Comments for Ancient Greek Philosophy http://phil201.umwblogs.org Γνωθι Σεαυτον Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:05:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 Comment on Third Paper? by NM http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/12/02/third-paper/#comment-483 NM Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:09:30 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=126#comment-483 Here is my recommendation: (1) First step: choose the topic, not the philosophers--that is, do you want to write on virtue? on care of the soul? nature/value of friendship?--which topic is of the greatest interest to you, and why?--pick the issue--not the theorist--follow your real thinking and ideas here. (2)Now, sketch out your ideas about the topic--what do you truly believe about virtue--or care of the soul--or friendship...what do you really think? This is just you writing for you--what are your ideas? (3)Next, outline what the designated philosophers had to say about that topic--find the key relevant passages (note--we have covered these in class)--go to the texts and mine them for ideas and passages. (4) Finally---you are ready to write the paper, starting with #2 , offering a brief but clear account of what the philosophers have said and then, drawing on #1, concluding with your evaluation and your views. NM Here is my recommendation:
(1) First step: choose the topic, not the philosophers–that is, do you want to write on virtue? on care of the soul? nature/value of friendship?–which topic is of the greatest interest to you, and why?–pick the issue–not the theorist–follow your real thinking and ideas here.

(2)Now, sketch out your ideas about the topic–what do you truly believe about virtue–or care of the soul–or friendship…what do you really think? This is just you writing for you–what are your ideas?

(3)Next, outline what the designated philosophers had to say about that topic–find the key relevant passages (note–we have covered these in class)–go to the texts and mine them for ideas and passages.

(4) Finally—you are ready to write the paper, starting with #2 , offering a brief but clear account of what the philosophers have said and then, drawing on #1, concluding with your evaluation and your views.

NM

]]> Comment on EPICURUS by Amanda Gorman http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/11/27/epicurus/#comment-453 Amanda Gorman Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:05:23 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=123#comment-453 This seemed to give the very basics...but the account of how advertisement gives us unnecessary wants seemed unnecessarily modernized. This seemed to give the very basics…but the account of how advertisement gives us unnecessary wants seemed unnecessarily modernized.

]]> Comment on Liszt/Beethoven transcriptions by dmag http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/23/lisztbeethoven-transcriptions/#comment-152 dmag Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:14:41 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=111#comment-152 So I don't know how to post in a new topic so I will just post here. I was thinking about the dilemma about lending your book to the person that always ruins it as I came back from class. In the teleological view the end or goal is the only thing that determines the virtue of actions. Couldn’t it be argued that answering truthfully when she asks if you have your book will result in you lending it to her at some point? If you lend the book to her, she will invariably mark on it and destroy the book for you. This will inhibit your learning which is an injustice for you. Couldn’t that be the end or goal of you answer of your answer of her question. This end or goal is an injustice to you, couldn’t it be said that answering truthfully is not virtuous, since answering truthfully would cause injustice to yourself. So in the teleological view, couldn’t it be called virtuous to lie in this situation, therefore the end or goal of lying would be preventing injustice to yourself, since teleology is concerned with the end or goal and not the means. So, for the teleologist, would it be virtuous and right to use what could be considered as not virtuous mea ns to achieve a just end or goal. Then could lying in this situation then be considered virtuous in respect to the end or goal by the teleologist. So I don’t know how to post in a new topic so I will just post here. I was thinking about the dilemma about lending your book to the person that always ruins it as I came back from class. In the teleological view the end or goal is the only thing that determines the virtue of actions. Couldn’t it be argued that answering truthfully when she asks if you have your book will result in you lending it to her at some point? If you lend the book to her, she will invariably mark on it and destroy the book for you. This will inhibit your learning which is an injustice for you. Couldn’t that be the end or goal of you answer of your answer of her question. This end or goal is an injustice to you, couldn’t it be said that answering truthfully is not virtuous, since answering truthfully would cause injustice to yourself. So in the teleological view, couldn’t it be called virtuous to lie in this situation, therefore the end or goal of lying would be preventing injustice to yourself, since teleology is concerned with the end or goal and not the means. So, for the teleologist, would it be virtuous and right to use what could be considered as not virtuous mea ns to achieve a just end or goal. Then could lying in this situation then be considered virtuous in respect to the end or goal by the teleologist.

]]> Comment on PHILOSOPHY ON YOUTUBE by nmik http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/14/philosophy-on-youtube-miles-burnyeat-on-plato/#comment-106 nmik Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:14:23 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=102#comment-106 On Plato's forms, you raise an important concern--how can the forms be substance that is "separable" ( and "eternal" "immaterial")? You might listen again to Burnyeat--he gives a very interesting response to this issue. On Plato’s forms, you raise an important concern–how can the forms be substance that is “separable” ( and “eternal” “immaterial”)? You might listen again to Burnyeat–he gives a very interesting response to this issue.

]]> Comment on PHILOSOPHY ON YOUTUBE by tlarson http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/14/philosophy-on-youtube-miles-burnyeat-on-plato/#comment-104 tlarson Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:27:58 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=102#comment-104 I really found Martha to be helpful especially in her explanation of appearances, I thought that was confusing while reading Metaphysics. I agree with Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's forms (if I have a correct conception of them), it is non-sense to belief that their is a perfect infallible idea of Catness as cats can only be defined by the functions and appearances that we flawed beings can place upon them. Non-contradictions seem to be a more logical and probable principle. Any thoughts? I really found Martha to be helpful especially in her explanation of appearances, I thought that was confusing while reading Metaphysics. I agree with Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato’s forms (if I have a correct conception of them), it is non-sense to belief that their is a perfect infallible idea of Catness as cats can only be defined by the functions and appearances that we flawed beings can place upon them. Non-contradictions seem to be a more logical and probable principle. Any thoughts?

]]> Comment on PHILOSOPHY ON YOUTUBE by nmik http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/14/philosophy-on-youtube-miles-burnyeat-on-plato/#comment-88 nmik Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:00:32 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=102#comment-88 That's good to hear--I actually find the discussion quite helpful, particularly for first time students of Aristotle--but she is a tad edgy--esp. as compared w/ Burnyeat. That’s good to hear–I actually find the discussion quite helpful, particularly for first time students of Aristotle–but she is a tad edgy–esp. as compared w/ Burnyeat.

]]> Comment on PHILOSOPHY ON YOUTUBE by hgmclean http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/14/philosophy-on-youtube-miles-burnyeat-on-plato/#comment-60 hgmclean Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:16:24 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=102#comment-60 I do not think Martha was as bad (/funny/neurotic) as you made her out to be. I do not think Martha was as bad (/funny/neurotic) as you made her out to be.

]]> Comment on PHILOSOPHY ON YOUTUBE by Jim http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/10/14/philosophy-on-youtube-miles-burnyeat-on-plato/#comment-39 Jim Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:04:12 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=102#comment-39 There is nothing like a forward thinking professor. The archive has never been richer! There is nothing like a forward thinking professor. The archive has never been richer!

]]> Comment on PHAEDO by Religion News, Blogs and More » - religion greek http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/09/11/phaedo/#comment-28 Religion News, Blogs and More » - religion greek Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:53:49 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=70#comment-28 [...] Phaedo By eegbert I can?t think of an example when a dying man didn?t ?find religion? and really thought he wasn?t going to an afterlife. During the discussion his first three proofs for an immortal soul are shot down by his disciples, and they start … Ancient Greek Philosophy - http://phil201.umwblogs.org/ [...] [...] Phaedo By eegbert I can?t think of an example when a dying man didn?t ?find religion? and really thought he wasn?t going to an afterlife. During the discussion his first three proofs for an immortal soul are shot down by his disciples, and they start … Ancient Greek Philosophy - http://phil201.umwblogs.org/ [...]

]]> Comment on PHAEDO by mhenness http://phil201.umwblogs.org/2008/09/11/phaedo/#comment-27 mhenness Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:24:02 +0000 http://phil201.umwblogs.org/?p=70#comment-27 I don't think those two arguments contradict the other. I take the first to mean that opposites are inextricably linked to one another, death comes from life therefore life comes from death. And I take the second to mean that you can not be both. You can not be dead and alive at the same time. I don’t think those two arguments contradict the other. I take the first to mean that opposites are inextricably linked to one another, death comes from life therefore life comes from death. And I take the second to mean that you can not be both. You can not be dead and alive at the same time.

]]>