Compare Aristotle and Plato's Theory of contemplation?

Aristotles theory "Happiness," explains Aristotle's claims that theoretical wisdom is the best and most complete (teleion) human virtue, and that theoretical contemplation is the best and most complete form of happiness. these are teleological claims about theoretical wisdom and contemplation as final and complete ends, with practical virtues and activities aiming to "maximize" contemplation. The precise nature of this teleological relationship is not always clear but also that achieving intermediate ends is "part of achieving" the final end. "The Happiest Life," seeks to correct the impression that the completely happy contemplative life is nothing but a life devoted to completely happy contemplative activity. In fact, there are many different aspects of the completely happy human life, as a happy human life, that are not reducible to contemplative activity itself. For instance, because a theoretically wise contemplator has a complex, incarnate nature, she may become bored with her contemplation of God. So the happiest life will require the exercise of practical wisdom to provide the agent with stimulating contemplative alternatives from its own store of scientific knowledge. As such, even if the activities of practical wisdom and excellent character are not parts of the highest form of happiness, they are integral, ongoing parts of the happiest contemplative life, just as theoretical and scientific thought are integral, ongoing parts of the exercise of the practical virtues. In the happiest life, then, practical pursuits are not only compatible with theoretical ones, but the distinction between "practical" and "theoretical" nearly disappears. Platos theory Plato thought that through contemplation the soul may ascend to knowledge of the Form of the Good or other divine Forms. Plotinus as a (neo)Platonic philosopher also expressed contemplation as the most critical of components for one to reach henosis. To Plotinus the highest contemplation was to experience the vision of God, the Monad or the One. Plotinus describes this experience in his works the Enneads. According to his student Porphyry, Plotinus stated that he had this experience of God four times.

What is the Theory of the Golden Mean? The concept of Aristotle's theory of golden mean is represented in his work called Nicomachean Ethics, in which Aristotle explains the origin, nature and development of virtues which are essential for achieving the ultimate goal, happiness (Greek: eudaimonia), which must be desired for itself. It must not be confused with carnal or material pleasures, although there are many people who consider this to be real happiness, since they are the most basic form of pleasures. It is a way of life that enables us to live in accordance with our nature, to improve our character, to better deal with the inevitable hardships of life and to strive for the good of the whole, not just of the individual. Aristotle's ethics is strongly teleological, practical, which means that it should be the action that leads to the realization of the good of the human being as well as the whole. This end is realized through continuous acting in accordance with virtues which, like happiness, must be desired for themselves, not for the short term pleasures that can be derived from them. This is not to say that happiness is void of pleasures, but that pleasures are a natural effect, not the purpose. In order to act virtuously, we must first acquire virtues, by parental upbringing, experience and reason. It is very important to develop certain principles in the early stages of life, for this will profoundly affect the later life. Aristotle's ethics is centered at a person's character, because by improving it, we also improve our virtues. A person must have knowledge, he must choose virtues for their own sake and his activities must originate from a firm and unshakeable character, which represents the conditions for having virtues. If we behave like this, our happiness will have a positive influence on other people as well, and will improve their characters. The golden mean represents a balance between extremes, i.e. vices. For example, courage is the middle between one extreme of deficiency (cowardness) and the other extreme of excess (recklessness). A coward would be a warrior who flees from the battlefield and a reckless warrior would charge at fifty enemy soldiers. This doesn't mean that the golden mean is the exact arithmetical middle between extremes, but that the middle depends on the situation. There is no universal middle that would apply to every situation. Aristotle said, "It's easy to be angry, but to be angry at the right time, for the right reason, at the right person and in the right intensity must truly be brilliant." Because of the difficulty the balance in certain situations can represent, constant moral improvement of the character is crucial for recognizing it. This, however, doesn't imply that Aristotle upheld moral relativism because he listed certain emotions and actions (hate, envy, jealousy, theft, murder) as always wrong, regardless of the situation at hand. The golden mean applies only for virtues, not vices. In some ethical systems, however, murder can be justified in certain situations, like self-defense.

The importance of the golden mean is that it re-affirms the balance needed in life. It remains puzzling how this ancient wisdom, known before Aristotle re-introduced it, (it is present in the myth of Icarus, in a Doryc saying carved in the front of the temple at Delphi: "Nothing in Excess," in the teachings of Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato) can be so forgotten and neglected in the modern society. Today's modern man usually succumbs in the extreme of excess, which can be seen in the uncontrollable accumulation of material wealth, food, alcohol, drugs, but he can descend into deficiency as well, like inadequate attention to education, healthy sport activities, intellectual pursuits, etc. Since Aristotle was interested in the studying of nature, he, like any great person, quickly realized the importance of balance in nature and the tremendous effect it has on keeping up so many forms of life in nature going. Since human beings are from nature, which gives them life, isn't it reasonable to conclude that humans should also uphold the balance, just like nature? The problem is that the vast majority of people are unwilling to admit that they are not at the top of nature, just a part of it. The reason for this are the limits of human perception, which cannot grasp the complex ways that nature, that vastly intricate and greater system, operates, so they fear it because they don't fully understand it. That's why people invent god who is primarily concerned with them, because it is their arrogance and pride that propells their desperate need of wanting to be the center of everything, wanting to know everything, or at least pretend so. They explain away death, pain, suffering, thus robbing their lives of its natural aspects, turning it into a bus station to heaven, where they just keep waiting and waiting for a ride, while doing nothing. The people in modern society need to overcome their pride and arrogance and look in nature for guidance, because we all depend on it. Staring into the sky and imagining ourselves in heaven will not accomplish anything; it is better instead to accept our role in the world and appreciate the beauty of life, and death, which gives meaning to it. We don't need "new" and "progressive" ways of life when the ancient wisdom of the world's greatest thinkers is in front of us, forgotten in the dusty shelves in some crumbling library. The balance, the golden mean of which Aristotle talked about must be recognized as beneficial and important, as it is in nature itself.

Explain, Man's Many Splendored Personality? Human is like a crown? Why? Same as a crown, human also have gems that representing, reflecting, radiating him with many splendored aspects and facets of being human - the physical, intellectual, moral, religious, social, political, economic, emotional, sentient, esthetic, sensual and sexual. Those splendored personalities are gifts given by our creator that we should to cherish and nurture. At the same time, those aspects were bestowed on man for the purpose to serve for the betterment and perfection not only for an individual man but for all humanity. For on the day of final reckoning, God will judge man not according to his gifts, possessions, positions but according to his works. As we strive for our existence and destiny which is HAPPINESS, we are also striving for our dignity to be dignified to make it worthy, because dignification without dignity is baseless. These existence of ours acquiring knowledge in the first place is called Essentialism that we could used to act and to develop His gifts for the betterment or add anything to it. What is Man's Ultimate Destiny?Explain. There are two possibilities for the origin of life, the theory of evolution and the belief in a supreme Creator who made all things for a definite purpose. Those who accept evolution must still wrestle with the fact that in this process something of a lower level of existence evolves to a higher level of existence. It still does not answer the mystery of how matter itself came into existence. Evolution begins after the fact, it does not attempt to explain how something could come from nothing. Although Scientists don't always agree on the age of the universe, they do all virtually agree that the universe has an age. It had a definite beginning at some point in prehistory. Some find it extremely difficult to believe in a Divine Creator that they have not seen with their own eyes. Yet could something suddenly come from nothing? That PHYSICAL MATTER suddenly appeared where there was NO PHYSICAL MATTER, and that LIFE sprang from NON-LIFE? And not only something from nothing coming into being of itself simply by chance with no intelligent force involved, -but then must accept that as this happened it produced perfect order and balance,. . .by itself?!

Explain why do human relationships and activities involve the whole man? Marx did not believe, as do many contemporary sociologists and psychologists, that there is no such thing as the nature of man; that man at birth is like a blank sheet of paper, on which the culture writes its text. Quite in contrast to this sociological relativism, Marx started out with the idea that man qua man is a recognizable and ascertainable entity; that man can be defined as man not only biologically, anatomically and physiologically, but also psychologically. Of course, Marx was never tempted to assume that "human nature" was identical with that particular expression of human nature prevalent in his own society. In arguing against Bentham, Marx said: "To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticize all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch." [22] It must be noted that this concept of human nature is not, for Marx -- as it was not either for Hegel -an abstraction. It is the essence of man -- in contrast to the various forms of his historical existence -- and, as Marx said, "the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each separate individual." It must also be stated that this sentence from Capital, written by the "old Marx," shows the continuity of the concept of man's essence ( Wesen) which the young Marx wrote about in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. He no longer used the term "essence" later on, as being abstract and unhistorical, but he clearly retained the notion of this essence in a more historical version, in the differentiation between "human nature in general" and "human nature as modified" with each historical period. In line with this distinction between a general human nature and the specific expression of human nature in each culture, Marx distinguishes, as we have already mentioned above, two types of human drives and appetites: the constant or fixed ones, such as hunger and the sexual urge, which are an integral part of human nature, and which can be changed only in their form and the direction they take in various cultures, and the "relative" appetites, which are not an integral part of human nature but which "owe their origin to certain social structures and certain conditions of production and communication." Marx gives as an example the needs produced by the capitalistic structure of society. "The need for money," he wrote in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "is therefore the real need created by the modern economy, and the only need which it creates.... This is shown subjectively, partly in the fact that the expansion of production and of needs becomes an ingenious and always calculating subservience to inhuman, depraved, unnatural, and imaginary appetites."

Man's potential, for Marx, is a given potential; man is, as it were, the human raw material which, as such, cannot be changed, just as the brain structure has remained the same since the dawn of history. Yet, man does change in the course of history; he develops himself; he transforms himself, he is the product of history; since he makes his history, he is his own product. History is the history of man's self-realization; it is nothing but the selfcreation of man through the process of his work and his production: "the whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labor, and the emergence of nature for man; he therefore has the evident and irrefutable proof of his self-creation, of his own origins." Why is man's life a ceaseless quest and striving for happiness? No matter what the message, mankind is united in conviction that happiness is a very desirable state. Indeed, all of us, consciously or unconsciously, are motivated in all we do by our need for happiness. The housewife strives for a clean and orderly house and wellbrought up children so she can be happy with herself. The husband aims to make more money so he can be happy. We chase money, health, growth, fame, power, property and relationships, not for their own sake but for the satisfaction they promise. The creation of empires and civilizations, the discovery of continents, the waging of wars, the whole ebb and flow of history is a graphic portrait of man's ceaseless quest for happiness. Yet, most of us will acknowledge that we don't always feel happy. Oh, yes, winning that merit scholarship or the coveted promotion, buying a car or losing weight feels great for a while. But we find that our friends are jealous, or that the promotion means longer working hours or that the car guzzles petrol, and that our lives haven't been transformed by losing weight. We are weighed down by a sense of lack. No matter how well life turns out, nothing seems quite enough. Others seem to have more, or desires keep arising. If nothing else, we fear for the future. What if something was to happen to our loved ones or to us? Many of us are content to accept this mixed bag of happiness and sorrow as the human lot. Within this framework we attempt to maximize our joys and minimize our woes. We excel in whatever skills we have, spend less than we make, save for a house, take care of our health, get our children married and keep money aside for old age. At the end of our lives, we believe that we have lived to the best of our capacity. This is no mean task and deserves to be richly lauded. But for a few, this unpredictable, fleeting happiness is not enough. They dare to ask if an irrefutable, permanent and absolute happiness is not possible. A happiness they can trust. Perhaps it is this question that moves man towards divinity. For he is attempting to transcend the very framework of the human condition.

Is such a state possible? Yes, say the scriptures and enlightened beings. "The highest happiness comes upon the yogi whose mind is calmed, in whom passion is appeased, who has become Brahman and is free from sin," says the Bhagavad Gita (Vl: 27). The Upanishads add: "Take the happiness of a man who has everything: he is young, healthy, strong, good, and cultured, with all the wealth that earth can offer; let us take this as one measure of joy. One hundred times that joy is the joy of the gandharvas, but no less joy have those who are illumined." The Buddha's entire teaching revolves around the question of how to overcome human suffering and attain happiness. The first words of the Dhammapada, a collection of the Buddha's teachings, pinpoints the problem and its cause: Mind precedes all phenomena, Mind matters most, everything is mind-made. If with an impure mind You speak or act, then suffering follows you, As the cartwheel follows the foot of the draft animal. On the other hand, here is the Buddha's recipe for happiness: If with a pure mind You speak or act, Then happiness follows you As a shadow that never departs. Discuss St. Augustine's Philosophy of Man?

St. Augustines philosophy of man reconciles and brings together to an admirable synthesis and harmony the wisdom of Greek philosophy and the divine truths contained in the scriptures. In common with Greek ethics, its being eudaimonistic in character, as it makes happiness the end-all and the be-all of human living; but Augustinetells us with the Bible that this happiness can be found in GOD alone. The summum bonum which is Platos and Aristotles concept of the absolute and immutable and is now seen by Augustine with the aid of the light of divine revelation as the living personal God, the creator of all things and the supreme ruler of the universe. So, the idea of the Good of Plato is revealed, to Augustine as the living reality, God.