Aristotle is arguably the most important Philosopher who ever lived. He is known as the father of philosophy. The questions he had back then are still some of the questions that philosophers of today’s world are trying to answer. He focused in on some topics that we still abide by today. Many of his ideas were later proven wrong, but he was the first to say anything about the topics. If he were alive today he would most likely be disappointed that it took so long for anyone to raise questions about what he had to say. Some of his most important ideas had to do from a political standpoint. The focus will be emphasizing the 8 writings or books he had about political ideas. Each book focuses in on a different part of political ideas. It also …show more content…
Aristotle brings up a very difference between the two. Animals don’t have the ability to speak, however, they live just fine without needing that skill. Groups of animals are able to live together without making laws or enforcing justice, but people cannot. Aristotle looked at humans as political animals. Nature by itself is not enough for people to live together. Aristotle thinks how it is possible for humans to live together and he comes up with the big picture of a city. A city without the right laws, justice, and practicing the right virtues makes humans the worst of all animals. However, humans are the best animal when exercise all the right values. Aristotle regards slavery as a household matter. The question everyone seems to ask is slavery just. Of course today slavery has been overcame and is something that no one should view as just. People who ended up in slavery in Aristotle’s time were in slavery because of defeat in war and if the slaves had children, the children would be considered slaves. However, if slavery never happened the history of Athenian works would be different. In Aristotle’s will he wrote to have his slaves freed when he died and for the time that was a pretty generous thing to …show more content…
Some humans cringe of the idea of God, and some rely on it. Protestants and Catholics killed each other over different beliefs, so this is a very deep topic to get into. Aristotle asks what keeps the universe in everlasting motion. The author gives a great description of how Aristotle begins to understand the concept of God. He says, “IN his view, attractive or final causes operate on intelligences that can respond to them and adopt them as motives for action. When he says that a heavy body that falls to earth wishes to come to rest there, he is speaking metaphorically, not literally” He then says, “Thinking in this way, Aristotle found it necessary to endow the heavenly bodies with intelligences that function as their motors. As the engine of an automobile is its motor, so an intelligence is the motor that keeps a star in motion. But unlike the automobile engine, which must itself be set in motion, the celestial intelligences function as motors through being attracted by the prime mover of the universe.” Trying to understand God is not easy, but Aristotle came up with that the prime mover of the universe, or God, is devoted to matter. This immaterial thing humans call God is also a perfect being and is the mover of the universe. He had a different idea of God versus what the Bible makes God out to
In "Justifying Slavery," Aristotle, "who was well aware of moral issues," (p. 53). does not suggest in his writing that he recognizes slavery as immoral. Seneca, however, in "On Master and Slave," reveals his probable position that slavery is "inherently evil." (p. 58). Despite a stated awareness of moral matters, Aristotle professes that slavery is favorable and righteous, which reveals his time's common impressions of slavery: that slaves are subordinate to their masters and legitimately exist solely to serve them. Seneca...
...f an animal such as the chimpanzee can identify a situation and then project an expectation of the outcome, then above that place itself within the situation with a reaction to its outcome, would that refute Aristotle’s claim that animals are not capable of goodness? One can look at these examples and begin to question his beliefs. If the chimpanzee can identify the actions of another then modify its’ behavior to work toward a better situation for its fellow animals, then one should come to the conclusion that this is the same as the man coming to the aid of the damsel. The individual forgoes any benefit to himself and acts only for the benefit of the other. Then ultimately will lead to happiness for all. So Aristotle’s claim isn’t completely without fault, there is a potential for beings other than man to have an innate desire to move toward a general happiness.
In his Metaphysics, Aristotle defines essence as “what the thing is said to be in its own right” without qualification (1029b14). Essence includes the fundamental or necessary properties of a substance, the properties that if taken away would cause the substance to cease existing as that substance. Essence also ignores accidents whose existence is contingent upon a primary substance. Essence is found in a species (secondary substance) and is not indicative of particular referents of that species (primary substance). In order for a thing to qualify as being part of a certain species, its qualities must meet the definition or criteria of this species; these qualities are its essence. Essence is the most fundamental quality of a substance that
Miller, Fred. "Aristotle's Political Theory". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Fall 2012. Web 06 Nov 2013.
Women in philosophy have always been seen as inferior to men. People had constructed this image of women as being less perfect and through this image, many philosophy were developed. Aristotle provided the first scientific explanation of women’s imperfection. He claimed that women were biologically inferior to men. Aristotle claimed that this was a factual statement, but he though it deserved “a rational scientific justification for this belief,”(Tuana,p.18).
Aristotle believes that before the concept of time there were three kinds of substances, two of them being physical and one being the unmovable. The three substances can be described as one being the “sensible eternal”, the second being the “sensible perishable” and the third substance being the immovable. To further this theory the sensible perishable can be seen as matter, the sensible eternal as potential, and the immovable can be seen as that which is Metaphysical and belongs to another science. According to Aristotle, the immovable is God. It is the immovable that sets the sensible perishable into motion and therefore turns the potential into the actual.
Through Aristotle’s specific definition of a tragic hero, it can be concluded that Oedipus is a tragic hero. Oedipus The King was written by a well-known tragic dramatist named Sophocles. This story is considered to be one of the greatest tragedies of all time. In fact, the Marjorie Barstow of the Classical Weekly says that it “fulfills the function of a tragedy, and arouses fear and pity in the highest degree” (Barstow). It is also very controversial because of the relationship that Oedipus has with his mother, although it was unknown at the time that they were related. The qualifications of a tragic hero, according to Aristotle, include coming from a royal family and falling from power due to actions that only the protagonist can take responsibility for. The main character must also have a tragic flaw, which is defined as a “weakness in character” (Gioia). There have been many protagonists in other plays that represent a tragic hero, but none exemplify Aristotle’s tragic hero traits quite as well as Oedipus does because of many reasons including his royal history, his tragic flaw, his hamartia, and his his fall from power.
Rather than the practical pursuit we are accustomed to, for Plato, Politics is an intellectual faculty. Governance by non-philosophers is to be governed by opinions, beliefs and self-interest; in contrast the philosopher ruler will govern with virtue and justice with no hidden agenda. The philosopher is in love, in love with learning, knowledge and truth. It is important to make a distinction here between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth.
Political society today, has taken many lessons from Plato and Aristotle’s political ideas. As was the case in Ancient Greece, there are many different political ideologies and regimes that will may serve the purpose for one society, but in another, could cause utter chaos. Aristotle attributed the need for there being a number of political regimes due to the fact that there are “many parts to a city.” (4.3.1) The many parts to a city that he was referring to, simply enforces the necessity of having different forms of office for each of these parts. Not every method will work for each society. Aristotle’s concepts of political regimes have deeply rooted itself in society today. In order to understand the concepts of regime as suggested by Aristotle, this paper will consider the three different types; royalty, aristocracy, and constitutional government, as well as each of their deviations.
To the modern reader, Aristotle's views on astronomy, as presented in Metaphysics, Physics, De Caelo (On the Heavens) and Simplicius' Commentary, will most likely seem very bizarre, as they are based more on a priori philosophical speculation than empirical observation. Although Aristotle acknowledged the importance of "scientific" astronomy - the study of the positions, distances and motions of the stars - he nevertheless treated astronomy in the abstract, linking it to his overall philosophical world picture. As a result, the modern distinction between physics and metaphysics is not present in Aristotle, and in order to fully appreciate him we must try to abandon this pre-conception. Aristotle argued that the universe is spherical and finite. Spherical, because that is the most perfect shape; finite, because it has a center, viz. the center of the earth, and a body with a center cannot be infinite. He believed that the earth, too, is a sphere. It is relatively small compared to the stars, and in contrast to the celestial bodies, always at rest. For one of his proofs of this latter point, he referred to an empirically testable fact: if the earth were in motion, an observer on it would see the fixed stars as moving, just as he now observes the planets as moving, that is from a stationary earth. However, since this is not the case, the earth must be at rest. To prove that the earth is a sphere, he produced the argument that all earthly substances move towards the center, and thus would eventually have to form a sphere.
Aristotle and Plato were once philosophers in Ancient Greece who studied to a great extent ethics, politics and science. Aristotle was influenced by Plato as Aristotle was his student, just as Socrates, another big Greek philosopher, influenced Plato. Although, their ideas may be obsolete by modern standards, they still continue to have historical value. Thus, these ancient notions are often explored as they molded modern thinking to what it is today. Regularly examined, The Republic, by Plato and Politics by Aristotle, were each written in attempt at explaining political theory. Despite the fact, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle had different philosophical ideas on justice and injustice, morality, human life, the human soul, regimes, political
Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.
These topics mostly dealt with issues such as government, opinions toward justice and how people really viewed education. Aristotle also had his own theories towards his belief in the "right government". He wanted his results to show happiness among the people. He'd mainly collect information from studying living creatures and observing their living habits. He would do this so that he could see what brought them happiness.
Socrates, Born 470 BC, a young yet noble Greek philosopher. Socrates was credited with laying out the principles of modern Western philosophy but was best known for Socratic Irony and the Socratic Method. He is best recognized for the innovation of pedagogy. This being, the teacher would question a student in which draws out the correct response upon the student. Plato was younger than Socrates. He was born 427 BC. Plato was also a Greek philosopher such as Socrates. He was greatly known for the first association of higher learning throughout the Western world. Plato was also known as being one of Socrates many students. Lastly there is Aristotle, he was the youngest of the three. He too was a Greek philosopher along with the rest. Aristotle was best known for his writings, in which including many topics. Each philosopher had a great impact on the Western Civilizations. One working off from another. Three people, one civilization. These three spectacular noble philosophers will soon be heard by many.
Aristotle is one of the most important western philosophers in history that has influenced our society in many aspects. Many of Aristotle’s teachings have affected our world for many years and still continue to have such a big impact. Some of the subjects Aristotle has influenced include: logic, physics, government and poetry. Aristotle’s study of poetry mainly focused on the elements to a good tragedy. Some of his elements have been used in Greek tragedies and modern movies. The Greek play, Medea, and the modern movie, No Country for Old Men, use elements from Aristotle philosophy, while using similar and different techniques but both achieving an effective tragedy.