Plato vs. Aristotle Essay Example for Free

Plato vs. Aristotle Essay Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphaels School of Athens (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms. Because he is so involved in metaphysics, his views on politics are more theoretical as opposed to actual. Aristotle, contrarily, holds the view that politics is the art of ruling and being ruled in turn. In The Politics, he attempts to outline a way of governing that would be ideal for an actual state. Balance is a main word in discussing Aristotle because he believes it is the necessary element to creating a stable government. His less metaphysical approach to politics makes Aristotle more in tune with the modern world, yet he is far from modern. Platos concept of what politics and government should be is a direct result of his belief in the theory of forms. The theory of forms basically states that there is a higher form for everything that exists in the world. Each material thing is simply a representation of the real thing which is the form. According to Plato, most people cannot see the forms, they only see their representation or their shadows, as in the simile of the cave. Only those who love knowledge and contemplate on the reality of things will achieve understanding of the forms. Philosophers, who by definition are knowledge lovers, are the only beings who can reach true knowledge. This concept has to be taken a step further because in The Republic, Plato states that philosophers should be the rulers since they are the only ones who hold the form of the good. Plato seems to be saying that it is not enough to know the forms of tables or trees, one must know the greatest formform of the goodin order to rule. The reasoning is: if you know the good, then you will do the good. Therefore, philosopher rulers are by far the most apt to rule. In The Republic, Plato builds around the idea of Philosopher Rulers. Even though it is not his primary point, it certainly is at the core of his discussion of the ideal state. The question that arises is, Why do you need ideal states which will have philosophers as rulers? There are many layers to the answer of this question. The first thing is that a state cannot be ideal without having philosophers as rulers. This answer leads to the question, Then why do you need ideal states to begin with? The Republic starts with a discussion of Justice which leads to the creation of the ideal state. The reason why an ideal state is needed is to guarantee the existence of Justice. This does not mean, though, that there cannot be states without Justice. Actually, Plato provides at least two reasons why the formation of a state cannot be avoided. These are: 1. human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2.each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of peoplea statesatisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can specialize on their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society. States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state. The main way to institutionalize rules is through government and in the form of laws. Platos The Republic is not an explication of laws of the people. It is a separation of power amongst three classesRulers, Auxiliaries, Commonersthat makes the most of each persons natural abilities and strives for the good of the community. The point is to create a harmonious unity amongst the three classes which will lead to the greater good of the community and, consequently, each individual. The three classes are a product of different aptitude levels for certain tasks amid various individuals. Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the forms. Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them. Providing food and abode for the Guardians is the only governmental responsibility the lower class has. The Auxiliaries are in charge of the military, police, and executive duties. Ruling and making laws is reserved for the Philosopher Rulers whose actions are all intended for the good of the state. To ensure that public good continues to be foremost on each Rulers agenda, the Rulers live in community housing, hold wives/children in common, and do not own private property. The separation of classes is understood by everybody Self-interest, which could be a negative factor in the scheme of things, is eliminated through a very moral oriented education system. All these provisions are generated to maintain unity of the state. The most extravagant precaution that Plato takes is the Foundation Myth of the metals. By making the people believe, through a myth, that the distinction of each class is biological as well as moral, Plato reassures that there wont be any disruption in the harmony of the state. Whereas Platos The Republic is a text whose goal is to define Justice and in doing so uses the polis, Aristotles The Politicss sole function is to define itselfdefine politics. Aristotle begins his text by answering the question: Why does the state exist? His answer is that the state is the culmination of natural associations that start with the joining of man and woman (pair), which have a family and form a household; households unite and form villages; villages unite and form the state. This natural order of events is what is best because it provides for the needs of all the individuals. Aristotle, like Plato, believes that a person is not self-reliant. This lack of sufficiency is the catalyst in the escalating order of unions among people. In The Politics, it appears that Aristotle is not very set on breaking down society. His argument says that there are different classes in society, but they are naturally defined. For example, he devotes a lot of time to an explanation of the naturalness of slaves and their role in society. Aristotle is also very sexist and explicitly states so. His view is that women are inferior to men in all senses. Perhaps the most pertaining to our discussion is the citizen, whose role is purely political. Both Plato and Aristotle seem to agree that some people are not capable of practicing an active role in political life. Platos reason is that the lower class is not mentally adept for the intricacies of higher knowledge on the good. Aristotle seems to base his opinion on a more political issue. He believes that only those that fully participate in their government should be considered citizens of the state. For this reason, he excludes workers as citizens because they would not have the required time to openly participate in politicking. The Aristotelian polis, as opposed to Platos, is a city with a large middle class which promotes stability and balances the conflicting claims of the poor and the rich. Aristotle combines elements of democracy with elements of aristocracy, again to balance opposing claims. Because he is aware that human interest is an inextricable entity, the distribution of scarce and valuable goods is in proportion to contribution to the good of the polis. This system provides for the self interested who believe that those who work harder should receive more. Another point is that the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, insofar as the mixed social system allows. This is permissible because of the strong involvement of the citizens in government; it is what one would call a true democracy. Overall, a spirit of moderation prevails. The philosophies of Aristotle and Plato have been around for over sixteen centuries, yet today it is difficult to find specific instances where either philosophy is applied. This may be a result of the fact that todays political philosophy differs from both philosophers. While Aristotle and Plato uphold the good of the community or state above individual good, todays constitution includes a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of each individual in the nation. Having these individual rights is a necessity for todays citizens. Going back in history to 1787 will show that one of the reasons there was controversy in the ratification of the constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. When the drafters promised that as soon as the constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights would be added, the doubting states proceeded to ratify it. According to Plato and Aristotle, a Bill of Rights is not necessary because it does not improve the good of the community. Another point of discrepancy between the philosophers and todays society involves the topic of slavery. Aristotle argues for the naturalness of slavery in The Politics, yet slavery has been considered grotesque for quite some time. In correlation to slavery, there is the undermining of the female population by Aristotle. Although Plato is a lot less discriminatory, he also believes women are the sub-species. While women have had to fight endless battles to achieve the recognition they deserve, today it is a well accepted fact (generally) that women are as capable as men in performing tasks. Naturally, since Aristotle and Plato have been around for such a long time, our society certainly contains some of their influences in a general sense. For example, today it is believed that certain people are born with certain capacities. Intelligence has been attributed to genetics. Because of the different intelligence levels among people, we have different classesfor example: advanced, intermediate, and beginners. In their appropriate level, each person develops his or her abilities to the highest potential. This concept is sometimes at odds with the ideal of equality, ie. we are all human beings. Yet, in essence, it does not take away from the ideal because we are all humans, but we differ in certain capacity levels to complete tasks. Platos and Aristotles philosophy have helped shape present thought, though, by no means, mandate our practices. The philosophers are very community oriented while we value the individual. Besides differing with todays standards, each philosopher is in his own way distinct. Plato is very attracted to metaphysical philosophy, while Aristotle is much more methodical. Both perspective views are and will continue to puzzle students for years to come.

The Future of Television and Technology :: Film Television Technology

With the development of digital technologies the future of television lies with Satellite or Cable Broadcasting. The era of Terrestrial Broadcasting is now over. In my life, I have only witnessed first hand, the effects of media and its development since about 1995, as this is the earliest I can remember. However, my huge interest in the subject has lead me to broaden my knowledge over the way media had developed in the 1980's and even earlier. I believe that what I have witnesses is in fact the most important time period in the media development timeline so far.

Emotion as Mediators Analytical Tool and Hurdle Essay

Emotion is often associated with feeling expressed in any situation at any given time an individual may encounter. â€Å"In psychology it signifies a reaction involving certain physiological changes, such as an accelerated or retarded pulse rate, the diminished or increased activities of certain glands, or a change in body temperature, which stimulate the individual, or some component part of his or her body, to further activity† (Microsoft ® Encarta ®, 2007). It is very peculiar for a person not to show any reaction to circumstances especially when provoked by another person he is in conflict with. In this light, the role of a mediator is very important in bridging the gap between parties in conflict to find a common ground that possibly move toward a resolution. This paper will discuss the vital role of emotion in conflicts. Considering that emotion is the center of creation and nature of conflict, the probability of managing conflicts may be influenced by emotion as well. The book Meditating Dangerously tells that â€Å"The ostensible purpose of mediation is to ameliorate danger, pacify hurt feelings, and create safe spaces within which dialogue can replace debate, where interest-based negotiation can substitute for a struggle for power† (p. 3). A challenge is laid on my table, to be able to answer how much emotion can only surface to make any progress in the case? How does a mediator controls his emotion over the case? Background of the study It was on 11th of April, 2008 when I first went solo as a mediator. Prior to my case was my friend Diego working on his case between a tenant demanding from her landlord. It was a messy case, but the point to me was how hard it was to manage the raucous lady. She kept screaming and interrupting the landlord and the mediator with her suffered pain with her grievance. It was to the point where we had a security coming in from other room to tell us to calm things down because there was a trial going in our adjacent room. Still she did not cooperate. Having to observe Diego went through a very hard time over his case with the uncontrollable lady and her landlord, the sense of trepidation that I felt had challenged me. I needed to manage my own case without having to go through the same traumatic experience. When my turn came, I had to face five ladies – three plaintiffs and two defendants. I laid out the general rule of explaining mediation as a voluntary process and the bound to confidentiality, etc. I wanted to make sure that my case will not go mishandled. Also, I wanted to assure myself and the parties involved that we are there to solve not a screaming spar like the previous case. During the debriefing with Professor Joshua Jack, he asked why did I say ‘respect’ and ‘no yelling’? By laying the ground rules in the beginning, did I hinder the parties’ true feelings to come out? Professor Jack gave further comments on my case: â€Å"Parties in conflict very often come into the mediation with strong senses of victimization, self righteousness, mistrust, and other negative judgments of one another. If a person thinks that the other is a liar and cheater both in this situation and generally, can they express this honest perspective and still be within the bounds of our rule? It is my view that, if we have any hope of facilitating any real transformation, we have to allow parties to express their true, even if ugly, perspectives. † If we tell people to be nice, they will sometimes accommodate us, but by squelching the expression of the true depth and magnitude of their experience and perception, we also squelch the potential for real transformation and resolution. † According to Bowling and Hoffman (2003), â€Å"The most direct and obvious impact that the mediator has on the mediation process comes from the techniques he or she uses to influence the course of negotiations. These interventions, based on the mediator’s assessment of the obstacles to settlement, might involve giving the parties an opportunity to vent emotional reactions to the dispute, encouraging the parties to focus on interests rather than positions, or helping the parties generate options for settlement† (p. 19). With all due respect to Professor Jack, I know he is a great and experienced mediator. However, as a new mediator, the first thing I want to do is to make sure I have the case in control with confidence. By saying respect, I gave the parties the notion that we are to discuss the dispute, and find a solution as educated people. With the said experience, Professor Jeanne Cleary gave her comments as well: â€Å"Tricky issue, how much control to start out with, based on past experience and with the understanding that the folks in front of you are new and not the past case. You will find your balanced style with this – between too much control that may stifle what’s really going on for them (which will most always include feelings) and too little control (which will be unproductive for folks to hear each other). Keep at developing your sense of that balance as you continue. † Emotional Intelligence as a Tool for Mediators It is not as strange as it may sound to mindfully express emotion with dignity still intact. Emotional intelligence, defined by Salovey and Mayer (1990) in their Ability Model as â€Å"the ability to identify, use, understand, and manage emotions† is very helpful for a mediator in handling mediation between two clashing parties to surface the emotion and be adept at bringing out the feelings from the parties while remaining impartial. Caruso and Salovey (2004) expounded this model as four key emotional skills in Table 1. In this manner, Goleman’s (1998) (as cited in Johnson, Levine, and Richard, 2003) definition of emotional intelligence (EQ) â€Å"as the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships† (p. 317) was able to strengthen the argument of emotional intelligence as a tool for mediators. According to Johnson et al. (2003), â€Å"Allowing emotion to emerge in a mediation, however requires a mediator with a high degree of emotional intelligence †¦ improving one’s emotional intelligence is an essential development path for mediators. As EQ improves, a mediator becomes more comfortable with his or her ability to manage an emotional process successfully† (p. 155). Johnson et al. (2003) were also sharp by saying the essence of developing emotional intelligence because â€Å"Absent the ability to deal with emotions, the true power of mediation is lost. Absent the ability to create space for parties to express difficult emotions, it is unlikely that any resolution reached will last† (p. 164).

The 11 Most Poisonous Animals