According to Aristotle, Heraclitus claims that “the same thing both is and is not,” and this would

Socrates starts his introduction of Protagoras' view that things are to any person similarly as they appear to that person by taking the case of a wind which influences two individuals in different ways. He says that sometimes even though the same wind is blowing some people experience it in different ways by one experiencing it cold and the other might experience the same wind as warm. When this is said then the correct thing to say essentially, is that the wind is cold for one and warm for the other. If we say that, considering the assertion composed by each person of their own perception, neither person can be wrong. Socrates then shows that “it appears” means “ he perceives it” which in turn tells us that the appearing of things is the same as perception. And as a result, things are for the individual such as he perceives it. Socrates goes ahead to state that this Protagorean principle may also contain a reference to another tenet, a doctrine that comes from Heraclitus who said that “all things are in flux.” Socrates first introduces the Heracleitean theory in (152d) by stating “... What is really true is this: the things of which we naturally say that they ‘are’, are in the process of coming to be, as the result of movement and change and blending with one another. We are wrong when we say they ‘are’, since nothing ever is, but everything is coming to be.” In (153a) it is expressed that this

For example, fire and snow are not themselves opposites, but fire always brings hot with it, and snow always brings cold with it. So fire will not become cold without ceasing to be fire, nor will snow become hot without ceasing to be snow. (103c-105b)

In The Phaedo, one of Socrates’ aims is to convince us that our souls existed prior to our birth. In making this argument, he claims that we had some knowledge of imperceptible things prior to our birth, and that through “recollection” of our pre-birth knowledge of imperceptible things, we are able to perceive certain qualities of things like equality beginning after our birth. Socrates’ argument begins by defining recollection as when someone ‘perceives one thing, knows that thing, and also thinks of another thing of which the knowledge is not the same but different’ (73c). Socrates asks that we consider our perception of equal things, such as sticks and sticks or stones and stones. He claims there is “Equal itself” or the Form of Equality, which is unmistakably equal at all times (74a). Once the Form of Equality, is agreed upon, Socrates claims that “as long as the sight of one thing makes you think of another, whether it be similar or dissimilar,” you are recollecting (74d). Socrates then concludes that because we are able to make judgments about equal things through perception, we must have knowledge of the Form of Equality prior to making these judgments about equal and unequal things, and we are able to recognize these things as equal or unequal by recalling the form of equality. Socrates’ argument begins with the idea that our souls were acquainted with all forms prior to our births, and he outlines an argument that illustrates his Theory of Recollection, concluding

Many people can agree that it is hard to have the same end result especially coming from two different ends of the spectrum. When it comes down to it, it is all about the individual and their actions. Aristotle was born into a rich and easy life where his only job was to learn and share his knowledge with others, while epictetus had to work for everything he had in his life. At the end of the day they both agreed that philosophy is a lifestyle we can choose to live and

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

Socrates was placed at the origins of Skepticism. It was understood that he only asked questions and never taught positive doctrines, many sought to “attempt to make sense of his seemingly paradoxical claim that the one thing he knew was that he knew nothing.” (Gascoigne, 2002) Plato and Aristotle strayed from Socrates path when they claimed to know the truth. Plato viewed knowledge as an awareness of absolute and existing independent of any subject trying to apprehend to the philosophers. Though, Aristotle put more emphasis on logical and empirical methods for gathering knowledge. Aristotle still accepts the view of such knowledge is an apprehension of necessary principles. Around the Renaissance period, the two main epistemological positions dominated in philosophy are empiricism, in which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism sees epistemology as the product of rational reflection (Tempo). Another philosopher by the name of Arcesilaus, gave a renewed form of skepticism, arguing against the opinions of all men. Arcesilaus also claimed that skeptics could make

Heraclitus and Parmenides were two of the most influential and enigmatic of the Presocratic philosophers. Heraclitus argued for the idea that reality is impermanent, while Parmenides argued that reality is static. Parmenides also focused on using rationality to discern the nature of reality, as opposed to Heraclitus’ use of sensory experiences. They both argued for reality being one distinct thing, however there are differences between them in this idea of unity. Nietzsche 's perspectivism is important in discussing the problems with either view as we should take the strengths and weakness of both into account to create a better understanding of the world.

Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.

We can prove this by looking at the opposite situation and reducing it down to an absurdity. Suppose one is dining in a fine restaurant. Also suppose the perfect amount of steak to eat relative to him is 3 ounces and he orders a steak of the finest quality but the portion served is 6 ounces. 6 ounces in this case is considered excess and 0 ounces considered deficient. He should restrict eating the entire portion for if he did he may feel excessively full and therefore the steak which was once the finest now seems to him the worst. If he did not eat any at all he would not accomplish his goal of nursing himself. It seems so then that deficiency or excess may also cause one to be in a state of false reality. This concept is what Aristotle is explaining when he refers to ruining a good result. The person who is align with the intermediate is therefore closer to truth.

If two ideas are wrongly connected and brought together to prove a stance, then it weakens the premise of a conclusion, allowing the conclusion to be disproved. In Gorigas, Socrates and Polus disagree on whether it is worse to suffer what is unjust, or to do what is unjust. Socrates refutes the idea that it is worse to do what is unjust, believing that it is better to suffer what is unjust, and worse to do what is unjust. Polus holds the opposing view that it is worse to suffer what is unjust.

Socrates 's (Plato 's) Principle of Opposites states that "the same thing cannot do or undergo opposite things; not, at any rate, in the same respect, in relation to the same thing, at the same time." (436c) This is significant because it allows him to provide an avenue for proving that the soul contains more than one part via the use of internal conflict. He states that if an instance of opposites should occur, it would not be because the same thing was influenced in two opposing ways simultaneously, but because multiple things of a similar type were being influenced. He uses a top to illustrate. A top has two axes, and the top can be in motion in one way while remaining still in the other (436e). It cannot both be moving and still in the vertical sense, nor can it be both moving and still in the horizontal (he calls it circumference), but it can be moving in one way while still in the other. Thus, the top spins, but doesn 't waver or move around (436e). He moves the example into the realm of agency. This principle of opposities applies also to the archer, he says, whose one hand is pulling and the other pushing in order to launch the arrow (439c).

Rhetoric, by Aristotle, emphasises the importance of enthymeme as a fundamental persuasive tool in rhetorical argument. Aristotle defines an enthymeme as a rhetorical demonstration that makes up the body of proof. Aristotle also identifies “that the enthymeme is a kind of syllogism” (Aristotle 1.1.11). In practice with the overall function of Dialectic, all syllogisms should be examined for their matter and forms, so enthymemes should be examined as well. After understanding the forms and matter, or essence of the enthymemes, one can use them to further legitimize proofs with the same or similar essences. For example, take the argument that in the United

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

This kind of division also can be called as “Hume’s fork”. Relation of ideas are a priori which are “intuitively or demonstratively certain” and “discoverable by the mere operations of thoughts” (Hume, 1748, p.422). In this group, we can include mathematical ideas and math proofs, for example, statement like two plus two equals four. So, the denial of such statements is inconceivable and logically impossible. For example, we can think about the triangle and we all know that it has three sides. Later, we can imagine a triangle with four sides and immediately face a contradiction because four-sided figure is rectangle. This statement is a priori true for the reason that it has nothing to do with the external world and gives us no information back about the world. The second kind is “matters of facts” which is a posteriori. “Matters of facts” are statements that give us knowledge about the world and the sources providing knowledge for these statements are “the present testimony of our senses” and “the record of our memory” (Hume, 1748, p.423). Statements of this group and the denial of these statements are not self-contradictory and conceivable. For example, we can tell that the house of my neighbors is yellow, and we can easily conceive this statement as true, but we can at the same time conceive it as false, and imagine their house in blue

Aristotle suggests that the definition of a thing signifies what it is to be that thing (logos ho to ti ên einai sêmainei). Giving a definition is to say, of some existent thing, what it is, not simply specifying the meaning of its name. In modern language instead of ‘what it is to be’ we say ‘essence’. Aristotle believes that definition must reveal the essence of things. The natural question that follows is of utmost importance for our topic: What is this essence that things have and a definition is supposed to reveal? To answer this question Aristotle proposes the concept of demonstration. In his Posterior Analytic, Aristotle writes: “Definition reveals essential nature, demonstration reveals that a given attribute attaches or does not attach