Category: Philosophy 1203

Many philosophers considered the nature of knowledge and human intellectual capacities from different perspectives. Aristotle proposed the most influential theories that later became the basis for interpretations and discussions. Saint Bonaventure articulated a theory of the agent and possible intellect, which attributes the possibility of knowledge generation to each individual human being based on Gods illuminations. Averroes proposed the different perspective claiming that there is a universal intellect which only uses individuals intellectual capacities to generate knowledge. These two theories are contrasting as they understand the role of the agent in the process of understanding differently and have separate perspectives on the nature of knowledge.

Saint Bonaventures theory of the agent and possible intellect is contrasting to the views of his contemporaries. The philosopher considered possible intellect as the entity which is not separated from the agent. In the philosophers opinion, the possible intellect is the integral part of the human soul. Nejeschleba (2017) notes that, according to Bonaventure, only god can create thoughts and affections in the human soul, to which he is related as agens principalis (p. 813). Abstract matters, as the philosopher claims, are the source of concepts of things for human beings. Thus, human intellectual capacities work to understand and comprehend the illuminations proposed by god. God itself cannot replace human intellectual faculties.

In general, Saint Bonaventure claims that the agent cannot be separated from the possible intellect. Hence, the philosopher underlines that God is the source of universal truth that can only be comprehended by the individuals intellectual capacities (Nejeschleba, 2017, p. 814). Bonaventure claims that the properties of each man are unique and separated in each person (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). Human beings have their own perfect soul, which, in turn, plays a key role in perfecting their bodies. Bonaventure claims the soul perfecting one body cannot also perfect another, because each man, as a man, has a unity and distinction in being from his rational soul (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). This view is contrasting to the theory of Averroes, which is criticized by Bonaventure as not consistent with Christian perspectives.

Averroes theory of the intellect is developed in his long commentary on the Aristotelian work. The medieval philosopher proposed that we humans do not each have our own intellect (Cory, 2015, p. 3). Instead, people share one Agent Intellect that abstracts intelligible, as well as one common Material Intellect that receives them (Cory, 2015, p. 3). Thus, Averroes theory is different from all the previous philosophical perspectives as the philosopher assumes that there is one universal intellect for all humans. Previous philosophical thoughts proposed that such shared intellect is a superhuman, while all the individuals have their own separate intellects (Adamson, 2016, p. 189). The theory of Averroes is based on a particular view of shared capacities of individual human brains.

The central thesis of Averroes argument lies in the notion of intellectual unity. Adamson (2016) underlines that, according to the philosopher, there is only one, single human capacity for human knowledge (p. 189). This intellect is immortal and constantly thinks about all the matters that can be thought of (Adamson, 2016, p. 192). The basis for this universal process are human brains which are continuously involved in fikr or cognition. This process contains not universal knowledge but an active consideration of particular things (Adamson, 2016, p. 192). Thus, when a universal intellect uses the brain of a particular person for consideration of specific matter, this person also experiences the thinking process. Variations in interpretation, according to the philosopher, are possible due to the role of imagination (Quinn, 1977, p. 224). For Averroes, the universal knowledge is possible as there is a universal capacity for it.

Based on the consideration of both theories, it is possible to say that two philosophers have distinctly different views on the notions of the agent and possible intellect. First of all, Bonaventure is opposed to the view of universals in his philosophy, which contrasts him to Aristotle and other classical philosophers (Van Buren, 2021, p. 187). Saint Bonaventure attributes the possible intellect to the individual agent. In other words, God for him is the source of truth and knowledge, but only humans with their own intellectual capacities can comprehend these illuminations. Averroes, contrary to the philosopher, claims that there is a universal intellect that only uses the individual intellectual capacities of people in order to produce knowledge.

Bonaventure considers the agent and possible intellect as inseparable matters. Every human being has its individual soul with personal intellectual capacities, which are used to comprehend and interpret the knowledge. Averroes claims that every human shares the same intellect, which consists of a network of individual brains. The variations of interpretations are only possible due to imagination and cannot be influenced by the person itself. This view raises questions regarding the nature of knowledge and the role of the agent in the process of understanding. Bonaventures perspective is consistent with the Christian view of illumination and the agents comprehension.

Thus, the view of the agent and possible intellect proposed by Saint Bonaventure is contrasting with the theory developed by Averroes. While Bonaventure considers the human being as an active participant in the process of knowledge creation and understanding, Averroes attributes universal knowledge to the shared intelligence. Bonaventure suggests that people receive illuminations from God and interpret them to get knowledge. Averroes states that individual brains are only capacities used to generate shared knowledge.

References

Adamson, P. (2016). Philosophy in the Islamic world: A history of philosophy without any gaps. Oxford University Press.

Cory, T. S. (2015). Averroes and Aquinas on the agent intelligents causation of the intelligible. Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales, 82(1), 1-60. Web.

Nejeschleba, T. (2017). Bonaventure on the agent intellect. Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 4, 811-821.

Quinn, J. E. (1977). St. Bonaventure and arabian interpretations of two Aristotelean problems. Franciscan Studies, 37, 219-228. Web.

Van Buren, F. (2021). Bonaventure, Aristotle, and the being of universal forms. In R. Pasnau (ed.), Oxford studies in medieval philosophy (pp. 187-221). Oxford University Press. Web.

The selected chef for this assignment is Jiro Ono, who is globally recognized as the best sushi chef. Sushi is a collection of delicious Japanese cuisines that are sold in several restaurants around the world. Ono is well known for his outstanding specialization in preparing sushi with his philosophy of simplicity. He believes that simplicity in preparing sushi is the only path to cooking enjoyable and delicious sushi delicacies, and he embraces perfectionism as his cooking philosophy. Japanese food makers globally recognize the philosophy since he is among the oldest Japanese chefs with ancient knowledge of preparing sushi.

Master Chef Jiro Ono is famous for advocating for a different way of preparing sushi, the traditional cultural Japanese food. He argues that his way of preparing sushi is special and unique to make customers enjoy a delicious taste of the famous cuisine. His 2012 movie Jiro Dreams of Sushi comprehensively explains his philosophy. In particular, Ono argues that the ready American market has skewed sushi preparation, making it unauthentic. (Uehara, 2018). He believes in authenticity and perfectionism, an art he improves daily to make sushi better for his customers (Makalintal, 2022). From a cultural aspect, his work allows people to feel the oriental culture through national food (Luber & Cohen, 2019). The philosophy that helps them in their work is to provide customers with the opportunity to delve into oriental culture and enjoy quality and delicious food.

Some issues in the culinary world that inspire me to be active include food scarcity and food wastage (OBoyle, 2019). Specifically, food wastage is among the main concerns that will keep me active in my philosophy. Food is wasted because of poor quality cooking, which makes consumers leave excess as leftovers. When meals are prepared in the right manner with the right attitude, incidents of food wastage will be reduced. I see myself becoming active in the issue by participating in campaigns that champion better attitudes in preparing food. Moreover, the chefs philosophy is outlined in the question of what can be done in terms of the chefs work to improve the environment (Hansen, 2019). In this regard, one tries to apply strategies that reduce food wastage at work. It is this factor that inspires the chief to remain active and improve the situation.

Several measures can be taken to make chefs like me active in the issue. However, the primary intervention is education and knowledge about food preservation to avoid wastage. Learning institutions should embrace holistic learning where chefs are taught to enjoy cooking to reduce issues like food wastage. Chefs should also form unions that campaign for food conservation and positive attitudes toward cooking, as this will increase their chances of being active in the issue. Speaking of pathways, which are open to the chef to become an active participant, one should note the desire and opportunity to improve the environment through their work. It implies reducing food waste, and when one can notice the result, it inspires further activity.

References

Hansen, M. T. (2019). Great at work: The hidden habits of top performers. Simon and Schuster.

Luber, M., & Cohen, B. (2019). Stuff every sushi lover should know. Quirk Books.

Makalintal, B. (2022). Jiro and the impossible dream of authenticity. Eater. Web.

OBoyle, T. (2019). The top 5 problems with the global food system. AMP Global Youth. Web.

Uehara, M. (2018). Chef Jiro Ono is always dreaming of ways to improve his sushi. The Straits Times. Web.

Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna were all medieval philosophers who wrote extensively on the nature and status of the human soul. However, their views on this topic differed in several significant ways. For Bonaventure, according to Löwe (2021), the human soul was the highest form of being in the universe and was the source of all human knowledge and activity (p. 10). He believed that the soul was created directly by God and was not a product of the material world. This view differed from the Aristotelian notion, embraced by Averroes and Avicenna that the soul was a product of the body and was, therefore, subject to the laws of nature.

Avicenna was the person who arrived at a fresh approach to the Platonic-Aristotelian conflict. According to Dale (2019), the liberty of the soul is contrasted by the Aristotelian notion of the soul as the aspect of a physical human (p. 180). According to Smiths (2021) viewpoint, Bonaventure states that Christians must grow from vigor to strength and not become complacent in their goodness, otherwise they will cease to be decent (p. 393). Hence their soul in Christ will not be virtuous. However, Avicenna stated that those two sides of the argument are not inherently mutually exclusive. Smith (2021) says they are two separate characteristics in the souls essence, reason and will (p. 50). The Aristotelian perspective is nonetheless subjected to the overall Neoplatonic system.

Bonaventure also believed that the soul had a hierarchical structure, with the rational soul being the most important part. According to Mian (2019), Islam ethics believed that the body and soul were relevant in embodying virtue (p. 1). Avicenna and Averroes were under Islamic philosophy, while Bonaventure was under Christian. Smith (2021) argued that this rational soul was the source of all human knowledge and was capable of attaining union with God (p. 204). In contrast, Zeidan (2019) states that the other Islamic philosophers held that the soul was a single, undivided entity not subject to any hierarchical structure (par. 21). Another significant difference between Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna was their views on the afterlife. Bonaventure believed in an afterlife and held that the soul was immortal and would continue to exist after the bodys death. On the other hand, Averroes and Avicenna did not believe in an afterlife and held that the soul was destroyed along with the body at the time of death.

Despite these differences, Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna believed in the human souls importance and its unique abilities. For all three philosophers, the soul was the source of human knowledge and the key to understanding the nature of reality. The soul is a metaphysical entity that exists independently of the body. The notion that it can be identified without recourse to its physical presence confirms its self-sufficiency. As per Avicenna, in the teachings of Avicenna, in a Neoplatonically formed depiction of the universe, the soul is the base of the individual parts of the rational realm (Zeidan, 2019). However, due to its epistemological frailty, it necessitates a physique to execute its acts.

In Bonaventures view, the human soul was the highest form of being in the universe and was created directly by God. Dale (2019) believed that the soul had a hierarchical structure, with the rational soul being the most important part (p. 171). This rational soul, he argued, was capable of attaining union with God and was the source of all human knowledge. On the other hand, Averroes and Avicenna held that the soul was a product of the body and was subject to the laws of nature (Zeidan, 2019). They believed that the soul was a single, undivided entity and did not recognize any hierarchical structure within the soul. Unlike Bonaventure, they did not believe in an afterlife and held that the soul was destroyed along with the body at the time of death.

Despite these differences, Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna recognized the human souls importance in understanding the nature of reality. For Bonaventure, according to Dales (2019), the soul was the source of all human knowledge and could attain union with God (p. 171). This suggests that the soul requires the body as a medium and does not have a fundamental relationship with it. Bonaventures purpose is to compare the flesh and the soul as each comprising essence and structure. In this sense, Smith (2021) could assert the extrinsic evidence of the soul and the inherent relationship between body and soul (p. 89). And since they are built similarly, they have the predisposition to complement each other.

In conclusion, while Bonaventure, Averroes, and Avicenna wrote extensively on the nature and status of the human soul, their views on this topic differed in several significant ways. As mentioned earlier, Bonaventure believed that the soul was the highest form of being, which was created directly by God, and had a hierarchical structure. In contrast, Averroes and Avicenna held that the soul was a product of the body and was a single, undivided entity. Additionally, Bonaventure believed in an afterlife, while Averroes and Avicenna did not. Despite these differences, all three philosophers recognized the importance of the human soul in understanding the nature of reality.

References

Dales, D. (2019). Chapter 15: St Bonaventure. Way Back to God, pp. 171190. Lutterworth Press. Web.

Löwe, C. L. (2021). Bonaventure on the Soul and Its Powers, Vivarium, 59(1-2), 10-32. Web.

Mian, A. A. (2019). The Polished Mirror: Storytelling and the pursuit of virtue in Islamic philosophy and Sufism, written by Cyrus Ali Zargar. Journal of Islamic Ethics, 15. Web.

Smith, R. B. (2021). Part three. Bonaventure: The scholastic with the soul of a poet. Aquinas, Bonaventure, and the Scholastic Culture of Medieval Paris, 231426. Cambridge University Press. Web.

Zeidan, A. (2019). Islamic Thought. Encyclopædia Britannica. Web.

The idea that existence comes before essence is a cornerstone of Jean-Paul Sartres existentialist philosophical system. It implies that humans create their essence via their choices and actions in life rather than being born with a predetermined nature or purpose. Sartre believed that a persons existence, or the fact that they were alive, came before their essence or the characteristics and characteristics that defined them. Sartre believed that people were free to create their own identities and were not constrained by other forces like their genes, upbringing, or cultural standards (Mirkhan, 2022). Therefore, the fact that everything, including people, have an essence or inherent nature, it is possible to see Sartres claim that existence precedes essence as an exaggeration. Sartre contends that this essence, instead of being predetermined or fixed, is molded by peoples life decisions and deeds (Mirkhan, 2022). The notion that existence comes before essence highlights the importance of personal choice and accountability in creating ones identity and purpose in life.

Moreover, understanding and being aware of our essence may be necessary for human existence to have any significance. But for most people, it is more common that their life shapes their essence than the other way around. Sartres assertion suggests that being human is a concept or idea that comes after existence in this sense (Mirkhan, 2022). For instance, a person can decide to pursue a career in medicine because they value giving back to society. In this situation, their existence, the decisions they make, and the acts they take in life define their essence, the attributes of being kind and sensitive. Other philosophical perspectives, such as essentialism, contend that a persons existence is only an expression of their permanent, unchanging nature. In Sartres opinion, this viewpoint was constrictive and did not account for the full range of human freedom and potential (Mirkhan, 2022). Therefore, although Sartres assertion that existence precedes essence may be considered exaggerated, it also emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and choice in determining ones identity and purpose.

Reference

Mirkhan, S. K. (2022). Self-wisdom in Jean-Paul Sartres nausea: An existential study. Qalaai Zanist Scientific Journal, 7(1). Web.

The fundamental problems of philosophy arise along with its development, which is inseparably linked with civilizational transformations. The problems that thinkers have always considered have changed with the development of human culture, knowledge, and practice, but there have always been such questions, the answers to which were traditionally expected exclusively from philosophy. One of these aspects, which occupies a significant place in the ideas of many philosophers of both modern and past eras, is nature. Being among the central concepts of philosophical thought and culture and possessing a wide range of meanings, in an extremely broad sense, it denotes the whole world as an infinite variety of its specific manifestations.

Today, ideas about nature have been transformed because the issues of protecting the environment and preventing climate change have come to the fore. However, even modern concepts about nature largely intersect with historical discourses and emphasize the relevance of the ideas of thinkers of past eras about the place and prerogatives of humans on the planet. The analysis of modern philosophers works and the ideas of thinkers of past eras helps identify the relationship between humans and nature and explains the transformation of discourses related to caring for the environment.

Nature from the Middle Ages to the Culture of the Renaissance

In medieval Christian culture, the nature surrounding humans was considered something created by God and lower than the person oneself. Only God was endowed with a divine principle  the soul  in the process of creation (Gatto, 2021). Moreover, nature was often thought of as a source of evil that needed to be overcome or subdued, while human life acted as a struggle between the divine principle  the soul and the sinful natural principle  the body (Garrod, 2021). These ideas were largely considered in the works of Descartes, who devoted a significant part of his philosophical practice to the study of the relationship between the soul and mind. The eternal values that the thinker analyzed in the context of fragile human existence included nature as an essential component necessary for development (Garrod, 2021). Nonetheless, earlier, the soul (God) and the body (nature) were opposed, and spirituality was significantly higher than the natural and mundane. This, in turn, served as an excuse for a negative attitude towards nature and even justification for the violence applied to it. The surrounding world was understood as something inanimate, opposing humans and society.

Such a system of views could not stimulate interest in the scientific knowledge of nature. However, in the depths of Christian thinking, there was another line in relation to nature. Understanding nature as a divine creation made it possible to search for a rational principle in it. That concept allowed for interpreting the knowledge of nature as an attempt to reveal and describe the divine plan contained in it, thereby glorifying the wisdom and omnipotence of the creator (Garrod, 2021). During the Renaissance, the attitude toward nature changed for the better. The human discovered the beauty and magnificence of the surrounding nature and began to see it as a source of joy and pleasure, as opposed to the gloomy asceticism of the Middle Ages (Taylor, 2020). Subsequently, in the philosophy and aesthetics of romanticism, nature began to be understood as a refuge that opposed the depraved and vicious human civilization. As a result, one can talk about a gradual change in views on the world, which was largely due to socio-cultural transformations.

Nature from a Philosophical Perspective in the 21st Century

Having entered the 21st century, humanity has faced a number of complex problems. Their reasons, on the one hand, lie in the contradictions between society and nature and, on the other hand, in political, economic, and cultural contradictions between countries. In this regard, particular attention is paid to the sustainable development of humanity. From a general standpoint, sustainable development should be understood as a globally managed development of the entire world community to preserve the biosphere and human existence. The ideas of Philippe Descola, the outstanding contemporary philosopher, have spread as concepts that affect human anthropology and the foundations of social development (Guzmán-Gallegos, 2021). His works, devoted to the comparison of culture and nature in the context of human life, are largely based on the assessment of the humanity and inhumanity of behavior (Guzmán-Gallegos, 2021). This, in turn, is in many ways similar to the concepts promoted by philosophers during the Renaissance. Only the world community as a whole can be stable because the biosphere and noosphere are a single organism of the Earth, and this position is the core of modern views about the environment.

The most important task of modern philosophy in the context of the concept of sustainable development is the substantiation of a new system of values aimed at the dialogue between humans and nature. The education of youth through the enlightenment of national humanistic consciousness and moral imperatives, developed by Rousseau, is a critical perspective to achieve, largely due to contemporary ecological issues (Taylor, 2020). Today, it is important to ecologize the human worldview, the system of education, upbringing, and morality by taking into account new civilizational values in the name of preserving the environment. Given Fressozs arguments, the devastating consequences of humans forceful relationship with nature initiate a critical review of the subject-object, technological, and disinterested attitude to the environment (Mcbrien, 2018). They were rooted in the culture of the 20th century and transmitted into the 21st century. The need to develop a partnership model based on the establishment of a mutual understanding of the harmonious connection of humans with nature is pivotal. Thus, modern philosophers tend to build the dialogue of individual cultures and integrative-synergetic tendencies of modern science into a system that can help solve existing environmental problems.

Historical Discourses

Since the Renaissance, as far as natural science knowledge is concerned, the idea of testing nature has become dominant in it. The desire to learn its secrets and reduce all its qualitative diversity to a small number of strict quantitative laws was the natural desire of enlighteners and philosophers, puzzled by little knowledge of the world. According to Descartes, the request can be satisfied by the rationalistic tradition of knowledge (Gatto, 2021). The priority of reason became the basis of not only the scientific methodology but also cultural discourse. These transformations led to numerous discoveries in the fields of physics, chemistry, and other sciences that were directly related to the processes taking place on the planet.

The rational concept of the knowledge of nature marked the emergence of new trends, which, however, were largely based on original reasoning about the development of humans within nature. Descartes argued that with the help of rational intuition, people received universal truths, for instance, they knew God, human nature, and morality (Gatto, 2021). His ideas were manifested, first of all, in the desire to achieve such knowledge that would strengthen peoples power over nature (Gatto, 2021). As a result, rationalism was directly connected with the search for a rational principle, which was to be present in nature. Using the ideas of historical discourse, contemporary environmental scientists, eco-activists, and other stakeholders seek to convey the inextricable connection between humans and nature. At the same time, the power of people over the outside world is regarded as a given, and no other theories are considered dominant. As a result, in striving to preserve the climate and protect the environment, many are guided by a rational approach, defining humans as dominant and viewing them as those who are able to protect nature.

The role of the environment ceased to be secondary, and as scientific and philosophical thoughts developed, more attention was paid to nature. For instance, Montaigne called into question the privileged position of humans in the world of living beings and showed the relationship between people and animals (Garrod, 2019). He refused the concept that a person needed to declare oneself the ruler and master of the Universe (Garrod, 2019). Equating oneself with God, attributing divine properties to oneself, and, at the same time, underestimating the possibilities of flora and fauna were false beliefs. Montaigne not only argued about the ultimate elevation of humans but also stated that thoughts about the insignificance of people within the framework of the environment were unfounded (Garrod, 2019). Thus, complaints about peoples insecurity from nature are not fair. More than animals, humans are protected from nature, having a large number of diverse movements and using numerous adaptations. This suggests that, while adapting to co-existence with humans, nature did everything so that people could survive, but it did not alienate them from itself.

One of the first classical philosophers to work on the interpretation of the conflict between nature and the development of civilization was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his works, he argued that culture, making life more comfortable, weakened the natural qualities of humans, alienated them from itself, often without improving their moral character (Taylor, 2020). Nowadays, when a person is actively involved in the imbalance of the planet, reducing the diversity of life forms and forgetting that one is a part of the entire living bios, this problem becomes relevant. Rousseau put forward the idea of natural education outside of society (Taylor, 2020). The task of upbringing and not only education was to create the most favorable environment for the development of a persons inclinations. Today, such an idea of education and training outside of society can hardly be accepted. At the same time, respect for the personality of the student remains relevant.

Age characteristics, individual inclinations, and personal thoughts that every citizen of a reasonably organized society should describe Rousseaus main theses. Useful knowledge about nature and society has contributed to forming contemporary views on the environment (Taylor, 2020). It is also relevant to educate the younger generation in the spirit of deep respect for work, as Rousseau believed, and not the generation of consumers (Taylor, 2020). Therefore, paying attention to the moral upbringing of young people in their education is essential to preserve the environment and protect it from anthropogenic factors.

Results of the Development of Philosophical Thought

Historical paradigms that explain the relationship between society and the environment have become the background for modern concepts that consider the need to preserve the Earths ecology. Philippe Descola, starting from the thoughts of Descartes dualism, develops it (Guzmán-Gallegos, 2021). Modern incentives that encourage people to promote ideas about protecting the environment are driven by conscience and reflection. It is these criteria that are described by Descola; according to him, inside people, there is something that can only be observed through manifestations, for example, reflective consciousness or the ability to act (Guzmán-Gallegos, 2021). The concepts of animism, natural artifacts, and other forms of manifestation of the surrounding world in the perception of people emphasize the inextricable connection between humans and nature and encourage further knowledge of cultural distinctions. This philosophical doctrine is simple and, at the same time, profound: constant knowledge of oneself is the mechanism of knowledge of the external world, and the role of the human in protecting the environment is key. Such an approach corresponds to classical ideas about the place of people on the planet and complements traditional ideas about the value of collective efforts.

Most environmentalists agree that the modern planet is in deep crisis, and high anthropogenic activity may be called the main reason for this. For instance, in his writings, Christophe Bonneuil, the French historian and philosopher, suggests giving the modern era the name Occidentalocene (Mcbrien, 2018). This term implies that the industrialized countries of the West are to blame for climate change but not the poorest countries in the world (Mcbrien, 2018). The Industrial Revolution, which marked the transition from the abstract reasoning of the romantic era to the concrete studies of the technogenic era, contributed significantly to climate change. Christophe Bonneuil, co-authored with Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, has repeatedly emphasized that the damage caused by human activity to the environment can hardly be repaired for many decades (Mcbrien, 2018). Developing rapidly, human civilization has surpassed in its progress the expectations of thinkers of past eras. As a result, one can speak of differences in the interpretation of the human role in nature by modern philosophers and authors of past centuries. Today, human responsibility to the environment is significantly higher than before, and, realizing this, contemporary authors strive to convey this to society.

Conclusion

Philosophical discourses of thinkers of past eras about the role of humans in nature can be considered a background for modern concepts of environmental protection and climate conservation, which modern scientists promote. The teachings of Descartes, de Montaigne, and Rousseau have become iconic in the context of studying how people and nature are interconnected. The doctrines that appeared in the Renaissance replaced the outdated ideas about the total domination of the human over all living things except God. Today, relying on the approaches of classical philosophers, environmentalists and eco-activists set the task of overcoming the global environmental crisis caused by high anthropogenic activity. The Industrial Revolution catalyzed a change in how people understand progress. However, thoughts about the role of the human on the planet have not ceased to be studied. They have taken on new forms and become more advanced, but the basic ideas remained the same. As a result, classical philosophical discourses are a valuable background for modern research on nature and peoples place in it.

References

Garrod, R. (2019). The animal outside: Animal ingenuity and human prudence in French Renaissance political thought. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 49(3), 521-540. Web.

Gatto, A. (2021). Descartes and Montaigne on divine power and human reason. Filozofia, 76(2), 137-150. Web.

Guzmán-Gallegos, M. A. (2021). Philippe Descola: Thinking with the Achuar and the Runa in Amazonia. Ethnos, 86(1), 114-131. Web.

Mcbrien, J. (2018). The banality of the Anthropocene  Christophe Bonneuil and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us, transl. by David Fernbach (New York, NY, Verso Books, 2015). European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 59(3), 399-407. Web.

Taylor, B. (2020). Philosophical solitude: David Hume versus Jean-Jacques Rousseau. History Workshop Journal, 89, 1-21. Web.

Introduction

Simone de Beauvoir is a female philosopher of the 20^th century, who made great contribution to the development of philosophy in aspects such as existentialism, feminism, political activism, and social theories. As a prominent French writer, Simone de Beauvoir wrote a series of literary works during her lifetime of 78 years (born 9 January 1908 and died 14 April 1986).

Although mainstream philosophers did not recognize her literary works during her prime years of life, but they started recognizing her unique contributions to the field of modern philosophy after her death through her outstanding literature. Literary works such as She Came to Stay (1943), Pyrrhus and Cineas (1944), The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), The Second Sex (1949), Must We Burn Sade (1955), The Mandarins (1954), The Woman Destroyed (1967), The Coming of Age (1970), and When Things of the Spirit Come First (1979) give her recognition as a philosopher (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy par. 2).

Analysis of her work has led to her recognition as a prominent philosopher of the 20^th century. Therefore, to describe Simone de Beauvoir as an existentialist philosopher, political activist, feminist, and social theorist, the research paper analyzes her literary works.

Existentialist Philosopher

As an existentialist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir examines the existence of humanity in a bid to highlight the essence of life. While great philosophers like Socrates, Descartes, and Nietzsche elucidate the philosophical underpinnings of life, Simone de Beauvoir also provides her philosophical views.

In her second work, Pyrrhus and Cineas (1944), Simone de Beauvoir plunges into the realm of existentialism as she questions the nature of freedom that humans need to live as free beings with innate existence. According to OBrien and Embree, the existential philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir holds that values, which form the basis of ethics, emanate from human freedom (184).

In essence, the nature of freedom that humans enjoy is dependent on existential freedom. Furthermore, Simone de Beauvoir holds that values are human constructs, which are subject to time and prevailing freedom (OBrien and Embree 185). In this view, Simone de Beauvoir implies that humans determine their own ethics as they construct values and subscribe to these values.

Given that freedom relates to human ethics, Simone de Beauvoir describes the relationship. In her great works about ethics, The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), Simone de Beauvoir asserts that human is an entity that oscillates between transcendence and facticity, and thus, ambiguous in existence.

The ambiguity of humans originates from the fact that humans strive to transcend their existence, however, daily challenges limit their transcendence and make them realize their weaknesses. Essentially, for humans to resolve their ambiguity, they must achieve the internal freedom that is greater than the external freedom that the world bestows.

Simone de Beauvoir states that freedom does not make humans to perform any actions as they please, but it offers them autonomy to choose projects and achieve their goals (OBrien and Embree 192). Thus, from the perspective of existentialism, Simone de Beauvoir holds that human ethics is ambiguous because it is subject to opposing forces of internal freedom and external freedom.

Political Activist

The literary works of Simone de Beauvoir depict her as a political activist for she examines pertinent issues of politics that people were grappling with during her lifetime. In Pyrrhus and Cineas (1944), Simone de Beauvoir advocates for ethical political projects, which focus on the interests of the general population rather than individuals. Simone de Beauvoir asserts that humans can achieve justice if they work for political and material ends, which promote security, health, leisure, and freedom (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy par. 13).

In this view, the nature of projects that humans select determines the state of political and material equality. When humans select appropriate projects that bring about political and material equality, they attain justice. However, when humans fail to choose appropriate projects, leaders tend to coerce them for they are subjects. Therefore, injustice occurs because of irresponsibility on the part of subjects and coercion on the part of leaders.

As a political activist, Simone de Beauvoir observes the oppression that women undergo, and thus, advocates for their political liberation. In The Second Sex (1949), Simone de Beauvoir associates the enslavement of women to the domination of men in politics. Simons argues that the liberation of women, which Simone de Beauvoir supports, centers on their involvement in productive labor that gives them the opportunity to influence their political course (288).

The dominance of male in political circles has relegated women to play inferior roles in governments. Simone de Beauvoir reiterates her role as a political activist in Must We Burn Sade (1955), as he notes that patriarchal political machinery contributes to the politics of rebellion and unethical acts. Simons argues that Simon de Beauvoir identifies political justice as a way of promoting human dignity and freedom (99). Hence, political liberation promotes gender equality and justice among people.

Feminist

Basing on her literary works, Simone de Beauvoir is one of the great feminists of the 20^th century. The Second Sex (1949) effectively captures feministic arguments of Simone de Beauvoir. Since gender discrimination dominated the early and the mid part of the 20^th century, Simone de Beauvoir joined other feminists in advocating for the rights of women.

In The Second Sex (1949), Simone de Beauvoir argues that men advance sexual difference as an ideology of discriminating against women by treating them as other people in various facets of life (Bauer 12). Moreover, men have continually struggled to eliminate the aspect of gender difference by representing humans in a masculine manner. In this view, Simone de Beauvoir condemns how men construct femininity and depicts women as inferior beings.

As other feminists assert that men and women are equal despite their gender difference, Simone de Beauvoir holds that the apparent difference and equality that exist should not form the basis of discriminating against women. Essentially, Simone de Beauvoir asserts that recognition of gender difference and gender equality has led to discrimination of women in the society.

Simone de Beauvoir argues that patriarchal dominance has made women inferior humans, who have no power to exercise their rights as men do. Bauer states that masculine construction of gender has elevated men and degraded women in a society with patriarchal structure (42). Evidently, Simone de Beauvoir is a prominent feminist of the 20^th century because of her insights in The Second Sex (1949).

Social Theorist

Literary works depicts Simone de Beauvoir as a social theorist because she uses a fictional story in describing the relationships between Sartre and her. The fictional story, She Came to Stay (1943), depicts the nature of social relationship that exists between Simone de Beauvoir and Sartre and highlights issues that affect relationships.

Sollars and Jennings argue that Simone de Beauvoir was a social theorist because she perfectly applies sociological theories in elucidating behaviors of her colleagues (66). The fictional story describes her relationship with Sartre in a family set up, although she did not get married to him. Hence, her ability to describe a situation using behavioral and social theories makes Simone de Beauvoir a social theorist.

In examining forms of discrimination that exist in the society, Simone de Beauvoir describes the occurrence of gender discrimination. In The Second Sex (1949), Simone de Beauvoir holds that discrimination against women occurs because social constructs depict women as other beings (Sollars and Jennings 68).

The discrimination of the adults as other beings is evident in The Coming of Age (1970). In advocating for the equality in the society, Simone de Beauvoir asserts that no one should use gender and ages in discriminating against others and preventing them from pursuing and achieving their projects (Sollars and Jennings 72). Thus, Simone de Beauvoir applies social theories in elucidating how discrimination emanates from social constructs.

Conclusion

Simone de Beauvoir was a female philosopher of the 21^st century, who examined contemporary issues such as existentialism, feminism, political activism, and social behaviors. Although other philosophers did not recognize as a philosopher, analysis of her literary works indicates that she actually made marked contributions to philosophy.

She Came to Stay (1943), Pyrrhus and Cineas (1944), The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), The Second Sex (1949), Must We Burn Sade (1955), and The Coming of Age (1970) are some of her literary works that contributed to the development of philosophy in the 21^st century. Therefore, the research paper affirms that Simone de Beauvoir is an existentialist philosopher, political activist, feminist, and social theorist, as depicted by the analysis of her literary works.

Works Cited

Bauer, Nancy. Simone de Beauvoir, philosophy, and feminism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. Print.

OBrien, Wendy, and Lester Embree. The Existential phenomenology of Simone de Beauvoir. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001. Print.

Simons, Margaret. The philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Critical Essays. Bloomington: Indiana University, 2006. Print.

Sollars, Michael, and Arbolina Jennings. The Facts on File Companion to the World Novel: 1900 to the Present. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2008. Print.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2014). Simone de Beauvoir. 2014.

Since the era of Aristotle, aesthetics has been among the most challenging problems for philosophers to solve. It is possible to categorize the many theories of aesthetics into two classes: the cognitivist and idealists, although they differ in several aspects. Idealists maintain that a person can use an objective view to examine the aesthetic value of an artwork while cognitivists think an assessment of aesthetics is open to discussion. Martin Gardner, one of the most notable objectivists, champions that the capacity of artwork to stand the test over time would reveal how objective this was. The essay explores the argument of Gardner for the objectivist view of art.

Objectivist View of Art

Based on Martin Gardner who fosters the objectivist view; art is the underpinning of the artist and occurs separately from the audience. Parthenon is a good example to demonstrate Gardners objectivism perspective of art. It refers to the Ancient Greek temple in Athens committed to the patron goddess of the city. The sanctuary was developed to articulate an impression of mathematical perfection by arrangement of its many columns to portray the ways in which people perceive it. People still considers Parthenon as the masterwork of architecture despite having been there for over two millennia (Vaughn, 2018). Hence, Gardner considers Parthenon as the piece of art because it was aesthetically treasured during that era. I concur with this perspective to a certain extent and believe that art is the product of the mind of artists and contemplates that it is in the eyes of the beholder. Hence, art is subjective and may be interpreted in various ways by different persons. It implies that what an individual believes to be beautiful may be ugly to another person (Vaughn, 2015). One person could think it has meaning but another one may see it to be meaningless.

Consequently, art is seen to be subjective because each person experiences it in their way. One concurs with Gardner based on Parthenon that art is an object of the artists mind. An individual believes that the intentions of artists are essential to understand art. A person trusts that the implication of art is not always definite, and the audience can perceive different things in art (Vaughn, 2015). Art is considered subjective as an individual thinks it can be interpreted and understood in different ways by different individuals.

Gardners Theory and Its Strengths and Weaknesses

In Gardners perspective, an objectivist view of artwork is that all persons are associated and share basic needs and wants. He says that people, have a fundamental human nature, with similar demands, some of which are ostensible and aesthetic (Vaughn, 2015, p.183). Gardners theory of art is focused on the concept that the intention of an artist contributes to the artwork. Thus, one can rate the arts aesthetic value as to how well it meets the needs of the audience. One of the strengths that this theory has is it may explain reasons why certain artworks are more popular than others. For instance, Parthenon is a piece of art that Gardner theory consider an object. It presents a good example of the way objectivism can be advantageous because it applies the biological similarities in peoples eyesight to develop illusion of perfect symmetry (Vaughn, 2018). Nonetheless, this theory presents some weaknesses, and one of them is that it fails to consider the audiences experience of the artwork. One thinks that art is a product of the intent of an artist and the experience of a viewer is secondary.

Conclusion

In summary, I agree with Gardners theory concerning artwork as it is the viewers capability of relating to the artwork more deeply and understanding the artists intention. One thinks that art is the artists intended product and the experience of a viewer is secondary. One believes that the intention of the artist is the most significant aspect of determining if or not the artwork was successful.

References

Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning, theory, and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company.

Vaughn, L. (2018). Philosophy here and now: Powerful ideas in everyday life. Oxford University Press, USA.

Introduction

Humanity constantly seeks happiness in different material and spiritual matters. Through the centuries, people have been referring to various philosophical studies to find the key answer to happiness and how to satisfy it. The teachings of Roman and Greek philosophers offer their ideas on content life leading. Epicureanisms death and gods notions change peoples lives impacting comfort creation and joy search in different aspects, so the need for happiness fulfillment through ethical components will be discussed.

Discussion

The first idea behind the philosophy of Epicureanism is that happiness fulfillment is ensured by the adequate perception of the death concept. The teaching calls to avoid thinking about death because it distracts people from their current existence and hinders them from implementing practical actions and things (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). Such a point proves that humanity cannot resist the nature of termination, although the fear of punishment that comes with death is always present (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). It is important to be familiarized with the souls essence to focus more on a feature of human beings than the physical aspect. Such an approach helps to build healthy relations with people around.

The realization of death and its correct treatment is crucial because it helps humanity find the right path to happiness realization. People constantly question the terms of joy, comfort, and satisfaction because death is the outcome. Even Epicurus stating his philosophical research, cannot define this notion precisely, describing it in an ambiguous way (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). Eventually, I agree with his study and death interpretation because to be happy, a person has to focus way of a lifetime and the nature of a soul (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). It fosters to search for happiness in making goodness for others, instead of worrying about death.

The second idea behind Epicureanism states that the gods existence impacts happiness by peoples interpretation of this existence. Gods enjoy immortal and peaceful lives far from peoples material world and problems (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). Based on this statement, a person can find joy by separating themselves from the problems of the physical world, concentrating on the peacefulness of mind and goodness of life. On the other hand, according to Epicurus, the remoteness of gods from people decreases their blessedness (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). It means the existence of gods becomes a counter-example to be followed. The state of human happiness is directly impacted by this philosophy because it breaks some peoples beliefs and creates fears of vulnerability.

Consequently, the first argument, where creating goodness for other people by the example of gods, contradicts the second argument, where gods are not interested in peoples welfare. I disagree with this philosophical statement, as the gods activity is a strong driver for the anti-anarchical disposition of the world. Being self-sufficient and free from distress they motivate people for goodness (Lucretius 2001/50 B.C.E.). Living under established rules leads to order and common social responsibility, eventually creating a favorable environment for happiness.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the philosophy of Epicureanism discovers the sense of happiness revealed through the impact of the death notion and gods existence on humanity. People are prone to possess a high rate of fear of death moment. Epicureanism offers to focus on lifetime activity instead of death, which eventually leads to happiness. The philosophy of gods existence is involved in this research and emphasizes the behavior of gods as an example to follow. Gods separate themselves from humanity, making people acquire some level of despair, which negatively impacts their happiness. The bottom line of this research is the peoples angle of vision on the given problem, which defines the balance between joyful life and depression.

References

Lucretius (2001). On the nature of things (M.F. Smith, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 50 B.C.E.)

Consent is voluntary permission to receive or provide something in a legally binding contract or other circumstances. It creates the opportunity to make agreements between at least two entities, with one or both agreeing to initiate certain actions or avoid them in exchange for a certain outcome. Consent can be expressed, implied, or informed and is typically required for agreements to have legal power.

Three Concepts and Their Definitions

Express consent usually exists in the form of a written or verbal agreement and is often seen in contractual agreements. The express form of consent is understood as agreeing to something demonstrated explicitly, either orally or in writing (Bennett Moses et al., 2021, p. 5). Express consent is a common and strong manner of giving permission as it is clear and explicit. It requires that the parties seeking the agreement understand the terms of the consent and that they agree to them voluntarily. Next, the informed type of permission-giving is understood as consent that is voluntary and decisionally capacitated while also being preceded by a thorough discussion of the consequences of agreeing to an offer in question (Papageorgiou, 2019). Thus, informed agreement or consent refers to the open expression of the agreement after developing an adequate awareness of the matter and the outcomes of agreeing to something.

Implied consent is a form of accepting an offer in which one entity agrees to something without explicitly saying so. It can be defined as one partys agreement with the other partys action/position that is expressed non-verbally (for instance, using gestures) or by the lack of action in response to something (Kim, 2019). This form of agreement is assumed and can be inferred from cases circumstances. For example, if someone agrees to a contract without reading it, it can be assumed that they agreed to its terms, even if they did not explicitly say it. Also, nodding in response to some proposals can exemplify this term.

Similarities/Differences and Situations

The main difference between the three concepts is the level of understanding required for each approach to permission. The express form requires an explicit agreement between the parties involved, while implied consent is based on assumptions made by one party. The informed agreement imposes stricter expectations and requires optimal awareness to precede the act of expressing agreement explicitly, acting as the strongest guarantee of the deals legal power. One similarity between the three consent forms is that all of them seek to capture the consenting partys permission to initiate certain actions (Kim, 2019; Papageorgiou, 2019). In this context, the express and informed forms of agreement share more similarities as they center on receiving more objective evidence of the partys readiness to proceed with an offer (Kim, 2019; Papageorgiou, 2019). Therefore, they offer more protection to those reacting to proposals compared to the implied type.

Each type of expressing permission is used in specific contexts and situations. The express form finds active use in contract-making, including agreements to regulate the provision of services or purchasing/selling property (Kim, 2019). A persons informed agreement is widespread in medical/healthcare settings and is obtained prior to implementing invasive or non-invasive interventions that might create risks for the care recipient (Kim, 2019; Papageorgiou, 2019). The implied agreement is utilized in various circumstances, including emergency situations in which the recipients explicit positive reaction is not required to initiate resuscitation interventions (Kim, 2019). It is also found in instances when committing one action implies accepting the consequences; for instance, making an appointment with a care provider implies readiness to receive services.

Conclusion

In conclusion, express, implied, and informed consent represent the forms of demonstrating agreement utilized in different scenarios. Express consent is the most common and strongest form of consent; it requires an explicit agreement between the parties involved. Implied permission-giving is based on assumptions made by one party and is not as strong as express consent. Informed consent is the strongest form of consent; it requires that the recipient is made aware of all relevant information before agreeing to something.

References

Bennett Moses, L., Taylor, S. M., Zhao, S., Nicholson, K., & De Sousa, T. (2021). Submission to phase 3 consultationtrusted digital identity bill package. UNSW Law Research Series, 1-7. Web.

Kim, N. S. (2019). Consentability: Consent and its limits. Cambridge University Press.

Papageorgiou, K. (2019). The analytic model of consent and the square of opposition. Conatus-Journal of Philosophy, 4(1), 79-98. Web.

The purpose of this work is to consider the prominent philosopher Richard Taylors work Cruelty and Compassion. In this respect, firstly, it is necessary to discuss the definitions of both phenomena. Secondly, it will be discussed if they are arbitrary or not, and sufficient proof will be presented.

The third issue under consideration will concern the sources of the common good when it serves as a force for or against evil inclinations. Finally, the six stories provided by the author will be viewed, and how they illustrate the nature of mankind. To add, it will be discussed if the same rules of expressing cruelty and compassion work with individuals and the society. For this purpose, the example of slavery will be used.

In his work, Taylor raises one of the eternal moral issues that concerns the demonstration of cruelty and compassion by the individual. To start, the author attracts the reader with several simple examples that illustrate how a person may be cruel and compassionate. According to Taylor, the stories are to make the readers see moral good and evil, whether small or great (329).

The value of the examples he provides consists in the fact that they describe ordinary people in ordinary situations. It is supposed that the readers will recognize themselves and the people around. Another strong side of the stories is that several of them discuss real events while others may be called parables as they describe situations that happen every day.

This mixture of the real and the imaginary makes the instances of malice and mercy vivid. Moreover, it is necessary to add that the stories are simple enough for everybody to understand their message, that is why Taylors work is attractive and exciting.

Before discussing the stories themselves, it is important to take a look at the conclusions that the author comes to. Firstly, it is possible to consider how the philosopher understands cruelty. Taylor states that it is the intended infliction of injury and the delight derived from it, that fills us with that peculiar revulsion that is moral (331). Thus, malice may bring satisfaction to the one who practices it.

In the cases that Taylor describes, it is only partly caused by certain circumstances. In the examples he gives, a person can choose how to behave: one may demonstrate either cruelty or compassion, but the choice is given to malice. That is why one may say that the evil lives deep in the individuals heart and comes out in favorable circumstances, and it is partly an arbitrary quality.

The same may be said about compassion. According to Taylor, in the stories describing mercy, no one has earned any medal of honor, any citation from any society for the protection of animals, or any recognition from any council of civil liberties (333).

On the contrary, the characters of the stories demonstrated compassion in situations when they could have demonstrated any other qualities, including cold calculation or cruelty. However, it happened so that they showed mercy for no obvious reason. Moreover, they got no other results but, perhaps, self-satisfaction. The characters had no motive to act as they did that could be expressed in words and properly reasoned.

That is why one may conclude that, like cruelty, compassion also comes from the depths of the individuals heart and soul. It is partly arbitrary as its demonstration is influenced by the circumstances but it seems to be predetermined that special kind of outer conditions raises mercy in the heart.

It is also important to discuss the authors viewpoint on the source of the common good against the individuals evil inclinations. According to Taylor, most men have always recognized their kinship with the rest of creation and their responsibility to other living things, in spite of the fact that moralists in our tradition hardly so much as mention it (335).

It seems reasonable because most people know what suffering is. That is why one may imagine what a living being experiences when someone is brutal to it. Simultaneously, compassion may be a mechanism of self-defense because the cruel should expect that the evil done by him or her will return and bring double or triple suffering.

The individual might not guess that it is so, but in most cases, he or she acts in this way, that is why cooperation, compassion, and mutual understanding between people are possible.

The first story may be called slightly shocking. However, it paints a realistic picture of the attitude of some representatives of mankind to nature and beauty. The parable describes how a boy saw a beautiful beetle and pinned it to a tree trunk to see what will happen (Taylor 329).

On the one hand, the short story describes the human nature as a curious one: when a person sees something strange, weird, unusual, or beautiful, he or she immediately concentrates the attention on the object. The boy acted in the same way when he saw the beetle.

Another example that illustrates this may be seeing an accident in the street. When it happens, a lot of passers-by gather around the spot and gaze at the consequences of what has happened. It is significant that they do it not due to their helpfulness and compassion but because of their natural curiosity coded in the genome.

Secondly, the parable shows that the human being is able to admire beauty. It is not stated directly, but one may realize that the boy from the story was fascinated by the appearance of the insect. There are many other examples both in life and in literature when people are fascinated by the beauty of the object they see. Exactly for this purpose, museums, art galleries, and art itself exist. Their aim is to arise the feeling of the beautiful in the heart of the seer.

Finally, the story tells the reader that the human being is a cruel creature as the boy not only pinned the insect to the trunk but then, forgot about it, and after that, came sometime later to watch the beetle still moving its legs (Taylor 329). As one can see, the character does not feel any compassion or responsibility for taking another living creatures life.

Moreover, this case of cruelty may seem especially disgusting because here, the admiration of the beautiful combines with the cruelty to it. This happens as a matter of fact as for the collective boy under consideration, such events happen every day so that he may even forget about his brutal actions in a few seconds and continue going his way. In this case, it does not matter if cruelty is practiced towards an insect or a human being as they are both living things.

The second story describes the same traits of the human character. The parable is about boys (obviously, teenagers) who poured kerosene on a cat and set it on fire (Taylor 329). One should admit that, like the character of the former story, the boys are curious because they wanted to see how the cat would run across the field while burning. According to those childrens aesthetic taste, the scene looked beautiful and spectacular.

Thus, one may conclude that the characters also have a certain sense of beauty, though a pervert one. Finally, the teenagers are cruel as they kill a living thing without any twinge of conscience, absolutely shamelessly. Thus, being cruel is characteristic of human beings.

The third story depicts a horrible scene from the time of war. Although it is not directly mentioned, one may easily recognize fascist Germanys soldiers killing Jews on a conquered and devastated territory (Taylor 330). Here, one may observe a vivid example of the highest degree of cruelty. Knowing that they will not be punished for their actions, the soldiers murder a Jewish man, and then his infant daughter or granddaughter.

It is significant that they do not doubt their actions, and their behavior seems cynical. They do what they do not because they are ordered to but because of their groundless hate, tiredness, and impunity. This example shows that the same human being may behave differently in various situations. He or she may be a law-abiding and respectable man or woman in the usual circumstances of peace.

It is because he or she knows that any crime causes punishment. However, when the conditions change, and the law ceases to work, the human gives vent to the hatreds and hostilities that have been sleeping deep inside the soul until the situation woke them up. Thus, the case described in the parable demonstrates the human being as an extremely violent, aggressive, law-fearing, and hypocritical creature.

All the three examples are united by the admittance that the human being is naturally cruel. Although it may be shocking to oneself, one still practices cruelty and hate. According to Taylor, this kind of behavior is also irrational as people engaged in such deeds as the ones described will certainly not feel the bliss of heaven after their death (331). However, they are destined to hell as the evil they do comes from the depth of their hearts.

Further on, the author tells three stories of another kind. The first one is about a thievish boy who suddenly begins to feel sympathetic to the suffering birds trapped in a cupola (Taylor 331). There are obstacles and punishments that prevent him from releasing the pigeons, but he overcomes them and saves the creatures. This instance shows that a person may be kind, and kindness, just like cruelty, comes from the very core of the heart.

Story five touches upon racial discrimination that used to be practiced in the United States on the legal level until the 1970s. The character is a die-hard racist deputy sheriff who was intending to kill a wounded Afro-American but helped him survive instead (Taylor 332).

This story, like the previous one, shows that there is compassion deep in the heart of even those who have been taught to follow their ancestors cannibal traditions since the childhood. It seems that compassion exists inside each one from birth and shows itself even in cases of those who are not inclined to be sympathetic.

The last story brings the reader back to the time of war. The parables main character is a marine who finds himself on a desert island together with a better-weaponed enemy (Taylor 333). After a long and exhausting period of hunting each other, one of the men came across the other sleeping. Because of his inner compassion, he did not dare kill a sleeping human and dropped his weapon.

The other woke up and also found no inner force to take the life of a weaponless man. This real story illustrates that compassion may come from deep within the soul at the moment when the individual does not expect it. Like cruelty, which is described in the first three stories, under the influence of circumstances, mercy demonstrates itself as it has always lived within the individual.

All the above-mentioned examples prove the statement that the source of many good deeds, as well as evil ones, lies within the human nature. Its demonstration may be provoked by the situation and special circumstances, but the inclinations live inside each individual. Practicing cruelty and compassion, one often might not consider the consequences or expect any profit: the process and its outcomes merely cause delight or satisfaction.

However, this principle works only when the individual is concerned. In social groups, other rules come to power. In this respect, it is necessary to discuss what the author of the work under consideration says about slavery. According to Taylor, if there is& a clear and natural distinction between two groups& then there can, from self-interest alone, be no reason why the larger group should be solicitous of the needs of the other (338).

Slavery is a vivid instance that can prove this idea. To develop the authors thought further, if the individual does not feel his or her direct responsibility for cruelty, it is possible that he or she does not take close to heart the sufferings of the other social group caused by the deeds of his or her own one.

That is the reason why such phenomena as slavery, corruption, and genocide have always taken place and been neglected or silenced by the majority at the same time.

To conclude, Taylors work Cruelty and Compassion discusses where both phenomena mentioned in the title come from. The author provides several examples that reveal the meaning of them. His opinion is that malice and mercy of the individual come from his or her heart and are predetermined by human nature.

Although some individuals are more inclined to evil deeds and others to good ones, these qualities of the human soul may become apparent only when the circumstances are favorable. However, it is the individuals personal choice how to behave.

Due to these reasons, cruelty and mercy may be called only partly arbitrary qualities. The author translates the idea that in the scope of the society, these rules do not work as the individual does not feel any direct responsibility for the injustices practiced by his or her whole social group. Moreover, such malices as slavery are caused only by the current correlation of forces between nations, social layers, etc.

Work Cited

Taylor, Richard. Cruelty and Compassion. Doing and Being: Selected Readings in Moral Philosophy, edited by Joram Graf Haber, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993, pp. 329-339.