For example why is a chair here? The material cause is what the chair is made from, (an example would be a wooden chair.) the formal cause is what lets the chair be identified as a chair. (So a chair normally has four legs.) The efficient cause is why it is here (so for a chair, someone must have made it.)
Socrates then gives this word a new meaning when stating that instead of having just wisdom, it may be more politically correct to say “human wisdom”. He clarifies the wisdom that he actually possesses as “human wisdom” to illustrate the extent of his definition of wisdom can only be “human”, because he does not know, nor possess any other definition. By stating that people with that “sort of superhuman wisdom”, Socrates implies that the people with
He does not see why order means there has to be a designer. However, he is open to the idea of a designer or creator but doesn’t see why this has to be a God. He believes that there are many different possibilities such as a “team of Gods” or even a totally different entity. Hume believes the world is far too complex to be compared to something as simple as the mechanism of a watch. He believes there truly is no comparison.
In order to create the type of society that both Plato and Lao Tsu desire to emulate, it is critical that the ruler have the characteristics and qualities that will lead the respective societies in harmony with their philosophical principles. The Republic of Plato offers a theoretical society of enforced elitism. In the work, Plato, citing Socrates whom was Plato’s teacher and often referenced in the dialogue, explicates that the ideal community would be one in which each person has a particular craft, a particular rank, and a fond love for knowledge. Although Socrates expects citizens to love educating themselves and searching for wisdom, he also believes that children of the community should be brought up believing that the world is a perfect realm with no blemishes. Socrates endorses that children’s stories should be modified to encourage the notions of a perfect civilization, which in-turn would directly influence the way the youth view life.
For Aristotle, Plato was a realist and Protagoras was a relativist. Essentially, he regards both theories as equally defective. J.D.G Evans attempts to analyze why Aristotle deems these theories inadequate and what position is left for Aristotle to take if both of the alternatives are defective. Repeatedly, Aristotle begins his accounts by criticizing the “answers of his predecessors” and, while there appears to be legitimate reasons to discredit them, he fails to provide an adequate alternate. The following passage from Eudemian Ethics (1235b 13-18) allows us to better comprehend Aristotle’s impression of philosophy, which in turn leads to a better understanding of how he reviews and resolves the aforementioned problem: We must adopt a line of argument which will both best explain to us the views held about these matters and will resolve the difficulties and contradictions; and we shall achieve this if we show that the conflicting views are held with good reason.
The ability to be undoubtedly sure of something is a golden quality; however, it can also be a destructive quality if taken advantage of. Certainty and doubt go hand in hand: too much certainty can make a person close-minded and ignorant—on the other hand, too much doubt makes a person unreliable in decision making, which is an important life-skill. Certainty and doubt should be equal in one’s life; they help to solidify opinion and personality and are key tools in learning experience. As children, humans spend the first few years of their lives learning from their surroundings. They gain opinion and personality on what they hear and see.
This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the idea process, but it was an interesting outlook I stumbled upon whilst brooding. That Aristotle's made his views of rhetoric appeal to the greats in order for it to be passed along, not that he though only the greats should be privy to his ideas. Whether this is the case or not stands to be disputed, but why
Claire Havard CYP 3.3(6.1) How to support children and young people’s self confidence and self-esteem Self-esteem is a way a child feels about themselves. Everyone has it in different degrees. A child with high self-esteem generally feels good about themselves and feels they have a lot to offer. A child with low or poor self-esteem generally feels worthless and that they have little to contribute. Without positive self-esteem it is highly unlikely that a child would have a full, happy and productive life.
An advantage of this theory is that it drives parents to encourage their children at a young age to build up a large self-esteem; their sense of self-worth. A disadvantage of this theory is that the theories have been considered naïve and optimistic as it disregards the darker aspects of human nature. Like psychodynamic theories, humanistic theories are difficult to scientifically
Philosophy Statement I love being a part of a child’s growth and development. I believe children learn best through spontaneous, meaningful, safe play. I believe it helps them to grow and develop in a positive way. I believe this type of play helps their social skills, their brain development and their self help, just to name a few. Play promotes curiosity, discovery, and problem solving, which helps develop a positive self image for the individual child.