To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical. Therefore, an appeasement of the gods was as necessary as the air to breath. However, Aristotle would present logical arguments which would demonstrate a need for those within Greece (and the ancient world) to rely more upon logic than myth, as logos was the more prominent ‘trait’ to abide by when all the layers were stripped away. One such argument, modus
Isocrates and Aristotle both displayed an evident passion for this thing called “rhetoric.” Aristotle said that, “Rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion” (Aristotle, 2). Isocrates and Aristotle argued that this kind of writing was an art. By favoring an art definition over a science, they suggested that writing takes imagination as well as concentration. They illustrated that the language is constantly moving, and the mind of an author should be open and explorative. Isocrates and Aristotle both believed in the influence of sound rhetoric; furthermore, they insist upon a strategic education to further what they consider to be true rhetoric.
His approach seemed more objective since it was his intention to follow the will of heaven and regardless of the consequences, a person needed to do what was noble, right, good, and true. Although Confucius and Aristotle had many things in common, I believe the biggest difference is that Aristotle had a more pragmatic approach. Since being happy was the greatest virtue according to his ethical philosophy, it seems to be a much more subjective and relative approach, placing emphasis on the external (choosing and learning to be good – outside-in approach), whereas Confucius’s seemed to focus on the internal (inside-out approach), which was ultimately more beneficial to others because it manifested itself as living out the golden rule. So long as it is grounded in truth, in treating those how one would like to be treated, a kind of peace that surpasses all understanding becomes prominent – resulting in the arts of genuine and authentic
Then who is the right one? Well, if we were obliged to choose one of them, my suggestion would be for Aristotle, even though Hobbes makes definite, original and precise statements and observations on the manner and attitude of human’s nature. Why I do not prefer Hobbes is that he fails to notice and discern the natural and particular goodness of nature of man. Let’s examine Aristotle’s standpoints, then Hobbes’, and make a finish with comparative
The characterization of Brutus proves that he rather make decisions for what is right and not for power which influences the fall of Caesar, the conspirators following him, and the outcome of his own life. Brutus in many ways can be seen as morally right and doing the best that he can, but he can be seen as swayed. In the beginning of the poem Brutus says about Caesar that he does “love him well” but then to say that he fears “the people Choose Caesar for their king” (Shakespeare 6). When it comes to people, Brutus is loving and wants the best for them. It's a decision between morals or friends and makes that decision clear that he rather choose the right morals over having a friend in power.
Democracy- the best form of governance; is evidently disputed in modern day politics. The disagreement has been carried on for centuries, as seen in Plato 's Republic and Pericles Speeches. According to The Republic, democracy cannot be implemented as the common man lacks the in-depth knowledge of vital spheres of bureaucracy such as economics, military stratagem, international conditions, and the niceties of law. However, this form of governance is viewed in a much more favorable light by Pericles in Thucydides ' History of the Peloponnesian Wars. He believes democracy is all beneficial to every sector of society and should be run for the general well-being, serving the ultimate goal of equality in justice.
Both of these highly influential authors had different opinions on ruling that would shape how people would rule during their time and for rulers to come. One of Machiavelli’s major points in The Prince was that it was better to be feared than to be loved. He said this was because while both ways can be useful tools to help one rule, men are less likely to turn a ruler if they were afraid of punishment. Machiavelli had little faith in the common man and had this to say about them, “They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of dangers, eager to gain”(pg.353). Machiavelli believed that men will follow a ruler as long as the ruler serves their interests, and a quick to turn against the ruler unless they fear great punishment.
The way I viewed his heart’s desire made me feel like he is less of a bad person than people might think. I thought his heart’s desire was to be the best king he could be. This is an important reason because all he wanted to do was be the best king he could be, while others thought otherwise. In this case, he thought it would be best to kill Antigone because she broke a law and he wanted to protect the people of Thebes from a felon, even if it was somebody else. In line 1228 he says to the leader: “Oh it’s hard giving up on the heart’s desire… but I will do it” after he is convinced to let Antigone free.
Throughout this section, Socrates makes small individual points that build together to form his main claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice acts. This claim that it is better to suffer injustice than commit injustice raises the question of why would any person want to receive injustice, but that is not Socrates argument. Socrates understands that receiving injustice is not something that is enviable, but when compared to committing injustice, suffering injustice is better because committing injustice is pitiable and unenviable. Socrates never fully explains his reasoning for this claim but it deals with this idea of getting back