Henri Carteron held the "extreme view"  that Aristotle's concept of force was basically qualitative,  but other authors reject this.
Of the great variety of kinds of argumentation used in the law, some are persuasive rather than strictly logical, and others exemplify different procedures in applied logic rather than the formulas of pure logic.
From that point onward, a more or less continuous history of such reflection can be traced up to the present day. As is true with the history of philosophy more generally, one can observe over the centuries changes not only in the theories set forth but also in the central questions about law that such theories were meant to answer.
Although every philosophical theory is in part a product of the time, place, and culture in which it is developed, the philosophy of law is parochial in an additional sense. Philosophical speculation about the nature of law not only is very often shaped by the politics of the time and place of a given theorist but is also carried on with a specific sort of legal system and legal culture in view.
The latter fact is important, as the kinds of legal systems in Europe and the Anglophone world have varied widely through the last several millennia.
Although the shape and structure of those systems cannot be discussed in any detail here, it should nonetheless be noted that a robust understanding of each of the major theories and texts in the history of philosophy of law requires some acquaintance with the legal systems of the cities and states in which a given theory was developed.
As a result, Aristotle theorized about law primarily on the model of general rules of action enacted by legislation and revisable by direct vote or other plebiscitary means. To take a different example, starting in the 17th century many British and later other Anglophone philosophers of law argued for the central importance of judicial institutions for the very existence of a legal system and debated the idea of legal reasoning as a distinct sort of deliberative activity.
More recently, increasing attention has been paid to the related question of how the language of the law is to be correctly interpreted. Some theorists, beginning in the early 20th century, even found it fruitful to think about the nature of law primarily from the point of view of legal professionals such as judges or lawyers.
That development is surely to be at least partly explained by the fact that those theorists reflected on law almost exclusively within advanced common law systems—i. Ancient Greece The abstract concept of law is acknowledged, though not discussed, in the poems of Homer and Hesiod in the 8th—7th century bce.
In the Greek histories and literature of the 6th and 5th centuries bce, however, one finds the first articulation of ideas about law that have had enduring influence in the West: They do whatever it bids. The great dramatist Sophoclesin his tragedy Antigone, first made salient the important idea that the requirements of law and morality may conflict.
Out of familial duty, Antigone flouts the order and buries the body, thereby herself risking punishment by death.
The relevant Greek term, nomos, varied widely in meaning across contextsoften referring simply to convention or practice. In his dialogue Crito, Plato fictionally cast his teacher, Socratesimprisoned and sentenced to death for impiety and corrupting the youngas faced with a choice between accepting the death penalty and escaping, thereby disobeying the law.
In the dialogue Socrates makes the provocative argument, on behalf of the laws of Athens, that since he has received the benefits and protections of living under law for his entire life and has never left the city out of protest, he is obligated either to obey its laws or to persuade the state that they should not be enforced against him.
Since he has failed at his trial in the latter task, he must respect the laws by obeying their commands, regardless of their content. Because of its universal nature, a law can sometimes fail to apply, or apply only indeterminately, to a novel case unforeseen by the legislator.
Detail of a Roman copy 2nd century bce of a Greek alabaster portrait bust of Aristotle, c.
He shared the common Greek view that, as a general principle, law had a share in eternal divine wisdom. As such, it was an instrument by which to constrain the exercise of political power, particularly that of tyrants, whose policies represented only their own interests and not the good of the community.Characteristics of Elizabethan Drama From Elizabethan leslutinsduphoenix.com Spens.
London: Metheun & Co. Of the three types of plays recognized in the Shakespeare First Folio-- Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies -- the last has been the most discussed annnd is clearest in outline. 1.
Tragedy must end in some tremendous catastrophe involving in Elizabethan practice the death of the principal character. Nearly every story has a hero, but some are better off by the end of the story than others. In this video, we learn what is so tragic about the hero in a tragedy.
Aristotle (/ ˈ ær ɪ ˌ s t ɒ t əl /; Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs, pronounced [aristotélɛːs]; – BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist born in the city of Stagira, Chalkidiki, in the north of Classical leslutinsduphoenix.com with Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy".Aristotle provided a complex and harmonious synthesis of the various.
+ free ebooks online. Did you know that you can help us produce ebooks by proof-reading just one page a day? Go to: Distributed Proofreaders. These essays are not intended to replace library research.
They are here to show you what others think about a given subject, and to perhaps spark an interest or an idea in you. Aristotle’s Theory of Poetics Research Assignment Aristotle bases his theory of poetics on greek tragedy.
He defines tragedy as “the imitation of an action that is serious and also as having magnitude, complete in .