Hellenistic period are the philosophers plato, aristotle, and stoicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter jalen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Period
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the ethical philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism during the Hellenistic period, emphasizing the importance of virtue and ethics for personal development. It asserts that a healthy soul is balanced among the physical, emotional, and intellectual components, leading to sound ethical decisions, while an unhealthy soul results in unethical behavior. The philosophers believed that knowledge fosters ethical behavior, while ignorance leads to wrongdoing, and that ethical living is shaped by both knowledge and habitual practice. Happiness is framed as an activity linked to ethical behavior rather than a mere goal. The conversation also touches on historical context, noting the transition from the golden age of Athens to the Hellenistic period following the conquests of Philip of Macedon.
jalen
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
- believed that ethics, or virtue, was valuable for the person, despite consequences
-the healthy or virtuous personality has a clear moral vision, good judgment, and strength of will
-each of us is made up of three elements: a physical body, spirit, and intellect:
in the healthy soul, these three components are balanced. In the healthy soul, these three components are balanced. The physical body, the spirited or emotional part of us, and the intellectual all have equal roles to play, and the well-balanced individuals make good ethical decisions
-in the unhealthy soul, these three components are out of balance. If, for example, our desire for physical or emotional pleasures, is stronger than our intellect, our ideas and beliefs will be skewed. Lack of control over anyone of these elements leads to bad decisions, and unethical behavious. The result is wrongdoing, it is to hurt others and oneself as well
-believed ideal “forms” existed for everything in the universe, including ethical ideals
-was sure that those people who learned the right way to act, would act accordingly
-knowledge creates ethical behaviours, while ignorance encourages unethical behaviours


- believed that we must look around, and examine the everyday behaviours of the people to discover what it means to live in an ethically correct manner
-he said that we become ethical individuals as a result of two major influences: knowledge that we acquire, and the habits that we develop. We learn what is right from wrong from teachers, experience, and life. However, we also become ethical persons through habit
-reasoned that the good life is one of happiness
-he reasoned that happiness is an activity rather than a goal, and is present when we behave ethically


-during his lifetime, Philip of Macedon from the north conquered the Greek city states. This marked the end of the “golden age of Athens.”
- conquered vast territories as far east as India
-period between his death in 323 BCE and the height of the Roman empire in 31 BCE is known as the Hellenistic period


are the philosophers plato, aristotle, and stoicism?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Please write down the given question completely, explain what the question requires, and how you arrived at your guesses. The third person described in the question is hardly a philosopher - why do you say they are all philosophers? Incidentally, I don't see how "stoicism" is either a philosopher or a him (particularly one that has a very sharp lifetime, and an army).
 


Very brave of you to answer that, Gokul. Jeez. Personally, I think people should buy more hats.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top