Asymo

"He considered the lack of inner independance not a matter of IQ or innate cleverness, but rather a failure of character"

"For Bonhoeffer, this concept was deeply rooted in his theological beliefs"

I will make a Christian commentary on ignorance. Here by "ignorance" I refer to the deliberate act of not wanting to know (something close to the author's definition of stupidity, but within the Christian perspective the concept I explained is more commonly used).

Spiritually speaking, ignorance is a kind of arrogance. If reason reveals to us the order of reality as created by God, the ignorant person harms themselves and others, dragging them into darkness through their refusal to know. They act as if they have the right to harm others for the sake of their own desires; that is arrogance. As stated above, it is a failure of character.

I think there's been some confusion in people's minds between vocation and profession. Your profession is not the same as your vocation. Profession is the means by which you earn your bread by the sweat of your brow. Vocation is an activity you should develop because you are capable of it, and no one else is capable of doing it under your circumstances.

Of course, by chance, it may happen that in your profession you can fulfill your vocation, but that's merely a coincidence.

Allow me to discern the author's vocation in the situation described. The author showed himself to be the only one able to empathize in the moment of his colleague's suffering. He could have turned his sensitivity into strength and made his colleague's life better by helping her in her time of mourning. I believe that would have given much more meaning to his life than the modus operandi of his work routine. Sensitivity was his vocation, not his routine at the pharmacy.

Nietzsche, in his book Beyond Good and Evil, says that Plato is the beginning of a great decline, responding with his tragic view: 'And who said that man is capable of knowing the truth? [...a long waste of time follows...]'. I recommend looking into the discussion of universals, as I understand that much of the disagreement stems from this point.

Yes, Aristotle was born into a more privileged family, but I'm not sure if it's accurate to say that he was rich. However, his financial conditions and the fame that his life's work brought him seem to have had the opposite effect of what you suggested. There is a painting by Rembrandt that represents exactly this. The painting depicts Aristotle with one hand holding a chain of gold and the other hand resting on a bust of Homer. This represents his internal struggle between embracing his eternal legacy, like Homer, or embracing momentary pleasures and riches.

Actually, your analysis only seems to make sense because you ignored the beginning of the explanation. I'll rephrase it here in other words: "Man's good can only consist in the 'work' that is peculiar to him, that is, the work that he and only he knows how to perform, just as, in general, the good of each thing consists in the work that is peculiar to that thing. The work of the eye is to see, the work of the ear is to hear, and so on." So, it becomes obvious that making an analysis based on the universal concept of "knife" and judging it by its ability to literally cut anything is absurd. The more accurate approach would be to judge a "kitchen knife" by its ability to help in cooking tasks, and we can be even more specific by talking about knives for bread, meat, tomatoes, etc. And I find it quite strange to question "what does it mean to cut well?" If I give you a dull blade and a sharp one for a specific task, you'll know exactly which one cuts well

Thank modern philosophy, which unfortunately discarded all previous philosophical knowledge

Tutorial #3 0.72s

function controlFunction(block) { return -500 * block.x -60 * block.dx; }