The relationship between Aristotle’s position on the ‘nature’ of money

at
Categories
Tags

1) Explain the relationship between Aristotle's position on the 'nature' of money based exchange and later judgments that interest taking is anti-social (evil). Why was interest taking a problem for the Roman Catholic Church? Show how the Church's response to the problem provides an example of institutional adaption. 2) Using von Hornick's defense of Mercantilism, how do you view the economic problem of a typical modern (eg. Brazil) country?

Sample Answer

Indeed, Aristotle remains to memory of humanity even after centuries that has passed by because of his contribution in almost all fields of human interest or knowledge. I his view of money, Aristotle argues that Aristotle believes that money is a form of justice, and not an end in itself. This has been a controversial philosophical stand amongst people for many years as a camp of people tend to agree while others have a contrary opinion. Significant here, we will be discussing the relationship between Aristotle’s view on money and how this sparked a debate with the Roman Catholic Church.

ividuals – Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913) and American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 – 1914).
The first source was derived from Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 – 1914), an American realist and philosopher who advised theory of meaning which distinguishes the content of a proposition with the known difference of it being real or not. The second source was inferred from a Swiss Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913) through his published book “Course in general linguistics”, published in Paris, 1916, after his death.
Saussure concept of language was a system of reciprocally shaping entities. He differentiated diachronic from synchronic linguistics. Diachronic linguistics which is the study of language change (historical linguistics); while Synchronic linguistics studies the language used at any given point in time. Saussure also identified the distinction between contrastive linguistics which is when the focus is on the distinction among languages, most particularly in a language teaching setting. The primary purpose of relative linguistics is to know the common features of various language class.

From these two points of view, knowledge was born and semiotic analysis spread all over the world. Significant and crucial exercise was done in Prague and Russia early in the 20th century.
The area of linguistics was ressurected in the USA during the 60’s. Noam Chomsky (1928), who is a professor of innovative languages and linguistics at MIT vulgarized linguistics with his book “Syntactic structures” which was published in 1957. He schemed and justified a generative construction of language; in other words, the correlation between language and the human mind, particularly the philosophical and psychological deduction.
Marshall McLuhan, presents the notion of the “medium is the message” in his book “Understanding Media” (1964).
Roland Barthes (1915), a Professor at the College de France in Paris published “Elements in Semiology” in 1964. In 1977, Stephen Heath, a lecturer at Cambridge translated and merged a series of Roland Barthes essays into a book called “Image, Music, Text” which is now an essence text for students in the field of Semiotics.
Umberto Eco (1932), a Professor of Semiotics, indicated that semiotics involve the study of communication through signs and symbols, at the University of Bologna. A well-known philosopher, historian and a literary critic. He published ‘Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language’, in 1984. The subjects of his scholarly examinations includes; St. Thomas Aquinas, Jams Joyce and the Superman.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer