Aristotle Vs Kant

Throughout life, one might observe the different ways that people act. Even though every individual might have his or her own interpretation of the word ethics, it is commonly referred to as a set of morals for people to live by. Every individual has the choice to make ethical or unethical decisions when reacting to a situation. In William Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth, a noble Scottish general acts unethically when he makes the decision to kill his own king (Macbeth 54). The Count of Monte Cristo, written by Alexandre Dumas, contains many characters who decide to act unethically for a plethora of reasons. What most people forget when acting unethically are the consequences that are soon to follow.

Machiavelli and Socrates agree on very little. While an initial reading of the two may elicit some comparisons, the goals of their respective philosophies rely on different foundations, and would therefore culminate in very different political results for society. Socrates would likely see in the Prince a selfish ruler, while Machiavelli would see in Socrates a dangerous idealist whose ideas would lead to instability and the death of the state in which these ideas were implemented. Machiavelli’s philosophy of the Prince would not satisfy Socrates because instead of focusing on right action, the Prince is encouraged to put political expediency and self-preservation above all else. In addition, the type of political system that Machiavelli’s

What is the central difference between metaphysics as Kant conceives it, and metaphysics as Aristotle conceives it? Argue in support of one or the other view.

Kant vs. Betham, principles of utility and philosophy the rational and irrational. The understanding of the fundamental of nature, knowledge with the existence of reality and predominant or dominate that deals with principles of utility. The criteria of rational knowledge of principles – is the way of clarifying and prioritizing what is explained and interpreted through our actions, motive and consequence. This is a mixture of both reason and unreason; in addition, too reason and passions. Compared to a non-rational or irrational aspect of the human approach or temperament. Thus, this is a way of thinking and rationalizing what we establish around us. Principles of utility is a way of thinking what we obtain around ourselves as human beings.

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

Most importantly, similar to Spinoza before him, Nietzsche is a naturalist and a determinist. People are not favored over different creatures – rather, similar to them, we are a piece of "a causal web that contains the entire universe." Where different scholars talk about the opportunity of the human will, Nietzsche discloses to us that the will is neither free nor unfree, yet rather solid or frail. For Simon Blackburn he was the primary thinker to attempt to acclimatize Darwinism. Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals is an activity in 'creature brain research', considering (in Nietzsche's own particular words) "the physiology and developmental history of living beings and ideas." In various other focal works Nietzsche holds onto science as

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle both believe in the importance of the natural law and its significance in the way of life. Aquinas and natural law is based on humans and their choices. Aristotle focused on the way of nature and how human reason fits into it which is critical to explaining the world. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that law, specifically natural law, supports a virtuous reality that progresses individuals in order to become a better society through practicing wisdom actively. In Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas argues that the natural inclination and habit of humans is towards virtue or goodness. Some examples that object his philosophy on war is how God commands King Saul to kill or how God rejects the use of the sword to kill in The Bible. In this paper, I will discuss how Aquinas believes his natural law to be the standard with the help of the influence of Aristotle and his position on war and its formation while proposing objections to the arguments posed by the differing views of natural law from Aristotle and Aquinas.

To answer the question, I will be comparing Pericles’s, Aristotle’s and Socrates’s thoughts about whether to think ourselves as friends or as strangers. Pericles and Aristotle conceptualize political communities largely as associations of friends. Pericles believes that participation in democracy, is in a way allows Athenians to become great warriors, to develop friendship and to have communal beliefs. Friendship and community are integral to democracy. Pericles said, a man who is private has no business in Athens. The idea of Democracy is that citizens get the opportunities to participate in state affairs and help to make certain decisions. Athens is a democratic city, they give equal rights and opportunities to their citizens to participate in political matters and let their citizens’ voice be heard. If you are Athenian citizen, you are very lucky individuals. Socrates on the other hand, conceptualizes political communities largely as associations of strangers. Socrates believes that it is better to think about ourselves as strangers than friends. Socrates likes his

Agree or disagree with the statement, “there is no objective right and wrong because people never agree about what is right and wrong”.

Aristotle is not a sort of Plato’s sort, but the philosophical ideas cannot be ignored. There is a belief in God in Aristotle. He consider god as creator of everything and this show a spiritual outlook of him. According to him every phenomenon has two aspects- form and matter. Aristotle gives significances to what constitutes matter whereas Plato believes in everything that what is visible is the shadow of the form. Aristotle also believes that man’s soul has two parts- logical and illogical and through ethical virtues, man attains rationality, the logical part of the soul. If in his Ethics, Aristotle discusses he nature if individual happiness in the Politics he treats of the state as one of the chief aims through which individual attains

For people who supported the idea, they argue that it is better to rape a robot than rape real people. People with such idea are irresponsible for their words. Rape is considered as a violence crime. By providing them the sex robot, we encouraged them to have an alternative and motivate

Aristotle also believed that when a man is perfected is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is worst of all. Without law and justice is the worst of all animals. According to Aristotle animals are the social or individualistic animals like big cats love together, but that is confined only to their pride consisting of the male, the female and their clubs. Social animals though not applicable to al, have a single common activity that unites them and that is the reason why human beings orbit towards the state. Law is the breath of the state and the court of justice are the lungs and nostrils. State according to Aristotle is not a mere society of exchange of goods and prevention of crime, but the one that ensures a

The aim of this essay is to summarize, interpret, and compare the understanding of prac- tical reason and practical deliberation in the works of Aristotle and Kant. Although traditionally seen as polar opposites, there is a substantial overlap in both philosopher’s conclusions about practical deliberation and principles of actions, which make for different understanding, assu- ming the interpretations seen so far (i.e. dealing away with a stringent understanding of Kant as a rule-moralist). The essay will follow first an understanding of practical reason for Aristotle, fol- lowed by an interpretation of practical deliberation. Second, there will be an analysis of Kant’s concept of reason, and its categories, which is later complemented by

These philosophers were known as Socrates and Aristotle. Socrates questioned reality in several forms. He questioned the difference between what is just versus unjust and whether an action is considered to be pious or impious. On the other hand, Aristotle believed everything in reality is consisted of a substance. This resulted in Aristotle's discovery of the five senses. All life is depicted of an opinionated perspective, in which we justify what is real and unreal, true or false, or as Socrates states: what is pious or impious? Truth, conscious, and faith make idealism the most suitable form of reality.

In his literature Socrates has a meaning behind forms. They are also called Platonic Forms, and these are abstracts that are the entities that have been existing self-sufficiently of the sensible world. Actually, they are the ordinary objects that are thought to be imperfect and changeable; nonetheless they faintly copy the perfect and unchallengeable Forms. Therefore, all of the information that have been acquire about the sensible objects (like recognizing what the high and low temperatures were on the day before) is temporary, unimportant, and untrustworthy, while genuine familiarity of the Forms themselves (like knowing that 93 - 67 = 26) perfectly definite persistently.