Exphil, Øvelse Til Eksamen (Nørstegård)

Aristoteles snakker om dygd som en slags gyllen middelvei. Han mente at dygd er en balanse mellom to ekstremer, og at man må finne en moderat posisjon mellom dem. Dette konseptet kalles "den gylne middelvei" og er sentralt i Aristoteles' etikk. Plato hadde også sine egne tanker om dygd, men det var Aristoteles som snakket om det som en gyllen middelvei.

Kant argues that "right" exists only when one can enforce it with power. This suggests that the concept of "right" is not just a moral or ethical principle, but also requires the ability to back it up with force. In other words, for something to be considered "right" according to Kant, it must be possible to enforce it through power or authority.

Popper's statement suggests that hypotheses can only be disproven or falsified through empirical testing, rather than being confirmed or proven true. This idea is central to Popper's philosophy of science, known as falsificationism. According to Popper, scientific knowledge progresses through the continuous testing and rejection of hypotheses, leading to the development of more refined and accurate theories. This contrasts with other philosophers listed, such as Kuhn and Habermas, who have different perspectives on the nature of scientific knowledge and its development.

Platon and Descartes are both considered dualists in philosophy. Dualism is the belief that the mind and body are separate entities. Platon argued that the soul and body are distinct, with the soul being immortal and the body being mortal. Descartes, on the other hand, proposed a similar concept of mind-body dualism, suggesting that the mind is a non-physical substance separate from the physical body. Both philosophers believed in the existence of an immaterial aspect of human beings that is separate from the physical world. Aristoteles, on the other hand, did not hold this dualistic view, making Platon and Descartes the correct answers.

The question asks who bases their rule on the "divine right." The correct answer is "Ingen" which means "none" or "no one." This implies that no one bases their rule on the divine right. The options given, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, do not align with the concept of divine right. Therefore, the correct answer is none of the above.

Locke and Rousseau both believed that sovereignty lies with the people rather than the state. They argued that individuals have natural rights and consent to be governed, and that the government's authority is derived from the consent of the governed. Locke emphasized the protection of individual rights and limited government, while Rousseau focused on the collective will of the people and the need for a social contract. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed in a strong central authority and that sovereignty is vested in the state.

The correct answer is Locke and Kant because both Locke and Kant believed that the state should be governed by moral principles. Locke argued for the protection of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property, and believed that the purpose of government was to secure these rights. Kant, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of moral principles and believed that the state should be guided by the categorical imperative, which states that individuals should act in a way that they would want everyone else to act. Therefore, both Locke and Kant advocated for the establishment of a state based on moral guidelines.

According to Plato, knowledge arises through dialogue and conversation (Viten oppstår i samtalen). It is necessary to distinguish between friend and enemy (Nødvenig å trekke skille mellom venn/fiende). Happiness, virtue, and justice should be considered at the level of the state (Lykke/dygd/rettferdighet må tenkes på statlig nivå). However, knowledge comes from inner insight (Viten kommer fra indre innsikt). It is necessary and unproblematic to have friends in other states (Nødvendig og uproblematisk å ha venner i andre stater). Finally, happiness, virtue, and justice should be considered at the individual level (Lykke/dygd/rettferdighet må tenkes på individuelt nivå).

Hobbes and Kant do not envision universal rights, such as human rights. Hobbes believed in a social contract where individuals give up certain rights to a sovereign in exchange for protection and order. He did not emphasize the idea of inherent rights for all individuals. Kant, on the other hand, focused on moral principles and believed in the importance of individual autonomy and dignity. However, he did not explicitly advocate for universal human rights as we understand them today. Locke, on the other hand, is known for his belief in natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property, which align with the concept of universal rights.