Plato And Aristotle Essays - Ancient Greek Philosophers,

Plato And Aristotle What is real? What gives life meaning? What happens when we die? These three questions are very common in today's society. Everyone has different beliefs and their answers to these world view questions are different. Greek Philosopher's, Aristotle and Plato had very different views and answers to these questions. What is real? Aristotle believed that for something to be real it had to have a substance and a form or a body and a soul. Our senses are also reality. Now Plato on the other hand believed that reality is permanent and our senses can't be trusted. He also believed immortal things are more real than the mortal. For example, Greek gods, immortal souls, and universals are more real than humans, animals, and plants that are considered mortal. What gives life meaning? According to Aristotle achieving the highest possible potential with our talents, to reason with our emotions and the "golden mean" which is everything in moderation gives life meaning. Now Plato believed that education through a forty-four year program gives life meaning. Plato thought that everybody's goal in life is, "We learned but forgot." What happens when we die? Aristotle believed nothing happens when we die because to even exist you have to have a body and a soul. So if you die and your body leaves then you don't exist because you don't have both a body and a soul. Plato believed that when we die we are recycled. It is kind of like reincarnation but not quite. When you die you're reborn but have lost all of your previous knowledge due to the trauma birth causes. This is where Plato's goal in life ties in. We learned but our soul forgot when we are reborn. Plato and Aristotle had completely different answers to the questions, What is real? What gives life meaning? and What happens when we die? Some of their answers to these world view questions may seem bizarre but we all have our own answers and views about many different things.

The Word of the Year 2011

The Word of the Year 2011 The Word of the Year 2011 The Word of the Year 2011 By Mark Nichol Each year at about this time, the English-language media rolls out various reports announcing the word of the year according to one or more authorities. These pieces imply or overtly suggest that these selections are keywords for our society’s values, beliefs, and obsessions. But a glance at such choices reveals that these words are the linguistic equivalent of candy satisfying (or not sometimes they’re the equivalent of chocolate-covered brussels sprouts) but not sustaining. The following lists of the top word for each year of the past decade suggest that one year’s byword can be the next year’s punch line (or a least a later period’s â€Å"Huh?†): Merriam-Webster 2010: austerity 2009: admonish 2008: bailout 2007: w00t 2006: truthiness 2005: integrity 2004: blog 2003: democracy American Dialect Society 2010: app 2009: tweet 2008: bailout 2007: subprime 2006: plutoed 2005: truthiness 2004: red state/blue state 2003: metrosexual 2002: weapons of mass destruction 2001: 9-11 (most often styled 9/11) Global Language Monitor 2011: occupy 2010: spillcam 2009: Twitter 2008: change 2007: hybrid 2006: sustainable 2005: refugee 2004: incivility 2003: embedded 2002: misunderestimate 2001: ground zero Oxford Dictionaries 2011: squeezed middle 2010: big society 2009: unfriend 2008: credit crunch 2007: footprint 2006: bovvered 2005: podcast 2004: chav Technological terms like app and tweet have variable staying power. Blog, which was ten years old when Merriam-Webster crowned it in 2004 (while app may be old enough to vote), isn’t going anywhere, nor is podcast. But eventually, many once popular terms evoke nothing more than a chuckle (â€Å"floppy disk,† anyone?). And to w00t, I say, â€Å"W00t-ever.† Jargon from economic and political contexts serves as a shorthand, but Steven Colbert’s brilliant-in-its-time truthiness is as stale as Bush-speak jokes (or perhaps I misunderestimate it), and â€Å"weapons of mass destruction† and embedded have acquired a derisive connotation their coiners did not intend. Variance in American English and British English is also an obstacle: Several of the Oxford Dictionaries selections are obscure to US readers. (â€Å"Big society† refers to localism in government, bovvered is part of a British TV character’s dismissive catchphrase â€Å"Am I bovvered?† and chav refers to a lumpen-prole UK subculture with a perplexing penchant for faux-Burberry plaid couture.) Environmentally oriented terms at least the ones in these lists seem to have legs: We’re still discussing sustainability and footprints (as in â€Å"carbon footprint†), though perhaps without the fresh vigor applied just a few years before. A couple of these lists offer a word of the year for 2011 (the other listmakers have not yet weighed in for the current year), but you are also entitled to your opinion. Which word (or phrase) do you nominate for the honor? Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the General category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:50 Idioms About TalkingHomogeneous vs. Heterogeneous10 Varieties of Syntax to Improve Your Writing