Parmenides and Heraclitus

The Classical period was a time of intellectual growth and stimulus. The desire to learn brought about the need for a group of teachers to impart worldly wisdom unto their students. This new group of teachers that emerged were known as "Sophists", which means "those who are wise." Socrates, a great philosopher of the Classical period, challenged the assumed truths of his day in order to reconstruct Athenian life. Plato, Socrates' best student, in turn became a great philosopher

Socrates spent most of his time in the streets and marketplace of Athens, approaching people like the sophist and other powerful leaders about whether they had any knowledge of what they spoke of. For example, he would question leaders on whether they had any knowledge of the terms they used; what is virtue? Eventually, Socrates would get them to realize that they didn’t have any idea of what they were talking about therefore, showing their ignorance. In his quest of truth, Socrates managed to offend many powerful leaders, which lead to his enemies conspiring against him and getting him executed for corrupting the youth and failing to acknowledge the gods of Athens. After Socrates’ death, Plato picks up where Socrates leaves off and comes up “with his metaphysical theory called the theory of forms.” (Socrates and Plato intro lecture 10)

When Socrates discussed the idea that sophists would be the most likely teachers of virtue among the community, Anytus strongly declares that, while he has never met a sophist, he adamantly opposes them and their teachings. Even though sophists were considered the “experts” on virtue at the time and taught countless young men and nobles, Anytus believes that they are essentially scamming the youth and teaching false ideas for a profit. Though Anytus himself is not an expert himself on the topic of virtue, he believes that his opinion is correct and that sophists are essentially a negative influence on their society. However, he does put his faith in other experts of the community and those with “beneficial knowledge.” This is not much different

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

Plato encouraged in his writings that the view that sophists were concerned with was “the manipulative aspects of how humans acquire knowledge.” (Lecture) Sophists believed that only provisional or probable knowledge was available to humans but both Plato and Isocrates did not agree with a lot of what the Sophists had to say. They both believed in wisdom and having a connection with rhetoric but vary in defining wisdom in itself. Wisdom for Socrates and Plato is having an understanding of speech, knowledge of truth and being able to question the speaker in order to seek and reveal truth. Isocrates defined wisdom as having a sense of integrity and character along with the ambition and ability to speak well with others.

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.

I am now going to define some terms that pertain to the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates. The Sophists were a presocratic group that earned a living by teaching young Greek men lessons in excellence and to speak intelligently and persuasively. Sophists, like Thrasymachus, believed in subjective truth. Subjective truths are truths that in some way depend on us. How we think or feel on a matter is a

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).

Socrates is accused of being a sophist. A sophist is someone who teaches people to be cleaver speakers, sophist’s charge money. Socrates claims that he is not wise enough to be a sophist, he merely speaks out about his thoughts and beliefs and if the youth of Athens listen and are intrigued, it is not his fault. In fact, Socrates mocks sophists saying that they almost brain wash young men, “to leave the company of their fellow citizens, with any of whom they can associate for nothing, attach themselves to him, pay money for the privilege, and be grateful into the bargain" (19e-20a) Socrates thinks that it is intriguing that

A sophist would speak, a sophist would teach, a sophist would use language and words to manipulate a situation to fit his point. A sophist would engulf you in his words and make the impossible seem possible. A sophist would share his views on the world, life, and the future with you; he would make you see the light of day even if it was night. A sophist was a wise man who had the gift of gab, the ability to influence, the ability to sway, the ability to teach the young how to be better speakers. All of the qualities that Socrates claimed he did not possess. Socrates was depicted as a clever man, yet one who never taught, never persuaded, never tried to make his thoughts shared by others. He was not a sophist, not a teacher, not a "wise man". "A wise man knows that he knows nothing". Socrates always spoke of the fact that he was not a sophist because he was only out for the truth. He never wanted you to believe his words just because they came out of his mouth, he only asked the questions that were necessary to draw out the map to the truth buried down below the layers of rhetoric.

Just as the opposite of up is down, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of the Sophists was Plato. Plato and his philosophies were also rooted in ancient Greece at the same time as the Sophists. Plato studied under Socrates, another famous ancient philosopher, and started the very first center for learning which he called the Academy. Plato was not what you would call a relativist though. He was exactly the opposite. He was opposed to all the beliefs of the Sophists, believing them to be only concerned with the manipulative aspects of how humans attain knowledge. He argued that they taught people how to persuade people into believing they heard the truth, even if it wasn’t in fact the truth. Plato believes that true rhetoric is where philosophers and their pupils become free from all worldly encumbrances and all conventional beliefs in the pursuit of a transcendent absolute truth. (Bizzell P. & Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Plato believes that there is in fact absolute truth and contends that discourse is necessary to uncover it. He feels that false rhetoric is Sophist rhetoric and that with their vast knowledge of rhetoric, they should be using it to find absolute truth, not teaching people how to convince people that

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

In this essay, I am going to examine the Parmenidean thoughts on reality through examining Parmenides’ description of the three roads, and explore his conclusion that we can only talk of that which is. To venture along the first ‘road’ is to talk only of that which is, and by accepting this conclusion, infer that the world is an infinite, unified and unchanging entity, thus advancing the monistic argument. The second road restricts one’s thoughts to only notions of the non-existent, and which we can have no knowledge of. The final ‘road’ combines the former two roads, to create what Parmenides believes to be comparable to common sense; the idea that while you can talk of that which is, you can also talk of that which is not. It follows

Heraclitus and Parmenides were both obsessed with change, which fits into each of their philosophical systems. Heraclitus and Parmenides both agreed that everything we see in the world is a transformation, and that the fact that everything in the universe can be broken down to one fundamental thing, whatever that thing is, they did not agree on however. Heraclitus argued that the fundamental character of reality is change itself. He said that everything is in process and is changing. “One cannot step twice into the same river, since it is endlessly flowing, changing, moving with fresh waters. This is a good example of his argument on change, because of the dynamic system that everything Is constantly changing, nature flows onwards like a river, even the nature of the flow changes. The only constant thing in the world is change. If the waters would stop and not flow it would not be a river, without change there would be no world. Heraclitus denied that anything can stay the same, and be identical with whatever that thing is or will be. Parmenides would argue that permanence is the fundamental character of reality, and that everyone’s reality is single, permanent and unchanging. His argument is “how can a thing change into something else? How can it be and not be what it is?” It seems like he would think of change more of an illusion that an individual in their own version of their reality would think, and not what would actually happen. Parmenides says that “change is mere

The ancient philosopher Plato, presents us with a cosmology in Timaeus where a “craftsman” or a “Demiurge” creates the universe from disorder into order. In this account, the learned astronomer known as Timaeus presents the eikos lokos (likely account) and the eikos muthos (likely myth) of how the universe was created. Within the realms of academia, the perpetual argumentative discourse has lied in regards to the hermeneutical and exegetical questions in understanding the original intent of the eikos lokos. Particularly, the argument is either for or against a temporal creation of the universe in Timaeus.