Marx and Epicurus Theories of a Happy and Meaningful Life

Marx and Epicurus Theories of a Happy and Meaningful Life What is the picture of the point of human life implicit in Marxs discussion of alienation, and how does this picture contrast with the views of Epicurus? Explain which of the two views you find more plausible and why. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the contrasting views of Marx and Epicurus for a happy and meaningful life, and ultimately support the view of Marx over that of Epicurus, because it is more relevant in current times and a way of live. This paper will develop two arguments, by which Epicurus will disagree with Marx. The first is that Marxs concept is mostly related to materialistic considerations, where Epicurus focuses on contemplation, pleasure, and friendship. Secondly, Marx does not consider people to be intelligent, where for Epicurus wisdom is the most valuable thing in life. According to Marx, with the emergence and development of capitalism people work to live and they choose work to afford other things, not for the work itself. They relate to a product that is not related to them and are thrown into â€Å"forced labor†, which disconnect them from human nature (p. 2). Therefore, Marx sees importance in the relation between labour, production and reality with human nature (p. 3). One is alienated from his/her productions and he/she is driven away from his/her nature, and consequently from other human beings, then â€Å"nature is taken away† (p. 3). Because everybody is employed in the machine of economical forces one cannot see any actually free human beings to relate with â€Å"one man is alienated to another, just as each of them is alienated from human nature† (p. 4). Marx disapproves of capitalism. He believes such an economic system is inferior as it leads to estranging people from their production, or alienation of the thing, f rom the act of production the relationship of the worker to his own activity as an alien activity, from their human species and from other people (pp. 2, 3). Thus, Marx believes that what makes us human is the conscious ability we have to be creative in a universal act of production (p.3). Therefore, capitalism deprives one from being a human. However, according to Marx the meaning and happiness of life are embedded and related to materialistic considerations. One is unhappy, because he/ she produces â€Å"commodities† and he/ she is not related to them (Marx, 1844, p. 1). Capitalism leads to alienation of product, and this leads to all other alienations that Marx talks about, which makes ones life unhappy. Therefore, if he was related to those commodities, he would be happy. Thus, according to Marx, activities and products are essential for our happiness. Epicurus concept is built on a pursuit of pleasure, which one could conceive with the elimination of mental and physical pain. He sees wisdom as the most valuable virtue of all. Where, the most precious thing that wisdom could attain is friendship, from all the â€Å"means that wisdom acquires†¦the most important is friendship† (Epicurus 2, p. 2). Therefore, Epicurus concentrates its discourse on the importance of a non-materialistic world. He believes in one living wisely, honourably and justly with directed interests toward tranquility of the mind. This is what Epicurus sees as a pleasurable and happy life â€Å"we call pleasure the alpha and omega of a happy life† (Epicurus 1, p. 2). Therefore, Epicurus will disagree with Marx. Products, no matter in what way created, should not be of primer importance for one to be happy. Friendship is something that can not be simply produced, but is an established connection with another human being, through common interests, visions, discussions, unrelated to material production. Marx believes that people are not happy in a capitalists society, because they are dehumanized and alienated from everything in their life. Thus, Marx talks about a universal act of production that enables one to feel as a â€Å"free being† (Marx, 1844, p. 3). However, none of his arguments considers one to be an intelligent human being. Moreover, he says that capitalism and mass production leads to â€Å"imbecility and cretinism for the worker† (Marx, 1844, p. 2). His concept is based on the relation of humans to their nature, and therefore closer to their instincts. Thus, their belonging to the natural is substantial and it is before a process of active reasoning in their life. In Marxs words, in terms one to be happy, he/she must be mainly active in a physical way, not on a mental level. However, one could be intellectual, when he/ she works and his/ her object of labour is â€Å"objectification†. This â€Å"objectification†, on the other hand, is relat ed to the absence of alienation from ones production (Marx, 1844, p. 3). Where, Epicurus idea about pleasurable life is highly tied with the notion of one being wise. He says that a wise man or woman, that ultimately would be a happy man or woman will always think about what he/she does in his/her life and â€Å"greatest interests†¦ will be, directed by reason throughout his [her] whole life† (Epicurus 2, p. 1). Thus, Epicurus believes that there is no such thing as a chance in the life of a wise man or woman. If a wise man or woman is experiencing â€Å"misfortune† in his/her life that is much better thanâ€Å"prosperity of a fool† (Epicurus 2, p. 2). Therefore, if Marx does not consider people to be wise, if they overcome the capitalists machine of dehumanization, it would be a chance, and their happiness would not be a real happiness, according to Epicurus. However in my personal opinion, living in a dominant western capitalist society, constrains people in the way that Marx describes. If you ask me if I am happy, I will never explain it in terms of other emotions or pleasures, pain or wisdom. I will talk about my experience as a human being, what I achieved in life, school and career. I will explain it with relationships to other human beings in my life. This does not mean that I don not have a life of reason, or I am not employing my intellectual abilities in my life. Even if something happens by chance in my life I would appreciate and enjoy it the same way as everything that I have planned. Thus, I believe that what we feel defines our life. When we talk about happiness and pleasure, those notions seem to be very short-sighted consideration. The meaning of mine life is a feeling about what I will leave after me, what I will achieve and how I will contribute in to this world. Does not always matter how something happens in our life, if it makes us feel complete and in touch with our instincts and nature, as Marx would agree. Moreover, relation to a universal labour and production is what better defines my vision for the world we live in. Going to work nowadays is a must for one to maintain at least basic living standards. We do not spend enough time with our families and friends. We are enslaved in life, scheduled by our work. Thus, we spend so much time doing something, which results in products and services belonging to somebody else. Moreover, the social structure that we are part of makes work, production and consumption more important than our nature as human and social beings. In my opinion, no matter how much reason and wisdom we put in our actions, we will define our life, by our productivity, relations to nature and material considerations which consequently is much closer to Marxs concept. Bibliography: Marx, Alienated Labor. (1844). In Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The meaning of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 55-62 Epicurus (1), Letter to Menoeceus in Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The meaning of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 29-30 Epicurus (2), Principle Doctrines in Jackman (ed), Phil 1100: The meaning of Life, Course Kit, York University 2009, pp. 31-33

Three Dialogues Between Hylas And Philonous

The dialogues between Hylas and Philonous were written by George Berkeley, who was ordained as a Bishop in Cloyne. He was also a famous idealist and philosopher of the early modern period. His works reflects metaphysical ideas and concepts of idealism. Berkeley had written several books in his lifetime. All of his works reflected his views about life and spirituality as he makes arguments about the existence of things around us. He is very resilient in defending his claim by providing valid supporting evidences to support the argument.He is formulating arguments through proper use of words and concepts. He also made several critiques about the works of other philosophers who doubts in the existence of God. It was evident that Berkeley believes that there is a God, a Supreme Being who is responsible for the things we see. He is responsible for the sensorial qualities of the things around us. He explained the omnipotence of God from an idealist perspective. He made very strong argument s by questioning the nature of our sensory abilities and providing possible hypothesis for this.After making a series of hypotheses, he discarded each one by providing a counter-argument until he comes up with the last hypothesis that there is one capable being that is responsible for everything on Earth including the sensorial faculties of man. During Berkeley’s time, a lot of philosophers like the famous rationalist John Descartes, believed that material things existed even if it is not perceived by the human mind. They argued that the qualities of the object were inherent to the latter with or without human perception.They also believed that the objects around us help us to generate ideas about it as well as attributes. They also argued that human perception could be deceiving because not all concepts that were perceived by the senses were viable. Sometimes what we see in an object is not its real quality. A good example of this perhaps would be a pencil in a glass of wate r wherein a part of a pencil is submerged while the other is not. It can be observed that the submerged part appears to be bigger than the other half. Berkeley did not believe that material things existed. Rather, he believed in immaterialism and idealism.He argued with the apologists of materialism about this. He pointed out that materialism can be explained by the existence things around us through our own ideas but it cannot explain the nature of our ideas through the things around us. Maybe one advantage that Berkeley had at that time that made his argument firm was the fact that nobody could placidly explain to him what a material thing really is. Their description and exposition could not suffice the counter-arguments and inquisition of Berkeley. He believed that material things did not really exist. These were mere products of our senses.He expounded that material things are dependent on our mind and sensory abilities. Without our sensory-neural facilities, there will be no c oncept of things. Thus a material thing would not exist. In his work, â€Å"The Three Dialogues of Hylas and Philonous, in opposition to Skeptics and Atheists† Berkeley made a direct attack on the supporters of materialism by juxtaposing the claims of the materialist and his counter arguments. He used fictitious characters in this work in the likeness of Hylas and Philonous to explain his views about the perception of things and how these could be attributed to skepticism and atheism.He expressed his ideas on the words of Philonius, a character in his work, as he was conversing with Hylas, the character that represents the advocate of materialism. In the preface of his work, Berkeley explained that if the inferences he made would be validated, the concept of atheism and skepticism will no longer be applicable. He believes that if his ideas were applied, there will be a re-evaluation in the principles of science. The pointless part should be omitted keeping those that are plai n. The complex rationale for the things around us will be simplified.Also, he explained that instead of using paradox and ambiguous statement, man could simply apply plain common sense to explain the things around him. In the three dialogues of Philonous and Hylas, Berkeley used simple examples using the qualities that we perceive through our senses such as colors, sweetness of sugar, hot and cold and a lot more to support his inference that the qualities of material things does not exist per se. It is perceived through our senses and we associate the qualities. He even commented on the use of a microscope to see the qualities of things not visible in the unaided eye.I would like to share a particular scenario to illustrate my understanding of Berkeley’s views and how he inferred that materialism could lead to atheism and skepticism. As I was reading the lengthy debate of Hylas and Philonous, a particular instance came to my mind. What if three people were left in an isolated region with no initial knowledge of the common qualities of things? To intricate further, one of them could be considered color blind but can hear, the other can hear as well but could not see anything, and the third cannot hear sound but has normal vision. How do they describe a yellow chirping bird for example?Maybe in the perspective of the first person, it is a gray bird chirping. The second person perhaps might not have any ideas that there is a yellow bird but he could describe that he could hear a chirping sound, not exactly from a bird. The last one, however, could see a yellow bird with its beak moving, but there is no sound. Considering their three accounts, how would they know the real qualities attributed to the bird? Is the bird really yellow or is it gray? Does it really chirp or does it simply move its beak, or is there really a bird or is it just a chirping sound?In that example, who describes the most accurate qualities of the bird? How would the third person infer that he sees the correct color because he is normal if there are only three of them with different descriptions? Is it suffice hitherto to conclude that qualities of the materials are inherent to the subject with our without our perception if these qualities differ from one person to another? What if half of the world’s population had congenital color blindness and claims that the leaves of the trees are brown while the other half claims it is green.How can the latter defend that the leaves are green if the former does not have any concept of what the color green is? What then is the real color of the leaves? Is it brown or is it green? What then is the inherent color of the leaves with or without man’s perception and how can we prove it? How can we say that everything that we perceive is the inherent quality of that object? I believe that the scenario was as the same as what Berkeley wanted to point out. In this dialogue, Philonous enlightened Hylas about his percept ion on material things.Hylas believed that we cannot dissociate a characteristic of material to a material. We cannot say that a sugar will no longer be sweet just because we do not perceive it as sweet. However, if we are going to look for the history of sweetness as one of the characteristics of sugar, it will be easier to infer that this observation was based on the consensus of the people who tasted sugar. It was perceived by our taste buds. A lot of people sharing the same opinion established the authenticity in the statement that sugar is sweet. What if we could not taste sugar, does that mean that it is no longer sweet?If our taste buds failed to savor the sweetness in the chocolate bar that we are eating, does that mean that the chocolate bar is no longer sweet? However, one interesting argument that Berkeley laid through Philonous was that if it is true that qualities are innate to the object per se, why does food taste bitter to others while sweet to some? If our perceptua l rationale is arbitrary, how can we establish the fact that the characteristics of an object around us akin to the object? What will that characteristics be? How can we prove that objects would exist with or without us?I would admit that the challenging enigma that Berkeley posed in this dialogue is quite tedious to refute. I agree with Berkeley as he opposed the idea that the qualities of an object are inherent to the object with or without our perception of it because we have different perspectives. Our concepts of things are provisory on our capacity to view things. We cannot think of the unthinkable, of something that goes beyond our capacity to think. Also, on the Third Dialogue, Hylas asks Philonous about the story of creation wherein Moses described the creation of corporeal things, the sun, the moon, the plants and animals.These were not mere ideas existing only in the mind. These are tangible things. Hylas challenged Philonous on how he could make his claims consistent to the account stated in the story of Creation. Philonous defense was to define what he meant by ideas. Ideas are not fictitious. According to Philonous, ideas are based on the things perceived by the senses. Any object that could not be perceived by the senses could not be considered ideas or beyond human thought that it will be impossible to draw even a visual representation are not ideas. Thus, his claim is cohesive with the theories of creation because we can perceive these things.What Philonous disapproves is the fact that material things exist by itself with its characteristics distinct. In the last part of the third dialogue, Hylas was convinced with the explanation of Philonous. They made inferences and juxtaposed their claims and the notions of the materialist philosopher and their rationale for the claim. They inferred that matterare things that are perceived by the mind and its qualities are not akin to itself but on our perception of it. It is a common knowledge but through the philosophies introduced by other scholars seemed makes it more intricate.His main goal is to unite the â€Å"concept that the things we are the real things and these are ideas which exists only in the boundaries of our minds. † Berkeley believes that the principle of materialism could lead to skepticism and atheism because something beyond the capacity of our mind, we tend to conceptualize a material world without the sovereign of God. In my opinion, what the author wanted to say was that the moment we believe that a thing would exist by itself independent of our perception would imply that a material world could be expected to run without God.It would lead us to believe that material things exist the way they are and there are no spiritual being causing those things to happen. On the last part of the dialogue, Philonous connoted that some philosophers had the tendency to become skeptics and atheist with formulation of scientific and mathematical principles and of things with no empirical content. It should not be the case; the principles of science should not be a paradox to the existence of God. By believing that things exist beyond our perception is an outright denial that God does not exist.It is embracing the notion that things are just the way they and there is nobody that controls it. In the last part, he used the fountain as an example. Water was able to rise and fall because of gravity. This principle made others skeptics when in fact this could simply be explained in a lighter sense. Our perception makes us aware of the gifts God has endowed in our world, its existence is under the providence of God. Thus, thinking what our minds cannot conceive and our senses cannot perceive could led us to doubt that God is the cause of all these things. This skepticism in the long run could lead to denial of God

The Holy One of Israel in Isaiah

The Holy One of Israel This essay concerns about the meaning of the divine title ‘The Holy One of Israel’ in the Book of Isaiah. It is going to state clearly the study approach before going into the discussion. Approach of this essay The book of Isaiah had been studied through different approaches of which three are quite distinctive[1]. (1)A pre-critical, or traditional, understanding, still found in some conservative scholars. They keep the entire book of Isaiah connected to the prophet Isaiah of the eighth century B. C. E. There is nothing intrinsically impossible as the approach is ‘prophecy’. With the rise of ‘historical criticism’, such an approach has been commonly rejected in the interpretive world. (2)A critical understanding of the book of Isaiah is reflective of the intellectual world of the West in the 18th and 19th centuries that focused on historical issues. The dominant idea of this approach is the division of the book of Isaiah into, with short hand references, First Isaiah, Second Isaiah and Third Isaiah. However, the ‘three Isaiah’ only exist as an editorial convenience, but without integral connection to each other. 3)The canonical study of the book of Isaiah recognizes that the book is a literary complexity. It is a literary approach, draws upon historical-critical gains but moves beyond them toward theological interpretation. The last approach is used in this essay. Introduction The Holy One of Israel, as a description of God is a distinctive feature of the Book of Isaiah. The name appeared in the Old Testament 32 times, 26 times in Isaiah. The other six times in Jeremiah (50:29; 51:5), Ezekiel (39:7) and Psalms (71:22, 78:41, 89:18). It is hardly coincidence that in his vision in Chapter 6 Isaiah himself has heard the seraphim proclaiming â€Å"Holy, holy, holy is Almighty YHWH†, the whole book works out the implications of that vision. In chapters 1-12, and then 13-27, 28-39, 40-55 and at last 56-66, the message of this vision spreads in ever widening circles. Each part leads to the next, but each also relates to that key awareness that YHWH is The Holy One of Israel. The table below shows The Holy One of Israel appeared in the book of Isaiah at different periods of history with related scriptures. Part |Chapters |Motif |Historical Events[2] |Scriptures | | |1 |Prologue |In the days of 4 kings of Judah |1:4 | |1 |2-12 |Sign of Immanuel |Challenge to Judah: Time of Ahaz |5:19, 24; 10:17, 20; 12:6 | |2 |13-27 |Fall of a Great City |Calamity and Hope for the Nations |17:7 | |3 |28-39 |Siege of Jerusalem |Challenge to Judah: Time of Hezekiah |29:19, 23; 30:11, 12, 15; 31:1; 37:23 | |4 |40-55 |Light to the Nat ions |Comfort in Babylon |41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14; 45:11; 47:4; | | | | | |48:17; 49:7; 54:5; 55:5 | |5 |56-66 |Return of the Prodigal Son |Challenge to Judah after Exile |60:9, 14 | The Meaning of Holiness The Hebrew word for holiness is qodes (Greek: hagios). It is used for what is set apart from a common to a sacred use[3], as the utensils and ministers of the sanctuary, and certain days (Ex 20:8; 30:31; 31:10; Lev 21:7; Num 5:17; Ne 8:9; Zech 14:21); for what is separated from ceremonial defilement (Ex 22:31; Lev 20:26) or immorality (2Cor 7:1; 1Thes 4:7) including false worship and heathen practices (Lev 20:6, 7: 21:6). In a larger sense God is holy, for He is separated from all other beings by His infinite perfections, by His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justices, goodness, and truth, the glory of which fills the earth (Isa 6:3). Israel acquires holiness by being obedient to God’s commandments and faithful to His covenant (Lev 11:44; Deut 28:9)[4]. The concept of holiness permeates the life of Israel. Even the land occupied by the people is considered holy (Zech 2:12). The capital city Jerusalem is designated as the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High (Ps 46:4). The Holy One of Israel The term ‘The Holy One of Israel’ reflects the dialectical relation between ‘The Holy One’ and ‘Israel’. It is a relation with the Holy One with a non-holy entity[5]. The Holy One requires Israel to be holy. ‘Be holy because I, the Lord Your God, am holy’ (Lev 19:2). The separate one becomes the attached one. Their relation is bound by covenant. The challenge of the relation is Israel’s unfaithfulness in worshipping other god’s. The most notable example is the imposition of Baal worship on the northern kingdom by Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel. Both the northern and the southern kingdoms suffered captivity. Any ‘rebellious’ from Israel side causes ‘discipline’ from The Holy One side. Exile’ from Israel causes ‘In the midst’ from the other, ‘punishment’ causes ‘redemption’, ‘go astray’ causes ‘teaches and leads’ etc. In the Book of Isaiah, the Holy One is the Lord, God. The Lord has passion. He is angry at Israel who rejects His laws (5:24; 31:1) but His compassion is good news more directly for the powerless (29:19). He is the Creator of Israel (43:15), the Maker of this nation (17:7; 45:11; 54:5). He is called the Holy One of Israel, and is in relation with Israel, like Husband and wife (54:5), Father and son (45:11; 63:16; 64:8). The Holy One of Israel is in the midst of the people of Israel (12:6), they will stay upon the Lord (10:20). The harmonious covenant relation between the Holy One and Israel is being challenged by the rebellious Israel. The people have forsaken the Lord, they have contemned The Holy One of Israel (1:4; 5:19, 24; 30:12; 37:23), they are turned away backward and they reject the law of the Lord (5:24). The people have been warned but they do not look unto The Holy One of Israel (31:1). Israel is being punished and exiled. This is the way that the Lord teaches and leads Israel (48:17) to restore the covenant relation. The Holy One of Israel, their Redeemer and Savior (41:14; 43:3, 14; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 54:5) rescues the people from exile so that they will understand the work of the Lord (29:23; 41:20), they will rejoice in the Lord and they will sanctify The Holy One of Israel (29:23; 41:16). He Himself works for Israel (43:14), through the redeeming work of the Lord, He has glorified Israel (55:5; 60:9, 14). YHWH’s majesty and authority is over Judah and other nations (49:7). On that day shall a man regard his Maker, and his eyes shall look to The Holy One of Israel (17:7). This is a sketch of a thread sewing The Holy One of Israel throughout the Book of Isaiah. It is discussed in more details below. Prologue (Chapter 1) Israel is called to be a holy nation (Exodus 19:6), now becomes a sinful nation (1:4). A people laden with iniquity, a people being the seed of Abraham become a seed of evildoers. They have despised The Holy One of Israel. The degenerated children have forsaken the Lord, their father. Nothing in human life is more tragic than an unsuccessful upbringing. God’s children rebel against God. ‘The ox knows his owner, and the ass his master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people does not consider’ (1:3). The knowledge to The Holy One of Israel is even worse than ox and ass to their master. The rod of the Holy One is upon Israel, like the Holy Father disciplining His son (Hebrew 12:4-11). One day, Judah will be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city, Zion will be redeemed by justice, and those in her repent by righteousness (1:26, 27). Israel is like the prodigal son who returns to his father. Part 1 (Chapters 2-12) Sign of Immanuel Judah turns their back to God, the people think that the wealth is built by their power and might, they do not look up to their God, The Holy One of Israel, and they despise His words. They do not even know who they are before the Holy One of Israel. What a rebellious nation who tests and tries The Holy One of Israel. ‘Let Him make speed, let Him hasten His work, that we may see it and let the counsel of The Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it’ (5:19). The people do not know themselves before the Holy One. Even do they not seek the Holy One of Israel, nor do they lift up their eyes on God, but rather they have taunted and blasphemed the Lord (37:23). The sinful nation is called the rejecter of the law of the Lord and despiser of the Word of God (5:24). They forget the laws of the Lord, those holy decrees, laws and regulations that the Lord established on Mount Sinai. (Lev 26:46). For that reason the fire of judgment would descend on them like fire that devours the stubble, and they would burn like chaff. The wicked are perished in the judgment. They are like trees with rotten roots and blossom torn off by the wind. They fly away like dust (5:24). His hand is raised and strikes them down. His hand is still upraised (5:25). At the time of King Ahaz, a sign of Immanuel is given to the people of Judah. No matter how unfavorable the circumstances is, The Holy One of Israel is with them when Damascus and Samaria are punished, and also God will be with them when Assyria comes up to destroy like razor (7:10-20). Part 2 (Chapters 13-28) Fall of a Great City: Calamity and Hope for the Nation YHWH’s punishment comes. ‘The fortress will disappear from Ephraim, and the kingdom from Damascus’ (17:3a). Israel’s trouble comes from looking away from YHWH and disregarding YHWH’s governance and requirements. They have been excessively preoccupied with their own achievements and mesmerized by their own religious assurances. But now Israel would refocus their eyes back to ‘The Holy One of Israel’ (17:7). The theme is repentance and return to YHWH. Part 3 (Chapters 28-39) Siege of Jerusalem The Holy One of Israel is a Protector but the people of Judah do not seek Him. God has spoken to the leaders of Israel not to depend on Egypt, nor to return to Egypt to acquire more horses (Deut 17:16). However they opposed Him and turned their back on Him. ‘Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help, and rely on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many and in horsemen, because they are exceeding mighty; but they look not unto The Holy One of Israel, nor seek the Lord! ’ (31:1) They are rebellious people, faithless children, who do not listen the instruction of the Lord (30:9). They do not like the true prophesy (31:10), nor the right path, nor listening to The Holy One of Israel (31:11). Therefore, the punishment of The Holy One of Israel is upon them, like a break in a high wall, bulging out, and about to collapse, whose crash come suddenly (31:13) its breaking is like a smashing potter’s vessel (31:14). The Holy One of Israel urged His people to return and rest (30:15), to be quiet like a weaned child at its mother’s breast, and to surrender trustingly to their father, to have childlike faith. However, Judah is constantly in fear, surrounding by enemies. The wicked man has no peace but grief. Judah does not have the love of God to cast out fear. They were nervous and ran to and fro without any accomplishment. They focused not on The Holy One of Israel but wrongly on Egypt’s chariots and horses. The city of Jerusalem finally falls down. The people become captives, being exiled to Babylon. Part 4 (Chapters 40-55): Light to the Nation During the period of exile, The Holy One of Israel is a Comforter. ‘Fear not! ’ the Lord speaks to Jacob three times in 41:10-14. That is indeed necessary because the poor exiles fear so many things. But the Lord, the faithful covenant God, uses all kinds of motives and inducements to comfort His people. In the exile, Jacob looks like worm, insect, dead man. The Lord’s comfort gives light to this nation. ‘Fear not, for I am with you, do not be afraid for I am your God. I will strengthen you, and I will help you. I will uphold you with my victorious right hand. (41:10) ‘For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, â€Å"Do not fear, I will help you†Ã¢â‚¬â„¢(41:13). ‘Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you insect Israel! I will help you, says the lord; your redeemer is The Holy One of Israel’ (41:14). The Lord will hel p Jacob with His right hand. He will make Jacob a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth, to thresh, strike, punish and crush the mountains and hills, so that they are blown away as chaff before the wind. On that day Jacob will rejoice in the Lord, they will glory in The Holy One of Israel. Lord’s comfort brings hope to the nation. The desert people know what it meant to suffer thirst. The exile experiences are like the poor and needy seeking water. The Lord has heard their voices. He will not forsake them. To those perishing with thirst, much water supply was the most impressive metaphor of rich blessings. This abundance is described as the breaking forth of streams, even on the plateaus. Trees will come up in former deserts. On that day, they may see and know and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the Lord has done this, and The Holy One of Israel has created it. Redeemer and Creator (43:1-15) The Holy One of Israel is a Redeemer of Jacob. He has given Egypt as Jacob’s ransom, Ethiopia and Sheba in exchange for Jacob. Why? Because the Lord is the creator of Israel, for he will redeem His people (43:1). The Lord calls Jacob by name, showing intimate relationship between the covenant God and Israel. Israel was precious in God’s sight and honored, and God loved Israel. He gave people in return for Israel, nations in exchange for their life. Also, the Lord is their God, The Holy One of Israel, their Savior. He will protect them. The fire constantly purifies Israel, but it never consumes her; the water cleanses her, but it could never swallow up the Jews. ‘When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; And when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; The flames will not set you ablaze. ’ (43:2) For the sake of Jacob, The Holy One of Israel will punish Babylon, He will bring down all of them as fugitives, even the Chaldeans, in the ships of their shouting, because The Holy One of Israel is their Redeemer, their Creator, their King (43:15), their Maker and Husband (54:5). Part 5 (Chapters 56-66) Return of the Prodigal Son The Holy One of Israel participates in the Return of Jacob to Jerusalem. 60:9 and 60:14 mentions ‘The Holy One of Israel’. It is a scene of return of Jacob to Jerusalem from Babylon. In 60:9, ‘to bring your children from far away, their silver and gold with them, for the name of the Lord your God’ refers to the return of Israel with the herald of the King Cyrus of Persia (Ezra 1:1-4). Verse 14 referred to the help of the Lord, Jerusalem is called the City of the Lord, the Zion of The Holy One of Israel. In the exposition of Chapter 60, Harry Bultema[6] writes that ‘some attempted to explain this divine oracle concerning the blessedness of the Israelites as taking place after the return from Babylon; others explained them wholly spiritually of the prosperity, growth and extension of the Christian Church during the days of the New Testament’. Bulterma further quotes the expositor Van der Palm statement ‘the former explanation must of necessity weaken the intended meaning of the words, and the latter violates all sound literal biblical exegesis. ’ Since it has been stated in the beginning that the approach of this essay is canonical literary one, it is not agree to take the traditional view here. From the structure of Chapter 60, it refers to the return from Babylon. -5Glory of the Lord is upon Jerusalem. 6-12Gold and frankincense and all the riches are brought to Jerusalem by sea and by land. 13-18Those who oppressed Israel shall come bending low to Israel. T hey would know this is the work of the Lord, He is their savior, Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. 19-22God was the glory of Zion. One more discussion: Is Jesus The Holy One of Israel? From the above discussion, we can see that The Holy One of Israel is God who bears the following titles: Redeemer, Savior,Comforter,Protector,King, Creator,Maker,Husband,Father There are two questions arise. First, ‘Is The Holy One of Israel referring to Jesus and never in any way beyond Jesus? Second, ‘Is The Holy One of Israel referring to Jesus? ’ In response to the first question, Harry Bultema states that it refers to our Lord Jesus, ‘who is constantly indicated and further defined as the One who created and formed Israel and who one day shall deliver, protect, and glorify it as the Savior. ’[7] It is not agree with Bultema for two reasons, though The Holy One of Israel bears the above titles in the book of Isaiah. (1)In Isaiah, The Holy One of Israel is also refe rred to as a Father (45:11), which is contradict to the title of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. 2) The promise applies to Israel. The church should not rob the glory of the Jews. Da Costa complained once – our country, our cities, our glorious name and the church had robbed us of our promises. Did this not concern you, O Christians. ’ In response to the second question, the title is originally referring to God who comforts, redeems, creates, etc in the Old Testament time. It is very closed referring to Jesus, except for the title of ‘Father’ whose name exists in the triune God. Conclusion With the approach of the canonical study of the book of Isaiah, it is found that the Holy One is the Lord, God. He is the Creator of Israel, the Maker of this nation. He is the Father of this people. The following few lines summarize this essay. Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Immanuel is Your name. Woe to those who despise Your Words, The Holy One of Israel they know not. Woe to those who seek help from Egypt, Protector, Comforter, Savior, Redeemer, they ask not. Your rod from Assyria is upon them, but You are in the midst of them. On that day, their eyes are upon You, They will see You are the Deliverer, the Maker of this Nation. On that day, the Creator will hear, Your are my Father, we are Your children. Bibliography 1. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1 – 39 (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville) 1998. 2. Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40 – 66 (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville) 1998. 3. John Goldingay, New International Biblical Commentary: Isaiah, (Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts) 2001. 4. John D. Davis, Davis dictionary of the Bible, 4th edn (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) 1975. 5. Johannes B. Bauer, Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology Vol 1, (Sheed and Ward, London) 1970. 6. Stephen Lee, Lecture Notes on BSN304: Understanding Isaiah: An Exploration on the Spirituality of Exile, 2010. 7. Gordon C. I. Wong, The Road to Peace: Pastoral Reflections on Isaiah 1-12, (Genesis Book, Singapore) 2009. 8. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Volume II:E-J, (Grand Rapids, Michigan) 1982 ———————– 1] Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1 – 39, (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville) 1998, 3-5. [2] John Goldingay, New International Biblical Commentary: Isaiah, (Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts) 2001, 8. [3] John D. Davis, Davis dictionary of the Bible, 4th edn (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan) 1975, 334. [4] Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Volume II:E-J, (Grand Rapids, Michigan) 1982, 725-726. [5] John Goldingay, New International Biblical Commentary: Isaiah, 15. [6] Harry Bultema, Commentary on Isaiah, (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan) 1981, 584. [7] Harry Bultema, Commentary on Isaiah, 20-22.

Plato And Aristotle Disagree About Virtue. Plato And...

Plato and Aristotle Disagree about Virtue Plato and Aristotle are great philosophers and they have talked a lot about virtue. Although these two people started from similar settings, their ideas about virtue were actually different. Plato’s philosophy was more about non-material things, like ideas and love. On the other hand, Aristotle liked things that are more measurable and physicals. In this paper, I will first discuss Plato’s ideas about the nature of virtue, which people have virtue when they are born and people can develop virtue when they believe in god. Then, I will follow a discussion of Aristotle’s ideas that virtue can be learned by ourselves. Finally, I will conclude by comparing the two different ideas virtue’s nature. To sum†¦show more content†¦Therefore, the things that are appropriate to the soul/mind, according to Plato, is virtue, and one of the aspects of virtue is wisdom. It can be seen from this quote that Plato thinks that one of the aspects of virtue is wisdom, wh ich is self-awareness and knowing about things, like one’s proper function in life. Plato also says that when a soul that is pregnant with virtue, it â€Å"has the luck to find a soul that is beautiful and noble and well-formed, he is even more drawn to this combination; such a man makes him instantly teem with ideas and arguments about virtue – the qualities a virtuous man should have and the customary activities in which he should engage; and so he tries to educate him. In my view, you see, when he makes contact with someone beautiful and keeps company with him, he conceives and gives birth to what he has been carrying inside him for ages† (Plato, 1989, p.492). This quote shows that Plato thinks that a person can learn about their own proper function by associating with someone who already has this wisdom; it cannot be increased. Therefore, for Plato, the aspects of virtue are things like wisdom, beauty, or nobility, which all can be revealed but cannot be dev eloped more. The next thing that will be discussed is Plato’s ideas on the purpose of virtue. In the Symposium, Plato used Socrates’s speech to express that the use of virtue is to help makeShow MoreRelated Aristotle vs. Plato Essay1408 Words   |  6 PagesAristotle vs. Plato Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Before discussing virtueRead MoreWhat Makes A Good Life?1274 Words   |  6 Pagesthe key to good environment for people to live in. Plato and Aristotle are two philosopher that had great influence of the modern western ways of thinking. Their ideas and theory may not be completely correct, but we should view it as a progression of history and how it influence our ways of thinking. Although they bear some superficial similarities, the difference between Plato and Aristotle are striking. Plato was an idealist, while Aristotle is a realist, and they had ideas on how people shouldRead MoreThe Formations Of The Mankind System1568 Words   |  7 Pagesbars, or in other case it may be pecuniary, anyway the purpose is to make the victim feel equal again, according to flexibility in justice s administration. Nevertheless, the justice remains a stumbling block topic, because in many cases people disagree over what they have received and what they thought they actually deserved. In such discords every individual wants impartial and reasonable decisions to be made, that is why the personified images of justice often wears a blindfold - people wantRead MoreThe Ideal Society As Suggested By Plato993 Words   |  4 PagesThe ideal society as suggested by Plato is composed of three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The producers are the craftsmen, farmers etc.; the auxiliaries are the warriors/soldiers; and the guardians are the rulers. This hierarchy places the rulers at the top of the food chain followed by the auxiliaries with the producers at the bottom. In this society, each group is required to perform is appropriate function and only that function. It is the rulers’ job to rule,Read MorePlato And Aristotle On Justice And Law1565 Words   |  7 Pages Plato and Aristotle lived in a time where rule of man was the common practice in government. Under the system of the rule of man, citizens are governed by an individual or small group of rulers. On the other hand, the idea of the rule of law is one that proposes that laws should be supreme over each citizen including the ruler(s). In their writings, Plato and Aristotle focused on justice and law, and the reasons they are important in society. Throughout history, many leaders have looked to theseRead MoreReview of Aristotles Nichomac hean Ethics1388 Words   |  6 PagesPeters with an introduction by Hye-Kyung Kim. Aristotle was one of the great early philosophers who ventured to speak to humans about how they conducted themselves as they related to others; however, some of Aristotle’s ideologies were debated by his counterparts for hundreds of years. Aristotle’s plethora of ideas was and has been adopted by past and present philosophers as they approached subject matter that had very few definitive answers. Aristotle was born in circa 384 B. C. and died in 322Read MoreAristotle And Plato : Definition Of A Good Citizen1965 Words   |  8 PagesJessica Arteaga-Ramirez Jackie Vieceli PS311 October 06, 2016 Aristotle and Plato (definition of a good citizen) Like other ancient philosophers, Aristotle and Plato had two different conceptions of the state, justice, and politics. They both lived in Greece but had different points of views on the natural of all citizens and how citizens were capable of being perfect in the state. Surprisingly, the same debates that guided Plato and Aristotle’s work remain with us today. What is a good citizenRead More The Soul According to Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine Essay1184 Words   |  5 PagesThe Soul According to Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine The soul can be defined as a perennial enigma that one may never understand. But many people rose to the challenge of effectively explaining just what the soul is about, along with outlining its desires. Three of these people are Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine. Even though all three had distinctive views, the similarities between their views are strikingly vivid. The soul indeed is an enigma to mankind and the only rational explanation ofRead MoreThe Paradox of Democracy1831 Words   |  8 Pageslife, the best system of government is conducted in accordance with excellence.† (Aristotle, N. Ethics 1295a- 25) In terms of Democracy, Plato and Aristotle differ extensively. For instance, Plato considers Democracy as a fundamentally corrupted form of government, where the possession of power rests upon the will of the masses, which for Plato are incapable of achieving true knowledge. Conversely, Aristotle recognizes Democracy among the best forms of governance. However, he argues that democraticRead MoreComparing Plato and Aristotles Acquisition of Ethical Understanding3048 Words   |  13 PagesComparing Plato and Aristotles Acquisition of Ethical Understanding It is almost impossible to have a universal definition of what ethics is, the only way to really observe it is in practise; how does ethics shape our lives and how is it acquired? Ethics applies to both us and the people around us and so is both politically important and important to the individual. Plato and Aristotle had contrasting opinions on both what ethics is, how it is useful and who can obtain