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.
Throughout this process of change, Athens held a grip on the moral validity of its actions, due to the aims and practices, especially the oath, of the Delian League. This enabled it to enforce its rule on the other members and use the League for its own purposes, and thus turn the Delian League into an Athenian empire. NOTE that because Thuc thought these were significant, then they probably were! The first of Thucyides’ paradigms is the siege and capture of Eion in 476-75BC. The League’s actions here removed a potentially dangerous base for the Persians.
Each decision made says some things about the person that has made it. Decisions reveal, test, and shape the ideas we have of our self and our morals. Their consequences have far-reaching implications and the book indicates when they are made in haste, with only individual interpretation or emotion, they can be devastating to the owner. The author of Defining Moments, Joseph Badaracco, Jr., relies heavily on what history has taught us through great intellectual interpretations of the most prominent philosophers: Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sophocles, Niccolo Machiavelli, William James, and Marcus Aurelius. Badaracco draws examples from other writers on ethics and philosophy to reinforce how, which, and when to apply the teachings of such forward thinkers to everyday situations, with which we are faced.
Secondly, that justice may be our deep-rooted understanding and ability to identify good from evil. My motivation for presenting my own definition stems from my frustration in Thrasymachus’s inability to see justice as something much more than a form of legalism Thrasymachus starts his definition by stating that justice is the interest or advantage of the stronger (338c). Immediately after being questioned by Socrates on this definition, Thrasymachus quickly clarifies that the stronger are in-fact the rulers and that justice is in the interest of them alone (339a). Socrates forces the examination of this definition, and results in Thrasymachus then defining interests as the laws that rulers make (338e). From there, Thrasymachus then states that justice, from the perspective of the ruler, is obeying their laws (339b).
In this paper I will attempt to give an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideas and contributions each of the men made to their respective schools, and hopefully give my personal reasoning why one is more true than the other. Rationalism was developed by several important philosophers all around the 17th century. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz are all given credit for developing rationalism. Rationalism is the idea that reason and logic are the basis of knowledge. It says that knowledge is innate, and that it cannot come from sources such as the senses.
1.) Discuss the mind-body problem by defining it and stating its specific points. How would you categorize Plato & Aristotle on this specific issue (hint: are they Dualists? Monists?). Describe how the theories of Plato and Aristotle fit along this mind-body issue.
1. Wilen we express an attitude to display who we are or who we wish to appear to others, our attitude is serving the function. a. b. c. d. knowledge utili tarian ego defensive normative social identity \! 2. According to Aristotle and other ancient Greeks, a persuasion strategy appealing primarily to emotions is: a. b. c. d.
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
According to him, our perceptions are the contents of our consciousness and our perceptions falls into classes, namely: Impressions and Ideas. Hume differentiates Impressions from Ideas unlike his predecessors Descartes and Locke, saying that impressions are our original experiences. It may be either sensations or the immediate and original contents of our psychological states while Ideas are copies of the original experience, but differs from impressions in the degree of force or liveliness. For
This is simply shown in Mejia’s notes, “First to think of 3 branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.” (Mejia’s notes). Those 3 branches as simple as they may seem are crucial to democracy today. Last but certainly not least, they “developed theatre, the Olympic games, philosophy, democracy, and individualism.”(Mejia’s notes). This is just a prime insight to the depth of the contributions that the Greeks made. Not only was Greek a big part of democracy but Rome it self played a big part of it too.