Aristotle's Argument of the Polis

In Parmenides’ poem “On Nature”, he argues that all things must meet three criteria to be classified as possessing ‘isness’, or having qualities that constitute existence. In order for anything to exist, the object must have no genesis or perishing, no change, and no qualitative distinction. In this paper, I will argue that Anaxagoras provides the best objection to Parmenides’ argument compared to both Empedocles and Democritus because he addresses more of the criteria put forth by Parmenides.

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 ‘function argument’ produced in the Nicomachean Ethics, is subject to harsh criticize that seemingly attacks Aristotle as a philosopher whom does not think his works thoroughly enough. The lack of blunt argument-statehood is substantial enough to and unfortunately interferes in proceeding to understanding what Aristotle has set out to demonstrate in the Nicomachean Ethics. Book 1 is merely an introduction to Eudaimonia and the Human Function. It is but a sketch, or rather an outline to what the book informs throughout. Where many believe to be the start of the Function Argument (NE1.7, 1097b30-34), Aristotle produces imagery of human-related objectives to their appropriate functions;craftsman to man and body parts to whole. This is meant to provoke the reader to critically think about their own function--as a human and Eudaimonia (note that we learn about Eudaimonia before the function argument is presented). I will defend the function argument and it’s plausibility in this essay by explaining the method utilized to build up this strong structured argument. This essay will converse with excerpts directly from Aristotle’s work, as well as

The first causes of things are the Material cause: “that from which, <as a constituent> present in it, a thing comes to be. Material cause relates to the corporeal cause of a specific object” (194b,24). The material cause consequently transpires for the reason that the parts constituents as materials. Next, the elucidation of the causes is a direct derivative from its own portions such as elements, components, materials, establishing entire thing. Aristotle refers to bronze and silver as models of material cause; which describes that the elements are the causes of a statue. So having bronze will ultimately lead one to a statue. In referring to change the bronze transforms into the statue. Physically the statue must undergo some process to change its current state into a statue. The material causes of things allow us to function. For example the beds that we sleep on every day and the homes or dorms people walk into are a material cause of some builder or manufactures. Aristotle wrote “That we must acquire knowledge, of the original causes since we say we know a thing whenever we think we know its primary cause” (983a, 24-16). Aristotle draws a discrepancy amongst potential and practicality. This is directly correlated to the process of change and motion. Change can be described as an object taking on a new form. The object has the potential to convert into something different, and change is actually the potential of “one form of matter to become another form of

Superiority: what Aristotle believes he has in regards to his account of scientific explanation in comparison to Democritus' opinions. Fundamentally, in a writing of defense instigated towards Democritus, Aristotle claims that the "best explanations" involving form and matter are simple, general, and relevant; in addition, he states that self-nutrition and reproduction comprise of the capacity of the soul, virtue, and life of animals and plants: an explanation called "for-the-sake-of-which". A possible response from Democritus to both of these arguments could express and emphasize his opinions upon the matters: for the first, he could focus on his idea that there is

The progression of intellectual development gives us a guide for which to judge the relative merits of historical ideas. This process proves to be critical in our interpretation of the past. If the ideas of today are the successors to our intellectual heritage, then by its virtues they determine how we construe history. In this regard we look back upon Aristotle. By modern standards this famous Greek philosopher is lionized as a transformative scholar. Our adoration for Aristotle then must be derived from how our own history developed. This is not to make claim as to whether or not his philosophies or opinions were correct, rather merely to state that his works proved so influential that society has a positive opinion of him. Looking around today, however, it is hard to see how a philosopher who lived four thousand years ago could have an immediate impact on us. It is under this pretense through the process of backwards inference that this paper is going to set out to prove that Aristotle’s empirical methods form the basis for the modern day scientific method and regardless of his views on natural philosophy, Aristotle remains a major authority in our contemporary intellectual world.

There are no current or past indications of mental health problems in Jasean's case. Jasean has shown no indications of homicidal ideation and no indications of suicidal thoughts. There is no evidence that he was ever physically or sexually abused. There are no indications that he has been sexually aggressive. Jasean has no mental health diagnosis or medications present or past. He has never participated in a psychological evaluation or received any treatment.

In terms of understanding both sides of the argument I agree completely with Aristotle. I think knowing everything there is to know about a subject you are trying to persuade people to believe makes your argument more believable and a better person.

Aristotle believed that the purpose of a polis, also known as a city, that "It is clear that all partnerships aim at some good, and that the partnership that is most authoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the most authoritative good of all. This is what is called the city or the political partnership" (1252a3). This definition is what will be used to help explore which regime is best suited for society and which is the most practical, these being monarchy (also known as kingship), aristocracy and polity. This paper will also be looking at telos and its importance of it when trying to find the best regime. Telos is referring to that everyone and everything has a purpose or end goal. The true end goal

The word ‘polis’, which means city-state in ancient Greece, is actually the word that the modern term ‘politics’ derives from. In this crucial time period in human history, starting around 460 BCE, the ancient people of Athens had a highly developed governmental structure that allowed a level of equality and freedom to men that had not been seen before in history. This type of government demands that the citizens all actively participate and enforce the decisions that they make, “The polis (city-state) system was based on an unusual dominance of the spoken word above all other instruments of power. This spoken word becomes the political means par excellence, the key to all state authority, it becomes the tool for achieving dominance and authority

Aristotle has formulated an economical and clear argument, but the passage that contains it fails to connect all the premises to other parts of the text to lend them supporting arguments. Aristotle extended his approach of starting from what is commonly believed to even this human function argument which is crucial to the whole work. As a result, many readers may be left unconvinced.

In "The Politics", Aristotle would have us believe that man by nature is a political animal. In other words, Aristotle seems to feel that the most natural thing for men to do is to come together in some form of political association. He then contends that this political association is essential to the pursuit of the good life. Finally he attempts to distinguish what forms of political association are most suitable to the pursuit of this good life. In formulating a critique of "The Politics", we shall first examine his claims as to what is natural to man and whether the criterion of the natural is sufficient to demonstrate virtue. We shall then examine what it is about political association that

We have argued in this course that there is nothing more paradoxical than the focus and emphasis of Ancient Political Thought in Greek culture. Of course, this may be because of our modern preoccupation of our current political foundation have lead us to believe that people associate democracy and leadership as an antidote to conflict and corruption. This may also be the case since Greek culture illustrates that the polis was the final form of political association during the time when Aristotle was setting out his ideas. But even if this was the case, there is still much about politics we can learn. Despite the current understandings surrounding leadership and democracy as an antidote to stasis, it will be argued that both of these ideas

In recent years, modern functionalists have taken to claiming Aristotle as one of their own or at the least a great grandfather of sorts. This essay will investigate the extent to which Aristotle was a functionalist, and once this question is resolved, we will evaluate to what degree his view reliably accounts for a valid philosophy of mind.

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher whose writings have carried on well past his life, and have held an influence across the world, throughout time periods, and are intensely debated to this day. Following his treatise on Ethics, Aristotle turned his attention to Politics, in which he claimed, “it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal;” [1] a bold statement that encompasses the whole of a species. However, Aristotle’s assertion that the state, or the Greek polis, is an inevitable progression for humanity and what all humans strive for to pursue the ‘good life’ is founded upon logic, and with the definitions he provided, leaves little doubt that he succeeded in showing so.[2]