Aspects of our aesthetic relation to death

 

What are the two aspects of our aesthetic relation to death?

-What is the “schizy” attitude we have towards death
-what is the paradox of closure?

-How do our aesthetic reactions work against our ability to understand death?

-How could seeing death as “skeletal liberation” ease the trauma of facing death?

-How is death a challenge to our sense of self as aesthetically valuable?

-How is storytelling involved in our understanding of life and living?

-Why do we recoil at the sight of gore, disease and dismemberment?

 

Sample Solution

Rome is commonly known as one of the most powerful empires in the ancient world with territory and authority spreading throughout the Mediterranean. Rome falls into a grey area of history. Often it is thought that Rome expanded aggressively, that it was an established goal that Rome set out to conquer Italy and large amounts of surrounding territory. However, this may not be the case as much of the territory acquired was not due to methodically planned Roman expansion, but rather it paints a picture of a civilization attempting to assert their power and protect their own in a particularly violent time in history. Although Rome benefited from expansion through the increase of profitable territory and cultural influence as well as the elimination of enemies who could threaten their security, there were consequences as well. The increase in land and power acted as a catalyst to provoke new enemies and expansion lead to new political and logistical pressures on the Roman government. Through military strength inspired by Roman ideals and virtues, Rome was able to thrive and assert their dominance in the ancient world. This paper will seek to establish that Rome grew from a small civilization into one of the most formidable empires of the ancient world due the required necessities of survival and profited as well as suffered due to its expansion.
Rome began as a small settlement on the Tiber River it was not the empire that comes to mind when one thinks of Rome. As it began to grow much of the territory they acquired was as a result of conflicts with neighboring groups. Livy writes about this period but often romanticizes the “glory days” of the Roman republic, and this lens must be taken into account. Livy describes the period of monarchical rule as having been under the rule of seven kings; several are noted as having reignited wars and expanding territory including Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Martius. Not much is said about these kings besides how they conquered peoples in the surrounding area of Rome, this indicates that depending on who was in control in times of absolute rule indicated whether Rome was expanding aggressively or not. This writing also shows that there was significant expansion occurring at this time. (Livy 161) Beyond this period into the Republic it appears to be much of the same trend, conflict that leads to expansion although the Republic’s intentions were more complicated as power was not concentrated to one man.

The Punic Wars were a costly example of how Roman expansion served as a catalyst for further conflicts with other large powers in Europe and North Africa. The Punic Wars showed how war could result in the expansion of territory but at a steep cost in time, money, and life; as a result Rome acquired southern Italy, territory in North Africa, and Spain. The Second Punic War in which Hannibal attempted to defeat Rome by moving his army throughout Western Europe is a perfect example of how Rome went

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.