1.

Comparison between Classic and Contemporary Philosophers

Philosophically, the Classical period was one in which philosophy was establishing
the very first schools of thought and learning to interact with previous philosophers.
Most philosophers learned from a single teacher who would teach them everything
they knew about philosophy. Like the previous period in philosophy, a lot of
philosophers either did not write anything or their writings are now lost. Unlike that
period, the writings of some philosophers are still around today. The range of
opinions started at this time or continued from the previous period encompass
almost every possible philosophical opinion imaginable. It was because of this that
philosophers began to interact with previous philosophers.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are the most important philosophers of this time
period. However, various other philosophers and philosophical schools are
important. Antisthenes became the first Cynic. He believed in the pursuit of virtue
against pleasure. Epicurus started the popular school of philosophy after his own
name. He believed in the pursuit of pleasure. These philosophers and their schools
either contributed to the development of later philosophy or were important in their
own time.
Contemporary philosophy is the present period in the history of Western philosophy
beginning at the end of the 19th century with the professionalization of the
discipline and the rise of analytic and continental philosophy.

The phrase "contemporary philosophy" is a piece of technical terminology in

philosophy that refers to a specific period in the history of Western philosophy.
However, the phrase is often confused with modern philosophy (which refers to an
earlier period in Western philosophy), postmodern philosophy (which refers to
continental philosophers' criticisms of modern philosophy), and with a non-technical
use of the phrase referring to any recent philosophic work.
2. Human Nature and Philosophy
Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin of the western conception of the
nature of a thing. According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature
itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to
study of the human things. Socrates is said to have studied the question of how a
person should best live, but he left no written works. It is clear from the works of his
students Plato and Xenophon, and also by what was said about him by Aristotle
(Plato's student), that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and
the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning. The Socratic school was
the dominant surviving influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages,
amongst Islamic, Christian, and Jewish philosophers.

The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a divided nature, divided in a
specifically human way. One part is specifically human and rational, and divided into
a part which is rational on its own, and a spirited part which can understand reason.
Other parts of the soul are home to desires or passions similar to those found in
animals. In both Aristotle and Plato, spiritedness (thumos) is distinguished from the
other passions (epithumiai). The proper function of the "rational" was to rule the
other parts of the soul, helped by spiritedness. By this account, using one's reason
is the best way to live, and philosophers are the highest types of humans.

AristotlePlato's most famous studentmade some of the most famous and

influential statements about human nature. In his works, apart from using a similar
scheme of a divided human soul, some clear statements about human nature are
made:

Man is a conjugal animal, meaning an animal which is born to couple when an adult,
thus building a household (oikos) and, in more successful cases, a clan or small
village still run upon patriarchal lines.
Man is a political animal, meaning an animal with an innate propensity to develop
more complex communities the size of a city or town, with a division of labor and
law-making. This type of community is different in kind from a large family, and
requires the special use of human reason.
Man is a mimetic animal. Man loves to use his imagination (and not only to make
laws and run town councils). He says "we enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of
things which are themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and
corpses." And the "reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look, we
learn and infer what each is, for instance, 'that is so and so.'"
For Aristotle, reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to
other animals, but it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best. Much of
Aristotle's description of human nature is still influential today. However, the
particular teleological idea that humans are "meant" or intended to be something
has become much less popular in modern times.

For the Socratics, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts.
Aristotle developed the standard presentation of this approach with his theory of
four causes. Every living thing exhibits four aspects or "causes": matter, form,
effect, and end. For example, an oak tree is made of plant cells (matter), grew from
an acorn (effect), exhibits the nature of oak trees (form), and grows into a fully
mature oak tree (end). Human nature is an example of a formal cause, according to
Aristotle. Likewise, to become a fully actualized human being (including fully
actualizing the mind) is our end. Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics, Book X) suggests
that the human intellect () is "smallest in bulk" but the most significant part of

the human psyche, and should be cultivated above all else. The cultivation of
learning and intellectual growth of the philosopher, which is thereby also the
happiest and least painful life.
3. Argument for Abortion

4. Does life have a meaning? Yes or No. Support your answer.

Yes. Life itself is a very complex matrix. And the very meaning of it depends upon
how an individual sees life. Because it is how you live your life that defines what it
truly is.
For example, if I want my life to be lived to the fullest and happy, I will dedicate my
years of living in doing what I love, being with people I love and do things that make
me the happiest.

5. The Philosophy of Sexuality

Among the many topics explored by the philosophy of sexuality are procreation,
contraception, celibacy, marriage, adultery, casual sex, flirting, prostitution,
homosexuality, masturbation, seduction, rape, sexual harassment, sadomasochism,
pornography, bestiality, and pedophilia. What do all these things have in common?
All are related in various ways to the vast domain of human sexuality. That is, they
are related, on the one hand, to the human desires and activities that involve the
search for and attainment of sexual pleasure or satisfaction and, on the other hand,
to the human desires and activities that involve the creation of new human beings.
For it is a natural feature of human beings that certain sorts of behaviors and
certain bodily organs are and can be employed either for pleasure or for
reproduction, or for both.

The philosophy of sexuality explores these topics both conceptually and

normatively. Conceptual analysis is carried out in the philosophy of sexuality in
order to clarify the fundamental notions of sexual desire and sexual activity.
Conceptual analysis is also carried out in attempting to arrive at satisfactory
definitions of adultery, prostitution, rape, pornography, and so forth. Conceptual
analysis (for example: what are the distinctive features of a desire that make it
sexual desire instead of something else? In what ways does seduction differ from
nonviolent rape?) is often difficult and seemingly picky, but proves rewarding in
unanticipated and surprising ways.

Normative philosophy of sexuality inquires about the value of sexual activity and
sexual pleasure and of the various forms they take. Thus the philosophy of sexuality
is concerned with the perennial questions of sexual morality and constitutes a large
branch of applied ethics. Normative philosophy of sexuality investigates what
contribution is made to the good or virtuous life by sexuality, and tries to determine
what moral obligations we have to refrain from performing certain sexual acts and
what moral permissions we have to engage in others.

Some philosophers of sexuality carry out conceptual analysis and the study of
sexual ethics separately. They believe that it is one thing to define a sexual
phenomenon (such as rape or adultery) and quite another thing to evaluate it.
Other philosophers of sexuality believe that a robust distinction between defining a
sexual phenomenon and arriving at moral evaluations of it cannot be made, that
analyses of sexual concepts and moral evaluations of sexual acts influence each
other. Whether there actually is a tidy distinction between values and morals, on the
one hand, and natural, social, or conceptual facts, on the other hand, is one of those
fascinating, endlessly debated issues in philosophy, and is not limited to the
philosophy of sexuality.
6. Jesus as a philosopher? Yes or No. Support your answer.
No. Jesus does not reach his teachings via reason. He does not start with agreed
premises, or debate the premises. In fact, if the Gospels are to be believed, he
never argued except with the Pharisees (who were in all probability his teachers)
and then not for the premises, which he and they shared. This was theological
dispute, not philosophy. He does not establish a method by which one can check or
assess his conclusions, either. It is revealed to him by God, and his authority as a
spokesperson for God is what validates his claims. And there is no way to validate
that, either.

His moral claims do not form a system, apart from God has the right to declare
what he wants to be right, which doesnt survive the Euthyphro Dilemma. He
merely repeats or arbitrarily revises the religious teaching of his time and tradition.
There is no reason to think that this applies to all reasonable people, despite what
his later publicist Saul of Tarsis tried vaguely to argue in his letter to the Roman
church.

His metaphysics are likewise either the product of revelation, intuition, or authority.
There is no attempt in Jesus teachings to develop any ontology, not in his ipsissima
verba nor in the Gospels and sayings preserved elsewhere in the New Testament.

I do not think Jesus is a philosopher. Rabbi Hillel seems to be more of a philosopher,

and Philo of Alexandria definitely was. But Jesus is a teacher of religion, and a
reformer of religion; however, he is no philosopher. Besides, he never published,
and that is death to a philosopher, from which no career can be resurrected.