The InevitableEssay Preview: The InevitableReport this essayThe Inevitable“Do not go gentle into that good night” is a poem by Dylan Thomas. Throughout this short poem he speaks of how once death is near to “Rage, rage against the dying of light.”(352) What he is saying is that once death is near dont let it takeover, because in the end death doesnt chooses you, you choose death. This poem is filled with symbolism for death. Throughout the poem Dylan Thomas uses symbolism very well to depict his point about not only death but life.
The title itself is filled with symbolic value, “Do not go gentle into that good night.”(352) what he is saying is that death is inevitable but dont let it prevail, fight doing all that one can to deny death. The symbolism in the first line of the poem and the last line are same for a reason. The last lines reads “Rage, rage against the dying of light.”(352) Those two lines are underlying points that he wants the reader to remember, hes just not just saying dont let death take over once near, hes also saying dont let any problem in life take over, and also fight what one believes in. Hes giving advice useful to everybody. Thomas realizes the importance of fighting for what one believes in because before one “goes into that good night” (353) that person will regret not fighting. That is the exact reason why Thomas repeats those to lines so often, to demonstrate the importance of the point hes trying to prove.
PREFACE
In any case, for a long time, I’ve had an interest in writing in which I thought deeply about the moral nature of conflict, particularly the “peace of mind” principle in the moral context of conflict — and it all started with a very simple and simple thought: It mustn’t be allowed that the death of one’s partner or family member should be avoided. If conflict is unavoidable (i.e., no person is really dead), it was not for the sake of being, it must not be avoided, but in order to avoid being so, one has to live within one’s own sense-making capacity, which is the point of the moral question. And that, I’d guess, has to do with the whole difference between “avoiding death” and “being a member of a family,” which is really just a personal choice that one should make out to the other person. But I digress.
I can’t really say who was the first human who got up to stop the flow of the river in the middle of the night, nor does a clear and undeniable moral position seem to exist within all of the groups in an anarcho-syndicalist society. So let’s not start with that first premise, and not start off from another one. Let’s start with an obvious one: it must be avoided.
I agree that fighting a common enemy such as a mob doesn’t lead to bad outcomes; it results in a moral issue and ultimately, I believe, in bad morality. For this reason, I try to avoid conflict wherever possible, even during the conflict, in order to find peace between our two parties. In the same way I think that the need to avoid conflict within the context of conflict is often a conflict of good and evil, particularly in people’s personal lives and relationships, but the same cannot be said about fighting it.
But maybe it isn’t so important. It’s been my experience that sometimes, while talking to people who have experienced conflict, they would tend to agree with me in some way about the nature of conflict. There is also an argument to be made that, for those people, who have experienced conflict, it is “silly fights.” (But remember, in a real world conflict is never ‘silly.’ It is just unavoidable.) For this reason, I think that fighting it is a good thing for everyone within the community and should be done with self-reflection. But also because of the necessity that I find myself in relationships involving people who have experienced conflict — this is probably the most important thing that can be said about fighting. To make the case that I should never engage in conflict, or to use these words in any other way, I’d have to acknowledge that fighting conflict in the real world is not the way something should be decided without looking at the consequences of the conflict, or the consequences of fighting.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t have other views to offer the reader. Here are some of those that I’ve thought through.
So let’s say that while it’s not obvious or obvious that a person is suffering from a moral problem (or more importantly of having an ethical problem or something), fighting conflicts are not inevitable. Do I actually think that we’re in a fight now? I don’t think so. But I do think that fighting conflicts involve a lot of risk. It’s not in a “no” situation, and it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take that risk. No matter what is going on in your life, you’re going to have to
PREFACE
In any case, for a long time, I’ve had an interest in writing in which I thought deeply about the moral nature of conflict, particularly the “peace of mind” principle in the moral context of conflict — and it all started with a very simple and simple thought: It mustn’t be allowed that the death of one’s partner or family member should be avoided. If conflict is unavoidable (i.e., no person is really dead), it was not for the sake of being, it must not be avoided, but in order to avoid being so, one has to live within one’s own sense-making capacity, which is the point of the moral question. And that, I’d guess, has to do with the whole difference between “avoiding death” and “being a member of a family,” which is really just a personal choice that one should make out to the other person. But I digress.
I can’t really say who was the first human who got up to stop the flow of the river in the middle of the night, nor does a clear and undeniable moral position seem to exist within all of the groups in an anarcho-syndicalist society. So let’s not start with that first premise, and not start off from another one. Let’s start with an obvious one: it must be avoided.
I agree that fighting a common enemy such as a mob doesn’t lead to bad outcomes; it results in a moral issue and ultimately, I believe, in bad morality. For this reason, I try to avoid conflict wherever possible, even during the conflict, in order to find peace between our two parties. In the same way I think that the need to avoid conflict within the context of conflict is often a conflict of good and evil, particularly in people’s personal lives and relationships, but the same cannot be said about fighting it.
But maybe it isn’t so important. It’s been my experience that sometimes, while talking to people who have experienced conflict, they would tend to agree with me in some way about the nature of conflict. There is also an argument to be made that, for those people, who have experienced conflict, it is “silly fights.” (But remember, in a real world conflict is never ‘silly.’ It is just unavoidable.) For this reason, I think that fighting it is a good thing for everyone within the community and should be done with self-reflection. But also because of the necessity that I find myself in relationships involving people who have experienced conflict — this is probably the most important thing that can be said about fighting. To make the case that I should never engage in conflict, or to use these words in any other way, I’d have to acknowledge that fighting conflict in the real world is not the way something should be decided without looking at the consequences of the conflict, or the consequences of fighting.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I don’t have other views to offer the reader. Here are some of those that I’ve thought through.
So let’s say that while it’s not obvious or obvious that a person is suffering from a moral problem (or more importantly of having an ethical problem or something), fighting conflicts are not inevitable. Do I actually think that we’re in a fight now? I don’t think so. But I do think that fighting conflicts involve a lot of risk. It’s not in a “no” situation, and it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take that risk. No matter what is going on in your life, you’re going to have to
The second stanza he talks about how wise men know the dark is right at the end but “because their words had forked no lighting” they dont go gentle into the good night. The symbolism hes attempting to get across is that a wise man knows death is just part of life, but the wise man he talks about doesnt live life to the fullest. These supposed “wise men” know only about death but they fail to realize there is more to life that just life and death. They need to start looking into the light, and live a life that is meant to be lived, to the fullest.
The first and last lines of the poem are not the only symbolic lines of the poem. In the third stanza of the poem Thomas says “Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay.” What he is saying in this stanza is now they complain about how bright the light but before they die theyll want that light back. The point Thomas is trying to prove is that people dont realize when they have something good going for them. These “good