Aristotle said,"It is not enough to win a war; it is more important to organize the peace." Have we lost sight or given up on peace?
(1) We’ve not lost sight, nor given up on peace.(2) War is hard work, tough, dangerous. You can get killed. A bitch.But, the easy part is that in offense, you have a clear and present target to shoot at.Conversely, in defense, there’s a clear and present risk to manage, an identifiable enemy to defend against.(3) Once the conflict is over, there’re many ideas (and ideologies) on what form and substance the peace should take. How should the victor of the conflict handle the loser? Different individuals, different factions, different demographic groups have their own ideas for achieving the idealized society. Peace does not exist within a void. It needs to operate within a nurturing societal ecosystem.(4) Say, a superpower well-intentionally ‘liberates’ a society from a rogue regime. After the initial recovery of the war wreckage, tactical through strategic decisions have to be made on the political, economic and social configurations that should be adopted. And the pace to throttle the execution. Often, the wrong choices are made, e.g. democracy is chosen as the governance system when the society is not primed for it, downspiraling to dysfunctional democracy.It’s easier to shoot at an assigned target. With focus and perseverance, after awhile, you get it.It’s a different gameplay when you’ve to define your target. And fashion your own shooting device to best attack the target. This is the challenge of peace. Peace is alot of turmoil.
What ideas did Aristotle advocate?
Philosophy is the science which considers truth. Aristotle
How did Aristotle contribute to evolution?
Thomas Musselman has the answer. Aristotle proposes the scala naturae Great chain of being - Wikipedia. That is, Aristotle organized creatures from less complex to complex. He did not, however, state or imply that living organisms could change from less complex to more complex.“Despite the quite modern nature of his zoological system, Aristotle was not an evolutionist, but an essentialist. For him, species have never changed. “ Aristotle's Scala NaturaeThe influence of the “Great Chain of Being” on evolution has been negative. The Great Chain led to the picture of evolution as a “ladder”, where creatures are always evolving to “more complex” species, ultimately culminating (of course) in humans.That’s not how evolution works. Evolution is a branching bush, not a ladder. And often species evolve to “less complex”. For instance, Stephen Jay Gould notes that some species of birds, less than 20 million years after the evolution of flight, had evolved to lose the ability to fly and were living on the ground. It worked for them in their ecological niche. But in the “ladder” view of evolution, that would be a backward step.Anthropology was hamstrung for years in looking at human evolution by the “ladder” concept. Every new species discovered was supposed to fit somewhere on the ladder of a continuous evolution from the common ancestor with chimps to H. sapiens. It didn’t work out that way. Hominid evolution is very complex, with lots of branches, all of whose species went extinct except H. sapiens. But go back 60,000 years and there were at least 7 species of genus Homo on earth.As an example of just one complication, there is the recent discovery of H. naledi in South Africa. Put in genus Homo, it is not very old, but with more primitive species than its contemporary H. ergastor/erectus. Or H. floriensis, the “hobbit”, with a brain size much smaller than H. sapiens, but living up to about 10,000 years ago.Aristotle was the first systematicist — trying to classify biological species. But he made no contribution to evolution.
What is someone called who doesn't believe in organized religion?
I think some people aren't getting this question. I have no doubt that you know that organized religion exists. There are quite a few people like you, me being one of them. I don't attend church regularly but I believe in God. I'm not sure if you do or not, but if so I guess you could call yourself a Believer. If not then you would be an Atheist. There are quite a few downfalls of organized religion. One being that a lot of Church's tend to be more for socialization than worship. Plus there are quite a few hypocrits that attend these church's and it might be best if we aren't influenced by these people. Also, there are quite a few church's that are being run like cults............scary!!
What ideas put forward by plato and aristotle contributed to the late development of the democratic tradition?
Socrates major contribution to the study of philosophy was to redirect inquiries away from the natural sciences. Also, according to "Wikianswers": Early in his reign, Justinian set up a commission to collect, revise, and organize all the laws of ancient Rome. They produced the Body of Civil Law known as Justinian's Code. This massive collection included laws passed by Roman assemblies or discreed by Roman emperors, as well as the legal writings of Roman judges. Justinian's Code had as impact far beyond the Byzantine empire. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_ideas_put_forward_by_Plato_and_Aristotle_contribute_to_later_development_of_the_democratic_tradition#ixzz1YvKUSLYm Good luck!
Why is Aristotelian philosophy considered outdated?
Well, a great deal of it is concerned with the natural world, as Aristotle more-or-less founded natural philosophy. Most of that is outdated because he turned out to be wrong about most of it.For instance: The Geocentric Model of the Universe that the Church decided was doctrine and persecuted Galileo over was something they got from Aristotle. (As to what the cosmological ideas of a pagan Greek philosopher were doing, parading around dressed up like Christian Dogma, well, that’s a Historical matter.)As for the rest, I didn’t really know he was, though it doesn’t surprise me. It was written a very long time ago and very, very few people read it. It wouldn’t be hard to for the idea “Aristotle is outdated” to gain purchase, under such circumstances. It fits perfectly with everything the modern mine is inclined to believe and unlikely to question.Come to think of it, it would be surprising if it wasn’t considered outdated. That would certainly require explanation.I’m afraid I can’t really be more specific. Aristotle produced a huge volume work, about every subject, and I don’t know what parts Academia’s decided are “antiquated” this month. It could be anything.Maybe because he thinks beauty exists? That idea really pisses them off these days.