Truth vs Happiness in Fahrenheit 451 Essay Example

Truth vs Happiness in Fahrenheit 451 Essay Submitted on Wednesday, March 27th Submitted By: William Would you rather be happy in your life and live in ignorance or would you rather live your life with more of a purpose? Even if that purpose means doing things that most people would frown upon. This is one of the conflicts the characters face in the book Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit 451 is a book about a fireman named Guy Montag. In his society fireman start fires rather than put them out. Most fires started by the firemen are fires in which they burn books.Most books are not allowed and the firemen have to be called to burn them. In this book Montag appears to be a by the book firemen early on but as the book continues you learn he has his doubts about his work and if he is really happy at all with the current life he is living. In Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury believes that it is better to know the truth about your life and live with purpose than to live your life happy in ignorance. In the book Bradbury proves this in a few ways. One way it did this is when Guy Montag first met Clarrisse and started questioning what was wrong with the society that they lived in at the time.When Montag started to do the same it eventually gave him a new purpose in life and started giving him the ability to have real relationships and actually become happy with his life instead of just being happy in ignorance like most of the other people in the city he lived in. It also opened his eyes to a different world of knowledge and showed him that his old life was a lie. Those are a few examples from the book showing that Ray Bradbury believed it is more important to live your life with purpose than to be happy in ignorance.One way Ray Bradbury showed that knowing the truth about your life is more important than being happy in ignorance is showed by the way Montag’s life completely changed after he discovered the truth about his life. After he realized he was living in ignorance it gave him a new purpose in his life. The event in the book that I believe started this realization is when he was asked Are you happy (15). This is a question Montag is asked by Clarrisse. This simple question really shook Montag up and made him really think about what was going on in his life and made him find out he is actually not appy. After knowing this Montag starts to actually stand up for what he believes in which gives him a new purpose in life. He starts to talk to an old English professor named Faber about almost trying to start a revolution of sorts. Plant the books, turn in an alarm and see the firemen’s houses burn (85). That’s the good part of dying; when you have nothing to lose, you run any risk you want (85). Those are two quotes of Montag talking to Faber. Those quotes are significant because they symbolized Montag becoming a completely changed person.They show that he is serious about standing up for what he believes in now and that he has found a new purpose in his life. It is the beginning of Montag’s new life and is an example of him no longer living his life in ignorance. That is one way that Ray Bradbury shows that it is more important to know the truth then be happy living in ignorance. Another way Ray Bradbury demonstrated that the truth is more important than being happy living a lie is how his social relationships changed after starting to think about the truth more. It was almost like he was a different person.Instead of continuing to have some pointless conversations like some people had in the book. You really start finding out about all the pointless conversations in the book on page 31 when Clarrisse says People don’t talk about anything She later says They name a lot of cars or clothes or swimming pools mostly and say how swell! But they say the same thing and nobody says anything different from anyone else. (31) After Guy had been talking to Clarrisse for a while you begin to realize that she has really changed the way he communicates with people and he begins to start having real conversations with people.An example of this is when on page 29 when Clarrisse asks him a question about children to which he replies It was a good question. It has been awhile since anyone cared enough to ask a good question. Montag’s answer shows that it is something he had never really put a lot of thought into until actually being asked the question by Clarrisse. That is another way that Ray Bradbury showed that it is better to live your life with purpose and know the truth about it rather than be happy in ignorance.The last way Ray Bradbury proved in that it is better to know the truth about your life than live in ignorance in Fahrenheit 451 is how after Montag got a purpose in his live it opened his eyes to a different world and showed him his old life was a lie. He actually started to be happy opposed to just thinking he was happy while living in ignorance. The first time you realize that Montag started off living in ignorance is after he is asked if he is happy he laughs and says Happy! Of all the nonsense, He stopped laughing. 10) This quote shows that Montag had thought he was happy but actually shows that he was just happy in ignorance. After Montag learns the truth about his life it opens his eyes to a new world of literature. Montag’s lack of knowledge about books is demonstrated when he is t alking to Faber on page 85 and says Are things like that in books? But it came off the top of my mind. This is significant because it shows that Montag is willing to learn about books and that some books may open him up to a world outside of the censorship he lives in.As the book goes on and Montag learns the truth about his life his opinions on things change drastically. This is shown when he is talking about leaving Mildred behind in the city and he says Even if she dies, I realized a moment age, I don’t think I will feel sad. It isn’t right. Something must be wrong with me. (155) This quote is significant because it shows that Montag it demonstrates that Montag is a changed man and he wouldn’t feel sad his wife died because he was not happy with his wife or his life prior to learning the truth.In Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury shows that it is more important to know the truth about something than it is to necessarily be happy about it. He demonstrates this by s howing that it is more important to live your life with purpose than it is to always be happy in your life. A moral to be learned from this is that it is better to tell people the truth, even if you think that telling the truth might hurt somebody’s feelings. It can be applied to real life in many situations when you have to decide to tell the truth or tell a lie. In the end whoever said The truth hurts wasn’t lying. We will write a custom essay sample on Truth vs Happiness in Fahrenheit 451 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Truth vs Happiness in Fahrenheit 451 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Truth vs Happiness in Fahrenheit 451 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer

Roth v. United States Supreme Court Decision

Roth v. United States Supreme Court Decision What is obscenity? This was the question put before the Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. United States in 1957. Its an important decision because if the government can ban something as obscene, then that material falls outside the protection of the First Amendment.   Those who wish to distribute such obscene material will have little  if any, recourse against censorship. Even worse, allegations of obscenity stem almost entirely from religious foundations. This essentially means that religious objections to a specific material can remove basic constitutional protections from that material. Fast Facts: Roth v. United States Case Argued: April 22, 1957Decision Issued:  June 24, 1957Petitioner: Samuel RothRespondent: United StatesKey Question: Did federal or California state obscenity statutes prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail impinge on freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Warren, Frankfurter, Burton, Clark, Brennan, and WhittakerDissenting: Justices Black, Douglas, and HarlanRuling: The court ruled that obscenity (as defined by whether an average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeal to prurient interest) was not constitutionally protected speech or press. What Lead to Roth v. United States? When it reached the Supreme Court, this was actually two combined cases: Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California. Samuel Roth (1893-1974) published and sold books, photographs, and magazines in New York, using circulars and advertising matter to solicit sales. He was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and advertising as well as an obscene book in violation of the federal obscenity statute: Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character... is declared to be nonmailable matter... Whoever knowingly deposits for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be nonmailable, or knowingly takes the same from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. David Alberts ran a mail-order business from Los Angeles. He was convicted under a misdemeanor complaint which charged him with lewdly keeping for sale obscene and indecent books. This charge included writing, composing, and publishing an obscene advertisement of them, in violation of the California Penal Code: Every person who wilfully and lewdly... writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, or book; or designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, or otherwise prepares any obscene or indecent picture or print; or molds, cuts, casts, or otherwise makes any obscene or indecent figure... is guilty of a misdemeanor... In both cases, the constitutionality of a criminal obscenity statute was challenged. In Roth, the constitutional question was whether the federal obscenity statute violated the provision of the First Amendment that Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...In Alberts, the constitutional question was whether the obscenity provisions of the California Penal Code invaded the freedoms of speech and press incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Courts Decision Voting 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided that obscene material has no protection under the First Amendment. The decision was based on the premise that freedom of expression does not provide absolute protection for every possible utterance of any sort: All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. But who decides what is and is not obscene, and how? Who gets to decide what does and does not have redeeming social importance? On what standard is that based on?   Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, suggested a standard for determining what would and would not be obscene: However, sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. The portrayal of sex, e. g., in art, literature and scientific works, is not itself sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press. ...It is therefore vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. So, there is no redeeming social importance to any appeal to prurient interests? Prurient is defined as excessive  interest in sexual matters.  This lack of social importance associated with sex is a traditionalist religious and Christian perspective. There are no legitimate secular arguments for such an absolute division.   The early leading standard of obscenity allowed material to be judged merely by the effect of an isolated excerpt upon particularly susceptible persons. Some American courts adopted this standard but later decisions have rejected it. These later courts substituted this test: whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeal to prurient interest. Since the lower courts in these cases applied the test of whether or not the material appealed to prurient interests, the judgments were affirmed. The Significance of the Decision This decision specifically rejected the test developed in the British case, Regina v. Hicklin. In that case, obscenity is judged by whether or not the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall. In contrast, Roth v. United States  based the judgment on community standards rather than the most susceptible. In a community of very conservative Christians, a person could be charged with obscenity for expressing ideas that would be regarded as trivial in another community. Thus, a person might legally sell explicit homosexual material in the city, but be charged with obscenity in a small town. Conservative Christians could argue that the material has no redeeming social value. At the same time, closeted gays could argue the opposite because it helps them imagine what life might be like without homophobic oppression. While these matters were decided over 50 years ago and times certainly have changed, this precedent could still affect current obscenity cases.

Bowman's Strategy Clock and Other Business Strategies Assignment

Bowman's Strategy Clock and Other Business Strategies - Assignment Example Bowman’s strategy clock is an extension of the three porter generic strategies. Owing to the decrease in the profit margin, pharmaceutical companies have adopted innovative marketing strategies in a bid to sustain and neutralize the impact of price regulation such as exploring new markets, establishing the effectiveness in distribution and building customer loyalty. Some of the challenges in the global pharmaceutical industry that the managers are facing include increased globalization, increase in competition, lack of new products despite the improved research and quick development of generic markets among others.The application of Bowman’s strategy clock in the establishment of competitive advantage among the global pharmaceutical companies will result in value improvement and product promotion with minimal reliance on drug pricing. This is because the industry is bound by legal and medical restrictions that make application of marketing strategies difficult. The stra tegy is normally focused on value, product promotion, and differentiation. Most pharmaceutical companies improve the value for their products while maintaining product standards or increasing prices for drugs. The industry ensures value for pharmaceutical products through conducting pharmaco-economic evaluations meant to show the efficacy and effectiveness of a new drug. For instance, a study on the cost of diabetes confirmed that fewer patients applied for pharmaceutical medicine in managing it (Holland, 2005: 552). This provided an opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to invest in disease management initiatives that created awareness among the population on the existence and effectiveness of their products.