In The Sun Also Rises, what is the significance of the title?

The title of
comes from the epigraph, which is from Ecclesiastes. Part of the epigraph
reads,

One generation passeth away, and another generation
cometh; but the earth abideth forever. . . The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and
hasteth to the place where he arose.

This epigraph
expresses the idea that one generation fades into another, and the sun will continue to rise,
while each generation passes on.

The generation that Hemingway describes in
the novel is doomed by the horrors they faced while fighting in World War I and/ or while
witnessing the effects of the war. For example, Jake is impotent because of his war injuries and
can't be with the woman he loves, Brett. The generation of the 1920s that witnessed the
devastation of World War I and that, alienated from the United States, lived a rootless
existence traveling around Europe, was known as "the lost generation." The writer
Gertrude Stein is credited with the other epigraph of the novel: "You are all a lost
generation. --Gertrude Stein in conversation." The term "lost generation" was
used to refer to Hemingway's contemporaries and describes the characters in the novel. To some
degree, they have already seen the sun rise and set on them, and true regeneration will only
come after the sun has risen on a new generation that comes after the "lost
generation."

Identify the challenge that has tended to exist in newly independent nations that experienced a long period of Colonial rule.

Part of
where this answer lies is in the realm of Postcolonial thought.  When trying to assess the
challenges that have tended to exist in newly formed nations is how to construct reality after
Colonial rule has ended.  I think that this is where the basic challenge in forming a
Postcolonial reality has existed.  From a philosophical point of view, self- definition as self
is difficult when self- definition had been viewed as that of "the other."  Through
Colonialism, there was a reality that underscores  what...

href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Why did Voltaire have to publish "Candide" anonymously and what would the public's reaction have been if he published it openly? Based on what you...

During the
period in whichwas writing , France was governed by a king who was an
absolute monarch. The Roman Catholic Church was the official state church, and under a concept
sometimes called the alliance of throne and altar. The papacy supported the...

Natural rights, founding principles, consitution I am supposed to be trying to explain individual liberties and rights as a founding principle of...

Two
concepts are being conflated into one, which happens when figurative
language is used (e.g., "taken away") and used for so long and by so many that it is
forgotten that it is figurative. Since rights are not like a pair of shoes
that one dons or that one may or may not be permitted to don, they can not literally
be taken away as shoes can most decidedly be taken away by heartless (or maybe
desperate) individuals. In reference to rights and the United States Founding Documents,
"taken away" is a figurative for oppressed and/or violated. What
your professor is wisely asserting is that humankind has innate qualities of dignity and
humanity and honor that include the freedom to live under their own volition (though not harm
inducing volition, since harm violates a few rights on its own) without the brutality and
dehumanization and exploitation of tyrants or greedy mercenaries or other powerful and
destructive people or groups. In this sense, these rights are
not a negotiable social contract.

In another sense,
literal legal rights are a negotiable social
contract. Two examples are "We, the people ..." and Swedish health care. In the first
example, the groups included in the literal legal social construct of
rights as expressed in "We, the people ..." did not include,
women, children, slaves, and non-Christian immigrants, and possibly others. This is, in fact a
literal legal social construct that forms an agreement between people of a
society as to what literal legal rights may be had by whom (though it is
speaking of humankind's innate inviolate qualities of dignity, humanity,
honor etc, that are not a social
construct).

As legal rights, these may--upon a change in
the social agreement that results in a change in the social construct--be altered to include or
exclude those not previously specified. This is precisely what has happened with Constitutional
Amendments, new laws and Supreme Court rulings. On the other hand, no Constitutional Amendments,
laws or Supreme court rulings can ever alter the innate humanity and dignity and attendant
rights held by every person living--we have already established that these rights may be and are
violated and abused, but they can not be altered or disenfranchised.

The
second example of Swedish health care is a happy example of inclusion (as
opposed to the original exclusion of "We, the people ...") in a
literal legal social construct that specifies legal
rights that a social group has agreed to. Sweden has agreed that all
citizens--because of their innate, inviolate humanity and dignity--have the legal
right to any and all needed health care (and education, for that matter) without
restriction for any cause.

So, to understand these questions you ask, you
must be able to isolated and separate (not conflate) the two concepts of (1) innate human rights
and (2) legal rights that devolve to members of a society based upon legal documents that agree
to and specify the legal rights recognized within that society. For more
clarity, compare the legal social construct of health care rights for citizens in Sweden to the
legal social construct of health care rights for citizens in the United States (a political
"hot button" right now, I know, but a very clear example of the point I'm making
[though I'm not inviting a battle over policy by mentioning it]).

Distinguish different notions of possibility, and explain how that bears on Aquinas's argument.

In the
Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas lays out five ways (in Latin,
quinque viae) to show God exists, also referred to as the proofs of Gods
existence. Aquinass third way, which relates to contingency, is known as the argument from
possibility and necessity.

Two contrasting earlier approaches to the
possibility or necessity of existence are those of the Greek philosopher Aristotle and the
sixth-century neo-Platonist John of Alexandria (or Johannes Philophonus). While Aristotles
natural theology was based on an eternal cosmos with no beginning or end, it is considered
anti-Creationist. John of Alexandria, critiquing Aristotle, argued against the
eternity...

href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Philoponus">https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Philoponus
href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Five-Ways">https://www.britannica.com/topic/the-Five-Ways

Where do we find the use of epiphany in "Araby"?

The epiphany was
popularized by , an early twentieth-century writer from Dublin, Ireland, and it refers to the
point in a literary text when a character has a sudden realization or insight that affects his
understand in some significant way.  In this story, the narratoran adult man reflecting on a
memorable childhood experiencepursues his first real crush, his friend Mangan's
sister.  

When you read the story, you'll notice that Mangan's sister is
always referenced with some description of light.  When she goes outside to call her brother in
to dinner, "her figure [was] defined by the light from the half-opened door."  The
narrator says that "Her image accompanied [him] even in places the most hostile to
romance.  We walked through the flaring streets [...]."  When he thinks of her, he seems to
notice, even in the midst of the ugly street with the drunkards and bargaining merchants, the
lights flaringnot the ugliness of the setting.  When he finally speaks to...

Who is most to blame for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet?

In , 's fear
of the guards finding him in the tomb directly leads to the death of ; for, had he remained with
Juliet, she would not have been able to kill herself.

Friar Laurence. ....For the watch is coming. / Come, go,
good Juliet, I dare no longer stay.

Juliet. Go,
get thee hence, for I will not away.

[Exit Friar
Laurence]

If, then, there is but one culprit who must be
chosen, Friar Laurence is the most culpable as he secretly marries the lovers, he hides, and he
provides Juliet with the sleeping potion; moreover, he leaves the emotionally vulnerable
Juliet...