Download file to see previous pages...
As a philosopher, Socrates was afraid that subjectivity and skeptic beliefs that were prevalent in the society would undermine the ethical construct of young people (Plato 161). As a response, Socrates differed with the ruling class, and independently portrayed his vision of ethics. In Plato’s dialogue, detailed elaboration of Socrates’ philosophical education is portrayed through contextual analogies, specifically in the analogy of warrior guardians.
Observably, Socrates separates motivation and desires into three distinct groups; appetitive desires like sex and money, spiritual desires like honor, and rational desires like objective knowledge and truth. In practical contexts, independent pursuit for these three desires often overlaps with each other (Lindsey and Wyse 70). In the context of philosophical education, Socrates mentioned that an overlap occurs when the pursuit for objective knowledge overlap with that of appetitive desires and lusts like sex. In his warrior guardians’ analogy, Socrates discredits that erotic attraction and relationship between a boy and a man. According to Socrates, “A mutual attraction and love between a boy and a man is necessary for objective education to materialize” (Plato 206). Apparently, heightened senses of love motivate a young learner to pursue knowledge with the help of his older teacher. However, sexual desires occasionally infiltrates into the boy-man relationship in philosophical education. Plato mentioned that when pure love is transformed into an erotic love, the intended purpose of an educational relationship fails. This is more so when erotic love is homosexual in nature.
In this context, it emerged that erotic homosexual desires are not only selfish but also unethical. According to Socrates, erotic heterosexual desires are ethical and natural because they lead to procreation. However, Socrates mentioned that homosexual acts are purely useless
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Toronto: Nelson Education, 2010. Chapter 3 – Representation and the Construction of Social Reality, pp. 67-96. 1. Language as System of Codes and Signs. In the beginning of Chapter 3 of “Popular Culture: A User’s Guide” (2010), O’Brien and Szeman introduce the framework for linguistic analysis of popular culture which is based in the “mechanics of sign systems.” (p.68) The intention of the authors in this introduction is to deconstruct the phenomenology through which meaning itself is created in social relationships through communication.
Human identity is therefore very crucial in crafting and narrating African stories, in that some try to explain natural phenomena. The Asian stories to a large extend may be explained to explain the phenomena of the importance of God in humanity, and the need for a unified existence in all human beings.
The authors examine how different issues are represented differently, in the construction of a crisis and the impact this has on the understanding of the crisis. Accordingly, the authors explain that the construction of a crisis is dependent of two factors, including the reality of the event, and how the event is presented to the society.
The ways to solve problems in any era is hidden in these ideas. The aim is to share ideas that are everlasting, to search for enduring truth that are constant, as the human and natural world at the most essential level remain unchanged.
These baffling questions, unanswerable by his own knowledge and understanding at that time led him to create what would eventually be mythology. Wikipedia defines mythology as "stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity." To analyze this definition, we can deduce that mythology per se is man's way of explaining things otherwise he does not know in supernatural ways.
random, unimportant things that normally bother people such as the class that we are born in, what our families believe are right or wrong, and the wealth that we do or don’t have are not important. Modern society is concerned about the external things and things that are
llette (146) also defines ethical relativism by supporting the argument that “Ethical principles or judgments are relative to the individual or culture”. He further contemplates that “There are ways in which ethical principles behavior vary legitimately from culture to
Examples of normative ethics are the theories of Natural Law, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics. Meta-ethics is about normative ethics, and it is about making sense of the terms and concepts used (Oliphant & Mayled: 6).