Philosophical interpretation[ edit ] Platonic love is examined in Plato's dialogue, the Symposiumwhich has as its topic the subject of love or Eros generally. It explains the possibilities of how the feeling of love began and how it has evolved—both sexually and non-sexually. Of particular importance is the speech of Socrateswho attributes to the prophetess Diotima an idea of platonic love as a means of ascent to contemplation of the divine.
Scope and Role of Distributive Principles Distributive principles vary in numerous dimensions. They vary in what is considered relevant to distributive justice income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, utility, etc.
In this entry, the focus is primarily on principles designed to cover the distribution of benefits and burdens of economic activity among individuals in a society.
Although principles of this kind have been the dominant source of Anglo-American debate about distributive justice over the last six decades, there are other important distributive justice questions, some of which are covered by other entries in the encyclopedia.
These include questions of distributive justice at the global level rather than just at the national level see justice: Although the numerous distributive principles vary along different dimensions, for simplicity, they are presented here in broad categories.
Even though these are common classifications in the literature, it is important to keep in mind they necessarily involve over-simplification, particularly with respect to the criticisms of each of the groups of principles.
Some criticisms may not apply equally to every principle in the group.
The issue of how we are to understand and respond to criticisms of distributive principles is discussed briefly in the final section on methodology see Methodology. Throughout most of history, people were born into, and largely stayed in, a fairly rigid economic position.
The distribution of economic benefits and burdens was normally seen as fixed, either by nature or by a deity. Only when there was a widespread realization that the distribution of economic benefits and burdens could be affected by government did distributive justice become a live topic.
Now the topic is unavoidable. Governments continuously make and change laws and policies affecting the distribution of economic benefits and burdens in their societies. Almost all changes, whether they regard tax, industry, education, health, etc.
As a result, every society has a different distribution at any point in time and we are becoming increasingly more adept at measuring that distribution.
More importantly, at every point in time now, each society is faced with a choice about whether to stay with current laws, policies, etc. The practical contribution of distributive justice theory is to provide moral guidance for these constant choices. Many writers on distributive justice have tended to advocate and defend their particular principles by describing or considering ideal societies operating under them.
They have been motivated to do this as an aid to understanding what their principles mean. Unfortunately though, as a result of this practice, some readers and the general public have been misled into believing that discussions of distributive justice are merely exercises in ideal theory—to be dismissed as a past-time of the academic elite rather than as something that is crucially relevant to current political discussion.
This misunderstanding is unfortunate because, in the end, the main purpose of distributive justice theory is not to inform decisions about ideal societies but about our societies. To help correct this misunderstanding it is important to acknowledge that there has never been, and never will be, a purely libertarian society or Rawlsian society, or any society whose distribution conforms to one of the proposed principles.
Rather than guiding choices between ideal societies, distributive principles are most usefully thought of as providing moral guidance for the choices that each society faces right now.
Other theorists are arguing for changes to bring economic benefits and burdens more in accordance with what people really deserve. Sometimes a number of the theories may recommend the same changes to our current practices; other times they will diverge.
It is best to understand the different theorists, despite the theoretical devices they sometimes employ, to be speaking to what should be done in our society—not about what should be done in some hypothetical society.
Of course, ensuring that philosophical principles be effective for the purpose of guiding policy and change in real societies involves important and complex methodological questions. For a review of work specifically addressing this issue, in ideal and nonideal theory, see Zofia Stemplowska and Adam Swiftand Valentini Distributive justice theorists perhaps like all theorists tend to emphasize the differences between their theories.
This misunderstanding is, perhaps, best illustrated by the most common type of dismissal. But to think that this points to the desired conclusion—that in light of this we should retain the status quo for the time being—reveals a confusion about the nature of the choices always facing each society.
So, in this instance, to claim that we should not pursue any changes to our economic structures in light of a distributive justice argument calling for change is, by its very nature, to take a stand on the distributive justice of or, if one prefers, the morality of the current distribution and structures in the society compared to any of the possible alternative distributions and structures practically available.
At any particular moment the existing economic and institutional framework is influencing the current distribution of economic and life prospects for all members of the society. To assert that we should not change the current system is therefore, despite implications to the contrary, to take a substantive position on distributive justice debates.
It is to argue that keeping the existing distribution is morally preferable to changing to any practical alternative proposed—to take a substantive position in just the area that it was claimed was too controversial to consider. Societies cannot avoid taking positions about distributive justice all the time and any suggestion that they can should be resisted as incoherent.
A related point can be made when people assert that economic structures and policy should be left to economists, or when people assert that economic policy can be pursued without reference to distributive justice.
These assertions reveal misconceptions about what distributive justice and economics are, and how they are related. Positive economics, at its best, can tell us about economic causes and effects.
Positive economics is very important for distributive justice because it can give us guidance about which changes to pursue in order to better instantiate our moral principles.
What it cannot do, in the absence of the principles, is tell us what we should do. This point is easily lost in everyday political discussion. When economists make such a recommendation they, sometimes unconsciously, have taken off their social scientific hat.Plato’s “brand” is a doctrine of idealism that posits a realm of ideal forms, of which everything we know by our senses is but an inferior copy.
The ironically poetic Socrates relates the story to illustrate “the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature.”.
A comprehensive examination of geometric concepts, each lesson provides thorough explanations and builds on prior lessons. Step-by-step instruction and multiple opportunities for self-check practice develop skills and confidence in students as they progress through the course.
Philosophy of Love. This article examines the nature of love and some of the ethical and political ramifications. For the philosopher, the question “what is love?” generates a host of issues: love is an abstract noun which means for some it is a word unattached to anything real or sensible, that is all; for others, it is a means by which our being—our self and its .
Socrates (— B.C.E.). Socrates is one of the few individuals whom one could say has so-shaped the cultural and intellectual development of the world that, without him, history would be .
The Meno, one of the most widely read of the Platonic dialogues, is seen afresh in this original interpretation that explores the dialogue as a theatrical timberdesignmag.com as Socrates's listeners would have questioned and examined their own thinking in response to the presentation, so, Klein shows, should modern readers become involved in the drama of the dialogue.
In the beginning was the λόγος (John ) The word λόγος (logos) in the prologue of John's Gospel is a word with a very interesting history in ancient theological timberdesignmag.com is translated 'Word' in English versions, but this translation does not express everything .