The Philosophy Of Friendship Philosophy Essay

The Philosophy Of Friendship Philosophy Essay and its meaning through the eyes of Aristotle. Walking into this class back in the start of September I thought about the concept of love very narrow-mindedly and often reserved my interpretation to a singular entity defined simply as one person strongly caring for another. Never in my right mind did I believe one emotion could be separated into several forms. While it was obvious to me that the admiration I had for my favorite jeans was not quite the same as in how I care about my Mother, it was not until I took my first Philosophy class did I begin to expand my perspective of love and the types of love existent in human nature. While the majority of people seem to think of love in the popularized all-for-nothing, go to the end of world and back sense, what strikes me as more intriguing is the idea of friendship. From this course I have learned that friendship, which stems from the word philia meaning love in Greek is the highest kind of love/relationship. It is a way of loving that can be sought for with many, but sometimes found to be lasting in only a select few. To me, the way to understanding love starts with friendship and not with romance. Although both are closely linked, romance is flexible and arbitrary while friendships are deeply rooted and fixed in nature. Companionship through friends is essential to loving and loving and can create and strengthen our ethnics and morals. To understand love, more specifically friendship it is important to know that we as human are social beings. We enclose ourselves with many different people, and those especially close to our hearts and minds are called our friends. It is in our nature to be social, for we learn about ourselves and evolve through our relations with others. Because of this, we [as humans] are constantly trying to broaden the boundary of our circle of friends. Aristotle understood the importance of friendship and wrote highly of this type of relationship. A modernized view of friendship can be defined as, one joined to another in intimacy and mutual benevolence independently of sexual or family love (Merriam-Webster). Aristotles view on friendship is much more enlightened and expansive than this; however, his assertions are certainly not perfect. In this essay I will outline Aristotles stance about friendship, show both the pros and cons of his arguments and share my personal beliefs on the subject. Friendship for Aristotle (and Greeks in general) is much broader than the dictionary definition. Aristotle regards both less-intimate bonds as well as deeper, loving connections as ways of practicing friendship. Relationships between couples, parents and their children, neighbors, business partners, teammates, teacher and student, etc. would all be seen as friendships in Aristotles eyes. However, he does make it a point to distinguish between different types of friendship and loves role within these relations. Friendships for Aristotle can be divided into three main categories: Friendships of utility. These friendships are based on people who are useful to each other. This is the sole reason behind them being friends. A good example of a friendship of utility might be the relationship between a salesman and a customer. The store clerk needs the buyer because (s)he has to make a living and the buyer needs the clerk because he needs a particular item. Both have something the other wants. Such friendships are only temporary and do not last very long as once the customer is no longer useful to the salesman, or visa versa, the connection is severed and the friendship ceases to exist. Friendships of utility are common among older people, for in old age people pursue the functional rather than the enjoyable. Friendships of pleasure. These types of relationships are based on the amount of pleasure the people get from being in the relationship itself. People who go out together, or enjoy the same activities might be in this type of relationship. They are friends for their own sake, because the friendship brings them pleasure and enjoyment, not for their friends sake. Friendships of pleasure are common among young people. Young people quickly start and end friendships because what pleasures and satisfies them undergoes constant change. Friendships of virtue. Unlike friendships of utility and pleasure which can include a circle of friends, friendships of virtue are strictly one-on-one relationships. They are monogamous in nature and such a friendship can only occur between two people of the same (or closely similar) values and ideals, and both persons have to be virtuous. According to Aristotle, one can only become virtuous through wisdom and age. Therefore friendships of virtue are rarely found among young people. It is a relationship of mutual respect and love. The persons in this type of relationship are not in it because they gain something from the relationship, they are not friends because they find each other useful or bring each other pleasure, but because they see virtues in each other that they see in themselves. Such love has roots in altruism and agape love and rest on the idea of wanting the best for someone else for their friends sake. It is not surprising that such relationships are uncommon according to the philosopher. Aristotle says that a friend of virtue is another oneself in a sense, describing them as soulmates. A friend of virtue is a key part to self-sufficiency. Virtuous friends spend time with each other and make the same choices as each other. One persons happiness influences anothers happiness and visa versa. The friend, in the Aristotelian scheme, becomes an extension of the individual. In a sociological perspective, the other friend becomes the social relative mirror (Marxist term) in which you define yourself meaning, you only know yourself in relation to your external, transfigured Other. It can be argued that Aristotle is wrong when he distinguishes between friendships of utility or pleasure and friendships of virtue. Are we, as human beings, capable of doing a completely unselfish act? Can we truthfully say that we are friends with someone not for our own sake but for the sake of the friends? It may be a harsh reality to some, but I personally disagree with Aristotle on this. Take the example of gift giving Does someone give a friend a gift because they know he/she will like it, or to make a good impression on the person, or for the idea that you only give a gift to get something greater in return? There can be any number of reasons why someone would give a gift, but in my opinion the most feasible reasons would be ones where the gift-giver expects to get some form of repayment, even if it is as simple as being liked or appreciated. Altruism is rare to find in modern-day Western culture, and no act is completely selfless. Another example could be helping an elder woman across the road. Would you help her because she needs help or because you would feel a great deal of self-satisfaction by helping her? In my opinion, even if only a small part of the reason why you would help her relates back to self-satisfaction, it would mean that you are not helping her without receiving some form of incentive. We are inherently selfish beings. There is always a degree o f self-interest. Therefore Aristotles definition of friendship of virtue is wrong, in my opinion, or at least too exclusive. One of the books studied in this course, The Meanings of Love by Robert Wagoner identified six types of defined loves present in Western culture. The author illustrates his claims by defining and presenting definitions of six expressions of love. His fourth idea of love moral love is based on the inner principles of moral uprightness, stability, faithfulness and integrity. The characteristics of respect and rationality determine the credibility of a moral love relationship. Moral love in my opinion was one of the most intriguing loves I have learned about because it deals with love not in the highly romanticized sense, but targets the basic foundations of human nature and our social interactions. Using Wagoners definition of Moral love, I related his ideals to principle and came to conceptualize friendship in a much more broadened sense. Wagoner reference to Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher who stated that the legitimacy behind moral love is found in our rational nature which influences our experiences. Kant says that our ability to apply rational principles is what makes moral experience possible (70). In order to form a moral love we must live consistently by two principles of rational nature. First, the same respect and regard we hold to ourselves must be given to all equally. And secondly, our actions must not be self-regarding but instead our relations should be based on the idea that they can be universalized. If carried out correctly, it is the gratification of mutual rationality and strong sense of moral obligation to each other that unite people to love. Moral love is highly rational and is subject to scrutiny reason in order to achieve integrity. In a moral loving relationship, the lover is not so much committed to the beloved as he/she is committed to the relationship itself, because it de fines the individual. The notion of sexuality in moral love threatens its very nature. Kant states, To truly love others is to care for them as whole persons, that is, as rational and moral sovereigns and not merely as sexual creatures (80). Friendship could evolve into a greater love, which could result in a union such as marriage which holds importance in moral love; for any sexual relation outside of this strictly shows utilitarianism. It is the difference between the good and the right, and in this case of moral love, sexual relations only seek to use the other as a thing which is immoral in nature. Moral love can be best defined as a labor of love where an individual is consistently trying to change themselves into universal beings rooted in moral uprightness. Such a relationship could be described as Aristotles friendship of virtue. However, the counter-argument can also be made. Kant differs with Aristotles definition of friendship. Kant believed that an act could only have moral value if and only if you were not the primary beneficiary of the act. According to Kant with Aristotles theory of friendship it seems the friendship can not be a moral goal. A friendship is morally neutral. He goes on to assert that it does not say, or show anything about your moral character. Of course Aristotle would disagree; he would say having a friend of virtue is a goal that every moral person should strive for. Kant believes that people dont seek friendship for friendships sake but to satisfy needs (friendship of utility). Kant sees true friendship as two people taking care of the others needs. If I take care of my friends needs he/she will take care of my needs. Friendship was based on reciprocity. Kant believes that a truly virtuous man is friends with everyone and should not limit himself to a select few friends, as this would be being exclusive. He should love everyone equally. However, friendships by definition are exclusive, and as a result one is forced to play favoritism. According to Kant friendships are the have of people of lesser virtues blocking out the world. Aristotle would disagree; he would say friendships are the way into the world. Kant has a somewhat negative view of friendship whereas Aristotle thinks friendship is good and therefore sought by everyone. Aristotles basic idea of dividing friendship into sections, utility, pleasure and virtue, is good but it can be said that his ideals are too high. Can he be right in saying that only virtuous people can have true friendships? The rest of us with lesser virtues are left with friendships of utility and friendships of pleasure, as only a select few can be truly virtuous. Many would be offended by this and many would believe that although they may not have friendships of virtue as Aristotle meant it they are not inferior and are true friendships all the same. It would be more beneficial to all if Aristotle made it clear that it is possible for everyone to experience true friendship and not limited it to virtuous people. If virtue is attained by age and wisdom does that not mean that everyone is potentially virtuous and therefore everyone can potentially be in a virtuous friendship? Subjectively speaking, I find many flaws in Aristotles views on friendship. The main ones being that he is too elitist, too exclusive when it comes down to defining true friendship and is far too inclusive when it comes to friendships of utility. Aristotle does however make many good arguments, and does a good job with dividing up friendship into categories. It allows us to look at friendship in a more structured way and lets us evaluate different friendships in our life.

Federal Trade Commission Act

The American government has engaged in the process of creating and enforcing legislation as the course of action for everyone to follow when dealing with labor issues and the workforce. In my research, I found several pieces of legislation such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Act (Federal Trade Commission, n.d.), and per text the Wagner Act of 1935, and the Taft-Hartley Act (DeCenzo, 2016). Congress passed this legislation as the determining element in how much control that management and/ or unions would have in protecting the rights of the workers and the organizations.The US government has been involved in the process of acting as a mediator between the organizations and unions with labor clashes. In the 1800's, there weren't many laws that would govern how unions would operate within the organization. So in the early stages of unions organizations thought that the unions were illegal and that they would interfere with the progress of the organization.The Sherman Antitrust Act was the initial legislation adopted that shaped labor unions. This act was important to the organization because it prevented any â€Å"restraint of commerce across state lines and the courts ruled that union strikes or boycotts would be covered by the law†. There is two additional act of the Sherman Act, they are the Federal Trade Commission Act the prohibit bias procedures concerning competition and misleading forms of practice, the Clayton Act focuses on certain issues such as mergers and joining boards members. The main strike in 1894 between the Pullman Palace Car Company and the American Railway Union, where workers walked off of the job because wages were cut by as much as forty percent. At that time the organization was able to obtain a ruling that stopped both the strike and boycott. And because of this labor unions discovered that it would be harder to organize successfully (Shmoop, 2018). The National Labor Relation Act of 1935, which is also known as the Wagner Act was endorsed to protect both employers, and employees, it is the main key to union rights. The Wagner Act distinctively insist that employers should bargain in excellent confidence on issues such as wages, hours, and employment environments. This gave unions control over bias labor habits. Therefore, the Wagner Act empowered unions to be able to grow and advance, plus to establish unions permitting them to protect and bargain together, which means the workforce has the right to come as one to make their demands known even without a union (DeCenzo, 2016) (Shmoop, 2018).Because the Wagner Act sheltered the unions it led to the Taft-Hartley Act which is known as the Labor-Management Act (DeCenzo, 2016). This act covered the concerns of the employer in preventing bias practices of the unions. It prohibited closed stops by declaring them illegal and empowering the states to pass laws that would decrease mandatory union representation. It also disallowed secondary boycotts by giving the president authority whenever differences may influence national security. Both parties must bargain in â€Å"good faith† by coming to the table intending to reach an agreement. But if they don't reach one the Taft-Hartley developed the FMCS to help in the talks (DeCenzo, 2016).All of these laws are vital to the organization and unions since they're the basis of the relationship that is between the workforce and the employer. While the NLRA has changed over time it is very important because it includes how both should work together throughout the bargaining process. And how the Taft-Hartley controls the duration of the relationship. But they safeguard that everyone should work together during the conditions of the association.As a result, unionized workers through combined efforts of both the union and organizations cooperative bargaining have produced better wages, benefits, safe environment, and health conditions for the workforce. They have also included better opportunities for the non-unionized workers (Walters, 2003).ReferencesDeCenzo, D. A. (2016). Fundamentals of Human Resource Management, 12th Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Inc.Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.).Retrieved from The Antitrust Laws: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-lawsShmoop. (2018). Retrieved from History of Labor Unions: https://www.shmoop.com/history-labor-unions/law.htmlWalters, M. a. (2003, 8 26). Economic Policy Institute.Retrieved from How unions help all workers: https://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp143/.

An Importance of Education

â€Å"Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare it today.† These words said by Malcolm X indicate how significant is the impact, which schools have on young minds. Good schooling is essential for every society and individual, as it is supposed to prepare students for the world of work later in life as well as to teach them the values and morals required in the society. In other words, it is school where teenagers are equipped with necessary skills so that they can participate effectively as member of community, hence they have a chance to contribute towards the development of common identity. For that reason, there have been many attempts to create a school environment that will allow young people to grow emotionally, physically and mentally. Consequently, there are two main choices to make. This is having a single-gender education, or a school where students are in classrooms with a mixture of genders. However, as it has been previously stated, the school should be regarded as a reflection of the real world. The real world is coeducational though, so mixed schools are rightly considered to be more proper setting for the young learners. The main concern about single-sex classrooms is that its members will not be capable of maintaining successful relationships throughout their lives since they will be accustomed to interaction only with either boys or girls. Nevertheless, being able to communicate with the other sex is crucial to prepare students for the professional world. Coeducational schools perfectly serve this function, because collaboration in classrooms is both purposeful and supervised. What is more, children there have the opportunity to be taught a broader range of essential life skills e.g. understanding more diverse points of views, mutual respect or simply how to cooperate efficiently and create successful interpersonal bonds. On the contrary, single-sex schools not only limit these possibilities for forming friendships with the opposite sex but also hinder them, as such restrictions lead to perceiving the other sex in an entirely unrealistic, ideological way, simply because children lack the time spent together. Additionally, deficiency in mutual contact deprives young people from gender segregated classrooms of an enriching experience that is learning about and from each other. That fact can be further confirmed by many researches, in relation to which children need a mix of traditionally masculine and feminine characteristics, like playing competitive sports and discussing emotions, in order to be mentally healthy. Therefore, boys who spend their time mostly with other boys are thought to be possessive and to display aggression. Girls also benefit from the boys' presence by being more courageous while performing in the society. Moreover, classroom assignment based on gender teaches young people that males and females have completely different types of intellects, which firmly supports stereotyping along with discrimination. Correspondingly, the common beliefs, that only boys can play football or videogames and only girls are allowed to play with dolls, reinforce sexism in schools and in the culture at large, as children tend to favor members of their own group, and be prejudiced against those in contrasting groups. By contrast, the children in the coed classroom are less probable to limit their interests according to gender – the girls can play football and the boys are allowed to play with dolls.Still, it has been argued that both sexes adopt different approaches towards learning, and taking it into account, they should be taught dissimilarly. Indeed, most same-sex classrooms allow teachers to tailor their lessons toward the specific needs of their students. For example, a class discussion of â€Å"Romeo and Juliet† in a boys' school can involve a study of a boy's first love analyzed from his perspective. Likewise, using books featuring lead female characters may be more appealing to young women or debating the impact of religion on young girls has the potential to really reach the target group, while such discussions in co-ed schools are usually less open and extended than those in a single-sex school. However, very few teachers are effectively trained to manage a single-gender learning environment, yet very few colleges offer specific programs or courses. Considering the fact that learning is best accomplished when the delivery method matches the subject itself, it is the quality of teachers' training— not gender of their students — that determines how successful the outcome is.Because of that, although students can also learn from home, school environments are irreplaceable during development of young minds. Rather than separate boys and girls, schools should move in the entirely opposite direction which is training boys and girls how to work together, respect and support each other. It is not long before the youth of today will be the parents, co-workers, and leaders of tomorrow. Due to that fact it is especially important to take better advantage of coeducation to frame the truly egalitarian society, that we expect to encounter in the future.

Radon essays

Radon essays Radon is an element that is on the periodic table of elements. It is a member of the family called the noble gases, which is group number 18. Radon is a gas. It is a gas at 298 k. it is the heaviest known mononuclear gas at that temperature. Radon is also colorless. When it is cooled below the freezing point, radon exhibits a brilliant phosphorescence, which becomes yellow as the temperature is lowered. At the temperature of liquid air it is sort of an orangish-red. The noble gases can be found on the very right side of the periodic table of elements. Radon has been around for quite some time. Radon comes from the element radium, which is derived from the element uranium. After radium has been 1,620 days old, radon forms 3.8 days afterwards. Radon is most often produced by the decay of radium in the crust of the earth. Radon was first discovered by a man named Fredrich Ernst Dorn. Mr. Dorn discovered this element around 1898. At first radon was not called radon, it was called niton. Niton coming from the Latin word nitens, meaning shining. It was only called radon up until about 1923. Now, lets talk about the properties that radon has. It is element number 86 on the periodic table of elements. This means that is has 86 protons, and also 86 electrons in a neutral state. The atomic mass of radon is 222.0176. now if you take the atomic mass, and round it to the nearest whole number, and subtract the atomic number, then you have the number of neutrons in radon, which is 136. The density of radon at 293 degrees Kelvin is .00973 g/cm cubed. Radon has a boiling point of 211.4 degrees Kelvin. It is a nonmetal, but rather a gas. The melting point, which is different from the boiling point, is 202 degrees Kelvin. To my knowledge, there is no data on the oxidation numbers for the element radon. Also, I was unable to find any information on any major compounds. I guess radon isnt really all that popular. Oh w ...

Native american Resistance essays

Native american Resistance essays This essay is going to be about the Native American Resistance. The main idea is the Americans are looking and taking more land and they continue encountering indians and Fighting wars with them to own their land. The sources of conflict between the Native Americans and the U.S. are the American Revolution broke the power of the Iroquois in the North and beaten the Cherokee in the South. The Americans wanted more land but the Miami, Delaware, Shawnee, and other Native Americans groups came together to fight America Expansion. The Americans also wanted to fight the Native Americans because the Native Americans Fought with the British during the Revolutionary war and Because the Native Americans had a different culture.The Mayor source of conflict is in 1795, Tecumseh refused to participate in the talks that led to the Treaty of Greenville. Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa disagreed with the U.S. purchasing land, so which made Henry Harison march north from Vincennes to Prophetstown to fight. Most of the conflicts change the relationship between the U.S. and the Native Americans. They made a Treaty of Greenville, in which it relinguished the Southern two thirds of Ohio. The Treaty also forced them to accept that the Ohio River was no longer permanent boundary between their lands. It also changed the Native Americans to accept white culture. in 1799, Handsome Lake called for a rebirth of seneca culture that would blend Native American Custom with those of the white Americans. The best method of conflict resolution for the Native Americans is blending their cultures with the Whites. Having two different cultures would be very hard for the Native Americans and the whites. For Example they would be living in different ways. Also having different beliefs which forms mayor problems. In conclusion, I have explain to you about the Native American Resistance. Their Sources of conflict, conflicts changing their relationship, and telling you the ...

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS STUDY Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS STUDY - Essay Example For instance, this exploration prioritizes the individual, as opposed to collective relationship, which varies among companies based on values of management (Cradden, 2005, 44). Nonetheless, it is necessary to understand that relationships occur in a range of circumstances, different degrees and impinge upon relationship. For example, a legal context that involves a level of individual in legally enforceable contracts that prevail between employees and employers. Unitarism This is a perspective through which companies are considered to be an individual or groups sharing a common interest, objective and values, which are pleasant and integrated. On the other hand, the management has right to manage employees, legitimately and rationally, thereby representing organizations and interests of capital. In this case, this perception is considered to be a single focus of employees’ loyalty; in fact, this becomes a basis of establishing legitimate authority with the organization (Bacon and Storey, 2000, 407). Moreover, unitarism is a perspective, which is related to management’s supports and interests. Besides, it is a perspective, which has been attributed to ‘team’ approach. ... Apparently, unitarist perspective focuses on the role management in establishing a situation where employees and organization are gaining, thereby considering alignment of their interests. In this case, this perspective is a compulsion for managers to surpass their managerial styles in the process of managing their employees' relations, thereby emphasising on leadership capabilities (Cradden, 2005, 44). Moreover, this perspective encourages managers to be convincing and influential leaders in the organization, thereby eliminating the need for a trade union. Unitarist perspective leads to an assumption that considers stakeholders to be rational members with aims of identifying common interests. Actually, this is a perception, which offers a steady rationale, which stresses common objectives to facilitate achievement of a stable employee relations system. Furthermore, unitarist perspective is in essence individualists in its approach towards employees’ relation; in fact, this wo rks best for individualist in IR systems. There has been a shift of numerous IR systems from trade unions to individualist paradigms; thus, unitarist perspective has proofed to be significant in relation to this form of IR perspectives. Weaknesses of unitarist perspective Unitarist perspective has a limitation caused failure to realize that there are powers associated with inequalities between employees and employers. Moreover, the inequality between employees and employers leads to generation of diverse forms of conflicts in the organization (Kessler and Purcell 2003, 315). On the other hand, there are expectations that managers should exert significant power over

The Yengishiki(Shintoism) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

The Yengishiki(Shintoism) - Essay Example The prayers are used in the text to reflect the intertwinement of the spiritual nature and feelings of the Shinto people. In fact, the text begins by a prayer, â€Å"I declare in the presence of the sovereign gods of the Harvest†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (â€Å"The Yengishiki† par. 1). The article reveals that in Shinto culture, there is no absolute right or wrong and nobody is perfect. The article also shows that Shinto is not a pessimistic faith as they view human beings to be fundamentally good and that evils are caused by evil spirits. From the article, it can also be seen that the main purpose of the majority of rituals used in the text is to keep evil spirits at bay through prayers, purification, and offerings to Kami, their ancestor. The Harvest Rituals The harvest rituals are basically a form of religious rituals of the ancient culture of the Shinto people. The harvest rituals were performed by the Shintos as a way of thanking the gods for enabling them to have a bounty harvest. The culture of the Shinto required that a harvest ritual be celebrated on the fourth day of the second month every year at the office, where people would gather and worship the gods of Shintos. This was also expected to be practices down at the local administrative provinces by chiefs. The text, however, does not reveal who exactly the harvest gods were; instead, they are only specified as Kojiki. It appears that it is a common practice among the Shintos to offer the first fruits obtained from harvest to Kojiki (â€Å"The Yengishiki† par. 1). The Ritual for the Wind-Gods The ritual for the wind gods is a form of ritual which was performed by the Shinto people by giving offerings to their god to stop the bad winds and rough waters from destroying their properties and belongings. The rituals are performed alongside prayers declared before the wind god, whom they believe to fulfill his praises at Tatsuta. Unlike in the Harvest ritual, where the first fruits are sacrificed to the gods, here it is five sorts of grains, herbs, and leaves that are offered. Other things offered during the ritual include clothing of all sorts: bright, glittering, soft and coarse (â€Å"The Yengishiki† par. 2). Fire Rituals The fire rituals, according to the Shintos, are performed to the gods for purification purposes. They believe that once someone has done wrong, he is supposed to undergo purification before he can be allowed to fit into the society. This is mainly done with the help of the priest as people praise the god at a designated place. The different forms of offerings given include cloths which are bright, soft, and rough as well as other five different things, mainly aquatic things (â€Å"The Yengishiki† par. 7). The Ritual for Evil Spirits Shintos believe that evils are the works of the evil spirits. They also believe that diseases and catastrophes are caused by the evil spirit. Therefore, when such happens, a special ritual known as the ritual for the evil spirit is to be performed by giving offerings to the gods so as to chase the evil spirits away from the society. Different forms of offerings were given to gods such as cloths, beer, swords, a horse, and both sweet and bitter herbs, among items (â€Å"The Yengishiki† par. 10). The Road-Gods' Ritual This form of ritual is mainly performed in the presence of the priest who recites a prayer to the gods as an