Eugene Albert Olarte Javillonar For September 26, 2013

Absent Report, PH104 Section B

On the lecture the forms of the political and the anti-political were
discussed. Using background information from the ancient Greeks, we are
able to fully comprehend the differences of thought between philosophers
who knew about the great partitions in society to those who believed it
unnecessary and unnoticeable. Through comparison of great thinkers like
Descartes, Rousseau, Hobbes their sum comprises of the understanding that
there is great division and control over society. Through Plato though we
see in his mind that there are no divisions, it is only because humans are
intrinsically unpredictable, their nature for being unstable creates in
turn the instability with in the modern society. Arendt stated as well it
because of the unequal ways we were born that also creates the instability.
Some being born poor are given the worst of society, while those in the
upper echelons have more privileges, and also more power. Those born with
noble blood or from rich families have an edge in power are able to
promulgate this power so that their descendants will retain it or even
increase it. Justice, for Aristotle, consists of restoring or maintaining a
proper balance. He hardly distinguishes the justice that deals with
criminal cases and the justice involved in legal commerce except to call
the former involuntary and the latter voluntary.
It might be difficult to see what a commercial transaction might have in
common with a brutal assault. For Aristotle, they both involve exchanges
between two people in which one person stands to gain unfair advantage and
the other stands to receive an equivalent disadvantage. Since justice deals
with maintaining a proper balance, any case that might result in unfair
advantage or disadvantage is a concern of justice.
In the manner of a geometrical proof, Hobbes's philosophical method
proceeds from one conclusion to the next in logical succession.
As Leviathan consists of an interconnected series of propositions and
ideas, the text appropriately begins with chapters examining the nature and
origin of ideas themselves.
The rest of Hobbes's argument depends upon the conclusions established in
these opening chapters. The propositions about human thought form the first
principles for the geometrical proof that Hobbes is attempting to
construct. Hobbes makes his arguments in a series of steps; the validity of
the claim of each step is based upon the claim made in the previous step.
However, the very first principle on which Hobbes bases his claims
regarding the nature of thinking--namely, that the universe is a plenum
filled completely with material bodies--is never articulated in the text.
Hobbes's assertion of a plenum is his response to a years-long
philosophical debate against vacuism, or the theory that the universe is
largely devoid of matter. Still, though Hobbes claims (as we will see in
the next section) that philosophical truth must be deduced from shared
definitions, he does not here indicate that his own fundamental first
principle of the plenum is generally accepted or agreed upon; Hobbes acts
as his own arbitrator and judge of first principles. His philosophical
project manages to remain logically consistent only by recursively
validating these first principles in later chapters. To dispute the truth
value of Hobbes's unspoken claim that nature is a plenum is not necessarily
to dispute the entire edifice that is Leviathan, for Hobbes argues from
common experience at several points. However, so tightly structured is the
text, with one step leading to the next step, with one layer founding the
succeeding layer, that--as with a house of cards--tearing out the bottom
tier would threaten to topple the upper stories.
Of course, as we will see in the next section, Hobbes is proposing an
epistemological system whose foundations need not be universally true as
long as they are conventionally agreed upon for the sake of attaining civil
peace. This factor alone prevented Hobbes's vacuist contemporaries from
dismissing his project on the basis of its controversial first principles.
Eugene Albert Olarte Javillonar For September 28, 2013
Absent Report, PH104 Section B

For this lecture we discussed the Nicomachean Ethics were the virtues
of friendships were elaborated on. Two things were noticed and that in
friendship there are support groups, and that in this groups friends able
to help and reinforce the self. But it is through groups, through moulding
of the mind and of actions that individuals are also being shaped to be a
particular person. Proper character is being imposed into us through these
kinds of groups or institutional formations. All of these influences so
that we are able to know how to properly operate in the societal
environment. Much confusion about Aristotles work comes not from
Aristotles lack of clarity, but from an imprecision in translation.
Ancient Greek is quite different from the English language, and more
important, the ancient Greeks lived in a very different culture that used
concepts for which there are no exact English translations.
One central concept of the Ethics is eudaimonia, which is generally
translated as happiness. While happiness is probably the best English
word to translate eudaimonia, the term also carries connotations of
success, fulfillment, and flourishing. A person who is eudaimon is not
simply enjoying life, but is enjoying life by living successfully. Ones
success and reputation, unlike ones emotional well-being, can be affected
after death, which makes Aristotles discussion of eudaimonia after death
considerably more relevant. That happiness should be closely connected to
success and fulfillment reflects an important aspect of social life in
ancient Greece. The identity of Greek citizens was so closely linked to the
city-state to which they belonged that exile was often thought of as a fate
worse than death. There was no distinction between the public and private
spheres as exists in the modern world. Consequently, happiness was not
thought of as a private affair, dependent on individual emotional states,
but as a reflection of a persons position within a city-state. A person
who inhabits a proper place in the social structure and who appropriately
fulfills the duties and expectations of that place is happy because, for
the Greeks, happiness is a matter of livingnot just feelingthe right way.
Aristotle treats happiness as an activity, not as a state. He uses the
word energeia, which is the root of our word energy, to characterize
happiness. The point is that happiness consists of a certain way of life,
not of certain dispositions. In saying that happiness is an energeia, he
contrasts happiness with virtue, which he considers a hexis, or state of
being. Possessing all the right virtues disposes a person to live well,
while happiness is the activity of living well, which the virtuous person
is inclined toward. The very idea of living well might seem a bit odd as
Aristotle formulates it. In particular, he talks about living well as
performing the function of being human well, analogous to the good
flutist performing the function of playing the flute well. It may seem that
Aristotle has confused the practical and the moral: being a good flutist is
a practical matter of study and talent, while no such analogy holds for
morality. Being a good person surely is not a skill one develops in the
same manner as flute playing. But this objection rests on a
misunderstanding due to a difficulty in translation. The Greek
word ethos translates as character, and the concerns of theEthics are not
with determining what is right and wrong, but with how to live a virtuous
and happy life.
We should also note the importance of the concept of telos,which we might
translate as end or goal. The first sentence of the Ethics tells us
that every activity aims at a certain telos.For instance, one might go to
the gym with the telos of becoming fitter. When Aristotle identifies
happiness as the highest goal, he is claiming that happiness is the
ultimate telosof any action. We might understand this idea of an
ultimatetelos by imagining the child who constantly asks, why?