I fucking hate writing essays when it takes me four days past the due date because my computer got a virus and I had to reformat all by myself because this apparent computer fixer guy was a total moron and even though I don't know how to use the BIOS I actually figured it out and now i only have 16 colours!!!! *breath*

At least it's kept me motivated, and i only lose 2% a day...but really, that's like 2% of my final grade when it's submitted 5 days later. shite.

All this concentrating on school work makes me really need sex. I don't even really like casual sex. fucking hormones.

Maybe you PMSing?

no, actually, i'm definately not PMS-ing...
then again i had my rag twice already this cycle, why not again!?

blaaahhhhhhhh Aristotle suuuucks!!!

Or maybe I suck, since I can't come up with a convincing argument against his theory on ethics, using only the information i've already pumped into my essay. *sigh* Time for comfort food.

*banana-ed*

doesn't your univ. have computers?! i imagine they would....and have you ever heard of a library?! or what abouta friends computer........YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!!!!!

and um....i'm not big on Socratic (Plato, Aristotle) philosophy....but i could be of some assitance.....

what are some of Aristotle's views on ethics? i'm assuming he belives in some sort of moral code.....

Oh I totally know it's not an excuse, that's why I haven't emailed my T.A. begging hr to take pity on me, I deserve the shitty mark for not starting earlier and backing up my work. *shrug*

And you can't really help unless you've read the Nichomachean Ethics, I think...gotta know enough about it to make a sound and valid argument against something. I was GOING to write fun arguments about the virtues of angr (wrt road rage) and honesty (wrt does my butt look big in the outfit) but i think i'ts probably more important to get it right than make her laugh when I have a bunch of late deductions.

and my E key keeps acting up. grrr!

yeah, seriously though....just, gimme the sum of it....i can whip sumtin' out....

i got a degree in philosophy, so i know what they want....though i haven't read aristotle outside De Anema (the soul).....but um, my roomies used to have me write their papers for them....everything from philosophy to basic english....i can write a 4 page essay in about an hour....2 if i'm drunk....and when it cums to philo....I CAN DO IT!!!!!

i even went to my one roomies philo classes and wrote all his papers just 'cuz i luv it so....

oh man, i think there's a word for that....shit, what is it...uhhh...


cheating?

Thanks, but all I needed was a bit more time, now i've got two pages of arguments to sift through. I love it, but i also hate it a LOT that I'm a stream-of-consciousness writer. Muses I tell you, they aren't just allegories.

ok....i went online and looked up this Nichomachean Ethics....

here's a lil' sumtin' you might be able to toss in there....

in BOOK 2.....aristotle writes that we become as we become by doing....that is, we become a builder by building, and learn the craft of it.....but we can either be a bad builder or a good builder.....

he says the same for virtues.....we understand and learn of virtues as we act upon others....either we are good, or bad.......

but, what it comes down to is in order to understand whether or not we are a good builder or bad builder solely depends on some sort of biased opinion.....if you take two men, who happen to be the first two builders......how did the third party decide which was good and which was bad? well, the answer can be quite obvious.....if one structure stands and stands well, then said builder is a good builder....if the other falls, then said builder is a bad builder......thus, to future students, the good builder would make a better teacher, and in fact his technigue is usually taught....

however, you take two men with virtues.....the first man is moral and polite, thus more appreciated than the second man who is immoral and vile......thus, the second man is often criticized for his behavior......

yet, it is this vile man, and this bad builder, which further prove that the other is the better half.....if it weren't for the bad builder, if it weren't for the vile man, how could one judge? furthermore, it is good to note that the techniques of the bad builder will not be taught....but the same cannot be said of the vile man.....at times, a vile can be proved to have merit and good technique.......who makes a better killer? a moral/polite person, or a vile man?

the problem is.....everyone needs a good building......unless one wants a bad building where it may fall, and possibly harm another, yet such a builder is obviously vile, and hence proves his merit.......

with virtues, it stands to reason that the most vile man has just as much merit and need for existence as does a virtuous man......


also, when it comes to morality, i tend to like Nietzsche's perspective....that is, morals don't exist, and are rather the imagination of not man, but of society.....placing us in a cage of laws......we are hereby controlled through the use of morality......morals constantly change....what was good 100 yrs ago is bad today......but, more importantly, we took what it meant to be a human (that is, the highest level of sentience for a creature) and placed within it a set of rules......

That's a pretty coherent stream of thought, and I must admit that I have already included something similar in my paper...but more along the lines of, if the student must learn from the good builder to become a good builder, then the good builder must have learned from somewhere, and in order to be the good builder that he is, he must have learned from a good builder, and so in, in an infinite regress of good builders

awe yes, the argument of dependency....

although, you might want to take the word "infinite" out of that, for with infinite-regress, there's no need for dependency.......as dependency ultimately admits that somewhere along the lines there was a first....and when it comes to builders, the first would have been God (but thats niether here nor there)......but what could be first assumed is a caveman, or sumtin' of the like, sat in a cave, amazed at how it seemed to be a good shelter.....and hence, the first good builder was mother nature....whereby man took her technique and tried to copy her style.....which is evident with some aztecs(?) was it them, who built their homes and cities in the sides of mountains and such?

anywho.....another argument you could bring it up is, does one learn the technique better if taught person-to-person....that is, a builder studies under another builder, learning their technique......or, can one be just as a good of a builder if they merely have the technique to go off....that is, a builder sees another builder's building and tries to copy it......can it be done?

I've already finished it and handed it in...i didn't stop to proofread, it was 3pm by the time I finished printing and I didn't know if the office I had to hand it in to would be closed, hahaha. Terrible work ethic. When I get it back, or at least get my mark, since I don't know how it works, I'll be putting it on my website for discussion and criticism. Maybe I'll throw the link up here.

Now I have to start on another essay...an english one, comparing works, which is soooo easy, i can just pull the archetypes out of my ass. It'll probably only take me four days and half the stress too.
Fucking stress. I never could handle much stress, or avoid it. *kicks stress* moderation is key, you asshole.

Well, have a look if it suits you.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/jackies...se/ethics.html