Remember that for Aristotle meant something different than what we intend when we say cause. We are referring to an action or event that occurred prior to another. For Aristotle, causes meant explanation. This explanation works fine for a man made article, so how does he explain cause in nature? Aristotle said that all of nature strives to reach its end (telos), which explains its behavior.
Thucydides and Plato have a clear set boundary in their writings as to what type of assertion they are fabricating. Thucydides sets a very narrow view with his piece of The Peloponnesian War that holds more weight in solid evidence of what a “good life” is demonstrated as. Plato, on the other hand, has several writings that go into depth of weighing what someone’s soul ought to have within itself. The statement of Thucydides making empirical claims, with Plato making normative claims, is supported with evidence in their respected works. For a claim to be considered similar to an empirical one, it must be almost like it is a law to be followed.
His one of his greatest pupil was Plato he wrote the book “Republic.” In which he wrote about how justice who affect society or the country in better ways than other and how it is the building blocks of things.HIs pupil was Aristotle was the author of a philosophical and scientific system who helped create christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophers. Those where only some of the
Immanuel Kant’s Impact on Enlightenment Values For thousands of years, religion was used to help answer universal phenomenon’s. It wasn’t until Greek philosopher’s, such as Socrates and Aristotle, around 300 – 400 BC, started challenging religious ideals and looking at reason in the senses. These Greek philosophers, set the foundation and influenced many philosophers to come. Centuries later, a philosopher name Immanuel Kant, dedicated his life to find the parallels between the natural world and rational thinking. Yet, connections between Kant and other philosophers can be made with their collaborative ideas on acceptable political discussion and disobedience.
There names are Rene Descartes and Plato. Plato and Descartes are two Greek philosophers that believe in Rationalism, yet both have a different perspective of it. I will explain both philosopher’s methods when it comes to viewing the everyday world, talk about their similarities and differences, and then choose Descartes’s method regarding Rationalism. I agree with Descartes method a lot more than Plato’s because I feel that inborn knowledge is a form of deception and escaping your reality, like Plato would suggest, would only leave you to be deceived even more. Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty.
Plato is the thinker or theorist who came with addressing who should rule in a political environment in what Plato outlined that only Philosophers should rule. This ideology will be addressed in the essay with substantiated reasons on why Plato thought that philosophers should rule. 1.1 DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS 2 PLATO BIOGRAPHY Plato was born around the year 428 BCE in Athens. Plato 's birth name was Aristocles, and he gained the nickname Platon, meaning broad, because of his broad build. His family had a history in politics, and Plato was destined to a life in keeping with this history.
Many of the roots of modern intellectual ideas and philosophies have stemmed from the ideas and philosophies of the ancient Greeks. While many other cultures had some impact, the Greeks most definitely had the most influence on modern math and science. Most notably, “the three Athenians that would come to dominate philosophy for the next 2000 years: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle”(p8). These three philosophers, along with many others from in or around ancient Greece set the foundation for Western intellect today. The communication abilities and location of ancient Greece allowed them to not only gather information about the ideas of diverse cultures around the world but also to have skepticism about the information and determine what was true.
The Republic is an inspection of the "Good Life"; the accord reached by applying pure reason and justice. The Republic can be read in several different ways: As an essay on political theory and practice: As a educational handbook or as a protection of moral behavior. For example. While we 'll take declaration of each of these constructions along the way, our crucial attention in what trails will be on the elementary supernatural and epistemological subjects, opening questions about who we are, what is real, and about how we know it. Read in this style, the discussion as a whole invites us to share in Plato 's vision of our place within the ultimate structure of reality.
“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics. The quote above is the opening statement of this book. It is saying that in all that man does, he/she seeks some good as ends or means.
Confucius, Aristotle, and Lao-Tzu—all incredibly influential thinkers—did not always agree on how one ought to live; where Aristotle believed that thought or study led to virtue, Lao-Tzu placed focus on inaction, and Confucius taught that rituals paved the way to the best life. A few ideas, however, tie Confucius closer to Aristotle than to Lao-Tzu. Because Aristotle also placed importance on names, emphasized the need to find a mean of behavior, and believed that rulers should most critically be moral, Confucius would have preferred Aristotle to Lao-Tzu. Names—Aristotle utilizes them, even though he recognizes the difference between what exists in reality and the form represented by its name, while Lao-Tzu, on the other hand, maintains that names only serve to put limits on the named, and, in fact run the risk of creating opposites. According to Lao-Tzu, “Recognize beauty and ugliness is born.
When identifying and articulating ethics, one may conclude that the best way to express one’s values is through speech or literature, bluntly stating what they believe. However, this is simply untrue, for there are limitless theories, and a multitude of ways to express them. The Greeks, for example, exhibited their values in multiple ways. The Greeks were undoubtedly humanists, displaying their humanistic values through government, art and architecture, and philosophy. The Greeks displayed their humanistic values through government by they utilizing an effective system of self governing.
By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts. To do this I must first explain several concepts of Aristotle which are: (1) how he concludes that the human function is reason, (2) what he means by happiness and how it is the human good, and (3) why he believes that the activity of the soul must be virtuous to become
It may be challenging to wrap your head around the things discussed throughout this letter, but I share it because I know you are capable to harnessing the vision that Aristotle has shared, an idea removed at the time of the Enlightenment. Remember what I told you about Aristotle’s strengths of leadership; techné, episteme, and phronesis (Sachs, 2002 and Grint, 2007). Gaining an understanding of what choice is and how that decides your actions and being exposed to opportunity and knowledge in order to achieve moral development. Something that will be difficult to break away from is the mistakes Man has made and continue to make (1944). But I very much believe that you can act in accordance with the virtues of Aristotle (Sachs, 2002), the warnings of Lewis (1944), the moral development theory of Kohlberg (1976), and become an individual in a society that has condemned individuality to the point of being condition a certain way
Both philosophers are realists and both identify the need for a ruler. Throughout the examination of the philosophers, both Machiavelli and Hobbes have identified similar theories about political power, however have different views on how the sovereign should behave, methods on becoming and staying in power, as well as his duties when it comes to the people. I personally believe that Hobbes approach and motive behind his theories is more beneficial as the main purpose is to protect society while Machiavelli’s approach motivated by self-interest and creates a corrupt ruler. Machiavelli and Hobbes both support the idea of a sovereign however have very different views on how the sovereign should behave. The