Saturday, February 29, 2020
The virtuous person always exhibits an affectation in the appropriate amount. -for ex. Truthfulness: virtue regarding telling the truth about oneself? Defect: self-depreciating Excess: phony omnipotence- all power and unlimited power Ã¢â¬ ¢Distinguish goods that are, according to Aristotle, valued for the sake of other things, valued for their own sake, and valued for their own sake and for the sake of other things you want some things that gets you other stuff. or example money so its a sake for other things. valued for own sake-having a yacht gives you pleasure but then enjoying it with more friends and travel the world and give you more pleasure. the one good. happiness is the one thing that every one wants and is valued for its own sake. That which is valued only for its own sake and for whose sake everything else is desired Ã¢â¬ ¢That which is valued for its own sake and for the sake of other things Ã¢â¬ ¢That which is valued only for the sake of other things Discuss why Aristotle rejects conventional views that identify happiness with pleasure, honor, and virtue, and what he thinks this tells us about the nature of happiness Aristotle rejects three common conceptions of happinessÃ¢â¬âpleasure, honor, and wealth. Happiness, he says, cannot be identified with any of these things (even though all three may be part of an overall happy life). Pleasure, he says, is found in satisfying desiresÃ¢â¬âbut whether or not we can satisfy our desires is as much up to chance as it is up to us. Ã¢â¬ ¢The life of pleasure. Problem: the life fit for a pig Ã¢â¬ ¢The life of honor. Problem: not under our control Ã¢â¬ ¢The life of virtue. Problem: compatible with inaction Ã¢â¬ ¢Distinguish between psychological, somatic, and external goods, explaining how they contribute to AristotleÃ¢â¬â¢s conception of happiness External goods- attractiveness, wealth.. Psychological Goods- mental health.. Somatic goods- Ã¢â¬Å"Nonetheless, happiness evidently needs external goods to be added, as we said, since we cannot, or cannot easily, do fine actions if we lack the resources. For, first of all, in many actions we use friends, wealth, and political power just as we use instruments. Further, deprivation of certain things Ã¢â¬âfor instance, good birth, good children, beautyÃ¢â¬â mars our blessedness. For we do not altogether have the character of happiness if we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary, or childless; and we have it even less, presumably, if our children or friends are totally bad, or were good but have died Ã¢â¬ ¢Discuss the roles of habituation and right reason in AristotleÃ¢â¬â¢s analysis of virtuous action function of human beings is knowledge and it what eparates from animals. virtuous action is what a rational person who acts for the right reason. but you also have to feel the correct emotions and feelings to do virtuous actions and be properly affected which means that you find the right things pleasant. and wants to do the right thing. so if you dont feel like you want to give money to homeless and still give it it do es not count as a virtous thing. the teachers ice cream technique- dont want to do it but do it for ice cream but over time the kids want to do it because it is the virtuous thing to do. Identify and describe AristotleÃ¢â¬â¢s three requirements for friendship and his three different kinds of friendship Pleasure-friendships- Most common among theyoung, fades easily utility-friendships,- most common among the old and also fades easily. character-friendships- You love a person because of the good qualities she or he possesses. genuine friendship. Ã¢â¬ ¢Explain what Aristotle means when he claims that friends are Ã¢â¬Å"second selvesÃ¢â¬ Ã¢â¬Å"A friend is a second self, so that our consciousness of a friends existence makes us more fully conscious of our own existence. and Friendly relations with oneÃ¢â¬â¢s neighbors, and the marks by which friendships are defined, seem to have proceeded from a manÃ¢â¬â¢s relation with himself. For men think a friend is one who wishes well and does what is good, or seems so, for the sake of his friend, or one who wishes his friend to exist and live, for his sakeÃ¢â¬ Ã¢â¬ ¢Explain why Aquinas thinks GodÃ¢â¬â¢s existence is self-evident, why it nonetheless may not be evident to us, and how Aquinas thinks GodÃ¢â¬â¢s existence can be made evident Not every human realizes the existence of god. Ã¢â¬ ¢Examples of self-evident propositions: A pig is an animal; a bachelor is an unmarried male Ã¢â¬ ¢Being self-evident in itself versus self-evident to us Ã¢â¬ ¢Aquinas: Ã¢â¬Å"I maintain that God exists is self-evident in itself since its subject and predicate are identicalÃ¢â¬ ¦[but] the proposition is not self-evident to usÃ¢â¬ (197). Ã¢â¬ ¢Question 02: can GodÃ¢â¬â¢s existence be made evident? Ã¢â¬ ¢Perhaps GodÃ¢â¬â¢s existence is an article of faith, not of reason Ã¢â¬ ¢Ã¢â¬Å"There are two types of demonstration: those that argue from cause to effectÃ¢â¬ ¦and those that argue from effect to causeÃ¢â¬ (198). Ã¢â¬ ¢Hitting a pool ball, pressing the Ã¢â¬ËonÃ¢â¬â¢ button, hand on the stove So, from what effects do we infer GodÃ¢â¬â¢s existence? Ã¢â¬ ¢GodÃ¢â¬â¢s effects in the world, Mozart and his music Ã¢â¬ ¢Understand AquinasÃ¢â¬â¢ Ã¢â¬Ëunmoved moverÃ¢â¬â¢ and Ã¢â¬ËteleologicalÃ¢â¬â¢ arguments for the existence of God and articulate at least one objection to each Argument one of five : the unmoved mover (200). Everything has a cause, but causes canÃ¢â¬â¢t go on infinitely. The first uncaused cause is God. Objections: why must it be God? Maybe time is infinite? Telos: the end toward which a thing strives. Everything in nature has a telos. If a thing is non-intelligent, some intelligence must give it its telos. Objection: nature is not telonic in this way Ã¢â¬ ¢Discuss why the question Ã¢â¬Ëcan God create a stone that God cannot lift? Ã¢â¬â¢ is said to be paradoxical and how Aquinas tries to resolve the paradox Ã¢â¬ ¢The paradox of omnipotence: can God create a stone he cannot lift? Ã¢â¬ ¢If God can, there is something God cannot do, i. e. , lift the stone Ã¢â¬ ¢If God cannot, there is something God cannot do, i. e. , create the stone Ã¢â¬ ¢If there is something God cannot do, God is not omnipotent Ã¢â¬ ¢Therefore, God is not omnipotent Ã¢â¬ ¢Ã¢â¬Å"So we conclude that GodÃ¢â¬â¢s power extends to anything possible in itself and not implying contradiction. Clearly then God is called omnipotent because he can do everything possible in itself. Ã¢â¬ (p. 249). because if god cannot lift the the stone he created, he is not omintipitent and also if he cannot create that he cannot lift therefore he is not omnipotent so either way god is not omnipotent so aquinas says that god creates certain laws in the universe that he himself cannot break which is considered absolute possibility and relativee possibility is what he can change. Ã¢â¬ ¢Explain what Aquinas means when he claims evil does not exist because evil does not exit because evil is absence of happiness Understand the weak and strong versions of the problem of evil and discuss AquinasÃ¢â¬â¢ solution to the problem Strong version of the problem Ã¢â¬ ¢If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist Ã¢â¬ ¢Evil exists Ã¢â¬ ¢ Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God does not exist Weak version of the problem Ã¢â¬ ¢Evil exists Ã¢â¬ ¢The non-existence of God is a more plausible explanation of evil than is the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God Ã¢â¬ ¢Therefore, itÃ¢â¬â¢s more plausible that God does not exist If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist AquinasÃ¢â¬â¢ answer to the problem of evil Ã¢â¬ ¢Why is there evil and sin in thet world? Ã¢â¬ ¢Evil is the necessary result of freedom of the will Ã¢â¬ ¢Thus, God does not command sin, God permits sin Ã¢â¬ ¢Does God cause evil and sin? Ã¢â¬ ¢Ã¢â¬Å"God is responsible for sinful actions but not for sinsÃ¢â¬ 296 Ã¢â¬ ¢Distinguish AquinasÃ¢â¬â¢ conceptions of eternal, natural, and human law Ã¢â¬ ¢Human law Ã¢â¬ ¢ Quoting Cicero: Ã¢â¬Å"laws start with what nature produces, then by use of reason certain things become customs, and finally things produced by nature and tested by custom are sanctified withÃ¢â¬ ¦the weight of lawsÃ¢â¬ (420). Eternal law Ã¢â¬ ¢God as divine legislator: Ã¢â¬Å"ClearlyÃ¢â¬ ¦the entire community of the universe is governed by GodÃ¢â¬â¢s reasonÃ¢â¬ (417). Ã¢â¬ ¢Divine providence: ordering of the universe toward good Ã¢â¬ ¢Natural law Ã¢â¬ ¢Non-moral sense: laws of nature. Ã¢â¬ ¢Moral sense: guides the actions of animals Ã¢â¬ ¢Ã¢â¬Å"Since everything subjected to GodÃ¢â¬â¢s providence is measured by the standards of his eternal law, as we have said, everything shares in some way in the eternal law, bearing its imprint in the form of a natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals appropriate to it. Reasoning creatures are subject to GodÃ¢â¬â¢s providence is a special, more profound way than others by themselves sharing in the planningÃ¢â¬ (418). Eternal law is identical to the mind of God as seen by God himself. It can be called law because God stands to the universe which he creates as a ruler does to a community which he rules. When Gods reason is considered as it is understood by God.
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Two pantings from the getty museum - Essay Example Both paintings are approximately from the same time period, with about 20 years difference between each other, both are allegorical, and both make an open and manifest reference to fields of knowledge through the humanization of concepts, personifying mentations. But there the similarities end. Van Mieris' diminutive Pictura is an oil-on-copper that displays a frequent simplicity in tandem with a minute attention to detail (see Getty Museum), typical of the Dutch art from the period, as well as the pearlescent finish in general achieved by using copper as a medium. It is a tiny portrait (5" x 3 ") of a young girl (Pictura, the art of painting in human form) who has an unobtrusive aura about her, whether worked in by Van Mieris or inherent to her nature, we will never know. In the crook of her left arm she holds a small figure, a white sculpture of a nude man that looks very Greco-Roman in its workmanship, possibly alluding to the rediscovery of classical antiquity -that is, an idealized vision of Greek and Roman culture- as a major factor for explaining the origin of the Renaissance (see "Classical"). Also in her left hand she holds a palette and some brushes. Her right hand is poised on a necklace from which a large mask pendant hangs.
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Court cases - Essay Example Frye v United States ruled on in 1933. In this case, Frye was convicted of 2nd degree murder. Attorneys for the defendant proposed an expert witness to testify as to results he discovered using a Ã¢â¬Ëdeception testÃ¢â¬â¢, which is similar to modern day lie detector tests. The expert witness elaborated on how blood pressure is monitored by this device. The expert felt that scientific experiments showed that negative emotions, such as fear or anger, produces a rise in blood pressure. The expert then deduced that the same would occur for someone who is lying, since there would be a fear of detection of the lie. It was further reasoned that speaking truth would be natural, and so no emotion such as guilt or fear would enter the picture, and hence no rise in blood pressure. (FRYE V UNITED STATES) The Supreme Court ruled that there is a difference between (1) expert testimony gained through training and lengthy work experience in the field versus (2) expert testimony that is based on experimental research that has not yet gained solid scientific backing in the science community at large. As a result, the proposed testimony of the expert was not upheld as admissible evidence (FRYE V UNITED STATES). The Ã¢â¬ËFrye StandardÃ¢â¬â¢ thus became a well known basis for future court cases to allow scientific techniques as admissible evidence only if it is already Ã¢â¬Ëgenerally acceptedÃ¢â¬â¢ in the relevant scientific community. The second case is Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (DAUBERT V MERRELL DOW PHARMACEUTICALS, INC) Daubert was a 1993 product liability case where the Supreme Court had to determine what type of scientific evidence is admissible in court. Daubert sued Merrell Dow due to birth defects that occurred in two of their children. The mother was taking the drug Bendectin, which was manufactured by Merrill Dow. Science did not provide a direct link between the drug and any birth defects. Statistical data was proposed as an alternate solution, but