According & Epictetus

According to Epictetus every impression that an individual receives often includes a value-judgment made by the individual. When an individual accepts or gives assent to an impression, assent is often given to the value-judgment as well. For instance, when one sees someone drink a lot of wine, one often judges that they are drinking too much wine . Epictetus suggests that, in the light of Stoic epistemological theory, the apprentice philosopher should train himself to analyze his impressions carefully and be on guard not to give assent to unwarranted value-judgments’.

This viewpoint neatly summarizes postmodernism, save for the postmodernist’s claim that all views are value-laden. For Epictetus, then, the student of philosophy must not only study the three types of philosophical discourse but also engage in these three types of philosophical training or exercise in order to translate that theory into actions. Aristotle born in 384 BC at in Stagira in northern Greece, he was a well known Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist.

Along with his teacher Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers in a number of philosophical fields, including political theory. He was born in Stagira in northern Greece. At the time around 335-323 BC, after death of his friend, he wrote or at least completed some of his major treatises, including the Politics.

after the death of Alexander, Aristotle’s life seems to have influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest in biology seems to be expressed in the naturalism of his politics; his interest in comparative politics and his sympathies for democracy as well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and experience of diverse political systems; he criticizes harshly, while borrowing extensively, from Plato’s Republic, Statesman, and Laws; and his own Politics is intended to guide rulers and statesmen, reflecting the high political circles in which he moved.

Aristotle’s theory is basically related about to universals is one of the classic solutions to the problems of universals, he thought to put it in a not very enlightening way that universals are simply consists of types of substance, properties or relations. That is common to their various instances. In Aristotle’s view, universals exist only where they are in sttantied; they exist only in things, never apart from things. Beyond this Aristotle said that a universal is something identical in each of its instances. So all red things are similar in that there is the same universal, redness, in each thing.

There is no Platonic form of redness, standing apart from all red things; instead, in each red thing there is the same universal, redness. According to the Aristotle’s, universals can be instantiated multiple times. He stressed that, after all, the one and the same universal, apple hood, that appears in each apple. Common sense might detect a problem here. His problem can arise for other forms of realism about universals, however. Namely, how can we make sense of exactly the same thing being in all of these different objects?

That after all is what the theory says; to say that different deserts, the Sahara, the Atacama, and the Gobi are all dry places, is just to say that the exact same being, the universal dryness, occurs at each place. Universals must be awfully strange entities if exactly the same universal can exist in many places and times at once, or so one might think. But maybe that’s not so troubling; it seems troubling if we expect universals to be like physical objects, but remember, we are talking about a totally different category of being.

So a common defense of realism is that we should not expect universals to behave as ordinary physical objects do. Maybe then it is not so strange, then, to say that the exact same universal, dryness, occurs all over the earth at once; after all, there is nothing strange about saying that different deserts can be dry at the same time. Aristotle maintains that paideia enables one to judge the method used by a given speaker without judging the conclusions drawn as well. He concluded the three things in this “paideia of principles” i. e.

seeing that principles are not derived from one another; seeing that there is nothing before them within reason; and, seeing that they are the source of much knowledge. In order to grasp these principles, one must respectively learn to recognize what distinguishes the subject matters studied in different disciplines, see first principles as coming from experience and acquire the habit of seeking them in one’s experience and, finally, see first principles as being the source of conclusions. According to this theory the main question is that-Are Aristotelian universals abstract.

It will help to explain something about how we form concepts, according to Aristotle. On Aristotle’s view, the universal humanity is the same in all humans and this allows us to form a concept of humanity that applies to all humans. the above mentioned theories is basically about mankind and his nature, but these theories has some differences also, The Virtue of these ethics is almost taught and discussed as a distinctive approach to the major questions of ethics, a third major position alongside Utilitarian and Kantian ethics. I think this taxonomy is confusion.

Utilitarianism and Kantianism, Aristotle and the Stoics contain treatments of virtue, so virtue ethics cannot possibly be a separate approach contrasted with those approaches. They hold that reason can deliberate about ends as well as means, and that reason can modify the passions themselves. Another group of virtue theorists are primarily anti-Kantians. They believe that reason plays too dominant a role in most philosophical accounts of ethics, and that a larger place should be given to sentiments and passions.


3rd Edition; Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie Online guide to ethics and moral philosophy published at 1993.