 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)recycle dariusgriffin ...and 363 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614278 Today 25 Topics 127553 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i was wondering if you fine folks would care to help me with my English homework :) we read the first chapter of 'great expectations' about a week ago, and have 5 questions to answer for tomorrow. unfortunately, i was so tired, i slept for the entire reading, and haven't read the book for ages. here's the questions: 1) Explain why it is a good literary technique to use characters that are opposites 2) What is comical about the events that transpired between the convict and Pip? Quote the scene and describe 3) Explain why both these characters deserve our pity 4) What social issues does Dickens introduce in the first chapter of GREAT EXPECTATIONS? 5) Predict what the title of the book may mean. Justify your prediction if you wanna help, great, if not, 's ok too! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh man, fuck this, I remember doing this shit a few years ago. Sorry m8, suffer through it, this makes you a freshman in High School then? I think that is when they had us do it, could be wrong though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i also read that book as a freshman, and unfortunately lack the sufficient recollection to be of any aide =p |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually i guess i'm a senior in junior high, or middle school...grade 9 for me. i got the last 3 questions, i can get the first two tomorrow. thx anyways! :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
1) Explain why it is a good literary technique to use characters that are opposites It allows the author to use the characters as mouthpieces for the thesis and antithesis of a Hegelian dialectic. 2) What is comical about the events that transpired between the convict and Pip? Quote the scene and describe convict: arr give me yer tender mouth pip: *glurble*choke* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It allows the author to use the characters as mouthpieces for the thesis and antithesis of a Hegelian dialectic. dooooood, that shit's way beyond me. thx, tho |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hegel is easy. Thesis: ice cream is tasty. Antithesis: ice cream is fattening. Synthesis: let's get low fat ice cream. All these thesis/antithesis -> synthesis ideas lead to an ideal realm where Hegel is worshipped as a god. There is also the principle of der barkenschnauzerschnitzelschpritzing but that's enough for one night. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hehehe the longest german word i know of is Geschwindigkeitsüberschreitung ("speeding" in english) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
grade 9 = freshman in high school, just like I guessed do I get a prize? how bout an 'A'? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's yours to keep. *hands big giant A to Blatant* what grades are in what schools down ther? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My goodness, there are so many eminent dead european philosophers with their big words! I always refer to Woody Allen's summary of epistemology: In formulating any philosophy, the first consideration must always be: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed to say anything? Descartes hinted at the problem when he wrote , "My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs." By "knowable," incidentally, I do not mean that which can be known by perception of the senses, or that which can be grasped by the mind, but more that which can be said to be Known or to possess Knownness or Knowability, or at least something you can mention to a friend. Can we actually "know" the universe? My God, it's hard enough to find your way around in Chinatown. The point, however, is: Is there anything out there? And why? And must they be so noisy? Finally, there can be no doubt that the one characteristic of "reality" is that it lacks essence. That is not to say it has no essence, but merely lacks it. (The reality I speak of here is the same Hobbes described, but a little smaller.) Therefore the Cartesian dictum "I think, therefore I am" might be better expressed "Hey, there goes Edna with a saxaphone!" So, then, to know a substance or an idea we must doubt it, and thus, doubting it, come to perceive the qualities it possesses in its finite state, which are truly "in the thing itself," or "of the thing itself," or of something or nothing. If this is clear, we can leave epistemology for the moment. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
