Throughout centuries of investigation, the understanding of Nature had gone through some revolutionary changes and it accounts for the shaping of modern society. In this paper, the revolutionary changes from Aristotle to Newton, and from the creationists to Darwin will be discussed. Furthermore, the importance of these changes for the shaping of modern society will be introduced. From Aristotle to Newton, the understanding of Nature had changed from philosophic thinking to the mathematics representation. Aristotle understood the Nature simply by observing the real object and thought of a theory to explain the reality people see. The theory proposed by Aristotle were only based on simple observation and philosophic thinking. For example, Aristotle proposed every object have its nature and the motion of the object is related to its nature. Different from Aristotle, …show more content…
Before Darwin, people mostly believed that God was the one who created everything, so people tended to worship God for fortune, and ignore the facts they observed if it was contradictory to the creationists. For example, although Aristotle’s model of astronomy was proved wrong by Galileo’s observation, people still treat Aristotle’s model as the truth because it matches with the thought of creationists. However, in modern society, everything stated should be proved with evidence, and the evidence is not simply the sayings of God. Take LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people) as an example, in the past, people treated LGBT people as devil because it is contradictory to Bible, but in modern society, researchers discovered that LGBT have some relationship with genes, so people tends to treat LGBT people as normal due to the research, but not treating them as devils created by God. This change created a more pluralistic society, which is an important characteristic of modern
“The Story of Us” Shermer’s Stand and The Long Argument The theory of evolution has been under attack all throughout the history of the natural sciences. Several groups of people, especially those of which whom are affiliated with the Humanities, particularly Theologians are one of the notable people whom have questioned the theory introduced by Charles Darwin. As such, Shermer found it necessary to further discuss and at the same time address the said concern through the article. It could be deduced that the article formally shuts down the “unlikeliness” of evolution by presenting several accounts that prove the said theory to be true.
The scientific revolution is important because it brings to light two fundamental ideas “observation and evidence”, this forced man to compare the physical traits of human forms, this brought about the differentiation between blacks and whites. According to West philosophy in collaboration with science helped bring theory to reality. Philosophers Bacon and Descartes believed that philosophy brought a new standard of knowledge and that observation and evidence were at the center of the scientific method (West pg. 52). The classical revival of the Greco ideas of beauty that was used to measure what is considered beauty. In J.J Winckelmann’s “History of Ancient Art”.
In a brief introduction, the 19th century was marked by the development of scientific knowledge. The search for new technologies, leveraged by the Industrial Revolution, caused scholars to multiply in various areas of knowledge. At that time, various academies and associations geared for the "progress of science" recognized the figure of scientists and put them as important agents of social transformation. In 1889, with the publication of the book "The Gospel of Wealth", Andrew Carnegie comes to the classical approach of social responsibility of the large companies.
From long time ago, humans have already desired to understand the origin of the universe and explore its operation. There are many brilliant philosophers or scientists help us to understand the universe, for example, Plato, Aristotle and Isaac Newton contribute a lot in the physical world. In my major course which is life sciences, Charles Darwin, who paid much effort on the biological world, is an important scientist. He suggested the evolution of species was conducted by natural selection, which seemed that it disproved Plato’s theory. Actually, there is no conflict between Plato’s theory and Darwin’s and Newton’s theory.
"Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. " Ecclesiastes 4:9-10 True friendships are a rarity in today 's culture. In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, he delves into what a "true" or "complete" friendship should be.
Aristotle's metaphysics differ from Plato's metaphysics in several ways. According to Plato's Theory of the Forms, two realms exist. The one we live in is the realm of particular, changing objects. The other realm contains fixed, unchanging Forms.
In this section I would like to compare two different approaches of the before mentioned concepts of ethics and desire. The first theme that I started my paper with is ethics. Both Levinas and Aristotle in their philosophies strove for the higher good, which for one of them was represented by happiness and for another by the notion of G-d. In their perception this higher good is the eternal truth and understanding of the world. For Levinas, however, the ‘good’ is infinite in a sense that it is not concerned in what is common among all things, but what is entirely unique about each person or thing. In other words, it is based on singularity of things and the absolute uniqueness of objects.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28).
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances?
The rise of Fundamentalism can be explained through these cultural developments because it first began as a reaction to liberal and progressive views in the nineteenth century. This reaction began to grow and gain popularity among people in society which led to Fundamentalism being formed. A major event that aided in the coming about of fundamentalism was the publishing of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection” by Charles Darwin. This caused many Fundamentalist Christians to believe that it was meant to personally offend them and even go against the words of the Bible in order to stem a separation from the church and the public. Another cultural development that occurred and helped to create Fundamentalism was the rise of liberalism in American society.
Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle have somewhat analogous aspects on the concept of virtue, however, while one uses faith, the other uses reason to call for the need of temperance. According to Aquinas virtue is merely the good use of free will (655). This is a common view for those in the practice of Christianity, where many believe that God gives everyone free will and it is up to the individual to put it to good use. Nevertheless, in his work he explains that there are multiple factors that contribute to putting free will to actual good use, and the most prevalent is self-control. Self-control implies discipline, and discipline can ultimately become the deciding factor in the creation of a habit, specifically an operative habit; which Aquinas defines as human virtue (656).
I will argue that even with the evidence provided, Aristotle’s theory on
Last but not least, when Newton’s theory showed them the power of science, and gave people a confidence of future life because they were able to make predictions (Cohen 62), the natural selection theory made people doubt about where they came from. It stated that we might have single parent with other species, when people at that time were still regarding human-beings as supreme. All factors I concluded above led to difference social feedback of those two theories, but we could not deny the contribution of natural selection theory, since it enables people to open their mind, to foster their innovative
We can thus roughly deduce that Aristotle’s idea has prepared a theoretical base for future scientific
If Plato had portrayed an Ideal State in hid republic which could be built in heaven only, Aristotle came down to earth while drawing the outline of his ideal state. Like a true scientist he does not attempt any impossible scheme in formulating his theory if Ideal State. His ideal state is attainable on his earth. We must first consider not only what is ideal but also what is the best attainable in actual practice. The only difference between a monarchy and an aristocracy is that in the first case virtue is centered in one person.