In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle synthesizes an enthralling dissertation that, “the human good proves to be activity of soul in accord with excellence” (1098a 16-17) which requires, “a rational principle” (1098a 7-8). Even though some critics may contend that the human good lies within something other than excellently acting in accordance with reason, the case set forth in Nicomachean Ethics dismisses such detractors as inordinately obstinate in their parochial ideology. To support his conclusion, Aristotle adroitly employs several cogent premises. This paper will explain how Aristotle reaches his conclusion and examine potential flaws in his argument First, I will state each proposition in Aristotle’s argument. After I present an individual
Justice in opposite points of view Plato tries to describe what justice is in reality by the different characters ' points of view in his book “The Republic”. In “The Republic” the characters, such Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Cephalus, Adeimantus, Polemarchus give their opinion about justice. The people in the Just city are divided into 3 groups: gold, silver and bronze that means ruler part, guardian part and labor part of citizens. Thrasymachus says that justice is the advantage of the stronger, but Socrates argues that justice is being honest and do own role in society. Firstly, the dialogue between Socrates and Thrasymachus starts with the question that justice is the interest of the stronger or not.
Book One of Plato’s The Republic includes an argument between two individuals, Socrates and Thrasymachus, where they attempt to define the concept of justice. Thrasymachus states that justice is what is advantageous for the stronger, however, Socrates challenges this belief through pointing out holes in Thrasymachus’s argument. In this paper, I will reconstruct the steps of this argument in order to evaluate the claims of both Socrates and Thrasymachus and demonstrate that, Socrates had a stronger claim than Thrasymachus in regards to justice because of the flawed assumptions Thrasymachus makes in relation to the word “advantageous,” how rulers behave, and how government is implemented. His assumptions not only lack external evidence, but Thrasymachus is unable to be critical of the fact that his assumptions just mimic general understandings of the word “advantageous,” without deeper thought of what the word truly means in this context. The argument begins when Thrasymachus first states that, “justice is nothing other than what is advantageous for the stronger” (pg.
In his “Mathnawi,” he says: “If love’s pulse does not beat within a man let him be Plato, he is but an ass. To Rumi, growth, evolution, assimilation and unity in this world are manifestations of the form of love. He says, “If there had not been love,” “there would have not been any existence. Had it not been for pure love’s sake, how should there have been any reason for the creation of heavens”. The fundamental difference between the two is that Plato approaches reality through rational inquiry and regards love as mediator between the two worlds.
Whereas Plato thought that experiments and reasoning are enough to provide the qualities of an object, Aristotle was in favour of the experience and observation. In logic, Plato was more favoured the use of inductive reasoning, while Aristotle used deductive reasoning. The syllogism, a basic unit of logic of A = B, and B = C, then A = C, was developed by Aristotle. Both regarded that thoughts were far more preferable to senses. However Plato stated that senses could fool a person but Aristotle believed that senses are required to establish reality in a proper way.
For speculative reason, the concept of freedom was problematic, but not impossible. That is to say, speculative reason could think of freedom without contradiction, but it could not assure any objective reality to it…Freedom, however, among all the ideas of speculative reason is the only one whose possibility we know a priori. We do not understand it, but we know it as the condition of the moral law which we do know ( KpV3-4). With a completely different strategy in the First Critique where freedom was explicated in order to confirm the possibility of morality, Kant reverses this doctrine by noting that the moral law is the grounding of the possibility of transcendental freedom. Kant reverses the doctrine of the First Critique, i.e., freedom is possible only under the conceivability of acting in accordance with moral law when he writes: For had not the moral law already been distinctly thought in our reason, we would never have been justified in assuming anything like freedom…But if there were no freedom, the moral law would never have been encountered in us ( KpV4
As Kearns mentions, the poems are not about the gods, but they are rather about human beings. Indeed, the ancient Greek religion comprises of an utter belief in the gods, whereby devotion to them was the key to success. The gods bring Dike, that is, justice to mankind and decide of the people’s fate. This essay will put forward the idea that the gods as presented in the poem is not as necessary as it may seem. Despite being immortal, the gods have flaws.
The corruption charge was a disgraced to the morality of Greek and he said publicly that he would rather be convicted than to suffer restrictions on his free speech. In the same angle, the free speech became more developed during the enlightenment period by the scholars such as John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Pierre Bayle and others. Locke in his inspirational view claimed that “we are born free as we are born rational,” he further suggested that, the two are linked. Human beings are free in the state of nature, and they are essentially free in a well-formed civil society as well. The Enlightenment was a period of reflection, and the subjects of such reflection included religious toleration, freedom of speech, freedom of print, and the development of more practical and secular forms of politics and political philosophy.
Aristotle did, however, acknowledge that the mean may not be the same for everyone or consistent throughout all circumstances. This description of virtue differs significantly from the description provided by Plato in his dialogues. Plato claimed that virtue is a type of knowledge since qualities are only beneficial when they are accompanied by knowledge. Virtue is always beneficial, thus, it must be a form of knowledge. If virtue is knowledge, vice – being the opposite of virtue – must be the lack of knowledge.
Should Oedipus, be too ‘perfect’ the audience would not be able to find themselves in him and thus would not be able to learn from him, which would contradict the purpose of a tragedy according to Aristotle. In addition, a fatal flaw is essential to the construction of a tragic hero because it provides logicality to his downfall. If the hero were without flaws and was randomly punished, catharsis would not be able to take place because rather than stimulating pity and fear, it would stimulate only “revulsion”