A proper comprehension of this phrase, according to Latour (1999, p. 216) is sure to allow a better perception of the distinction between the new science from politics. Latour tries to present the relationship involving the respect for uncongenial natural laws and the fight against decadence, ludicrousness, and political mayhem. This implies that the destiny of reason and that of politics are intertwined and that any assault on reason makes "morality and social harmony unfeasible." Latour argues that Right is the only element that protects the society against Might is reason and that it should be protected. In sum, Socrates asserts that technology and science will kill the Body Politic but to Latour, the science is the only element that will save humanity and even politics from moral
Human beings are not equal, so hierarchy is natural and essentially to burke a positive consequence from inequality. Additionally, he alleged that a social contract is one that the people of a given society have with their past. Thus, Burke responded to inequality by stating only some people should participate in politics, while others who were adamant for universal suffrage, should not. This belief stemmed from the understanding that only citizens who could set aside time to contribute in politics could. He felt this would eliminate all of the lower working classes, as it was assumed that the upper class were invited for political debate.
Before modern philosophy, Plato wrote numerous important philosophical works during his lifetime, but some of the more important ones are his works involving Socrates. With these works, Plato touched upon important beliefs that seem clear-cut to us, but are much more complicated than believed. One of these beliefs involves the meaning and importance of knowledge. The topic of knowledge is important in his works Protagoras, Euthydemus, and Meno. There are three points he brings up involving proper knowledge: the importance of good teaching, the necessity of knowledge to do what is best in the world, and how virtue is a type of knowledge.
Glaucon believes humans are restrained by consequences and human’s happiness comes from being an unjust person rather than Socrates’ belief of being just truly leads to happiness. The passage written by Plato goes in to great detail of how Socrates defends his position and how Glaucon defends his position as well but then leaves the reader to formulate his own opinion. With both Socrates’ position and as well as Glaucons, it is clear to see that Glaucon has the more rational reasoning within the debate of who’s happier, the just or unjust person. In Plato’s writing, The Republic, Glaucon challenge Socrates to describe justice and to give reasoning to why acting justly should be believed to be in anyone's self-interest. Glaucon claims that all goods can be distributed into three classes:
Both Plato and Descartes believe in Rationalism, and they also fear uncertainty. These two philosophers want to answer the same basic question, “What is the difference between opinion and certainty” (Palmer 39). Plato believes that all
“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.
“Plato’s philosophy is an attempt to justify Socrates’ belief in the objectivity of moral virtues.” As one of Socrates’ most loyal disciples, Plato’s own philosophy was heavily influenced by Socrates’ own thoughts and teachings. Much of Plato’s philosophy is a direct extension of some of the questions Socrates posed, i.e., Socrates asked what justice is, and Plato explored this question in his own writings. It is Socrates’ code of ethics, however, that most closely corresponds with Plato’s ethics. The two philosophers believed strongly in the concept of eudaimonia, which is basic human well-being and goodness (Mastin, 2008). Much of Socrates’ ethics was built around this concept, which led to his ethical code becoming basically objective.
Rhetorical analysis is crucial in comprehending another author's work and also in improving one's own writing. In this paper my project is to undertake a rhetorical analysis of Time Magazine journalist Joel Stein's opinion on the problems posed but also the advantages millennials in society in his article “The Me Me Me Generation.” I will address Stein's purpose, argument, and the way he presents it to further his claim. By dissecting the structure and arrangement of his argument we will view the means to persuasion in his article. I will also analyze the author's style and use of rhetorical analogies and assumptions. Anyone interested in understanding any article or in writing a rhetorical analysis would be interested in reading this paper.
Hughes pays particular attention to the development of his introduction because he acknowledges the importance of the audience’s initial reaction to the concept of human enhancements in setting the stage as to how willing they would be in accepting Hughes’ argument. These introductions are effective in generating a sense of pride and awe in “The Human Condition Hurts: We’d Be Fools Not to Better It” and reflection in “The Politics of Transhumanism and the Techno-Millennial Imagination, 1626-2030” within their audience. Hughes is able to take advantage of these feelings and evoke his readers to view the debate from different mindsets. For example, in the academic journal, enhancement advocates and dissenters become self-aware of the increasing conflict regarding bio-enhancements. In contrast, the readers of the opinion article open their eyes to an issue they’ve either unknowingly dismissed or secretly feared - they’re now more open to the embracing of human enhancements.