In Walden, Thoureau presents a lesson of wisdom about the best way to life as an individual and as a social being.
What would look like excentricity to most people, means to him a reflection about the capitalism and the advantages and disadvantages of urbanization and industrialization.
The trancendentalism defended the vality of the intuition, and individualism. So it fits with the thoughts of Thoureau about the industrialization and reflections about life, as it is possible to confirm in Walden when a question is frequently asked about what is really important to the basic needs for the modern man to have a good life. He defends that it is possible to have a good life with the minimum of material resources to provide whatever the spirit needs, such as reading, reflections about life and nature watching. On the other hand, he afirms that it is possible to have a good life without an excess of clothes, food or fancy houses.
Answer:
As penance, Jalil and his two sons build the kolba, or hut, with their bare hands for Nana.
Explanation:
“Jalil could have hired laborers to build the kolba, Nana said, but he didn’t. ‘His idea of penance.’” (10).
(HOPE IT HELPS)
Answer:
the one the question is refering to.
The writing 'rule' (myth) Churchill's reply satirizes is the 'Never end a sentence on a preposition' rule (i.g. as I intetionally did on the immediate sentence before this one). And his reply to it was something like 'This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.'
The 'rule' is a myth, yes, but of course what Churchill did was an exaggeration to sneeringly point out the ignorance of those who criticized him.
His sentence therefore was incorrect. One possible change to improve it could be: 'This is the type of errant pedantry which I will not put up with.'
Specially the 'up' and 'with' of 'put up with' could never go in the middle of a sentence, as 'put up with' is a phrasal verb, meaning the verb and the preposition must always be together in the correct order.
I was able to find some possible variations of what his sentence could have actually had been, but in none of them the 'up with' goes along with 'put', so either ways we can assume that his sentence was deliberately wrong.
Explanation:
brainly
