u r welcome

i'm gonna have a BA in philosophy once this semester is over.

here's what i go by when i think about good and bad:

On Aristotle's view plants and animals are cardinal examples of natural existents, because they have a nature in the sense of an internal causal principle which explains how it comes into being and behaves (Phys. II.1.192b32-3). For example, an acorn has an inherent tendency to grow into an oak tree, so that the tree exists by nature rather than by craft or by chance. The thesis that human beings have a natural function has a fundamental place in the Eudemian Ethics II.1, Nicomachean Ethics I.7,

The principle of perfection Aristotle understands good and evil in terms of his teleology. The natural end of the organism (and the means to this end) is good for it, and what defeats or impedes this end is bad. For example, he argues that animals sleep in order to preserve themselves, because "nature operates for the sake of an end, and this is a good," and sleeping is necessary and beneficial for entities which cannot move continuously (De Somno 2.455b17-22). For human beings the ultimate good or happiness (eudaimonia) consists in perfection, the full attainment of their natural function, which Aristotle analyzes as the activity of the soul according to reason (or not without reason), i.e., activity in accordance with the most perfect virtue or excellence (EN I.7.1098a7-17). This ideal is to be realized in both the individual and the city-state: "that way of life is best, both separately for each individual and in common for city-states, which is equipped with virtue" (Pol. VII.1.1323b40-1324a1).
Aristotle's perfectionism was opposed to the subjective relativism of Protagoras, according to which good and evil is defined by whatever human beings happened to desire. Like Plato, Aristotle maintained that the good was objective and independent of human wishes. However, he rejected Plato's own theory that the good was defined in terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead that good and evil are in a way relative to the organism, that is, to its natural end.

u r welcome

i'm gonna have a BA in philosophy once this semester is over.

here's what i go by when i think about good and bad:

On Aristotle's view plants and animals are cardinal examples of natural existents, because they have a nature in the sense of an internal causal principle which explains how it comes into being and behaves (Phys. II.1.192b32-3). For example, an acorn has an inherent tendency to grow into an oak tree, so that the tree exists by nature rather than by craft or by chance. The thesis that human beings have a natural function has a fundamental place in the Eudemian Ethics II.1, Nicomachean Ethics I.7,

The principle of perfection Aristotle understands good and evil in terms of his teleology. The natural end of the organism (and the means to this end) is good for it, and what defeats or impedes this end is bad. For example, he argues that animals sleep in order to preserve themselves, because "nature operates for the sake of an end, and this is a good," and sleeping is necessary and beneficial for entities which cannot move continuously (De Somno 2.455b17-22). For human beings the ultimate good or happiness (eudaimonia) consists in perfection, the full attainment of their natural function, which Aristotle analyzes as the activity of the soul according to reason (or not without reason), i.e., activity in accordance with the most perfect virtue or excellence (EN I.7.1098a7-17). This ideal is to be realized in both the individual and the city-state: "that way of life is best, both separately for each individual and in common for city-states, which is equipped with virtue" (Pol. VII.1.1323b40-1324a1).
Aristotle's perfectionism was opposed to the subjective relativism of Protagoras, according to which good and evil is defined by whatever human beings happened to desire. Like Plato, Aristotle maintained that the good was objective and independent of human wishes. However, he rejected Plato's own theory that the good was defined in terms of a transcendent form of the good, holding instead that good and evil are in a way relative to the organism, that is, to its natural end.

For the people who dont smoke it (mainly because they are afraid to ask around because its illegal), well I dont blame you but just know that you only live once and that weed makes EVERYTHING better: music, food, parties, movies, sex etc. the list goes on and on.

The flavors and variety of pot these days are through the roof. As of right now I have Hydroponic Blueberry, Grapefruit Punch, Northern Lights and Bubble gum. Now tell me you wouldn't want to toke on some flavors like that? and feel good for around 3 hours or so. O and did I mention it helps you go to sleep and makes outdoor activities a whole lot funner. Its been around since before we can imagine, the Egyptians, Myans, Greeks and almost every other ancient civilization categorized it as medicine and used it for social events and gatherings.

Marijuana isn't legal because the Government is scared that they couldn't control the trade of it and thus not be able to tax it.

I am for the the legalization of pot and I toke it everyday after my college classes and I maintain around a 4.0

Alcohol is the most destructive drug in the history of mankind because it is so socially acceptable. So you will excuse me for being angry if they punish anyone for smoking pot or taking any other non-PED.