Answer:
Some of the philosopher's theories could be contrary to Greek tradition since they do not follow the dictates of the gods.
Explanation:
Greeks were Pagans, thus philosophers and scientists who had rational ideas were in danger as the centuries changed. They looked for logical answers as opposed to anthropomorphic gods as the creators of the world.
Why should ancient philosophers’ ideas matter in today's world?
It doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't; the reality is that they do.
Here are some of the concepts that, dating back to the Greeks, have influenced the development of philosophy and civilisation (more generally) in the modern and current eras:
- Parmenides: Being: an unchangeable, immutable, continuous reality.
- Heraclitus: The Doctrine of Flux: The world as undergoing ceaseless change
- Democritus: Atomism: Indvisible entities that make up composites, their nature being explained by the difference in the quantitative aspect rather than the qualitative aspect of atoms
- Socrates: The Socratic Method, Conceptual Thinking
- Plato: Idea of Universals
- Aristotle: Logic, Science, Teleology
Both science and philosophy have been impacted by these concepts. Politics and ethics are topics I have not even begun to mention. These concepts continue to be present and addressed. For instance, despite the fact that contemporary science claims to have resolved the issue of teleology once and for all, the topic teleology attempted to address is still open. The Regress Argument is still a difficult concept for us to understand, and contemporary science has yet to discover a set of self-evident fundamental principles that can explain everything.
Thank you,
Eddie
Plessy v. Ferguson established "Separate But Equal". I wrote an entire research paper on this topic.
Answer: Appointing judges to the court.
Explanation: Firstly, enforcing a law doesn’t really limit the power of the judicial branch because they can simply strike down the law if it’s unconstitutional. Secondly, the President does not have the power to approve judicial nominations. That is only the Senate’s job. The President can appoint or nominate them, but the Senate is the one who approves.
Also, vetoing laws doesn’t limit the Judicial Branch’s power really in any way. Now, the correct answer is: Appointing judges / justices to the courts. This is because this power can not be limited at all by the judicial branch, only by congress. The Senate can deny the confirmation / appointment of a President’s appointee, and the Congress can also impeach that appointee later on for committed high crimes. The Judicial Branch can’t do any of that. The President can limit the Judiciary’s power by appointing judges that will go against any potential agenda of the Judicial Branch. For instance, if there happens to be liberal Supreme Court, whereas a majority of the members of the Supreme Court identify as liberal or were appointed by a Democratic President, a Republican President may want to nominate / appoint a conservative Justice or Justices to cancel out their majority and re-take the majority of the court. Honestly, this was a poorly worded question (not your fault at all, but the person who wrote it) because this doesn’t limit the power of the Judicial Branch in terms of its constitutional structure and powers, it merely limits and restricts the narrative or agenda of the members of the branch. Anyway, your answer is B: Appointing judges to the court.
