While go toing my class on “War and Literature” . and listening to the conversation. I found myself struck by an rational inquiry presented by another pupil. This pupil asked. “When does paradox go lip service? ” Immediately afterwards I wrote the response. “A good war is a war that teaches it’s errors without one holding to populate with them. ” At first I didn’t know if I had genuinely responded to the inquiry. I analyzed both the inquiry and response carefully through the literary devices and found myself satisfied with the responses standing.
When analysing the response I foremost had to return to the inquiry. “When does paradox go lip service? ” Mentioning to this inquiry I had to inquire if my response held a paradox. “A good war is a war that teaches it’s errors without one holding to populate with them. ” Sing that a paradox is a statement that seems paradoxical. and that “a good war” is the debut to the response. suggested that “a good war” is a paradox. However. why is it that “a good war” is a paradox? War can outdo be defined as active ill will. Good can besides be best defined as being good behaved. Sing these definitions and the response. “a good war” would surely be a paradox because active ill will is contradictory to being good behaved. However. most would presume that “a good war” was the responses paradox. and to presume otherwise would be dissing to someone’s mind.
So so 1 has to inquire how it is so normally understood that “a good war” is a paradox? To reason this inquiry. 1 must see that most of everyone was raised with the developmental apprehension of good and bad. Most of everyone besides would normally hold that war is non good. So why do people still go. and why do we non larn from “it’s errors without person holding to populate with them” ? From statistics taken in the twelvemonth two thousand 14s. seven per centum of America’s society is a veteran. and in that twelvemonth there were near three hundred 18 million citizens. That means that over 20 two million American citizens are veterans of foreign war. So how is it that we can convert over seven per centum of our citizens to travel put on the line their support? We determined that war is incorrect so how do we replace the thoughts of good and bad? To better reply that inquiry. it is better to replace the employment of a soldier with a painter. In order to do person who is non a painter go a painter. one would hold to travel through a series of undertakings.
First. cut off entree to other mediums. Do non let that individual to work with anything other so painting. If they want to compose a missive place. they paint it. If they want to make something three dimensional. they paint it. If they want to state a narrative. they once more. will paint it. Now there is no difference between the painter with their paintbrush. and the recruit with their rifle. Second. use influences to praise the ideals. The same recruited painter now needs to be surrounded with people who portion the same ideals. The painter can non hold the influences of sculpturers. in writing interior decorators. or any other embassador of other art signifier. The painter needs the overall support of equals with the capable affair. This once more. is no different from the soldier and their equals. Third. deter all other ideals. The facilitator. who is modulating the passage between non-painters to painters. demands to openly degrade the ideals of all other art signifiers. The facilitator needs to do certain that the recruits hear their passionate sentiments about how other art signifiers are “wrong” . This will steer the recruits to besides portion the same ideals.
This relationship resembles the relationship between Drill Instructors and their recruits. Fourthly. revival the rubric has a distinguished history of celebrated persons. For a painter. there are many distinguished persons that made a dramatically difference within the kingdom of art. For some illustrations. there is Vincent Van Gough. Pablo Picasso. and Leonardo De Vinci. It is up to the facilitator to idolise these persons in forepart of the forth-coming painters. This will give the recruited painters the outlooks they need to go adored into their new profession. This will besides do the recruited painters strive to accomplish the same award. For the recruited soldier. they hear about the altruistic actions of the Medal of Honor. Prisoners of War. and Purple Heart receivers. For them. they besides strive to accomplish that award. Last. supply the alumnus with a quotation mark that brands them with award. For case. EARTH. Semper Fi. or Army of One. This will give the alumnus something to expose as pride and unify them everlastingly with the other persons who besides have endured the same preparation.
Now returning back to the inquiry. “when does a paradox go a hypocrisy” . the response needed to be evaluated for the literary device of lip service. Is “a good war is a war that teaches it’s errors without one holding to populate with them” . a response of lip service. Through the development of good and bad. we have concluded that war is incorrect. To propose otherwise would suggest a province of insanity. Insanity is a mental unsoundness of the head or non conforming. Since we have conclude that the popular pick is to state that war is incorrect suggests that people who desire to travel to war. miss war. or idolise war are insane. So are they insane? If the response. “war Teachs it’s errors without one holding to populate with them” is true. than yes. However. the statement is hypocrisy and lip service is the pretence of holding. So returning back to the pattern of transitioning from non-painter to painter. the recruit became a painter. Now what if. during the passage. the recruit ne’er got the chance to paint.
The full clip the recruit was given black ink to pattern the techniques of picture. but ne’er received oil or acrylic pigments. The recruit sat through Sessionss where they viewed images of others painters and their colourful pictures. merely to ne’er have colour to paint with. After the passages period. after the recruit was given the rubric of painter and hope to eventually paint with colour. However. the limitation continues and they once more were ne’er given oil or acrylic pigments. They had practiced the trade for old ages without existent executing. The result is evident. They will everlastingly long to paint. This is the state of affairs with the soldier. The soldier patterns with clean ammo for old ages. positions images of warfare. patterns the techniques of warfare. and ne’er gets to put to death their patterns in war. The result is evident. They will forever long for warfare. So in respects to the response. from the soldiers perspective. they would differ because war can non “teach it’s errors without one holding to populate with them. ”
They themselves desire warfare. However. for sanenesss sake. they would propose the response to be true in the company of other American citizens. This is the pretence of holding and concludes the statement to be hypocrisy ; at least from the soldiers perspective. So does the statement apply to other citizens of America? Again. the response to the initial inquiry suggests that war is incorrect and a sane response is to hold with the statement. This implies that American citizens do non see the statement as lip service. However. how much money is accumulated over the screening of one Hollywood film about warfare? How much money and clip is exhausted reading through the narratives about warfare? How frequently do people happen exhilaration when sharing a conversation with a veteran where they can inquire personal inquiries about their experiences? As peaceable people who agree with the statement. American citizens oddly find something obliging about war.
It is non my place to impeach the multitudes of being militarists. However. to support the unity of my response. the response is hypocrisy. It can non “teach it’s mistakes” if people live vicariously through the experiences of war. Without war that satisfaction is taken off and the amusement lost. proposing that the errors aren’t learned ; they’re idolized. To suggest other wise is the pretence of holding or besides known as lip service. So can war learn “it’s mistakes” ? Can the statement of all time become true? Lashkar-e-taibas once more look at the inquiry. “when does paradox go lip service? ” and compare it to the response. “a good war is a war that teaches it’s errors without one holding to populate with them. ” In order to do the response true we would hold to paraphrase the inquiry. This clip we will inquire. when does paradox go unity? We have concluded that the response to the initial inquiry is both a paradox and lip service. but we have overlooked one literary device.
Personification is the representation of an abstraction in the signifier of a individual. In the response we suggested that “a good war” is a paradox. and if “war Teachs it’s errors without one holding to populate with them” is hypocrisy. However. the response besides suggests that we have personified war. So in order to do the statement. “a good war is a war that teaches it’s errors without one holding to populate with them” true. we have to take the personification and paraphrase the response to “a good individual is a individual that teaches their errors without one holding to populate with them” . By taking the literary device of personification we have successful removed the other literary devices of paradox and lip service. and gave the response unity.
If a good individual were to learn others about their life’s errors. possibly others could larn from them. It is the gift from the veteran of foreign wars to show to others the errors of warfare. From that point frontward. it is up to the receiver of the gift to larn from the veteran’s errors. War can non learn it’s errors because war as a whole removes the personal facet of warfare. It gives the person a figure alternatively of a valued narrative. However. the individual’s personal narrative. the veteran. includes the emotional toll of warfare. From that personal narrative. the audience can now get down to understand the disfunction of warfare and that personal narrative can be identified as the gift.