1. Explain (the main ideas and views) and evaluate (by giving arguments) the view of Heraclitus regarding the nature of reality? A: Heraclitus nature of reality was based on the fact that the universe was always changing. He thought that there was no reality, according to Heraclitus everything was based on fire because like our lives fire also changes every single second. His famous quote “You can’t step in the same river twice” represents the change that we sometimes don’t see, because in his quote the fact that the rivers water is constantly flowing shows the change over time; Where when you want to step in it again is going to be different water from the one you steeped initially. I also think that Heraclitus is talking about how we …show more content…
As Empedocles also sees the change in the universe he also wanted to know why it was happening. He thought that the two forces of the cosmos love and strife had an influence of the natural world and he envision these as the forces of attraction and discomposing because for example when different roots are harmonious and come together they form love however with strife roots are repelled and seek their own kind bringing decomposition. 3. Explain and evaluate the view of Anaximander? A: Anaximander theory about the different substances explains how he believes that they came from more simple form that just water. He thought the basic substance must be ageless, boundless and indeterminate. He knew things were made from smaller particles that we were not visible. His interest in the fundamental substance that constitutes everything or in determining what the most important feature of reality was. He though what happen in the universe came from natural powers and processes for example how the seasons changed from heat,cold,wetness,dryness it all alternate to create our seasons. 4.Explain, evaluate and compare (by stating how they are similar or different) the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. 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
Have you ever thought you heard something, but there was nothing there? Have you ever thought you saw someone in the corner of your eye, and when you looked there was no person there? When we look down from a high building on people, do they appear small like ants? Aren't there thousands of occasions when we do misperceive? What is reality and perception? Mainstream science describes reality as "the state of things as they actually exist". So reality is simply: everything we observe. Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world (sapdesignguild.org np). I believe people should base some decisions
Knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Knowledge is a gift from God. Knowledge is God, God is a someone, not a something. Full knowledge concerning God can’t be explained.
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).
“Come then, my seer! Tell us: of what consists your qualification? Where were you when the Great Bitch, that Sphinx who sang her deadly puzzles outside this city and who needed the art of a genuine seer to answer those puzzles, where were you then? Why did you not save the city then? Where were your gods then? Where were your birds? It was I! Yes I, Oedipus, who knew nothing of such things who shut that monster’s mouth; not by magic or by signs of birds but by my own brain. So! Here you are, now! Intending to send me away from here, hoping to hang around Creon’s throne! For this outrage, Teiresias, you shall pay with tears; you, Teiresias and he, the chief plotter. And were it not for your advanced years,
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.
B. Read the opening lines of The Odyssey on page 1045. How are these lines similar to the
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).
Plato's "Allegory of The Cave" and "Theory of Forms" are two very important concepts when analyzing Heraclitus's and Parmenides's positions on the world. Though the two had conflicts of interest in their views, there is a margin where both their views can be reconciled through Plato's concepts.
Lastly in terms of his understanding of causation, the final cause of a thing or object was its purpose (telos). The purpose of the statue is aesthetic in that it is admired; the purpose of my laptop is to help me do my work well. Aristotle uses the example of health being the cause of walking, 'Why does one walk?' he asks, 'that one may be healthy'. This is perhaps the most important of all the causes. Yet his understanding does not end here. Once something has achieved a state of actuality it is also in a state of potentiality. In this sense we can see that Aristotle saw that the universe was moving constantly between ‘potentiality’ to ‘actuality’ back to ‘potentiality’ once again. This idea required Aristotle to explain things further still because in order for this theory to work it must explain everything in the universe, including the universe itself.
The line separating reality and the illusion of reality is a blur. The line separating the narrator’s self-aware expression and his story telling is a blur. The line separating Ambrose and the narrator is a blur. All of this may blur understanding. It is clear, however, that these blurs exist because of the “funhouse”. A funhouse, Lost in the funhouse, in which exist other funhouses. Various funhouses exist in the story and in the writing. For this reason, the title Lost in the funhouse is very significant.
The famed tragedian Sophocles is known for his unique ideas and intellect. Sophocles carefully utilizes of all of his intelligence and creative ability in order to make use of illuminating moments throughout the play which allow his audience to draw conclusions about free will, fate, knowledge, and power throughout perhaps his most iconic play, Oedipus Rex. the main character Oedipus experiences an illuminating moment when he gouges his eyes out at the discovery of the truth about his actions. This illumination is expressed in order to express Sophocles’ idea that fate overpowers free will.
The first of such is that nothing is made of nothing (Book 1, line 150). Proof that all things require fixed origins or seeds comes from Lucretius explaining that “…if things came from nothing, any kind of creature could then be born from anything, with no need of seeds.” (Book 1, lines 159-160). The next principle Lucretius discusses is “Nature resolves all things into component atoms, and never reduces them to nothing;” (Book 1, lines 215-216). Thus, the second principle is that nothing is resolved into nothing, otherwise, all matter would be destroyed at any moment and the world will be unable to replenish itself in any manner (Book 1, lines 218-233). Lucretius posits that “Nature always recreates one thing from another, and nothing can be born save by another’s death” (Book 1, lines 263-264). Following this, Lucretius moves on to argue the existence of microscopic particles that “cannot be seen with the naked eye” (Book 1, line 267). He calls these particles atoms and he infers their existence, based on the presence of several common natural phenomena such as the wind, scent, heat, cold, sound, moisture, and even growth and decay (Book 1, lines 271-327). In addition to the existence of atoms, Lucretius posits the existence of void stating “all things are not held closely bound
The tale of Oedipus and his prophecy has intrigued not only the citizens of Greece in the ancient times, but also people all over the world for several generations. Most notable about the play was its peculiar structure, causing the audience to think analytically about the outcomes of Oedipus’ actions and how it compares with Aristotle’s beliefs. Another way that the people have examined the drama is by looking at the paradoxes (such as the confrontation of Tiresias and Oedipus), symbols (such as the Sphinx), and morals that has affected their perceptions by the end of the play. Nonetheless, the most important aspect is how relevant the story is and how it has influenced modern ideas like that of Freud and other people of today.
Empedocles was an apotheosized philosopher. Renowned for his work in physics and cosmology. Or so he prefered to believe in the final hours of his life on his way to jump into the crater of Etna. This theory is quite colorful but is not wholly accepted as truth, of course. His death did attract much attention and - as stated by the American Journal of Philosophy by Ava Chitwood - has “fascinated both scholars and poets from ancient until modern times”. The presocratic philosopher’s said “demise” does relate, in part, to his three greatest philosophies/beliefs: the four elements, the cosmic properties of Philotes (Love) and Neikos (Strife/Repulsion), and reincarnation. The following paragraphs will expound on these
c) The possibility of scientific knowledge: science strictly talking cannot deal with things which are continuously changing; the sensible world is continuously changing, so science cannot study it; it has to study an immutable world. The second premise shows a clear affinity with Parmenides of Elea and Heraclitus of Ephesus: what is given to our senses is a world ruled by continuous change, by mutation. As far as the first premise, we have to think about something permanent in those objects we want to have knowledge about if we want this knowledge to be true. Is there any knowledge that is always true and not just sometimes true? If there is, then we have to think there are things