Category: Aristotle

Introduction

Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, wrote the first systematic treatise on ethics. Reason, well-being and moderation are central concept. Aristotle was indeed the logical nature of his mind that enabled Aristotle to make contributions to so many fields. He had a gift for organizing thought, and the definitions that he proposed and the categories that he established have provided the basis for later thought in many different fields. He was consistently the voice of practical common sense. Aristotle maintains that virtue is always defined by reference to reason. Aristotles ethics therefore looks at a kind of faith that believes that such a person exists and that man needs to appreciate his judgments.

The virtuous person acts from the right motive and actually gets pleasure from doing so. (Arrington). According to Aristotle, virtuous activity does not mean that it is an end in itself (VI.5, 1140b7; X.6, 1176b7), but is in actuality only just a means to happiness because in the final analysis, it must be seen that there is no other way to reconcile the past contention with Aristotles other claim that man can do all just for the sake of happiness (I.12, 1102a2; X.6, 1176b30-32). According to him, virtuous activity is desirable both for its own sake and for the sake of the happiness it produces, is discouraged by Aristotles insistence (I.7, 1097b14-23; X.6, 1176b6 as cited in Arrington). He maintains that an act is compulsory if it happens to originate in an external cause and the person who does the act does not contribute to it. (Cliffs Notes on Aristotles Ethics).

According to Aristotle, human action should aim at its proper end. Everywhere people aim at pleasure, wealth, and glory. But none of these ends, although they have value, can occupy the place of the chief good for which man should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient and finalthat which is always desirable itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be attainable.

Main body

Aristotle seemed certain that all people would agree that happiness is the only end that meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of action. Indeed, we choose pleasure, wealth and glory only because we think that through their instrumentality we shall be happy. Happiness, it turns out, is another name of the good for human beings; like the good, happiness is the fulfilment of our distinctive function as human beingsour self-realization. The highest good is eudaemonia, or both excessive repression and excessive indulgence. The good life involves the harmonious development of the normal functions of the organism. The theory of self-realization has emphasized the development of all the functions of the person as the greatest good. Nothing short of the harmonious development of all sides of human nature can be accepted as a satisfactory standard.

Just as the excellence of the sculptor lies in the skill with which she or he applies his art, so the excellence of humans lies in the fulfilment of their function as human beings. The function peculiar to humans is their life of reason. They should live a life that fully actualizes their rational capacities, and by principles that best express what it means to be a human being.

Aristotle maintains that citizens and especially leaders must be persons of unquestionable character. This is especially useful when applied on the job. Virtuosity is very important in reaching a countrys social goals designed for the common good, yet it is not an exclusive thing among the aristocrats. One can witness virtue from all people in all walks of life. In this regard, democracy, with all its imperfections, is still the best form of governance. In democracy, every person born within the State automatically becomes its citizen regardless of ones traits, hence, becoming entitled to the privileges and duties set by the Constitution. Every individuals capacity to be of service to the society is recognized. His attitude in the workplace is recognized too. Part of the privilege to participate in governance is expressing ones views on issues affecting ones role as a citizen. This, in most cases, becomes a duty as well.

Aristotles argument can be refuted though, by citing the way our government has been providing for its people regardless of ones participation in stately affairs or ones aptitude to do so. Everyone is a citizen entitled to all social services and assistance, though everyone is also required to give something back to the State through the taxes proportionate to ones earnings and needs. This country has tried to provide equal education to everyone so that all will have the chance to a better life as well as become educated individuals capable of holding ones own in any predicament. The more educated people have become in this nation, the more they grow to be aware of the realities of the times, and so, the more they begin to articulate what they think is right for our society. This voice is loudly manifested when the citizens vote for their leaders during elections. The smarter the people, the wiser are the choices. Thus, in this regard, Aristotles argument is totally an unjust elitist one, especially after seeing that everyone can be their best once given the confidence and the opportunity to do so. Because of this, each person, at a particular point of his or her life, can be a citizen that a country can be proud of.

If Aristotle was indeed using the logical nature of his mind to make contributions to so many fields, then he had a gift for organizing thought, and the definitions that he proposed and the categories that he established have provided the basis for later thought in many different fields. He was consistently the voice of practical common sense. Aristotles teachings are deemed as one of the cornerstones of the social sciences, including philosophy, political science and ethics. A citizen, for Aristotle, is an individual who has the capacity and the right to engage in the governance of a polies. Citizenship must be earned as a birthright through ones parents, and through ones aptitude and keenness to participate in public decision-making. His ideology is an apparent opposition to democracy in that only some are qualified to become citizens and rulers, and the essential qualification of virtuosity is solely found among the aristocrats.

Aristotles views when applied in the workplace points one to a study of his psychology. Aristotles psychology is not confined to the study of the human mind or soul, but is concerned with all forms of psyche, which means to Aristotle, all that distinguished living creatures, including man, from inanimate objects. What is sometimes quaintly called Aristotles distinction between types of soul takes on a different and more immediately intelligible aspect if we recognize it as a classification of the kinds of living organismplants, animals and man. But we must guard against a misunderstanding to which the alternative way of putting it may give rise. In Book I he states that he regards knowledge as something fine and precious. The affections of the soul are linked with the body such as anger, joy, love and confidence. Again Aristotle distinguishes several different sense of justice. He identifies one sense of justice with virtue as a whole, but specifically in relation to other people. Another sense of this justice pertains to rectificationsetting right previous wrongs. Aristotle holds a simple but extremely powerful theory of distributive justice holding that both goods and obligations ought to be distributed according to merit. This can be likened in the workplace and ethics at work. For instance, he considers a group of people who have somehow obtained a flute. Who in the group should get the flute? The best flute player, according to Aristotle. Similarly, goods ought to go to those who deserve themthat is, those who can make the best use of them. This answer has very strong intuitive appeal. According to Aristotle, they should be the people with the greatest ability to bring about good government. Aristotles theory is a patterned theory of justice. It says that people should receive goods of a certain kind to the extent that they have merit of that kind. Thus, it answers the question of distributive justice in terms of who has what other characteristics now or at some other definite time. In Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle posits that every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities which produce them. In the workplace, the goal is that all individuals become happy while working. Happy means a feeling of well-being in the moment. Workaholics have difficulty remaining in the here and now. They are in the past or in the future, either avoiding work or doing work. Work addicts feel driven by the compulsion to work. There is a feeling of emptiness.

Neither driveness nor emptiness is happiness. Some work addicts say they will feel happy when their tasks are accomplished. Of course the work is never done. Thus, happiness dangles like the proverbial carrot, it is only the next project away. The myth that workaholics are happy is like the myth that workaholics are productive. Both are illusions of an addictive society that would have us blind ourselves to what is really going on. Putting this in the context of Aristotles philosophy, the end here is no longer a state of happiness for the employee because he is so much driven to produce results that the many activities that surround that has resulted otherwise. Piles and files are common stashes in work. For some employees, the files represent a continuing supply of work projects upon projects for years to come. You never get ahead; and when you finish one, another is waiting.

In Section 6, he notes that to decide what happiness is like, it is necessary to determine what the function of man is. He says that excellence means performing ones function well. In the workplace, man is supposed to function well. Yet, files and piles are the tools of the addictive process. They become the tools a work addict uses to stay in the addiction. Given mans lifestyle, there will always be stuff that needs attending. When people believe that they can and should control theses things, then there is trouble. There is some truth to the saying that We are what we do. When what we do is live preoccupied with our files and piles, we become just as lifeless as these objects.

In sum, Aristotle gives much of his space to a description of human characters and motives, to the discomfiture of those for whom the ethics must be judged. Similarly, his suggestions for the constitution of an ideal community are based on an empirical study of actual tragedies. He is concerned with the concrete and particular and adopts a more piecemeal approach because it is natural for him to judge men by internal, that is to say, human, and standards. Some may be inclined to dismiss Aristotles ethics as merely descriptive or even as subjective. In doing so, one can miss the point of Aristotles treatment. He is keenly concerned that one acquires moral understanding in order to become better men and to lead better lives, and that there is an objectively determinable answer to every well-formulated moral question.

An act is compulsory if it originates in an external cause and the doer does not contributes nothing to it. (Cliffs Notes on Aristotles Ethics). The client of the lawyer was being ambiguous in the sense that in order to free his client from punishment, he used an escape that the criminal may be ignorant of whats right or wrong. In my opinion, although I have not spoken to Aristotle directly, his insights tell us that in any course of action, if the person involved acted it out, and he or she does not know that doing it is punishable, the doer is not guilty of the evil act itself because the idea of evilness is no yet definite in his mind. Aristotle may be a philosopher to take the side of his own concepts but he is also logical. Aristotle will state that the rapist is not guilty of murder because it is not defined in his ideals what that crime is. The criminal involved in this argument, I suppose, based on Aristotles philosophy, is innocent of the act but he is not innocent of evil. He was moved by a tyrant and the tyrant is the person who had raped him at a time that he was most vulnerable. As a child, the one who murdered and raped received only one of the two acts he committed. Then realizing the context of Aristotles point, the doer is guilty of rape. He must be punished for it because he knows what rape is from his childhood.

Aristotle maintains that man is born without his own consent so that his ideas are there involuntarily and his habits are under those who cause him to make them. (Baron DHolbach). If this philosophy were to be absorbed by all of us as true and applicable to life in general, then to speak of the innocence of the rapist-cum-murderer is partly valid again. DHolbach neither disagreed nor agreed with Aristotle. Instead, he added further insights that would support the main theory we all have deep within us. The theory that we are being controlled by a higher entity on whatever we do is what most of us believe in. DHolback will respond to the argument by citing examples of how we, as humans are powerless due to the circumstances we are faced with. There is an old saying that goes If such thirst for water is extremely parching the throat, any man will take the risk to swallow it. DHolback believes that we are also moved by our surroundings. Having said this, it becomes clearer and at the same time, it proves that our rapist-cum-murderer may be innocent of murder but not of rape. In this writers viewpoint, the doer did the act of rape because he has knowledge of what the nature of rape really is. However, human instinct will tell us to fight back any attack whether it is as small as an ant bite.

Just as the excellence of the sculptor lies in the skill with which she or he applies his art, so the excellence of humans lies in the fulfilment of their function as human beings. The function peculiar to humans is their life of reason. They should live a life that fully actualizes their rational capacities, and by principles that best express what it means to be a human being. its proper end.

According to Aristotle, the actions of people should aim at pleasure, wealth, and glory. But none of these ends, although they have value, can occupy the place of the chief good for which man should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient and final.

Conclusion

Aristotle seemed certain that all people would agree that happiness is the only end that meets all the requirements for the ultimate end of action. Indeed, we choose pleasure, wealth and glory only because we think that through their instrumentality we shall be happy. Happiness, it turns out, is another name of the good for human beings; like the good, happiness is the fulfilment of our distinctive function as human beingsour self-realization. The highest good is eudaemonia, or both excessive repression and excessive indulgence. The good life involves the harmonious development of the normal functions of the organism. The theory of self-realization has emphasized the development of all the functions of the person as the greatest good. Nothing short of the harmonious development of all sides of human nature can be accepted as a satisfactory standard. Aristotle maintains that citizens and especially leaders must be persons of unquestionable character. This is especially useful when applied on the job. Virtuosity is very important in reaching a countrys social goals designed for the common good, yet it.

Works Cited

Aristotles Ethics, Books 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9. Cliffs Notes on Aristotles Ethics. Voluntary and Involuntary Action. 2008. Web.

Holbach, Paul The System of Nature. 2008. Web.

Nicomachean Ethics. The Basic Works of Aristotle, New York: Random House, 1941.

Ethics is defined as the attempt to investigate the key aspects and the human conduct fundamental principles, further, it also focuses on the examination of universal values, that is, the males and females essential equality, obeying the land law, caring about safety and health of ones natural environment. Aristotle starts with a principal idea that there are differences in opinion as per matters regarding what is good for human beings and so that we resolve this problem, we must get a solution to this problem. Ethics is not a theory of discipline since our inquiry as to what is good for human beings is not just gathering knowledge, but to be able to achieve a unique state of fulfillment in case of development a fuller acceptance of issue to thrive (Broadie, p. 48).

In the paper, I am going to focus on Aristotles theory of mean. I should stress from the very beginning that Aristotles understanding of virtues in the form of mean states lies in the idea that human beings should be of strong and resistant character especially according to our present situation. For instance, the expression of anger and high temper is necessary for the sake of a persons reaction to certain irritations, however, at other times; our situation can call for a great deal of anger. He implies here that, the proportionateness is according to how extreme a situation is.

Aristotle is showing a commitment to saying that anger should not be allowed to achieve the point of overriding reason. It implies that passion usually leads to an extreme level when one is about to lose a temper. He never strives to reject the possibility that one can be filled with anger without reaching a particular extreme.

Hardie (54) says that we are to distinguish between various points of focus to this subject; each of which we call a doctrine of the mean. Thus, there exists the perspective disclosing the fact that every virtue state takes place between two vices: that of excess or extremity, and one more of deprivation or deficiency. Further on, there is the fact that whenever a well-behaved person or virtuous opts for performing morally acceptable action, he is to be presented as one who aims at the act intermediating between alternatives that he rejects. We can object to the second objective.

I can start my criticism by considering that sometimes virtuous acts are to be disclosed according to Aristotles definitions. In case I try to concentrate on the present to provide my lover with, I am likely to look for an appropriate amount being neither deficient nor excessive. But in many cases, problems challenging a virtuous agent cannot be regarded as a theme related to this quantitative analysis. Deciding between attending a date or not and instead of respecting a competing obligation, it would never be prudent to describe this as a search for a mean between extremes. Broadie (50) argues that the objection is perceived as a doctrine of my actions in the role of an ethical agent and case of deliberation. To overcome this objection, Aristotle focuses on the judge to determine the guilt of a defendant.

He is not to concentrate on a quantitative question; he attempts to decide the evidence of crime committed and is not focusing on action quantity being the middle element of extremes (Hardie, p. 59).

This essay has attempted to explain Aristotles theory of mean, why I disagree with it, and the possible circumstances under which it is found inapplicable. It also focuses on some of the reasons why it is subject to objection.

References

1. Broadie, S. Ethics with Aristotles Perspective. OUP.1998:45-98
2. Hardie, W.R. Aristotle- Ethical Theory. (2^nd Edition) Oxford: The Clarendon Press.1980:23-61

Chapter five of Kuppermans book Theories of human nature looks at great philosophers, namely Platos and Aristotles points of view in trying to define humanity. Both of these great philosophers assigned reason as a central role in defining humanity. Plato came before Aristotle, and their arguments seem to agree and differ on the definition of humanity.

Platos view was more complex as he used a simple word reason which has multiple definitions. Aristotles view, on the other hand, defined a human being as a rational creature with an ability to switch the rationality on and off. The most significant explanation offered by Plato is the logical point of understanding reason, whereby if a certain idea is preconceived to be good, then there must be a number of reasons that lead to that assumption or conclusion. The writer goes ahead and relates Freuds explanations of human personality in three parts leading to a link between these arguments and those offered by Plato.

Plato looks at a human being as a soled creature governed by reason. The sole is spirited and is interested in studying the environment. Platos view of reason entailed an individual doing what he believes is correct if given a chance. The writer tries to illustrate the complexity of defining a word from Platos point of view. The word game is used as an example in highlighting numerous available definitions.

Aristotle being a biological scientist, uses his knowledge to try to differentiate humans from other animals by exploring their rationality. He concluded that humans are complex double-sided creatures who have both good and bad sides. The two sides of humanity are inseparable as they complement one another. Aristotle looks at life as a combination of normal life pleasures, and the use of human virtues in a moral or civic way.

Introduction

The book I of Politics describes the role and importance of the state in the life of citizens. Aristotle sees every city as a society ruled by its principles and traditions. The main institutions of society are a family, a government, and a legal institution. For example, the ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small state (Aristotle).

Main body

In historical context, the book describes the main principles of society and ideals of a state typical for 3 century BC. Absolute uniformity of political, economic, and social organization is no prerequisite of that measure of international government which is indispensable to prevent chaos and anarchy. On the other hand, any society which would regard the internal structure of State government and society with the indifference of pre-war days would be doomed to failure and chaos from the outset.

The reading is relevant to the world today as it allows us to understand the main principles of social organization and relations between a person and a state. The growth of the movement towards the formation of states is, however, a gradual one; it is continuous, from the sixteenth century to our day, and while, throughout this period, and in almost every country the middle class has been a principal factor in the growth of the State, the political and social conditions have varied greatly. Firstly, in those countries which already enjoyed political independence and a strong central government, the transition from absolutism to the constitutional and liberal government of a modern national State is essentially the work of the new commercial middle class. Economic determinism leads to class struggle. In any system of private property, there is a division of the classes into those who have and those who do not have. The haves wish to retain the status quo which has blessed them with property, while the have nots wish for a change. Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he is provided with necessaries ()Aristotle n.d& The wish for change is powerless to bring it, and any moral or spiritual considerations are irrelevant. But when the mode of production changes, the dispossessed class has the power of history upon its side, so that it inevitably rises, while the former ruling class must pass from the scene. This change will not be made without conflict, for the rulers will fight to retain their privileges. Resistance, however, is useless for the laws of history are now with the rising class as once they were with the ruling class in its hour of triumph. The state is above all else the captive of class interest. It is the center of power that must be captured by the class that would rule. Aristotle underlines: man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech. (Aristotle n.d.). On the traditional view, the treatises must seem  to put it paradoxically: the trumpeted system is simply not apparent in their pages.

Modern social conditions have made this state of affairs long obsolete. Among the immediate problems, there will be such matters as international food relief, exploitation and distribution of raw materials, reorganization of transport, and the rebuilding and development of vast areas. Among the wider problems will be the principles of education, a permanent system of state security, and the redistribution of industrial and agricultural production. The control of the State over the vital spheres of economic life has by now become a universal necessity and is all but universally accepted in principle, though with much controversy as to the extent of this control. But it is equally obvious that such vital matters as an international security system, cultural cooperation for peace instead of war, or an international agreement on minimum rights of the individual or labor conditions, presupposes a wide measure of harmony among the parties regarding the principles of government. Should more closely-knit organizations, such as Federal Unions or an international Charter of the Rights of Man, materialize, the measure of homogeneity would, of course, have to be greater still. But the formal requirements of Parliamentary democracy should not be overrated at the expense of more fundamental aspects of social and political life. As regarding economic organization, considerable differences in the internal political structure do not impede international cooperation as long as there is harmony on the ultimate objects of community.

By a combination of professional interest and social prejudice  especially where the aristocratic background prevails  joins forces with modern dictators in the conduct of large-scale warfare, which ignores, sacrifices, and mutilates the national State. The modern bureaucracy is trained in absolute obedience to the State and follows its rulers. The working class gradually turns from international class solidarity towards loyalty to the State, but recently, with the merging of social issues in present-day international conflict, a new element of international class solidarity struggles with the support given by organized labor to the State.

Works Cited

Aristotle, Politics. Book I. n.d. Web.

Introduction

Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Plato critically analyzed various topics, including politics, physics, and ethics. At the Academy at Athens, which Plato founded in the 380s as a center for philosophical, scientific, and mathematical research and teaching, Aristotle studied under and worked alongside him for about 20 years (Stalley, 2020). Even though many more of Platos writings have endured the ages, Aristotles contributions have probably had a greater impact, especially on science and logical thought. The works of both philosophers continue to have enormous historical worth even though they are now viewed as having little theoretical worth (Hasel, 2021). However, this paper critically examines the differences and similarities between Aristotle and Plato on the nature of reality or metaphysics.

Discussion

Platos idealistic philosophy is derived from his belief that concepts have a universal, ideal form. According to Aristotle, each item or concept instance must be examined separately because universal forms are not always associated with particular objects or concepts (Stalley, 2020). This way of view results in Aristotelian empiricism. To establish the attributes of an object, according to Plato, thought experiments and reasoning would be sufficient (Hasel, 2021). However, Aristotle rejected this in favor of direct observation and experience.

Thoughts were deemed superior to the senses by both Aristotle and Plato. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle asserted that the senses were necessary for accurately determining reality and that they could not be used to deceive a person. The allegory of the cave, which Plato developed, serves as an illustration of this distinction. According to him, reality only existed in ones thoughts since the world was like a cave in which one could only see shadows created by outside light (Stalley, 2020). Based on the Aristotelian method, the obvious remedy is to leave the cave and directly experience what is causing the light and shadows instead of depending on oblique or internal sensations.

Plato believed that virtue is knowledge taken alone. This suggests that virtue might be taught by showing someone right from wrong and good from evil. It moreover implies that understanding the good is to do the good. Knowing the correct thing will lead one to do the right thing automatically. According to Aristotle, doing the right thing is more important than simply understanding it; one must actively choose to do it, which essentially means developing a habit of doing the right thing (Stalley, 2020). As opposed to the theoretical position of Plato, this definition put Aristotelian ethics on a practical level.

Plato believed that wisdom was the fundamental virtue and that combining all other qualities was possible. As per Aristotle, wisdom is virtuous, yet attaining virtue is not always possible and does not result in the unification of other virtues. (Hasel, 2021) Thus, until a person decided to think and behave correctly, other virtues would continue beyond their grasp, and wisdom was a goal that could only be attained through effort.

To develop a perfect system of government, Plato believed that individuals should subordinate their interests to those of society. His Republic envisioned a perfect society in which the three classes of peoplephilosophers, soldiers, and workerseach had a specific function and where authority was retained in those thoughts most capable of exercising it (Hasel, 2021). Although the Republic would take a more philosophical and less combative course than the Spartan oligarchy that Plato battled against, the tone and viewpoint nevertheless reflect an elite looking out for the less capable.

On the other hand, Aristotle believed that the city (polis) was the fundamental political unit, followed by the family, which in turn was followed by the individual. Because man is a political animal by nature, according to Aristotle, he cannot avoid the difficulties of politics (Hasel, 2021). He believed that politics is more like an organism than a machine and that the purpose of the polis was not to ensure justice or economic stability but to provide a setting in which its citizens may live happy lives and carry out noble deeds. Aristotle became the first political scientist by moving beyond political theory and avoiding utopian solutions, watching political processes to come up with improvements.

First, both Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy was a poor form of government and should not be put into practice. Democracy has several flaws due to general equality, as it does not produce leadership from the most qualified individuals (Stalley, 2020). Second, Aristotle and Plato held the following tenets: harmony, the organic view, the realistic view, politics, and morality; the notion that people are social beings; and the efficiency of the state and its people.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato engaged in a critical examination of a variety of subjects, including politics, physics, and ethics. Despite the fact that their perspectives on the nature of reality varied, they shared some similarities. The primary distinction between Platos and Aristotles philosophy is that the former is more theoretical and abstract in character, whereas the latter is more practical and experimental. Aristotle and Plato both considered that thoughts were superior to the senses. On the other hand, Aristotle claimed that the senses were necessary to accurately assess reality, contrary to Platos view that they may deceive a person. Lastly, Plato and Aristotle both believed that democracy is a poor form of government that should not be implemented. Since broad equality has numerous flaws, democracy does not give leadership to the best-qualified individuals.

References

Hasel, G. (n.d.). Art, culture and collective memory  Plato and Aristotle. Knowledge Exchange. Web.

Stalley, R. (2020). Plato and Aristotle on Nature and Society. Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Aristotelianism. Web.

Introduction

A famous quote from the Greek philosopher, Socrates, states that the unexamined life is not worth living, suggesting that an individual should examine his life in order to have a meaningful life. While philosophers shared different opinions on what leads people to a happy life, they all admitted that an individuals additional knowledge or examination of his own life could benefit his succession and happiness. There are two significant concepts from the works of ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle that discuss the sources of knowledge and its correlation with happiness and meaningful life.

Main body

The first concept introduced by Plato is the Allegory of the Cave. Platos allegory was constructed to illustrate what it feels like to be a philosopher or a man enlightened with knowledge and share it with other people. It predominantly explores the nature of peoples ignorance and tendency to avoid becoming more knowledgeable. However, there also are many ways in which the concept could be redefined and analyzed.

Platos allegory of the cave captures the humans natural tendency to keep things in control in the standard order without recklessly following new ideas. By emphasizing how the freed prisoner was unable to see clearly in the dark, Platos concept also touches on the subject of peoples fear of the unknown and rejection of differences of all sorts (Plato 6). Even though the execution of Platos idea is borderline primitive, it emphasizes the wild reflexes left in the minds of modern people from their ancestors, such as the instinct of self-preservation. As intellectual beings, people should recognize and differentiate dangers from the knowledge and gradually introduce the latter to their minds to maintain a meaningful life. Therefore, an individual must examine their own life to gain knowledge and escape the limitations imposed by an imaginary cave in an individual mind.

Another valuable idea in terms of knowledge and its nature is the idea of the High-Minded Man introduced by Aristotle. The concept of a High-Minded man is close to Aristotles understanding of success and the contribution of different virtues to an individuals happiness. By observing people and society, Aristotle determined that happy or successful people possess similar traits that he identified as virtues. He suggested that cultivating virtues in other people and especially young children, would benefit them in life by making them happier and more likely to succeed. According to Aristotles perceptions, virtues locate in between two opposing negative qualities or vices. Therefore, in his description of the High-Minded Man, Aristotle addresses the same concept of finding the right balance, or the golden mean, between two opposing vices.

Comparing the two writings shows that both philosophers shared similar views on the importance of knowledge and development for humankind but chose different focus areas. Platos idea follows his perception of knowledge as the truth about the structure of the world. In other words, Plato believed that in attaining knowledge, people are taking a step forward from the old orders into the search for the source of greater things, just like the sun that provides light. Platos concept does not address different aspects, and it is up to the reader or the listener to decide what would have happened if all people in the cave were released simultaneously. Therefore, in its initial meaning that illustrates societys ignorance, Platos idea relates more to the great scientific discoveries.

However, in a wider understanding of societal issues, such as the limitation of human perception, Platos idea suggests open-mindedness as the source of knowledge and success. On the other hand, Aristotles work demonstrates how open-mindedness benefits people in their daily activities as it supports the golden mean of virtues and guides the one who claims much and deserves much (Aristotle 1). Aristotles perception of life examination suggests that people develop and achieve knowledge, happiness, and success by cultivating virtuous habits. While Platos theory explores the point of view of only one person, Aristotles work suggests that everyone should try to become a high-minded man as it forms a foundation for societys overall development. Therefore, Platos allegory of the cave defines society as an opposition to the knowledgeable philosopher, while Aristotles concept of the high-minded man presents the knowledgeable one as the model society should follow.

Both Platos and Aristotles articles could be applied differently to real-life events. As suggested earlier, Platos allegory, in the narrow sense, fits the overall societys resistance to progress in a scientific or industrial context. For example, Platos explanation fits the case of Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian doctor who discovered the importance of hand sanitization and hygiene in midwifery practice (Flynn). Semmelweis was criticized by the medical community for his ideas, as no one was willing to believe that doctors were guilty of the death of their patients (Flynn). As Plato stated that seeing the light after spending an entire life in darkness will hurt peoples eyes, he also meant that discovering the truth after years of ignorance could be terrifying (3). The wider understanding of Platos allegory suggests that people should not force limitation of perception on themselves and others; therefore, in my life, I always try to avoid stereotypes and utilize an open-minded approach. I support Platos suggestion that freeing the mind from unnecessary information such as prejudice and judgementalism benefits an individuals development by cultivating a more creative way of thinking.

Aristotles concept is more applicable to the reality of modern society and peoples tendency to analyze famous successful personalities in an attempt to define what qualities or virtues contribute to their success. Overall, Aristotles idea of a High-minded man presents qualities valued in society that support an individuals moral and intellectual development. I find Aristotles description of the High-minded man overly detailed in some aspects and lacking details in others. Therefore, while it is more relatable to real-life than Platos allegory, Aristotles description follows commonly acknowledged virtues. In my experience, peoples sudden decisions to start being more of a High-Minded man cannot be successful without deep inner motivation or strong reasoning. Thus, I suggest that becoming a High-minded man is a continuous process that possibly involves more than just possessing certain virtues. Even though in real life I always try to find the right balance between vices in being my best self, I find that without a strong motivational component that establishes the sense of self-worth, High-Mindedness presents a combination of civility and goodness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both works emphasize that the unexamined life is not worth living. Platos allegory of the cave suggests that spending life without showing interest in the real nature of things is similar to living in darkness without any opportunity for development. Therefore, Platos concept explains how expanding the individuals boundaries of perception is necessary for societys progress. Aristotles idea of a High-Minded man suggests that a person must examine himself and his life to develop and gain knowledge about the world and its place in it.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The High-Minded Man, n.d. Web.

Flynn, Meagan. The Man Who Discovered That Unwashed Hands Could Kill and Was Ridiculed for It. The Washington Post, Web.

Plato. The Allegory of the Cave. Translated by Thomas Sheehan, n.d. Web.

Aristotles ideas on the soul are more persuasive than those of other philosophers. He talks about the natural world and not the metaphysical world. He begins by introducing his understanding on the soul (psyche) and what it consists. He explains many aspects of the soul.

The advanced knowledge about the soul helps us to understand nature as well as truth. In a natural body, the soul is the first actuality. The second actuality is that the soul has potential of life within it. It enables the compound of the body substance work appropriately.

The sole purpose of any soul is for it to meet self  sufficiency. The soul does not include the inanimate things like a rock since it has no life. Colouring our knowledge on nature is that attributes in both material and immaterial things ability to strive for success. He believes in the hierarchy of souls.

Their organization is such that the top in the rank consists of all properties of the one at the bottom. He acknowledges that to meet any assured knowledge about the soul is difficult. Aristotle suggests that we perhaps should ask ourselves, what is it? What it in a tree that contributes to it being a tree is an example of such questions. It is a subject of properties and forms.

He alleges that the soul cannot be separated from the body. The soul is essentially a type of body. This would imply that the body possesses another body in itself. There is no single action on the soul or by the soul that does not involve the body. This creates an impasse that leaves us wondering how this could be possible is our understanding that the soul is immaterial while the body is not. This kind of argument attracts many debates especially in the religious world.

Many religions believe that souls meet with the divine after the boy dies. Most Christians know the soul as an ontological reality distinct but connected with the body. Description of the souls characteristics is in religious, idealistic and moral terms. They point this unusual power to the human soul.

The Catholic Church for instance teaches that human souls are immortal. Once a person dies, his soul separates from the body and unites with the maker. The divinity passes judgement to either destiny it to heaven or hell. The two contrasting ideas cannot pass the test of acceptance or denial. I find both of them not only fascinating but also incredible. Aristotle believes, when an organism dies, the soul dies along with it. The two entities are homologous; none can exist without the other.

Indeed humans are the most intelligent organisms on earth. Though their senses might be inferior to those of animals, they have a high degree of discrimination. The sense of smell of objects in human beings is inferior to that of some animals such as the shark. Sharks differentiate between smell of objects. For instance, they can distinguish the smell of blood and water. There are three types of souls.

There are three types of souls; the sensitive soul possessed by animals, the nutritive soul by plants and the rational soul belonging to humans. The nutritive soul is able to recycle nutrients. The sensitive soul is proficient of both discriminating and movement. The rational souls ability to reason that is not in the other types of souls. It is able to perceive the objects in the environment and rationalise. Besides the common five senses animals share with animals, humans have a sixth sense.

This is the intellectual or the ability to reason. The purposive nature of being introspective is the distinguishing reason. After receiving impulses, they question the meaning and the action to follow. Sense gives us knowledge of what is pleasurable or painful that is dependent on what is good or bad leading to either pursuit or avoidance. Whatever the thinking soul interprets as pain, it avoids where it pursues what is pleasant.

Am wondering what could happen if my thoughts were to revolve around what I experience every day. Basically, I would never make any progress in terms of self growth and development. Art powers imagination. What art does is to expand on our imagination. The scene creates mental images that allow the audience to think. Aristotle distinguishes between mind and perception and imagination. He says that imagination is the coming up with mental images.

He distinguishes imagination from perception on the grounds of perception does not create images, imagination does. Lower animals such as ants are lacking in imagination. Perceptions are true but falsification of imaginations is possible.

Imagination stores, produces and recalls affecting cognition in humans and higher animals including thinking. Imagination comes as a result of sense perception. These perceptions as images stored and reproduced. The mind blends with the objects of thought in the following ways. For objects with no matter, thought is same to what thinks.

Aristotle continues and talks about the distinction between forms and matter. I find his ideas confusing. His ideas of form suggest that form is internal in an object and only the senses can perceive it. The matter he says is the make of an object. I wonder whether something could exist without form or matter.

Are the two elements inseparable? God has form but no matter. It is enthralling that something without matter can exist. According to Aristotle, essence of objects does not lie on either matter or form but purpose. A snub-nose to what is straight in the case of abstract objects. It implies continuum types of form and mater constituents are different.

The capacities of perceiving and knowing are akin to the potencies of knowing or perceiving. Objects that have potencies of being perceive up to certain degrees. Perceiving cannot take place beyond this point. The same applies to knowing. One cannot know more than what there to know about an object.

Unless one enters into the realm of imagination, nothing more is knowable. This means that the knower can only understand objects up to certain potencies. In both cases, the mind is comprehensible in the similar way as objects. Human beings can only see to certain wavelengths.

In my view, the soul is present in all living organisms. Looking at it from the sense that when we experience pain, we move from danger. When we experience pleasure, the object causing it attracts us. There is a certain unconscious internal mechanism that is at work. For me, this is the soul. The issue of whether the soul is separable from the body remains a mystery.

Outline

There exist a number of classic philosophies with different issues of discussions written by the classic scholars. Some give explanations of completely new ideas while others give critics of previously written philosophies. Some philosophies are those written by Aristotle and Locke, where each has its share of new ideas as well as criticism, though that of Aristotle has more of criticism of Platos work. Lockes and Aristotles work differ at more instances than it agrees developing an argument between the two. This can be derived from their different writings on human mind, reason, understanding and politics, among others.

Introduction

According to (Murray, 1997), John Locke, a philosopher of the British origin, was also a researcher in medical and academic areas. During his research work, Locke associated himself with Ashley Cooper and consequently became an official in government whose duty was to collect data on colonies, politics, economy, and revolution. In politics, Locke wrote on oppositional kind of politics regarding institutions and individuals as well. He insists on the usage of reason so as to have an understanding of truth. Aristotle writes on different aspects of human beings though he divides his work into two sections that is logics and ethics. The logic part of his writings does not have much relation to Lockes work as its more of definitions. However, ethics more or less relates to Lockes works where arguments on their way of reasoning can be derived.

Argument

Lockes has explained his philosophy in several writings with the major one being where he explains human understandings limits in four series of books. Others are on Government treaties as well as religion where he gives his philosophic understanding of human beings minds and truth. Aristotles works included function argument and human good, the methodology of virtues, and his differences with Platos work. Others are, mean doctrines which is explained using disposition, as well as reasoning and intellectual virtues. In the series of human understandings limits, Locke tries to explain the nature as well as sources of peoples knowledge, where he uses his first book to show human beings blank slate situation at birth. He argues that people are born without any kind of knowledge in their minds and their blank minds are later filled by experience, which becomes their knowledge. Aristotle shows a different argument as he considers human beings to possess this knowledge at birth and that they should apply it in the reasoning of goods that are necessary for human lives. (Murray, 1997)

In the second book, Locke states that ideas form materials from which human beings acquire knowledge and that those ideas are got from experience. He goes on to say that, ideas are the results of mans thoughts and experience is divided into sensation which is information on external worlds processes. The other section of experience is reflection which is information on operations that take place in ones mind and form the internal senses alerting people on the processes that their minds engage in. To Locke, the understanding of ideas is supposed to give us some experience which will in turn form our knowledge about them but to Aristotle knowledge is of less importance and considers only differentiation of good as important. This differentiation helps in the understanding of the good that is most desirable compared to other goods. Aristotle expects this decisions of the level at which goods are desirable to be from our own feelings and knowledge that we should have possessed at birth.

Locke applies the aspects of atoms combining to form complex objects in his explanation of how simple ideas combine to form complex ones. Locke argues that ones mind cannot come up with ideas but must derive them from experience making mind to be passive. The mind only becomes active when it receives simple ideas and integrates them to different complex ones. Therefore, he concludes that all that is in the intellect was once in human senses with reflection inclusive. However, Aristotle comes with a different argument where he uses virtues and reason in order to have a happy life, of which he considers human beings to understand at a first instance though according to Locke this should be derived from experience. Aristotle considers the human mind as ever active as according to him, it has what it requires for making decisions.

(Murray, 1997), states that, the third book of Locke deals with ways in which language in its nature is connected to ideas and its contribution to knowledge. He argues that abstract ideas are of great importance to possession of knowledge as they are sorts in which human beings rank all existences that occur around them. This shows how classification and general ideas are important in language and consequently to ideas and knowledge. Aristotle and Locke agree on the existence of particulars and generals or abstracts, where Locke refers to some ideas as general while others are specific, hence particular. However, Aristotles argument is similar but uses a different concept that is phenomena, where he shows how particulars are used in sciences to derive universality of ideas through the process of induction. According to Aristotle, particulars are in turn deducted from generalizations or universals. Locke uses words to represent ideas which are differentiated in respect to ideas categories, resulting to categories of mixed modes, substances, simple modes, relations, among others. Lockes understanding of language differs from that of Aristotle in that Aristotle concerns himself with affirmation and denial of predicates as well as subjects in structures of those sentences. Aristotle considers human beings to possess the understanding of these differences and apply them in their writings as well as conversations.

Lockes forth book explains the constituents of knowledge and the part of knowledge that can be comprehended by human beings and that which they cannot. According to Locke, human beings have a limited capability of comprehending external objects nature and all they can apply is their opinions to distinguish them. However, Aristotle does not find a limit to what human beings should know as they already possess that power in their minds. In the treaties of government writings, Locke tries to explain how human beings possess natural rights and how the legitimate and illegitimate governments are involved in their control. Legitimate governments are considered to preserve and punish those going against those natural rights while illegitimate ones do not uphold them at all. Locke argues that, some natural rights are also used by human beings in religion, where they apply them in their choice of salvation. Aristotle argues that politics is more important than individual citizens of a particular community and that childrens education should be the same for all which is supposed to be guided by communitys decisions. (Murray, 1997)

Conclusion

There are more areas in which Aristotles philosophy differs from Lockes as well as areas in which they agree. For example, there is an instance where Aristotle describes an individuals happiness to be as important to an individual as it is to his/her political community. However, the political understanding of Locke differs as according to him a government only takes up responsibility of part of human beings rights which its supposed to preserve according to what individuals consider as right. Therefore, individuals are given a priority as they have rights that are natural and which should not be manipulated by human beings to fit their description. These and more classic philosophies have been used for analysis as well as understanding of early philosophy and their relation to modern philosophy. (Murray, 1997)

References

Murray P. (1997): An Anthology of classics from Plato to the present: Routledge press.

Ralph W. Emerson once said that for every minute you are angry you lose sixty seconds of happiness (Zubko 21). However, the feeling of anger is well-known to everyone; even the kindest people can become angry for a certain reason. Even some minor event or somebodys glance and inappropriate word or statement can make a person angry. At the same time, anger is called one of the Seven Deadly Sins and the author says that anger has always aroused interest in human mind (Thurman unpaged). Philosophers are not exceptions to the rule, since ancient time they have been engaged in the search of the nature of anger. Thus, the present paper is devoted to the comparative analysis of the accounts of anger of Socrates and Seneca since their attitudes towards this emotion differ a lot.

It is known that classical Greek philosophers prioritized reason over emotion (Lester 117), they were firmly convinced that anger had to be ruled and controlled by reason. Aristotle gives a definition of anger as a desire, accompanied by pain, for a perceived revenge, on account of a perceived slight on the part of people who are not fit to slight one or ones own (Aristotle as cited in Braund and Moust 100). The philosopher wrote in his The Nicomachean Ethics that anyone can become angry  that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way  that is not easy (Aristotle as cited in Lester 117). As it can be judged by the given quotation, the wiseman considers anger to be an appropriate emotion when it is reasonable and suitable for certain circumstances. Though there are conditions when anger is beneficial and useful, such as the feeling of anger that inspires the soldiers to fight abandoning hesitation and fear, Aristotle believes that the emotion of anger is constantly trying to evade the control of reason and, if it succeeds, this will definitely provoke the behavior that can be characterized as irrational and chaotic. In his opinion, ager can become destructive if it finds expression in punishment, vengeance, and retaliation (Lester 118).

The point of view of the outstanding philosopher, Seneca, can be clearly observed in his essay that is entirely devoted to anger. The philosophers adherence to the ideals of Stoicism accounts for his concept of anger. Probably, the most eloquent Senecas statement pertaining to anger is that it is most hideous and frenzied of all the emotions (Seneca as cited in Thurman 41). The philosophers view differs from Aristotles idea of the possibility of control of anger by reason as he compares the emotion to temporal insanity and its uncontrolled nature is evident in this comparison. What is more, Seneca ascribes such qualities related to an angry man as obstinacy, groundlessness of actions, inability to differentiate fairness and truth, uncontrolled agitation. Seneca writes about the ability of anger to cast down and empty cities, he mentions whole peoples condemned to death in an indiscriminate devastation (Seneca as cited in Thurman 42).

In fact, Seneca agrees with Aristotle on the definition of anger as the desire to pay back for the given pain. However, the philosophers views on the other matters differ a lot. If Aristotle approves of some cases of anger, Seneca remains adamant in his opinion that there is nothing good about anger and there are no conditions under which it can be justified. One more interesting idea is that Seneca ascribes anger to human beings only, implying that this emotion has some connection with human reason, the one that differs us from animals. It is evident that this idea contradicts the comparison of anger with brief insanity.

Seneca also rejects Aristotles idea that those who abuse should be punished and paid back under the influence of anger. He assumes that punishment can be much more effective if it is administered without anger, when the mind is clear and when a person can act out of reason. He also disapproves of the above mentioned idea of useful anger that can help warriors abandon cowardice and make a fierce attack. If Aristotle states that anger in this case can clear up mind, Seneca holds the opposite opinion: anger can never be a tool of reason since it is eager to conquer it. Instead of anger, only positive emotions and feelings, such as courage, endurance, wisdom should be resorted to make a right decision. In addition, Seneca attacks Aristotles idea about usefulness of anger at war, mentioning that it can be compared to a spear that has two points; it attacks the enemy and the one who attacks as well. What is more, it should not be the driving force of the attack as anger is not steady, it is violent at first but it weakens and vanishes soon like a poisonous snake that emits its venom on the one bite and then becomes harmless (Thurman 44).

Finally, it is necessary to mention that it is necessary to give Seneca credit for his offering some sort of therapy for anger. The philosopher states that it is necessary to realize that anger is entirely bad. This is the first step to getting rid of it. Aristotle does not offer any therapy for anger.

Drawing a conclusion, it is possible to state that Aristotle should be given credit for his formulation of the notion of anger and his philosophic views on anger have a right to exist. However, Senecas account of anger seems more reasonable and it has a lot of ideas that contradict Aristotles position. The key difference of the accounts of the philosophers is that Aristotle admits the existence of reasonable and useful anger while Seneca rejects all types of anger as harmful and violent emotion.

Works Cited

Braund, Susanna Morton, and Glenn W. Most. Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Lester, Andrew D. The Angry Christian: A Theology for Care and Counseling. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Thurman, Robert A.F. Anger: The Seven Deadly Sins. NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Zubko, Andy. Treasury of Spiritual Wisdom. : Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2000.

Among themselves, the three great thinkers of ancient Greece espoused different ideas about forms of government, as well as the relative importance of empiricism versus epistemology.

In this cradle of democracy, it comes as something of a surprise that the three philosophers espoused every form of government but the pluralistic republican type Americans are so enamored of. It appears that Socrates believed in an intellectual aristocracy, where those who had more education and had proven themselves in sophistry  the Socratic method of exchange and analysis of ideas  as a path to all knowledge were elevated to the elite. The presumption, of course, is that only ones intellectual betters know what is good for society at large.

As a pupil of Socrates, Plato logically enough believed that an intellectual aristocracy with absolute political power was ideal. In addition, however, he argued for achieving harmony by assigning citizens into two classes inferior to the aristocracy. He valued a middle class of soldiers for their discipline, martial spirit and will. To the bottom rung he assigned all others who needed their ethics and baser appetites controlled: farmers, craftsmen, merchants, etc.

For his part, Aristotle argued for a polity where power resided in a robust middle class better able to consider the welfare of the citizenry than a monarchy, oligarchy or mass-based democracy could. Since the Athenian middle class of the time was too puny to be influential, Aristotle developed the companion idea of government lending assistance to the economically disadvantaged so they could be self-sufficient and the middle class would grow in size and influence.

Works Cited

Wilson, Frank R. The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain. New York: Pantheon, 1998.

McDaniel, Carl Jr., and Roger Gates, Marketing Research with SPSS. (8th Ed.) Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Welsch, Roger L., and Linda K. Welsch. Cathers Kitchens. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P. 1987.

NOTE: If a reference has more than three authors, give the first authors name and et al. Example: Jones, Bob, et al.

Mehta, Pratap Bhanu. Exploding Myths. New Republic, 1998: 17-19.

Craner, Paul M. New Tool for an Ancient Art. Computers and the Humanities 25 (1991): 303-13.

Document Title. If applicable, information about print source that the document comes from, following the format for that specific source type (see above examples). Site Title. Editors name. Version or edition number. Date of electronic publication or last update. Name of sponsoring organization. Day Month Year (of access) .