Heraclitus embraced paradoxes and stated “things are and are not” like for example, water is good for you and it is not good for you. It may depend on how much you take but in reality there are many possibilities as to why it could be bad and good for you. Heraclitus also supported a monistic view meaning that fire is the principal of everything there is. He observed and noticed that fire was the cause of everything. The same as the river fire means that everything changes and that nothing is certain but change. You technically aren’t the same person you thought you were yesterday. The only permanence is the Logos.
The idea that the universe is in constant change and there is an underlying order or is reason to this change is considered “The Logos.” Heraclitus was big on saying that real wisdom comes from understanding how the world functions and how all things are ruled. To Heraclitus he believed that the world was ruled by the Logos, so the only way humans had wisdom depends on them understanding the logos.
…show more content…
He stated that everything is in a state of flux. Everything is constantly moving and changing and there is no such thing as stability. That’s when the quote he’s most famous for comes in, “You cannot step into the same river twice.” At first you may think that it’s a lie because you can physically step into the same river twice, but taking a closer look at it it’s not possible because the water is not the same because when you moved your foot you changed the flow of the water making his statement true. Think about it this way, like the world it connects to the idea of the river; it’s constantly moving. You step again into what seems to be the same river but in reality it is not the same water into which you step. Meaning every day nothing is the same and it’s the start of something
His perception of human nature is that: 1) we are all mortal, in other words, life is formulated with birth and death is eminent for every living being. 2) Humans are rational creatures and retain humanity and therefore should aim to be moral. 2) Reason is a special faculty, unique to only human beings that connects them to some truth about their own nature and essential concepts; these concepts are universal, timeless, and changeless. Also sensation, beauty, relationships, and possession all pass and die, they do not possess permanence. The only thing that remains with you is your reason. A grave philosophical error that is a source for supreme suffering for human beings is forgetting, ignoring, or acknowledging that things die and nothing lasts
The other issue that is being discussed between the two philosophers is determinism. Also determinism must be defined before interpreting their views. Determinism according to the Encarta encyclopedia is "A philosophical doctrine holding that every event, mental as well as physical, has a cause, and that, the cause being given, the event follows invariably. This theory denies the element of chance or contingency." Also like to other definition for free will this is confusing and incomplete to the reader. I think that determinism is a theory that every event has a cause and effect and that once a cause is stated than the event will follow.
...Greeks, for their part, considered wisdom a virtue, but their conception of wisdom always contained a conventional, conservative element. ..."Wisdom" is not the term one would use to describe a scientific genius, a brilliant artist, an innovator in any field. But these, for Rand, are the highest exemplars of rationality.
His first principle regards the process of definition. As I sit in an every day classroom I notice several things. Many, if not all student simply nod their heads while a teacher explains, be it a theory in Math, or a formula in Science. Not once have I encountered a student willing to raise their hand and question the definition, or meaning that a teacher has rambled off to them. Neil Postman states his feelings on this best when he writes, “ It is a form of stupidity when to accept without reflection someone else’s definition.'; He wants people to realize that definitions are not god given, and that to question the validity is acceptable. Upon looking in a dictionary at any word you will see that all have several meanings. The same may apply to our lives, while one definition may apply to you another may not.
Baird and Kaufmann, the editors of our text, explain in their outline of Descartes' epistemology that the method by which the thinker carried out his philosophical work involved first discovering and being sure of a certainty, and then, from that certainty, reasoning what else it meant one could be sure of. He would admit nothing without being absolutely satisfied on his own (i.e., without being told so by others) that it was incontrovertible truth. This system was unique, according to the editors, in part because Descartes was not afraid to face doubt. Despite the fact that it was precisely doubt of which he was endeavoring to rid himself, he nonetheless allowed it the full reign it deserved and demanded over his intellectual labors. "Although uncertainty and doubt were the enemies," say Baird and Kaufmann (p.16), "Descartes hit upon the idea of using doubt as a tool or as a weapon. . . . He would use doubt as an acid to pour over every 'truth' to see if there was anything that could not be dissolved . . . ." This test, they explain, resulted for Descartes in the conclusion that, if he doubted everything in the world there was to doubt, it was still then certain that he was doubting; further, that in order to doubt, he had to exist. His own existence, therefore, was the first truth he could admit to with certainty, and it became the basis for the remainder of his epistemology.
From the very beginning of the passage, John M. Barry “sucks” the reader in- similar to the way the Mississippi River would do to anything in its way-through elevated diction. He uses words like “extraordinarily dynamic”, “turbulent”, and “complex.” He goes on to say that studying the river is a science of “chaos.” All of these words transmit Barry’s fascination. He is so perplexed and astonished by how dynamic the river is that he says it is chaos, or having unpredictable and seemingly random behavior. His elevated and well-chosen diction shows that he has actually studied the river and is knowledgeable about the way it works. By doing this, Barry builds his ethos, something he continues doing in the first paragraph by alluding to a renowned physicist, Werner Heisenberg. A physicist would very obviously know about the inner and complex mechanics of a river like the Mississippi, yet the very appropriate expression he is quoted for shows that he is just as surprised as Barry and believes that not even God could explain the mechanics of the river.
He begins the piece by stating two different options to choose from: “Some say the world will end in fire, / Some say in ice” (Lines 1-2). He then attributes love and desire to heat but says he has experienced the other side of cold which represents hate and destruction. “From what I’ve tasted of desire / I hold with those who favor fire. / But if it had to perish twice, / I think I know enough of hate / To say that for destruction ice is also great / And would suffice” (Lines 3-9). He’s indecisive in his decision-making, agreeing with both sides of the controversy. He knows that the world is to change (ending in fire or ice), but doesn’t know how or when. This is where his underlying fears become evident - he feels hopeless doom for the changes to come. The only way he can feel some control is if he thinks he knows how it will all end. Sometimes change is inevitable, however people still consciously worry about things they cannot control. By making the change and either/or situation, he feels more comfortable with accepting the change since there’s only one of two ways he could leave the
Heraclitus is a strong believer in flux. He explains that the perceptible world is flux, but he is also saying you are free but with some kind of restraint. Heraclitus is saying that you are free to do whatever you want in the world, but they are certain rules and guidelines you have to follow in the world. So therefore you are not as free as you think you are. An example that everyone always comes back to is freedom of speech. In this country you are free to say whatever you want according to the first amendment, but you can go to jail for doing so. If you are in the city of Chicago participating in a protest you can get arrested for disruption. You can have freedom but within a certain limit. This can get in the way of having a perceptible world. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream and he had to break a lot of laws to get to where we are today. Flux absolutely came first there was a time when laws were non-existent. People had common-sense to know what was right and wrong, but there was not a law to say they could not commit certain actions. It is common-sense to try to understand human law so we can all be on the same terms. If some people do not agree with human laws the world can get messy. We need to all understand each other to live
passively in life, and that, as he expresses it, we are 'lived' by unknown and
One particular sentence that he said really stuck to me. He said,”We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought.”(59) I think that it is the complete opposite in the world we live in. We are taught in school to respect everyone's opinion/idea, whether we love it or hate it. Sometimes the craziest ideas turn out to be amazing. For example, Steve Jobs. Back then His idea was to put thousands of songs into a small device so that people could listen to music with ease. Lots of people doubted him. Now, fast forward to the present. Almost everyone has unlimited music at the palm of their hands. If our society was like fahrenheits, Most of the world's most successful people would not have made it nearly as far as they
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.
Dreams are our ideas, and our ideas, as he states “in sleep, in a fever, in madness, or in any very violent emotions of the soul, our ideas may approach to our impressions.” Our craziest ideas are linked to other thoughts in our mind, and as he believes in a posteriori reasoning, this suggests that our dreams are limited to things we have experienced. Since the root of all ideas are the impressions, this means that all ideas are exact replicas of the impressions. Impressions, our deepest desires and feelings, influence our
-Past, present and future make one circle. The past life of the dead has an impact on the life of people. The philosophy of Sophocles is that the dead control and affect our life.
time. He argued that humans in the state of nature are free and equal, yet
Reading his meditation make me think about how it is important to think about what is true and what is false. I think that he was making one see the importance of questioning one’s senses about whether it is false. It is also important that one does not become too skeptical about things. One should be moderate about what we should question.