Power Of Doubt

Although Sister Aloysius has a good point it can also be said that her teaching styles can lead to children becoming very introverted never going outside of their comfort zones for fear of reciprocation. Sister James is the complete opposite of Sister Aloysius she is kind, innocent to the world, and a very caring teacher who wants to get involved with the children’s life to better help them learn and grow as an individual. Sister james truly loves her class as read in the play, “Flynn: Like you care about your class! You love them, don’t you? Sister James:

Sister, convinced that Shirley-T. is not adopted, makes the comment that she looks like their grandfather if he were to ever cut off his beard. So, the first thing Stella-Rondo does when they sit down to eat is attempt to turn Papa-Daddy against Sister. Even though Sister tries to deny what Stella-Rondo says, Papa-Daddy does not listen, but if Sister would argue her innocence without correcting him and getting upset with him, she would have improved the situation. Stella-Rondo easily gets Mama on her side by playing the victim card. Sister thinks that Mama favors her sister, and she points out that “if it had been me that trotted in from Illinois and brought a peculiar-looking child of two, I shudder to think of the reception I’d of got” (362). Mama denies any such accusation and becomes angry when Sister suggests that Shirley-T. might have a problem speaking. After that, Sister is convinced that Stella-Rondo has turned her mama against her while upstairs with her. Uncle Rondo, who has always been particularly fond of Sister, has a bad temper, and Stella-Rondo knows this. Sister concludes that Stella-Rondo would aim to make Uncle Rondo angry with her before dinner even started. Indeed, Sister’s paranoia is not in vain because Stella-Rondo lies to Uncle Rondo saying that it was Sister who made fun of him wearing the kimono. In hearing this, he becomes outraged at Sister and retaliates by throwing lit fireworks

The significance behind certainty versus doubt in Doubt has to do with the characterization of both Sister James and Sister Aloysius. The characters’ stance on certainty versus doubt divides the characters’ personalities. Sister Aloysius has a confident and strong willed character throughout the story while Sister James is shown to have a very insecure personality and is usually shown to be unclear about situations. This characterization is shown when Sister James and Sister Aloysius talk about William London’s bloody nose. Sister Aloysius is convinced that William London’s bloody nose was self-induced while Sister James believes that William is innocent. Sister Aloysius’ suspicion about William is proven to be right when William is heading home, “He has a bloody handkerchief to his nose. He’s in a good mood. He takes the handkerchief away. The nose has stopped bleeding. He smiles. He lights a cigarette.” (Shanley Script, pg 18) This foreshadows the reactions taken by both Sister James and Sister Aloysius when it comes to determining Father Flynn’s credibility. Shanley does this to give the reader an idea of how Sisters James

No one really wins in the power struggle. Even though both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius seemed to gain the upper hand on one another, they ended up in a stalemate. Sister Aloysius used lies to get rid of Father Flynn. She tries to justify her actions and convince herself that she did the right thing but at the end of the day there will always be a sense of doubt and uncertainty in the back of her mind. Father Flynn may have gotten a promotion and a new position, but still had his reputation tarnished and had to leave a school in which he enjoyed working at. The difference in beliefs between both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius led to this conflict. If both Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius were both either conservatives or liberals, they may have not even clashed in the first place and none of these evens might have

“What do you do when you’re not sure...” so begins Father Flynn’s sermon near the beginning of the play Doubt. Father Flynn delivers his sermon to the people of St. Nicholas Catholic church in the Bronx in the year following President Kennedy’s assassination. His sermon builds upon a story of a sailor lost at sea who has doubts about the course he has set and his doubt becomes the metaphor for the community who has lost its certainty. So, in other words, when someone loses certainty they doubt about someone or something and want to belief the uncertain is true. To do so they make anything in their power to find out that their doubt is a belief even if it means to lie.

Lastly, her family betrayed her by not listening to her side of the story after her sister told lies about her, and they betrayed her when they acted as if they did not care if she moved out of the house. In all of these actions, the family itself and certain members of the family are portrayed as uncaring, unsupportive, disrespectful, conniving, deceitful, and hateful to Sister. Through every action of the family, Sister is treated harshly, and she tries to not let this bother her. Yet, anger and bitterness build up inside of her until she cannot take it anymore. Consequently, it built up so much inside of her that it severely affected Sister so profoundly that she moved away from her home to get away from her family.

I believe in a higher power, and I will let that higher power guide me

The play Doubt: A Parable is centered around a progressive priest at St. Nicholas school, who is accused of molesting a child by the principal of the school. Although he is accused, there is never substantial evidence presented against him, and only covered up inappropriate actions taken by Sister Aloysius. The accusation being made on limited grounds, and the way in which the sister had to take steps outside of what would be expected of her, depicts the seriousness of the hierarchy in the church. This hierarchy is outdated, along with the Christmas pageant and Sister Aloysius belief system, presenting a clear theme of traditional and guilty versus progressive and innocent—eventually leading to the demise of the main characters.

This then arouses suspicion that there may be witches in their village, so Reverend Hale is requested to investigate. Even though nothing is actually happening, many people become scared and come to a point where they start confessing things they never did just to save themselves. Mary Warren was one of the accused and the longer she was held, the more she considered confessing to save herself. “‘She'll kill me for sayin' that!’… ‘I cannot, they'll turn on me’” (Miller 62). Many of the characters begin by choosing not to name names but they realize that they need to save themselves so they will do almost anything, including confessing things they did not do. The madness gets to the people who are accused and they confess things that the village wants to hear in order to escape their possible

In the novel, Shanley reveals the differences between the characters, of Sister Aloysius who is the stern traditionalist, the complete opposite of Father Flynn who is a very fun, kind, and a progressive person. Sister Aloysius thinks that Father Flynn’s ways of living life are very strange and is appalled by his habits, because she feels very nervous and threatened that Father Flynn will take over the church, and tradition will leave the system. Sister Aloysius likes to have her own specific list of beliefs, and traditions, so when she sees Father Flynn’s long fingernails, and the amount of sugars he puts in his tea, she becomes outraged, shocked, and appalled by the ways that he enjoys living his life. Sister Aloysius says: “Your fingernails.” Father Flynn replies

Sister Aloysius development through the film shows her to be very rigid, along with the accusations she presents it easily agreeable to say that she represents darkness. Sister Aloysius accusation affects Father Flynn, she has wrongfully accused him of sexual misconduct with a

     In Shadow of a Doubt, Hitchcock utilizes and stretches the ambiguous line between comedy and suspense by utilizing smaller characters in the film to keep the story line moving, and to help break sequence or rhythm of what the audience had been perceiving at the time. Many of the minor characters were used as “fillers”, such as the waitress in the bar when Uncle Charlie and Charlie are sitting in the bar, and makes the comment “I would die for a ring like this”; or the quiet, gentle neighbor Herb who is fascinated with the process of homicide and murder. It brings to the audience an immediate comic relief, but similar to all of Hitchcock, leaves an unsettling feeling of fear and suspense with

Doubt by John Patrick Shanley is about a nun who is entirely convinced that a priest had done something inappropriate to one of the students and taken advantage of the fact that the student (Donald Muller) is an African American. Sister Aloysius Beauvier, the nun, concluded that Father Flynn, the priest, had been forcing Donald Muller to drink wine and molesting him. With the help of a naive nun named Sister James, Sister Aloysius attempted to investigate her assumption of Father Flynn’s actions even if it meant contacting Donald’s mother. Sister Aloysius is a stereotypical splenetic Catholic School nun who believes that being an unsympathetic and oppressive person to the students is the most effective method in order to make the students oblige to her commands. The literary theory chosen for this literature work is the Freudian literary theory. Freudian literary theory is based on the works of Sigmund Freud and workings of the mind and instinct as well as sexuality. The play Doubt and Freudian literary theory can be related because Freud’s work reveals the id, ego and superego and how it affects a person. Id is a natural instinct. Ego ensures that the impulses of the id is expressed in an acceptable behavior. Superego provides guidelines and morals for making judgments. (Brizee) Sister Aloysius’ id desires to get rid of Father Flynn immediately. Her superego is diminished since she lied to Father Flynn. Her ego is shown

From an early age I considered myself to be a skeptic of all different subjects. My mother said that I was always asking “why?” in order to find clarity as a child. I believe that this kind of skepticism lives in all human beings, and that a healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing. According to Paul Kurtz, “A skeptic is one who is willing to question any knowledge claim, asking for clarity in definition, consistency in logic and adequacy of evidence.” With that being said to what extent does clarity in definition, consistency in logic, and adequacy of evidence validate a claim in the areas of knowledge such as ethics and history? What does it take to validate a claim to the point where it becomes a personal truth? I can ask “why?” as much as I would like but when will my skepticism be satisfied and is Paul Kurtz process enough to find truth in different knowledge claims? In my opinion, Paul Kurtz has a great system of evaluation but he is leaving out a key component and that is experience.

She was not upset the day her brother died, and felt no guilt for her feelings about him. "I was sad for them [her family] rather than over any loss of mine, because my brother had become a stranger to me. I was not sorry that he had died, but I was sorry for him because, according to his standards, his life had been thoroughly worth living" (p. 55-56).