Does the void exist?
One of the main controversies in Pre-socratic philosophy is the dispute of the existence or non-existence of the void. Two groups of philosophers argue this idea. The first group, namely Parmenides, argues that the void does not exist. This is the opinion of the Monist philosophers. The other group is the atomists who argue this thesis and believe there is a void. This group is primarily represented by the philosophers, Democritus and Leucippus.
Parmenides argues against the existence of the void. The plenum fragment states his opinion quite clearly:
"Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike; nor is there more here and less there, which would prevent it from holding together, but it is full of what is. So it is all continuous, for what is clings close to what is."
This shows the idea, that if there would be a void or an empty space then "what is" would move into it. Hence, there is no void. Because "what is" fills up this space completely. "Since it is all alike" volume or density is continuous everywhere. Since it is not divisible there is no void between "what is". Also "what is" itself has no void in it. If there were void or space in one object, compared to a more denser object these particles would not "...
is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies." Then he goes on to say that
The word interbeing explains the concept of emptiness through the idea of changeable and interdependent existence. The prefix “inter-” defines the changeable and interdependent nature of things and the verb “to be or being” means existence. According to the Prajnaparamita Heart Sutra, “Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.” Emptiness does not mean that things do not exist but rather it means that things cannot exist by themselves alone. Thich Nhat Hanh uses an interesting example of paper to explain changeable and interdependent existence of things. Paper cannot exist without the trees from which it is made. Trees cannot exist or grow without rainwater which comes from clouds. Every aspect of existence is interrelated to each other. Paper and trees, trees and rain, rain and clouds are all manifestations of interbeing with each other.
Once the matter was created, according to Descartes, God divides it by introducing motion in the universe:
In the second meditation, Descartes is searching for an Archimedian point on which to seed a pearl of certainty. By doubting everything in his first meditation, Descartes consequently doubts his own existence. It is here that a certainty is unearthed: “If I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed”(17). However, Descartes “does not deduce existence from thought by means of syllogism, but recognizes it as something self-evident by a simple intuition of the mind,” or in other words, by natural light (Second Replies:68).
On the Nature of the Universe Since their inception in the 17th century, the modern sciences have been given over to a majestic vision: there is nothing in nature but atoms and the void. This is hardly a new thought, of course; in the ancient world, it received its most memorable expression in Lucretius' On the Nature of Universe. Lucretius Carus wrote an Epicurean work entitled De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things); from all indications, he was faithful to Epicurus' system, changing nothing. History tells us very little of Titus Lucretius Carus, but one can see from reading his work that he has a sturdy abhor towards religious superstition, which he claims is the root of human fear and in turn the cause of impious acts. Although he does not deny the existence of a god, his work is aimed at proving that the world is not guided or controlled by a divinity. Lucretius proceeds with an extended explanation and proof of the materiality and mortality of the mind and soul. This explanation culminates in the climactic declaration, "Nil igitur mors est ad nos. . ." ("Therefore death is nothing to us."), a stark, simple statement which effectively epitomizes the main message and central doctrine of Epicureanism. Sterling Dow, "Dealing with Festschriften" in Articles on Antiquity in Festschriften, compiled by Dorothy Rounds, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 556. According to Lucretius, Sensations are irrefutable because they are necessary effects of known causes, the efflux of atoms from external objects; sensations can only originate when these thin replicas produce movement in the mind. Lucretius asserts that matter exists in the form of atoms, which move around the universe in an empty space. This empty space, or vacuit...
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.
Why? Because there is no name whatever without an object (nama hinirvastukam kimcid api nasti). Thus since the name exists (namasadbhavat), there is an intrinsic nature of the things; and since they have an intrinsic nature, all things are non-void (asunya). (1)
According to Descartes, “because our senses sometimes deceive us, I wanted to suppose that nothing was exactly as they led us to imagine (Descartes 18).” In order to extinguish his uncertainty and find incontrovertible truth, he chooses to “raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations (Descartes 59).” This foundation, which Descartes is certain to be the absolute truth, is “I think, therefore I am (Descartes 18).” Descartes argues that truth and proof of reality lies in the human mind, rather than the senses. In other words, he claims that the existence of material objects are not based on the senses because of human imperfection. In fact, he argues that humans, similarly to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, are incapable of sensing the true essence or existence of material objects. However, what makes an object real is human thought and the idea of that object, thus paving the way for Descartes’ proof of God’s existence. Because the senses are easily deceived and because Descartes understands that the senses can be deceived, Descartes is aware of his own imperfection. He
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
It is evident that things do not come to exist out of just anything; each comes into being out of particular things—fruit from the tree, tree from the seed, seed from the fruit; bird from the egg, egg from the bird. It cannot be, therefore, that things come to exist out of nothing, out of what is not, for were that so, things could come to be out of anything. I am not convinced: yes, it is evident that some kinds of things have again and again come into being out of particular things; so, we might well argue that these things do not come into being out of nothing. But is it evident that all things are alike in this? Perhaps some things do come into existence out of nothing: the possibility still pesters physicists today. It is supposed necessary by the Epicureans that particular conditions of generation correspond with particular kinds of things, and that all things of every kind are alike in this—not a ridiculous supposition, but surely not evident. This, I should want to add, is not an ‘implicit appeal to the principle of sufficient reason’, for that would entail questions about what function corresponds to the conditions of generation—what function has the egg if not the generation of a bird? We might answer that eggs are a function of animal nutrition ...
Finiteness is also implied in a series of relationships in the physical world : containment, reduction, stoppage. But, these, of course, are, again, wrong intuitions. They are at least as wrong as the intuitive connection between boundaries and finiteness.
We are asked first to comprehend "Infinity," and then to whatever "infinity" "beholds" in not everything but "nothing," and that "nothing" itself to become the building material for "all” (1-2). Identifying the paradox, perhaps, as that which begins the Biblical account of the Creation.
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.
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 order to think, it is necessary to exist, I judged that I could take as a general rule that the things we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are all true, but that there is merely some difficulty in properly discerning” (Descartes