Heraclitus 'And Parmenides' View Of Change

Socrates and Boethius – two men that have left an everlasting footprint in the world of philosophy. They seem to be similar in their experiences of injustice, but we learn how very different their outlooks are while they are facing imprisonment and execution. Little did they know, their experiences would forever change how philosophy would be conceived in the years ahead.

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

This paper looks at two Greek philosophers, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. It examines their different theories as to how the universe was created, understanding of the universe, 'way of truth, ' 'way of opinion ' and the third way. The author explains that Parmenides, who came after Heraclitus, addressed part of his writings as a refutation of Heraclitus? views. He objected both to Heraclitus? view of the universe and how Heraclitus felt people could gain knowledge of it.

In his essay, “Introduction to Oedipus the King”, Bernard Knox supports free will by stating that Oedipus’ downfall was not caused by fate. According to Knox there is not a doubt that, “Oedipus is the free agent who, by his own self-willed action, discovers that his own predicted destiny has already been fulfilled” (86). He clearly states that Oedipus is responsible for his free actions during the play. He insists that Oedipus’s made the decisions to discover the truth about himself.

Determinism is based off this notion that all events are pre-determined, without influence by human actions. If this is true, we can imply that people do not have free will and thus are not responsible for their actions. In Oedipus the King we see that the dichotomy of fate and free will is hazed by the hyperbole of events, which can make it difficult, but possible, to determine if humans even have free will. Through Oedipus’s flaws and decisions and Sophocles use of the imagery of a crossroad it is apparent that free will can be exercised in a meaningful way.

Trying new things, like a new home, a new job, or a new hobby are all things that can change people and that can be a challenge. New ideas, new people, new rules, and really anything that is different can change people. Change can be a good thing or a bad thing. Nevertheless, change is inevitable and it can’t be avoided. Take King George III for example.

Purposely difficult and intentionally obsessive, Plato’s Phaedrus is an exceedingly difficult read that defies all conventional logic as a piece of discourse. The text is extremely subjective, open to interpretation and individual creativity as to what or whom the narrative is about. Written by Plato, a close disciple of Socrates, this text is set along the Illissus river where Phaedrus and Socrates meet for a day of speech, debate, rhetoric and okay…flirting. Phaedrus leads of the day and recites a speech by his close friend Lysias, who Phaedrus considers to be a top speechmaker. Socrates then, after chiding by Phaedrus unleashes two speeches of his own that overshadow and refute Lysias claim so boldly that Phaedrus is so taken by the

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.

In our world today, fate and free will remains the biggest mystery of all; is everything we do controlled or do we have the freedom of choice? In the story "Oedipus the King" by Sophocles, the author uses the idea of fate and free will to explain the struggle of Oedipus's life. Fate and free will is explained as; fate is controlled by an outside supernatural force, and there is no way of controlling it. Free will is when each of us is responsible and controls all aspects of our own life. The author of "Oedipus the King" uses ironic devices to convey a tragic attitude toward the struggle of fate and free will.

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

Oedipus the King is an excellent example of Aristotle's theory of tragedy. The play has the perfect Aristotelian tragic plot consisting of paripeteia, anagnorisis and catastrophe; it has the perfect tragic character that suffers from happiness to misery due to hamartia (tragic flaw) and the play evokes pity and fear that produces the tragic effect, catharsis (a purging of emotion).

Through the character of Oedipus, Sophocles shows the consequences of defying the divine order. Oedipus served Thebes as a great ruler, loved by his subjects; but, like most in the human race, he slipped through the cracks of perfection. Oedipus had many faults, but it was primarily the tragic flaw of hubris, arrogance from excessive pride, which doomed his existence, regardless of the character attributes that made him such a beloved king. He was doomed for downfall since his very beginning, because "to flee your fate is to rush to find it" (Oedipus Rex).

The most famous scene in Sophocles’, Oedipus Rex, is when Oedipus gouges out his eyes. But, that’s not the only example of sight and blindness in this play. In Sophocles ' plays there was always extensive content where he paid considerable attention to the element of “spectacle” in his plays. When observing the theme of vision, it invites the audience to look at the action with a double perspective, through their own eyes and through the eyes of those on stage. Within this play, sight and blindness are the underlying themes. Sight is commonly associated with light or positive overtones, and blindness is attached to darkness or negative undertones. The approach to describing blindness deals with not only physical blindness but also metaphorical blindness. Oedipus ' blindness changes from bad to worse at different scenes of the play. Although the word "blindness" seems quite simple, it can be very debatable. Blindness or the inability to “see” consist of two elements; Oedipus 's ability to see vs his desire to see. Throughout many scenes, the two elements are used in pattern form. Some scholars mention the two aspects of the play in addition to discussing the theme of knowledge. Lazlo Versenyi, Thomas Hoey, Marjorie Champlain, analyze the play from different perspectives. Versenyi says the play was “a tragedy of self- knowledge”, with the use of terms

When discussing probability, a text of my previous reading came to mind. Within the lecture Physics II, much of Aristotle’s work is concerned with providing a definition for various events and subjects, and as such, identifying the types of causes for each event is an important step in accomplishing this goal. Aristotle specifically investigates the role of luck and chance as causes of change. Although we commonly speak of luck or chance as being a cause, Aristotle purposefully refrains from including them in his explanation of causes. When giving an account of our observable world, I agree with Aristotle in that there is no place for luck and chance as causes of events, yet I believe they do have a role, namely in predicting future events.

Aristotle believed that the goal of all human life is to achieve ultimate happiness. Happiness is the final Utopia or the end of “a life worth living.” Human instinct is characterized by achieving personal fulfillment, thus leading to happiness. Aristotle warns against going astray and “preferring a life suitable to beasts” by assuming happiness and pleasure are equal. Living a life preferred by beasts incapacitates a person from achieving the end Utopia. Even though Aristotle does not equate the two, he does stress that minimal pleasure is required to achieve happiness. Someone lacking in vital necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter are not capable of achieving happiness due to their lack of pleasure.