Answer:
the beat and their advocates found the joy lessness and propose lessness of modern society sufficient justification for the withdrawal and protest beat poets to transform poetry into an expression of genuine experience
Early modern philosophy in Europe and Great Britain is awash with discussions of the emotions: they figure not only in philosophical psychology and related fields, but also in theories of epistemic method, metaphysics, ethics, political theory and practical reasoning in general. Moreover, interest in the emotions links philosophy with work in other, sometimes unexpected areas, such as medicine, art, literature, and practical guides on everything from child-rearing to the treatment of subordinates. Because of the breadth of the topic, this article can offer only an overview, but perhaps it will be enough to give some idea how philosophically rich and challenging the conception of the emotions was in this period. Most attention will be devoted to the familiar figures of early modern philosophy and how they conceived of the emotions as valuable, even indispensable aspects of embodied human life, which were largely constitutive of the self and identity that matter to us practically.
A word of caution is in order: there is a plethora of source material, and this entry is offered as a survey for organizing that material. Alas, much worthy material must be excluded here. This article and its supplements are designed for readers browsing for specific information, as well as those hardy souls who may wish to read it straight through. The main document offers a thematic overview of early modern discussions of the emotions. Separate links lead to documents devoted to the pre-history of the topic, as well as to some of the most important individual figures in early modern philosophy. Hope this helps! Mark brainly please this took me a lot of time!
Answer:
They have kept the country intact
Explanation:
I think this is a very interesting question. In my opinion, I think they have kept the country intact, look at it this way. Political parties means that there exists choice for the people. Absence of political parties makes it a 1 man ruling without the necessary checks and balances. Like in that of a monarchical ruling t, or military ruling. Essentially, one can do and undo as one wishes.
Now, the advent of political parties brings choice, meaning the people can choose. In a situation where party A doesn't fulfill its political campaign promises, they are at risk of being voted out by the people for party B. Party B themselves won't sit down idle, while not in power, they wake the people up to the wrongdoings of party A.
Like I said, the presence of political parties brings choice to the people, and also creates checks and balances. So, yes, they have kept the country intact.
divided government is the correct answer
Republican control is wrong
Answer:
Explanation:
January 1 came, and with it the final proclamation, which committed the government and armed forces of the United States to liberate the slaves in rebel states “as an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity.
