Although his speech, informed us that his primary concern was that America be strongly united, and secure, built on a good foundation, able to resolve issues, and act as a national family, he doesn 't suggest nor help create a resolution to the issue. In the first paragraph, it says, “"Hear me for my cause." I speak to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious heart for the restoration to the country...” This quote is a clear indicator that he wants the greater good for America. However, can we really consider what he says to be the greater good for America as a whole or just the whites and higher class citizens? Although I disagree with the way Webster views things, I took the time to look at things from his standpoint.
The age of enlightenment was a philosophical peak in history that set a course for the rest of time. Many different ideas were brought about that shaped the way we live to this day, especially here in the states. Two philosophers in particular affected the United States of America; Thomas Hobbes and Tom Locke. Both of these philosophers pasts formed their philosophy and the ideas they had, which affected the government of their time, and our government today. Hobbes and Locke had very different upbringings and backgrounds, which led them to having very different points of view on life.
Port Huron Statement urges us to be much more involved and not controlled by the structure that has been set out for us to go by but to rather to be “risky”, in everything we do. He wants us to reach for the stars in personal fulfillment and not wanting to be an average Joe. Social relevance, the accessibility to knowledge, and internal openness as I said earlier can help mold a brighter future in America, a future of honesty, integrity and
In their terms, Myatt described fairness in a realistic term that was life-related, of always using the term in an imperfect way. Furthermore, he wanted to change so that people could have the good healthy state of mind. The term fairness to Kubic means that the world does not know how to be equal to everybody and he used the Electoral College to explain his own term of fairness. In the story “Life Isn’t Fair - Deal With It,” he explained why life is not fair and how you can deal with it by doing it yourself instead of blaming other people for your mistakes. This is why he concurs that life is not fair so deal with whatever our own lives throw at us now because that is is based off mainly on the decisions you devise.
Writing received a lot of criticism, especially from Socrates, a Greek philosopher. According to Socrates writing was mnemonic and not interactive. Socrates claims “the ultimate effect of writing will be to weaken memory, not strengthen it” (842). According to Baron “we remember this because Plato wrote it down” (842). Socrates views are very disputable since he claims that writing will weaken the memory, yet we know about him because his student Plato wrote it down.
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.
The 1960’s Hippie counterculture movement involved a different variety of social beliefs and concerns. The Hippies’ central belief was that life was about being carefree, and not about what others people thought about them. Their “if it feels good, do it” perspective included little planning nor concern for the effects of their actions. Hippies rejected established institutions. describe them as “The Establishment”, “The Man”, and “Big Brother” Hippies believed the superior mainstream culture was corrupt and flawed and sought to replace it with a Utopian Society.
Both political theorists are extreme in their visions and neither seem entirely attainable but they are both inspiring ideals of what society could achieve. Although Arendt makes a very persuasive argument for economics and freedom as separate from one another, Marx’s argument is more convincing. Socialism presents every individual with the opportunity to live the best life suited for their own creative development. If every individual is creating what they want to create and the benefit of their creation goes towards the entire community than there is no reason for economic classes. The idea of socialism and communism may be slightly unrealistic and challenging to implement but in a utopian society, Marx’s view of the political structure is ideal.
A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all
Relativism Despite the fact that ethical relativism did not turn into a conspicuous subject in rationality or somewhere else until the twentieth century, it has antiquated starting points. In the traditional Greek world, both the student of history Herodotus and the critic Protagoras seemed to underwrite some type of relativism (the recent pulled in the consideration of Plato in the Theaetetus). It ought to likewise be noticed that the antiquated Chinese Daoist scholar Zhuangzi (now and then spelled Chuang-Tzu) set forward a nonobjectivist see that is here and there deciphered as a sort of relativism. A well said words by Protagoras "Man is the measure for goodness' sake; of those that will be, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not" has frequently been translated as inferring good relativism, the perspective that reality of good judgement is constrained to the connection in which they are certified. Protagorean relativism