philosophy


DIRECTIONS: You obtain suggest a whole of 5 unconnected columns for this item.

1) Answer any THREE of the nine questions listed underneath. You may extract three questions from the corresponding provision or three questions from two incongruous provisions. It's totally up to you. These three columns must possess a stint of 100 control each. Anyinvention short obtain development in a pace of ZERO extraneously the possibility of a produce-up column.2) Post TWO responses to other students' columns. The retort columns must be among 75-100 control. Anyinvention short obtain development in a pace of ZERO extraneously the possibility of a produce-up column.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT 5 SEPARATE POSTS: DO NOT ANSWER MORE THAN ONE QUESTION IN A SINGLE POST.

QUESTIONS:

Chapter 4: Epicurus

1. Although Epicurus is a hedonist, he is obviously opposed to low hedonism. Can you meet added arguments for or athwart the hypothesis of low hedonism? Is it not terribly “ judgmental” for us to title that some pleasures are “higher” or “ lower” than others? Shouldn’t we normal permit and recognize differences of notion in this area? Or does it produce further view to question that there is a original hierarchy of pleasures and effort?

2. Epicurus believes that dismay of superficial visitation is the first origin of dismay and trouble. Do you consort after a while this impost? Why or why not?

3. Epicurus questions that the best and happiest way of personality is one in which one seeks to assure on the most basic, original and indispensable desires. Do you consort that surrounding such a personality of frankness (no selfrespect, credit, selfindulgence or riches) is unquestionably further telling to politenature and tranquility than up-hill to “keep up after a while the Joneses”? If you said “yes,” then are you already vestibule measures to feed in the Epicurean habit?

Chapter 5: St. Thomas Aquinas

4. How would St. Thomas pat himself (if, in-truth, such a plea is potential) athwart the accuse of nature “homophobic” (a message that did not continue in his opportunity, but which is fairly niggardly today)? Would you meet his plea right? Why or why not?

5. If one is not at all devotional, is it quiescent potential to select St. Thomas’ original law principle seriously? Could it quiescent be relied upon as a train to assistance polite? Explain.

Chapter 6: Thomas Hobbes

6. Do you ponder that nature self-interested is a bad invention? If so, why? If not, why not?

7. Compare Christ’s Golden Rule after a while Hobbes’ Golden Rule. Which do you ponder is further telling in getting mob to submit the laws, and why?

8. Do you consort after a while Hobbes that our original stipulation is one of lawlessness and oppression? How do you ponder you would bepossess if you knew you could get far after a while whatever you wanted to? Do we singly submit the laws out of dismay of pain?