Philosophy And Science Of The Same Breath

Aristotle’s three acts of intellect are used on numerous occasions throughout the Gettysburg Address and Pericles’ Funereal Oration. One may ponder the question “How are the Gettysburg Address and Pericles’ Funereal Oration related given that one is written in 400 B.C and the other in 1863?” The beauty of Aristotle’s acts of intellect is that one can analyze two speeches written 2263 years apart and realize the intense parallels.

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

In Aristophanes’ play, “clouds”, there is a battle between the “old” and “new” way of going out about life. This can be seen through the “just” and “unjust” speech, whose argumentative outcomes dictate the way in which society should go about educating its citizens. The “unjust speech”, which is a heavy logical and manipulative approach to thinking about life (“new”), seems to subvert the “just speech”, which appears to rely on moral and mythical justification (“old”). Pericles, a prominent and influential Politian in Athens, has argued that democracy is the best form of government because it

Of course, Thucydides was certainly acquainted with pieces critical of Athenian democracy – the close intellectual relationship between certain of Thucydides’ core concerns, such as empire, and those of the somewhat previous Athenaion Politeia (Athenian Constitution) has long been the custom of such ancient writing. Among teachers of rhetoric were those who claimed openly to have developed a “political science” – what they called politike techne (Parry 1). But the rhetorical formation of politike techne was scarcely involved; it did not rest, as Thucydides supposed any appropriate appreciation of “political science” must, upon a methodical understanding of political structures and their active interaction within larger society. Therefore, Thucydides

Surprisingly, Thucydides maintained an objective perspective through much of his history. One assumes that as an Athenian, he would take a pro-Athens approach. However, two reasons provide balance and significance to his work. First, following the loss

The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.

In this thesis, I will be arguing that Socrates argument against Ion is effective to say the least for it highlights clearly that Ion has no account of knowledge but rather acquires his mastery skill through some divinely inspired activity. To develop this position further I will punctiliously examine the image of the Heraclean stone and its significance in furnishing this position of repudiation. Though this may appear a straightforward approach and perhaps one that can be left unarticulated, perceiving from this view of knowledge. One could however, argue that this is a rather extraneous attack on Ion's profession for it adds no detriment to his career in propounding the truth. The inspiration theory thus can be deemed as suffering no sifnificant flaws insofar as bringing the truth. But I guess the wider currency of this anti-position gains recognition if we conceive of Ion put in a position of interrogation by the audience; how would he seek to clarify ones state of discrepancy. It is here I believe Socrates

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

As one of the most significant works in philosophy, The Republic has been one of the most historically and intellectually influential basis of many political theories and philosophical approaches since its first appearance. It is also crucial to mention that the book contains both Plato’s and Socrates’ arguments of life and the view of the Athenian Democracy in the ancient Greek world. Therefore, it can be confusing and complicated to decide to which philosopher the arguments belong. The main focus of the book is to find the definition and the whereabouts of order, justice and to establish a just state, as well as to prove that a just man is happier than the unjust man by providing examples. The true importance of The Republic lies in the fact that everything has meaning in it, not only the arguments, but also the people who act as metaphors for the different kind of roles, which they fulfill in the Athenian society, furthermore the way they speak symbolizes those roles and every one of them embodies a part of the soul and the city-state. Even though it is not obvious, Plato / Socrates criticizes the Athenian society and tries to establish a new, ideal one with the different people he meets and talks to in the book.

In 323 B.C., the Hellenic Humanistic civilization came to an end, and Hellenistic individualism was born. Hellenistic individualism was everything that Hellenic Greece was not. This new time period would be described as “Greekish” because it was not purely Greek in culture (Humanities, 83). Before the Individualistic era began, the civilization was united in language, philosophy and religion, having a strong historical impact that connected them. Hellenistic individualism was created in a time of loneliness and isolation. When the polis were replaced, individualism emerged, because people were searching for continuity, they were searching for identity through the individual (Humanities, 91). I will be contrasting the different viewpoints from Hellenic Age and the Hellenistic Age; focusing on the philosophy of Aristotle, the philosophy of Epicurus and the new art form.

1, pp. 156–9). He expressed admiration for Bacon’s Novum Organum, Descartes’s Principles of Philosophy, and the work of ancient and recent atomists, although he says that in his early days he refrained from reading them carefully because he feared that he might be seduced by their reliance on pure reason rather than observation and experiment. He hoped to provide empirical evidence relevant to their views.

Alan Francis Chalmers is an associate professor who works extensive in the history and philosophy of science (physical). Alan Chalmers has taught at the University of Sydney since 1971, first in the School of Philosophy, and from 1987 at the Unit for the History and Philosophy of Science. He attained a B.Sc. in physics at the University of Bristol, and his M.Sc. in physics from the University of Manchester. His Ph.D. on the electromagnetic theory of J.C. Maxwell was granted by the University of London. He was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Humanities in 1997. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the Flinders Philosophy Department since 1999.

Before Einstein, Scientists believed that light waves travelled through a medium called ether. Einstein proved that ether was irrelevant and that light doesn’t travel through a medium. Einstein proved this by figuring out that the speed of light was constant, and in order for ether to be the medium light waves travel through, the speed of light would change depending on the observer. This discovery was one piece of the Specific Theory of Relativity.