| Papers [181-192] of 4449 :: [Page 16 of 371] | | Go to page : <— 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 —> | |
|
|
Philosophy of Leadership, 2008.
A discussion of leadership by comparing James Farr's "Leadership vs. Management", Plato's "Republic", Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan", and Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail".
1,970 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 10 sources, APA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper considers the need to master leadership skills as a means for effective leadership. The paper reviews the work of James Farr, "Leadership vs. Management", as a critique of ineffective and effective leadership. It then reviews the leadership suggestions of Plato as shown in the "Republic". The paper finds this model of leadership especially negative in its criticism of democracy. It next turns to Thomas Hobbes, and again finds him extremely negative in his outline of the state of nature and the need for absolute government as shown in the "Leviathan". The essay finally turns to Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and finds that this is a positive and effective model of leadership.
From the Paper
"Plato, for example, shows what he thinks our democratic society will become. It is a grim view, one I cannot endorse. In Book VIII of The Republic, he discusses society's descent to democracy, which he says follows the failure of an oligarchy. That is an order driven by fear of abject poverty (553c, 562b, 556c). Men show miserly respectability (553d), without control of reason or spirit. (551a, 553c, 556d). A few grow rich and shape the state they want, oppressing others. (552e, 5533, 564e)."
| |
|
Suicide, 2008.
A comparison of the arguments of Immanuel Kant in "Suicide and Duty" and David Hume in "Of Suicide."
1,578 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents David Hume's argument against suicide as described in "Of Suicide." It discusses his arguments based on God's plan for human beings and the establishment of immutable laws that cannot be transgressed, although he does defend suicide in certain scenarios. It then discusses Immanuel Kant's argument against suicide in "Suicide and Duty" and his position that suicide can never be justified.
From the Paper
"Kant (1930) provides the strongest position on the immorality of suicide. Although Hume (1874) defends suicide in certain cases, he based his entire argument in God's plan for human beings and the establishment of immutable laws that cannot be transgressed. Those laws are, in fact, providence, designed to protect human beings and guide them. The problem with Hume's (1874) argument is that in a universe that is completely controlled and determined by God, there is no choice for the human being. All that anyone can do is to accept and observe the laws. The whole argument depends on whether has faith in God. Kant's (1930) argument focuses on the human being as having a great deal of worth and as a person who is a moral agent. The person can commit suicide but the choice is made on the basis of a higher purpose which is that person's own purpose."
| |
|
Aristotle and Friendships, 2008.
This paper analyzes the highest level of friendship that induces Aristotle's idea of friendship as a virtue in Nichomachean Ethics.
1,660 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper analyzes the three different tiers of friendship in Aristotle's philosophy: friendships of utility, pleasure and of the good. The paper discusses Aristotle's argument that a friendship "of the good" provides a foundation for eudemonia (the happiest life). The paper explains how this level of friendship strives to discover the greatest good or happiness between friends, rather than seeking immediate gratification through superficial relationships.
From the Paper
"For Aristotle, the greatest good of life comes from having a friendship that can be purified from immoral or materialistic causation. The importance of friends is one of the major virtues of life that must be taken into account when living for eudemonia or for the greater good of life in Book VIII:
"After what we have said, a discussion of friendship would naturally follow, since it is a virtue or implies virtue, and is besides most necessary with a view to living. For without friends no one would choose to live (Aristotle para.1)"
| |
|
The Family and its Relation to Politics, 2008.
A comparison of the views on family and politics expressed by John Locke in "Second Treatise of Government" and by Confucius in "The Analects."
2,696 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the family unit and its relationship with politics. It looks at John Locke's views, in his "Second Treatise of Government" of the place and nature of the family as a social unit in its contribution to what we today know as political science. It also looks at the viewed expressed in "The Analects" of Confucius. The paper compares and contrasts the two authors' views on family and politics.
Outline:
Introduction
Second Treatise of Government
The Analects and the Ideal Family
Reflection and Conclusion
From the Paper
"As approaches to the family in relation to the greater forces of politic science and social order, both Locke and Confucius are intriguing to investigate, again, referring to the present, given that both began in reactions to observed and experienced political turbulence and situations of social disorder. For instance, what does it mean when conservative Americans and others proclaim the need for what are called Family Values, or why is it that members of non-Western societies so denounce what they perceive of Western individualism and non-existent family life? Put differently, what implications can be expected in societies to very much emphasis individualism, personal agency and competition, as part of how children are prepared for adult life? In the case of what is referred to as the Sinic World of cultures shaped by Chinese civilization, why might authoritarian governments of one kind or another be expected, or accepted?"
| |
|
The Human Person and Truth, 2008.
This paper explores Socrates and Friedrich Nietzsche's differing beliefs on the concept of truth, what constitutes true knowledge, and the human ability to understand it.
3,155 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the ideas of Socrates as passed on to his student Plato and then to Aristotle and compares these ideas to Frederich Nietzsche's beliefs. The paper explains that Aristotle sees truth as an interaction between our soul and the observable world while to Nietzsche, truth is a creation of the human mind.
Outline:
Socrates and Plato
Aristotle
Nietzsche
From the Paper
"One of the most important discussions of the nature of truth, knowledge and the human ability to understand it, comes from The Apology of Socrates, by his student Plato. The Apology is an account of Socrates trial in 399 B.C. Along with Plato's description of Socrates' debate with Meno, The Apology helps us understand both the Socratic method of inquiry and the world view which justifies this type of learning by discussion.
"Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and of not believing in the Gods of Athens. Plato sets the scene with Socrates opening statements in which he asks to be allowed to speak to the judge and jury. Socrates explains that he is an old man and that this is how he teaches. He asks, "...think only of the justice of my cause, and give heed to that: let the judge decide justly and the speaker speak truly. (Jowett, 1)"
| |
|
Inter-Cultural Harmony, 2008.
This paper discusses that no matter how enlightened the participants, inter-cultural harmony will always be hampered by differences in background and perspective.
1,253 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer argues that inter-cultural or cross-cultural harmony will always be hampered by differences in background and perspective simply because human beings' (and how they react to the gestures and communicative strategies of others) are the most volatile and unpredictable variable of all when it comes to assessing the possible problems and rewards of a communication exchange. With that in mind, the paper explores why cross-cultural communication is so difficult. The paper also looks at some arguments which insist that inter-cultural exchanges can be harmonious and "worry-free" if enough training and education is provided. Finally, the writer concludes by reiterating why there will always be certain difficulties in cross-cultural communication and the paper finishes by suggesting that such tensions are just a "part of life" and must be accommodated to the fullest extent possible.
From the Paper
""Following this premise to its logical conclusion, it is clear that biological determinism, ecological factors, and simple evolution really are insufficient to wholly explain the nuances of each society - or at least to the satisfaction of a trained social scientist. Going further, each and every human being is a remarkably complex creature that will respond differently to essentially the same stimuli; consequently, it is impossible to avoid cross-cultural miscommunication because comments or gestures that someone else from the same culture finds tolerable might spark a highly unpleasant response from someone else who is also from that culture. In the end, the variables which constrain smooth cross-cultural communication are at least as numerable as there are people in the world.
"Still, some experts believe that cross-cultural communication does not have to be hampered by differences in background or by differences in perspective."
| |
|
Locke and Rousseau on Economic Inequality, 2008.
A comparison of John Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality".
2,790 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay compares and contrasts two theoretical models regarding economic inequality. The first is presented by John Locke in his "Second Treatise of Government", which addresses the origins of economic inequality. The second, which is in sharp distinction to these views, is presented by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his "Discourse on the Origin of Inequality". The paper outlines the strengths and weaknesses of both. It argues that, while both works are very similar in their imagined origins of economic inequality in the early history of property, they differ radically in how they represent property and the justifications for its differing accumulations that ultimately give rise to economic inequality. The paper concludes that Locke envisions property and moderate levels of economic inequality as a good thing, while Rousseau condemns this inequality as a corrupting influence upon human society in every respect.
From the Paper
"However, while there is a superficial similarity between how Locke and Rousseau each conceive of the state of nature, there is one important distinction between the two: property. While Locke conceives, as noted above, of an equality of property as existing in the state of nature, Rousseau contends that the innovation of property itself marked the ending of the state of nature and the beginning of human society.
"This is an important difference, and it goes to the heart of how each philosopher conceives of economic inequality. For example, it is clear from the outset of Rousseau's description of the state of nature and its defining characteristics that he sees property as not only a negative aspect of human society but as being fundamentally illegitimate as well."
| |
|
Aristotle and Virtue, 2008.
An analysis of Aristotle's beliefs about human virtue and how they can be applied to the modern world.
1,269 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle taught two thousand years ago that unless there is meaning and purpose in people's lives and that unless human beings understand why they suffer and rejoice and why they toil and exert themselves, and unless they comprehend the meaning of life, they do not truly live, but merely exist. The paper discusses how Aristotle emphasized that virtue provides meaning and defines human excellence. The paper also discusses how Aristotle's beliefs seems quaint and outdated today because self-interest and cynicism pervade this modern world, in which people are far more interested in advancement than in virtue.
From the Paper
"Aristotle sought to provide meaning and understanding through his works, to explain the purpose of existence, and to guide people to lead virtuous lives that will have meaning for them and for those they love. Yet today, millions of people still search for the meaning of life. For so many people, the philosophical teachings of the great philosophers of human history seem archaic, misguided, fearfully strict, hollow, or impossible to achieve. Life seems pointless, values seem flawed, virtuous conduct is rare, and they can find little if any joy or satisfaction in anything. "
| |
|
Confucius and Locke on the Institution of Family, 2008.
A comparison and contrast of Confucius and John Locke's views on the family and its relation to politics.
2,328 words (approx. 9.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the views of the ancient Chinese philosopher, Confucius in "The Analects" and the early modern British philosopher, John Locke in "Second Treatise of Government." It particularly looks at the views of each philosopher in relation to the social institution of the family and their models of political order. The paper suggests that the different ways they understand familial relations can be seen as reflecting their distinct conceptions of political order in society as a whole.
From the Paper
"Locke contends that freedom comes with maturity and the capacity to exercise reason, and that it is the primary responsibility of the parent or guardian of a child to promote this in the child until he attains the age of maturity. Thus, while people in Confucius' political philosophy were advised never to think about government or politics, Locke in contrast argues that it is the prime duty - indeed, the defining characteristic - of an adult human being that they be able to consider questions of government and politics."
| |
|
The Development of Liberalism, 2008.
This paper discusses the development of liberalism as a political philosophy.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper relates that liberalism emerged as a political philosophy during the Enlightenment era in Europe and was espoused by political philosophers such as John Locke. The paper defines liberalism as a political ideology based upon representative government and individual rights. The paper explains that it emphasizes strong support for a broad interpretation of civil liberties, for freedom of expression, religious toleration, the separation of church and state and for widespread popular participation in the political process. The paper reveals that for three hundred years liberalism has attempted to establish itself as a transcendent political philosophy in opposition to autocratic and totalitarian political ideologies. The paper concludes that it may ultimately fall to the very ideology it replaced; autocratic theocracy.
From the Paper
"Understanding liberalism is important because it has been a prevailing political philosophy in the Western world for more than two centuries. It is also important to emphasize that, "liberalism is not one simple, undifferentiated doctrine. As with other doctrines or ideologies, there are varieties of liberalism." (Sally) For example, "all liberals agree on the primacy of individual freedom and individual choice, which distinguishes liberalism from socialism and nationalism. But some liberals argue in favor of these core values by means of highly abstract reasoning." (Sally)"
| |
|
Martin Heidegger on the Nature of Being, 2008.
A analysis of the work and beliefs of Martin Heidegger, the philosopher.
3,533 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the work of the philosopher Heidegger, whose central concern was with the nature of Being, and discusses the origins of his lifelong fascination with this foundational, ontological issue. The paper relates that Heidegger made a massive contribution to ontology, forcing others to think about the nature of Being from the foundations up. The paper concludes that Heidegger left an important legacy, in that he re-opened key questions that to this day still have not been answered satisfactorily.
From the Paper
"Many philosophers are concerned with the key question of "Why is there anything, rather than nothing at all?" In other words, they are interested in why things have Being, or exist. Such philosophers are often interested in ascertaining who or what was the Prime Mover - the first thing that had Being, and that subsequently caused other things to have Being (commonly thought of as God). Other philosophers are concerned with how we can know about Being. This is referred to as epistemology, or the theory of knowledge. In Heidegger's time, many philosophers attempted to follow in the Kantian tradition, and were primarily concerned with asking "What can we know?" They frequently posed this question in relation to knowledge as the foundation of science.
"However, Heidegger was never part of any herd. He dismissed epistemology, saying that it "continually sharpens the knife but never gets round to cutting" (Being and Time, p. lviii, quoted in Inwood, p. 13). Heidegger seems to have been more concerned with cutting, with penetrating right into the meat of reality. He was concerned with the nature of what is, i.e. with the nature of Being. This is known as ontology, or the study of existence. While this is sometimes conceived of as the most general branch of metaphysics, it can also be seen as the most particular branch of metaphysics - and certainly the latter is truer of Heidegger's approach to ontology. His study of the nature of Being is one of the key concepts in his work, and potentially the most useful to subsequent students of philosophy. Certainly, Heidegger envisaged his examination of the concept of Being as a radical re-visioning which would impact not only the future, but the past. He planned to re-examine past philosophers and (and possibly show how they had erred), in a Second Part to his seminal Being and Time. Unfortunatley he never achieved the latter, as he never wrote this Second Part. Nevertheless, he did address many issues which have impacted philosophers that have come after him - most notably, of course, the concept of Being, and also the related concept of time."
| |
|
David Hume and the Idea Of Necessary Connection, 2008.
A review of the concepts of necessary connection in David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding."
943 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes and reviews David Hume's essay, "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding," in which he attempts to show what we do and do not know about causation. It analyzes Hume's arguments in his essay, particularly with respect to the idea of necessary connection and presents examples of how Hume's arguments can be applied to day-to-day life.
From the Paper
"Hume's Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is a remarkable essay, and to grasp it fully requires maintaining the rigid intellectual distinctions that Hume did maintain. Again, his inquiry focuses on what we know about the world, not what the world is or how it behaves. Indeed, Hume concludes that what we know about the world is limited, and we must rely on our limited understanding to allow us to carry on our day-to-day affairs. Hume set himself apart from the rationalist metaphysicians, who wrestled with questions about the nature of the universe, whether or not there is a God, and the immortality of soul. Hume's inquiry was essentially a preliminary to this: how do we know what we know. How can we ask if there is a God if we cannot know what the causal connection is in the world around us."
|
|
|