Bertrand Russell Is One of the Greatest Masters of English Prose.

Lamott uses similes in her writing to help the readers better understand and visualize what she is trying to explain, by comparing two things. Throughout her essay a main type of figures of speech that is used is metaphors, “And there are also the dogs: let’s not forget the dogs, the dogs in their pen who will surely hurtle and snarl their way out if you ever stop writing […] the latch that keeps the door of the pen closed, keeps those crazy, ravenous dogs contained.” (3). This metaphor is clear about what the real meaning is, but is also a powerful and useful metaphor. Lamott’s essay uses different writing techniques, but metaphors are the main figure of speech that helps the reader fully imagine and understand what the author is trying

B. Explanation of allusion: Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher, mathematician and social critic who was involved in the Anglo-American philosophy movement. He campaigned for peace and wrote on social, political, and moral subjects publishing 70 books and around 2,000 articles. In 1890, Russell switched his focus from mathematics to philosophy. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. He spent

In the first three sentences of the essay, the speaker adopts a very childlike style. He makes use of simple words and keeps the sentences short, similar in style to that of an early aged teenager. But since the text is written

The syntax that he uses may be more informal instead of formal academic language. He also uses good organizational structure to support his argument. He frequently initiates a new idea with a hook to get the readers attention or a transitionary phrases to segway into new ideas which makes the reading flow well. Then the idea is supported by either an anecdote from people or scholars that were interviewed or a statistic. This helps make his reasoning come across as persuasive and maybe bring resemblance to the readers own experiences that they can relate

He first disproves of the thought that philosophy studies only controversies to which the answer is impossible to know, and says that it will only matter, and have an effect on those who study philosophy for the purpose of gaining knowledge to connect the sciences for an understanding of the universe. Russell then compares a life without philosophy and a life with philosophy, the difference being that a life without philosophy is confined to only thinking of our world, while one who lives a philosophical life is free to think of the outer world, as well as beyond. He concludes by saying philosophy is not studies for the sake of answers, but for the sake of the questions themselves, in order to expand our knowledge of possibilities and intellectual imagination, in addition to understanding the capabilities and greatness of the

Lakoff and Johnson state, “[w]e have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action” (3). They are saying that metaphors are used all the time and not just when people talk, but when they think and in what they do. This is exactly true because after learning about metaphors, and getting a better understanding of them, I have realized how much I, and others, apply them to everyday life without even realizing it, or trying to. Using a metaphor to describe Haas and Flower’s reading concepts will therefore make for a better grasp of what the concepts mean.

Bertrand Russell was a British philosopher, mathematician, and political activist. He studied philosophy and mathematics in college and was hired to give lectures at Trinity College. When World War I began, so did his political activism. In 1918, he wrote an article criticising the England’s part in the War and promoting peace. As a result, he was sent jail and removed from his position at Trinity. After he was released from jail, he began to travel the world giving lectures, and was eventually accepted back to Trinity. In 1950, he won the Nobel Prize in Literature and continued to give lectures on math and philosophy until his death in 1970. Throughout his life, he argued that war only causes more problems and that peace is the best solution.

Directions: Identify whether each group of words is a PH (phrase) or a CL (clause).

A woman similar to his mother played a brief but important role in his life. This person was his grandmother Ida Rebecca. Ida Rebecca and his mother did not pair well mostly because they shared a certain amount of competitiveness. It was this competitiveness that showed Russell exactly what kind of woman Ida Rebecca was. She had a domineering presence that displayed a quaint form of matriarchy over all those around her, not limited to just her children. This power humbled Russell towards adults and caused him to listen more than speak. Ida Rebecca could be considered one of his biggest benefactors. Because of this simple quality of silence she instilled in him, he was able to understand life much better. Obviously, anyone who listens more than speaks is more likely to learn more. Although she was strong, Ida did have some loose ends. She was very superstitious. Everything

As the film unfolds, the audience learns that although there were financial morals fueling the master plan, there was also the desire to bring justice upon a man that had betrayed and cheated his way to the top, thus giving the audience a sense of righteousness in what Russell was doing. Russell had become not only the man literally inside the bank, but inside the lies of Case with the means to expose them. This alignment serves to form a sort of paradoxical allegiance in which although the audience understands he is the leader of a criminal group, he is also uncovering the secrets of an evil man and thus somewhat proving his innocence. This same allegiance causes the audience to enjoy the conclusion, both out of respect for the intelligence of the plan and because of his ability to escape with the documents and potentially to uncover the awful past of Arthur Case.

Bertrand Russell discussed certain problems he found with philosophy. Russell was concerned about how much did we really know. There is the stuff we know with our mind when we have a particular idea, and stuff we know through actually experiencing it which would justify it. But how do we know if it is real, or even there, for that matter? Russell says, “For if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of object, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people’s bodies, and therefore still less of other peoples minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies” (Russell, 47). How can Farmer Brown be sure that the dairyman just didn’t have an idea

Russell was a leader in the revival of the philosophy of empiricism in the large field of epistemology. He wrote Our Knowledge of the External World (1914), The Analysis of Matter (1927) and Human Knowledge, Its Scope and Limits (1948). He also wrote Principles of mathematics (1903), Principia Mathematica (with A.N. Whitehead; three volumes, 1910 – 1913), and Introduction to mathematical Philosophy (1919).

Bertrand Russell’s essay addresses many issues concerning philosophy. In the writing, he states philosophy’s nature, value, and criticisms. The essay explains these aspects of the study of philosophy in relatively different ways. The main idea for establishing value in his essay is by explaining how it is best obtained, and its effect on other people. The essay continues with his criticisms of those who opposed

“The relationship between the energies of the inquiring mind that an intelligent reader brings to the poem and the poem’s refusal to yield a single comprehensive interpretation enacts vividly the everlasting intercourse between the human mind, with its instinct to organise and harmonise, and the baffling powers of the universe about it.”

The first time I read "The Lotus-Eaters"1, I have to admit that I had a