Theory of Fernanda

...

Coriolanus could be seen as a commentary of James I’s England, as the story revolves around the political vacuum Rome is undergoing after transitioning from a monarchy into a democracy. The story’s protagonist is Coriolanus, a military general from Rome who eventually turns against his home city due to his egotistical prideful nature and his inability to balance between military and political power. Coriolanus thus dominates military power but lacks in political strategic understanding, and hence is unable to secure the role of consul because of his inability to gain the support of the lower classes. His fate leads to his death by the hands of his quasi-antagonist, Tullus Aufidius because he was unable to be flexible in his values and to strategize politically on the long term. Aufidius, on the other hand, is a Volsce and is thus enemy to Rome. He is vastly different to Coriolanus because of his understanding of politics, and his ability to be flexible in his values. When Coriolanus...

Coriolanus very evidently is characterized as the nearly stereotypical alpha male in the first Act, primarily in how his pride and brute force are his most prominent virtues. Essentially, he is looked upon as a figure of authority due to his physicality and valor, primarily portrayed in how he was able to defeat the Volsces single handedly when he trapped in Corioles. However, this is only one facet of his personality. The other side of the coin that the audience is exposed to is that of his arrogance and condescension, observed in his harsh treatment of the plebeians. Nevertheless, whilst this may show a subtle complexity in his personality, it all serves a larger political purpose. Shakespeare has created a parallel between post-monarchy (King Tarquin) Rome and pre-Civil War England (King James I). Both Coriolanus and King James share coincide in their egotistical treatment of the lower classes, and hence, Shakespeare makes a commentary on what ground should authority be justified ...

Personally, I find that the knowledge and understanding I gain about the world through natural sciences causes me to look at examples of that application of knowledge in real life through a more logical, reason-based lens. This is to say that because I understand why some things happen in certain ways, I detach emotion from that understanding because I know the science behind it. For instance, if I feel tired after a meal, I know that I feel that way because my digestive system is creating enzymes to break down the food and that my muscles that operate through involuntary movement are needing energy to do so. Naturally, this is a reason based train of thought and emotion is usually locked out of it. Hence, the natural sciences have led me to understand myself from a more logical, objective view. Nevertheless, what this does often make me think about in comparison to others is that scientifically and objectively speaking, I am not that unique. All of us are human beings that follow si...