Psychology’s roots have been attributed to the early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The emergence of scientific thought began through the writings and teachings of Christian church scholars. One of the movements was based on Scholasticism, which was the attempt to bring theological thought to human reasoning. Thomas Aquinas was considered one of the major contributors to this school of thought. As we move through our studies in this course it is apparent that the major contributors to psychology stem from not only Classical Greek philosophy but a strong Western European Christian philosophy as well.
What is the importance of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in understanding the foundations of psychology? Describe the similarities and differences among these three philosophers and how their philosophies compare and contrast with the philosophies of others, such as the Sophists.
How did early Christian scholars like Thomas Aquinas synthesize the Greek philosophy with Christian theological perspectives? What impact did Aquinas’ writings have on future philosophical thinking?
Why would it be important to expand our historical perspectives on psychology to include philosophical points of view from Eastern and Mid-Eastern cultures, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism?
he just war is explained normatively, seen by Vittoria (Begby et al (2006b), one of the few who came up with a theory, along with modernists today including Frowe (2011). Their theory is devised as a guide, whether we should go to war or not along with conditions which need to be considered, what should we do and not do during a war if it is inevitable, and finally what further action should be taken after. To evaluate this theory, one must look at the assumptions made towards it, for example, actors which theorists leave out and the time gap between traditional theorists and modernists. Most importantly, there can be no definitive theory of the just war, because every single person has a different interpretation of this theory, given its normativity. However, the theory gives a rough display of how we should proceed in times of tension and conflict, crucially the aim of a just war: ‘peace and security of the commonwealth’ (Begby et al, 2006b, Page 310). Overall, this theory is suitable to use but cannot ever be seen as a natural guide since it’s normatively theorised. To answer the question, the essay is comprised of 3 sections. Jus ad bellum The starting section covers jus ad bellum, the conditions debating whether an action is justifiably acceptable to cause a war (Frowe (2011), Page 50). Firstly, Vittola discusses one of the just causes of war, most importantly, is when harm is inflicted but he does mention the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of “just cause” based on “Sovereignty” which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again today’s world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, ‘since it is lawful to resist force with force,’ but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “teach its enemies a lesson,” but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotle’s argument: ‘there must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues “self-defence” has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify one’s actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittola’s view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisher’s authority, but also today’s world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that ‘right intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,’ suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaratio>GET ANSWER