This is question ans it fast its argent

Sartre said this and he meant that the nature of things (essence) isn't more fundamental than it being (existing). This is the opposite of what a few other philosophers had said before.

Existencialists say that humans don't have an inherent identity, and they find meaning for life as they exist through their consciousness.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Discuss the conflicts in Rousseau’s painting and how they compare to the conflicts in Connell’s short story “The Most Dangerous

telo118 [61]

Since the question talks of a lion and an antelope in Rousseau's painting, it is safe to assume it is regarding the painting "The Hungry Lion Throws Itself on the Antelope".

Answer and Explanation:

Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" and Rousseau's painting "The Hungry Lion Throws Itself on the Antelope" both concern the conflict between a hunter and a prey. However, there is an interesting distinction between them. The painting shows an animal hunting another animal. The lion, as a carnivore, is supposed to hunt to feed itself and its cubs. The antelope, as a herbivore, is below the lion in the food chain and is supposed to serve as food for the predator. Therefore, there is no other way for things to go, no other way for them to function. The lion will never become a herbivore, for instance. However, in Connell's story, what we have is an abomination. Man hunting man, solely for fun. The following dialog between Rainsford and Zaroff is evidence of that:

"But they are men," said Rainsford hotly.

"Precisely," said the general. "That is why I use them. It gives me pleasure. They can reason, after a fashion. So they are dangerous."

In the plot, general Zaroff is a hunter who has grown tired of killing beasts. Irrational animals no longer represent a challenge. He wants to feel some sort of thrill during the hunt, which is why he has started to hunt other men. They can reason; they can think of traps; they represent a challenge. If we were to compare this character to the painting, he would most likely be the lion. He is the ultimate hunter, the most skillful and analytical predator, who does not see his activity as murder, but as a mere link in the chain of life.

Rainsford, on the other hand, was once a lion as well, but is now an antelope. Rainsford is also a hunter. Just like Zaroff, he had no mercy when it came to the beasts he killed. But now the tables have turned and he is the prey, hunted by Zaroff. He will now understand the fear the hunted beasts feel upon being chased and shot at. However, in the end, he will go back to being a lion. He will defeat Zaroff. Still, he will never be the same. Unlike a real, natural lion, who has no choice but to do what it does, Rainsford's attitude towards hunting will most likely change. He will probably grow from the experience now that he knows what it feels like to be on the other side of it. At the beginning of the story, fear was beyond his imagination:

"Even so, I rather think they understand one thing--fear. The fear of pain and the fear of death."

"Nonsense," laughed Rainsford. "This hot weather is making you soft, Whitney. Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes--the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are hunters. Do you think we've passed that island yet?"

The painting also shows a couple of other animals watching as the lion attacks the antelope. In regards to the story, the other animals may be the other men who were trapped in Zaroff's island. Instead of being hunted themselves, they were spared. The lion was too focused on the antelope - Zaroff was busy hunting Rainsford -, which allowed them to breathe and rest, knowing they would not be the ones running for their lives.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers