In addition to the fact that Jamaica Kincaid’s short story “Girl” consists of one sentence, the reader should never forget about the number of lessons the author tries to share. This narrative presents the evaluation of multiple issues that fulfill human life and the life of young girls in particular. In their analysis, Rabea and Almahameed suggest reading it not as a short story but as a prose poem due to the use of evident literary devices like repetition, alliteration, and cacophony (165). This recommendation facilitates an understanding of the use of “I” in the text and the power of the chosen social commentary like domesticity. “Girl” is not just a list of instructions but a story with two characters, unique themes, and a message about mother-daughter relationships and the necessity to take responsibility for domestic knowledge from a personal perspective.
In her work, Kincaid raises a number of central themes like female reputation, domesticity, and relationships between generations. The choice of “I” narrative plays a vital role as the author wants to underline the importance of personal experience and knowledge in the story. The phrases “I know” and “I have warned you” symbolize the intention of the mother to remain a part of the daughter’s life (Kincaid). The representation of two main (and the only) female characters is an element of fiction with the help of which the author promotes the idea of domesticity. “The presence of men” cannot be ignored, but it has nothing in common with domestic duties (Kincaid). Women become the participants of different social relationships where inequalities challenge people. The story prevents wrong decision-making and helps the girl identify the best options for her life.
Works Cited
Kincaid, Jamaica. “Girl.” The New Yorker, 1978.
Rabea, Reem Ahmad, and Nusaiba Adel Almahameed. “Genre Crossing in Jamaica Kincaid’s ‘Girl’: From Short Fiction to Poetry.” Advances in Language and Literary Studies, vol. 9, no. 3, 2018, pp. 157-165.
Inside The Bruderhof Community
Members of the Bruderhof community certainly view their lifestyle as the happiest and most fulfilling. Joining this community for many of them was marked by a search for meaning and purpose in their own lives. One of the members notes that he was willing to abandon his own ambitions, career, dreams, and prospects, sacrificing them for a new way of life (Inside the Bruderhof [34:40]). For these people, happiness consists of a sense of belonging and not of individual aspirations, which makes them happier. However, I do not think their lifestyle is better than ours, as it is not suitable for everyone. Many individuals find happiness in material possessions or the development of their social status, which makes the Bruderhof community philosophy not universal.
Members of the community certainly describe themselves as happier in their new way of life than they previously led in conventional society. Thus, it is safe to say that their individual lives have improved. However, their lives, in general, are no better than those of other people. Members of the Bruderhof community are happier than they were in the past, but this cannot be applied to other people. In other words, community members perceive themselves as happier and their lives better because their lifestyle matches their values. Nevertheless, for many people, happiness can consist of other aspirations and desires, in particular material ones. For many individuals, such a life, on the contrary, can make them more unhappy, so it all depends on personal perceptions and values. Thus, the lifestyle and lives of the members of the Bruderhof community are no better than ours. Additionally, they are just as happy as other people who have found what suits them in life.
Work Cited
Inside the Bruderhof. Directed by Emma Pentecost, CTVC, 2020.
Epistemology: Pragmatism And Moral Truth
Philosophers, since time immemorial, have been at a conundrum in defining the truth. Pragmatic theories have been at the frontline by proposing that true beliefs will be accepted “at the end of an inquiry.” Although the pragmatic theories concentrate on connecting the truth and epistemic practices, the truth can be defined in terms of utility. The epistemic practices considered include inquiry and assertion, statements useful to believe. Since knowledge is defined as a “justified true belief,” it is essential to determine a true proposition. The correspondence theory help determines a true proposition. Various scholars have criticized pragmatic theories of truth, and the noncontradictory criticism is the strongest while the belief system outcome criticism is the weakest.
Critics Repeated in the Three Items
Bertrand Russell criticized James William’s pragmatic theory of truth in various dimensions. According to James, true ideas help people get into satisfactory relations with other parts of their experiences and summarize them (Zhang, 2021). Russell argued that James’ theory made the pragmatic the essence of truth (Douglas, 2005). For instance, if the Theravada Buddhist truth-claims correspond with orthodox Christian truth-claims, one would conclude that the views deny the correspondence of truth (Douglas, 2005). Russell further rejects James’ theory by asserting that its outcomes’ usefulness cannot determine truth. For instance, statements such as “other children indeed exist” and “it is useful to believe that other children exist” would lose their true meaning if viewed equally, according to James’ theory.
Furthermore, the pragmatic theory is criticized against the concept that a true statement cannot be measured by its usefulness to a person or a group. Therefore, the utility concept of pragmatic theory negates the absence of a logical connection between an individual’s and a group’s perspective of “success” and what is objectively true (Dew & Foreman, 2020). True beliefs often cause chaos and hurt, while false beliefs might help someone get through a difficult situation. For instance, children can be made believe that a lion would eat them if they sneak out of school. The false belief helps the children avoid the dangers of sneaking out of school.
The Strongest Criticism
In my view, the strongest criticism of the pragmatic theory is the problem that the theory violates the noncontradiction law. According to Dew and Foreman, two statements cannot be equal simultaneously, as propounded by William James (2020). Although the theory suggests that something is true if it works, a belief system is relative. Therefore, what Christians believe cannot contradict Muslims or Buddhists. A relative belief system allows freedom of expression without interference by other belief systems. Therefore, the noncontradiction criticism is the strongest criticism of the pragmatic theory of truth.
The Weakest Criticism
In my view, the weakest criticism suggests that there is a logical connection between a person’s and a group’s perspective of “success” and what is objectively true. While the criticism suggests that true beliefs can cause chaos and false beliefs can cause success, it is difficult to predict the outcome of any belief. For instance, some true beliefs have caused success, and false beliefs have caused chaos. Furthermore, the presence or absence of a logical connection between individuals is situational. There are instances when a person may hold a similar belief with others, and there are instances when someone may have a contradicting belief against others. Therefore, the presence or absence of a logical connection between an individual’s belief in success or what is objectively true is relative.
References
Dew Jr, J. K., & Foreman, M. W. (2020). How do we know? An introduction to epistemology. InterVarsity Press.
Douglas, G. (2005). Some Problems with Pragmatism. Bethinking.org. Web.
Zhang, T. (2021). A Defense of William James on Moral Truth. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9(6), 1-13. Web.