0
What else can I help you with?
What is the difference between the platonic and the aristotelian theory of knowledge?
Epistemology is theory of knowledge platonean is like forest;holistic Aristotlean is like tree,bark, branch, leaf, veins, roots---the details
How do you identify rhetorical devices?
Neo-Aristotlean theory would have rhetorical context (also known as "rhetorical situation"--see Bitzer) as the rhetorical triangle--writer/speaker, reader/audience, and topic. Thus, the writer must use the correct language, tone, and references that would best suit his or her audience.Rhetorical contexts, in a broader sense, apply whenever persuasion occurs. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, spoke in a neo-Aristotlean context of the civil rights movement. However, his work continues to circulate, so at any one moment, MLK's speeches are in different contexts being employed for different purposes.
What are the common features of aristotlean tragedy?
Aristotelian tragedy typically features a noble protagonist who possesses a tragic flaw (hamartia) that leads to their downfall. The narrative follows a structure that includes a complex plot, evoking feelings of pity and fear in the audience, ultimately resulting in catharsis. Key elements also include peripeteia (a reversal of fortune) and anagnorisis (recognition or revelation). The setting often reflects themes of fate and moral dilemmas, emphasizing the inevitability of the protagonist's tragic end.
Who said A hero must see and understand his doom as well as understand the fact that his fate is discovered by his own action?
It is unclear to me who said what you're asking, and it's quite possible that Joseph Campbell or some other academic wrote exactly that. Aristotle once said: "A man does not become a hero until he can see the root of his own downfall." This is an explanation of the Aristotlean tragic hero. The beauty of Joseph Campbell and even Aristotle in regards to the tragic hero or the reluctant hero is their passion for the mythology it comes from. They both believe that the myth is popular and remains popular today, because it speaks to our soul, our internal hard drive, our need to know why we are here, and what it is we are supposed to do. The myth is a life lesson. They are intended to teach us how to live. That the hero is used so widely is a universal appeal to the people to be heroic. I would also add that it is best to avoid being a tragic hero, but if one must be tragic then they will discover fate by their own actions.
Why in all temple in the wall having having two colors that is red and white why not other colors?
Temple colors come from rigid concepts of color that are familiar in fashion to Aristotlean logic on color. Hybrid forms of color worship are from Taoism, Confucian and Buddhist understandings of color, but the concept of color worship is a caste identifier that was borrowed from Hinduism. The Hindus have a Varna Asrama system - Varna - color (similar to varnish or stain) and Asrama - school. What type or school you graduate from is your caste, whatever school you didn't attend would put you outside of that Varna Asrama system. Buddhists were more open to outcastes joining there Asrama and they called it a Sangha or family. This family consisted of two types, the Varna of red/pink/orange/brown/gold/ clothed - monks, the Varna of white clothed - lay people. In Mahayana Buddhism it can be argued that monks wear grey, but what I have stated predates the spread of Buddhism to the three schools of Vajrayana, Mahayana and Himayana. Red and white colors represent the Buddhas' Sangha.
Did the Roman Catholic Church support Galileo's theory that the earth moves around the sun?
It's a rather more complicated answer that "yes" or "no." In fact, most of the intellectuals in the Church in Galileo's time thought the heliocentric version of the Solar System was the correct one, BUT -- and here's the catch -- the Church had managed to get itself associated with Aristotlean thought, which, with most of the Ancient Greek cosmologies, except that of Aristarchos of Samos, accepted the geocentric version. In short, the Church was afraid that putting out the Copernican view (i.e., heliocentrism) would so upset the common folk that those who lose their respect for the Church. It was all rather like one of those dramas in which the intrepid investigator uncovers some secret but the powers that be (CEOs, government officials, hospital administrators, etc.) tell him to cover it back up because to reveal it publically would "cause panic." What is so painfully ironic to the Galileo Affair is that nothing in Scripture or Church teaching really demands the Earth be the center of the Universe. There are, of course, references in the Old Testament that sort of make the assumption that the Earth is the most important place (other that heaven, of course) but these are easily seen as comments of perspective, which is to say, they were all made by people who happened to be living on the Earth. Even with our modern and presumably correct understanding of celestial mechanics, we still say things like "sunrise" and "sunset" instead of "Earthturn." What is commonly presented as a conflict between Science and Religion would be better described as a conflict between Control and Threats to Control.
