Lekta & the Dialectic Essays -- Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Lekta & the Dialectic The scope of Stoic logic encompasses various aspects of their philosophy and serves as the primary method through which the rest of their opinions about the world are shaped. Stoic logic is easily divisible into two realms, the realm of the dialectic, and that of rhetoric. Rhetoric, with all its breadth and superfluity, seems less valuable to Stoic logic than the more simplistic dialectic. For the Stoics, the wise man is always the dialectician, for the dialectic distinguishes the true from the false with brevity and completeness. One of the most interesting aspects of Stoic logic, the concept of sayables or lekta pertains to this dialectic. There are numerous characteristics and conditions of sayables which ultimately reveal a great deal about the whole of Stoic philosophy and pose interesting questions about the continuity of their theory. Distinct from speech, sound, voices and utterances, lekta possess qualities which distinguish them from other aspects of communication and thought. At its most simple form, absent of various other conditions, a lekton is simply a piece of language that articulates a state of affairs, carries a truth value, and â€Å"subsists in accordance with a rational impression† (LS 196). Now, while lekta cannot be simply termed as speech or ideas, they are linked in a special sense with both speech and a concept to form an opinion. â€Å"†¦three things are linked together, ‘the signification’, ‘the signifier’, and ‘the name-bearer’. The signifier is an utterance, for instance ‘Dion’; the signification is the actual state of affairs revealed by an utterance, and which we apprehend as it subsists in accordance with our thought†¦ the name-bearer is the external object, for instance, Dion ... ...olded various lekta to create their propositions, forming questions which could be universally comprehended and evaluated. Without lekta, the dialectic could not have existed. The Stoic lekta, which I believe to be a corporeal part in the Stoic hierarchy of ‘somethings,’ provide a means through which logicians and philosophers could engage in the dialectic which developed various truths which we read about today. Whether lekta are a body or not, it remains that their strong independence and resilience as somethings can be used as a means to the end of scientific truth. Engaging in rational debate with propositions filled with subjects and predicates was the cornerstone of Stoic philosophy. Without logic, and the sayables which pieced together their dialectic, the Stoics would have been unable to provide perspective on those truths which have persisted through time.

Analysis and Interpertation of “Stolpestad”

Stolpestad by William Lychack I believe that we often consider the fact that we don’t get enough out of our lives. We think a lot about whether we live our lives to the full. Maybe someone chooses not to live an exciting life where every day, is a new day and a new opportunity. Whether we live a boring life – sometimes alone, sometimes with a family – we still wonder if we get enough out of our every day and avoid living a stagnant life. But is that even possible? Or does some just choose to live a predetermined life – which might make them feel secure because it’s something familiar – even though they might find it boring?But maybe it’s not possible to live a secure life with a family and a good job without getting tired of it? Maybe some people are just stuck in a boring life, without doing something to change it. I believe that is what we see in this short story by William Lychack, where we hear about police officer Stolpestad and h is stagnant life. Stolpestad certainly seems to be stuck in a routine – a boring life, where every day is the same. Day in and day out. As mentioned above we hear about the main character Stolpestad. He’s a police officer who doesn’t seem to be pleased about how his life turned out to be.He doesn’t seem happy about his job and it just seems like his life is at a standstill: â€Å"Was toward the end of your shift, a Saturday, another one of those long slow lazy afternoons of summer – sun never burning through the clouds, clouds never breaking into rain – †¦ † The day is described in a bit negative way because of the choice of words such as â€Å"long† â€Å"lazy† and â€Å"slow†. But it also seems like both these word and the weather description are a symbol of Stolpestad’s life. Everything seems a kind of inadequate – just like the weather.The sun is never really shining so much that it’s sunny, but at the same time, it’s not really rain either. The weather seems a kind of stagnant – just as Stolpestads life. A characteristic feature of this short story is the narrator view. The story is told in 2. Person but at the same time the text refers to Stolpestad as a â€Å"you† which means that it seems like it’s actually Stolpestad who’s telling the story. Maybe even telling the story to himself. The way this short story is written is a kind of what you would find in self-help books – and not in the ordinary short stories.Besides that it’s not quite clear when the persons in the story are actually speaking and when it’s just actions and Stolpestad’s thoughts: â€Å"Maybe you’ll take that glass if water after all, you say – the boy sent into the house – the woman asking if you won’t just help them. Doesn’t she want to call a vet? No, she tells you – the boy pushing out of the house with a glass of water for you – you thanking him and taking a good long drink, †¦Ã¢â‚¬  This quote also shows that the text is a bit difficult to read because it’s hard to figure out whether people is actually speaking or if the text is just written in a spoken language.There’re lot of things which symbolize Stolpestad’s life. For instance there’s the weather, but also the setting is a symbol of his boring life. Everything is described in a negative way: â€Å" †¦ the odometer like a clock ticking all these bored little pent-up streets and mills and tenements away. The coffee shop, the liquor stores, Laundromats, police, fire, gas stations to pass – †¦Ã¢â‚¬  The shops Stolpestad passes are plain and a kind of colorless, and it’s something he sees every day. We also hear that he passes his old childhood which means that he actually never really moved away.He just stayed in the same old town where he was born. Maybe therefore you could say that he never really got any further in his life. He just stayed â€Å"along the same sad streets. † The main theme in this short story is clear all the way through the text, and there’re a lot of symbols of Stolpestad and his life. A couple of them is ready mentioned, but also the dog, which he is supposed to shoot, is a symbol of Stolpestad. The dog is injured and about to die, but still it’s a live even though its condition might seem critical.You could say the same about Stolpestad. He is a kind of a living dead person, because it seems like his day is done in â€Å"zombie-mode†. He doesn’t get very much out of his life, he’s just trying to survive another day at the office, with the wife, the children and the sad streets. So the main theme – and also the conclusion – is that stagnation isn’t something good. You have to wake up and get something out of the day and your life, instea d wasting your precious time at endless bar visits and a job where you don’t even want to go.Stolpestad is really stuck in his life, and he doesn’t get any further, and maybe that’s what the point of this story is all about. William Lychack is trying to tell us that we shouldn’t just settle for a boring life. We should go out there and find who and what we wanted – and where we wanted it. But whether Stolpestad actually wants or tries to break with his stagnant life is uncertain but it could seem like it in the end of the story, where Stolpestad is actually heading toward the woods – maybe a symbol of something different or something new.But in the end Stolpestad is stuck in his life.. and reality stands in the door – and she wants her husband to come back inside again, and back to his every day routine. ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Stol pestad by William Lychack. Page 1. line 1-4 [ 2 ]. Stolpestad by William Lychack. Page 2. line 62-66. [ 3 ]. Stolpestad by William Lychack. Page 1. line 3-5 [ 4 ]. Stolpestad by William Lychack. Page 1. Line 11

Hamlets Character - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 608 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2019/04/10 Category Literature Essay Level High school Tags: Hamlet Essay William Shakespeare Essay Did you like this example? In William Shakespeares Hamlet, Hamlet can be characterised as a curious individual as he goes through a adventure of getting revenge for his father and making sure nobody knows his plans. In Act 3 Scene 1, As Hamlet is about to meet Ophelia, he goes into detail about his vision on life and death by using a lot of diction to add a deeper expression on his words to show more of a curious perspective for Hamlet as he uses words like outrageous and calamity to describe the process of how he feels on the experience of the process of life being calamity and then death being mostly outrageous. That process of thoughts makes Hamlet be seen as a over thinker as he also is in the act of being crazy to hide his actual knowledge of what he believes about Claudius being the reason of his fathers death. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Hamlets Character" essay for you Create order In addition, Hamlet also uses a bit of figurative language most likely to compare life and death to many things that goes on in his life. As he turn death into sleep can show that Hamlet feels as if he has a deeper understanding on what death is like mostly being that a person who is dead cannot wake up and is in deep sleep and as they sleep that person will begin to have dreams of all sorts of thing. Leaving Hamlet to show himself as optimistic person who thinks death can be many things but no one will be able to know what it is till we are dead and thats where well know. Furthermore, Hamlet uses syntax to have a deeper connection to his thoughts on life and death while also keeping in mind his revenge with Claudius. As he debates about what exactly death is by connecting it to either sleeping or reaching the end of life to basically make more sense to himself and to also give him a large variety of how he feels about himself. As he continue his questioning he shows himself as a more thought out person since in the beginning Hamlet has been pretty all over the place and was mainly confused about the situation he is currently in right now. Finally, to let himself see the life and death thoughts in a easier prospective Hamlet has used imagery to give a deeper view on what he thinks life and death is in form. As he goes on what goes on during death he becomes more descriptive by giving us a image of how a person dies by saying its like a shock from a heartache that was given from our planet or just as we know today as a heart attack. This shows that Hamlet is basically learning about the reality of life and death but is still unsure about the reasoning behind it besides how does it happens which also includes what happens when you are dead. In conclusion, Hamlet can be characterised as a morbid individual as he is currently still has a lot of anger for his family. Since he really does not want to be in the current position he is now by having to kill his uncle who has also killed his father to take over and is now married to his mother. As the story continues he continues to have this unhealthy method of keeping a secret to himself by acting crazy to not letting other know of his plot on assassinating his uncle. But it also leads to him being more understanding what is currently going on with him and his family and decides to continue with his plan with a steady mind.