<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/style/rss/rss_feed.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="/style/rss/rss_feed.css" type="text/css" media="screen" ?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Clipmarks | akarra's 'aristotle' clips</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipper/akarra/tag/aristotle/</link><feedUrl>http://rss.clipmarks.com/clipper/akarra/tag/aristotle/</feedUrl><ttl>15</ttl><description>Clip, tag and save information that's important to you. Bookmarks save entire pages...Clipmarks save the specific content that matters to you!</description><language>en-us</language><item><title>On Aristotle's Ethics</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/F1FFB371-3F54-41D3-9A6C-5A219F5AD520/</link><description>&lt;b&gt;clipped by:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipper/akarra/"&gt;akarra&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div border="2" style="margin-top: 10px; border:#000000 1px solid;" width="90%"&gt;&lt;div style="background-color:"&gt;&lt;div align="center" width="100%" style="padding:4px;margin-bottom:4px;background-color:#666666;overflow:hidden;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;"&gt;Clip Source: &lt;a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-good-comment-on-aristotle-ethics-bk.html" title="http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-good-comment-on-aristotle-ethics-bk.html"&gt;inrethinking.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;In speaking of the fact that "good" and "being" are meant in many ways, he uses the categories - ways of being - to demonstrate an inviolable link with the good (i.e. "of what sort" points to the "excellences," "virtues;" the good as "what something is" would be "god" or the "intellect;" questions of amount would point to what "limit;" "relation" makes us wonder about "usefulness," "time" speaks of "opportunity," and "place" brings up "dwelling," which I will refer you to Heidegger to consider). Now he seemingly keeps the scope of being wider than the good, and the good seems to be only one facet of being. Still, since all our &lt;I&gt;opinions&lt;/I&gt; about the good seem to derive from being - notice that we don't agree on the gods, or what intellectual truth is, or what is useful, etc. - there is a sense in which "good = being" here.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 40px;"&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/aristotle/" rel="tag"&gt;aristotle&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/philosophy/" rel="tag"&gt;philosophy&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/ethics/" rel="tag"&gt;ethics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><clipSource>http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-good-comment-on-aristotle-ethics-bk.html</clipSource><pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:38:19 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Is Politics Reducible to Rhetoric?</title><link>http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/86FE4A57-A727-4BDB-AD9A-3194721ED646/</link><description>&lt;b&gt;clipped by:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/clipper/akarra/"&gt;akarra&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;b&gt;clipper's remarks:&lt;/b&gt;  Is politics reducible to rhetoric? Anyone claiming that Washington is one big spin machine thinks this - can this idea, in turn, be critiqued? &lt;br&gt;&lt;div border="2" style="margin-top: 10px; border:#000000 1px solid;" width="90%"&gt;&lt;div style="background-color:"&gt;&lt;div align="center" width="100%" style="padding:4px;margin-bottom:4px;background-color:#666666;overflow:hidden;"&gt;&lt;span style="color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;"&gt;Clip Source: &lt;a style="color:#FFFFFF;" href="http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-politics-reducible-to-rhetoric.html" title="http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-politics-reducible-to-rhetoric.html"&gt;inrethinking.blogspot.com&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;&lt;DIV&gt;I hold that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, in thinking Washington is a spin machine that is able to dictate how we conceive issues through a passive media, think the sophistic conclusion, but not for the reasons the Sophists held exactly. They probably think that in a democracy, the tasks government is charged with can be fulfilled efficiently as long as people participate and are looking for the best solution. In other words, while the sophists dismiss the most practical workings in order to romanticize speech's power, Colbert and Stewart see the improper use of speech as an impediment to progress, and probably see the properly functioning day-to-day operations as characteristic of progress.&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;hr size="2" color="#666666" /&gt;&lt;div style="padding: 10px;"&gt;&lt;div style="text-align:left;"&gt;To be even more blunt: the Sophists are shrewder than Colbert and Stewart. The Sophists know as long as there are people, "truth" alone will not be enough, and that the political is far more than trains running on time.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 40px;"&gt;Tags: &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/daily+show/" rel="tag"&gt;daily show&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/colbert/" rel="tag"&gt;colbert&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/jon+stewart/" rel="tag"&gt;jon stewart&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/politics/" rel="tag"&gt;politics&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/aristotle/" rel="tag"&gt;aristotle&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href="http://clipmarks.com/tags/leo+strauss/" rel="tag"&gt;leo strauss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><clipSource>http://inrethinking.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-politics-reducible-to-rhetoric.html</clipSource><pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:06:23 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>