| Papers [286-300] of 4654 :: [Page 20 of 311] | | Go to page : <— 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 —> | |
|
|
Locke and Rousseau on Economic Inequality, 2008.
A comparison of John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality".
2,790 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay compares and contrasts two theoretical models regarding economic inequality. The first is presented by John Locke in his "Second Treatise of Government", which addresses the origins of economic inequality. The second, which is in sharp distinction to these views, is presented by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality". The paper outlines the strengths and weaknesses of both. It argues that, while both works are very similar in their imagined origins of economic inequality in the early history of property, they differ radically in how they represent property and the justifications for its differing accumulations that ultimately give rise to economic inequality. The paper concludes that Locke envisions property and moderate levels of economic inequality as a good thing, while Rousseau condemns this inequality as a corrupting influence upon human society in every respect.
From the Paper
"However, while there is a superficial similarity between how Locke and Rousseau each conceive of the state of nature, there is one important distinction between the two: property. While Locke conceives, as noted above, of an equality of property as existing in the state of nature, Rousseau contends that the innovation of property itself marked the ending of the state of nature and the beginning of human society.
"This is an important difference, and it goes to the heart of how each philosopher conceives of economic inequality. For example, it is clear from the outset of Rousseau's description of the state of nature and its defining characteristics that he sees property as not only a negative aspect of human society but as being fundamentally illegitimate as well."
| |
|
Aristotle and Virtue, 2008.
An analysis of Aristotle's beliefs about human virtue and how they can be applied to the modern world.
1,269 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught two thousand years ago that unless there is meaning and purpose in people's lives and that unless human beings understand why they suffer and rejoice and why they toil and exert themselves, and unless they comprehend the meaning of life, they do not truly live, but merely exist. The paper discusses how Aristotle emphasized that virtue provides meaning and defines human excellence. The paper also discusses how Aristotle's beliefs seems quaint and outdated today because self-interest and cynicism pervade this modern world, in which people are far more interested in advancement than in virtue.
From the Paper
"Aristotle sought to provide meaning and understanding through his works, to explain the purpose of existence, and to guide people to lead virtuous lives that will have meaning for them and for those they love. Yet today, millions of people still search for the meaning of life. For so many people, the philosophical teachings of the great philosophers of human history seem archaic, misguided, fearfully strict, hollow, or impossible to achieve. Life seems pointless, values seem flawed, virtuous conduct is rare, and they can find little if any joy or satisfaction in anything. "
| |
|
Confucius and Locke on the Institution of Family, 2008.
A comparison and contrast of Confucius and John Locke's views on the family and its relation to politics.
2,328 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the views of the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius in "The Analects" and the early modern British philosopher, John Locke in "Second Treatise of Government." It particularly looks at the views of each philosopher in relation to the social institution of the family and their models of political order. The paper suggests that the different ways they understand familial relations can be seen as reflecting their distinct conceptions of political order in society as a whole.
From the Paper
"Locke contends that freedom comes with maturity and the capacity to exercise reason, and that it is the primary responsibility of the parent or guardian of a child to promote this in the child until he attains the age of maturity. Thus, while people in Confucius' political philosophy were advised never to think about government or politics, Locke in contrast argues that it is the prime duty - indeed, the defining characteristic - of an adult human being that they be able to consider questions of government and politics."
| |
|
The Development of Liberalism, 2008.
This paper discusses the development of liberalism as a political philosophy.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper relates that liberalism emerged as a political philosophy during the Enlightenment era in Europe and was espoused by political philosophers such as John Locke. The paper defines liberalism as a political ideology based upon representative government and individual rights. The paper explains that it emphasizes strong support for a broad interpretation of civil liberties, for freedom of expression, religious toleration, the separation of church and state and for widespread popular participation in the political process. The paper reveals that for three hundred years liberalism has attempted to establish itself as a transcendent political philosophy in opposition to autocratic and totalitarian political ideologies. The paper concludes that it may ultimately fall to the very ideology it replaced; autocratic theocracy.
From the Paper
"Understanding liberalism is important because it has been a prevailing political philosophy in the Western world for more than two centuries. It is also important to emphasize that, "liberalism is not one simple, undifferentiated doctrine. As with other doctrines or ideologies, there are varieties of liberalism." (Sally) For example, "all liberals agree on the primacy of individual freedom and individual choice, which distinguishes liberalism from socialism and nationalism. But some liberals argue in favor of these core values by means of highly abstract reasoning." (Sally)"
| |
|
Martin Heidegger on the Nature of Being, 2008.
A analysis of the work and beliefs of Martin Heidegger, the philosopher.
3,533 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the work of the philosopher Heidegger, whose central concern was with the nature of Being, and discusses the origins of his lifelong fascination with this foundational, ontological issue. The paper relates that Heidegger made a massive contribution to ontology, forcing others to think about the nature of Being from the foundations up. The paper concludes that Heidegger left an important legacy, in that he re-opened key questions that to this day still have not been answered satisfactorily.
From the Paper
"Many philosophers are concerned with the key question of "Why is there anything, rather than nothing at all?" In other words, they are interested in why things have Being, or exist. Such philosophers are often interested in ascertaining who or what was the Prime Mover - the first thing that had Being, and that subsequently caused other things to have Being (commonly thought of as God). Other philosophers are concerned with how we can know about Being. This is referred to as epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. In Heidegger's time, many philosophers attempted to follow in the Kantian tradition, and were primarily concerned with asking "What can we know?" They frequently posed this question in relation to knowledge as the foundation of science.
"However, Heidegger was never part of any herd. He dismissed epistemology, saying that it "continually sharpens the knife but never gets round to cutting" (Being and Time, p. lviii, quoted in Inwood, p. 13). Heidegger seems to have been more concerned with cutting, with penetrating right into the meat of reality. He was concerned with the nature of what is, i.e. with the nature of Being. This is known as ontology, or the study of existence. While this is sometimes conceived of as the most general branch of metaphysics, it can also be seen as the most particular branch of metaphysics - and certainly the latter is truer of Heidegger's approach to ontology. His study of the nature of Being is one of the key concepts in his work, and potentially the most useful to subsequent students of philosophy. Certainly, Heidegger envisaged his examination of the concept of Being as a radical re-visioning which would impact not only the future, but the past. He planned to re-examine past philosophers and (and possibly show how they had erred), in a Second Part to his seminal Being and Time. Unfortunatley he never achieved the latter, as he never wrote this Second Part. Nevertheless, he did address many issues which have impacted philosophers that have come after him - most notably, of course, the concept of Being, and also the related concept of time."
| |
|
David Hume and the Idea Of Necessary Connection, 2008.
A review of the concepts of necessary connection in David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding."
943 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes and reviews David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding," in which he attempts to show what we do and do not know about causation. It analyzes Hume's arguments in his essay, particularly with respect to the idea of necessary connection and presents examples of how Hume's arguments can be applied to day-to-day life.
From the Paper
"Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a remarkable essay, and to grasp it fully requires maintaining the rigid intellectual distinctions that Hume did maintain. Again, his inquiry focuses on what we know about the world, not what the world is or how it behaves. Indeed, Hume concludes that what we know about the world is limited, and we must rely on our limited understanding to allow us to carry on our day-to-day affairs. Hume set himself apart from the rationalist metaphysicians, who wrestled with questions about the nature of the universe, whether or not there is a God, and the immortality of soul. Hume's inquiry was essentially a preliminary to this: how do we know what we know. How can we ask if there is a God if we cannot know what the causal connection is in the world around us."
| |
|
The Church-Turing Thesis, 2008.
This paper discuses the positive and negative implications that the Church-Turing thesis has on both cognitive science and the philosophy of the mind.
1,725 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Church-Turing thesis holds that problems impossible to solve through any theoretical method of computation also are impossible to solve by human thought. The author points out that, if one accepts the Church-Turing thesis, one must also accept that there are questions for which answers can be shown to exist but which can never be determined or articulated. The paper relates that the Church-Turing thesis matters very much to philosophers, especially existentialists, because it reflects the increasing focus and reliance of Western thought on analytical and rational views. The author underscores that, despite decades of contention, all that has been determined with any degree of finality is that free will and the Church-Turing thesis are not compatible.
From the Paper
"Cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind care about this because if Turing's thesis is correct, then debating the existence and non-existence of effective methods can be replaced throughout mathematics and logic by debating the existence or non-existence of Turing machine programs. The ultimate issue is validation for either philosophers of mind or for cognitive scientists, and the ultimate question is whether intelligence is exclusive to advanced forms of biological life or whether it can be replicated through artificial intelligence."
| |
|
Mencius and Xunzi on Human Nature, 2008.
A discussion of the views of two influential Chinese philosophers from the third century B.C., Mencius and Xunzi, on human nature.
3,570 words (approx. 14.3 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the views of Mencius and Xunzi, Chinese philosophers from c. 300 B.C., who belonged to the school of thought of Confucius (551-479 BC). It compares their differing approaches to human nature and relates that while Mencius saw the individual as fundamentally good, Xunzi's viewed human nature as bad and in need of care and correction. The paper addresses the influence of these two extremely influential philosophers, whose contrasting approaches continue to be seen today in Chinese civilization. The paper concludes that their thoughts on human nature are timeless and, thus, they will continue to be reviewed and discussed for many years to come.
Outline:
Introduction
Human Nature as Corruptible
Man as Weak and Bad
Implications over Time
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Mencius spent years moving from court to court and we presume that he had many chances to see how feudal rulers chose to lead. He was a sought after advisor to different rulers towards much thinking on what worked and what did not to restore order, for example, or prevent future troubles. He seems to have come up with something like the Social Contract that shaped Western thinking in the modern era in a model of a decent kind of leadership and attention to the needs of life and protecting citizens to which individuals could adhere. If a decent environment was not provided, then the people should be expected to overthrow those in power towards new leadership. In the view of Mencius, a ruler must show jen in humaneness, humanity and benevolence, as a very old Chinese concept indeed. (Chan Jen) There should also be the yi of righteousness and a sense of duty, if a ruler wanted to see righteousness, cooperation and industriousness amongst his subjects."
| |
|
U.S. Government in a Hobbesian Perspective, 2008.
A comparison between Hobbes' theories and the structure of the US Government.
750 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the ideas of political philosopher Thomas Hobbes with the structure of the US Government. It looks at the topic from three different angles in the following logical order: Hobbes's view of human nature, desire and competition for power, and checks and balances or separation of powers (although Hobbes himself made no room for this last category in his philosophy). The paper concludes that the principle of Hobbes which probably would find favor with the founders of the Constitution was his version of the golden rule, "Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thyself." This is a rule based on mutual self-interest, and does not depend on one particular form of government for its effectiveness.
Table of Contents:
Hobbes' View of Human Nature
Desire and Competition for Power
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances
From the Paper
"In this area, Hobbes' ideal probably comes closest to that of the founding documents of the United States, in which the "pursuit of happiness" is considered a basic goal of citizens, and to make those goals possible requires the creation of an orderly government. However, the nature of this created government is very different in Hobbes' ideal than in that of the United States. For Hobbes, the government which was formed by mutual agreement among the people of a given area (again, only motivated by self-interest against the natural state of competition) would have to be one of absolute sovereignty, i.e. a "Leviathan" or overwhelming force, which he believed necessary to counter all of the other individual forces that would otherwise pull it apart. Then, the natural competition for power among individuals would be forcefully limited by a greater power."
| |
|
A Government of Limited Powers, 2008.
This paper discusses Thomas Hobbes' view of government and human nature.
757 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explores Thomas Hobbes' views of natural human nature as it applies to the framework of the United States government. The paper discusses how Hobbes believed that all men are created equal, but the desire for power will inevitably lead to those that are stronger gaining power. The paper relates that the founding fathers of the Constitution recognized this fact and established a divided government with three coequal branches that had checks and balances over the powers of the other.
From the Paper
"Thomas Hobbes believed that all men were basically created equal; equal in talent, equal in abilities, and equal in power. However inevitably there would be those that are stronger than others, and they would seek to gain all of the power. Hobbes philosophized that the eventual salvation of society would lie in the large government, the body politic, the Leviathan. (Solomon, 2005 p.619) The government being the salvation of the common man is not a foreign idea, and one need not go any further than the evening news to see examples. Hobbes being a conservative monarchist felt that the supreme power lied in the divine right of the king to rule. (Thomas-Hobbes.com, 2004 n.p.)"
| |
|
Peter Singer's Views on Infanticide, 2008.
An argument against Peter Singer's justification of infanticide expounded upon in his book "Practical Ethics".
820 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper criticizes Peter Singer's views on infanticide in "Practical Ethics". Singer believes that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month and that physicians are morally justified in killing disabled infants. The paper considers this a disturbingly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful and convenient it is to society and to those who will care for it. The paper claims that this approach offers an intellectual justification for the Nazis' behavior in WWII. At its most dangerous, the paper concludes, Singer's concept of the utility of infanticide may unjustly allow people to determine who should live - and who should die.
From the Paper
"In our western culture, we are very often taught that all human life is precious and that the lives of the very young are particularly precious - not least of all because they represent the future. Controversial ethicist Peter Singer, however, feels otherwise. Specifically, Singer has long held the view that children should not be considered people until they have existed outside the mother's womb for at least a month (thirty days) and that physicians are morally justified in killing some infants "on the spot" if those infants are disabled. In Singer's estimation, are not self-aware (therefore not human) and their lives are certainly of no greater value - actually of lesser value - than that of dumb animals like the chimpanzee or dog (Klusendorf, para.1; Singer, 122-123). Singer proceeds to argue that infants are not rational, self-conscious beings with a desire to live. Indeed, if killing an infant child (most especially a disabled one) will increase the happiness of other parties (principally the parents but, really, anyone who might stand to gain from the death of the infant) than taking the child's life is permissible; it is, in short, a profoundly utilitarian approach that weighs human life on the basis of how useful (and how "convenient") it is to society and to those who will care for it. As a final addendum, Singer insists that infanticide is only objectionable if its commission would bring about unhappiness to the parents (Klusendorf, para.5-8). It is a stunning moral view and a deeply troubling one."
| |
|
Plato, Aristotle and the Ideal State, 2008.
This paper looks at the views of Plato and Aristotle regarding government and the ideal state.
2,500 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that two of the greatest philosophers that emerged from Greece in the fourth century B.C.E., Plato and Aristotle, gave civilization some of its greatest philosophical discourses. The writer notes that both tried to envision the ideal state. The writer then points out that neither Plato nor Aristotle believed strongly in individual freedom. The writer concludes that both Plato and Aristotle have had a profound influence on philosophy since their own time. Further, the writer maintains that remarkably, these two men are remembered as figures in Athens, which is considered the source of modern democracy, but neither of them believed strongly in individual freedom.
From the Paper
"Much of what Aristotle wrote in Politics was a response to Plato's Republic. Particularly, he felt that Socrates/Plato had not presented a sound argument when contending that possessions, women, and children should all be held in common. To begin, this practice was intended to unify the state, but it would not do so. That which is owned by all is effectively owned by none and neglected by all. Economically, it would lead to under-work and over-consumption as everyone would feel a right to take from the common produce, but would resent having to contribute to it. This communism would destroy temperance and liberality in the citizens, but would only encourage covetousness and jealousy."
| |
|
Karl Marx's Estrangement Theories, 2008.
An analysis of Karl Marx's theory of estrangement and its application to the modern global economy.
1,545 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores Karl Marx's theory of estrangement within the context of the contemporary industrial and economic setting. It devotes a considerable amount of time to explicating Marx's conceptions of estrangement and alienation. The paper subsequently looks at how his concept of estrangement can be applied to the modern global economy.
From the Paper
"To begin with, Marx insists that the worker in the capitalist order is the most wretched of beings insofar as his or her power is in inverse proportion to his (or her) creative production. In other words, as Marx argues vehemently, the worker creates and someone else gains the wealth accumulated by the creation of that item. To elaborate a little further, the fruits of labor's efforts (the goods produced by steadfast toil) metamorphose into something that is literally independent of the producer; the laborers lose control over the means of production and the more products he or she produces, the less ability he or she has to consume those goods and the more he or she falls under the dominion of capital (Marx, 30-31)."
| |
|
Existence of an External World, 2008.
A critical analysis of the arguments of Rene Descartes and John Locke with regards to the existence of an external world.
1,520 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the arguments of Rene Descartes and John Locke with regards to whether or not we can have knowledge of the existence of an external world. The paper shows that there are fundamental problems with both of their arguments and as such, the paper suggests that we are not yet in a position to demonstrate unequivocally that we can have knowledge of the existence of an external world.
From the Paper
"I thus conclude that neither Descartes nor Locke offer me sufficient proof that I can have knowledge of an external world. Descartes' argument fails on the basis that his argument for the existence of God is circular, and thus we have no particular reason to trust our own reasons. And Locke's argument fails because Descartes' arguments effectively destroy the foundation of Locke's argument. But as I have now have shown that I have no sound reason to trust the evidence of my reason, nor any sound reason to trust the evidence of my senses, it follows that there is nothing left on which I may base any confidence that we can have knowledge of the existence of an external world."
| |
|
Creationism versus Evolution, 2008.
A comparison of the evolutionary and creationist paradigms of history.
922 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper investigates the irreconcilable differences between evolutionary and creationist paradigms. The paper begins by describing the evolutionary paradigm and the creationist paradigm separately. It then contrasts the two views and discusses their differences. The paper concludes by suggesting that the ultimate argument between these two perspectives is a contest of faith versus fact.
From the Paper
"Creationism is a philosophical perspective that intends to keep specific social systems and conventions alive. However, Creationist beliefs display a blatant disregard for acknowledged scientific premises. Their ultimate argument is a contest of faith versus fact, and because of their refusal to incorporate credible evidence into their theories they can not destabilize the normal science of evolution. Even though the prevalence of Christian, Judaic, and Muslim religions might lend some credence to Creationist claims (given that all holy texts confirm the existence of a divine creator), the modern world is driven by evidence, details, and specifics. Their paradigm continues to influence people with unbreakable conviction in fundamental scriptural laws, but the scientific world remains unshaken."
|
|
|
