Answer:
autonomy is one word that represents both.
You didn’t show the writing we don’t know
This question is about the article "On Thin Ice" by Susan Mcgrath
Answer:
She meant that polar bears are admirable.
Explanation:
The author of the article refers to polar bears as magnificent, grandiose and very admirable animals in the midst of the landscape where they fit. With that, we can understand that she describes polar bears in this way because they are beautiful and have impressive and admirable body structures, mainly because of the environment in which they live.
the way u would do this is as simple as "in and out"
A person can think however they want. Actions, like many have said, define a person in the end. Someone can advocate for peace with malicious intent, but they will still likely be remembered for advocating peace and not for their impure motivations. If these contradicting images are revealed to the public, that is still an act against that person, and is no longer a thought.
However, this is only from the public's view. When it comes to people, they may as well be the embodiment of their thoughts. Everything is fueled by something. The same person who seeds their own goals under the guise of peace will not think of themselves as one who acts with the intentions of bringing peace. They will be looking to call forth whatever it is that they want, and be aware that what they present to the public is not the truth.
So, both points are arguable. It depends on whether you value the individual or the community. Actions are what are remembered, and thoughts are a person's reason. Even today, this comes into relevancy because people want to know why certain figures in history did what they did. Thoughts make a person human, after all. Without thought, seperation of man and beast would be nigh impossible. Without action, man would have been left behind long ago. Both thought and action are important indeed.
