Examine Hobbes proposition that people need governed - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2486 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Philosophy Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? The debate surrounding our original state of nature or species being has been hotly contested by scholars for centuries and remains a pivotal line of enquiry in contemporary pedagogic circles. In societies across the globe we observe entire populations governed by (religious) laws and practices designed to manage, control and otherwise police the boundaries of individualism whilst accentuating solidarity and protecting the collective norm (Stiglitz 2003). In this essay, we explore the various conceptions that have sought to trace and detail the genealogy of human beings to their primordial or so-called primitive condition, with particular emphasis on exploring Hobbes (2008) proposition that the disposition of human nature is chaos and thus, as humans, we are compelled to forgo our instinctual nature and find sanctuary within the realms of social collectivism and central governance. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Examine Hobbes proposition that people need governed" essay for you Create order In this vein, we confront the age-old nature versus nature conundrum; are we social and moral animals by design, altruistic in nature, or does civilisation transpire from egotistical obligation to co-operate in order to thrive. As ever-increasing demands are placed on social-scientific research to maintain pace with an ever-changing world, it is commonplace for scholars to forget the (historical) dictums of our primal beginnings; such investigations are often marginalised à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" afforded little time, finance and credence à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" in a world seeking solutions to contemporary problems (Benton and Craib 2010). Yet, to paraphrase Marx (1991), the ghosts of the past weigh heavy on the minds of the living; understanding our roots may become the greatest social discovery and contribution to forging our future as human beings. Thus, social science, by definition and direction, is arguably obsessed with the social constructs that humans generate, frequently dismissing (perhaps through arrogance) the undeniable fact that we remain animals, imbued with the same instinctual drives and impulses as other species. Indeed, one need only observe the effect of social neglect in the case of feral children, unfettered by societal constraints we return to barely recognisable beasts, uncivilised and unconcerned by social pretentions, decorum, normative expectations and values (Candland 1996). For Hobbes (2008) humankind in its original state of being is an evil scourge upon the earth; a ruthless and egotistical creature perpetuated by self-gain and absolute dominance à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" a survival of the fittest nightmare (Trivers 1985). Thus, paralleling the works of Plato (2014), he asserts that the individual, possessing the principle of reason, must sacrifice free-will to preserve their ontological wellbeing, acquired resources, property and way of life or what he calls a commodious living (78). As Berger and Luckmann (1991) argue, we willingly accept soc ial captivity as it offers a protective blanket from the otherwise harsh conditions; a remission from the barbarism and bloodshed that transpired previously. This led Hobbes (2008: 44) to assert that people need governed under a social contract or mutual agreement of natural liberty; the promise to not pillage, rape or slaughter was reciprocated and later crystallised and enforced by the state or monarch. Indeed, whilst his belief in the sovereigns traditional (rather than divine) right to rule was unwavering, he was certain that a despotic kingdom would not ensue as reason would triumph over narcissism. In response, Socrates (cited in Johnson 2011) hypothesised that justice was an inherent attribute where humans sought peace as a process of self-fulfilment of regulating the soul not because of fear or retribution; to paraphrase: the just man is a happy man (102). The state would therefore stand as a moral citadel or vanguard against the profane. Similarly, Locke (2014) rejects the nightmarish depiction offered by Hobbes (2008), asserting a romanticised state of natureà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" permeated with Gods compassion à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" whereby humans seek liberty above all; not individual thrill-seekers but rather banded by familial bonds and communes à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" a pre-political conjugal society possessing parochial values, norms and voluntary arrangements. However, he also appreciated that, without the presence of a central regulatory organisation, conflict could easily emerge and continue unabated. Hence, humanity ascends into a civil contract, the birth of the political, as a means of protecting the status quo of tranquillity, prosperity and ownership. Similarly, Rousseau (2015) also proposes a quixotic rendition of   humanities social origins, considering such times as simplistic or mechanical (Durkheim 1972) inasmuch as populations were sparse, resources abundant and needs basic, implying that individuals where altruistic by nature and morally pure. Yet, the ascension of state, particularly the mechanisms of privatisation, polluted and contorted humankinds natural state into something wicked that not only coaxed but promoted tendencies of greed, selfishness and egocentrism. In this account, we find strong parallels with Marx (1991), specifically his critique of capitalism, which is conceptualised as a sadistic mechanism tearing humanity from its species-being the world of idiosyncratic flare, enchantment and cultural wonder à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" and placing it into a rat-race of alienation (from ones fellow being), exploited labour and inequality. As Rousseau (2015) ably contends: man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains (78). Thus, government and the liberalism it allegedly promotes is a farce, seeking to keep the architectural means to create the social world within the possession of a minority à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" this he calls the current naturalized social contract. He calls for a new social order premis ed on consensus, reason and compassion; we must reconnect with ourselves, re-engage with our neighbours and discover who we are as a species. The supposition of our philosophical ancestors is that we require governance as a process of realisation, we are social animals that demand and reciprocate encounters with others; alongside the impulse for sustenance and shelter is the yearning for social contact à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" indeed love and belonging are included in Maslows (2014) hierarchy of needs. Yet, within many philosophical transcripts is the deployment of religion as a legitimate form of authority, since antiquity monarchs, pharaohs, dynasties and early tribal formations have claimed power through divine right or approval. In fact, conviction in a celestial realm has pervaded for epochs à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" carved in millennia-old cave paintings around the globe (Stiglitz 2003) à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" and perhaps emerged from an enchanted, speculative and awe-inspired outlook of the world in which our ancestors occupied; religion complemented the life-cycle, delineating the sacred from the profane (Foucault 1975). As Schluchter (1989) argues, later missionaries would propagate their dogma; a prime example of this is the upsurge, dissemination and (even today) domination of Christianity as it overran its pagan predecessors, witchdoctors and mystics. Thus, religion has been attributed with generating social mores, collectivism and ushering the rise of civilisations. Indeed, Elias (2000), details the social evolution of humanity as the animalistic fades to the backstage with the gradual monopolisation of violence and (political) power and presented civil self takes credence. Initially, this was necessary for survival as people became more interdependent and significantly influenced later by the royal courts who became a celebrity-like beacon of perfect decorum and taste. By the 19th century, most of Europe was regarded as civilised whilst other developing pa rts where considered savage lands; the violence, exploitation and subsequent domination of such nations as India and Africa by western societies is well documented (Buckinx and Treto-Mathys 2015). As Elias puts it: people were forced to live in peace (2000, 99). This was also accompanied with the advent of Enlightenment whereby the rule of logic, rationalisation and pragmatism disrobed and effectively dismantled the prevailing supremacy of religion; though religion remains a powerful force in certain cultures and is frequently accompanied with its own medieval brutality. As Anderson (2008) alludes, in Africa and the middle-east, where Christianity, Judaism and Islam prevail and to varying degrees dominate life, purported barbaric acts like (female) genital mutilation, segregation, and (domestic) violence that affects mainly women and public violence and executions are commonplace and sanctioned. Thus, secularisation and the rise of empiricism unshackled humankind from its beast ly beginnings and rehomed them within the embracing idioms of consensus, free-will and reciprocal courteousness à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" humans had undergone a transformation or courtisation whereby mannerisms, hygiene and self-restraint became governing tenants, the barbarian was adorned (concealed) with socially acceptable masks, equipped with approved social scripts and the rules of the game à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Goffmans (1990) social actor and his/her presented selves was born. In this conceptualisation,   self-governance or policing is prerequisite for progress and forms the basis for society; enhanced with consciousness we are capable of resisting our impulsive drives à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" Freuds (2010) Eros and Thantos are forsaken for the greater good à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" and creating a utilitarian civilisation. Today, in late-capitalist societies, we live in relative prosperity and peace; the elected government and its respective agencies provide sustenance, infrastructure, healt hcare, protection and political democracy; this template of humanity is à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" like our religious proselytisers à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" distributed globally, perpetuated by the mass media, globalisation and free-markets (Stiglitz 2013). For Nietzsche (2013), this contemporary worldview was tantamount to emptiness where humanity had escaped their animalistic state of being, finding virtue in religion and will-to-power within to overcome and ascend, but is now found wanting with the demise of faith and contemporary nihilism that has proceeded (his famous God is dead (13) quote). Indeed, he is dismissive of science, philosophical and religious idioms, particularly their totalitarian tendencies which (for him) inhibit, enslave or otherwise surrender life-affirming behaviours; similarities may be drawn with Marx and Engels (2008) critique of religion as the sigh of the oppressed creature (45); religion (like governments or social contracts) demands that individuals relinquish o r capitulate part of themselves; to genuflect the laws, tenets and values that rule. Such things seek to (re)capture or incarcerate our species being within a straightjacket. Therefore, humanity must re-engage their instinctual resolve à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" which Nietzsche (2014) regarded as stronger than our urge for sex or survival à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" and become supermen (ÃÆ'Å“bermensch) untrammelled by instinct, to find wonder in the fluidity and unpredictability of nature and good conscience by re-evaluating our values, expectations and shortcomings as a species. Namely, a stateless civilisation, unhindered by permanency, premised on the continual refinement of self. Yet, whilst Nietzsche (2014) highlights the stifling effects of dogma, it seems unrealistic to suggest humans are capable of living in constant flux à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" even a war-torn nation offer consistency (Stiglitz 2003) à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" insofar as we instinctually seek to structure the surrounding environment in a comprehendible manner; we assign labels, judgements and behavioural codes as we produce order à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" predictability is the precondition for life and offers humans ontological security and wellbeing (Berger and Luckmann 1991). However, given the asymmetrical nature of society, some possess the architectural means to govern others à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" reformulated as a form of symbolic violence or barbarism. For example, the credence given to hegemonic masculinities and subsequent denigration and objectification of women or the subjugation of nations to western ideals (Mulvey and Rogers 2015). Moreover, the free-markets offered by capitalism seek to segregate, exploit and captivate masses into a consumerist world of shiny prizes (Marcuse 2002), coaxing our selfish and cut-throat tendencies, whilst so-called liberalist governments attempt to impose their civility globally through violence, bullying and manipulation; a wolf in sheeps clothing (Kinker 2014). So, even unde r the rule of government and presence of civilisations our so-called animalistic (violent) heritage pervades, like a ghostly presence haunting the present. Hobbes (2008) reasons for why individuals need governed to cage our inner beast seems defective. As Walsh and Teo (2014) allude, a major fault with many of the propositions outlined above is the emphasis placed on linearity à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" government is seen as a progressive necessity à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" rather than appreciating that as social creatures we are capable of creating communities with their own normative flows, ebbs, fluxes and (more importantly) governing ourselves both as matter of necessity or self-preservation and as a means of self-fulfilment or belonging; contemporary modes of practice have become so integrated and reified that finding a parallel alternative or a way back seems implausible. That said, as Browning (2011) argues, in an increasingly interdependent and global world, the requirement for centra lised states seems unavoidable to handle the sheer mass of human activity and to maintain a level of equilibrium; an inevitable course of human progress. This essay has been both illuminating and simultaneously problematic; the proposition of whether humans are capable of cohabiting without the requirement of a state or intervening supra-organisation remains a mystery.   In fact, such an assertion is premised on how one defines the original state of nature; are we barbaric creatures who engage in a social contract for personal gain or are we instinctually social and empathic animals whose predisposition is not only to safeguard our interests but to generate genuine communal bonds and interconnections with others. The latter affords more manoeuvring for alternative (flexible) social figurations without government, where humanity can bask in the wonder of difference, variety and levels of unpredictability, whilst the former finds sanctuary only in the incarceration of h umanity to defined idioms and laws imposed by a centre of authority and power. It is tempting to concede that, despite Hobbes depiction of government as the epitome of civility, on the contrary it appears to be (in this era of modernity) the primary agent of (symbolic) violence and struggle, whether masquerading as a religious, communist or neo-liberal state. Thus, one is reluctant to accept Hobbes assertion that people should be governed by a reified or separate entity. Instead, with a level of Nietzschean sentiment, perhaps people should be permitted and empowered to re-evaluate and govern themselves. Word Count: (2,195) Bibliography Anderson, J. 2008.Religion, State and Politics. Cambridge University Press. Benton, T.Craib, I. 2010. 2ndedition.Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of SocialThought (Traditions in Social Theory).Palgrave Macmillan. Berger, P.Luckmann, T. 1991.The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge(Penguin Social Sciences).Penguin Press. Browning, G. 2011.Global Theory from Kant toHardtandNegri(International Political Theory).Palgrave Macmillan. Buckinx, B. Trejo-Mathys, J. 2015.Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Historical and Institutional Perspectives (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy).Routledge. Candland, D. 1996.Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¯Oxford University Press. Durkheim, E. 1972.Emile Durkheim: Selected Writings, ed. and trans. Giddens, A. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Elias, N. 2000. 2ndedition.The Civilisation Proces s.Wiley-Blackwell. Foucault, M. 1975.Discipline Punish:à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¯The Birth of the Prison.Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Freud, S. 2010.Civilization and Its Discontents.Martino Fine Books. Goffman, I. 1990.Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity.Penguin Press. Hobbes, T. 2008.Leviathan (Oxford Worlds Classics).Oxford Paperbacks. Johnson, P. 2011.Socrates: A Man for Our Times. Penguin Publishers. Kinker, S. 2014.The Critical Window: The State and Fate ofHumanity.Oxford University Press. Locke, J. 2014.Two Treatises of Government.CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform. Marcuse, H. 2002.One Dimensional Man.Routledge. Marx, K. Engels, F. 2008.On Religion. Penguin Press. Marx, K. 1991.Capital, ed. Mandel, E. Volume 3. Penguin Books (Classics): London. Maslow, A. 2014.Toward a Psychology of Being.Sublime Books. Mulvey, L. Rogers, A. 2015.Feminisms: Diversity, Difference and Multiplicity in Contemporary Film Cultures (Key Debates Mutations and Appropriations in European Film Studies).Amsterdam University Press. Nietzsche, F. 2014.Beyond good and evil. Penguin Press. Nietzsche, F. 2013.On the Genealogy of Morals. Penguin Press. Plato. 2014.The Republic. Reprint.CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform. Rousseau, J. 2015.The Social Contract.CreateSpaceIndependent Publishing Platform. Schluchter, W. 1989.Rationalism, Religion, and Domination: A Weberian Perspective.University of California Press. Stiglitz, J. 2003.Globalization and Its Discontents.Penguin Press. Trivers, R. 1985.Social Evolution. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co. Walsh, R.Teo, T. 2014.A Critical History and Philosophy of Psychology: Diversity of Context, Thought, and Practice.Cambridge University Press.

The Grotesque Of Grace And Its Implications On Morality

Celia Saumell Misha Rai LIT 2020 11 March 2014 The Grotesque in Grace and its Implications on Morality Flannery O’Connor has been claimed an important figure and a social critic of the South for many years before and after her death. Her prose deals with questions of morality through reflections of her Roman Catholic faith. Correspondingly, her short stories and novels put the protagonists in shocking trials of God through characters or conflicts portrayed as, according to Davis J. Leigh, â€Å"distorted or exaggerated,† and are O’Connor’s way of revealing the â€Å"human condition to a world that is blinded by naturalism or secularism† (Leigh 2). This was her subject matter which she herself declared in her once unpublished essays now under Mystery and Manners (Leigh 2) and where critics place their doubt. Despite this, one needs to take into consideration the author’s standard of living that is evident throughout her works due to their ironic plot and sublime characters, such as in A Good Man is Hard to Find. In A Good Man is Hard to Find, a Southern family plan a trip from Georgia to Florida, but the sneaky grandmother deceives the children meticulously to manipulate the family to stray off the path, which ultimately leads them to their downfall. Flannery O’Connor’s short story A Good Man is Hard to Find grotesquely portrays the act of receiving grace in its final scene as a necessary and contrasting force that the protagonists must go through to reach enlightenment whileShow MoreRelated Lolita Essay4884 Words   |  20 Pagesreader then assume that the author is also unreliable, forever mistrusted and scrutinized? These questions are integral when discussing Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, for within this novel the reader is asked to separate herself from conventional ideas of morality, decency and reality, and place herself within the trust of an unreliable narrator. The unreliability of the narrator should be the key point of interpretation when discussing Lolita, however, this is generally not the case within the classroom.Read MoreThe Great Gatsby Analysis5626 Words   |  23 Pagesdesire for money and pleasure surpassed more noble goals. When World War I ended in 1918, the generation of young Americans who had fought the war became intensely disillusioned, as the brutal carnage that they had just faced made the Victorian social morality of early-twentieth-century America seem like stuffy, empty hypocrisy. The dizzying rise of the stock market in the aftermath of the war led to a sudden, sustained increase in the national wealth and a newfound materialism, as people began to spendRead MoreMetz Film Language a Semiotics of the Cinema PDF100902 Words   |  316 Pagesprecisely where the writer shows himself clearly as an individual because this is where he commits himself (p. 19). Thus, writing is the tone, delivery, purpose, ethos and naturalness of a writer s expression (p. 21); it is essentially the morality of form, the choice of that social area within which the writer elects to situate the Nature of his language (p. 21). M.T. FILM LANGUAGE I PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO FILM 1 On the Impression of Reality in the Cinema In the days when

How does Jane Austen portray pride in the novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’ Free Essays

For my English coursework I have decided to consider the question: How has Jane Austen portray pride in the novel Pride and Prejudice? This question asks about mostly characters and their self-respect, dignity and pride there are many different meanings of pride here are a few: 1. Inordinate self-esteem, unreasonable conceit of one’s own superiority. 2. We will write a custom essay sample on How does Jane Austen portray pride in the novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’? or any similar topic only for you Order Now Insolence, arrogance. 3. Sense of dignity, self-respect and proper self-esteem. 4. Generous elation or satisfaction arising out of some accomplishment, possession or relationship. 5. A source of such elation. 6. The acme, the highest point, the best condition. I will approach this question by going through, firstly the characters with types of positive and negative pride and then the characters with comic and changing pride. Pride can be classed as a positive concept. A positive form of pride in Jane Austen’s novel would, I think be Lizzy. Lizzy is very proud of her family despite how sometimes they might embarrass her. For example, the way Lydia and Catherine act when there out at dinner. â€Å"Catherine and Lydia had been fortunate enough to never be without partners, which was all they had yet learned to care for at a ball†. This would suggest how flirtatious Lydia and Catherine are. Another quotation to suggest this would be: â€Å"I am astonished that you should be so ready to think your own children are silly†. This is written in Caroline Bingley’s letter to Mr Bennet. A second example of this is the way Mrs Bennet talks to Mr Darcy, because of holding a grudge against him when he first arrived at Longbourn (Darcy would dance with no-one but the Bingley sisters, either because the weren’t pretty enough or of a lower class). â€Å"You know how I detested it, unless I am particularly acquainted with my partner† My last example would be when Lydia ran off with Wickham. This is the stage in the story where the Bennets have realised what Wickham’s really like and about his sinister character. Lizzy also never looks down on anyone and I think she may believe in equality. Being headstrong and sometimes quite arrogant may let Lizzy down a little, but Lizzy speaks her mind and the way she feels when confronted or confronting showing her pride in her family and friends. For example when Collins proposed to Lizzy, she would none of it and turned him down three times. When telling her that no one else would take pleasure in engaging with her she stood strong and said she had never been treated in such an abominable, rude and UN-gentlemen-like manor. An example of Lizzy speaking her mind, When she turned Collins proposal down the first time, as it was fashionable to turn the first proposal down, but the second or third should’ve been accepted. This displayed how much Lizzy detests Collin s. I think Lizzy was quite prejudice though. At the beginning of the novel she judges Darcy on his pride because Wickham tells her of how sinister Darcy is to try and win Lizzy’s love. ‘ If late Mr Darcy had liked me less, His son might have borne me with better; but his fathers uncommon attachment to me irritated him early in life†. This is one of Wickhams lies that Lizzy sadly fell for. Wickham is trying to say that Darcys’ father paid more attention to him than Darcy. Darcy then got jealous and started disliking Wickham. Lizzy’s empathetic reply to this was: â€Å"I had not thought Mr Darcy so bad as this†. As Lizzy falls gullibly she expresses her feelings for Wickham. While Wickham smugly smiles at his attempt to poison Lizzy. When Lizzy realises she has judged wrong, she fiercely chastises herself for misjudging Darcy. â€Å"Infact my feelings are quite the opposite† This is what Lizzy says on Darcy’s second proposal. Jane Bennet portrays positive pride in the way she looks e.g. the posture and the structure in the way she sits, stands and walks. She also shows great pride in her mother and some in the rest of her family. Jane’s pride in the way she looks is strongly criticised when Mr Bingley disengages from her. This would make Jane feel very degraded. Jane is very sad about Mr Bingley leaving her, when she hears news of his return her face lights up and her pride is given back to her. This is because she knows he is coming back to see her. Mr Bennet has a lot of pride in Lizzy as he thinks she is the brightest one of his daughters. He stands by Lizzy in all she does. â€Å"We all know him to be a proud, unpleasant sort of man, but this would be nothing if you really liked him†. This is what Mr Bennet has learned that Lizzy has accepted Darcys’ second proposal. Mr Darcy was determined to not make himself look daft/pathetic again he makes sure that Lizzy is not leading him on before he properly proposes: â€Å"I could not have addressed you in any possible way that Would induce you to accept me. So tell me if your feelings Are as they were before†. Georgina on the other hand is very proud of her brother and the way she has been brought up. She obviously shows pride in her family and in all she does. I think Georgina looks up to her brother (Darcy) and respects him greatly in all he does. The negative version of pride appears in this novel quite often. A lot of it appears in conversations between the Bingley sisters. The Bingley sisters are some of the most prejudice people throughout this book. They think they are a step above the rest and only have friends with ‘money’. They think that all women should be elegant females and learn to play at least one instrument, sew and act lady like (basically to be accomplished). â€Å"Women are inclined to learn to play at least one instrument fluently† It shows us this when Lizzy dashes half way across the countryside by foot to visit her sick sister. The greeting she gets is an unimpressed one and they are dicusted in her unladylike exertion. â€Å"Yes and her petticoat; I hope you saw her petticoat, six inches deep in mud, and the gown which had been let down to hide it, not doing its office†. The Bingley sisters are proud in every thing they do and given chance to talk about themselves would claim to be the best (or ‘one of’). Their clothes they wear in the video portray their class in society and they are very arrogant, self-worrying people. Lady Catherine de Burgh is also another example of being very prejudiced or if not, the most prejudiced in the book. There isn’t a lot of Lady Catherine in the story until the end, but all the way throughout there are refers to her and her strong influences she has on people i.e. Mr Collins. â€Å"Lady Catherine said I should marry as I am a clergyman† Lady Catherine has a lot of pride, mostly in herself but some in her daughter. Lady Catherine is also extremely arrogant and does not like things when they don’t go her way. E.g. when Lady Catherine heard news of Darcy wanting to propose to Lizzy again, she storms up to Longbourn by horse and carriage to declare that Lizzy refuses his offer as Darcy is engaged to be with Lady Catherine’s daughter. Lizzy standing up for her rights bites back at Lady Catherine and makes no such promise to say no to Darcy. She ends up doing quite the opposite and accepting his offer. In the beginning of the novel Darcy is a very proud, arrogant and upper, top class person (so he seems to think). An early start became a bad start when he went to the first dinner and saw Lizzy. Darcy portray his arrogance by dancing with Mrs Hurst and Miss Bingley. Only Mr Bingley saw Darcy and tried to make him dance with Lizzy, but he said: â€Å"She is tolerable but not handsome enough to tempt me†. Comic Pride is a rare pride in this novel and can be seen in at least two of the characters. The first Character it occurs in is Mr Collins he has so much self-love he could make Lady Catherine vomit! Mr Collins shows his smugness in almost everything he does. When asking for Lizzy’s hand in marriage, thinking that she couldn’t turn him down financially or because its not something an 18th century woman would do. This refers to meaning 5 on the first page. Mr Collins also had the audacity to say that Lizzy would be daft to say no, as no one else would want to marry her because of her finances. â€Å"You should take it to farther consideration that inspite of your manifold attractions, it is by no means certain that another offer of marriage may never be made of you†. Collins is funny in the way he moves and acts I would describe him as behind the time (old fashioned). He shows huge respect for Lady Catherine by doing everything she tells him to do. E.g. She said he should get a wife and settle down. So he obeyed her and went to ask for Lizzys hand in marriage. The other example of comic pride would be Mrs Bennet. She always claims she’s right and I think she’s two faced. One minute she will say that Mr Bingley is an arrogant, self-centred person for dumping Jane, and when news travels he’s coming to visit shes really nice to him. E.g. She creeps round him asking how his journey was and how was he. She claims she’s always right by, for example when Lydia ran off she said she would never come back she’s been kidnapped. When she heard Lydia was coming back married she said she always knew she’d come back. Both these characters are humorous in the novel and the video, but do get quite annoying. Changing Pride also happened only once or twice in this novel. The first person it happens to is Lizzy as her pride changed when she realised she’d thought wrong of Darcy. At first she saw him as rude and arrogant but by the end she saw that she really loved him. She learned to see through all his arrogance and self-centredness and saw the polite and pleasant Darcy. This changed her views on Darcy and gave her reason to accept his proposal second time round. Darcy the mostly changed character. He has fallen for Lizzy and realises he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. At the start or the book Darcy could’ve been described as arrogant, self-centred/confident man I think Lizzy’s influences changed Darcy’s pride and he started looking at people for what they were and not what they looked like. She did this by making him realise what’s she was like deep down and not what she looked like on the outside or of her family name. The Pride in this novel is what I think keeps the story going, it makes it a lot more exciting to read. All four of these prides mixed in to one and written in the most interesting ways stops you from wanting to put this book down. How to cite How does Jane Austen portray pride in the novel ‘Pride and Prejudice’?, Papers