Why Does HE Get to Rule -Aristotle’s logical fallacies in the marital relation - Literature Essay Samples

Aristotle dedicates the first book of Politics to discuss households, and argues that to study the larger political community of a city-state, we need to first examine households as its building blocks (Politics, 5). The three major household relations Aristotle defines in Politics are master-slave, husband-wife and father-son, and they are all essentially ruler-ruled relations, as Aristotle lists that â€Å"free rules slaves, male rules female, and man rules child† (23). Aristotle believes that the natural inclination to rule or to be ruled is predetermined at birth, and there exists the natural inequality between the ruler and ruled (7). Moreover, Aristotle draws the analogy between domestic relationships and the larger political community because both households and city-states share similar ruler-ruled power dynamics. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle maps different household relations to different constitutions: â€Å"the association of a father with his sons bears th e form of monarchy, ., The association of man and wife seems to be aristocratic,, The association of brothers is like timocracy† (The Nicomachean Ethics, 115). While Aristotle assumes that all three domestic relations share the ruler-ruled power dynamics, examining Aristotle’s logic gap in proving men’s inherent superiority, loopholes in his theory of structure of souls, and his use of metaphors and parables all reveals that Aristotle fails to justify men’s superiority as natural rulers over females. This logical inconsistency in Politics invalidates the analogies between the marital relation and aristocracy/oligarchy in Ethics, ultimately compromising Aristotle’s overall analogy between households and city-states in both works. Aristotle leaves logical gap in his reasoning when trying to argue that men are naturally more suited to rule than women, as he fails to provide explicit explanations for what specific nature makes men superior. After justifying the slave-master relationship by arguing slaves are naturally better at physical labor while the masters are naturally better at deliberative reasoning, Aristotle continues to justify the husband-wife and father-child relations. By arguing that â€Å"For a male, unless he is somehow constituted contrary to nature, is naturally more fitted to lead than a female, and someone older and completely developed is naturally more fitted to lead than someone younger and incompletely developed† (Politics, 21). Here Aristotle arbitrarily asserts that â€Å"nature† makes males better rulers than females. Nevertheless, while the words â€Å"nature† and â€Å"naturally† occur twice in description of marital relation, Aristotle does not explain wh at specific natural characteristic of men makes them superior than women. Compared to the ambiguous assertion in the marital relation, Aristotle explicitly points out that the slaves are naturally ruled because their bodies are stronger, and fathers are natural ruler because they are older and more experienced. Hence Aristotle’s justification for men’s superior status over women is insufficient compared to other two relations. The fact that Aristotle skips the crucial step in reasoning suggests that he is not able to directly justify his assumption of natural inequality in marital relation. Other than the logical gap in his reasoning, Aristotle’s choice of words in describing the structure of souls also reflects the existence of external forces in determining womens and men’s unequal ability to rule, therefore contradicting the assumption of natural inequality. When discussing different structures of souls to further justify the inherent inequality between the ruler and the ruled, Aristotle claims that â€Å"the deliberative part of the soul is entirely missing from a slave; a woman has it but it lacks authority; a child has it but it is incompletely developed† (23). According to Aristotle’s previous arguments about nature, slaves lack the deliberative part of soul because their body is naturally more fitted to labor, and children’s deliberative part is naturally underdeveloped because of their age. However, why women have incomplete deliberative part of the soul remains ambiguous, because it is unclear what the â€Å"authority† refers to and why women lack this authority. â€Å"Authority† is different from â€Å"nature†, as the former is associated with rights or privileges given by the external environment such as social norms and conventions, while the latter is associated with internal characteristics that one is born with. If women need authority to exercise the deliberative part, then the incompleteness of deliberative part of their souls should not be due to nature, but is imposed by external forces. Therefore, Aristotle is unable to contribute the different deliberative powers of male and female solely to nature, as his choice of expression implies the existence of external influences in shaping the structure of souls. Moreover, the metaphor of statesman’s ruling in Aristotle’s description of the marital relationship also conflicts with the overall assumption of natural inequality by implying equal political status between men and women. To distinguish the husband-wife relation and the father-child relation, Aristotle compares the husband-wife relation to the â€Å"rule of a statesman† and father-child relation to â€Å"the rule of a king† (21-22). Aristotle describes the statesman’s rule as the following: â€Å"people take turns at ruling and being ruled, because they tend by nature to be on an equal footing and to differ in nothingâ€Å" (21). Here Aristotle is referring to the Athenian democratic system where aristocratic, male citizens with similar political interests decide by random lots who rules and represents the common interests temporarily. This analogy between men’s ruling over their wives and statesman’s ruling over other citizens is p roblematic because the rule of the statesman assumes the equal social status between the ruler and rest of the citizens, while Aristotle is trying to prove the natural inequality between male and female. Comparing women to citizens also contradicts the existing social conventions in ancient Greek, where women were mostly not considered to be citizens. Moreover, Aristotle concludes that â€Å"male is permanently related to female in this way† (22), which suggests that men’s ruling status is eternally fixed. However, as just defined in the rule of the statesman, citizens take turns to rule and to be ruled. This contradiction between the arbitrary, fixed designation in the rule of male and the fluid, temporary assignment of leadership in the rule of the statesman makes it questionable whether it is truly legitimate to assign men as the permanent rulers. Having recognized this discrepancy in the statesman metaphor suggests that men and women are naturally equal like the st atesmen and his citizens, and the superior political status of men over women should not be permanently fixed. While the statesman metaphor implies the potentially equal political status between male and female, the parable of Amasis and footbath suggests that women and men share the same inherent characters and are therefore inherently equal. When comparing the rule of husband over wife to the rule of the statesman, Aristotle states that while the ruler is equal with the other citizens, he needs to â€Å"distinguish himself in demeanor, title, or rank from the ruled†, just like Amasis and his footbath (22). The parable states that Amasis, who is from humble origin, becomes the king of Egypt. In order to earn respect from Egyptians, he makes his gold footbath into a statue of god to show that inferior status doesn’t mean inferior nature, because the same material could be arbitrarily made into objects with different utilities and receive different levels of respect. Similarly, while the ruler is superior in rank, demeanor and title, he is naturally equal with other citizens, jus t like the nobel statue and humble footbath are both made of gold. Applying this parable to the male-female relationship, though male rules over female, their natural characters are the same while they are shaped differently by social conventions and assigned to unequal social statuses. Moreover, the parable further illuminates why women lack the authority to exercise the deliberative part of the soul: women’s incomplete deliberative power is imposed by external authority, just as the gold is shaped into a lowly footbath by external forces. In both cases the appearances and results are independent of the inherent nature. As a result, while Aristotle claims that natural inequality between the ruler and the ruled exists among all three household relationships, such inequality is untenable in the marital relationship. Aristotle’s difficulty in proving males’ superior nature implies that male and female should have equal political status and intellectual ability. Applying Aristotle’s logical fallacies in Politics to his analogy between households and city-states leads to further contradictions, mainly reflected in his problematic mappings from the rule of man to aristocracy and the rule of women to oligarchy in Ethics. Aristotle defines aristocracy to be the rule of the best, and aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy when the rulers disregard common good and rule by their power and wealth, no longer being the most virtuous. (The Nicomachean Ethics, 155) Therefore the major difference between aristocracy and oligarchy is the virtue and legitimacy of the rulers. Aristotle argues that the rule of men within households resembles aristocracy becauseâ€Å"man rules in accordance with his worth† (155). The underlying assumption here is that men naturally have more virtue and deliberative power to be good rulers, and therefore have the â€Å"worth† to rule, just like the rule of the best in aristocracy. However, acording to previous analysis, Aristotle fails to prove this assumption in Politics, and without this assumption he is unable to conclude that the rule of men is the rule of the best, and therefore his analogy between rule of men and aristocracy is invalid. Similarly, the mapping from the rule of women to oligarchy is also problematic given logical fallacies in marital relation. To illustrate aristocracy’s superiority over oligarchy, Aristotle introduces the situation when women rule in the household. Aristotle argues that â€Å"Sometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; so their rule is not in virtue of excellence but due to wealth and power, as in oligarchies† (155). According to this analogy, when heiresses rule the household, the rule by virtue degenerates into the rule by wealth and power, just like aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy. However, according to previous analysis of the structure of soul, the metaphor of statesman’s rule and the parable of Amasis, women and men possess the same inherent quality and potential to be the ruler. Therefore, it is problematic to compare the rule of women in households to oligarchy and to argue that women rule by power and wealth but not by virtue. As a result, Aristotle’s logical fallacies in proving the natural inequality in the marital relation invalidates the analogies between household relations to aristocracy and oligarchy, which makes his overall comparison between households and city-states an oversimplified framework that overlooks the internal complexity in the elements that he is comparing. In conclusion, understanding the logical inconsistency in the marital relationship in Politics illuminates the gap in Aristotle’s mapping from households to constitutions in Ethics. In his logical reasoning Aristotle arbitrarily asserts the husband’s natural ruling authority in the household, while his choices of words, use of metaphors and parables all imply that the inequality between male and female is not inherent but imposed by external forces. The difficulty to justify the natural inequality between male and female suggests that husband-wife relationship has more complexity than the slave-master and father-child relationships, and it’s problematic for Aristotle to oversimplify their commonalities. However, limited by his times and society, it would also be unlikely for Aristotle to acknowledge the idea of gender equality. While his logical reasoning is taking him away from proving the natural inequality, Aristotle still such inequality and maintains the ana logy between households and city-states. Indeed, using the more familiar and concrete notion of households helps to reveal the internal power dynamics within the relatively abstract city-states, and as Aristotle’s justification of the slave-master and the father-children relation is rigorous and intuitive, readers tend to believe the same rule also applies in the marital relation. However, the danger of using extended analogies and parallels in philosophical reasoning is that the logical fallacy of one element would undermine the overarching argument and whole framework. Therefore, as readers we should be very cautious about the oversimplification of frameworks and analogies in philosophical texts, and always bear in mind to examine the logical consistencies across the author’s arguments. Work Cited Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C D. C. Reeve, Indianapolis, Ind: Hackett Pub, 1998. Print. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W D. Ross, and Lesley Brown, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

My Experience At Boca Raton Elementary School - 931 Words

Walking up to Boca Raton Elementary School all I could think of was, wow I’m about to enter this school and start my field experience. It’s all I ever wanted to do and it was finally coming true. I was so nervous, yet so excited. I didn’t know what to expect, were the kids going to like me, would I be any help in the classroom? Mrs. Vickers made me feel so welcome and from the start started telling me everything that was planned for the day. She taught first grade and has only been teaching for five years. While teaching, she was obtaining her masters degree at FAU. From the moment I stepped foot in the classroom, I started learning different information about the school. I learned that Boca Raton Elementary School was a Title 1 school, which means the school gets financial assistance to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards. The school doesn’t have a lot of classrooms, due to a charter school opening up near by and parents sending their children over there. The first day of class was very interesting, everyone was wearing orange for bully prevention. I think it’s very important for schools to teach students about bullying, and why everyone should be treated the way they want to be treated. As I was walking in class, one of Mrs. Vickers students was pulled to the side for bullying someone in the cafeteria. She asked her why she did that and she couldn’t give her an answer. Mrs. Vickers told the young girl that she was going to call herShow MoreRelated THE IMPACT OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES65118 Words   |  261 Pagesassistance of many individuals. First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Mr. Stewart Martin, who was always ready and eager to help me at each step of the way, and whose feedback and suggestions helped ensure that this would become a quality piece of scholarly work. Mr. Martin’s critically analytical questioning has been invaluable in helping me clarify ideas and his thoughtfulness and scholarly insights have contributed to my thinking and writing. I will remain forever grateful for the adviceRead MoreDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 Pagesof Empowerment 447 Self-Efficacy 447 Self-Determination 448 Personal Consequence 449 Meaning 449 Trust 450 Review of Empowerment Dimensions 451 How to Develop Empowerment 451 Articulating a Clear Vision and Goals 452 Fostering Personal Mastery Experiences 453 Modeling 454 Providing Support 454 Emotional Arousal 455 Providing Information 456 Providing Resources 457 Connecting to Outcomes 457 Creating Confidence 458 Review of Empowerment Principles 459 Inhibitors to Empowerment 461 Attitudes AboutRead MoreFundamentals of Hrm263904 Words   |  1056 Pagestracking, and more manage time better study smarter save money From multiple study paths, to self-assessment, to a wealth of interactive visual and audio resources, WileyPLUS gives you everything you need to personalize the teaching and learning experience.  » F i n d o u t h ow t o M A K E I T YO U R S  » www.wileyplus.com ALL THE HELP, RESOURCES, AND PERSONAL SUPPORT YOU AND YOUR STUDENTS NEED! 2-Minute Tutorials and all of the resources you your students need to get started www.wileyplus

Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer

Question: Discuss about the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer. Answer: Introduction: As per the annual reports of the corporation David Jones, the chief executive officer of the organization is John Dixon (2016 - ). John Dixon assumed the position of the chief executive officer after the completion of the term of the preceding chief executive officer Paul Zahra. However, Brad Soller acted as the chief financial officer of David Jones as per the annual report of the year 2012. The annual report mentions the executive committee that the chief financial officer of the company is Ashley Gardner. Figure 1: Donna Player and David Jones CEO John Dixon John Dixon is the chief executive officer of David Jones Limited of the parent entity Woolworths Holdings Limited during the period 2016 (David Jones 2016). The chief executive officer worked as the Executive Director of general merchandise at the Marks Spencer Group Plc during the period October 2012 to July 2015 (David Jones 2016). He also served as the Member of Management Board of the Marks Spencer. In addition to this, John Dixon also previously also served as the Executive Director of Food of Marks Spencer Group Plc since the year 2009 and as the chief of Retail since the year 2012 (David Jones 2016). Furthermore, the analysis of the background of the present CEO of David Jones, Mr. Dixon reveals the fact that he also served as the Directorof MS Direct at Marks Spencer Group plc. He too served as the Director of Food division of the company during the period July 2008 and again as Director of e-Commerce. The background of Mr. Dixon discloses the fact that he also served as the Executive Assistant to the CEO of Stuart Rose during the period 2004. The study of the background of Mr. Dixon reveals the fact that he started his career in Marks and Spencer in UK in the department of store management prior to switching to Paris for approximately three years where John Dixon held a range of commercial managing roles in different European stores and in the Paris Head Office. Thereafter, John Dixon also attended the head office of the located in UK during the year 1992 in the position of a Food buyer in Prepared Foods (Bloomberg.com 2016). The annual report mentions that the chief financial officer of the company David Jones is Mr. Ashley John Gardner . The study of the background of the company reveals the fact that John Dixon served as the Chief Financial Officer of Just Group Limited during the period 2007 to 2016 (Bloomberg.com 2016). Again, Mr. Gardner also worked as Company Secretary of the company Country Road Ltd. for the duration 2002 to 2006. In addition to this, Mr. Ashley John Gardner also served as General Manager of Finance as well as Chief Financial Officer of the company Country Road Ltd. during the period 2003 to 2006. Furthermore, the detailed study of the background of the corporate discloses that he also served as Chief Financial Officer of the company Premier Investments Limited. Thereafter, Mr. Ashley John Gardner also worked with Country Road Ltd. during the year 2000 (Bloomberg.com 2016). Mr. Ashley John Gardner too worked as the Executive Director of the corporation Just Group Ltd. during the p eriod 2011 to 2016. Subsequently, he served as Executive Director of the company Country Road Ltd. for the duration January 31, 2006 to December 31, 2006. The report also reveals the fact the educational qualification of Mr. Ashley John Gardner. He holds a B.Com (Hons) degree from University of Melbourne and he is a practised Chartered Accountant (Bloomberg.com 2016). References David Jones. 2016.Executive Committee. [online] Available at: https://www.davidjones.com.au/About-David-Jones/Executive-Management [Accessed 7 Sep. 2016]. Bloomberg.com. 2016.Stocks - Bloomberg. [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=30965375privcapId=874723 [Accessed 7 Sep. 2016].