Watch options. Storyline Edit. She finds an unlikely ally in a D. Power runs in the family. Did you know Edit. Connections Featured in Chelsea Lately: Episode 6.
User reviews 36 Review. Top review. Deliciously entertaining. In essence, I approached the show for one reason - Sigourney Weaver, but, there is so much more. For one, Ciaran Hinds has never disappointed and after a potentially flaky start which left me spinning I grew to adore the rambunctious 'Bud Hammond'. The scenes between Weaver and Hinds where joyful with some wonderful dialogue and fizzing one liners.
This is not a show which aims for gravitas or to seek out reality, this is hyper-real entertainment that strives to 'do the right thing', entertainment with a principled backbone, provided you have a liberal sensibility. Issues are touched upon, played with, but not dissected, but you are no less satisfied. Sigourney Weaver anchors the show with a warmth and integrity that allows for the improbable plot devices to work, or, at the very least, be forgiven.
The cast around her revelling in the task of matching her formidable screen presence. There are flaws, sub plots that don't quite find there rhythm, improbable scenarios, yet I forgive these for the sheer enthusiasm on display. I usually prefer conspiracy driven TV, all earnest and hand wringing in its complexity, this, on the other hand, is a refreshing spritzer for the long hot summer.
Sit back, relax, enjoy. TJ seeks another 'fix', I for one seek another fix of Sigourney Weaver and co. FAQ 1. What network? System Requirements Windows. Minimum: OS: 7 Processor: min. Recommended: OS: 7 Processor: min.
See all. View all. Click here to see them. Customer reviews. Overall Reviews:. Recent Reviews:. Review Type. All Positive Negative All Steam Purchasers Other All Languages Your Languages Customize. Date Range. To view reviews within a date range, please click and drag a selection on a graph above or click on a specific bar. Show graph. Brought to you by Steam Labs. Filter reviews by the user's playtime when the review was written:.
No minimum to No maximum. Off-topic Review Activity. When enabled, off-topic review activity will be filtered out.
This defaults to your Review Score Setting. Read more about it in the blog post. Excluding Off-topic Review Activity. Loading reviews There are no more reviews that match the filters set above.
Review Filters. Families conjoined to create kinship groups and villages. The process was completed when several villages aggregated into a territorial state ruled by a legitimate government. Aristotle recognized that the process of state formation entailed individuals making choices, but he also regarded the process as natural.
The impulses that led people to make their choices in building states arose from innate human capacities, and the process aimed at the creation of an environment well suited for human existence. Aristotle argued that, once the state had come into existence, any individual person who could flourish outside the framework of a state must be either less or more than human: either a beast, i. In his ethical and political works Aristotle sought the answer to the question, how can we humans — as natural beings that are neither non-human beasts nor super-human gods, live the best lives available to us?
His answer was that we must recognize, and learn to build and sustain, the right environment for the kind of being we naturally are. Since our natural environment is, he supposed, the state, that meant discovering, through scientific inquiry, the essential features of the best possible state. Unlike gods, we are mortal animals, caught in a natural web of necessity that makes us dependent on a particular kind of environment.
Ethics and politics were also intertwined with biology. For Aristotle, what is good for us as humans, and therefore what is right for us to value and to pursue if we wish to live well, is not just a matter of personal opinion.
The human good cannot differ in all relevant particulars from person to person, or from culture to culture. Rather, Aristotle supposed that what is good for us, just as what was good for the individual members of any other species, is determined at least in part by our nature.
If we really are part of nature, then only some things are naturally good for us. One essential and highly distinctive aspect of our human nature, one that set us apart from all other animals, is the capacity to reason, to relate causes to effects and so to choose to carry out some actions rather than others. But if we are to be in a position to pursue the human good, if we are to live lives that have the best chance of going as well as possible, we need to understand what kind of animal we are and act accordingly.
Using reason allows us actively to pursue common goods: to build an environment that will allow each to live as well as is possible. Rationality, though, is a double-edged sword: it also allows each of us to identify narrowly selfish interests and to pursue them in ways that degrade our environment, undermining our chance of living well. And every species of animal likewise possesses certain distinctive and inherent capacities that are specifically suited to enabling the animal to carry out its life in its own particular environment: swimming for fish, running for antelopes, and so on.
A fish that has no opportunity to swim, an antelope that cannot run is, by definition, not flourishing. But these capacities must, he supposed, be used in the right way and not in the wrong way. Fish, antelope and crocodiles are born into what is for them more or less the right environment. But the constructions undertaken by non-human animals, while often elaborate and wonderfully well-suited to their purposes and local conditions, are not self-consciously designed by their builders.
Instinct does all the work. As a result, each hive or nest of a given species of bee or ant is similar in its essentials. For humans, as political animals, it is different: the things that we do have the potential to degrade the states that are our natural environment. And as our states are degraded, our opportunities for living well, for exercising our capacities in healthy ways, are likewise diminished. Although Aristotle supposed that the impulse to create a state was inherent in human nature, he also recognized that there were many different kinds of state ; in addition to the city-states familiar to his original Greek readers, there were kingdoms, empires, and ethno-national polities.
Even within the general category of city-state, there were multiple kinds of government — ranging from democracy, through oligarchy and aristocracy, to monarchy and tyranny. Moreover, the government of a given state could change over time: an oligarchy could become a democracy; that same democracy could become a tyranny, and so on.
With the change in regime, the state itself changed. If we suppose that humans have a distinctive, specifiable nature, then not every kind of state will be equally good as an environment for exercising our innate capacities, nor is every form of government equally conducive to human flourishing. Unlike non-human species, whose nature is fulfilled and whose well-being achieved by exercising their capacities in the environment into which they were born, nature takes humans only part way on the path to the best possible life.
As humans, we need to make choices: our inherent capacity for reasoning demands choice, just as it enables us to choose.
0コメント