does this work?
Printable View
does this work?
i guess not
Yes it does, MOST HONOURABLE, MAGNIFICENT AND SOVEREIGN LORDS!
By inequality Rousseau mustve meant that some parents raise their children, whereas others leave them to die in orphanages and then write books about how to be a good parent! They are indeed not the same
lmao rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
Why don't you be inequal to some bitches?
God, this opens a door to that one AP literature essay I had to rhetorically analyze "The Modest Proposal" by Swift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
For once, I actually agree with this islamophobe who wanted to bomb innoncent Muslim mosques.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16
We should consider what is natural not in things
depraved but in those which are rightly ordered
according to nature. Aristotle, Politics, Bk. i, ch. 5
...But what is depraved and what isn't? Tsk tsk tsk
Off the top of my head Greek ethics centered around things preforming their natural function well so I bet he is using the term 'depraved' in reference to behavior that goes against a persons natural function as that would have been their version of 'bad' or 'evil'Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall
If your natural purpose was to heal people and you killed them instead it would be a depraved action kinda thing.
Yes, that was their conception; but when you look at the quote, it's circular: if it goes against your natural function, it necessarily is depraved, and if it is depraved, it necessarily goes against your nature. Thus, it's saying we should consider what is natural only what is what is natural and not in what is not natural... which is like, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helz
I see what you mean but that was kind of a cornerstone of their philosophy. Socrates never wrote stuff down but what we know of him from Plato he used circular reasoning in very long and convoluted ways to make his points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall
At the same time maybe depraved has some other meaning like hedonistic. I do not think I ever saw circular reasoning in such a small statement. There might be some point there; although I never studied Aristotle that much. The entire Greek ethical model I found to be too fatalistic to have real use and felt like it did very little to provide a framework for making ethical decisions. Anyone could say they believe their purpose changed at a whim to justify whatever they would like.
Your purpose isn't supposed to change, though. It's something to be "discovered" (according to them, of course). But yes, eventually you could say you actually discovered it to be something else, which is equal to your whim in practice lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Helz