Oppositional World Views: Plato & The Sophists Essay -- essays researc

The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one’s life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth. Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of illustrating each one. This paper will first focus on each group. It will begin by identifying both the Sophists and Plato and then citing the significant principles associated with each world view. This paper will then focus on how each compon ent of their world views relate specifically to rhetoric. Finally, this paper will focus on illustrating each world view by way of current newspaper editorial.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As noted, the Sophists were rooted in ancient Greece but traveled to many places, giving speeches on rhetoric to those who could afford to listen. Within their teachings, the Sophists focused on rhetorical techniques and how they could be used to successfully argue any side of an argument. They harped on the idea that through their teachings, self improvement could be achieved because those who controlled language had the power. The Sophists were relativists, which means they believed that an individual or society’s beliefs, while true for that particular individual or society, might be untrue for others. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 6) The Sophists referred to this as kairos and said that because of it, there could be no absolute truth because the truth was dependent on that particular person’s point of view. They believed that the only knowledge that humans could achieve is knowledge that is probable because absolute knowledge is unattaina ble. The Sophists feel that this probable knowledge can be boiled down through what they refer to as dissoi logoi. This technique, in which each opposing side of an argument is examined in order to identify the probable truth, was developed by Protago... ..., this would be dusting away the debris (the myths) and uncovering the absolute truth of what really happened. Through rhetoric, probable truths such as McDonalds had to pay three million, are cleared out and absolute truths, McDonalds had to pay $640,000, are uncovered. (Doroshow, J. pg.1-3) This is exactly how Plato would have had it. To summarize, the Sophists were traveling rhetoricians who were paid to teach people techniques to becoming great arguers and persuaders. They were relativists who believed there was no absolute truth, only probable. This probable truth was discovered through kairos, dependent on a person’s situation, or dissoi logoi, the truth is uncovered by examining opposing arguments. The philosopher Plato was in opposition to virtually every belief the Sophists had. He believed in absolute truth and that rhetoric and discourse should be used to uncover this truth. He also believed that false rhetoric was that of the Sophists. Whether the Sophist view is correct or Plato’s view is, there is some sort of truth out there and maybe one day it can be decided as to which method best uncovered it. But until then, the debate will rage on, as it did within this paper. Oppositional World Views: Plato & The Sophists Essay -- essays researc The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one’s life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth. Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of illustrating each one. This paper will first focus on each group. It will begin by identifying both the Sophists and Plato and then citing the significant principles associated with each world view. This paper will then focus on how each compon ent of their world views relate specifically to rhetoric. Finally, this paper will focus on illustrating each world view by way of current newspaper editorial.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As noted, the Sophists were rooted in ancient Greece but traveled to many places, giving speeches on rhetoric to those who could afford to listen. Within their teachings, the Sophists focused on rhetorical techniques and how they could be used to successfully argue any side of an argument. They harped on the idea that through their teachings, self improvement could be achieved because those who controlled language had the power. The Sophists were relativists, which means they believed that an individual or society’s beliefs, while true for that particular individual or society, might be untrue for others. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 6) The Sophists referred to this as kairos and said that because of it, there could be no absolute truth because the truth was dependent on that particular person’s point of view. They believed that the only knowledge that humans could achieve is knowledge that is probable because absolute knowledge is unattaina ble. The Sophists feel that this probable knowledge can be boiled down through what they refer to as dissoi logoi. This technique, in which each opposing side of an argument is examined in order to identify the probable truth, was developed by Protago... ..., this would be dusting away the debris (the myths) and uncovering the absolute truth of what really happened. Through rhetoric, probable truths such as McDonalds had to pay three million, are cleared out and absolute truths, McDonalds had to pay $640,000, are uncovered. (Doroshow, J. pg.1-3) This is exactly how Plato would have had it. To summarize, the Sophists were traveling rhetoricians who were paid to teach people techniques to becoming great arguers and persuaders. They were relativists who believed there was no absolute truth, only probable. This probable truth was discovered through kairos, dependent on a person’s situation, or dissoi logoi, the truth is uncovered by examining opposing arguments. The philosopher Plato was in opposition to virtually every belief the Sophists had. He believed in absolute truth and that rhetoric and discourse should be used to uncover this truth. He also believed that false rhetoric was that of the Sophists. Whether the Sophist view is correct or Plato’s view is, there is some sort of truth out there and maybe one day it can be decided as to which method best uncovered it. But until then, the debate will rage on, as it did within this paper.

Divorce

Marriage can be defined as a union between a man and a woman. This was initiated by God after the creation. Marriage enables individuals to procreate by having children. People who are married usually live together and this makes it possible to share responsibilities in the house. People are expected to live happily in marriage considering that marriage occurs between individuals who love each other. During marriage, individuals take vows that they will live together as a long as they are alive. However, this has changed and what has been observed is that some marriages break after some time.Court cases facilitating divorce have been on increase. In the previous years, divorce was something that was unacceptable. However, the society seems to be accepting divorce due to the circumstances surrounding a marriage. The highest proportion of the society members argue that divorce should not be allowed due to its consequences. In United States, people believe that people have the freedom t o do whatever they wish with their lives. In this regard people should be allowed to divorce when they feel that there is a need. This research paper will argue against divorce in the society.It will also look at both sides of the argument so that it can prove there is a need to protect marriages (Clarke-Stewart). Divorce has many negative consequences for the couples involved and the children in the family and this is why it should be avoided at all costs. Financial management is a challenge to divorced couples. Individuals should consider the costs associated with divorce. In the first place, the divorce process requires expenditure. This may be so expensive for the couples involved. Second, the parties involved need to seek a new residential area which involves a cost.One of the parties incurs greater costs in meeting the costs of paying school fees for the children. If there is no divorce, it means that individuals share these costs such that there is no burden in meeting these expenses (Peterson). Two individuals are also able to better plan for their finances for the future benefit as compared to when all the decisions are made by one individual. The money that could have been wasted in the divorce process could be invested so that the couple can receive future revenues from their investment activities.There are various reasons why people divorce. In the first place, couples argue that there is lack of commitment in their relationships. This means that one of the partners is less concerned about the social needs of the family such as socializing, meeting financial needs, meeting educational needs of the children and planning for the future. This makes one person to seek a happier marriage elsewhere after divorce (Wallerstein). When both persons are not committed infidelity is a constant problem, a partner may be unfaithful such that he/she engages in extramarital sex.In this case, the other partner feels that this is not acceptable considering that the c urrent world is full of sexually transmitted diseases some of which are very dangerous. The offended party in the marriage finds that the best way to deal with the situation is through divorce. Another reason is financial problems. Unfortunately, money is a problem for almost everyone, and it is even more so with married couples who more than likely split the bill in most situations, financial obligations can cause conflict between couples.When they get married, they have to be certain that they are financially prepared for an increase of expenses, especially if the birth of a child is involved. Also unemployment can cause conflicts between the marriage, due to arguments about expenses, not being able to find a new job, or one individual feeling superior to the other. When this happen couples opt for a divorce since after the separation the stress will be less and money can be manage better by just one person. Communication is essential to a successful marriage.We have all heard thi s at some point in our lives but at the present time there are many married couples that lack of communication for several different reasons such as work schedules, demanding families or even technological distractions. This soon creates anger and frustration builds up, which ends in larger issues. Larger issues are not as easy to solve as smaller ones. Even if the couple manages to work out these issues and stay together, it’s not a real marriage. Without communication, there is no relationship and therefore the marriage is ready for divorce.Generally, there are many challenges that make people to divorce. These reasons are reasonable and people seek to be in marriages that are more satisfactory. Some of the problems that lead to divorce are intentional and some spouses find it difficult to continue with marriage. Some Christians also argue that individuals are allowed to divorce if the reason for divorce is infidelity. Infidelity is unacceptable even to the Christians and p eople are allowed to divorce if this happens in their marriage.

A Guide to Harvards Online Certificate Programs

Harvard Extension School students can choose from more than 100 online courses taught by Harvards distinguished faculty. As you would expect, these classes are challenging and require a significant time commitment. The majority of extension school professors are Harvard affiliates, but some teachers come from other universities as well as businesses. No special requirements are needed to enroll in Harvard Extension Schools online courses. All courses have an open-enrollment policy. As Harvard explains, A certificate demonstrates to employers that you have acquired a certain body of knowledge in a field. The courses for each certificate give you the opportunity to gain a currently relevant background for a field or profession. And the educational quality of the Harvard Extension School is widely recognized by employers. Harvard Extension School Certificates Harvards online program is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, a  regional accreditor. Students can take Harvard’s online courses individually or enroll in a degree or certificate program. In order to earn a certificate, new students must take five classes. There are no other admissions or capstone requirements. Students desiring no on-campus work may earn a Certificate in Environmental Management, a Certificate in Applied Sciences, a Citation in East Asian Studies, or a Citation in Web Technologies and Applications completely online. Other programs have mandatory residencies. A bachelors degree may be completed by taking four on-campus courses in addition to online work. Masters programs with limited residencies include  liberal arts, management, biotechnology, environmental management, and information technology. See their website for a full up-to-date list of programs. Open Admissions Individual classes at Harvard Extension School have an open-admissions policy. Certificate courses are conducted at the graduate level, so most students have already completed their undergraduate education. In order to complete the courses, students should also be proficient in English. By enrolling in the courses themselves, students will be able to determine if the level of coursework is appropriate for their experience. Costs Harvard Extension School tuition is  $1,840 per course  for undergraduate courses and $2,840 per course for graduate courses for the 2019-2020 academic year. Although this price is more expensive than some online programs, many students feel they are receiving an Ivy League education for the price of a state-funded school. Federal financial aid is not available for students enrolled in a degree or certificate program through the extension program. Something to Consider Although the extension school is part of the university, earning a certificate from Harvard does not make you a Harvard alum. As Harvard explains, Most Extension School graduate degrees require 10 to 12 courses. With only five courses and no admissions requirements, certificates offer a quicker path to a professional development credential... Since the on-campus and online certificates are not degree programs, certificate awardees do not participate in Commencement or receive alumni status. Interested students may also want to look at other prestigious colleges offering certificate programs, including eCornell, Stanford, and UMassOnline. Experts generally recommend that students take online classes due to their relevance and their potential for advancement in a particular field, rather than their association with an Ivy League institution. However, some career counselors argue that a certificate from a prestigious school can help make your resume stand out from the crowd.