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, …show more content…
Logos—, which literally translates to “word” or “discourse”—when used by Heraclitus, refers to “reason”, or to what one must rationally interpret from a spoken word. He states that “…logos is common” and that while we “must follow what is common” we end up diverging on this path. Here he establishes a connection between what we ought to do/live with Logos with the word “common.” Continuing with this idea, he attributes a common order of the universe to Logos itself. Because reality is in flux, which leads men—who naturally possess a limited scope of understanding caused by subjective perspective—to assume truthful permanence in change, we need Logos to find the “rational order” within this change (Lawhead, Greek Philosophers before Socrates 17). Essentially, Logos must be used to explain the “process” of change that we …show more content…
Additionally, he challenges the idea of reality manifesting solely as a ‘Being” by highlighting that our sense, by nature, are subjective and individual and should not be interpreted as having a complete grasp of what is around during a particular moment in time. Overall, Heraclitus’ theory has merit when discussing our subjective and finite understanding of an ever changing world; however, what he fails to realize is that “Being” and ”Becoming” do not have to exist antithetical to one another. I believe Heraclitus, on some level, understands this, and it is shown through his discussion on the unity of opposites; yet, he limits his theory by only focusing on one aspect of it. Therefore, I wish to expand his thoughts on a changing reality by, unoriginally, introducing the idea that “Being” and “Becoming” can exist simultaneously, without one diminishing the strength of the other, through the concept of potential. The problem at hand, which is how to unify the dueling concepts of “Being” and “Becoming”, can be examined on an external level (reality) and an internal level (individuals). In answering this question, I will first explain how our reality ca be both, and then extend this reason to how we, as individuals, can exist the
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.
This paper will examine the reliability of George Berkeley’s metaphysical theory of Idealism. Berkeley’s Idealism holds that reality is made real by what the mind perceives and that what we perceive to be material is really a collection of immaterial sensations. Idealism is defined as the view “that only mental entities exist, so physical things exist only in the sense that they are perceived” (“Idealism”). Berkeley’s argument of Subjective Idealism is the view that reality consists of one’s mind and its ideas, while Objective Idealism says in addition, a supreme mind produces ideas in the physical world that do not depend on human minds to exist (Velasquez 146). Without Objective Idealism, one can undergo solipsism which is the belief that only one’s self and experiences of the world are real and everything else does not exist (“Solipsism”). Opposing Idealism is the metaphysical view of Materialism which holds that only physical things exist (“Materialism”). This paper will start by examining George Berkeley’s views of Subjective and Objective Idealism and how they apply to reality. Then, the critiques made and supported by Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes against both views of Idealism will be argued. However, these arguments fail to properly examine Berkeley’s Idealism, thus causing the critiques to be based upon misinformation. Although the criticisms pose potential flaws, Berkeley’s Idealism continues to be a major discussion in the metaphysical debate.
A great example of Heraclitus’ view would be one of his most famous quotes which is “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” This quote demonstrates his views on change because in this quote he clearly shares his idea of what change really is. He believes that everything is constantly changing for instance the water in the river is flowing and thus it is always changing and as for the person standing in the river, they too have changed because since time passes they are not the same person that stepped into the river. Heraclitus also stated that there is a flux in the universe for everything there is an opposite and that is mentioned in (B88), “the same thing is both living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old; for these things transformed are those, and those those transformed back again are these.” These contradictions give us a precise idea of how they are connected to each other; old-young, alive-dead, and asleep-waking up.This quote is an example of how one thing can be changed into
Descartes’ epiphany of “I exist, I am” was the catalyst for the exploration of the issues he discusses in Meditations. Although I find problems in some instances of his reasoning, I realize that he has provided answers through his Method of Doubt that have endured the ages and allow us to continue to ponder their truth today.
This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." This paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy.
Playing particular attention to meditations II, V, and VI this paper will explore the role of the imagination as examined by Descartes. In the second meditation, Descartes is of the opinion that the imagination and the senses are deceiving him, and that the nature of bodies are perceived by the intellect as opposed to the imagination. Within the body of this paper, the introduction of his wax argument will serve as support for this realization. In addition, in the sixth meditation Descartes makes the argument that the imagination depends on something outside of ourselves, and therefore is not essential. The means by which he reached such a position will be explored through the relationship that exists between the imagination and the understanding. Through a critical analysis of Descartes reasoning this paper shall explore the different approaches that led him to his conclusion at the end of the sixth meditation that the imagination is not in fact deceiving him and is therefore to some extent necessary.
...of the body, and no problem arises of how soul and body can be united into a substantial whole: ‘there is no need to investigate whether the soul and the body are one, any more than the wax and the shape, or in general the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter; for while “one” and “being” are said in many ways, the primary [sense] is actuality’ (De anima 2.1, 12B6–9).Many twentieth-century philosophers have been looking for just such a via media between materialism and dualism, at least for the case of the human mind; and much scholarly attention has gone into asking whether Aristotle’s view can be aligned with one of the modern alternatives, or whether it offers something preferable to any of the modern alternatives, or whether it is so bound up with a falsified Aristotelian science that it must regretfully be dismissed as no longer a live option.
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
In his 1971 paper “Personal Identity”, Derek Parfit posits that it is possible and indeed desirable to free important questions from presuppositions about personal identity without losing all that matter. In working out how to do so, Parfit comes to the conclusion that “the question of identity has no importance” (Parfit, 1971, p. 4.2:3). In this essay, I will attempt to show that Parfit’s thesis is a valid one, with positive implications for human behaviour. The first section of the essay will examine the thesis in further detail, and the second will assess how Parfit’s claims fare in the face of criticism. Problems of personal identity generally involve questions about what makes one the person one is and what it takes for the same person to exist at separate times (Olson, 2010).
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.
Rene Descartes’ natural light is his saving grace, and not Achilles’ heel. Descartes incorporates the concept of natural light within his epistemology in order to establish the possibility of knowing things completely without doubt. In fact whatever is revealed to the meditator via the natural light is considered to be indefeasible. The warrant for the truth of these ideas does not rely on experience or the senses. Rather the truth of the idea depends on viewing the concept through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ “I am, I exist”, (Med. 2, AT 7:25) or the ‘cogito’ is meant to serve as the basis for knowing things through clear and distinct perception. Descartes’ cogito is the first item of knowledge, although one may doubt such things as the existence of the body, one cannot doubt their ability to think. This is demonstrated in that by attempting to doubt one’s ability to think, one is engaging in the action of thought, thus proving that thinking is immune to doubt. With this first item of knowledge Descartes can proceed with his discussion of the possibility of unshakeable knowledge. However, Descartes runs into some difficulty when natural light collides with the possibility of an evil genie bent on deceiving the meditator thus putting once thought concrete truths into doubt. Through an analysis of the concept of natural light I
The pursuit of knowledge has led many a philosopher to wonder what the purpose of life truly is, and how the material and immaterial are connected. The simple fact is, we can never know for certain. Arguments can be made, words can be thrown around, and rationale can be supported, but we as mere humans are not capable of arriving at the perfect understanding of life. Nonetheless, in the war against our own ignorance, we seek possible explanations to explain that which science and math cannot. Philosopher 's such as Plato and Aristotle have made notable contributions to our idea of the soul and its role in the grand scheme of life, while some, such as Descartes, have taken a more metaphysical view by pondering the impact one 's mind has on
It is apparent that we are personified entities, but also, that we embrace “more” than just our bodies. “Human persons are physical, embodied beings and an important feature of God’s intended design for human life” (Cortez, 70). But, “human persons have an ‘inner’ dimension that is just as important as the ‘outer’ embodiment” (Cortez, 71). The “inner” element cannot be wholly explained by the “outer” embodiment, but it does give rise to inimitable facets of the human mental life such as human dignity and personal identity.
...tion of permanence meaning that anything that appears to be forever and permanent is not inclined to change. Basic change, hence, is not possible. Each and everything have been in existence and will always be in either in one way or other. This notion of Parmenides directs him to the result that due to permanence there is an undivided unanimity within the world. Heraclitus on the other hand took an entirely different stand point and proposed that the world was directed and administered by a divine or spiritual rationale or logos. His assertion that the world has always been a subject to change and it stays in constant change and modification is the chief theme of his argument. He persisted that change prevails within the reality and the unknown and all- pervasive Being is there and commands the universe and all the things will remain subject to change for eternity.
Finally, the theory of Ideas reaches new height in the Sophists. The theory of Ideas in this work is a new concept because he redefines and extends it. The Sophist presents that there are hierarchy of Ideas and the whole complex of Ideas in defining the meaning of Sophistry. There are five categories of the sophist: motion and rest, sameness, difference, being, and non-being. Plato uses logos to define the meaning of each of the categories in which the being is dynamic and there is relationship among them which unity is important.