Summary Of Parmenide

In most philosophy and in modern science, there exists the idea that there is no such thing as “nothing”. Modern science cannot explain the existence of anything before or after the physical universe, although proving that there was a time when the universe did not exist (about 13.7 billion years ago). The All, in the Hermetic tradition, is the title given to that “nothing”. The All is everything that was, and everything that will be – it cannot grow because it is already everything, and cannot be lessened because that would imply something reaching beyond The All. Now, back to the cave. To understand the origin of our universe, one needs to grasp what I learned from Plato’s cave; that all things have a substantial reality. That being the case, it is only fair that the universe should have a substantial reality

In this paper, I will discuss the “Divisibility argument” on Descartes mind- body dualism presented on Descartes meditations. I will claim that the mind and the body are in fact different as Descartes argument suggests, but I will more rather neglect and explain why his belief that the mind is indivisible is wrong. I also will discuss how Descartes argument on the body’s divisibility is reasonable, and the reasons why I believe this argument is true.

There has been much debate over the interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 throughout the years and continues today. The reason for this debate is because of the wording of Genesis 1:2 that the “earth was without form and void” (formless and empty). The real debate is the relationship of this verse to Genesis 1:1. When trying to interpret this text or any text in the Bible one must look at the grammar and structure of the passage – the original Hebrew as well as well as principles of hermeneutics to determine which interpretation is the best fit for the text. This essay will evaluate the interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2 especially the view known as the Gap theory in determining whether there is any justification for a long gap of time between the two verses (Genesis 1:1&2). This will be done by analyzing the grammatical-syntactical relationship between these two verses.

This question focuses on why there is something rather than nothing. Socrates uses the theory of recollection as evidence to prove his theory of creation. This theory of creation introduces that our souls have an existence before this earthly life. Socrates believes that, “…the living have come from the dead no less than the dead from the living” (72a Phaedo). He then takes the previous statement and concludes, “…that if this was so, it was a sufficient proof that the souls of the dead must exist in some place from which they are reborn” (72a Phaedo). Socrates believes that souls are in preexistence and that each individual receives theirs shortly after birth.

For, in fact, what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between Nothing and Everything. Since he is infinitely removed from

The argument Renatus intends to make with this ideology is that every effect must contain the same properties as its cause, and vice versa (41). This point is the precursor to his first proof of the existence of God. The understanding is that a rock could not have been a rock unless the forces, by which it was created, also contained the qualities of a rock (41). Alternatively, as much as a substance can only exist as a result of something of equal perfection, for an idea to be derived from a cause different from its effect, the idea would have been created from nothingness. Therefore, because an idea is not (nor cannot be) nothing, it must always be the case that reality follows this cause and effect relationship (41).

“We made it. We created it. We brought it forth from the night of the Ages. We alone. Our hands. Our mind. Ours alone and only.” Pg 59

‘Cogito Ergo Sum,’ - ‘I think therefore I am ‘ one of the most famous and well known quotes or arguments in all of modern philosophy; a phrase instantly recognizable to all those studying in the field of philosophy. This phrase refers to an attempt by Descartes to prove with absolute certainty his own existence; a systematic way to philosophize. The argument, while first proposed by ancient philosophers such as Aristotle and Saint Augustine, was utilized as an argument by French philosopher Rene Descartes in his influential text “Meditations on First Philosophy“. This argument appears in the books second meditation and provides the cornerstone for Descartes argument in the following five meditations and serves as the basis for Descartes overall metaphysical thesis, without which Descartes reasoning system would collapse. Throughout this paper I will

As discussed in class, modern scientific research provides alternatives to Aquinas’s presumed necessities. An infinite series of causes no longer seems impossible. This research disproves Aquinas 's third premise (P3), and his argument for God as the first cause is consequently unnecessary. Furthermore, the fourth premise still has a logical gap between the first cause and God. Aquinas offers no explanation as to why the first cause must be God or a supernatural being at all. The first cause may just as easily be a spontaneous event, or a first cause may not exist at all in an infinite universal cycle.

Frederick Copleston was a priest, and historian of philosophy who supported Aquinas’ rejection of infinite regress. Copleston reformulated the argument by concentrating on contingency, which he discussed in depth during a radio debate with Bertrand Russell in 1947. Copleston, like Aquinas, argued that there are things in the universe which are contingent, for example, us – we would not have existed if our parents had not met. All things in the world are similar to this, nothing in the world is self-explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, we are forced to search for an external explanation. The explanation must lead us to a cause which is self explanatory, i.e. one which contains within itself, the reason for its own existence – a necessary being. The conclusion must be God. Copleston argues that if we don’t accept the existence of an ‘unmoved mover’, like Aquinas suggested, there is no explanation for the universe at all. Copleston believes the universe is gratuitous without a first cause, because without an explanation, nothing has meaning – “Everything is gratuitous. This garden, this city, and myself; when you suddenly realise it, it makes you feel sick and everything begins to drift… that’s nausea”.

The argument claims that everything that begins to exist has a

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

“Where what breathes, breathes / and what drinks, drinks,” the persona says (3,5). Natures relationships depicted in the first stanza are beautiful. At first, something as simple as the “islands” may seem unimportant (1). Once analyzed, its purposed is defined by providing a warm home for life to sustain. Without the “restless wind” and “incoming tide,” the animals could not sustain (4,6). Everything in the universe is interconnected.

      3-Though fallen, man shall not lose their free-will, ie. "I form'd them free, and free they must remain"; the notion of the non-mutability of God is also contained here.  This is covered in lines 120-128;