Stoic's Aphorism

Stoicism made the transition from an intriguing foreign philosophy to a popular practice because it was taken up by several high profile figures. Scipio Africanus, the original esteemed Roman Stoic died in 129 BCE, but about 40 years later a new crop of celebrated Romans took up the Stoic practice. During the fall of the Roman Republic a group of famed orators, generals, and statesmen including Marcus Junius Brutus (85-42 BCE), Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Pompey the Great (106-48 BCE), and Cato the Younger (95-46 BCE) all professed themselves Stoics. This group of powerful statesmen and leaders practicing Stoicism disseminated it throughout Rome. Octavian (63 BC- 14 AD) who later became Caesar Augustus had a Stoic tutor and many

In his epistle, “To Those Who Fear Want,” Epictetus challenges the rationale in an affluent society’s fearing poverty. Through the lens of Stoicism, Epictetus contends that men should not fear what they cannot control; a person who fears hunger, poverty, and death is shameful because he unknowingly ridicules a group of people who, largely, are not wholly responsible for their qualities of life. In truth, this wealthy person only fears his loss of luxury. Likewise, Epictetus defends his position by use of rhetorical questions, metaphors, and syllogisms to assuage the privileged. Yet, Epictetus’ audience will also observe that the stoic’s qualms with the higher-class reveals a major flaw in his logic; his inability to perceive

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

As a slave Epictetus was severely tortured on a rack for another’s mistake and in turn received a broken leg, which never correctly healed. “ See, it’s just as I told you.” I was never more free than I was on the rack.” In addition, Stockdale ‘s leg was also damaged during his various hardships as a POW. Through these brutal hardships Stockdale finds strength in Epictetus words. For example, Stockdale was recognized by his captors in regard to holding a leadership position in the prisoners of war resistance with better hopes of challenging the Vietnamese’s treatment of prisoners. In accordance to Stoicism Stockdale did not take the leadership position with hopes of change but it was principally in his control and part of his essential duty

The author, Peter Singer states that animals should be given equal consideration since speciesism is wrong. The principal of equal consideration states that the like interests of any two sentient beings are of equal moral importance. Also, speciesism is when one species takes the interests of itself or of another of its members over the same equal interests of another species. On the other hand, an opposing author, Michael Fox, states that animals do not have any rights because they are not a member of the moral community which requires autonomy and certain capacities which nonhuman animals lack. The moral community is a group of beings that are alike one another, that feel they are bound to certain rules of conduct towards one another because

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

After the death of Aristotle, philosophy that targeted greater complex depths was outrun by philosophy that focused on mere everyday lives. With the rise and fall of Skepticism, Cynicism, and Epicureanism there was an influence that survived years impacting life and that was Stoicism. Zeno of Citium who believed that the world had an ultimate plan and everything--including nature, animals, and humans, were there for a reason (Hergenhahn & Henley, 2014, p. 66). The reason Stoicism was easily used is because it was well-suited with the way Romans highlighted their law and order giving the extensive coverage displayed by many philosophers, including Marcus Aurelius.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Happiness is all around the world, it is a very genuine and important thing, and everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is what makes life worth living, and it makes life a lot better in every way possible. What makes people happy though? Are bodily and external goods necessary to happiness? I would say no because by which they can make you happy, they are not necessary for human happiness. It’s not what things you buy, the pain, the suffering, or enjoyment your body might get. Human happiness comes from somewhere else within the human. Comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness will help give a better clear and logical understanding on what really happiness is and why I believe that bodily

“Animal, Vegetable, Miserable” written by Gary Steiner, a philosophy professor at Bucknell University is all about one key argument, “we should re-evaluate the ideas we have inherited from Western philosophy that human animals are morally superior to nonhuman animals.” Steiner does his best to open the eyes of the reader to how he believes that using animals for everything from steak to toothpaste is inhumane and crazy. In this essay I will argue Steiner’s ideas using the response letters that were sent to Steiner as well as my own personal views on the topic. Unlike Steiner, I believe that just because humans are mentally superior to every other animal on the planet, that doesn’t mean that we have to supress our primal instincts in oreder to feel better about ourselves. I believe predation is natural and that god gave us a stomach capable of processing meat and vegetation because that is what we need to live a full and healthy life, and i believe that if god considered murder of animals immoral he wouldnt have put so many predators on the planet.

The first refers to the rights of animals and human behavior that should be in advance to observe ethics, to ancient Greece. in total, the various views about the human being what should an approach be considered relative to the other beasts to the three main categories are divided: the perspective of lack of commitment , and" direct "pledge. At the sight of those who lack the moral obligation of human beings to believe having the device, do not have any legal beasts and humans can get it any way that they like, behavior.

In the early days of the United States, Jefferson laments to his friend Thomas Paine “many of the high and important characters are in need of learning the lessons of republicanism.” Jefferson encourages Paine to “Go on then in doing with your pen what in other times was done with the sword” (Jefferson). Echoing the adage “The pen is mightier than the sword”, this proverb is the basis of Bernays’ philosophy. When Bernays revolutionized public relations, he did so by operating on the mind. His legacy is prevalent to this day, as displayed by the seemingly limitless amounts of advertisements seen daily. Since it is intellectually lazy to fall victim to propaganda, adopting a practical philosophy such as Stoicism can serve to resist those who wish to manipulate.