Aristotle Vs Human Nature Essay

The first part of the soul that calculates is considered rational by having the ability to make good judgment, known as its intellect. The second part of the soul that desires certain indulgences and pleasures; such as, food, drink, and sex, is considered irrational and is known as its appetitive part. The third part of the soul is known as the high-spirited, which allows a person to get angry by giving way to the use of their emotions. The appetite of one’s soul draws a person

Ever since long before Christ there have been countless of theories about the world, the nature of the soul, and how it all combines to work together. An interesting case of contrasting yet aligned opinions is that of Aristotle and Descartes. The aim of this essay is to compare and contrast the ideologist of two philosophers who proved to be pioneers of their respective time, and through their work provided us with a base on which we could build upon.

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.

According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues belong in the ‘rational’ fragment of the soul and moral virtues lie in the ‘irrational’ measure of the soul However, they are both dependant on reason. Although Aristotle recognised many virtues, he was an advocate for the notion of the existence of only four cardinal virtues. His proposal proved to be popular in the society that he lived in, being acknowledged by Plato and other bodies. The four cardinal virtues are: courage, a virtue which ensures control in the interest of goodness, temperance, a virtue which diminishes wants and desires by limiting them to reason, justice, the only virtue that consists of expressing care for other beings. A human that possesses the virtue of justice has the ability to practise this virtue on other human beings and not solely on themselves. The final and one of the most important virtues is prudence, a logical virtue of practical reason by which we separate the good and the methods of achieving it. Aristotle accentuates that virtues are pragmatic skills and hence experience guides us towards becoming more dexterous in avoiding deficiency. Although familiarity with the vices as extremes supports us in our aspiration for the mean, the wider connotations of the doctrine is that only through experience will we as humans come to know the right pretences and

Aristotle believes that there are two kinds of virtue, one being intellectual and the other being moral virtue. He states that Intellectual virtue comes from being taught meaning we’re not born with it. Moral virtue on the other hand we develop as we grow and gain an understanding of life. “The stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times” (N.E. II.1) Right there he is talking about how if you are designed to do one thing, it is impossible to do the opposite no matter how hard you force it. He talks about how we gain our virtues by practicing them and using them on a regular basis. That is how we learn

What is it that separates living things from non-living things? Do living things have souls? If so, what exactly are souls? Can they exist independent of material bodies? What happens to our souls after our bodies die? Ancient Greek philosophers, from Homer to Socrates, struggle with these questions, and strive for answers. Out of all the answers, perhaps the most thorough and revealing come from Aristotle. This may be due to his insistence that, in defining the soul, an exclusive focus on form over matter is misguided; conversely, he argues that an exclusive focus on matter over form is equally wrong-headed. We will examine Aristotle’s objections to both Plato, regarding the former, and Democritus, regarding the latter. Following, we will identify what Aristotle defines as the soul, and analyze the ways in which his definition avoids the pitfalls of materialism and dualism. Concluding, we will see that Aristotle, out of all the ancient Greek philosophers, provides the most sophisticated and satisfying answers to the questions initially posed.

Aristotle presents a short analysis of the rational part of the soul, dividing it into two parts, a part that uses reason and a part that obeys reason. He sees life as supported by activity and not just the capacity to do something.

What is human nature? It is very simple. Human nature refers to the patterns of behavior that are typical of our species or our kind. Human undergoes change as all humans grow up they nature seems to change; the environment someone grow up in effects that persons nature. To fully understand human nature Dr. Marvin Harris takes us on trip to time, which makes sense because if we better understand our past and our origin we will better understand our very existence and our nature. We will know more about who we are where we are from and such other questions that puzzle the human mind.

Since the beginning of the human’s existence, there have been so many great different concepts from various philosophers that have shaped the structure, knowledge and behaviors that we still exercise in our current world. Philosophy as the fundamental nature of knowledge has contributed to the development of our thoughts and the structure of our societies. Many great philosophers left the presence of their idea implanted in our world for the rest of human life. One central leader that contributed in the philosophical views of ideas, realism and morality of life was the greatest philosopher of all time “Aristotle”. This essay will focus on two of Aristotle’s major impact on today’s society. These two great essays are, “The Politics” and “The Nicomachean Ethics”. Aristotle influenced by previous work from his professor the great philosopher Plato developed ideas of moralities, virtues and ethics of how man should best live, how can we find the truth also how can we explain the world around us. Throughout history there have been many philosophers who have tried to shape the world with their philosophical concepts to make an action a universal law of morality that gives us options to choose a freely moral or legal alternative rather than another one. The concepts revealed by Aristotle’s work have inculcated the way we actually behave and apply ethics to our everyday duties that would lead us to the supreme good “Eudaimonia” ‘Human Flourishing’, happiness. All theories

Human Nature is defined by Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as "the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans." Throughout the world, however, there are many different groups of people, all with varying personalities and characteristics. One recent article that brought up this issue was What's Really Human? The trouble with student guinea pigs. by Sharon Begley. Begley states that "given the difference in culture between the U.S. and East Asia, no one claims the American way is universal." This suggests that one's environment, not one's nature, shapes one's characteristics and features. This separation of cultures also leads to a different view of good and evil throughout the world; murder is generally bad and charity good, but not everyone may care about murder or think charity necessary. The only way to find human nature may be to look at the time before the first cultures developed. Thomas Hobbes referred to this time as the state of nature, where every man competes for resources, driven on by greed. This greed is considered to be a bad trait by today's society, making human nature apparently evil. I believe that humans are evil in nature and need parameters to be good because of the writings of twentieth century authors, Chinese philosophers between the Qin and Han dynasties, and pre-Enlightenment philosophers.

As Pierre Hadot states in Philosophy as A Way of Life, “The Platonic sage would raise themselves by the life of their mind, which the Aristotelian sages raise themselves to the realm of the divine mind”. Although Aristotle does not address sagacity directly in any of his major works, in one recovered excerpt of Prorepticus, Aristotle begs the question: “what more accurate stand or measure of good things do we have than the sage [?]” in a work encouraging young people to study philosophy. As this is the only direct account of Aristotle speaking of the sage, it can be incurred that his construction of the archetype is in alignment with the sage as a virtuous person, or more Aristotelian specific, someone who demonstrates the intellectual virtues.

Aristotle emphasized on the various types of souls organisms possessed by proclaiming that plants have vegetative souls responsible for reproduction and growth; animals a vegetative and sensitive soul for movement and sensation; while humans have vegetative, sensitive, and rational souls essential for thought and reflection.

Aristotle defined nature “as an internal origin of change or stability”1. Natural substances are things such as animals, plants and inanimate matter like earth, water, fire and air. Each natural substance according to Aristotle has its own nature, which is what gives rise to its natural behaviour/characteristic. The nature of a natural substance is its inner principle/source of change.2

Frequently discussed and debated are the ideas and philosophies of Aristotle. Larger than life, Aristotle had substantial influence on the formation and methodology of science as a whole, as well as specific disciplines. Many of his theories were well beyond the knowledge of ancient Greece (or what they thought they knew), and only in recent history has the science community begun to discover that many of Aristotle’s theories were actually quite close to reality. In addition, many of his theories brought questions to light that are still being considered and debated today. For example, one source contrasts Aristotle’s theories about when life begins to recent research on embryogenesis (Dunstan, 1988). From animal behavior to medicine, ethics and philosophy to theorizing on when life begins, Aristotle left a significant mark on what we call science.

The concept of the relation between the mind and body, between what motivates thinking, and the possibility of an unknown quantity called the soul controlling the mind and body has existed through out history. The mystic and the metaphysical explanation of mankind took into consideration an inexplicable resident or entity that governed not only the body but also the mind. The mind was not associated with the physical brain. The mind was a system believed to be controlled by an entity called the soul. Looking at this chain of thought, it has to be noted that Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, argued that the soul is incorporeal, being intangible and spiritual; the mind was the intellect, meaning it had knowledge or it is where the person stores their knowledge. Descartes, a 1500's philosopher, argued that the incorporeal soul is solely identical with the mind with the exception of perception and the senses.