Different Philosophers in Different Fields

In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle c argonfully considers the come of responsibility and finds that the charitable being is indeed responsible for his or her actions and may be morally culpable even for uncaused consequences. This applies both to the private conduct of item-by-items and to the conduct of legislators acting for the customary effective. For Aristotle, acting unjustly is tantamount to wishing to act unjustly. The individual is responsible both for his or her moral disposition and withal for the manner in which moral questions are decided by him or her. Indeed, this is seen as a natural process so that the individual is born with the ability to differentiate between good and evil. Boethius was a Platonist and derived elements from both Plato and Aristotle. He considered human temper a distinct entity and argued that Christ embodied both a manufacturing business nature and human nature. At the analogous time, human nature is included in divine nature, for all things which exist are also God, including every human being. He saw philosophical system as a means of learning more virtually God and of coming to grips with one's relationship to the rest of creation. That relationship defines the human being and is couched in terms of one's relationship to God. Boethius also helped enthrall the ideas of Aristotle in particular to later generations.

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics, Martin Ostwald (tr.). New York: Bobbs-Merrill,

The prison dwelling corresponds to the region revealed to us by the sense of sight, and the fire-light within it to the power of the sun.

The ascent to see things in the upper world you may take as standing(a) for the upward journey of the soul into the region of the intelligible. . . (Allen 226).

Abelard, Peter. Ethical Writings. capital of Indiana: Hackett, 1995.

Peter Abelard entered the issue of frequents versus particulars and was part of the nominalist school, holding that universals are free-spoken expressions of mental terms and not things in the real world. Universals are thus mental constructs, and the reason they are universals is because they are sure of other things which are the particulars of the real world. The universal cannot be set with a grouping of objects unless those objects are all in the same condition, and since this is unlikely, universals are not themselves real things but stand as a common feature of real thighs that allows for the verbal tilt that this is a universal quality. Abelard was controversial in his ideas on the universal as he was on other theological issues in his time.

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!