Notification [x]
Member since: 04/10/2006
Profile last updated: 04/10/2006
Current Status: Offline
1st handshakes

Browse Testimonials
Author Feedback Action
Machiavelli's idea of virtu' is not of moral character then, but of what is best or the utilitarian needs of the country. For Machiavelli virtu' out weighs virtue in times of need while Plato believes a just ruler must behave the same all the time. Salmon says: Machiavelli critically analyzes the crucial characteristics of successful rulers, distinguishing, for example, between standards of discipline appropriate for military campaigns and for rulers when they are not commanding armies. Similarly, when Machiavelli discusses the concepts of cruelty and mercy, he presents examples to show that actions which might seem at first glance to be cruel are merciful in the circumstances, and vice versa.

Modern times have obviously proven Marx' assumptions of the self-destructive tendency of capitalism to be much more latent and controllable. The dynamic and destructive capitalist economy which 1) replaced exploitation veiled with religion with blatant exploitation and 2) destroyed its own means of preventing future crises has again become a more veiled form of exploitation and has proven to have a much greater capacity to prevent crises through human constructions such as the federal reserve board and government crisis monetary backing. Things such as these show capitalist society to be more tenacious than Marx thought. How does this effect his claim to scientific status? Marxism is still a very exact and penetrating critique -- but what level of science can it claim?
The young are stronger, but the old more cunning. The older an animal or human gets, the more knowledge they possess. This knowledge is gained mostly through experience. A person can spend years in a classroom studying various subjects, but until they actually use that knowledge, and experience in the field the knowledge is useless. Hume writes in Section IX;

Descartes develops a correspondence theory of truth. However, for Descartes, truth is always going to have to remain private. He believes we have direct and immediate contact with our own ideas. Whatever we see we bring back to our minds. If we don not like what that something, then we distort it. Our eyes and other senses distort the truth and can deceive us. Descarte says: I have accepted as possessed of the highest truth and certainty I have learned either from the senses or through the senses. Now these senses I have sometimes found to be deceptive; and it is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived. (Descartes, Rene, "Meditations," Struhl, Paula Rothenberg, and Struhl Karsten J., editors, Philosophy Now. Random House: 1980, P. 88)
A person could argue that yes this makes sense, but how do you explain the different degrees of knowledge people attain. Since we all gather experiences throughout our life, we must actually be rationalizing upon these experiences, and gaining knowledge from these rationalizations. Hume argues:

Why would not simply making use of the lands of a country (i.e. for traveling) make you subject to that country's laws because of the implicit benefits you gain (i.e. safe passage, an efficient road, etc.)? I believe that Locke himself addresses this question from this point of view in a later section of the Second Treatise.
Today, there is a big push in this country to limit individual freedom/liberty for the good of society. People fear crime and the diminishing of what is called family values. The problem is whose speech should be limited? Atheists may argue that all religious speech should be censored because it is false. Theologians may argue that atheism should be censored because it is false. Family values differ from family to family. The moral values taught to Islamic, Jewish, Christian and Catholic children are not identical. Who is to decide which set of values we should follow? The individual (or the individual's parents) has to make that decision themselves without interference from well intentioned others. No one has the right to interfere with a person's individual Liberty to choose what is best for them.

The statement is confusing. It seems that Dewey wishes to have his cake and eat it too. He spends over four hundred pages arguing that we should accept his method of philosophical criticism. Dewey criticizes other philosophers of selective emphasis then claims we should accept his theory of the ineluctable traits of natural existence as a starting point for philosophic discovery or his selective emphasis. Dewey's method of philosophy claims the world is constantly changing and that truth can only be obtained according to the values we place on it. Dewey shows how our values, experiences, and culture change what we perceive as true. Truth, like nature constantly changes and hence, cannot be predicted or permanently defined. Dewey, by offering a selective emphasis of the natural traits nature, Dewey is, once again, guilty of his own criticism. There cannot be a selective emphasis in the system of philosophy Dewey espouses. Dewey states of selective emphasis:
Plato answers by claiming that morality is a necessary cause of happiness, that one's happiness is correlary to one's moral behavior. Therefore, an immoral person would be motivated to be moral if he wants to be happy. The happy person, according to Plato, is the just person, a claim that he posits in two ways:

Socrates, however, consistently cites that the people of the kallipolis, raised in virtue, justice, and with a knowledge of what is good, will realize the justice of the kallipolis and act according to their sense of justice and for the good of the city. This argument is fine in and of itself. When you reach the political structure of the kallipolis, however, certain ideas are brought into question.