Despite Zeno's paradoxes and other presocratic arguments I maintain a pluralistic point of view. Atomists believe that everything is compounds consisting of several minute, invisible particles. Leucippus and Democritus claim these ‘atoms’ to be the building blocks of the universe. I will be explaining Leucippus’ and Democritus’ theory of atomism, and its relationship to common sense.
Presocratic philosophers before Leucippus had introduced the idea that ‘what-is’ had to remain stationary by reason because there is no vacuum. They claimed that ‘what-is’ also must be singular. Initially the opposing opinion was obtained by sensory evidence. His predecessors claimed stillness, but yet he could clearly see motion. Since the evidence of the senses contradicted the laws of his predecessors, Leucippus brought forth his own explanation which disputed earlier thinkers, subsequently sparking modernized thinking.
Leucippus was a pluralist who claimed there was more than just one being. Another presocratic philosopher Zeno posed various paradoxes. These paradoxes when worked through with a pluralistic point of view it would show the absurdity of plurality. Zeno was merely trying to defend Parmenides doctrine that all is one, whereas the Atomist claimed there was only one kind of thing (Atoms). Both Zeno and the Atomist argued against infinite divisibility. Zeno arrives at two different conclusions. His first conclusion; after dividing infinitely you would be left with nothing is impossible because something cannot be created by nothing. His other end is that after division, there would be infinitely small particles that would make infinitely large objects. Both of his conclusions for infinite divisibility arrive at a fallacy. Infinite...
... middle of paper ...
...ir general outlook seems quite appealing after consideration but in relation to common sense, it may be difficult to imagine. Even though through advances in science we now know those atoms are not basic; the claim that everything was different compounds of minute particles too small for human eyes to see is still genius. Although Democritus’ based his principles of atoms off Empedocles’ basic elements theory, we do not know why the philosopher decided the answer was tiny particles. The philosophical and mathematical reasoning’s behind his answer is not clear. It seems that Zeno’s fight against plurality may have helped lead the Atomist toward their conclusion of plurality.
Works Cited
(T1 DK 29A12; KRS 314, 327), (Aristotle, On Generation and Destruction 324-325), (T4 DK 29A24; L 14), (F1 DK 29BI; KRS 315, 316; L pages 9-12), (Waterfield Empedocles pg 135 ¶ 2)
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
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.
In this paper I shall consider Spinoza’s argument offered in the second Scholium to Proposition 8, which argues for the impossibility of two substances sharing the same nature. I shall first begin by explaining, in detail, the two-step structure of the argument and proceed accordingly by offering a structured account of its relation to the main claim. Consequently I shall point out what I reasonably judge to be a mistake in Spinoza’s line of reasoning; that is, that the definition of a thing does not express a fixed number of individuals under that definition. By contrast, I hope to motivate the claim that a true definition of a thing does in fact express a fixed number of individuals that fall under that definition. I shall then present a difficulty against my view and concede in its insufficiency to block Spinoza’s conclusion. Finally, I shall resort to a second objection in the attempt to prove an instance by which two substances contain a similar attribute, yet differ in nature. Under these considerations, I conclude that Spinoza’s thesis is mistaken.
Anaximander’s main philosophical view is that the primary substance out of which everything we know comes from, is more elementary than any substance which we have knowledge about. He stated that this “basic stuff” is unchanging, infinite, and unknown. This boundless substance becomes the basis out of which everything stems from and is also the unifier within the universe. One...
Dalton’s atomic theory, which stated “the atoms were tiny, indivisible, indestructible particles” (Bender), differed drastically from that of the Greeks’ in that it “wasn’t just a philosophical statement that there are atoms because there must be atoms” (Bender). Although Aristotle believed that there are four terrestrial elements, earth, water, air, and fire, Democratus believed that “a piece of a substance can be divided into smaller pieces of that substance until we get down to a fundamental level at which you can’t divide the substance up and still have pieces of that substance” (“Atoms”). Aristotle’s theory was popular, but incorrect; Democratus’s was closer to our current theory, yet he remained relatively unpopular and obscure. This demonstrates of the key way in which a personal point of view can, in fact, retard the pursuit of knowledge. The scientist with the better oratory abilities has his theories more widely accepted. Dalton’s own theory, which extrapolated upon four basic
Once the matter was created, according to Descartes, God divides it by introducing motion in the universe:
Through Descartes’s Meditations, he sought to reconstruct his life and the beliefs he had. He wanted to end up with beliefs that were completely justified and conclusively proven. In order to obtain his goal, Descartes had to doubt all of his foundational beliefs so that he could start over. This left Descartes doubting the reality of the world around him and even his own existence. In order to build up to new conclusively proven and justified true beliefs, Descartes needed a fixed and undeniable starting point. This starting point was his cogito, “I think, therefore I am.” In this paper I will argue that Descartes’s argument that he is definite of his own existence, is unsound.
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.
Rene Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is considered to be one of the most important works in modern philosophy. John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and countless other philosophers wrote largely in response to Descartes. Yet there are serious doubts related to the treatise's major argument. In the Objections and Replies, a collection of objections to the work along with Descartes personal and often very detailed replies to said objections, the philosopher Antoine Arnauld raises the question of whether or not Descartes was guilty of circular reasoning. In this essay, I will examine the arguments that Descartes used to reach the work's major conclusion, the objection made by Arnauld, and the validity of the treatise in light of Descartes' response.
Since airs are variable, we must settle on specific choices in given circumstances that we might not make in different circumstances. Alternate segments of the spirit are not variable in the same way. This is vital to Aristotle's postulation in light of the fact that these decisions are conne...
Among these components and powers there is no generation and demolition—henceforth, no change. The measure of, say, earth on the planet stays consistent, and earth never shows signs of change subjectively. Each of the four elements and the two motive forces, then, are Parmenidean Reals. Be that as it may, there is likewise, on this view, the lower level of reality. The world of tactile experience, the world we observe and hear around us, has a place with this level of reality. This world comes to fruition as an aftereffect of the blending and isolating of the four components as indicated by the strengths of adoration and strife. Despite the fact that there is change, generation, and pulverization in this world, it is not an infringement of the Eleatic requests, Empedocles accepted, on the grounds that these progressions were not occurring on the level of the most genuine things. Empedocles explained how the different mixtures of his elements gave to different substances. He even how differing mixtures can sometimes yield different degrees of the exact same type of substance. For example, the elemental recipe for blood could be varied to create different types of blood, which as a result, would correspond to produce different levels of intelligence in the blood’s
Rene Descartes decision to shatter the molds of traditional thinking is still talked about today. He is regarded as an influential abstract thinker; and some of his main ideas are still talked about by philosophers all over the world. While he wrote the "Meditations", he secluded himself from the outside world for a length of time, basically tore up his conventional thinking; and tried to come to some conclusion as to what was actually true and existing. In order to show that the sciences rest on firm foundations and that these foundations lay in the mind and not the senses, Descartes must begin by bringing into doubt all the beliefs that come to him by the senses. This is done in the first of six different steps that he named "Meditations" because of the state of mind he was in while he was contemplating all these different ideas. His six meditations are "One:Concerning those things that can be called into doubt", "Two:Concerning the Nature of the Human mind: that it is better known than the Body", "Three: Concerning God, that he exists", "Four: Concerning the True and the False", "Five: Concerning the Essence of Material things, and again concerning God, that he exists" and finally "Six: Concerning the Existence of Material things, and the real distinction between Mind and Body". Although all of these meditations are relevant and necessary to understand the complete work as a whole, the focus of this paper will be the first meditation.
The Atomic Theory began in roughly 400BC with Democritus in Ancient Greece and is universally believed to be correct today. Democritus who was born in 460 BC and died 370 BC and is known as the father of modern science. Democritus proclaimed that everything is made up of atoms. He continued his theory to say that atoms will always be in motion, between atoms there is empty space, atoms are unbreakable, there are an infinite number of atoms all different sizes and shapes. He also said that iron atoms are solid and strong and have hooks to lock them together, water atoms are smooth and slippery, salt atoms have sharp jagged edges because of its taste and air atoms are light and spiralling.
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 his Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes seeks to prove that corporeal objects exist. This argument is put forth based on the principles and supposed facts he has built up throughout the Meditations. In order to fully understand his argument for the existence of corporeal things, one must trace his earlier arguments for effects and their causes, the existence of God, the nature of God, and his ability to never make mistakes.