Date of publication: 2017-09-02 04:27
Aristotle related four concrete points about Socrates. The first is that Socrates asked questions without supplying an answer of his own, because he claimed to know nothing ( De Elenchis Sophisticus 6886b6-8). The picture of Socrates here is consistent with that of Plato’s Apology. Second, Aristotle claims that Socrates never asked questions about nature, but concerned himself only with ethical questions. Aristotle thus attributes to the historical Socrates both the method and topics we find in Plato’s Socratic dialogues.
This topic has fascinated philosophers for millennia. Is our free will an illusion? Are all events predetermined? Am I really free to choose the course of my life? The answers are far from certain.
IV. Interestingly enough, the same objections can be raised against the view termed, psychological altruism : all persons act from the motive of helping others, and all actions are done from other-regarding motives. (Psychological altruism is a view advanced only from the position of a devil's advocate. )
It is precisely in his emphasis on silence that Heidegger diverges from Socrates. Where Socrates insisted on the give and take of question and answer, Heideggerian questioning is not necessarily an inquiry into the views of others but rather an openness to the truth that one maintains without the need to speak. To remain in dialogue with a given phenomenon is not the same thing as conversing about it, and true dialogue is always silent.
This article examines the nature of love and some of the ethical and political ramifications. For the philosopher, the question “what is love?” generates a host of issues: love is an abstract noun which means for some it is a word unattached to anything real or sensible, that is all for others, it is a means by which our being—our self and its world—are irrevocably affected once we are ‘touched by love’ some have sought to analyze it, others have preferred to leave it in the realm of the ineffable.
Let’s say that the sun rises and there is indeed a sea battle. Can we really say that the first general was wrong when the very fact of the matter is that he was very right? Aristotle rejects this as absurd.
This type of thinking is downright incompatible with Aristotle’s later philosophies. It is in The Nichomachean Ethics that Aristotle lays out what type of actions deserve praise and what type of actions do not. However, this would suggest that we are in some way responsible for our actions, that we are not merely destined to do what we do.
While Aristotle would seem to make a convincing case for the existence of free will, there are other schools of philosophy who adhered to this fatalistic theory and incorporated it into their ethical philosophy.