Their relationship is one of indifference wrapped in mutual discontent. The father is seemingly the antagonist in the story.

However, from a parent’s perspective, the father only wants to protect his child. Proof of this desire comes from the father returning the money that his son had stolen to prevent him from going to jail. Yet Paul consistently twists his father’s actions and feelings into negative perceptions of his father’s true intent.

Cather exemplifies this idea by writing of Paul’s thoughts after sneaking in through the window after work: “Suppose his father had heard him getting in at the window and had come down and shot him for a burglar? … Then, again, suppose a day should come when his father would remember that night, and wish there had been no warning cry to stay his hand?” (74-75) Paul’s pattern of misinterpreting his father’s devotion is a reoccurring theme throughout the short story; the totality of these corrupt assumptions, as well as Paul’s animosity for his middle-class life help fuel a rapid demise.

The story of Paul is mostly one of discontent and disgust that eventually flourishes intoa crime spree and an untimely suicide. Paul’s opinion of his life, home, and family are apparent throughout the story. Cather uses a consistent repertoire of adjectives to describe Paul’s feelings towards everything and everyone, such as “ugly,” “cold,” “grimy,” and “cracked” (74).

Paul even places himself above his middle class home. Cather writes that: “The nearer he approached the house, the more absolutely unequal Paul felt to the sight of it all” (74). Even at the end, Paul’s pretentiousness is present, demonstrating Paul’s palpable animosity for his home. The diction used by Cather is only a small part of Paul’s hatred for his home.

She uses Cordelia Street as one of the major symbols in the story, so that Paul could compare it to something abominable or middle-class. The quote, “It was to be worse than jail, even; the tepid waters of Cordelia Street were to close over him finally and forever,” (Cather 83) exemplifies Paul’s notion that he cannot escape mediocrity.

Embedded in this story is the idea that no matter what one has or does not have is of no consequence if no beauty can be found in anything. It is difficult to comprehend the mind of someone who is suicidal. Yet, in “Paul’s Case,” the moments leading up to his death are prominent and hold a deeper meaning into why he died. Paul’s negative thoughts skewed everything worthwhile in his life and left him barren of all contentment.

This story serves to tell that life should be cherished and not compared. Paul’s end was an outstanding example to those who live with hatred in their hearts for the lives they live; that they should enjoy the abundance of love and fulfillment they do have rather than fixate on what they do not.