Nature vs Nurture Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Nature vs Nurture - Essay Example Some researchers support the argument that nature is responsible for the makeup of an individual’s behavioral patterns which can be modified through interaction with society. They suggest that human beings are not happy or sad because of their environment but individuals are different from each other because of their genetic makeup granted to them by their parents. Opponents of this approach argue that the behavioral patterns have nothing to do with genes because a human being can be modified into whatever kind of a person the nurturer wants him to grow into. Part 2 My friend’s parents were both doctors and they wanted their daughter to become one too. The girl herself had very much willingness and interest toward becoming a doctor and everybody knew that she had an inborn talent and ability to excel in the field of medicine. However, when she passed her high school, she had not enough marks to get into a medical school. She took admission in a computer science universi ty and made up her mind to study hard and show to the world that she can do it. And unbelievingly, she kept on passing with good grades in a field which was just opposite to her inborn talent and abilities.

Philosophy of Death Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Philosophy of Death - Essay Example However, he contradicts with Aristotle by determining exuberance with pleasure. Epicurus explains this with two reasons. The major reason is that pleasure is the only affair of amusement, and practically, value for its intrinsic benefit. Moreover, it resembles Epicurus' ethical hedonism, which is significantly planted upon his intellectual hedonism. Epicurus explains it further by claiming that everything we do, is eventually for the sake of advancing to the state of pleasure for ourselves. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned fact can be apparently justified with the thorough observation of the behavior of infants, who, characteristically adheres pleasure and avoids pain. As of Epicurus, this is true in case of adults as well, but the priorities and beliefs of adults are much more sophisticated in relevancy of the matter that what will bring them pleasure. Hence, when it comes to the adults, it is more difficult to see that this is true. Epicurus states that not all pleasures are exqui site to opt for or not all pains can be prevented, although all pleasures are considered good and all pains are acknowledged as evil. Alternatively, one should determine what lies in one's deep-rooted presumption in terms of pleasure. Moreover, what will compel pleasure in the short-term if doing so will conclusively influence an advance state pleasure, which will last long. (Mitsis Phillip 1988)1 The no subject of harm argument - Epicurus mentions that if death is the phenomenon with its outcome as eradication, then it is nothing to us. Epicurus' main argument for why death is not bad is contained in the Letter to Menoeceus. In that letter, Epicurus summarizes his ethical doctrines and he depicts death as no subject of harm argument. Epicurus questions that if death is bad, for whom would it be bad. Neither for the living things, since they are not dead, and nor for the dead, as they do not exist. The expression of is argument as follows: - If At All, death is annihilation, then the living things are not yet annihilated, as they are alive. Hence, we can conclude that death does not influence the living things. So, death cannot be considered as bad for the living things. Subsequently for something to be bad for someone, that person should be in existence, at least. However, as mentioned earlier the dead do not exist. Therefore, death cannot be considered bad for the dead. Neve rtheless, the conclusion can be computed that death is bad neither for the living nor for the dead. Epicurus supports the no subject of harm argument of his by asserting that if death does not cause pain to somebody when he or she is dead, then it is mere foolishness to allow the fear of it to cause you pain now. The symmetry argument -Another Epicurean argument against the fear of death is symmetry argument, which is recorded by the Epicurean poet Lucretius. He claims that anybody who fears death should think of the time before he or she was born. The past immensity of pre-natal non-existence can be conceived as the subsequent infinity of post-mortem non-existence. However, nature has set up a mirror so that a person can think over his or her future non-existence. Nobody considers eternity of non-existence before his or her birth as a terrible thing. Therefore, should