ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY

Dr. Arturo M. Perez

Thursday 9:00 am to 12:00 nn
December 07, 2017

_GROUP II_

QUIZZER 5: ARISTOTLE

1. Is sense perception knowledge?

- CRN 6 DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
2. Can beauty be in more than one object at the same time?

- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

3. What are the Four Causes of Basketball?

- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

4. Aristotle believed that if individual horses did not exist there would be no such things as
the Form horse. Is this correct?
- CRN 9 DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM
5. What is life’s purpose as per Aristotle? Do you agree or disagree? Discuss fully your
answer.
- CRN 10 DELOS REYES, ALFREDO
 QUIZZER 6: GROUP VII
1. Compare and contrast the Hellenistic Period with our contemporary times.
- CRN 6 DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
2. What is the relationship of Socrates to Cynicism and Stoicism?
- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.
3. Stoicism was quickly absorbed into Christianity. Identify and comment on any
similarities you are aware of.
- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.
4. Explain the Stoic attitude toward relationships. How does it differ from today’s attitudes?
What do you see as important strength and weaknesses of each perspective?
- CRN 9 DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM
5. Discuss the difference between avoidable and unavoidable sufferings. How can a Stoic
person tell which is which? Why does it matter to the Stoic?
- CRN 10 DELOS REYES, ALFREDO

QUIZZER 7: GROUP VIII

1. Compare and contrast the views of the Academics and the Pyrrhonists.
- CRN 6 DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
2. “Nothing can be known.” What is a powerful objection to this claim?
- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.
3. “I do not know whether knowledge is possible.” Defend or attack this claim.
- CRN 7 DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.
4. Defend some versions of total skepticism.
- CRN 9 DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM
5. As a Roman Catholic Seminarian, give some conclusive insights resulting from your
close study of the summary table on the different theories of salvation.
- CRN 10 DELOS REYES, ALFREDO
 QUIZZER 5

1. Is sense perception knowledge?

On papers of Aristotle’s account of perception,’ Henry Krips poses two questions: is it the case that,
at least under normal conditions, observation is an infallible guide to truth? And is it possible to revise the
belief that some belief is a normal belief? He distinguishes between a strong infallibility thesis, which
gives an affirmative answer to and a negative answer to , and a weak infallibility thesis which gives an
affirmative answer to both. Krips does not wish to ascribe any infallibility thesis to Aristotle and he argues
that, for Aristotle, the answer to (i) is negative, at least in some contexts, and that the answer to (ii) is
affirmative. In proposing this view he criticizes my own account,2 which he characterizes in terms of (at
least) the weak infallibility thesis.

I have strong doubts about how informative this approach to Aristotle’s treatment of perception
(which, as we shall see, is what Krips’s is primarily concerned with) is, but the best way of deciding
whether the questions are the appropriate ones is to try to answer them. Our first concern must be with the
question of whether an affirm answer to has any support in Aristotle. Krips maintains that although such
an answer is given in the Metaphysics it is not the view expressed in the De Anima, nor is it the view that
Aristotle should take.
His argument for this is that whereas there are some kinds of observation whose truth depends
solely upon normal conditions holding, there are other kinds where more than normality is involved. As
an example of the first kind of case he cites the discussion of Protagorean relativism in Chaps. 5 and 6 of
Metaphysics r, and an example of the second he cites De Anima, 428b 17 -25. The former passages, Krips
argues, indicate that common sense procedures provide this s standard by which to judge normality but,
in view of this, the only way.
Submitted by: CRN 6 GRP II - DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
 2. Can beauty be in more than one object at the same time?

The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western
philosophy, and is—with the nature of art—one of the two fundamental issues in philosophical
aesthetics. Beauty has traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth,
and justice. It is a primary theme among ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and medieval philosophers,
and was central to eighteenth and nineteenth-century thought, as represented in treatments by such
thinkers as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Burke, Kant, Schiller, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hanslick,
and Santayana. By the beginning of the twentieth century, beauty was in decline as a subject of
philosophical inquiry, and also as a primary goal of the arts. However, there were signs of revived
interest by the early 2000s.

Of course. Beauty is in sight, sound, touch, taste and smell. You can grasp all of these different
sensations at once.

Beauty might be in the eye of the beholder, but when you try to talk about it by saying more
than wow wee, beauty is in the language of the beholder. The language is based on what criteria
you use. Criteria is the list of traits or ideas that define beauty--for you. You apply the list to the
thing you think is beautiful. You might call the process a critique or critical evaluation. Art students
might critique each other's work to help them develop as artists. The criteria might include traits
like shape, form, function, color, movement (relationship). The actual study of criteria and systems
of beauty is called aesthetics.

Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is
subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or whether it is an objective feature of beautiful
things. A pure version of either of these positions seems implausible, for reasons we will examine,
and many attempts have been made to split the difference or incorporate insights of both
subjectivist and objectivist accounts. Ancient and medieval accounts for the most part located
beauty outside of anyone's particular experiences. Nevertheless, that beauty is subjective was also
a commonplace from the time of the sophists. By the eighteenth century, Hume could write as
follows, expressing one ‘species of philosophy’
 However, if beauty is entirely subjective—that is, if anything that anyone holds to be or
experiences as beautiful is beautiful (as James Kirwan, for example, asserts)—then it seems that
the word has no meaning, or that we are not communicating anything when we call something
beautiful except perhaps an approving personal attitude. In addition, though different persons can
of course differ in particular judgments, it is also obvious that our judgments coincide to a
remarkable extent: it would be odd or perverse for any person to deny that a perfect rose or a
dramatic sunset was beautiful. And it is possible actually to disagree and argue about whether
something is beautiful, or to try to show someone that something is beautiful, or learn from
someone else why it is.

On the other hand, it seems senseless to say that beauty has no connection to subjective
response or that it is entirely objective. That would seem to entail, for example, that a world with
no perceivers could be beautiful or ugly, or perhaps that beauty could be detected by scientific
instruments. Even if it could be, beauty would seem to be connected to subjective response, and
though we may argue about whether something is beautiful, the idea that one's experiences of
beauty might be disqualified as simply inaccurate or false might arouse puzzlement as well as
hostility. We often regard other people's taste, even when it differs from our own, as provisionally
entitled to some respect, as we may not, for example, in cases of moral, political, or factual
opinions. All plausible accounts of beauty connect it to a pleasurable or profound or loving
response, even if they do not locate beauty purely in the eye of the beholder.

Until the eighteenth century, most philosophical accounts of beauty treated it as an

objective quality: they located it in the beautiful object itself or in the qualities of that object. In
De Veritate Religione, Augustine asks explicitly whether things are beautiful because they give
delight, or whether they give delight because they are beautiful; he emphatically opts for the second
(Augustine, 247). Plato's account in the Symposium and Plotinus's in the Enneads connect beauty
to a response of love and desire, but locate beauty itself in the realm of the Forms, and the beauty
of particular objects in their participation in the Form. Indeed, Plotinus's account in one of its
moments makes beauty a matter of what we might term ‘formedness’: having the definite shape
characteristic of the kind of thing the object is.

We hold that all the loveliness of this world comes by communion in Ideal-Form. All
shapelessness whose kind admits of pattern and form, as long as it remains outside of Reason and
Idea, is ugly from that very isolation from the Divine-Thought. And this is the Absolute Ugly: an
ugly thing is something that has not been entirely mastered by pattern that is by Reason, the Matter
not yielding at all points and in all respects to Ideal-Form. But where the Ideal-Form has entered,
it has grouped and coordinated what from a diversity of parts was to become a unity: it has rallied
confusion into co-operation: it has made the sum one harmonious coherence: for the Idea is a unity
and what it moulds must come into unity as far as multiplicity may. (Plotinus, 22 [Ennead I, 6])

In this account, beauty is at least as objective as any other concept, or indeed takes on a
certain ontological priority as more real than particular Forms: it is a sort of Form of Forms.
Though Plato and Aristotle disagree on what beauty is, they both regard it as objective in the sense
that it is not localized in the response of the beholder. The classical conception (see below) treats
beauty as a matter of instantiating definite proportions or relations among parts, sometimes
expressed in mathematical ratios, for example the ‘golden section.’ The sculpture known as ‘The
Canon,’ by Polykleitos (fifth/fourth century BCE), was held up as a model of harmonious
proportion to be emulated by students and masters alike: beauty could be reliably achieved by
reproducing its objective proportions.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

3. What are the Four Causes of Basketball?

Matter also seemed to have four irreducible qualities, which Aristotle identified as hot/cool
and wet/dry. These were always present as pairs (hot/wet, cool/wet, hot/dry, cool/dry) in all matter,
but were separate from the material. A loose analogy would be to compare the bounce of a
basketball and a bowling ball. The degree of bounce of a basketball and a bowling ball are very
different and depend on the material that each is made of, but the “bounciness” of the two balls
can be studied separately from the study of the materials that compose the two types of ball.

While the four elements and the four qualities could describe the matter and quality of
composed things, they did not explain how a thing came to be. For this, Aristotle identified four
causes: formal, material, efficient, and final. The Formal cause of a thing was the plan or model.
This refers to what gives the matter its form. For example, a TV is not just a piece of glass but
glass and metal arranged in a certain way and programmed to work as it does. While the material
was the “stuff” used to create the object this is the substance that something is made from. For
example, a TV is made from glass and metal and plastic. The Efficient cause was the agent that
cause the object to come into being. This is the substance that something is made from. For
example, a TV is made from glass and metal and plastic. And the final cause was the purpose or
necessary condition that led to the object’s creation. This cause is the reason why something is the way
it is. This asks the question, what is the function of this object? Why does a TV have glass on the screen?
So that we can watch it. The Final Cause is the reason why a thing exists in the first place, what is its
function.

Consider a stone wall around a garden, the formal cause of the wall is it plans and drawings.
Without a plan detailing dimensions, it is impossible to know how much stone will be required to
build it. The material cause of the wall is the stones and mortar. These materials impose certain
restrictions on the finished wall; it might be possible to draw a plan for a 30-meter high wall with
a base only 20 centimeters wide, but such a wall cannot be constructed in reality. The efficient
cause is the stonemason; again, certain restrictions will be imposed on the wall by the limits of the
mason’s abilities. The final cause is the reason to build the wall – to keep the neighbor’s goat out
of the garden, for example.
 The notion of final causality is used by Aquinas as the basis for another proof for the
existence of God, i.e. the Fifth Way. It should be noted, however, that the proof does NOT say that
there is a purpose to the whole universe, and that this ultimate final cause is God (even though
Aquinas does believe this). The proof merely asserts that something or other acts for an end which
it does not know and does not choose, and that this fact shows that there is a cause of those things
which directs them to their final causes. The notion of final cause is also the basis of Thomistic
Natural Law.

Although Aristotle and Plato’s conception of the four elements could be reduced to a kind
of particle model with a geometric structure (fire, for example, was composed of triangles), in
general they treated the elements as a continuous substance. This view was challenged by the
Epicureans, who proposed an even more materialistic model of nature.

Each cause is a different kind of answer to the question "why?" • There are four kinds of
answers to this question – answers which identify the matter, source, form and end.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

4. Aristotle believed that if individual horses did not exist there would be no such things as the
Form horse. Is this correct?

I believe Aristotle was incorrect by saying there could be no form of a horse if there were
no actual physical particular horse with which to base the form on. I justify this based on my
understanding of the notion of a form, namely the form of the object is purely human convention
that assigns words to concepts and then judges whether particular objects conform to our
definition. We could conceive if something that we would call a horse even if there was never and
object that we could find which conformed to our conception.

Can there be essence without existence?

* Everything has two principles that explain its being, essence and existence. In all beings except
for God, these principles are both required in order for the actually existing individual thing to be.
Each is distinct from the other, yet this distinction is a real, not merely logical.

What are the two kinds of substance?

* For Aristotle two kinds of substance is from and essence. The kind of essence or form that
Aristotle counts as primary substance is one that is not in any way universal; a form That is as
individual as the compound whose form it is. The “individual forms” solution is not to be found
in Aristotle, and is unavailable to him. On their view, the primary substance of the Metaphysics is
species form - something that is common to different members of the same species, but is still, in
some plausible sense, an Aristotle was a high-minded, kind hearted man devoted to his family and
his friends. He was a man who followed the ideals he outlined in his ethical treaties (“Aristotle”).

During the time frame of thirteen years when Aristotle taught at his school, called Lyceum, he
composed his writings into dialogues (“Aristotle”). His school was widely known as the walking
school or the Peripatetic school because a lot of the discussion at the school took place while
walking the grounds (“Encarta: Aristotle”). He taught the young conqueror Alexander, who
became Alexander the Great, and thereafter his writings were lost and not recovered until the 1st
Century B.C. During the middle ages they were translated into Latin and Arabic and became a
basis for Christian theology.
 In 2000 years no one has come close to his Thesis Statement: supremely happy man can
ever become miserable this above statement is from the chapter in which Aristotle discusses “Can
a man be called ‘happy’ during his lifetime?” From the micro perspective, the whole chapter is
about whether happiness should be defined as permanent or momentary. Starting with Solon’s
words and opposed examples illustrated by Aristotle, Aristotle leads us to deeply develop the
definition and understanding of happiness. In his opinion, “happiness has permanence and is not
amenable to changes under any circumstances.

Another element, for instance, fortune has the power to influence one’s happiness and
revolve many times in one’s lifetime; however, Aristotle shows fortune is not determine for
happiness and merely an accessory of human life. Furthermore, “the happy man will have the
attribute of permanence, and he will remain happy throughout his life” because the happy man will
choose to do activities in conformity with virtue.

Aristotle concludes that “the activities determine a man’s life, no supremely happy man
can ever become miserable, for he will never do what is hateful and base”. Based on the true
meaning of happiness, Aristotle advocates that it is the activities that matter rather than the
outcomes. Further analyzing the statement of “No supremely happy man can ever become
miserable” from the macro perspective should be focused on three key words in the statement.
First of all is the “happy...Aristotle: The Three Types of Friendship If there is one thing that can
be used to describe human beings aside from intelligence and the power of destruction it would be
that we are entirely social beings.

No person is to live a life without being social. It merely would be impossible and for those
who do find themselves in the state of rejecting society and a social lifestyle, it would be those
who have psychological disorders. With us being social it leads to the search of companionship.
The reality is that we all want friendships. According to the great Greek philosopher Aristotle, we
are complete social beings and seek friendship. Describe a friendship based on utility as being for
one that gets something in return for another’s actions.

Submitted by: CRN 9 GRP II - DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM

5. What is life’s purpose as per Aristotle? Do you agree or disagree? Discuss fully your answer.
QUIZZER 6

1. Compare and contrast the Hellenistic Period with our contemporary times.
Submitted by: CRN 6 GRP II - DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
 2. What is the relationship of Socrates to Cynicism and Stoicism?

Two schools I really like are Cynicism and Stoicism. I am aware that Stoicism came out of
Cynicism, but I am still hazy on the main things that make the two different.

It appears to me that Cynicism can be summed as: Lose all desire to achieve happiness. If you
want one thing you will try to get it. If you finally get it, you will want something else. If you get
that, you will want another thing, and the cycle continues. Achieve happiness by not desiring the
things of this world, but live a simple life and only covet the things you need.

I understand Stoicism as: Be indifferent. Do not show happiness; do not show sadness. Do not
show joy; do not show anger. Do not concern yourself with things you cannot control. Block
emotions so that you can keep a clear mind.

Does this sum it all up? Is there anything important I am missing? I know that Stoicism came
out of Cynicism, but here is one thing that gets me. It seems to me that Cynicism teaches one how
to be happy. Cynicism has many features and teachings, but its main goal is "how to be happy,"
and the answer is "live a simple life." While Stoicism also has many features and teachings, it
seems to me that its main goal is "how to think straight," and the answer is "block your emotions."

Another influence on the origins of Stoicism was Cynicism a philosophic school in the loosest
sense. Founded by Antisthenes (c.455-360 B.C.E.) who formed a school called the Cynosarges
(The Silver Dog) the Cynics revolted against the rules and rigidity of Plato and Aristotle (while
admiring Socrates disdain for fashion).The Cynics believed that the very essence of civilization is
corrupt and so lived austere unconventional lives. They distrusted luxury as a hook that always
brought complications and frustration into people’s lives. What happiness there is could only come
from self-discipline and rational control of all desires and appetites with minimal contact with
conventional society.

Both involve living according to nature in the sense of living virtuously, which Stoicism
inherited from Cynicism—if I remember correctly, the founder of Stoicism was a Cynic, and
maintained that lifestyle after founding Stoicism. Cynicism places a much heavier emphasis on
training for hardship, being able to do what is right even when it is unpleasant. Cynics defied social
conventions if they weren’t relevant to virtue to practice being virtuous even in the face of shame,
and they subjected themselves to physical discomforts for similar reasons.
 While training is mentioned here and there in Stoic texts, it isn’t really emphasized and some
Stoics led a relatively soft life, though not a vicious one, in many ways. I’m not aware of a Stoic
practice of intentionally defying social conventions for no reason at all, though they would
certainly disregard them if it were virtuous to do so. Cynics shunned political involvement; early
Stoics did so as well, but this was discarded by later Stoics, and they counted among their number
several Senators (Cato, Seneca) and an Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Cynicism does not place any
importance on physics or logic to my knowledge, whereas Stoicism does deal with these fields.

In common speech, stoicism means quietly enduring hardship. Cynicism means denying that
anything matters or that anyone is honest. Both names come from Ancient Greek schools of
philosophy.

In short:

Cynic and Stoic ethics are almost identical, but Stoicism does not shun political
involvement. Cynics emphasize training, i.e. seeking out hardship, much more than Stoics. Stoics
study physics and logic while Cynics do not.

Both Stoicism and Cynicism share the common theme of "living according to nature."
Cynicism was more individualistic: individuals define their own morals and all laws concerning
state and laws governing individual behaviour are not inviolable.

Both Cynicism and Stoicism are expressions of materialism. Stoicism is a sober expression
of the belief in cause and effect. Its ideal exemplar would be the sage, who was regarded as the
wisest for living in harmony with nature and for his philosophical ability. So, a key distinguishing
factor would be living according to one's own morals (or, lack thereof) in the case of a Cynic, and
living according to a code indicative of tranquil rationality in the case of Stoics. Thus, in the case
of Stoics, there is a possibility for a moral code to be relatively universal.

If you draw an analogy by bringing in Nietzsche and Kant, Nietzsche would be an

approximate Cynic (Nietzsche certainly considered Cynicism as a framework where "base souls
approached honesty"), and Kant would be an approximate Stoic.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

3. Stoicism was quickly absorbed into Christianity. Identify and comment on any similarities
you are aware of.

 Serving God / the Logos

I think one of the main similarities, one of the ways in which Stoicism anticipated
Christianity, is the idea of serving the will of God. Neither Stoicism or Christianity demand
that God or the Gods do your will (and bless you with children, or a good harvest, or a
good hunt etc), which is really a form of operational magic, but rather that you do God’s
will, that you accept the will of God and try to serve it.
We should also note that the Stoics were monotheists – they followed Heraclitus in
believing in one Logos. In this they can be compared to the evolving monotheism of
Judaism, particularly that of Moses around two centuries earlier. Later Christians would
draw on the Stoic concept of the Logos, particularly in the marvelous opening to the Gospel
of St John.
I wonder if one could argue that Stoicism is in some ways more monotheistic than
Christianity, in that there is no opposing Enemy, no angels and demons, and no Trinity?
There is just the Logos.
, back to this idea of giving up your will and serving the Logos. Cleanthes said: ‘Conduct
me, Jove, and you, 0 Destiny, Wherever your decrees have fixed my
station.’ Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus anticipates, I think, some of the noble sentiments of the
Lord’s Prayer:

O God, without you nothing comes to be on earth,

neither in the region of the heavenly poles, nor in the sea,
except what evil men do in their folly.
But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable,
and how to bring order forth from chaos; and even that which is unlovely is lovely to you.
For thus you have joined all things, the good with the bad, into one,
so that the eternal Word of all came to be one.
This Word, however, evil mortals flee, poor wretches;
though they are desirous of good things for their possession,
they neither see nor listen to God’s universal Law;
and yet, if they obey it intelligently, they would have the good life.
But they are senselessly driven to one evil after another:
some are eager for fame, no matter how godlessly it is acquired;
others are set on making money without any orderly principles in their lives;
and others are bent on ease and on the pleasures and delights of the body.
They do these foolish things, time and again,
and are swept along, eagerly defeating all they really wish for.
 O Zeus, giver of all, shrouded in dark clouds and holding the vivid bright lightning,
rescue men from painful ignorance.
Scatter that ignorance far from their hearts.
and deign to rule all things in justice.
so that, honored in this way, we may render honor to you in return,
and sing your deeds unceasingly, as befits mortals;
for there is no greater glory for men
or for gods than to justly praise the universal Word of Reason.
There is a sort of ‘inner magic’ in this attitude of acceptance of God’s will – it frees you
from anxiety and fear, while giving you the courage to press on and do the right thing.

Another important idea in both Stoicism and Christianity is the question of what is
the most important thing in your life. What do you serve? What is your god or master?
Because everything will follow from that. There’s a similar idea in Plato – if you make
public approval your God, then you make yourself the slave of the public, and will have to
dance to their tune. If you make money your god, then you will have to dance to that tune,
and bend and twist in accordance with your master.
One of the things I think I have been searching for in life is something or someone to serve.
I think that’s true of a lot of people. And in a way, my career initially involved serving a
succession of bad masters. Then I became a freelance journalist, which is in a way the
ultimate humanist illusion – you’re ‘working for your self’. In fact, I found, that often
meant I was anxiously seeking validation from ‘the public’, my new master.
I have been trying, not entirely successfully, to switch from serving the outer master of
public approval, to serving what Epictetus calls the God Within, what Jesus calls the
Kingdom. Because that is a master worthy of service. That involves a switch in the centre
of your self, an an evolution from a self based on appearances (looking good to others) to
a self rooted in service to God. I know that sounds pretty fancy and pious for an idle and
vain sod like me, but that’s the aspiration at least, even if the actuality falls well short of
that.

 Inner service, not external spectacle

Related to this idea of serving the God Within is the idea in both Stoicism and
Christianity of being wary of ostentatious worship of God, because you might really be
showing off to other people. Epictetus says ‘when you’re thirsty, take a little water in your
mouth, spit it out, and tell no one.’ And Jesus also talks about how people who pray very
ostentatiously have already got their reward here on Earth.
 Askesis
As Pierre Hadot has explored, early Christianity also took on the Stoics’ idea
of askesis – the idea of the spiritual life involving training of the mind, the passions and
the body. Indeed, the desert fathers developed this idea of askesis into asceticism, into a
very rigorous programme of mental and particularly physical self-discipline. The idea
of askesis is still strong in Orthodox Christianity, which in general seems to me much
closer to Greek philosophy, while modern Evangelicalism seems to have thrown that entire
tradition out in favour of loud and slightly soupy declarations of love for Jesus. However,
I understand Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises are growing in popularity among Evangelicals,
so perhaps the idea of spiritual training is making a comeback.

 Serving the City of God before the City of Man

Christianity also developed the Stoics’ idea of the cosmopolis – the City of God –
and the idea that the good person should try and serve the cosmopolis first, and their own
particular tribe second. This is a radical idea, in that it breaks through tribal and racial
barriers and insists that all humans share a divine nature. What a beautiful idea it is.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

4. Explain the Stoic attitude toward relationships. How does it differ from today’s attitudes?
What do you see as important strength and weaknesses of each perspective?

The stoic attitude toward relationships is able to suffer pain or trouble without
complaining or showing what they are feeling in their lifestyle. In their lifestyle is the way
in which a person or a group of people lives and works. Lives and works are the way to
support and gain our relationships in their lifetimes, so that they can have a good attitude
to organize their selves in the present of their lifetimes, as we know stoic attitude toward
relationships are usually formed early in life, though they may crystallize when the
individual knows that he or she will become a good person.

Many factors influence the formation of attitude toward relationships. First, young
people’s earlier experiences with other relationships that have a marked effects on their
lives, somehow they feel about their selves in the present, for example, a woman have to
take care for a younger brothers and sisters. May have an unfavorable attitude toward
relationships, or a woman who grew up as an only child may want many relationships to
make up for the loneliness that they felt when they were young.

Second, the experiences of relationships either in the past or at present. The

individual stoic attitudes. For example, a young man who hears his relationships complain
about the financial burdens of parenthood may that he or she would rather not have a
financial, so they have to complain with their relationships.

Third, how to make the stoic attitude toward relationships, first, we need to have a
good behavior and good attitudes, second, we must love our relationships and have pity on
them. Third, our behavior and attitudes can influence our relationship’s attitudes. Fourth,
the relationships are mostly their attitudes are influenced by their families’ experiences, so
at that time they also try to be as their families did, for example, the influence attitude of
their siblings or by their families and friends that they live or stay together in one village.

What are your strengths and weaknesses?

This is probably the most hated interview question, but apart from the enjoyment
of watching us squirm while trying to answer it, there’s a good reason employers might
want to ask it; it could allow them to fit you into a role in which you could use your personal
strengths, and has minimum focus on your weaknesses.

Alas, this doesn’t tend to happen – Gallup report that 68% of employees don’t get
to use their strengths on a daily basis! The thinking seems to be that there’s a global
characteristic called ‘talent’, and if employers can find people with ‘talent’, they can train
them to do whatever job is necessary – after all, they’re ‘talented’!

However, talent doesn’t work like that; there are many possible talents that a person
could have. When we see someone who does well in their profession, we generally call
them talented; but in fact they usually have just focused on their natural strengths, and
minimized their weaknesses. There are plenty of examples: the genius artist who lives like
a slob; the expert computer programmer with no charisma; the incredible athlete who has
no skill with numbers. You wouldn’t hire the first person to be your interior designer, the
second to lead your sales team, or the third to do your taxes, yet they are all talented.

So, ‘talent’ is not defined by being a whizz in everything you do. It’s a case of
finding activities that require your strengths but not your weaknesses, and developing your
expertise in these areas.

How do you find out what your strengths are, so that you can use and develop them?

There are several ways, the best one will depend on your personality. If you are
reflective and perceptive, you might want to try self-reflection. If you think you’ll find this
difficult, you could take a questionnaire. These questionnaires are not the flimsy little tests
you find in popular magazines; they are empirically validated measurements based on a
great deal of research. The main ones at the moment are the Values in Action model and
the Strengths Finder model. A new model, Realise2 has recently entered the fray too and
looks interesting.

Submitted by: CRN 9 GRP II - DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM

5. Discuss the difference between avoidable and unavoidable sufferings. How can a Stoic
person tell which is which? Why does it matter to the Stoic?
QUIZZER 7

1. Compare and contrast the views of the Academics and the Pyrrhonists.
Submitted by: CRN 6 GRP II - DA SILVA ARAUJO MANGO JOAO
 2. “Nothing can be known.” What is a powerful objection to this claim?

To 'know' is to be the known. The statement, "nothing can be known" is not entirely true. It is
more accurate to say "nothing can be known by the mind," at best it merely knows 'about'
knowledge. Because many people accept that they are the mind in some way, it is believed that "I
know" or "don't know".

The mind is imaginary and has no inherent reality in nature or the universe. Observe how
everything the mind produces is completely artificial with no natural existence. It is why humans
are always trying to copy and recreate what has natural existence. Human are the only animals
who create artificial realities and mistake them as real.

Everything can be known. To know Everything though you have to know, or realize, that the
illusion of that you imagined was everything is actually Nothing, Then all you have left is
awareness, i.e., your (God's) consciousness, which is also nothing, being conscious of the real
Everything with is the real Self or God. Everything can't be everything if it doesn't include nothing.

The most powerful objection to the Sceptic's concept of knowledge — knowledge(s) — is that
virtually everybody who speaks English (including the Sceptic when she is not being sceptical)
virtually every day of their lives makes and relies on the validity of claims to 'know' things. George
to Gracie — 'Where are my car keys?' Gracie to George — 'On the hall table where you left them!'
Clearly Gracie is claiming to know where the car keys are, and George is relying on the validity
of Gracie's claim.

The Sceptic's knowledge(s) is based on some epistemological or metaphysical premise that

draws the Sceptic into concluding that all of our common every-day claims to know things are
erroneous. There are many such premises that have been explored by different Sceptical
philosophers. But the bald fact that the Sceptic's conception of knowledge(s) is in direct pragmatic
conflict with our normal every-day common sense use of the words 'knowledge' and 'know' is a
clear indication that whatever it is that the Sceptic is talking about with 'knowledge(s)' it is not the
same concept as is indicated by the word 'knowledge'.
 By and large, most Sceptical philosophers realize that fact. Most are not in fact claiming that
all of our everyday usages of 'knowledge' are truly mistaken. Usually what they are doing is putting
forward some reasonable sounding premises as to what the word 'knowledge' actually means, and
then following the logical consequences through until the reach the conclusion that IF their
premises are correct, THEN nothing can be known. Hence their claim that 'nothing can be known'
is nothing more than a wake-up call that there must be some sort of error in those very reasonable
sounding premises with which the logic started.

For example: One of the common philosophical claims about the concept of 'knowledge' is that
it implies 'certainty'. You ought not to claim to 'know' something about which you are not certain.
If you are not absolutely certain that George's keys are on the hall table, you should not suggest to
George that you 'know' where his keys are. Instead, you should tell George that you only think
(guess, have an opinion) that they are on the hall table. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But now add
into this mix the fact that all of our information about the things in the world (like the location of
George's keys) comes from our sensory perceptions of those things. And we can demonstrate that
our sensory perceptions are sometimes faulty, in any of a number of common ways. Perhaps what
is on the hall table is another set of keys that look superficially just like George's set. Are you
absolutely certain that the keys you saw on the hall table were George's keys, and a closely similar
set belonging to the neighbor who dropped by for a minute? How closely did you examine those
keys you saw? Is it possible that they were not keys at all? And how do you know that you are not
actually a brain in a vat in some scientist's laboratory, and being fed computer generated images
of George's keys by some fancy super computer? In other words, there are an awful lot of potential
sources of uncertainty that can infect any of your commonly made claims of knowing things. If
'knowledge' implies or requires certainty, then clearly, we can 'know(s)' nothing.

So, equally clearly, rather than concluding that truly we know nothing, we conclude that the
common every-day concept of 'knowledge' does not in fact include the requirement or implication
of certainty. And that is a very interesting and informative conclusion.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

3. “I do not know whether knowledge is possible.” Defend or attack this claim.

Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of particular aspects of reality. It is the

clear, lucid information gained through the process of reason applied to reality. The traditional
approach is that knowledge requires three necessary and sufficient conditions, so that knowledge
can then be defined as "justified true belief":

Truth: since false propositions cannot be known - for something to count as knowledge, it must
actually be true. As Aristotle famously (but rather confusingly) expressed it: "To say of something
which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of
something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true."

Belief: because one cannot know something that one doesn't even believe in, the statement "I know
x, but I don't believe that x is true" is contradictory.

Justification: as opposed to believing in something purely as a matter of luck.

Knowledge is actually possible. Now, I didn’t really think of this question more often but
in recent weeks I have it’s from some philosophy readings I have been doing. Is it really possible
that we can know something because knowledge is something that is always being revisited and
revised and changed. For instance, for a longest time our species thought at least in the West that
the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun and other planets revolved around the
earth and we would kill each other over this idea but it turns out that’s not true at least with regards
to this it’s not likely

The Sun is the center of the solar system and the Earth revolves around it and this has been
proven by the scientific method countless times but do we really know that or is it just at best an
educated guess. For instance do we really know that evolution happened or is that just an educated
guess to all the evidence we found so far says that evolution did happen but I supposed there’s
always that less one-tenth of one percent chance that we could find something that contradicts it
even though as I said it’s very unlikely so because knowledge is always something that is being
revisited and revised and changed re-examined is it really possible that we can know something or
is it the case that saying that there is no way we can know knowledge isn’t act itself a statement of
knowledge and is that itself unprovable. As you can see this is all epistemological nihilism talking
about it being an ethical and existential nihilist myself.

I’ve been pondering this idea but I really don’t know if no knowledge is possible how we
can make any statement at all. I tend to say that or at least my opinion is that some we can know
something is likely but since knowledge is always being revisited we always have to second-guess
ourselves and be skeptical about what we know so never take anything at face value because you
really don’t know until you’ve examined the possibilities before you.

Submitted by: CRN 7 GRP II - DOCULARA, FLORENDO B.

4. Defend some versions of total skepticism.

Skepticism" comes from the Greek word skeptikos meaning "inquirers". Indeed, the
doubt and challenge accompanying skeptical attitudes has been sometimes credited as the motive
force behind the evolution of ideas. The word "skeptic" has been applied throughout history to
anyone who doubts and challenges authority, dogma, and common opinion. Thus, skeptics have
included those who challenge religious authority and popular beliefs.
True skeptics are not merely doubters. To merely have doubts and a propensity to
challenge others may well be just a stubborn lack of sensitivity. True skeptics use reason to
explain and advance their ideas; they have arguments. This is important because it helps to
distinguish the philosophical skeptic from the mere "denier" who flatly rejects all evidence and
argument to the contrary of their own view. Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and
moralists often fall into the category of the mere denier. Philosophical skepticism sets for itself a
standard of reason at least as rigorous as that it applies to other positions. Consistency is always
important to the skeptic. Thus, if you find someone smugly challenging the views of others with
expressions of doubt or demands for ever increasing proof, you have found a dogmatic denier
rather than a true skeptic.
In A Defense of Skepticism, Unger examines a classic skeptical argument: the appeal
to logical possibility. Something is logically possible when there is no logical contradiction in
saying it. For example; "All white sheep are not white" is a contradiction; it denies what it
affirms, while "All white sheep are not mammals" is not a contradiction at all; even though it is
false. The falsity of a contradiction consists entirely in the claim itself, and not the relating of the
claim to the world. We can check the truth of "All white sheep are not mammals" by observing
some sheep and noting that they are, in fact, mammals. We cannot do the same for the
contradictory claim. Contradictions are internal.
Unger is specifically interested, in this passage, with skepticism about the external
world. The external world is contrasted with our perceptions. Much (if not all) of what we
believe about the world derives from our experience of it. Some philosophers hold that all of our
beliefs, or even ideas and thoughts, come from experience. We commonly suppose that the
sources or causes of our experiences are material objects. The external world is the existence of
such objects. One of the defining characteristics of the external world is that it exists
independently of any experience or perception whatever. That is, if rocks exist in the external
world, then they exist whether they are being perceived or not. But if something exists only
while it is being perceived by someone, then it does not belong to the external world.
Weaknesses can be identified in the same way: self-reflection or questionnaires. If you
take the questionnaires, this time, of course, look at the bottom section of your results. Note that
the Strengths Finder model does not report your weaknesses; only your top strengths, so you’ll
have to use the VIA questionnaire to figure out your weaknesses in this way.
 The next question that arises is, if we’re better of focusing on our strengths, then what
do we do about our weaknesses? Do we just ignore them? The answer will depend entirely on
the situation. You should avoid trying to develop your weaknesses if you can, by outsourcing or
finding technical solutions if possible. There’s more information on how to work around
weaknesses here.
Alright. So you understand that a strength is a part of your brain that’s more efficient
than other parts, like broadband is to dial-up. And you agree with me that life is easier when you
stick to your strengths. Potentially, you can do anything you set your mind to, but it’s going to
be a better experience if you set your mind to something that employs your strengths. Also,
you’ve figured out what your strengths are through either self-reflection or questionnaires.
The next step is to blend your strengths into your life, and get over the obstacles that
come up as you do so. As I imply above, I’m assuming you’re sold on the idea of doing this; if
not, re-read the links above to review the benefits, do some further reading through the books I
mention or on the web, and ponder the issue further.
Which of these you do, is up to you. I suppose it depends on how much you like what
you’re doing now balanced against how much you want to fit your strengths into your career. If
your current career doesn’t appear to make use of your identified strengths, don’t immediately
conclude you’re miscast, because using option 1 you might later find yourself a good fit.
Here you have to discover what strengths you are currently using, and then see if you
can add the other ones into your role. Your position might employ one or two of your strengths
really well, and then it’s a matter of finding ways to add the others in. If you can’t find ways to
add any of your strengths in, you’re currently going against the grain. You should consider
what’s keeping you doing this, and consider Option 2. If you’re current role is temporary or a
stepping-stone job, you’ll still enjoy it more if you can rearrange the way you do it around your
strengths. The various books on strengths offer basic examples on how to rearrange, such as a
cashier with the strength of social intelligence, who started engaging customers more in
conversation at the checkout.

Submitted by: CRN 9 GRP II - DE ARAUJO, JOAQUIM

5. As a Roman Catholic Seminarian, give some conclusive insights resulting from your close
study of the summary table on the different theories of salvation.