A Comparison of the Classic and Contemporary Philosophers

In 124 epistles Seneca (c. 4–65 CE) writes to Lucilius, occasionally about technical problems of philosophy, but more often in a relaxed style about moral and ethical questions, relating them to personal experiences. He thus presents a Stoic philosopher’s thoughts about the good life in a contemporary context.

A Comparison of Classic And Contemporary Philosophers

A Comparison of Classic And Contemporary Philosophers Why is it so important that young children …

A Comparison of Classic and Contemporary Philosophers Essay

While Hypatia is celebrated as a martyr and victim of Christian fanaticism by Edward Gibbon and modern feminists, and a feminist philosophy journal is named after her, she had, as a Neoplatonist, world denying sentiments that today would sound more religious and ascetic than otherwise: She remained a virgin, and when one of her students professed love for you, she showed him a menstrual rag and said, "You are in love with this, young man, not with the Beautiful," which in Platonism or Neoplatonism would mean the Form of Beauty [cf.

A Comparison of Classic and Contemporary Philosophers …

If we ask whether there was ever a ruler who surrendered power in order to cultivate his garden, the answer is not only "yes," but in the form of a Roman Emperor who surprisingly did not become a model for political philosophy in the 17th or 18th century.

A Comparison of Classic And Contemporary Philosophers Why is it so important that …

Aug 25, 2006 · A Divide Between Ancient and Modern ..

Wong (2009) develops a metaethical theory drawing from contemporaryforms of philosophical naturalism, Hume, Mencius, and Xunzi. StephenAngle (2012) defines two kinds of comparative philosophy: (a) "rootedglobal philosophy" is working within a particular live philosophicaltradition in such a way as to be open to stimulus and insights fromother philosophical traditions, and (b) "Constructive engagement," onthe other hand, is an approach that is focused on the interaction ofstimulus and insights between two live philosophical traditions. Angleexemplifies the rooted approach by working within the neo-Confuciantradition and by being open to exchange with other philosophies,primarily within the American tradition. At the same time, hisposition as an American philosopher allows Angle to focus on mutuallyenriching interaction between American philosophy andneo-Confucianism. Joseph Chan is grounded both in Confucian ethicaland political thought, primarily classical, and in contemporaryAnglo-American political philosophy. He regards himself as a Confucianscholar in the sense of one who engages in the activity of makingsense of Confucian thought, and develops, revises, and improves it asa tradition. At the same time, his proposed improvements of thetradition are related to a broader argument that the modern languageof freedom, rights, and democracy should not and will not replace thetraditional language of virtue, responsibility, and benevolent care,but rather be enriched by it (2013). Hutton (2006), Sarkissian (2010)and Slingerland (2011) develop responses based on Confucian moralpsychology and virtue ethics to challenges mounted by Gilbert Harman(1998-99) and John Doris (2002) to the viability of virtue ethics (asconceived in the Western tradition). As mentioned above, Cline (2007,2013) argues that insights from the Analects and from Rawlscan be combined to produce a more plausible conception of how a senseof justice develops starting with the family. All this indicates thatthe balance of contribution from the Chinese tradition hasstrengthened considerably.

Patchwork 3 – Analysis and Comparison of Both Pre-Existing and Contemporary Buildings

Posts about Contemporary Protest Art written by A Picture of Politics

Still, if the definition of consequentialism becomes too broad, itmight seem to lose force. Some philosophers have argued that any moraltheory, or at least any plausible moral theory, could be representedas a version of consequentialism (Sosa 1993, Portmore 2009, Dreier1993 and 2011; but see Brown 2011). If so, then it means little tolabel a theory as consequentialist. The real content comes only bycontrasting theories that are not consequentialist.

reasoning of the most important philosophical schools in the classic and ..

elements - The Proceedings of the Friesian School

Consequentialism also might be supported by an inference to thebest explanation of our moral intuitions. This argument mightsurprise those who think of consequentialism as counterintuitive, butin fact consequentialists can explain many moral intuitions thattrouble deontological theories. Moderate deontologists, for example,often judge that it is morally wrong to kill one person to save fivebut not morally wrong to kill one person to save a million. They neverspecify the line between what is morally wrong and what is not morallywrong, and it is hard to imagine any non-arbitrary way fordeontologists to justify a cutoff point. In contrast,consequentialists can simply say that the line belongs wherever thebenefits outweigh the costs (including any bad sideeffects). Similarly, when two promises conflict, it often seems clearwhich one we should keep, and that intuition can often be explained bythe amount of harm that would be caused by breaking each promise. Incontrast, deontologists are hard pressed to explain which promise isoverriding if the reason to keep each promise is simply that it wasmade (Sinnott-Armstrong 2009). If consequentialists can betterexplain more common moral intuitions, then consequentialism might havemore explanatory coherence overall, despite being counterintuitive insome cases. (Compare Sidgwick 1907, Book IV, Chap. III; and Sverdlik2011.) And even if act consequentialists cannot argue in this way, itstill might work for rule consequentialists (such as Hooker 2000).

Philosophers essaysA Comparison of Classic And Contemporary Philosophers Why is it so important that young children in our society receive a good education

Hellenistic Monarchs down to the Roman Empire

One area that has mushroomed since the last couple of decades ofthe twentieth Century is the philosophy of sex and love. At least onebook has explored the prospects for love and sex with robots (Levy2007). More usually, controversies have centered on the role ofreason in generating love, as well as the kinds of reasons for actionthat love produces or can justify. As might be expected, contemporarycontributions to the philosophy of love have on the whole been lesssanguine about love, particularly erotic love, than the general run ofself-help or popular books in praise of love. Surprisingly, however,the idea that we love for reasons continues to find defenders amongphilosophers. (Singer 2009; Frankfurt 2004; Jollimore 2011; Lamb 1997;Nussbaum 1997; Soble 1998; Solomon and Higgins 1991; Stewart 1995;Vannoy 1980; Blackburn 2004).