Unlike Parmenides and Heraclitus, who took a clear stance on whether being is changing or unchanging, Empedocles argued that things do change, but these objects are composed of materials that do not change. The change that we see is merely a cause of the interaction and changes in position of the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Much like Heraclitus and his views that orderly change is brought about by the “logos”, Empedocles also recognized that there was a force responsible for the change brought about. In his case, changes in the forms and positions of the basic elements was an effect of two forces – love and strife (or more commonly known as the forces of attraction and repulsion/decomposition). The philosophy of Empedocles can be likened to our understanding of physics today. What with his belief of the universe being composed of basic material particles (the four basic elements, in his point) constantly moving under the act of impersonal forces (love and strife). With that being said, it’s difficult to argue against his philosophy when much of what he said we know is true today. Except, of course, for his belief that the four basic elements are the rudimentary material particles of matter that are the “building blocks” of the universe. The elements themselves are made up of smaller particles, which can be broken down even further.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...blic, Plato goes on to recognize education as one of the most vital features of a well-run state. He understood the importance of having intellectual, sensible beings running a successful state. Our rational is what directs us towards logical decisions in your life, as well as maintaining us a distance away from corruption. Though Plato is completely correct in recognizing the importance of knowledge in state, I can’t fully agree with his belief that only intellectual individuals are ever capable of fully comprehending the Forms of justice and good. What he wanted was an “intellectual oligarchy” and even though oligarchies may prove effective in the transformations of a state, there is also a huge fault within such system. That flaw being that only the privileged few have a say, where more often than not, the needs and wants of the common people are not thought of.
In The Republic, Plato discusses how the formation of societies comes from the natural weakness of humans. Plato firmly believes in a hierarchal system within a state. There are distinct classes, which need a government to keep them in check. There are class distinctions, and privileges justified by lies. These privileges and lies are to avoid alienation within the state. If there was no form of sovereignty the guardians, who are the upper class citizens, would go after all their wants and desires freely. This would cause pandemonium and violence within the state. Plato states that, “a city whose future rulers are least eager to rule will necessarily be the best governed and freest from strife, and the one with opposite rulers the worst” (520d). By this Plato means that the people who should keep the social classes in check and rule over the state should be people who are not interested in power, ruling over others, self-gain, or self-promotion. Plato says, "to become a good guardian, a man must be by nature fast, strong, and a spirited philosopher" (Plato 376e). He believes the people he describes as best suited to rule would be philosophers; this is due to their ability to stop and rationally access a citation with a nonpartisan view. The philosopher guardians would be capable of counter balancing the greed of the citizens of the state. Plato s...
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Plato is clearly not a supporter of democracy in society. He believes that censorship in education is necessary in order to have a successful society. He says that training the mind should hold precedence over training the body. Stories that are not true and represent gods in an unflattering light should be banned for the young. Although these stories may be allegorical, children cannot distinguish what is allegorical and what is not. He believes that if children never hear stories of quarrels, that they will go on to believe that being quarrelsome is a sin. Fictional stories of atrocities done to gods and others, he believes, should not be allowed for the young. His last statement is about God being the cause, not of everything, but only of what is
Plato assigns different political roles to different members of each class. It appears that the only classes that are allowed to participate in government are the Auxiliaries and, of course, the Philosopher Rulers. The lower class does not partake in politics because they are not mentally able. In other words, they do not understand the concept of the form. Thus, it is better to allow the Philosophers, who do have this knowledge, to lead them.
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
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,
As a strategy to defeat the invading Persians during the Persian War, the poleis (Greek city-states) of Greece united in order to form one large military force. Following the war, Greece decided to adhere to this idea of unity and form the Delian League in order to protect Greece from Persian domination. However, many of the poleis begin to resent the fact that the polis of Athens held a roll at the top of the League. This tension leads to a war between Athens and Sparta, known as the Peloponnesian War. As a result, writers such as Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle developed their own views on the effects of the war. Evidence presented shows that the philosophers' views are still relevant to today's world.
He notes that “it is appropriate for the rational part to rule, since it is really wise and exercises foresight on behalf of the whole soul” (Plato, 117, 441e). An effective ruler, in Plato’s view, is someone whose reason governs over his or her appetite with the aid of spirit. Plato believes that the philosopher guardian class can achieve the balance, so only they are capable of ruling. It allows them to govern with reason, and make decisions for the good of the
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Plato’s version of the involves a selective process where the government selects what job the people will have when they are children and groom them to only be able to do that said job. Keeping information away from certain people is Plato’s idea of keeping a just city-state. His belief could cause more harm than good because it creates large divides in the society, create unknowledgeable people to have all the power, and lead to problems with everyone within the government.
Aristotle and Plato were once philosophers in Ancient Greece who studied to a great extent ethics, politics and science. Aristotle was influenced by Plato as Aristotle was his student, just as Socrates, another big Greek philosopher, influenced Plato. Although, their ideas may be obsolete by modern standards, they still continue to have historical value. Thus, these ancient notions are often explored as they molded modern thinking to what it is today. Regularly examined, The Republic, by Plato and Politics by Aristotle, were each written in attempt at explaining political theory. Despite the fact, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle had different philosophical ideas on justice and injustice, morality, human life, the human soul, regimes, political
Rather, Aristotle attempts to tackle some of the most fundamental questions of human experience, and at the crux of this inquiry is his argument for the existence of an unmoved mover. For Aristotle, all things are caused to move by other things, but the unreasonableness of this going on ad infinitum means that there must eventually be an ultimate mover who is himself unmoved. Not only does he put forth this argument successfully, but he also implies why it must hold true for anyone who believes in the ability to find truth through philosophy. Book XII of the Metaphysics opens with a clear statement of its goal in the first line of Chapter One: to explore substances as well as their causes and principles. With this idea in mind, Chapter One delineates the three different kinds of substances: eternal, sensible substances; perishable, sensible substances; and immovable substances.
He thought that the election of the people was unfair justice. Plato had some of the same beliefs. He believed that government should only have rulers who had the intelligence and education appropriate for the matter. His thoughts were that a job should be done only by those who are best suited for it. To him, aristocracy was a perfect form of government.
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.
Plato thought education at all levels should be the state’s responsibility. His reasoning was that the individual