Mariela the Philosophy novice

The Politics is a book dedicated to concepts of state, political communities. Aristotle starts his writing by defining state as a community of communities. All communities  aim for a good. The state is the largest community and embraces the rest. Because of this relationship, it aims at a deeper and larger good. Aristotle debunks the qualifications and conceptions people have for rulers of a certain community (king, statesman, householder, master). The mistake he identifies is people differentiating between rulers by the number of their subjects. Aristotle suggests politics should not be viewed this way but rather as a compound composed of elements. This statement sets the tone for book 1. His mission now is to reveal these elements.  According to Aristotle, looking at the origin will reveal "the clearest view" of the essence of a state. Family is first elements identified. Family is the union of people, starting with that of man and woman, who need each...

The first section of Book 1 was really interesting. Specially because I enjoyed the way Socrates has conversations with people, questioning everything they say and hence making them reflect about what they just said. This is an example of how dialoguing can help you create new ways of thinking. I will write about the first two conversations he has. The first one with the respectable Cephalus.  The talk between Socrates and Cephalus reminded me of the talks my parents and I have before I come back to college after a break. Socrates, thought, is clearly more willing to ask questions to the elders than I normally am. Socrates eagerly, with a tone of respect, wants to know how Cephalus directs his life. Socrates learns from the wisdom of an old man.   It is interesting because it reminded me of Plato’s Pheado where Socrates is summing up his life moments before dying in the presence of other philosophers. This is a foreshadowing of what he will do when its close to his last m...

This blog is inspired by Socrates questioning if wisdom of word can be taught, in other words if being a good citizen can be taught? We find this in his first dialogue with Protagoras, the sophist. Socrates first critiques Hippocrates for wanting to pay money to Protagoras to teach him how to become better. He then confronts Portagoras himself and asks him why he is teaching the not teachable.  For socrates the non teachable is something that can't "be imparted from one human being to another" (Plato, Prot. 319b). For him it is clear that knowledge is not something to purchase. Protagoras' reason for teaching wisdom, specifically the art of politics which requires reason, is because human beings were not made with this type of talent when the gods were making them, they ran out of talents for human beings and had to borrow from the gods, so they borrowed from Athena and Hephaestus wisdom of the practical arts.  Human beings were being killed by wild animals because ...

Can you imagine becoming better and better every single day. Isn't that what we all want and are supposed to do? Becoming better for the Sophists was a central goal, at least from what I perceived from Protagoras, the head of the team of the sophists, the non philosophers. The idea of 'becoming better' works under the assumption that the person is lacking what can make you better. This is also under the assumption that once you become better you cannot become better again the way you were better the day before, you continue getting better, but cannot go back, this defeats the point of getting better.  Hence why in my personal opinion this is one of the main flaws of the slogan, "Make America better again" by Trump. However, the sophist were nothing like him. It is true that back then they were not liked by Plato, but some of their arguments about the importance of rhetoric, the knowledge to use words, is something that we should always keep in mind and learn fro...

The two founders of atomism, Leucippus and Democritus, took the well accepted ideas of Parmenides about the being and the non-being. They claimed that all that we see is composed of small elements, the atoms, these are the being. Another component of the physical world is the void, the non-being. Atoms, as product of random motion, enter void to give it a sense of being. What separates the theory of the Atomists from Parmenides is that their atoms are unlimited in amount, compared to Parmenides’ being as one and whole. I would like to briefly explore what I think are fundamental implications of two of the concepts covered by the atomists’ theory. I would like to give my opinion on the implications of the atomists idea of atoms birthing difference and their idea of what they consider real. The different combinations of atoms give rise to the different things seen. Assuming that all combinations of atoms give rise to differences can have consequences on how we view equality. Can ...