Aristotle believes that man has a function in life Research Paper Example

Aristotle believes that man has a function in life Research Paper Example Aristotle believes that man has a function in life Paper Aristotle believes that man has a function in life Paper if the function of man is an activity of the soul in accordance with, or implying, a rational principle; and if we hold that the function an individual and of a good individual of the same kind e. g. f a harpist and of a good harpist and so on generally is generically the same, the latters distinctive excellence being attached to the name of the function (because the function of the harpist is to play the harp, but that of the good harpist is to play it well); and if we assume that the function of man is a kind of life, namely, an activity or series of actions of the soul, implying a rational principle; and if the function of a good man is to perform these well and rightly; and if every function is performed well when performed in accordance with its proper excellence: if this is all so, the conclusion is that the good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind. Essentially, what Aristotle means by this is that the overall human function is the souls activity together with reason. The activity of rational thought is what makes us human since no other living thing has the ability of reasoning. It is the ability to reason that all humans possess, but not all human beings function according to it (some are ignorant whilst others are unable to make logical choices). Also, all human actions taken together make up the good and everything we do throughout our lives contributes to the overall function. If we live well, according to the proper virtues, this will allow us to achieve what Aristotle calls eudaimonia (happiness). It is important that our virtuous actions are driven by the virtues and not just in line with the virtues. For example, a lawyer who argues for a poor man in order to gain a good reputation is not acting from virtue; he is acting in line with virtue. Aristotles argument in basic terms is as follows: a watch has a function and its goodness resides in that function; if man has a function then his goodness lies in performing that function well. For a watch to perform its function it uses the mechanisms within itself to achieve this; each of mans bodily organs have a function and so therefore man must have a function and this function is mans distinguishing feature: rationality. The chief good for man is a life following or implying a rational principle and to use that reason together with certain virtues. A problem with Aristotles belief is his claim that each of a mans bodily organs have a function and so therefore man must have a function. Not everything in the world has a clear function or a determined end. For example, a rose does not have a clear function other than the functions we think of for it (its beauty and its fragrance) but this does not add anything factual to it. In comparison, the function of our eyes give us the ability to perceive the world but this adds nothing factually to simply saying that our eyes causes us to perceive. When we speak about function we give it a normative status to causation but this is subjective to every individual. This works for all teleological ideas and it reflects our own interests. As for teleological arguments, they can only be defended, mainly, by religion and also by anthropomorphic ideas of nature. For example, Thomas Aquinas believed that natural law was not made up by humans but rather an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover. Aquinas says that natural law is so complex that it had to have been designed by a higher power and he stated that the only plausible answer is God. However, using God as the answer to the existence and aim of human beings is a weak argument. Jean-Paul Sartre believes in the concept that existence precedes essence and that the idea that existence precedes essence means that a human being, as well as human reality, exists prior to any concepts of values or morals. A person is born a blank slate and humanity has no universal, fixed values or ethics common to all of mankind. Since no essence or definition exists of what is means to be human, a person must form their own conception of existence by taking control of responsibility for their actions and choices. Therefore, a human being gains their essence through their own choices and actions. It is solely through the process of living that a person defines themselves. He uses the example of a paper knife saying that one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper knife without knowing what it is for. A paper knife has essence before existence because it is designed for a specific purpose. Human beings do not; they have existence before essence because they are not designed with a specific purpose. Consequently, this challenges the function argument in that human beings do not have a certain end or a definite function; our function in life is made up as we go through life. Another problem with the function argument is presented by the is/ought fallacy. David Hume argued that there is a philosophical problem in believing that because something is the case it ought to be the case; he calls this the is/ought fallacy. For example, slavery exists but the fact that it is a reality does not mean that it ought to be. Abortion is a reality and some would argue that it is right to abort in certain circumstances but that does not mean we ought to. In this case, it may be a fact that humans possess reason but it does not logically follow that we ought to exercise our reason to live a fulfilled life. Professor Richard Norman says: why then from the fact that rational activity is distinctively human should it follow that we ought to live according to reason? An additional problem is, there are many distinctively human things that animals cannot do, why is reason the only characteristic Aristotle focuses upon? For example, we can gamble, give to charity, make art and become intoxicated by drugs but that does not mean that any of these are our functions. On what grounds does Aristotle use that animals cannot use reason? Surely what we call reason is no more than instinctive response but on a conscious level than any action in the animal kingdom. Aristotle could simply argue that these are all examples of humans not using their reason well because a tyrant, terrorist or gambler is using their reason but not in conjunction with their virtues. A good example of this would be the terrorist Osama bin Laden who thought he was doing good for the world where in reality he was creating devastation. In conclusion, although Aristotles belief of mans function in life gives us as human beings something to aim for (eudaimonia) it does not mean that man definitely has a function in life. Just because our organs work in a certain way does not mean our body must work towards something, and if our bodies are indeed working towards something then why must it be towards eudaimonia? As Sartre says, our function could be made up as we go through life. Why must we live life according to reason? Also, why must it just be reason we function upon? It is these questions that pose a problem to Aristotles function argument and therefore make his claim flawed.

Analyse and evaluate Shakespeares use of soliloquy in presenting the developing character of Hamlet Essay Example

Analyse and evaluate Shakespeares use of soliloquy in presenting the developing character of Hamlet Essay Example Analyse and evaluate Shakespeares use of soliloquy in presenting the developing character of Hamlet Paper Analyse and evaluate Shakespeares use of soliloquy in presenting the developing character of Hamlet Paper Essay Topic: Hamlet Hamlet by William Shakespeare is a drama performed between 1599 and 1601. Hamlet is a fusion of many themes, which bond together to form a complex, ambiguous play. Hamlet, simplified, is the story of a man brimming with vengeance, trying to avenge his fathers death which was caused by his uncle, Claudius who then marries Hamlets mother, Gertrude. The death of his father is a tragedy in itself. Perceptions of tragedies differ from individuals perspectives; anything can be a tragic as long as it takes the right composition or form. Calamitous situations weaved with anguish and despair in addition to the possibility of destruction and heartbreak are some of the most common elements employed by tragic writers. Dominant features of a tragedy also include the protagonists downfall, usually a consequence of their hamartia. This is evident in Hamlet. Hamlet, the protagonist encounters anagnorisis due to his hamartia, ultimately leading to death of most of the cast. The complexity of Hamlets character is a mystery to the audience but through soliloquys, William Shakespeare shows the audience Hamlets feelings and thoughts and how they develop. Soliloquies give the audience a chance to connect with the character as it gives the audience a chance to see the character unleashing their inner thoughts. This will lead to the audience being aware of the true identity of the character making it easier for them to comprehend and understand the true depths of both the story and character. Soliloquies are a vital tool used in Hamlet to understand the true insight on Hamlets character. Hamlet freely expresses his inner thoughts through soliloquies, this is the only real time the audience are aware of Hamlets feelings. Also, it gives the audience a chance to try to understand Hamlets complex character. This dramatic device is a key value in understanding the character of Hamlet and how he develops. Hamlet is portrayed by Shakespeare as a complicated individual. He is an enigma wrapped in a paradox. He is a walking contradiction, full of strong emotions just waiting to be unleashed. He is both melancholic but strong willed, even though his greatest weakness is his indecisiveness. He wallows in his grief wanting to take action but never seems to be able to. He is an incredibly articulate and genius character full of wit and intelligence. He is the definition of Aristotles tragic hero. His ambiguity is a conundrum. His personality develops as the play goes on, making his character traits more apparent. We first become aware of the true thoughts of Hamlets character in his first soliloquy. In Act 1 Scene 2 we are met with his mental state. Hamlet is full of grief; he is trying to come to terms with his fathers death but is met with more difficulties. His mother has re-married; she has re-married to his uncle. In this first soliloquy, Hamlet shows signs that can be applied to the aspects of the oedipal complex as part of his character. These soliloquiess aid us in understanding the true depths of Hamlets mind and thought process. The dominant cause of Hamlets grief is his mother re-marrying. He is disgusted that his mother has moved on so quickly and he believes the relationship is incestuous. With such dexterity to incestuous sheets! It is not, nor it cannot come to good. / But break my heart, for I must hold my tongue. (1. 2 . 157-9). However, Hamlet feels he shouldnt intervene and must hold his tongue. Hamlet at this point seems to be more concerned over his mothers affairs rather then his fathers death. Hamlet doesnt discuss how he is feeling about his fathers death. This fits the traits of the oedipal complex. Hamlet is aware his father is dead, subconsciously Hamlet believes now that his father is gone he can have his mother all to himself. However, he is met with a difficulty: Claudius. Hamlet feels great anger and towards Claudius which also fits in with the oedipal complex; hating the father, in this case hating the spouse of his mother. In this soliloquy Hamlet is full of negative emotions, he is showing melancholia, along with anger and frustration and grief too. Now that his father has died he sees no point in living, the world around him seems meaningless. He states How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, / Seem to me all the uses of this world! the world around him no longer has a use to him. Nothing has a purpose to him. He compares the world with a weeded garden. tis an unweeded garden, /That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature. The words are showing that Hamlet feels the world is corrupt and rotting, and it is also a gross place. He realises that everything in the end will turn bad, and rank. He seems to think everything around him has decayed and nothing will really flourish anymore, everything he was comfortable with has just been taken away from him instantaneously and he doesnt seem to think anything will get better. Hamlet in contrast to Claudius sees his father as amazing. He thinks his father was excellent and now that Claudius is taking his place so quickly and his mother hasnt even had time to grieve, he finds that unbearable. O, God! beast, that wants discourse of reason, / Would have mournd longermarried with my uncle Hamlet think that even an animal would have mourned longer then what his mother did. He feels as though she is moving on too quickly. Hamlet seems to be trapped in the memory of his father, he doesnt seem to be completely grief ridden but it seems like he wants to reminisce his fathers existence. He wants to be close to his mother too, and he feels like its her duty to mourn. Going into another relationship so abruptly leaves Hamlet feeling as though she felt nothing towards her father. Hamlet believes all the tears she cried for him must therefore be fake. Ere yet the salt of most unrighteous tears/ Had left the flushing in her galled eyes She doesnt deserve to mourn, in Hamlets eyes. Hamlet at this point in the play is experiencing melancholia. He is grieving and is faced with more problems. This soliloquy helps us understand what Hamlet is feeling about the situation. Hamlet at this point is still an enigmatic character although he is showing his frustration quite clearly; he is yet to act upon his feelings and is trapped within his mind. Although he is feeling great annoyance towards the whole situation he hasnt confronted his mother about it yet. As the play progresses Hamlets character traits become more apparent. His indecisiveness is demonstrated in this soliloquy. He is confused about life and is contemplating suicide in Act 3 Scene 1 (lines 56-89). He is debating two possible scenarios; to live or to die. To be or not to be. This soliloquy unlike his other soliloquies is quite a thorough, thought out one. He is not in complete despair or anger, he is calm. Hamlet starts a philosophical speech on the good and bad sides of living. Hamlets predicament is that he is so unhappy with living; he just doesnt see the point of existing anymore. He is speculating whether death would actually be better then living. However, Hamlet is also acknowledging the fact that as he hasnt experienced death before he doesnt know how it is going to be like; he is not sure if he wants to take the chance and die; it could be a lot worse then living. If Hamlet does commit suicide there is no coming back. Shakespeare uses interesting phrases to create a vivid image in the audiences mind. Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, by comparing his situation to a sea of troubles creates an image in the audiences mind. This line can also demonstrate the physical representation of his mind. Like a sea of troubles everything is crashing inside him, nothing is going the right way. He wants to fight his despair but he doesnt see the point. He is thinking to maybe take the risk of suicide To sleep: perchance to dream. Perhaps if he died, he wou ld take the chance of falling into an eternal slumber, to dream to be at peace. However, he does realise that no-one can come back once they have taken their lives. The undiscoverd country from whose bourn/ No traveller returns. He is not willing to take the risk at this point. Hamlet associates death as a peaceful concept. He uses positive words to describe it. To sleep, to dream. As his life is filled with torment he sees death as an escape, to fall asleep and never wake, to live in a fantasy and dream. This soliloquy is showing us the paradox of Hamlets situation. He is required to kill Claudius because his father has told him to do so. But he also has his mind bent towards suicide. The 6th commandment prevents Hamlet from killing Claudius. Killing ones self is also going against the commandment. Also, Hamlet realises that if he does kill Claudius his outcome may be sentenced to a life time in hell. He doesnt really take this into consideration and really wants to kill Claudius and avenge his fathers death. He is stuck between two things, to listen to his father and kill Claudius and end up going to hell or let his fathers death go unpunished in this life. This is mentally eating up Hamlet. Since Hamlet is a firm believer in Christianity he should realise that Claudiuss crime wont go un punishable but he still feels obliged to avenge his fathers death. He is stuck in the situation. Hamlets mental state is not stable. He is always changing his moods abruptly and his soliloquies show his instability. His character at this point is reaching a climax. So far he hasnt acted upon filling his fathers wish although he really wants to do so. His indecisiveness has prevented him to do so. Although opportunities to do so have arised, he didnt take them. Hamlet finds a perfect chance to kill Claudius. But he thinks Claudius is praying. In the fourth soliloquy he expresses his thoughts on this (Act 3, scene 3 lines 73-97). Claudius is praying for forgiveness for what he has done. Hamlet believes if he kills Claudius now he will be forgiven and sent to heaven. Hamlet does not think this is the right moment to kill him now because his heinous crime will go unpunished, he wants Claudius o suffer for what he did. A villain kills my father; and for that / I, his sole son, do the same villain send / to heaven. Hamlet feels like its his duty to avenge his fathers death as he is the only son. He thinks if he kills Claudius now, his crime will go unpunished. Hamlet wants to ensure Claudius gets what he deserves: damnation. He feels like it is his duty to fulfil this. Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven, / And that his soul may be as damnd and black / As hell, whereto it goes. He wants to make sure there is no way Claudius will go to heaven. O, this is hire and salary, not revenge. This is not something Hamlet sees as revenge, but something he must do, something compulsory. These three soliloquies demonstrate Hamlets character and it shows his character development also. They portray his indecisiveness; he doesnt know when to kill Claudius. As he leaves it to the very end to take action the play ends in tragedy, naturally. He becomes more and more aware of his duty and feels the need to have to take Claudiuss life. Although Hamlets character seems to feign insanity by the end of the play Hamlets negative mind is definitely over powering him which leads to his mental breakdown. The soliloquies are successful in showing this as the audience get to see the slow progression of his insanity and how his character fully develops.

Business Law Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 19

Business Law - Assignment Example It becomes a parole because it was an oral agreement made before the final written contract was made. I therefore agree with the court for rejecting Canopy’s evidence. It is against the principles of parole evidence rule which categorically states that there should not be a parole to a written contract. Meaning, evidence made prior to a written contract ca not be accepted for consideration in case of a dispute. It is therefore appropriate for the court to make such a decision it is in compliance with the law. Apart from being oral evidence made prior to the actual contract, it contains evidence which contradicts the written contract itself. Despite Canopy not being a party to the written contract, it went ahead to give this evidence. This is uncalled for and should not be entertained. Instead, the court should go ahead to consider the case filed by Novell Inc to protest against the deductions made by Canopy because it breaches its contract with Caldera