Permanent Flux
It is said that every great journey begins with one step. This is not true. A more accurate saying would be, “every great journey begins with the idea of the journey”, thus leading to the idea of the step, and so on. The steps will surly follow an idea, but nevertheless the ideas will always precede any action. Once one gets an idea in one’s head, one must either forget it, or act on it. Such as the case with the first Philosophers, known now as the Pre-Socratics. The Pre-Socratics, which started around 600 B.C.E., formed ideas of a journey to enlightenment of their society. Instead of dismissing this idea, they thrived off it and took the first steps toward teaching an entirely new way of thinking. These first thinkers of philosophy, which has an appropriate meaning of the love of wisdom, wanted to know more about life, earth, the stars and most importantly, the “being” of it all. Though not the first of the original thinkers, Heraclitus of Ephesus, was among this group of lovers of wisdom and revolutionized the world with his idea of “being” and allowed mankind to follow in his steps.
The Pre-Socratics are known for creating philosophy by searching for a rational order to their world and their being. Prior to the philosophers, man simply accepted the mythological stories and supernatural concepts. The philosophers, however, approached questions to by observing their surroundings. This was the world they could touch and feel, therefore making it an ideal foundation to their quires. The first of the Pre-Socratics examined the natural world and assumed the “stuff” that made all things “be” came from the natural surroundings around them. For example, by an early scientific and rational approach, the Pre-Socratics took the four elements of the world, as they knew them to be (water, air, earth, and fire), and studied them. Some deduced water to be the “stuff”, while others looked to air, or the earth to answers their zealous questions of being. Heraclitus, on the other hand, found a unity in all the elements, and related “being” to “fire”. His reference to fire, however, is purely metaphorical. While his predecessors focused on the actual elements they felt were the “stuff” that made the existence of being, Heraclitus’ only focused on fire to demonstrate his metaphysical concept of constant flux.
Heraclitus is noted for saying, “there is nothing permanent except change.
In the Stoic account of physics, all things identified, debated, discussed and pondered fall strictly into certain categories in the Stoic ontological structure. Of the three branches of the very broad category of ‘somethings,’ the two most relevant to this paper are bodies and incorporeals. The rigid conception of Physics as articulated by the Stoics seems to use the incorporeal somethings as a means to categorize, locate, and evaluate those things which are bodily. In their incorporeals, the Stoics include lekta (which I will discuss later, as it is an integral part of their causality), void, place and time. Stoic causality, a largely deterministic discussion of events in a fated world, discusses the alteration of bodies without defining any bodies as effects. In characterizing the effects of causation as only lekta, I believe the Stoics have left themselves with an incomplete discussion of causality. By showing that an effect of a particular cause may incorporate both incorporeal and bodily aspects, I hope to provide a more acceptable account of causation while demonstrating various holes in the Stoic account.
With the invention of newer technology, scholars were able to make closer observations for how different concepts of the science worked. With these scientific breakthroughs scholars and philosophers, who were mainly Christian, of this time of the Scientific Revolution made a pathway for a more efficient way of life. Natural Philosophy was used in the early 1500s by Enlightenment thinkers. It can be defined as the “study of the nature of the universe, its purpose, and how it functioned” (McKay, 504) All belief about the universe and its structure was based on Aristotle’s hypothesis. He believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Though he worked for Christian belief, natural philosophy in the early 1500s was based off of Aristotle’s model of the universe and his ideas of the planetary motion. This hypothesis was the center of natural philosophy until the Copernican Theory came into discovery. Aristotle believed that the world was flawed and that the planets in the universe represented the heavenly bodies. His theory was that there were ten spheres in the universe: water, air, fire, the moon, the sun, and the five planets. Aristotle declared that beyond the tenth sphere was heaven and this model was proved by Christian theologists to fit into the beliefs of Christians. The Christians
Living life can be both challenging and straightforward. In Sophocle’s Oedipus Rex and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, Oedipus and the prisoner in the cave are forced to believe that reality cannot be accessed for people who use only there 5 senses. Plato thinks that every human has a purpose which is to discover and travel on the path to awareness. What makes Oedipus very interesting is that in times of trouble, he discovers the truth of understanding by using Plato’s four stages of awareness, the audience can see Oedipus’s path to enlightenment which causes his downfall. This begins with imagination, advances to belief, continues to thoughts and reason and the truth understanding and awareness.
For many years humans have pursued the meaning of truth, knowledge and understanding. For many this pursuit of understanding the meaning of truth doesn’t end until one finds a “truth” that is nourishing to them. Even if this is the case one may choose to look for an alternate truth that may be more satisfactory to them. This pursuit of truth does not always have to follow the same path as there may be different ideas for everyone on how truth is actually obtained and which is a better way to obtain the truth is. Two philosophers of their time, Plato and Charles Peirce had their own methodologies and ideas on how truth and knowledge could be obtained.
Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher that was born in Athens, Greece around 470/469 BC. He served in the Athenian army and fought in many battles. When Socrates retired from fighting in the army, he began focusing on expressing his beliefs. He wasn’t the typical “teacher” or “preacher”; he was a very critical and analytical thinker that helped guide his students and the Athenians during his time. Through his teachings and beliefs, Socrates had positive and negative influence on the people during his time and modern time. Although he is credited as one of the founders of Western Philosophy, Political Philosophy, and Ethics, his teachings was in disagreement with the teachings of the democracy of Athens, which led to him being put to death. Along with his philosophical beliefs, Socrates’ great thinking led to the creation of the Socratic Method and the Socratic Paradoxes.
For Dewey, the fundamental error characteristic of both Greek and Modern thinking is the artificial bifurcation of our thoughts, feelings and actions from the natural world. As I see it, the heart of this metaphysical mistake is captured by the key distinctions he draws between the "instrumental" and "consummatory", and between the "precarious" and "stable". I will therefore cover the history of philosophy with blanket criticisms of the blanket categories of "classical" or Greek thought (from Plato who, according to Dewey, set the tone of
Reality as a whole, and the nature of it, continues to be a puzzling point in most areas of study. This quest began after men sought to find the “One” (underlying principle) amidst the “Many” variations of life as a way to explain the world around them. Once can simply categorize “One” and “Many” as “Being” continuity, and “Becoming” change, respectively. There is a natural divide among men on this subject due to their subjective understanding of the world. In this paper, I will propose my theory of “Being”, which is in response to Heraclitus’ opinions of the unity of opposites, and the universe, grounded on the concept of innate potential. The goal of this essay is to present the idea that “Being” and “Becoming” can, and does, occur simultaneously,
To some the causes and effects of things are mutually exclusive, and coexistence with one another. When observing specific equipment or even life, the question stands that there must be an account that took place before such items ceased to exist. Particularly, Aristotle argues that each thing, whatever it may be, will have causes, or types of explanatory factors by which that thing can be explained. The significant knowledge of causes allows for specific accounts to be known. It’s like questioning what occurred first the chicken or the egg. Anything in life offers a question of cause; something must have been in order to bring about the nature of today. These causes are apparent in answering everyday questions, which in turn explains that the causes of life clarify the being of which stood before it and such causes amount to same entity.
Philosophy is a very important part of people’s lives. Philosophy is quite basically asking inquiries about existence, reality and nature of knowledge. To better understand philosophy we must look throughout history. Looking back through history helps better show what the philosophers thought during the time period in which they lived. The relativity of the theories, to the time period, is a very important factor in how efficient these theories they were. The first philosopher’s ideas to people today would be considered either very basic, or insane. Yet, in the time period they lived in, they were considered to be geniuses. Also, looking back through time and studying philosophers and what they believed can help create a better idea for our own philosophical creations. The first philosophers were also known as the Presocratics. They were called this because they were in a time period before Socrates was born. They mainly focused on answering what is the explanation of nature, also referred to as metaphysics. Even before the Presocratic philosophers, we need to look at the ancient Greek poets that created myths and examine how their stories came into being made and how it had an effect on their civilization. These myths are a part of Philosophy because they were the first ideas about creation. The transition between these mythic worldviews and pre-Socratic philosophers’ worldview was important because it lays down the structural work for great philosophers to learn from them and develop further theories based on their findings.
For those Pre-Socratics who picked not to join the Eleatic camp, the new test was to accommodate Parmenides' thoroughly contended dismissal of progress and assortment with the clearly changing and fluctuated universe of sense experience. Dissimilar to the Eleatics, these philosophers, the pluralists, were not arranged to surrender
The Enlightenment can also see a lot of its roots in Ancient Greek and Roman le...
Socrates is easily one of the most well known names in the history of philosophy. He is even portrayed via the magic of Hollywood time travel in the popular movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and was more recently quoted inaccurately on a t-shirt as saying, “I drank what?” Despite his fame, Socrates was not the first philosopher by far, and certainly not the earliest to make meaningful contributions to the field of philosophy. Some of the great “Pre-Socratics” include Anaximenes, Parmenides, Xenophane, and Democritus. The philosophical issues of their days were significantly different from the popular discussions today, though no less relevant, and provide ample fodder for the cannon of philosophical consideration. The issues in consideration here that may benefit from discussion are the problem of the one and the many, the distinction between phusis and nomos as regards the nature of god(s), and distinction between appearance and reality. Appropriate and thorough discussion of these topics in the pre-Socratic context is certain to yield insight into the connection between these three issues.
In the search for answers to why, there is the potential for over examination, as such when looking for reasons for one action or another the answer is often not what is expected. Given pause, a self-examination as to why you believe what you do, it maybe be frightening when the answer is, “I don’t know.” It is just as probable that it was the luck of the draw. Fortunately, because of increased knowledge we can make better decisions that will influence the world, positively or negatively, depends on your view. The sentiments of these ancient philosophers are easily recognized as constructs of the American mindset.
According to Aristotle “Every art and every scientific inquiry, and similarly every action and purpose, may be said to aim at some good. Hence the good has been well defined as that at which all things aim” (QUOTE BOOK). With various actions, arts and sciences, it follows the ends. With the knowledge of supreme good it is of great importance for the conduct of life, we should aim to be part of the doctrines of faith. As humans our intelligence is the most useful tool given to us by God. Following our internal compass means developing this capacity, not only in the matters of science, but...
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.