PHIL 2100 Philosophy Question Assignment

December 17, 2022

PHIL 2100 Philosophy Question Assignment
hello there , need direct replies for these 2 post it .
1- follow -up question,
For your follow-up this week I would ask you to consider the following: As you know, central to Aristotles ethics is that all living beings including humans can be said to flourish in proportion to how well they reach their full potential. Thus, since humans are the rational animal, Aristotle thought that living a life of reason was crucial for our living a good (human) life. Ive often wondered if this argument works for other characteristics humanity possesses. Consider that, relative to the rest of nature, humans to a greater extent than any other species – engage in art for the sake of art. Would it then follow that humanity is also the aesthetic animal as well?
Now of course, there are other species that are capable of creating things that we might find beautiful. I often think of spider webs as an example here. However, I doubt that we would consider this as the creation of art for the sake of art. More likely this is the result of survival instinct. Correct?
Also: Some may be inclined to think that there are other species that *do* engage in what we might call art. A plausible example is the (alleged) fact that birds sometimes sing simply for the sake of singing. But observe that, even if we count this as an example of art for the sake of art, it doesnt really undermine the argument here. The assertion is that more than any other species, humans have the capacity to create art for the sake of art and that still appears to be the case. (The same point could be made in regards to our *rational* capacity. While Aristotle said “Man is the rational animal” it turns out that other species – e.g. chimpanzees – also demonstrate what we would call “reasoning,” “problem-solving,” etc. However, it still remains true that – as best as we can tell – humans have greater capacity for reasoning than any other species we are aware of.)
In the past when I have discussed this issue with various classes I have gotten the sense that some are reluctant to accept that man is the aesthetic animal because to put it bluntly not everyone is an artist. But Id ask you to think carefully about this point: Isnt it true that (at least) most people engage in activity that could be considered creative? Of course, there are the traditional arts: Drawing, painting, sculpture, music, dance, film making, poetry, architecture, etc. But what about even things such as home decorating, wood-working, make-up artistry, crafting, hair-styling, game design, etc., etc., etc.? When I think about the people that I believe I know well, almost every one of them engages in activity that could be considered aesthetic or, at least, creative. What about you and the people you know? How do you (and yours) express creativity?
Last point here: Part of my interest in this topic is in attempting to figure out what it means to live a balanced life. (As some of you noted in your initial posts, this is another aspect of Aristotles views regarding eudaimonia!) Is having some sort of creative outlet a key component to living such a life? Ive also wondered if thered be fewer problems in the world if more of us spent time engaging in creative endeavors! =)
Okay, folks, so what do you think? Might we also say similar to Aristotles reasoning regarding our *rational* potential that fulfilling our *aesthetic* potential is also a key to living a good life?
Okay, folks, so what do you think? Might we also say similar to Aristotles reasoning regarding our *rational* potential that fulfilling our *aesthetic* potential is also a key to living a good life?
2- i just need reply for this one below .
Eudaimonia is best described as a life full of happiness. This is best met by a life full of striving and pushing to be the very best every single day. Understanding what you’re capable of, putting in the work and being consistent can lead to an eudaimonic life. Eudaimonia and happiness are different in terms of the current state of mind. Today, happiness is how you’re feeling at this very moment. For example, today people might be happy because they got a raise at their job or because they bought a new car. That happiness is temporary and can change from moment to moment. Whereas Aristotle explained Eudaimonia in terms of a lifestyle to reach for overtime. Doctors take an oath to live by this eudaimonia principle. They swear to uphold ethical standards everyday for their patients’ health and protection. They have to be consistent, make good decisions and strive for success. If not, they could put peoples lives in danger and lose the respect and trust from their community.

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.