Political Science-the book, Privilege, Power, and Difference and 19 Essay

Political Science-the book, Privilege, Power, and Difference and 19 minutes - Essay Example Alex Cormier was Josie’s mother and a high court judge who was presiding Peter’s case. She was going through emotional upheaval, on one side is her relationship with Josie, her daughter, and on other side is the biggest case of her life. Josie witnessed the shooting but could not narrate what exactly happened. Later, Josie admits to shoot Matt Royston before Peter as she also a victim of Matt’s abusive behavior. In the dramatic narrative of trial Peter’s parents, Lacy and Lewis wonder about the past events and his brother’s death that might have compelled Peter to be such a violent and cruel person. The story continues in the flashback of events before and after the shooting. Trial proceeded and Peter was sentenced for life but he committed suicide after one month in prison. Josie is sentenced for five years and Alex got married and pregnant with detective Patrick. Nineteen minutes delves us into the logical consequence of 17 year olds’ sufferings in a cruel society where schools have become center of oppression. Picoult points out the victimization of a culprit and our role in this whole process as a silent observer, as society! Instead of just blaming the culprit, â€Å"Nineteen Minutes† look into the physical and emotional torment of incessant act of oppression that pushed Peter to go over the top and take revenge. It discusses school system, responsibility of society, parent’s negligence and peer’s insensitivity that ends up in such horrible consequences. Reading â€Å"Nineteen Minutes† obscures the line between victim and culprit and the idea of right and wrong as it invite us to rethink the reality. Picoult presented a harsh reality in a straight forward but compelling manner. The novel is fully loaded with emotional and psychological insight about peer pressure and cruelty. It points out the cultural and social structure of school that is infected with the desire to

Indonesian worker in Saudi Arabia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Indonesian worker in Saudi Arabia - Essay Example Her job can hardly be considered greedy as, apart from her salary, she receives no bonuses and benefits, although if she falls ill, her employers do pay for her treatment. Furthermore, her salary is fixed and is not reviewed for increases and she works hard for ever dollar she earns. Her employers are a middle-aged Saudi couple whose children are grown up and living away from home. They are exceedingly rich and very well-connected. The husband works as an ambassador, now retired, at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the wife is a member of the Saudi Royal family. The couple, contrary to the stereotypical image she had of rich Saudi Arabians, treat their staff very courteously and are very sedate. They hardly entertain anyone outside of their family, although they do go out quite frequently. Yes, it is a living wage for an Indonesian. She transfers 250USD to Indonesia every month, keeping only 50USD for herself. Of the $250 she transfers home, $100 enter her husband's account to help support the family and the rest into a savings account in her name. The 100$ that go towards household expenses are double the amount that her husband earns per month. The family relies on this money to pay for the children's schooling, their clothes, food and, if need be, medication. She saves half of her s... She transfers 250USD to Indonesia every month, keeping only 50USD for herself. Of the $250 she transfers home, $100 enter her husband's account to help support the family and the rest into a savings account in her name. The 100$ that go towards household expenses are double the amount that her husband earns per month. The family relies on this money to pay for the children's schooling, their clothes, food and, if need be, medication. 9-how/on what does this global woman spend her wages She saves half of her salary, hoping that one day she would have saved enough to buy a home. The fifty dollars which she puts aside for herself are hardly used at all since she rarely has an opportunity to go out or purchase anything. The 100$ which are spent every month, all go towards her children's expenses. 10-what is the economic situation in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia Indonesia is a developing country. Its per capita income is ranked as the 99th in the world. Inflation rates are high and well-paying job opportunities are limited. In direct comparison, Saudi Arabia is ranked as the 33rd in the world in terms of per capita income. Jobs for nationals are very well-paying and the government subsidises most services, including education and healthcare. While inflation is on the increase, salaries increase accordingly. The implication here is that even though both countries may accurately be described as developing' Saudi Arabia is in a far stronger economic position than is Indonesia. 11- explain how this woman fits into the economy of her home/host country She is an expatriate worker and this has numerous implications. In the first place it means that rather than join her domestic labour force and live her life as an

Response Paper On Being An Atheist Philosophy Essay

Response Paper On Being An Atheist Philosophy Essay In the H.J. McCloskey article entitled, On Being an Atheist he begins with assertions that are absent of logic, common sense, and reasoning. He reaches all these conclusions without even a respectful cursory reading of Gods word, much less study. I will attempt to show where his arguments do not, conclusively prove that atheism is true, or that God does not exist.  [1]  I find it interesting that he does not address ontological arguments (the idea of God proves, or adds evidence to, the fact that He exists and, in fact, dismisses them. Therefore, I want to point out that ontological arguments do not prove atheism, because simply declaring yourself an atheist does not qualify you as an atheist. With all due respect, Mr. McCloskey argues in favor of atheism and attempts to discredit theism, by using multiple approaches one being that God failed to establish His own existence, and he claims in his cosmological argument, that the existence of all that we experience and see while on e arth, does not prove God exists or that He is even necessary.  [2]   Proofs cant definitively establish the case for God First, McCloskey implies proofs cant definitively establish the case for God, so they should be abandoned. McCloskey makes no effort to define evil, nor does he attempt to explain it. He tries to discredit anyones belief in God, by attacking the origin of their belief, but he never addresses why a persons faith cannot be valid whether they examine all the evidence prior to accepting Christian theism are not! To understand McCloskeys argument, you have to understand relativism, which is a position where all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual, but relativism does not prove there is no God. Philosophy sometimes clouds issues to the point, that nothing can be known for sure. For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in Jesus words in John 14:6, I am the way, the truth, and the life McCloskey portrays God as jaded, accusatory, argumentative, uncaring, incompetent, unforgiving, and punitive. Mr. McCloskey is putting forth a cause and effect argument absent of consequences. McCloskey says the best proofs of the non existence of God are the evil acts of men and women and he circumvents morality, and focuses on evil, because morality is stronger proof that an intelligent creator designed the universe. As a result, McCloskey struggles with the question: AWhy is there evil and suffering in the world?  [3]   The Cosmological Argument In his book: Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig, writes, There must exist a creator, or a being responsible for all creation and that creator has no need of a cause, as do those things which have an origin. So everything that begins to exist does need a cause, but to say that something has no beginning does not need a cause, denies the existence of a predecessor.  [4]   In Dr. Evans book, Philosophy of Religion, he summarized the cause question saying, The person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God, do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist and since they do, then God does exist. Cultural relativism makes the culture the supreme determinant of right and wrong; therefore, the culture becomes god. McCloskey flippantly and wrongly asserts, There is no God, because of all the evil and wickedness in the world.  [5]  Mr. McCloskey argues against theism and paints a picture of humanity being little more than animals and acts that we classify as murder, torture, and rape are natural and amoral just as in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no rule of law to prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions? The cosmological argument asks: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because its good? Theists have traditionally taught: God wills something, because He is good, but that doesnt ignore divine sovereignty. William Craigs answer is, Gods moral nature is itself the ultimate standard of moral goodness. Go ds moral nature is what Plato called the Good. He is the source of moral value.  [6]   The Teleological Argument McCloskey claims, as does many philosophers, that in order to believe that nature was designed, there would need to be examples that were indisputable. The Argument of Design, appeals to a principle of reasoning that seems to be firmly embedded in common sense and in scientific thinking, so he asks, How can evil exist if an omnipotent God really exists? That brings us to the concept of free moral will. Evil is not something God deliberately and maliciously created so that humans could experience pain and suffering. Atheists never deal with the question of what the purpose of mans existence is. Julian Huxley, representing the atheist view, said: We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to Earth, or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents.  [7]  McCloskey asks why God cant keep humans from making wrong decisions? The teleological argument says, To approach this proof, indisputable examples of design would be required. Generally speaking, to give an example of design, would make it possible that there is a Designer; and in order for that possibility to exist, God must exist! McCloskey says, No being who was perfect could have created a world in which there was so much suffering or in which his creatures would engage in morally evil acts, which often result in injury to innocent persons.  [8]  Moral evil is caused by the actions and wrong choices of free, morally responsible beings. Natural evil, is the evil that does not occur as a result of a responsi bly moral being. God is justified in allowing evil, because he is God and we are not! Alvin Plantinga in his book: God, Freedom, and Evil writes, God has reasons for allowing evil that we cant know and would not understand if we did. Some of the evils in the world happen in order to produce second order virtues. For example, a first order evil occurs, when a grizzly bear charges a mans daughter; perhaps a second order virtue, courage, is produced when the man charges the bear waving his arms to scare the bear off. Or, if the bear gets the girl, which would be evil, perseverance and reliance on Christ could be the second order virtue of the man. The second order evils that occur, are opposite virtues, such as cowardice? This is the result of the mistakes of Man and his poor use of free choice.  [9]  McCloskeys discussion of free will begins when he asks why God did not arrange so that man always makes the right choice. His argument, is not logical, because had God decreed that ev eryone always choose the right path, then no one would have a free will. As Evans stated in his book, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, AGod allows human kind a free will, because without it we could not be morally responsible, nor would we be capable of freely doing good by responding to and loving our Creator. Atheists cannot always argue that free will and necessitation to virtue are incompatible, because they represent God himself as possessing a free will and as being incapable of acting immorally. If this can be the case with God, why can it not be so with all free agents?  [10]   The Presence of Evil. There is the idea postulated worldwide that states, the amount of good in the world ultimately outweighs the evil in the world. Its the Agreater [emailprotected] argument where a greater good is achieved and therefore the good will always outweigh the bad. So by McCloskeys definition, wholesale murder is wrong, but unavoidable. If the atheist says there is no such thing as objective morality, the atheist loses all credibility. In JudeoChristian theism, we believe objective morality exists, and is the byproduct of the regenerate heart and mind, and if morality is transcendent of the opinions of man, it becomes nothing more than logic, when in fact morality is far more important than logic. So does atheism have a better explanation for the existence of objective morality? McCloskey offers nothing to the debate! Atheism is not comforting Our universe is a maze of mysteries, like how can gravity pull the Milky Way into a spiral? How can atoms contain such power that matter, smaller than a dime, produced the energy in the bomb that killed 100,000 Hiroshima residents? How can the doublehelix thread of DNA create all living things, from bacteria to trees to Beethoven? How can electrons, dormant in every atom of your body, explode into violent lightning bolts when theyre detached? Why does anything exist? If we say that the power of gravity, atoms, DNA, lightning and all the rest is God B and that God is E = MC2 B then God exists. Those baffling forces are undeniably real. McCloskey offers some encouragement and insight saying, Atheism is not comforting when you consider the problem of evil. Instead, atheism adopted by a thoughtful and sensitive person, leads to a spirit of self reliance, and self respect which demands that we comfort and help those who need such support, because it will mitigate the blows of fate.  [11]  William Lane Craig was absolutely accurate when he spoke ingeniously, If God does not e xist, then you are just a miscarriage of nature, thrust into a purposeless universe to live a purposeless life.  [12]  

The links between social class and educational achievement Essay

The links between social class and educational achievement There have been many theories about social class and educational achievement and this essay will concentrate on the conflict theory and the functionalist theory. This essay will examine the links between class and achievement. It will describe and critically analyse the different sociological theories on education relating to class, and apply these theories to educational experiences, structure and practices. The different perspectives will be used to analyse inequality in relation to different social classes in the UK. This essay will also provide evidence of inequality in British education and identify and evaluate key policy developments in education provision in relation to social class Functionalist theory focuses on the ways the education system as a whole meets the needs of society. It emphasises the interdependence of the social system and stresses the process and behaviours that maintain it. Durkheim (cited in Haralambos et al: 2000:777) ‘saw the major function of education as the transmission of society’s norms and values’. Functionalist theory believes that schools should serve intellectual, political and social purposes (Sadovnik et al: 2001). Functionalists believe that schools ‘foster the value of equality of opportunity’ by placing pupils in the same situation in the classroom (Haralambos et al: 779). They maintain that education sorts students based on their ability, as argued by Parsons: †¦[students] conduct is assessed against the yardstick of the school rules; their achievement is measured by their performance in examinations†¦the same standards are applied to all students regardless of ascribed characteristics such as sex, race, family... ...will have long term positive results’ (Haralambos et al 2004: p621). Sure start was criticised that its impact on children and their parents was unsatisfactory. ‘However it is too early to assess its impact on children’s formal education’ (ibid). These policies have been created because there is a LINK between class and achievement for example working class pupils do less well in school. Summary This essay has discussed and critically analysed the different social theories of education relating to class, it has applied these theories to educational experiences, structures and practices. It has addressed different social theories of inequality in relation to social classes. This essay has also provided evidence of inequality in British education and finally identified and evaluated key policy developments in education provision in relation to social class.

6. “It Is More Important to Discover New Ways of Thinking Essay

Developing new ways of thinking about what we already know is very important as it helps us to develop a better understanding of that which we already know so to some extent the above statement is true. However it is as significant to discover new data or facts. In fact these two concepts go hand in hand; it is because of some discoveries that we knew when they first came to light that we have something we call existing knowledge to think about and sometimes it is through trying to develop new ways of thinking about a certain issue without a solution that we finally decide it is best to find a new explanation or concept of looking at it. A student who goes from lower to higher school both learns new and advanced ways of thinking about the information they have gathered in previous grades as well as some new data they have never come across before which further stresses that both concepts are important. We cannot learn everything at once nor can we know all sbout those things we know, which is why both developing what we already know and leaarning some new things are equally important. In some cases one may find that discussing and thinking about what we already know but in a new clearer way can help us reach a conclusion whereas if we had chosen to discover new facts about it instead, our horizon of confusion would have been broadened and we find ourselves with yet another mystery to solve. A good example of a case like this is death. Unless someone dies and comes back and tells us exactly what happens after death, no one can ever really know what happens. Any information we all have of life after death is based on assumptions that is if there is even life after death. Discovering new facts about the so called life after death isn’t but going to cause even more confusion, so really in my view I would say it is rather best that one sticks to the knowledge and believe they have over this issue, and if anything, find new ways of thinking about instead of creating yet another confusing phenomena based on assumptions. But such fields as Science motivate constant discovery of new knowledge because this is one area of knowledge where falsification is the only method used to prove the theories because we cannot verify, in other words prove a Scientific theory to be true in any way but we can pfove it fo be wrong. In this case it is clear then that in Science it is more important to discover new facts or data than to think about that which we already have as we need new discoveries to falsify old theories. However sometimes it may be thinking hard and deep into a scientific theory that makes one see fault in it as a result make new discoveries in which case both thinking of something in a new way and making new discoveries would have been equally important. We can for instance look into the famous example of the falsification of Newton’s theory of gravitation by Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein like all other Scientists of that time saw nothing wrong with Newton’s model until a crisis came when Newton’s theory of gravity failed to account for the behavior of light. Obviously this had to be a result of scientists thinking of new ways of applying Newton’s model. No one expected the negative outcome they came out with but it was negative and the Scientists were faced with a dilemma they had to solve. That it is when Einstein invented his theory of relativity, a whole new theory, which could work even for those discoveries that Newton’s model failed to. In any case, the point is to show that finding new ways to think of something can actually lead to the discovery of new information which in turn gives us something new to think about and in new ways if we please. Living only by developing things we already know would be depriving ourselves off so much knowledge. Had the people who lived before our generation decided they wanted to live only on what they knew, there would be so much we do not know. Generations like that of Newton or Einstein, generations like that of Priestley or Lavoisier who made discoveries about oxygen and those of people who learned the word of God and passed it on from generation to generation till the bible was written we would not have the knowledge we have today. And the knowledge does not end there and like the paradigm shifts suggest, there will always be new information, new theories and new ways of thinking as the world revolves that will override the current theories but should we decide to live only by the data that already exists, we may find that we are making experiments with 90% errors all the time.

Aristotle and Aurelius Essay

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics goes to show that he believes that the end goal of all human actions is eudaimonia, or happiness through success and fulfillment. Following this concept Aristotle goes on to explain that through virtuosity a human being can lead a happy life. He defines virtue as a disposition to make the correct decisions that lead to the chief good of happiness. A perfect example is when he describes someone who does an action well as being good, but they are only considered good because of their distinctive activity. The distinctive activity for human beings can be considered our rationale. This is where virtue comes into play in the matter, but this translation could also be deciphered as excellence. Human beings do every single thing they do for a reason and that reason is to help towards an end goal. Although it may seem like the end goal might be something good like eating lunch, it is actually a chain to the ultimate good which is being happy. Happiness in Aristotle’s view is not second-by-second or even minute-by-minute but an entire lifetime. This is because we view happiness as and end goal which we hope to achieve by death and that way you can look back on a person’s life to see if they succeeded in their goal, through virtuous moral character and virtuous intellectual character and through the act of temperance. A life-time of that act can guarantee a happy, fulfilling, and successful life. Being virtuous come through two different ways in our actions as said by Aristotle, â€Å"Excellence being of two sorts, then, the one intellectual and the other of character, the intellectual sort mostly both comes into existence and increases as a result of teaching whereas excellence of character results from habituation†¦ † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1103a15). Intellectual virtue comes from teaching, experience, and time while character virtue is formed through the habit of repeated virtuous actions and constant practice. This allows for every human being to potentially have a virtuous moral character for the fact that it cannot be learned but only practiced, and not one person can be born already virtuous. The only problem with this concept is that there is no exact guideline in which to follow in order to become virtuous and, ultimately, happy. Basically Aristotle explains that you can find virtue in the middle ground of your actions, for xample, he says â€Å"For to arrive at one of the two extremes is more erroneous, to arrive at the other less; so, since it is hard to hit upon intermediate with extreme accuracy, one should take to the oars and sail that way, as they say, grasping what is least bad of what is available†¦ † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1109a35) There is no teaching as to why, for example, courage is preferred over cowardice or rashness but that you need to practice being courageous in order to understand the reasoning for being courageous. This is true for all virtuous traits and merits of the human character and by combining the moral and intellectual teachings and habits can you start on the path of a virtuous disposition. The key to virtue is keeping within a balance between the vices. For an excessive vice there is excessive pleasure but also excessive pain and for the opposite there is no pleasure and no pain. The key is in a state of temperance in order to feel the correct amount of pleasure for a healthy lifestyle and choices. Aristotle’s views show that someone with a virtuous disposition should automatically or naturally choose the best action or behavior in any circumstances without having to rely on reason because the virtuous habit has been already learned. In response to someone arguing against an accidental choice, these views only perceive the deliberate and voluntary choices made by the person of virtue. Also a virtuous moral character will always aim for the good while unjust character will try to aim for what is their perception or the â€Å"apparent† good as said in â€Å"That wish is for the end, we have already said; but to some it seems to be for the good, whereas to others it seems to be for the apparent good. The consequence, for those who say that the object of wish is the good, is that what the person making an incorrect choice wishes for is not wished for.. † (Nicomachean Ethics, 1113a10). A virtuous person will always do the right thing and will never be surprised by their actions, nor will they do it the right thing with an ulterior motive. Though you cannot live a happy life just with a virtuous disposition because you still need to act within accordance to virtue, you absolutely cannot live a happy life without virtue. Having virtue in your actions will lead to the final goal of happiness because it far outweighs the happiness found in pleasure, awards or merits. II. Marcus Aurelius was a philosopher-king and emperor of the Roman Empire and was considered of of the most influential Stoic philosophers of all time. His greatest work Meditations is an honest portrayal of Aurelius’ thoughts as they were found in journal form, never meant to be publicized. He wrote these books for himself as a sort of guideline and thought-provoking inner voice. In his works of Meditations, Marcus Aurelius doesn’t use arguments as a way to get his point across but rather states his words as truths and seems to be very confident in his uses. It seems he is prying at the meaning of life, the why’s and how’s of it all on the idea of living. He is very blunt in his use of understating the human existence in the world and compares them to specks in the grand scheme, but the point of this is to provide a sort of carpe diem lifestyle. By letting yourself let go of the things you cannot control, you begin to gain a better understanding of the things you can control and act accordingly. â€Å"We were born to work together like feet, hands and eyes, like two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions. † (Meditations, 17). This quote goes to show how you cannot allow yourself to get angry at another person for what they have done, but to continue your existence and recognize what you need to do. He advises in his writings â€Å"To shrug it all off and wipe it clean-every annoyance and distraction-and reach utter stillness. † (Meditations, 54) and once you can do that you can realize what is natural. Stoicism being a very popular philosophy in ancient Rome for it called for a â€Å"cosmic determinism† in relation to â€Å"human freedom† by a parallel will to that of Nature . Aurelius,himself, was a firm believer in the Logos, which can be identified as a principle a guiding force for the universe, human beings and all matter. In fact, it is one of the most important concepts in Stoicism for the ancient Romans of the time. The stark and â€Å"manly† belief that every single citizen had a duty, whether they were a king or a peasant, were expected to follow it to the best of their abilities. The term utter stillness is used to acknowledge the state of no distractions. By achieving this you can focus solely on appropriate actions and how to follow your own road by the way of Nature on an unconscious level. Not by thinking about it but by acting naturally should you continue to help others, work for yourself, never stopping but continuing to reply to Nature’s demands. To do this all under the Logos, in order to find our common sense and avoid the annoying distractions all the while by controlling these actions through your inner unconscious/conscious self. III. The Greek philosopher Aristotle and the Roman philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius can be compared and contrasted in their similar and different ways of thoughts. First you can compare Aristotle’s ideas on eudaimonia and Aurelius’ use of utter stillness to help follow the logos, also the final step of death as the end of one’s journey towards a life of fulfillment. Contrastingly, they have different outlooks on purpose of human life and how to lead to the fulfilling of that said life. Stoicism was developed within the framework of Greek theory and philosophies from Plato and Aristotle so obviously there are bound to be many similarities. Both of these men were truly brilliant and ground-breaking in their respective ways of thought and led centuries of intellectuals to search for more fulfillment and happiness’s in their lives. Some big differences between Aristotle and Aurelius were there views on mortality or death. While Aristotle concludes that our lives are given to us and as valuable as human beings want to make them, the Stoics view on life is that is shaped by death and that the thoughts, choices and actions are just based on the knowledge of death. Eudaimonia is a subject in which Aristotle and Aurelius were familiar with in their writings about philosophical life. Aristotle thought of eudaimonia as an activity done with virtue performed rationally and consciously. Aurelius and the other Stoics insist that the way for eudaimonia is to live a morally virtuous life, in regards to the fact that virtue is good, vices are bad and most everything else is neutral. A popular argument for this where a death in the family would be involved, according to Aristotle, that would rob the most virtuous person of their eudaimonia while the Stoics would consider that neutral. Another interesting fact about Aristotle is how he acknowledges how â€Å"dumb luck† can aid or block the journey for eudaimonia, for example being born beautiful or losing close friends and family. Basically, they agree that eudaimonia is self-sufficient; the chief goal in life and that eudaimonia is the most complete end result. Virtue is very important to both philosophers and their ways of thinking and considers it absolutely crucial for eudaimonia. Aristotle and Aurelius can agree that no one is born just virtuous as it must be an act learned. Virtue is believed to be how one can control their emotions for it helps them to stay stable and in moderation. Overall, living life virtuously is living a life full of dignity. Marcus Aurelius’s view is a much more justified view because it is more modern and more adaptable. As the stoicism wants people to better themselves within reasonable goals and change values into something that will bring upon an unconscious change so that they may make better decisions consciously. Aristotle instead relies too much on a proper upbringing and calls the loss of good and friends as a prevention of eudaimonia. Stoics learn to realize what is out of their control and move on to what they can control. Aristotelian views also say that if a person dies early that it is a tragedy and that they were taken away before they reached their prime which in the Stoics eyes, a virtuous person should never be afraid of death because their life is sufficient when living a virtuous life. The difference continues when viewing the topic of emotions for Aristotelian that emotions are not good nor bad, only bad when expressed inappropriately while the Stoics think the whole point of eudaimonia is to be free from emotion. Finally the stoics don’t see a difference between the rich, poor, slaves or free men, because in their views bodily and external things can no impact on their dignity, whereas Aristotle believes that a life based on virtues along with enough material and external goods like freedom, wellbeing, and close friends lead to a life of dignity. Overall, Aurelius and the Stoics have built upon and modified Aristotle’s view to be more realistic and to try and be more optimistic in leading the best possible life no matter the circumstances.