Heraclitus Vs. Parmenides: The Dispute Of Change

One of the running themes across the ancient Greek world is that man is not in control; there are forces beyond the grasp of the human condition in which man must endure helplessly. In Adler’s piece on the prominent ideas of history this is referred to providence. Adler states that certain schools of history adhere to the belief that history is an unending and unchanging cycle, sometimes at the gods’ hands. This concept of providence, or lack of free will, is the most significant parallel between the works of Herodotus and Thucydides.

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.

My intent in this essay is to illustrate that the arguments regarding the existence of God and the fear of deception in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, are quite weak and do not justify his conclusions. To support these claims, I will begin by outlining two specific meditations and explain the proposed arguments. Later, I will critically analyze his arguments, revealing unjust conclusions. Doubts surrounding the text include the suggested characteristics of God, the condition of perfection, and the nature of deceit. A wrap up will include a discussion on whether or not Descartes (also referred to as Renatus) succeeded in his project.

This view was in dialectical opposition to Heraclitus of Ephesus, who argued that the world is in a constant state of flux. Heraclitus argues that there is a problem with people’s attachment to the illusion of permanence. Everything in the world will not stay the same, we can see this from the idea from Heraclitus that ‘it is not possible to step twice into the same river, according to Heraclitus, nor to touch mortal substance twice in any condition’ (Plutarch, 392B). Rivers are bodies of water that continually flows so that every second the water at a point in the river is not the same as it was before. The state of the physical world has never remained the same; mountains move over millions of years, a few billion years ago Earth could not sustain life, and even longer ago there were no solids, no liquids, only gases. Each moment can be said to die and be reborn in the next, so that change occurs every moment and it

Subsequently, I will attempt to counter possible criticisms with a profounder understanding of Descartes' meaning in the “Meditations on the First Philosophy.” Finally, I will offer a concluding argument that I think correctly reflects and encapsulates my aversion towards Descartes' declaration, “I think, therefore I am.”

Ancient Greeks cared deeply about the pursuit of knowledge. Although the truth was often a terrifying concept, they still saw it as a critical virtue. The theater was one way in which the ideas of knowledge and truth were examined.

This question defines the nature of Aristotle’s inquiries, at least for a large part of the Metaphysics, and it thus offers a fourth account of the study or science of metaphysics.“The science of first principles, the study of being qua being, theology, the investigation into substance – four compatible descriptions of the same discipline? Perhaps there is no one discipline which can be identified as Aristotelian Metaphysics? And perhaps this thought should not disturb us: we need only recall that the metaphysics was composed by Andronicus rather than by Aristotle. But the four descriptions do have at least one thing in common: they are dark and obscure” (Ross, 1996, p174).

In this essay it will be argued that the soul is mortal and does not survive the death of the body. As support, the following arguments from Lucretius will be examined: the “proof from the atomic structure of the soul,” the “proof from parallelism of mind and body,” the “proof from the sympatheia of mind and body,” and the “proof from the structural connection between mind and body.” The following arguments from Plato will be used as counterarguments against Lucretius: the “cyclical argument,” the “affinity argument,” the “argument from the form of life,” and the “recollection argument.” It will be shown that Plato’s premises lack validity and that Lucretius’

3 Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, Plato’s Socrates (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 145- 146.

Heraclitus was one of the natural philosophers from Ephesus in Asia Minor, circa 540-480 B.C. , who believed that constant change or flow was the basic characteristic of nature. He believed the world was characterized by opposites and it would cease to exist without their constant interplay. “God is day and night, winter and summer, war and peace, hunger and satiety,” he said, believing God can be seen most clearly in constant transformations and contrasts in nature. (p 28) But instead of God he used the greek word “logos” which means reason, as he believed that there must be a kind of “universal reason” or “universal law” guiding everybody and everything that happens in nature. Thus amid constant flux and opposites throughout nature, Heraclitus believed an Entity or one-ness , called God or “logos” was the source of everything.

The progression of intellectual development gives us a guide for which to judge the relative merits of historical ideas. This process proves to be critical in our interpretation of the past. If the ideas of today are the successors to our intellectual heritage, then by its virtues they determine how we construe history. In this regard we look back upon Aristotle. By modern standards this famous Greek philosopher is lionized as a transformative scholar. Our adoration for Aristotle then must be derived from how our own history developed. This is not to make claim as to whether or not his philosophies or opinions were correct, rather merely to state that his works proved so influential that society has a positive opinion of him. Looking around today, however, it is hard to see how a philosopher who lived four thousand years ago could have an immediate impact on us. It is under this pretense through the process of backwards inference that this paper is going to set out to prove that Aristotle’s empirical methods form the basis for the modern day scientific method and regardless of his views on natural philosophy, Aristotle remains a major authority in our contemporary intellectual world.

In his only extant work, the poem De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Epicurean author Titus Lucretius Carus writes of the soul as being inseparable from the corporeal body. This view, although controversial in its opposition to the traditional concept of a discrete, immortal soul, is nevertheless more than a mere novelty. The argument that Lucretius makes for the soul being an emergent property of interactions between physical particles is in fact more compelling and well-supported now than Lucretius himself would have ever imagined.

It is the purpose of this essay to examine both Descartes’ Cogito argument and his skepticism towards small and universal elements, as well as the implications these arguments have on each other. First, I will summarize and explain the skepticism Descartes’ brings to bear on small and universal elements in his first meditation. Second, I will summarize and explain the Cogito argument, Descartes’ famous “I think, therefore I am” (it should be noted that this famous implication is not actually something ever said or written by Descartes, but instead, an implication taken from his argument for his own existence). Third, I will critique the line of reasoning underlying these arguments. Descartes attacks

This paper will attempt to explain Descartes’ first argument for the distinction that exists between mind and body. Dualism is a necessary aspect of Descartes’ metaphysics and epistemology. This distinction is important within the larger framework of Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) because after doubting everything (body, extension, senses, etc.), Descartes comes to the conclusion that because he doubts, he must be a thinking thing and therefore exist (p.43). This means that the mind must be separate and independent from the body. One can doubt that the body exists while leaving the mind intact. To doubt that the mind exists, however, is contradictory. For if the mind does not exist, how, or with what, is that doubt being accomplished.

A: In comparison to Heraclitus theory of constant change in the universe Parmenides thought that there was no change only permanence. He believes that reality was changeless and that the