Throughout history Love has been a topic of conversation. As the topic to the Symposium Socrates and his intellectual partners discuss what Love is and twist it’s meaning in every possible way. Each attendee of the dinner is given an opportunity to express his feelings and ideas about Love. Love can be molded to fit many styles, shapes, and types. Of those who were attending the Symposium, the majority of the men were homosexual or like Socrates bi-sexual. In this era, men commonly befriended young boys and taught them about Love. In exchange for sharing their knowledge, the older men gained sexual satisfaction. This started a cycle, when the young boys grew old they passed their knowledge on. The young boys in which were taught showed their appreciation by performing sexual acts.
Love occurred in several ways. Physical and emotional attractions were the two main sources of Love. Love based on a single physical feature is just as possible as love of a person’s entire body and physical beauty. As talked about in the class discussion, Love of a person can be based on the Love of a physical feature. An individual can fall in Love with another even if he or she is not attracted to the other person’s mind. Opposite personalities can fall in Love with each other and do not need to base their Love on compatibility. Others base their Love on an emotional connection. This type of Love is the type thought to be most accepted by society, especially by women. In the class discussion, the females seemed to accept Love based on emotion and not based on physical beauty. It is hard to believe that Love can be formed solely on physical attraction and not on a spiritual connection. Emotional Love differs from physical Love due to the reason that no matter how much the person being loved changes physically, he or she will still be accepted and loved. Emotionally based Love can change according to the personality change of the loved one. If the person being loved no longer acts in a manner that is attracting to the person doing the loving then it is possible to fall out of Love that is emotionally based.
Those who attended the symposium believed that there were two types of Love, Common Love and Heavenly Love. Heavenly Love is represented through the older man giving knowledge to the young boy in exchange for sexual gratification.
The first chapter begins with an exploration of love and marriage in many ancient and current cultures. Surprisingly many cultures either avoid the discussion of love in marriage or spit on the idea completely. China and other societies believed that love was simply a product of marriage and shouldn’t get too out of hand, while a few Greek and Roman philosophers shunned excessive
In the early morning on July 11th, 1804, Alexander Hamilton found himself in the exact same position his son had been in only three years earlier. Due to severe personal issues between Aaron Burr, Hamilton’s political
In classical Greek literature the subject of love is commonly a prominent theme. However, throughout these varied texts the subject of Love becomes a multi-faceted being. From this common occurrence in literature we can assume that this subject had a large impact on day-to-day life. One text that explores the many faces of love in everyday life is Plato’s Symposium. In this text we hear a number of views on the subject of love and what the true nature of love is. This essay will focus on a speech by Pausanius. Pausanius’s speech concentrates on the goddess Aphrodite. In particular he looks at her two forms, as a promoter of “Celestial Love” as well as “Common Love.” This idea of “Common Love” can be seen in a real life context in the tragedy “Hippolytus” by Euripides. This brings the philosophical views made by Pausanius into a real-life context.
“If you stand for nothing, Burr, what will you fall for?” Lin-Manuel Miranda raps at the beginning of his hit musical, Hamilton. This sentence truly epitomizes the ideal that governed Alexander Hamilton’s life; that is to say that he was always a weighty advocate for the things in which he believed. His accomplishments range from orchestrating the Bank of New York to being a delegate for the Continental Congress, proving him to be a well rounded Founding Father. Nonetheless many would like to discredit Hamilton because he, like all human beings, had significant flaws; he had an affair, he had trouble keeping his head, and many other countless flaws. However, does not every human being have a multitude of shortcomings? From the perspective of
Born on January, 1757, Alexander Hamilton was the son of an unknown immigrant planter who defied many odds to become an American statesman and advisor to the president at a tender age. He rose through the ranks to serve as the first Secretary of the Treasury, where he used his extraordinary skills to control the country’s finances during the tumultuous American Revolution. Hamilton was hailed for his support towards the establishment of a strong and big government. Through his “Doctrine of Implied Powers”, Hamilton insisted that the federal government had power that could only be suggested by the Constitution. In the pursuit of developing his legacy as the first great nationalist, Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was one of America’s most important founding fathers. He was a lieutenant colonel who served under General George Washington in the American Revolutionary War, a successful lawyer who spent a majority of his career also involved in the politics of our early country, and The United States of America’s first Secretary of the Treasury. He accomplished so many wonderful things in his too short life: founding the National Bank, creating the framework for what would later become the Coast Guard, and writing some of the most influential works of his time period. Despite all these high achievements, Hamilton’s later years in life were marked by trials and tribulations that would lead to a noticeable decline in his mental health.
Aristophanes thinks that a human’s love is clearly “a lack” – a lack of one’s other half- and having no meant to satisfy themselves they begin to die. Zeus, having failed to foresee this difficulty repairs the damage by inventing sexual reproduction (191 b-c). Any “embracements” of men with men or of women with women would of course be sterile – though the participants would at least “have some satiety of their union and a relief,” (191 c) and therefore would be able to carry on the work of the world. Sex, therefore, is at this stage a drive, and the object is defined only as human. Sexual preferences are to emerge only as the human gains experience, enabling them to discover what their “original form” had been.
Hamilton had gotten a job as a clerk, which taught him about finances. The author stated that helped him become a great person. When he was older, some wealthy islanders provided the young clerk a way to travel to America for better education. While he was there, he studied and went to a formal school so he could be accepted into a college.
This passage marks the first of several types of love, and gives us an intuitive
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
Love, in classical Greek literature, is commonly considered a prominent theme. Love, in present days, always appears in the categories of books, movies, music, etc. Interpreted differently by different people, Love turns into a multi-faceted being. In Plato’s work Symposium, Phaedrus, Pausania, Eryximachus, Aristophane and Agathon, each of them presents a speech to either praise or definite Love. Phaedrus first points out that Love is the primordial god; Pausanias brings the theme of “virtue” into the discussion and categorizes Love into “good” one or “bad” one; Eryximachus introduces the thought of “moderation’ and thinks that Love governs such fields as medicine and music; Aristophanes draws attention to the origin and purposes of Love; Agathon enunciates that the correct way to present an eulogy is first to praise its nature and gifts.
Phaedrus informs Socrates that he had just heard a speech by Lysias, the greatest rhetorician of the age and a sophist. Socrates, eager to hear Lysias’ speech entices Phaedrus to reenact it. Phaedrus obliges and recounts Lysias’ speech depicting the advantages and disadvantages of the love and non-lover. Lysias’ speech intends to persuade the audience to view the non-lover as the more accommodating choice. “But if you are persuaded by me, first, in my association with you I shall attend not to present pleasure, but also to the benefit that lies in store for the future; I’ll not be worsted by love, but in mastery of myself…” (Phaedrus p. 33). The lover is described, as someone who gets jealous, is obsessive or controlling, and desires physical appearance before the mind. Furthermore the lover, brings turmoil back, is overly sensitive, and overly encouraging or fearful of the beloved. Whereas, the non-lover is presented as the friend, who prefers the mind to physical appearance, is less needy, and won’t diminish your reputation. A non-lover, will not expect gifts back, exercises more self-control, more rational thought, is not jealous of friends or the time, and is less likely to be
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
Usually leaders display many different traits. I personally think that autocratic and free rein can be pretty much equally harmful for a good team work. It mainly depends on the business setting and the team needs whether a certain type would meet the organization’s needs. In the case of autocratic style, all decisions are made singlehandedly thus opening the door for many mistakes. Matters are viewed one-sided and many issues can be overlooked and misinterpreted. Such style seems to suppress the natural desire of many people for creativity and contribution to their work; it can feel very suffocating and making people believe that they cannot make a difference. The advantage of this style is displayed in crisis when the decisions must be made fast and enacted immediately (Amanchukwu, Stanley, Ololube, 2015). In the case of free rein too much liberty is given to the employees and sometimes the work place might look like anarchy. There are many situations when the person that manages the business must step in and offer guidance while enforcing the rules and regulations, and when that doesn’t happen, the people might feel lost. If too much liberty is given many due dates might be missed; the organization might start looking very “disorganized” and even unprofessional. Such leadership style might be beneficial in businesses that require their team members to possess flexibility, creativity, or innovative
In one’s opinion, when one combines these two leadership styles, in common and uncommon situations, one may see higher productivity and overall accountability within employers and employees – giving the workers a sense of self-respect within the company and experience to handle issues on their own as well as, the ability to be noticed in leadership aspects. However, one also must realize there are just as much cons to autocratic and empowerment leadership styles. Autocratic leadership’s cons involve incompetent feedback; plus, many feel these types of leaders shouldn’t be followed but used as an extreme measure to keep a business that is falling, in place (autocratic leadership). Perhaps seeing the cons of ...