Many people in the world have a fairly concrete idea of what it means to own something. However, this concrete idea is often quite limited in the sense that it only encompasses the ownership of objects. Yet, a large number of philosophers have extended the reach of the term ownership, in a way that it encompasses skills and knowing something thoroughly. When confronted with this idea, many great thinkers throughout history have had contradicting viewpoints. Several of these thinkers include Plato, Plato’s pupil Aristotle, and modern philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. All three of these brilliant philosophers had differing views of ownership. Plato argues that owning objects are detrimental to a person 's character, Aristotle claims that ownership …show more content…
I disagree with this idea presented by Aristotle for it has often been the case that a person 's moral character has actually been influenced negatively by the possession or desire for tangible object. Aristotle’s views on ownership parallel the ideas that are presented by Glaucon in Plato’s Republic when he proposed the Ring of Gyges as a way to show that it is human nature to accept material things in exchange for a loss in morality. In this way, Glaucon destroys the notion that ownership of materialistic objects helps to develop moral character for Glaucon’s scenario shows that it is human nature to disregard morality in search for material goods. In this way, Glaucon’s argument disproves Aristotle’s idea that ownership of tangible objects helps to develop moral …show more content…
Examples of such viewpoints can be found through the works of many great thinkers throughout the centuries, some dating back to 400 years BCE. A Greek philosopher who developed his viewpoint on ownership was Plato. Plato, being the student of Socrates, was very well educated in philosophical thinking, and he applied his superior knowledge to an analysis of ownership. Plato’s views on ownership entailed the idea that owning objects is detrimental to a person 's character. He believed that the possession of materialistic goods actually damaged a person’s morality. Another Ancient Greek philosopher who would apply his knowledge to the relationship of ownership was Aristotle. Aristotle was Plato’s most successful and intelligent student. Aristotle used the knowledge he had acquired from his mentor to create his own viewpoints which completely contradicted the ideas laid out by Plato. Aristotle said that ownership of tangible goods helps to develop moral character. In other words, Aristotle believed that the possession of materialistic goods could, in fact, help in the development of one’s moral character. One of the more recent philosophers which will be discussed is Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre believed that ownership extends beyond objects to include intangible things as well. In this way, Sartre is working very closely with the Theory of
According to Nozick, “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)(Nozick, xix).” Nozick conceptualises these rights as “selfownership.” Self ownership is defined as the ownership of an individual’s physical body, talents and labor (Nozick, 16971). Nozick creates a Lockean argument by stating that if we
Glaucon begins his argument to Plato by separating goods into three classes. The first class is composed of intrinsic goods that we welcome for our own sake, stripped of their consequences, such as happiness. The second class is the type of good that we like for our own sake as well as its consequences, such as health and knowledge. The third class is an extrinsic good that we desire only for their consequences, such as physical training and medical treatment. Plato believes that justice belongs in the second class of goods that we like because of itself and its consequences, while Glaucon suggests that it belongs in the third class of...
Both Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics deal with the issue of justice. In both of these pieces of writings, the authors are trying to determine what is the perfect city, and how justice plays a role in the city, and in turn how justice is present in both society and individuals. While some similarities may be present between Aristotle and Socrates’s thinking, they approach the situation completely differently. Socrates first builds what would be a perfect city to him. He then examines what makes the city perfect and relates it to the individual. On the other hand, Aristotle looks at the relationships between humans that exists in society and then looks for those relationships within the human soul.
It could be assumed that having is the normal orientation in which people live their life by in the modern societies of Europe or North America. Erich Fromm stated, "To acquire, to own, and to make a profit are the sacred and unalienable rights of the individual in the industrial society" (From 1976:57). Fromm is clearly explaining that to have and to own is the dominant norm and having is related to an individual. Being individualistic is inherent to having because only one can have ownership. If having is shared, it loses its individualistic characteristic. The having orientation is the belief that to be fulfilled in life is sole ownership over a physical object(s) or in-tangibles such as ideas, thoughts or in some cases people. To further explain, the having orientation of physical property, ownership over objects is the ability to hold, possess, and be in control of. Ownership of intangibles is more an abs...
The reason that unreasonable restrictions on the individual's interests cannot be entirely ignored is that human nature doesn't allow for such selflessness. Since that is so, citizens will not allow for common good to exist in a society if it as the expense of their interests. However, small restrictions can be readily accepted it they believe that such impositions actually affords them the safety and opportunity to nurture their interests. For example, the property owner will gladly pay taxes to the government for the common good if they believe that the government will protect them those who would steal their land. In Aristotle's critic of Plato, Aristotle points out that humans cannot learn what the common good and what their proper role in society is without having individual interests. For example, Aristotle pokes holes in Plato's position that philosophers should not possess personal property as irrational as it does not take into consideration that property ownership "contributes to the overall rational structure of society and thus to people's happiness," which is a requirement before the common good can be realized. Aristotle's criticism of Plato hinges on the presupposition that personal happiness must exist before civic virtue can. Accordingly, family, friendship, and personal property are "needed in order to enable individuals to feel that their lives have value, and both are necessary dimensions of a well-organized polis that secures a sense of communal solidarity among diverse people" (DeLue 54).
Aristotle, W. D. Ross, and Lesley Brown. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
According to Locke’s theory, a commodity becomes the private possession of an individual who labors for it. Thus it is no longer a direct gift of nature: [A man] “that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them” ( 360).
In this paper, I will examine Nozick’s ‘whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just’ formula. By this formula, Nozick protects individuals’ absolute property rights. To examine its validity, first, I will show that Nozick’s entitlement theory relies on Kantian principle, which demands treating everyone as persons having individual rights with dignity. However, it will be clear that Kantian theory does not necessarily yield the concept of absolute property rights. Second, I will explain the principle of self-ownership, which will clarify that persons have rights over their bodies and powers. I will find the principle of self-ownership is compatible with Kantian principle. Third, I will examine Nozick’s proviso, which guides legitimate initial acquisition. However, finally, I will show that the appropriation that passes Nozick’s proviso violates the idea of respecting people as persons with dignity. In other words, Nozick’s proviso is inconsistent with Kantian principle. Therefore, Nozick’s formula fails.
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.