Sophists’ Philosophical Contributions Essay Example for Free

Sophists’ Philosophical Contributions Essay It is often a debate in philosophy which was the truth or the sham or if there exists such as natural or divine but nowadays many seem to not care for life can get along even without knowing the philosophy behind these. Philosophers by then are very concerned and intrigued on the searching for and on classifying things whether it is a knowledge or an opinion or a truth or mere interpretations. Some could find this debate unnecessary but for epistemological sakes it is important to tackle this one fundamental of philosophy. The glory that was Greece† is accompanied by a picture of a flourishing civilization: in education, economy, social and political aspects. There were paradigm shifts that are deeply rooted from the historical bloom of democracy in Athens. In this form of government, Athenians have Council of aristocrats who will suggest laws and measures but the Assembly of free men has the power to veto them. There are many city-states by then but Athens managed to be the center of power or the capital of Greece because they lead to the abandonment of the Persians in Greek lands. It was by the cleverness of Themistocles to not follow what the Oracle of Delphi suggested on which strategy to do to defeat the Persians. After they, together with the Spartans, have won the war, Athens became a sea power which gave their citizens a chance later on to do trade and merchandising. Then the Athenian life commenced to flourish in all the aspects of being the prime and respected city-state of Greece (Melchert 17). The rise of intellectuals enticed many Athenians to pursue education so the demand for teachers also rose. Sophists are teacher travelers who move from a place to the other according to where the education demand is. They charge money for their service thus most of their pupils are of middle-class or of the rich and they claim to teach excellence by training them how to master their own affairs, to manage their household, and to be a leader. In short, Sophistical education aims in molding a pupil into a better man and a great leader of society who will be an expert in public relations and politics. Though Sophists have no one doctrine, all of them teach ‘rhetoric which is the principle and practice of persuasive speaking which is seen by the Sophists essential to a man who wishes to be a better man and a public icon or leader. It teaches the students that if there are two sides on the issue, a skilled rhetorician should be able to explore and present both sides of the argument, from which, one can choose which side to defend. In modern debate this mechanics would work for a debater to foresee what his or her opponent will say and with this, the chance of winning an argument is large. It is therefore, winning an argumentative debate depends heavily on the rhetorical skills of a person, whether or not he is saying the truth or whether or not he is after the truth. Sophists do not believe into what philosophers like Heraclitus is asserting for they say that there is no one logos (what could be said) or nothing is ‘common to all. ’ That all things, as they agree with Democritus, depend on what man considers to be true, real, and essential, thus all a man could have is opinion – not knowledge, not truth. They suggest that human beings are confined on our senses and truth is beyond us, beyond the capability of the senses. Man can only infer from what he senses and the information can only ‘represent some probabilities’ of what is real and true so the best man can only attain are inexact certainties, all beyond are not to be talked about (Melchert 42-44). From here it is proven that Sophists are somehow like Democritus: empiricists. Sophists’ relativism point of view is best summarized in the famous line of Protagoras: Of all the measure is man: of all existing things, that they exist, of non-existing things, that they do not exist (DK S0 B 1, IEGP, 245). Since it is impossible for human to go beyond what we sense, man is the measure or the ‘final judge’ of how things are. This means that man is the standard of all things so what may be true to me can be false to you and then we stop arguing for neither of us is true nor false. With this, knowledge could not be distinguished from opinion so the ‘majority’ chooses the best opinion to which they are going to agree or convene with. Sophists’ relativism put a stress on the difference of physis (nature of things in general) and nomos (things that are according to how human beings decided what they should be so). Nomos in short is the relativist view which again tells us that whichever is which does not give us a hint of it is right or wrong. Of course the world would be in chaos if people are to go on to whichever way they would want thus laws are made to have a social arrangement. But who will provide or say what the best settlement is? What Sophists are trying to inject in Athenians’ minds in this point is that if you are an excellent rhetorician, you can win the hearts of the many and thus convince the majority. It is not of concern whether the laws made are just or not because whatever the majority says so (as what is appealing or seeming to be just for them) wins. Example, death penalty can be just to the Arabian countries but not in some Christian countries. This is supported as well by the persistent amendments and additional ratifications in the constitutions of countries; laws change according to the changing need of present society. Therefore, as Sophists claim, it is the nomos or customs which dictates all (Melchert 44-47). Plato, on the other hand is concerned on the nature and clarification of concepts such as right and justice however he always left his argumentation open (Hummel 3). He designed a utopian Republic for Plato; the world of ideas is permanent and more ‘real’ than the world of facts because facts are in constant flux. The object therefore of Platonic education is not a know-how but a moral and political discipline for the real aim of education is not personal growth but for the service of state. Plato despised the Sophistical education by accusing them of being magicians who ‘shadow play on words’ (Hummel 8). Plato, like his Socrates, believes that truth and reality is already there when we were born, it is just that we need to ‘recollect’ them. It is reflected on his Republic that the power of the state should not be on the masses but rather to one philosopher-king, who is almost perfect and god-like to save Athens from degeneration that Sophists started. This leader is capable of distinguishing the truth; what is ethical and just (Kreis Greek Thought). But how would the people know who is the wisest among the citizens? This suggestion seems to have a loophole because if not all citizens are educated, then masses could still fall on the hands of the best speaker, the best in the art of controlling the masses. Plato, in his talk to Gorgias, said that majority system is lame for the rules they agree upon is according to the personal interests of the strongest. He suggested that like Xerxes, people should always act according to the natural law even though it is different with the man-made laws. Plato also insisted that we must first look at nature to find evidences on classifying right or wrong and eventually only after this, we could say what justice is. It seems that Plato is undeniably ideal for he is convinced that truth and reality (which lies on nature) are hard to recollect but he suggest never to stop and to settle on the foolish agreements of man-made laws. If this is the case, then it seems that he is suggesting that before we make laws, know nature first, but this is hard (as he admitted) or almost impossible (like Sophists said). It could be summed up here that man-made laws are temporarily there and it they should undergo certain revisions and amendments according to how far human race conceive what is nature. Again, who will say that man-made laws should be amended? Plato will say that it must be the wisest and Sophists say it must be the people (whoever leader they believe and follow in). Overall, it is the strongest and wisest that will control and reign thus people must consider, as Plato suggests, the one with ‘true’ morality. Aristotle continued the defiance of Plato against the Sophists but has a different method of approach. He did not believe that man is already pre-imposed with knowledge for man acquires knowledge solely on experience. From here, we can see the essence and continuing influence of those two famous Western philosophical knowledge traditions – rationalism and empiricism. The earlier tradition states that knowledge is a priori (exists before experience) and the latter states that it is a posteriori (exists after experience) (Kreis Greek Thought). Being a scientist rather than a mathematician, Aristotle is an empiricist but his line of philosophy does not follow that of the Sophists. He explained that there is nothing beyond time and space thus all knowledge and truth is confined here, only within the universe. It is not man who naturally has the knowledge as Plato insists but it is the universe which has, and that experience is needed by man to collect them. In empirical or existing things, we can derive abstract thoughts i. e. different skin colors could make man think that there could be inequality. In Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction, he states that X can not be both Y and non-Y can not also be X (Plato cont. ). This gives us a hint on his refutations on the reasoning of Sophists because Sophists claim that it is acceptable to choose either ways (relativism). It can be seen here that Aristotle’s logic was not observed by the Sophists for X is absolute and Y as well so there must be no blurred or mixed distinctions. It seems that Aristotle is saying that what is right is right, a wrong cold never be right. It came down that all the accusations of Aristotle and Plato on Sophists deteriorating the education and the morals of the citizens (thus affecting the justice views) are true but their wide and long acceptance means that Sophists say something that Plato and Aristotle failed to refute fully. It is still a continuous search whether what we believe to be just today is really just or we may stay not to care for nature at all and go for the majority. Plato and Aristotle give us their ‘ideal’ holistic view on the true nature of abstract thoughts such as justice. Though different in approaches, with Aristotle appearing like integrating the empiricist and rational disposition, both still help in giving us exercises or hints on how to think and re-examine life for us to be a more ‘human’ as all philosophers want human to be.

The Feminist Movement Essay -- Gender Roles, New Women

The changes that occurred in gender relations at the turn of the twentieth century were a factor in the emergence of modernism. The first wave of the Feminist Movement began during this period with the New Woman as its protagonist. The New Woman was a figure that was independent, relatively sexually liberated and educated. Many women no longer lived their lives according to the Victorian ideal required for them and it became more acceptable for women to be seen unaccompanied outdoors and working in certain types of employment. The new woman was perceived as being a treat to men and after the First World War the independence that women enjoyed received a repercussion as women were once again put inside the home and were and were marginalised in the streets. In Jean Rhys Good Morning Midnight and Stella Gibbons Cold Comfort Farm are examples of women new women who were marginalised as well as women, who although lived in the modern embraced both new and old gendered traditions. Discussion of modernity tended to focus on the city and opportunities for adventure and danger or pleasure which the metropolis offered to women. As women became more mobile from the nineteenth century onwards, their presence in the metropolis consisted of shopping expeditions or city outings. (Parkins 2001, p77) In Good Morning Midnight, Jean Rhys explores a claustrophobic kind of exile in the character of Sasha Jansen who has been send back to Paris at the expense of a friend as an alternative to her alcoholic amnesia in London. Sasha wanders through Paris aimlessly, the site of the dissolution of her marriage and death of her son, trying half heartedly to re-establish her life. Sasha is at a literal and emotional impasse at the beginning of the novel. ... ...ve her room by enticing her out of the Victorian world she lives in, into the Modern world by use of modern magazines offering new things. Aunt Ada emerges from her room dressed in leather clothing ready to travel by aeroplane to Paris. (Gibbons 2006, p 220) Although most of the characters problems are resolved by the traditional method of marriage, Cold Comfort Farm is not a reactionary novel in that it seeks to present marriage as the best or most suitable outcome for a young woman. Flora, at the end of the novel jets off to be married to her cousin Charles. Traditionally marriage was considered as being the most suitable outcome for a young woman. Instead, the author positions within the novel â€Å"contemporary debates concerning the nature of marriage and alerts the reader to the social constructions of femininity in the 1930’s. (Horner & Zlosnik 2002, p 170).

Social Philosophy Has Its Place in Social Work Practice

Social work as a discipline concentrates on theoretical and philosophical positions such as social justice, equality, and empowerment and these may be described as â€Å"philosophies of social work†. (Mackie, 2007) Historically during social works early years, moral concerns laid the foundations for the development of social work and the principal values of the profession, with particular emphasis on the significance of individual worth and dignity and service to humanity (Bisman, 2004).Many of our contemporary professional social work values and ethics have been constructed on the basis of Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies and although mutually they are considered as alternatives; both theories of are based on the assumption of the human being as a freely acting individual and indeed the philosophies share and hold the following approaches: †¢ The moral value of individual persons as autonomous rational beings; †¢ The universality of values and principles; †¢ The possibility of deducing moral ‘laws’ through rational reflection; †¢ The goal of individual liberty; freedom and emancipation and in the just ordering of a society.Human rights and social justice are clearly draw from Kantian and Utilitarian social philosophies and today are regarded as fundamental principals in the practice of social work (Banks 2001). In this paper the author will consider what social philosophy is and what effect if any it has on social work practice in 2011/2012. Political philosophy is influenced by social philosophy which in turn has an impact on the work has carried out by social workers ‘a rigid demarcation between political and social philosophy is impossible, and social philosophers, have influenced recent political philosophy.Social philosophy also deals with philosophical issues relating to institutions such as the family, religion and education. (Bunmin, 2004) Philosophers observed that the development of human behaviour wa s shaped by their social environment and mainly competitive in nature. From these philosophical origins collectivism grew into what we now know as collectivistic or socialist theories Kantian deontological ethics is a principle-based ethics wherein reason is central. Reasons motivate or predispose action. Gray, 2010)Kant’s ethical theory is grounded in the respect owed to individuals because they are rational moral agents. As social workers we work with service users to determine ‘what is the right thing to do’. Reasons are seen as more reliable when making moral judgements than emotions. This is not to say that Kant overlooks the importance of emotions, merely that they do not give the moral agent reason for action. Moral motives are attached to moral principles that lead people to do the right thing. (Gray, 2010) Autonomy and freedom are two absolute values for Kant.He believed that since people were rational beings, they had the ability to create universal law s and follow them. Furthermore, people were self-regulated by their own rules/laws because they were free to determine for themselves without laws imposed by others. Thus, the two notions of autonomy and freedom were identical in Kantian theory and interdependently connected (RHODES, 1986). In contrast with other theories on ethics, such as hedonism and utilitarianism, Kant believed that the purpose of ethics was not to teach people to reach for their personal happiness.On the contrary, ethical living for Kant was achieved at the cost of our urges and instincts. However it is necessary for individuals to be aware of their own personal needs and wills. Concerning social work ethics, the Kantian ethic of self-determination is one of the most important ethical commitments of the social work profession. Social workers are educated to intervene in human lives in a way that their actions preserve the right of all humans to determine for themselves.Self-determination is a fundamental value that entails us as social workers to respect the person and encourage the person to act for themselves(Parrott, 2008). Based on the dual focus of the Kantian theory in autonomy and freedom, the ethic of self-determination reflects a belief that everyone is a rational being who can decide on their own about what is good or bad. Therefore, a rational being can also understand the meaning of punishment when their actions infringe on the freedom and the autonomy of others (Clark, 2000).Furthermore, social workers are also committed to act with respect for one’s dignity, and this also demonstrates Kantian thinking and its absolute ethical obligation to see every person as an end and not as a means (Rhodes, 1986). However social workers need to be conscious, that self-determination in practice may be unclear and can be seen as ‘professional ideology—an inter-related set of values and ideas. The concept is derived from a number of ideas and values outside social work, but it appears to have little direct relevance to social work in practice. (SPICKER, 1990) Kant’s principle of respect for persons, which is very relevant for current social work is as an end in itself, and is tied to his view of individuals as rational beings with autonomy and the capacity to exercise choice (Gray, 2000). It is this condition of human agency that sets the object of moral requirement in place and places limitations on our actions. It is precisely this view of the individual that social work adopts. It leads to attention being paid to responsibility as the flipside of duty or obligation and to ethical decision making as a rational activity.The classic utilitarian’s believe that the ultimate good is something that most people actually desire, such as happiness or pleasure. Specifically, the doctrine of ethical hedonism and most of the modern utilitarian’s take pleasure as the ultimate goal to which we should aim. In its simplest form, utilitariani sm states that in any situation where there is a moral choice, which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people or the least harm to the world as a whole.Therefore, everyone ought to obey the laws that ensure the balance between the good for the individual and for the society as a whole (Rhodes, 1986; Clark, 2000) However focusing on a utilitarian outlook loses sight of the individual and their values and the riots that took place in England over the summer highlights this. The government â€Å"blamed a â€Å"broken society† for the wave of rioting and looting that spread through London http://www. guardian. co. k/social-care-network/2011/dec/09/live-reading-the-riots-social-careand there was a loud national outcry to deal robustly with the people that that took part in the riots and to give them sanctions like i. e. eviction from social housing, loss of state benefits, jail sentences However there were no considerations made for individual s and rhetoric like ‘social fight back’ gave such a combative position from the government. The summer riots emphasised the need for social workers to adhere to the GSCC codes of practice and to hold fast to ethics and values that under pin the discipline in the face of the moral panic.As emphasised by Theresa May’s and David Cameron recent speeches â€Å"The riots weren't about protests, unemployment, cuts,† she said. â€Å"The riots weren't about the future, about tomorrow. They were about today. They were about now. They were about instant gratification. Because all the riots really come down to was money. † â€Å"Parts of the state and its agencies had become demoralised from a moral collapse that has seen children without fathers and alienated, angry young people. The riots were not about race or poverty, but about behaviour and moral breakdown and people without proper boundaries. http://www. guardian. co. uk/social-care-network/2011/dec/09/l ive-reading-the-riots-social-care This highlights the challenge that social workers face in contemporary social work, as ‘agents of the state’ how do we work with these service users and empower them to make their own decisions when the current government belittles their frustrations and dismisses the inequalities that they experience on a day to day basis and ignore their feelings of powerlessness, voicelessness and under-representation.The government outlook does not take into consideration the evidence which suggests that rioters were generally poorer than the country at large. Analysis of more than a 1,000 court records suggests 59% of the England rioters come from 20% of the most deprived areas of the UK. Other analysis carried out by the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice on young riot defendants found that 64% came from the poorest fifth of areas and only 3% from the richest.This viewpoint makes it difficult for service users to not regard socia l workers with an air of suspicion ‘social workers have always been viewed by some people, on the far left of the political spectrum, as part of the social problem because they are agents of the state. This perspective sees social workers’ role as a sop for the poor and the marginalised by a brutal capitalist system. (Okitikpi, 2011) Although this may be difficult for some service users, ultimately as part of their code from The British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2002): â€Å"social workers have a duty to†¦ ring to the attention of those in power and the general public, and where appropriate challenge ways in which the policies or activities of government, organisations or society create or contribute to structural disadvantages, hardship and suffering or militate against their relief (BASW, 2002, Section 3. 2. 2. 2. a. ). This a code that social workers adhere to as many social workers were initially motivated to join the profession by their desire to w ork for social justice and to have direct helping relationships. Cree, 2007)study reinforces the point that practitioners see their role as being that of an enabler and facilitator working alongside people. The entrenchment of user-involvement in all areas of the profession has also done much to reinforce practitioners’ perception of the centrality of the caring aspects of their role. A greater emphasis should be placed on social workers to practice feminist ethics ‘feminist ethics of care attempts to provide a more complete view of morality and ethics in social work of care’ (Gray, 2010).This eschews more abstract ethical perspectives and requires social workers to look at themselves and their capacities for empathy, courage and compassion. Virtue theory insists that it’s misguided to expect reason to be able to establish some infallible moral doctrine which is compulsory and often counter to human nature and emotions. Perhaps morality is not about confor ming to rules, but more about being trained to see problematic situations in a moral way. Morality may not be the rational control of the emotions but, more appropriately, the cultivation of desirable emotions (Phoca, 1999). Hugman, 2005)argues there is a growing interest in placing emotions at the heart of ethics. The helping relationship is one where the emotional content is often silent in the discussion of ethics. Feminists regard this approach as reductive in its presumptions about the overriding importance of duties and obligations, and rules and principles in moral behaviour. This implies that social workers keep clients’ confidence, for example, merely because it is their duty to do so. For feminists, there is much more to morality than this we keep confidentiality because we care about our clients. Gray, 2010) Social workers are bound by the GSCC codes of practice; there is an obligation to have regard for inequalities within society and to consider the many forms of discrimination service user’s encounter on a regular basis. Discrimination is explained by Thompson (2007); he describes discrimination with the use of his Personal, Cultural and Structural (PCS) model; the Personal refers to the psychological characteristics of discrimination and how such personal experiences impact upon our attitudes; Cultural makes reference to perceived societal norms – our shared socially

Political and Emotional Dictatorship within Junot Diazs...

Political and Emotional Dictatorship within Junot Diazs Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao Works Cited Missing Junot Dà ­az published his first novel and second book The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao in 2006, forty-five years after the 1930-1961 rule of Trujillo over the Dominican Republic collapsed. Thats the central theme of the novel: dictatorship. It concerns not only political, man-over-man, Trujillo-brutal dictatorship (though that is a haunting image throughout), but also psychological despots: the dictatorship of fear, of orphanage, of blighted love, of displacement, of cancer, of nerdiness, of ostracization, of obesity, of unrequited love, of male sexual hunger (both under- and over-supplemented), and, above all, of†¦show more content†¦Thus, for practical as well as literary reasons, Dà ­az focuses on the psychological and emotional despots stemming from one political dictatorship?that of Trujillo . But Dà ­az, again, is disciplined: He structures the plights of the Cabral-Wao lineage as the history of fukà º: Fukà º began with Colombuss step onto the sand of the We st Indies and, as a V, expanded to the crushing poverty and political unrest abounding in Latin America today, the plights of the Cabral-Wao lineage began with Trujillo and expanded with each generation, culminating in the doomed-to-sorrow, dictatorship-riddled life of Oscar Wao. Because of this structure, it suits to begin with the earliest generation chronicled: thus, Oscar Waos grandfather, Abelard Luis Cabral. Abelard is a member of the Fortunate People(213)?read wealthy people?which of course means not much dictatorship affected his life before Trujillo, but Trujillo, remember, is the beginning of the Cabral-Wao V. When the brutal Trujillo seizes power, however, Abelard must maintain the outward appearance of the enthusiastic Trujillista (215), which he wasnt. So he has to deal with keeping the household conversation off politics, but that is the only strong despot of his life. Thus marks the bottom of the V, both for the entire Cabral-Wao lineage recorded in