"The Athenian Bowling League"

On page twelve, there is a paragraph about the "Athenian Bowling League." I understand what you are saying, that no matter who one is, the only thing that matters to the bowling league it that fact that you are a bowler. I would have to disagree. The society may have been created for bowlers to get together and play the game, but the league is affected by its members, who are people with other things in their lives that affect them other than bowling. When someone joins the league, they are probably not going to completely erase their personality and simply become a bowler while they are with the group. They remain the same person, which does affect the other members, and essentially, the league.

Also, on page six, what was the "disturbing abuse" of the Spartans to the natives? Weren't the Spartans the natives?

Teachers

In the second paragraph on page 16, you state that the teachers should be the ones teaching, not the law, but since the law controls the teachers they actually are the ones teaching. However, you leave out a few key points. For example, you are solely discussing schools. Yet there are many different ways and places to teach.
One of the left out ideas is homeschooling, the grounds of this being the parent teaching their children. Therefore, the parent can guide the child to grow up in the way the parent believes is best. This method leaves the law behind, and allows the parent (teacher) the reigns in the development in the children.
The second idea is in a different definition of teacher. A teacher can be one who shows a child new things and, in the case you are trying to make, gives the child room to think and ask questions. A person like this could be anyone. Not only a teacher of school or a parent, but a sibling or friend, or a parent’s friend. I have learned much not only through my mother and teachers, but through my friend’s parents, my sisters, my coaches, and my friends themselves. None of these people are controlled much by the law.
Overall, the point you make is true in the light you show it in. When you branch out, there are many different options for the role of a teacher in accordance with the law.

Grief or Pleasure

In chapter 13, at the beginning of the fifth paragraph, it says, "Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary and great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe the all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself..."

I do not see how man may have no pleasure being with each other if there is not a person ruling over them, for that is what I gather from the first part of this paragraph. I how ever can not agree with this, as will most people. Humans are very social and enjoy others company. Some people ( teenagers for example) do not like it when there is a power over them while they are with friends. They enjoy the freedom of not being restricted and doing things with their peers.

However, I do agree with the point that he makes in the end. Everyone whats to be valued by who they really are. Or at least how they think they are. But this can go to ways. One can thing they are more important than they really are, or less important. These both can be bad for you, but people seem to enjoy that, which is the point Hobbes is trying to make.

Liberty and Dominion

In chapter 17, in the first paragraph, it says, "The finall Cause , End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in Common-wealth's,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and and a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out of that miserable condition of Warre..."

Is Hobbes saying that men, "(who naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others)" always live in Common-wealth's (cities)? I'm pretty sure that village people also prefer liberty over slavery, and I'm also pretty sure that there were mastrers and slaves who lived in villages in Hobbes' time. I know that Aristotle says one can not be fully human without living in a city, but I think Hobbes has taken this to the next level. Only men (or women) in cities can love liberty and dominion over others? Those are two very human qualities which I don't think are restricted to the more philosophical society.

What comes with age?

In chapter 13, near the little 61 mark, Hobbes says, referring to intelligence and prudence, "I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength. For prudence, is but Experience; which equal time, equally bestows on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves to." I disagree with this. I have met many adults that have less prudence then some of my friends have. I have also met some teenagers who have less prudence than some of my 11-12 year old friends. So Hobbes can not say the prudence comes with years, because that is not always the case. Therefore, why would he say that?

No friends? How sad...

On page 129, chapter 17, Hobbes says, "And as small Families did then; so now do Cities and Kingdoms which are but greater Families (for their own security) enlarge their Dominions, upon all pretences of danger, and fear of Invasion, endeavor as much as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbors, by open force, and secret arts, for want of other Caution, justly; and are remembered for it in after ages with honour."

Whoa - is Hobbes saying that neighbors (being nearby cities of course) can only be enemies? Did he ever hear of a wonderful word called 'allies'?

Granted, many countries have hostile relationships. That's what war is all about. But, it's not always every country for themselves. Absolutely countless times, countries have teamed up to defeat their common enemy. Hey, sometimes countries even help other countries simply because they feel morally obligated. And countries have worked together tons of times, even if it wasn't for benefit of war. Trading between countries has been going on for thousands of years, way before Hobbes was born.

What is Hobbes talking about when he says, "...endeavor as much as they can, to subdue, or weaken their neighbors, by open force, and secret arts..."? He makes it sound like if you're not with the certain city or kingdom, then you have to be against them.

Hobbes wasn't a very trusting or optimistic guy, was he?

"Aristotle human"

Aristotle says, "For the whole must be of necessity be prior to the part; for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a foot or a hand, unless in the sense that the term is similar (as when one speaks of a hand made of stone), but the thing itself will be defective. Everything is defined by itself and its power, and if it is no longer the same in these respects it should not be spoken of in the same way, but only as something similarly termed."

Aristotle is saying that without the body, the hand is not a hand. He continues on to say that humans without cities are not humans. If they can survive without cities, Aristotle says, then they are either beast or god.

I agree with Aristotle that a hand is not a hand without a body attached, but I think that a human can be human without a city. Monks aside, plenty of people prefer to be away from too many people. Some people like to live in the country, miles away from any city with only their close family, farm animals, and spaced out neighbors. Aristotle would count this establishment as a village, but plenty of people are perfectly happy with not living in a city and being an "Aristotle human."

~Hannah

Comments

By the way, I fixed it so only members of the blog can post comments. :D

Prior to Man Himself

Aristotle claims that, "The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us. For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand..." This statement is very confusing, therefore, I tried to understand it by breaking it down.

"The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us." This mean the city naturally came before the household or even us. We must remember that we are not talking about a real city filled with houses, but a city by definition. One that is self-sufficient and with people who are living well and performing what they were made to do.

"For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand." In other word, the city is the body and the households and villages are the hands and feet. No body, no feet. Therefore, all households and villages have sprung off of cities, slowly growing and become a city themselves.

What about the first city? That was the garden of Edan. God had provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed, making them self-sufficient, had given Adam Eve, making them living well, and they had time to do what man was supposed to do, love God and, according to Aristotle, think. After they were thrown out, they were still growing on their experiences, making them a hand to the body.

Overall, Aristotle was right when he said the City was prior to the household, and even humans, because of God and the Garden of Edan.

Slight Confusion

While reading the essay, I agreed with most of the topics and suggestions. Since these were the things we had previously discussed in class, I already had a thorough understanding of them. However, I was confused by the ninth paragraph. Although the main point, the love between a subject and his/her ruler, was clear in the beginning, I became lost in the middle with the strange transition. Instead of keeping to the story, it ran off into another field. Normally, this is fine for me, but the way it transitioned was startling. Starting with the rapid fire questions, then moving on to the long list of strange names, the paragraph befuddled me.

Nevertheless, I agree with the purpose of that paragraph. The difference between loyalty and love between a subject and his/her ruler was confused, not only in that time, but also in the story. It seemed to me that the daughters of Lear, excluding Cordelia for clarity, should have loved Lear more than his earls and dukes. However, it was the other way around. This subtle change of devotion caused a bigger rend that made the confusion in the play more severe.

Define: Lowest Point

In the essay, it states that Lear's lowest point is when Cordelia sees her father after he banishes her. He wakes up, after recovering from his madness and and the two talk. Lear is sad and apologetic, fully realizing that he has done Cordelia a great wrong and not expecting her forgiveness. He is a broken man with no home, no hope, and a past wrought with mistakes. But his daughter forgives him, renews their father/daughter bond and the Lear finally learns the true meaning of love.

Some people might argue that this is not Lear's lowest point. Lear's fit of madness and rage against the storm is arguably pretty low. He bellows at nature, curses his daughters, and slowly begins to slip into his crazed state of mind. Others might say that Lear is at his lowest in the beginning. Lear was the haughty, vain, self-absorbed king who only wanted to hear how much his daughters loved him. He saw love as a measurement of words, and not really as a feeling or emotion. This haughty ignorance is pretty low.

So it all depends on how one defines "lowest point." The essay suggested that his lowest point was his lowest emotional point. He was broken and miserable, and very sorry. Another low point was his physical low point. He was homeless and crazy. The third low point was his when he was so misguided. Although he may have felt fatherly affection for his daughters, he did not know the true meaning of love, and was still very wound up in his own image.


~Hannah

P.S. It was a really great essay, and I loved reading it! :)

Albany: The Good Guy?

Through out the beginning of the play, the Duke of Albany, Gonriel's wife, went along with everything she did. He had no complaint when she claimed her father was the only one who made her happy. He didn't even notice when Gonreil threw out her father, until, of course, it was too late.

Then, he suddenly protests about her mistreatment of her father. He refuses to help or even talk to her. When everyone comes together in the end scene, he tells Edgar, 'Let sorrow split my heart, if ever I did hate thee or thy father." Edgar then says, "Worthy Prince, I know 't"

Why was it so easy for Albany to gain back trust as a good guy?

Edgar = Hamlet? Mew?

While reading, I found striking similarities between Hamlet and Edgar. Both acted insane for a good portion of their respective plays, both were high ranking, and both had their demise plotted by a family member. Although there is the difference that Hamlet died and Edgar got control of England.

Also, the endings of the plays were similar in that most of the characters died in the end. Same with Romeo and Juliet. Were these tragedies more popular than uplifting comedies in Shakespeare's time?

And, althoug this isn't a question, I just though it very strange and humorous when, on page 134, "Marry, your manhood, mew!" Really? Mew? I have to say, that that line is now my favorite. :)

~Hannah

I'll call you...maybe...

On page 89, Kent tells the gentelman, "That way, I'll this--he that first lights on him, holla the other." In other words, "You go this way, I'll go that way. Whoever finds him (the king) first, call the other."

Now, as we can tell, Kent finds Lear first. So...when does he call the gentelman? He doesn't. He never bothers to call out for him. Did Sheaksphear just forget to write that part? Or did he purposfuly leave the gentelman out in the storm, for some other purpose?

S.S (Shakespeare's Stereotypes)

On page 118, Regan says to Gloucester, "So white, and such a traitor?" This is Shakespeare's way of questioning the fact that a person may be old (and with a white beard) but be traitorous.

This line is strikingly similar in meaning and structure to King Lear's lament on page 8, "So young, and so untender?" This, we decided, was Shakespeare questioning how a person could be young and cruel.

This is the first time I've noticed that Shakespeare has stereotypes. Does he have any other in other plays which I simply haven't noticed? Or perhaps prejudices like these only appear in King Lear?

~Hannah

He has the magic...umm...clothes?

In the play King Lear, the king appears to be a old man, with very poor priorities. He insists his daughters make glowing statements about how much they love him, demands to have 100 armed knights, and scorns anyone who does not give him exactly what he wants. This does not portray a good king, whom everyone loves.

However, even after he throws his daughter out and refuses to give her a dowry, yet she still loves him. And Kent, after receiving close to the same treatment, comes back to the king to serve him as a servant, instead of a Earl. How does such a awful man command such loyalty?

Um...what happened to Plan A?

In the beginning of the play King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty extend," which would mean that whoever loves the king the most, he shall give the largest plot of land to. But then, after the King's first daughter speaks, Lear gives away the first plot of land immediately. Wait - shouldn't he listen to all of the sisters before deciding which one spoke most lovingly? After all, the other's didn't even get a chance to speak. Instead he simply gives away a plot of land when the daughter pleases him, which is not what he said originally...when did he switch to plan B?

Also, in the quote above, King Lear says, "Which of you shall we say doth love us the most.." We? Us? Is there more than one King Lear, or perhaps is he speaking about his court and kingdom?

~Hannah

Help, I've been killed!

I have seen Hamlet performed twice, but have not noticed this particular line and how it worked for the actors. Bizarrely, in Act 3 scene 4 page 111, after Hamlet discovers a man, Polonius, is hiding behind the tapestry and listening in to his conversation with his mother, he draws his sword and says, "How now! A rat? Dead, for a ducat, dead!" Stage directions say, "he kills Polonius with a pass through the arras." Then, surprisingly, Polonius exclaims, "O, I am slain!"

Not only am I confused on the possibility of someone exclaiming, "O, I'm dead," I also know that would be a tricky scene to accomplish on stage. After all, it real life when we are fatally struck through with a sword ... those would not be the words that would come to mind. 

Hamlet and the Gravedigger

When Hamlet and Horatio first see the gravedigger, Hamlet talks about how the skulls the gravedigger is throwing up could have been wordy politicians or suck-up nobles, and how now, they are being tossed around with a shovel. The message that he sends is that death makes all equal.

But when the two speak with the gravedigger, who plays with their words, Hamlet quips, "...By the Lord, Horatio, this three years I have took note of it: the age has grown so picked that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he galls his kibe."

I was rather confused by what Hamlet meant, so I went to No Fear, which says, "...Lord Horatio, I've been noticing this for a few year now. The peasants have become so clever and witty they are nipping at the heels of the noblemen."

Hamlet is looking down at the gravedigger, and marking the difference in their ranks, and his lines sound like he is amused that the gravedigger should speak so boldly. This air of supremacy is not what I received from Hamlet a few lines ago, when he was pondering about death and how all men are equal in it.

Why the sudden change between philosophical Hamlet who is poking fun at the self-assumed airs of royalty of nobles, to a Hamlet, amused that a peasant should talk back to him? Could he be threatened by the fact that there is less and less difference between the classes?

"Oh my prophetic soul, my uncle killed my daddy!"

Another reason for Hamlet's anger and crazy behavior could be because he just learned his uncle might have killed his father. Besides the obvious, "Oh no, my uncle killed my dad, now I'm angry," he also would be mad at himself. He repeatedly said his uncle was half the man his father was, yet he pulled off a brilliant murder, right under every one's noses. He would feel disappointed in himself as well, for not stopping, or at least recognizing, what happened.

Hamlet's Motives

To power such a strong reaction of anger towards his uncle, Hamlet would have to have strong feelings built up from previous events.

As mentioned in class, Hamlet might have felt helplessness. After all, his father just died and he hadn't been able to do anything. His mother re-married his uncle so quickly, without talking to Hamlet about her decision. Also, Ophelia was distancing herself from him, without any noticeable reason.

He might have felt disappointed in himself. His father died, and Hamlet didn't even know how. His mother re-married the uncle he hated, and he hadn't been able to stop her. And his relationship with Ophelia wasn't going smoothly.

Anther emotion powering Hamlet might have been self pity. Oh no! My dad died. Oh, poor me, my mom married my horrid uncle. Oh no, my girlfriend might be breaking up with me. His life was pathetic.

Any way you look at it, Hamlet was obviously not happy, and so took his pent up emotions and stirred up some political and violent waves in Denmark.

~Hannah

Hamlet

I found Hamlet's Suicide Soliloquy to be powerful.

"Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
thaw, and resolve itself into a dew,
Or that the Everlasting had not fixed
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God, God!
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!" ...

Shakespeare's use of words to communicate is always amazing. The way he uses words here, to make us aware of Hamlet's sorrow, is particularly chilling.

The Guards' Duty

In the first scene, Marcellus and Bernardo show Horatio the ghost of the previous king, but this wasn't the second time they had observed it; it was the third. Surely, the guards were supposed to report the happenings of the castle to a superior officer, but instead they simply watch it, come back, watch it again, then finally say, "Oh yeah, Horatio, would you like to see the ghost of the old king that has been haunting the grounds lately?"

After the guards show Hamlet his father's ghost, he makes them swear not to tell anyone. Ok, fine, if the prince tells you to, don't, but why didn't they let someone know before? Wouldn't it be the guards' duty?

I too take my leave...

Chaucer's retraction at the end of the book surprised me. He apologized not only for some of the Canterbury Tales, but also for other books he had written, including, Nineteen Ladies, St. Valentines Day of the Parliament of Fowls, and Fame.  Specifically, Chaucer apologized for the part of these books which tend towards sin and he prayed, "Christ have mercy on me and forgive me my sins."

This second apology is redundant after the apology that appears in the prologue of the Miller's Tale, and therefore, I believe it is unnecessary and odd. I found it to be strange for a writer to retract his work, within the very work he is apologizing for. After all, if he was that sorry, he could have just ripped the whole thing up.

Regardless of the oddity of his ending, I found The Canterbury Tales to be a wonderful collection of stories. I have never seen a story, made of stories, and agree with Hannah that this has the making of a movie.

The Reader of this Book here takes her Leave

Chaucer's Retraction reminds me in a way of the prologue of the Miller's tale, asking for forgiveness from anyone who might be offended, but also saying if anyone enjoyed the book, they should thank "Lord Jesu Christ."

It's rather strange that Chaucer, the character, seems to not want any affiliation with the book. It's almost like he is saying, "Psst, look, here is a great story, but you didn't get it from me." Never before have a read a book where the author disowns his creation. I understand that Chaucer doesn't want to offend anyone, but then why did he even bother writing the book?

I enjoyed the Canterbury Tales. It was different; Chaucer is telling us a story about himself, in which he tells the stories of other people, who are telling their own tales. It's complicated but intriguing, and I bet that some Hollywood studio is going to make a version of it someday :) Either way, I would like read the rest of the tales at a later time.

~Hannah

Now, to get back to my question...

On page 224, in the Nun's Priest's tale, he said fate let fly her shaft and saying this tale was true. He then said, "Let me return full circle to my theme." and continued. How was it necessary to claim his tale was true, just to transition back to his story?

Reliable Sources?

In the Nun's Priest's Tale, Pertelote chides her husband for being afraid of his dreams about being eaten. In his defense, Chanticleer tells her two tales about dreams foretelling the future.

But really? How reliable are two stories? I'm sure that Pertelote could have told him of three times as many incidents where she dreamed something strange or frightening, but nothing happened. I once dreamt that I was floating on an iceberg in the South Pole, with a massive crab the size of football stadium swimming underneath me. I didn't like the dream, but it didn't really happen. Why would the rooster tell two fairy tales in his defense?

Faithfulness

I believe that the degree of faithfulness does increase the higher the ranking. The better educated would have more reverence for marriage. The Knight does not even consider the idea of unfaithfulness, while the Franklin mentions it, the wife of bath dwells on it, and the Miller considers it unstoppable. These persons ideas of faithfulness is closely matched to their ranking. The Miller, the lowest, claims it inevitable, and you can only turn a blind eye. The Wife of Bath, next up but not much better, has a shallow idea; you could be pretty, or faithful, but not both. The Franklin, being the student and the next highest, does mention it, but never submits to it. The Knight, being the highest, does not even mention it.

Re: Fathifulness

Does the value of faithfulness rises as you go higher up into the estates? I think it does. But, why?

The Miller is the lowest ranking of our selected characters and he seems to place no worth upon faithfulness in his tale. The Wife of Bath comes in second to last, and, while she briefly debates of the use of a faithful wife, her main character places the quality on equal status with a pretty wife. The Franklin however, admires faithfulness and has it hold true in his tale, although it is tested. The Knight, highest ranking of them all, doesn't not even concern himself with faithfulness, simply assuming it will exist.

I think this is perhaps because the Knight, having had a noble and well- educated upbringing, has been told honorable stories ever since he was young, and so takes for granted that faithfulness is another worthy trait he should strive for. The Franklin on the other hand, the wealthy land owner, also probably had an education, and so heard similar stories. The Wife of Bath had less of en education, and so on with the Miller having the least.

Arvéragus

When Arvéragus first swore to love Dorigen, he said he would, "never darken her delight, by exercising his authority." However, after mistaken Aurelius demanded she keep her jest of the rocks, she ran to her husband for help. Then, he broke his word. He forced her to go to Aurelius. By doing so, he used his authority, and made her unhappy. To be a true gentleman, he should have gone to Aurelius and explained to him his mistake. Therefore, Arvéragus can not be a true gentleman because he broke a knight's oath.

Faithfulness

In many of the tales told by the pilgrims, faithfulness is a key element. For the Miller, faithfulness never lasted and was always overcome. For the Wife of Bath, faithfulness was also rather shallow; one could be either pretty or faithful to her spouse. But in the Franklin's tale, faithfulness is a strong force.

Of the three characters listed, the Miller disregards faithfulness the most, saying that no matter who the marriage is between, their faithfulness will not hold. The Wife of Bath regards this trait with more reverence, upholding it as one of the most important elements in a wife, although her knight cannot choose between a good-looking wife and faithful one. The Franklin is one step above these two, creating a relationship where their faithfulness is tested, but holds strong.

Another tale we have read is the Knight's. In his story, faithfulness isn't even a question; he pretty much assumes that Emily will be a perfect wife in every way. His complete and total trust in the honor of a wife is even beyond that of the Franklin's.

This is interesting, because the Miller, a sneaky, tricky worker, the lowest ranking of the four, disregards faithfulness the most. The Wife of Bath is the next lowest on the totem pole, being a wealthy wife of a clerk, and she her trust in faithfulness comes in for third place. The Franklin, being a land owner, believes that unfaithfulness is an issue, but says that people overcome it. The Knight, being the highest ranking, doesn't address faithfulness in either his story or his prologue, rather he assumes that Emily is a perfect women.

The more higher ranking you go, does the value of faithfulness rise?

Dead, Alive, then Dead again.

In Prologe of the Wife of Bath, on page 279-280 after her fourth husband hits her because she ripped his book, she says, "And down I fell upon the floor for dead." Then after she tells him, "O have you murdered me, you robber, you" he says he shall never hit her again, and fears for her. She sits up, smacks him in the face, then lays back on the floor, and says, "Now let me die, I can't speak anymore."

If she had the engery to smack her husband on the face, she should be able to live, or at the very least speak. Why did she have such a burst of energy when she was supposed to be laying as if dead, then afterwords, couldn't speak because she is so near death?

Wife of Bath

In the prologue of the Wife of Bath, she tells of her fourth husband's funeral. She goes on to say that they get married a month after her previous husband was buried in the grave

In this time period, weren't there social rules which forced the lady to mourn for a certain period of time? And even if she did disregard the customs, would a respectable clerk, who hates women, agree to re-marry the Wife of Bath so quickly after the death of her fourth husband? It seems very unrealistic to me.

Love

When Palamon first sees Emily, he blanches and falls madly in love. After being locked in a cell for such a long time with only his friend as company he has not seen a woman for ages. Being so crazed, he cannot belive his eyes, and calls this lady a goddess. However, when Arcite saw her, he must have been more in his senses than his friend.

This lady could be the most beautiful woman in the world, she could also be a normal lady. Like tasting your first meat after weeks of eating nothing but crackers, or seeing color for the first time after living in a gray room. This would explain why Palamon first thought she was a goddess.

Later, Palamon leaves the prison and now loves the woman still, as a woman, not goddess, because he has been exposed to more of real life than just the inside of that cell.

Overall, they do love her equally, despite the fact Palamon first thought her a goddess.

Difference in Love, or not?

In the Knight's tale, two miserable knights are locked in a dungeon and happen to see the beautiful Emily wandering in the gardens. Instantly, both prisinors are smitten with her, although Palamon sees her more of a goddess figure, while Arcite sees her as she is - a pretty woman.

As Arcite and Palamon are arguing over who should love Emily, their varying feelings show through. (Pg. 34) [Palamon to Arcite] "'I loved her first and told my grief to you as to the brother and friend that I swore to further me, as I have said before, so you are bound in honour as a knight to help me, should it lie within your might; else you are false, I say, your honour vain!' Arcite proudly answered back again: 'You shall be judged as false,' he said, 'not me; and false you are, I tell you, utterly! I loved her as a woman before you. What can you say? Just now you hardly knew if she was girl or goddess from above!'"

At first, I think their loves were different, Palamon feeling more worshiping adoration then Arcite, but after they both got out of prision and by the time they went to duel for Emily's hand, they felt the same way about this pretty girl.

~Hannah

Canterbury Tales Rap in Middle English

Everyman Scene from Independent Production

I think this scene is actually quite powerful, isn't it? It is all very bizarre, of course, but that in itself contributes to giving the thing an otherworldly feel that is quite appropriate. I also think it is a good example of the point I made in class about how stories and human interactions can be more compelling than abstract arguments. The scene we see here definitely leaves more of an impression than if one were to read something general about how all men have to die, and how you have to be ready because you never know when death may come. In this scene one gets an idea of the real surprise and terror Everyman feels, which one might not get from the mere statement of the facts.

Lego Everyman