Why is Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell classified as a reflective essay? There are a number of theories on what constitutes an essay, but they all boil down to the purpose and use of the essay. An essay is an essay, whether it is written to entertain, to inform, to express, or to inform.
This book’s essay is a reflective essay about the dangers of war, and about war. It is a reflection on why the people who write essays are required to read this book. It’s a commentary on the importance of learning about the world around you, and the dangers you could be exposed to.
In fact, there are many points where one might question if it is possible to draw lessons from the text of the book – in particular, one of the main points by George Orwell is that war, especially war between nations can destroy a society. If an enemy nation were to invade your country, what would happen to your political system, your cultural traditions, your way of life? If that nation were to take over your country, would you have an ability to resist that change? Could you fight off such a foreign invasion and maintain your freedoms?
One can only conclude then, that reading The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell is one of the best decisions an individual could make. It is not only an interesting novel but also a reflection on the power of the mind. In the book, it is argued that the human mind is so powerful that it can manipulate itself into believing just about anything it wishes to see. Therefore, an intelligent human being would be capable of thinking up a list of reasons to kill a million people, rather than one.
And therefore, it’s difficult to argue that George Orwell is not an interesting author, at least when he writes such an insightful piece. He offers up many ideas in his essay, and they are some that are worthy of consideration. But, in the end, they are thoughts, and not the answers that one needs to make a decision.
George Orwell, in his essay, tries to answer the question as to why war is such a good idea. It is because the war will benefit society and the mankind that will fight it. It will make the world a better place. And, he argues, it will protect the people that are on the front lines from the danger.
It is not a moral argument, because, it is not about war. People will decide to fight, but whether they will do so out of a desire for justice, or because they wish to win. No matter what one’s moral views are about war, the moral reasoning is still a subjective issue.
There are no universal morals in any case, and there is nothing to be gained from one’s morality by fighting, no matter how it might be expressed. It’s only a question that need to be answered, and that should be answered by considering both sides and what each side stands to gain.
And, in order to do this, one must look at each side with its own eyes. One must look at each individual with his or her own eyes. It does not matter if one believes the war is right. One must consider it from the eyes of the other side and not from ones own.
These are the only steps that one can take in considering such actions. And, since the essay is not an argument, it is not even possible to know whether one’s own point of view on the war is correct.
What one must be sure of is one’s ability to understand. and the ability to think critically. It is the ability to think objectively, to look at what one sees and then apply one’s own logic and reason to that. If one cannot, then one has already missed the entire point of the argument.