Philosophy Questions Essay

1) develop (the main ideas and views) and appraise (by giving arguments) the view of Heraclitus regarding the disposition of reality? Heraclitus was iodin of mevery a nonher(prenominal) pre-Socratic philosophers, and hes considered to be the well-nigh all-important(prenominal) and powerful. I simulatet do wherefore, I keep an eye on him a bit contradictory. His way of conceive ofing was the result of science and intuition. He despised rational, logical, conceptual thought. His pronouncements were employmently self-contradictory. We atomic number 18 and at the same cadence ar non. Being and non cosmea is at the same time the same and non the same. (Im tot on the wholey confused) He posed two main ideas 1- The Heraclitean belief of flux or Every issue is Flux This doctrine of flux (or as I understood it Every liaison flows) says that the whole cosmos is in a constant suppose of remove. He expressed this view with his famous remark You cannot step in the same ri ver twice. This remark raises an important philosophical problem of individualism or sameness over change. This question doesnt apply upright to rivers, but to anything that change over time plants, animals, it applies to people too, the problem of in the flesh(predicate) identity you ar not the same person today as you were yesterday. 2- Things change. (Even though I find him contradictory, I do affirm to nurse that incessantlyything is in a state of constant change).Heraclitus wasnt just feel for the primary substance, he believed that everything was constantly ever- changing and he was looking to in practice these constant changes or trans mixtureations. He didnt believe change was random, instead, he saw every(prenominal) change as determined by a cosmic assure he called the Logos (Greek for word) check to Heraclitus, all is fire. Fire, whose nature is to ceaselessly change, is the intrinsic substance of the universe, yet more than than piddle because fire tra nsforms solids into liquids and because it was al slipway in execution. He was also a materialist (all objects be corporal or material). I didnt understand him well, in my legal opinion I think he just wanted to contradict Parmenides, for the heck of it.2) beg off and tax the view of Empedocles?Empedocles was an separate major Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, also a materialist. His Pluralistic views decl atomic number 18d that everything is make of quatern elements (or roots, to put it in his take in terms) air, water, fire, and estate.His philosophy is best gon for being the originator of the four-element theory of matter. He diplomatically sided partly with Parmenides (being is unchanging) and partly with Heraclitus (being is ceaselessly changing). He thought that dep stopping point qualified(a) reality is per opusent and unchangeable, yet he also thought it infatuated to dismiss the change we experience as mere illusion. Because of this he was perchance the first p hilosopher to attempt to reconcile and combine the appargonntly conflicting metaphysics of those in the beginning him. Although he stated that unbowed reality is changeless, objects do appear to change and this apparent change is brought active by the variation of the relative proportions of the four elements.Empedocles also recognized that an card of reality mustiness ex unmistakable not merely how changes in the objects of experience occur but why they occur. In other words, he attempted to provide an explanation of the forces that cause change. He taught that the staple fiber elements enter new combinations under two forces or agents neck and strife which are essentially forces of attraction and decomposition. He was a workman exchangeable scientist regarded variously as a materialist physicist, a shamanic magician, a mystical theologian, a healer, a democratic politician, a living god (proclaimed himself a god), and a fraud.3) relieve and evaluate the view of Anaximand er?The second of the Milesians, a pupil of Thales, desire the primary substance. In my opinion, Anaximander was way ahead of his time, he thought that all dying things return to the element they came from. He believed that it wasnt an element deal water, fire, earth, and air, but that the beginning is endless and untrammelled and does not age or decay and that it is what all things come from. A primordial mass, containing everything in the cosmos, does it unplumbed familiar? Big-Bang guess, maybe? Anaximander maintained that the basic substance proscribed of which everything comes must be even more elementary than water and every other substance of which we fill experience. He thought the basic substance must be ageless, boundless (Greek apeiron, that is, that which has no boundaries) or unnumbered, changing, undefined, and indeterminate. He doubted whether any primal or primary substance would exist in an observable subtle form.In a sense he was correct, as we today gre et that we dont observe the primary substance anywhere in the human race even atoms are self-possessed of smaller particles that normally dontexist anywhere by themselves. 4) Explain, evaluate and compare (by stating how they are similar or different) the views of Parmenides and Heraclitus. They both agreed that the world could be decreased to one thing, but never agreed on what that one thing was. Even though their philosophies were in direct opposition, they were both named by Plato to be among the wisest of the early Greek philosophers. Heraclitus (H) thought everything was made out of fire, because fire was ever changing. Parmenides (P) disagreed he thought the wide idea of change was impossible. H well-kept everything is constantly changing and be access something else. P States, everything is constantly staying the same.H perspective reality is ceaselessly changing, permanence is an illusion. P Being is unitary, an unvarying whole, eternal. each of us, although we seem i ndividual, are part of one great unity or whole. This view is known as monism. Parmenides arrived at his truths through pure logic. He calculated and deduced his doctrine of Being, he did not care about finding the primary substance, or in looking for the features of reality. His methods were completely different that of those forwards him. While Milesians, Heraclitus, and the Pythagoreans looked around at the world to find answers and tried to put pop out out its primary substance, Parmenides, simply assumed some very basic principles and attempted to deduce from these what he thought must be the true nature of being.(This guy was simple and logic) He based his philosophy on principles of reason, which just means that they are known prior to experience. For grammatical case if something changes, it finds something different. Thus, he reasoned, if being itself were to change, wherefore it would become something different. But what is different from being is nonbeing, and nonb eing just plain isnt. Thus, he concluded, being does not change. Question 1 explains Heraclitus in detail.I wouldve love to see these 2 up finishing and personal debating, what a pair 5) Explain and evaluate the views of Protagoras.A sophist, and an well(p) in rhetoric, was best known for 3 claims. a) That man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) troops is the measure of all things. Of the things that are, that they are of the things that are not, that they are not b) That hecould make the worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger) Protagoras was a relativist about association the question is what type of relativist? Is knowledge relative to the species, or culture, or the individual?The species relativism view claims that truth is relative to our species, or relative to earthly concern as a whole. Cultural relativism view claims that ethics is determined by each culture. What is right and wrong ought to be de termined by culture. single relativism (Subjectivism) claims that each person ought to determine what is true for themselves. As long as you do what you think is right, then you catch acted correctly. Whatever you believe to be true, is true. Descriptive relativism says that as a matter of empirical detail, different cultures constitute different beliefs about what is true, this seems to be true. c) That one could not tell if the gods existed or not.Protagoras was agnostic (undecided about Gods beingness) He said or so the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form for the factors preventing knowledge are many the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life 6) Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras.Not much is known about Pythagoras because he wrote nothing, and it is strong to say how much of his doctrine is his. He was the founder of The Pythagoreans Cult or Club, (Pythagoras followers), they kept their written doctrines pretty secret, and controversy remains over the strike content of these doctrines. Pythagoras is said to have maintained that all things are rime, numbers are ideas, ideas are immaterial, at that placefore all things are immaterial (Idealist) Everything is composed of numbers, could mean, all things take up space and have measure. He was also a Dualist, dualism states that some objects are physical and some objects are not physical. The Pythagorean combination of mathematics and philosophy helped promote an important concept in metaphysics, one we will bump frequently. This is the idea that the fundamental reality is eternal, unchanging, and accessible that to reason. 7) Explain and evaluate the views of Anaxagoras.Anaxagoras introduced philosophy to Athens, where it flourished he alsointroduced into metaphysics an important distinction between matter and mind. Unlike Empedocles, he believed that everything is infinitely divisible. He is known best for two t heories. First, he held that in the physical world everything contains a portion of everything else. The second is the theory of estimation (Nous) as the initiating and governing principle of the cosmos. He postulated that the source of all motion is something called nous. This Greek word is sometimes translated as reason, sometimes as mind, and what Anaxagoras meant by nous is apparently an equation between mind and reason. Mind, according to him, is crystalise and distinct from matter in that it alone is unmixed. He believed, the universe was an infinite, undifferentiated mass. Mind did not create matter but only acted on it. 8) Explain, in your opinion, which, if any, of the early Greeks had a reasonable conception of the nature of reality.I might be wrong, but Anaximander seems to have been a pretty down to earth guy, his explanations and theories of the universe, and his believes in the existence of new and older worlds make me think of the constant expansion of the universe (some coming to be), the evolution of our entire universe since the Big-Bang, and how many planets, stars, galaxies, etc, have already passed past. Anaximander, another Milesian thinker, spurned Thales, and argued instead that an indefinite substance the Boundless was the source of all things. harmonize to Anaximander, the cold and wet condensed to form the earth while the hot and modify formed the moon, sun and stars. The heat from the fire in the skies which we see as the stars and other heavenly bodies, through holes in the mist dried the earth and shrank the seas. The seasons change as powers of heat and cold and wetness and dryness alternate. Its a rather fantastic scheme, but at least Anaximander sought natural explanations for the origin of the natural world. He believed that the origin of all things was what he called the apeiron an unlimited or indefinite indestructible substance, out of which individual things were created and destroyed.He appears, like many pantheis ts, to have believed that there were many worlds or universes, some coming to be, others passing away. As you can see, he proposed a theory of the universe that explained things in terms of natural powers and processes. 9) Explain and evaluate Platos rebuke of the views of Protagoras and others that argue that knowledge is relative. Protagoras, an early agnostic, was one of the fewGreek thinkers who did not believe in the pantheon of Greek gods. While it would have been difficult politically for him to just come right out and say, these gods arent real, he expressed that feeling in his homo-mensura doctrine, man is the measure of all things that the only thing that matters is the actions of a person, that the gods are irrelevant and have no check on a persons life. Or it can be interpreted the way Plato did, that there is no absolute knowledge one persons views about the world are as effectual as the next persons.Plato thinks that because this world is constantly changing, that t ruth in this world is impossible, truth for him is something, eternal. Plato also believed objects in this world are not eternal, so are beliefs about them, cannot always be correct and we cannot have truth. Plato argued strenuously against this theory. In the Theaetetus dialogue, Plato pointed out that, if Protagoras is correct, and one persons views sincerely are as sound as the next persons, then the person who views Protagorass theory as false has a valid view. Protagoras did get in some trouble for his philosophy, and he was also frequently criticized for inciting social disorder by encouraging people to ignore the gods and make up rational lives. In the Theaetetus, Plato also tried to show that another touristed idea about knowledge is mistaken. This is the idea that knowledge may be equated with sense perception. Plato had several reasons for intellection that this equation was false.One reason for thinking that knowledge is not just sense perception is the fact that kn owledge clearly involves more than sense perception. Another reason is that you can concord knowledge even after you are no longer percept a thing. Finally, and even more important, in Platos view true knowledge is knowledge of what it is. The objects of sense perception are always changing sense perception and knowledge cannot be one and the same (Heraclitus). According to Plato, the highest form of knowledge is that obtained through the use of reason because perfect knockout or absolute goodness or the ideal triangle cannot be perceived. Plato was certain that true knowledge must be concern with what is truly real. So this means that the objects of true knowledge are the Forms because the objects of sense perception are real only to the consequence that they participate in the Forms. 10) Explain and evaluate how Plato claims people can know the Forms.Perfect Intelligence- Knowledge of the Forms.Our thoughts become knowledge.Plato claimed that all physical objects copy the mas ter copy, unchanging Form or Forms. tangible objects are imperfect copies. Like Heraclitus, he held that this reality is constantly changing and shifting. What is true today may be false tomorrow in this world. In the realm of the Forms- truth is eternal. Lets say I want to make a bring down for my daughter, so I have to think of a kind of dress, her size, what color, all the materials Ill deprivation in general, and how to sew together it together. So the dress idea is spill to be innate(p) before I sew the actual dress. After I sew it, based on my original idea/pattern, its not going to be as perfect as I thought it originally. Because shes going to wear it, it might get torn, itll get old, and at the end it will no longer look even similar to my original design, but my original idea of the dress will remain with me in my head, even if the dress isnt physically there anymore, my perfect dress idea is immortal, unchangeable. Platos metaphysics is known as the possibleness of Forms is also called the speculation of Ideas. In other words the nature of reality is a physical realm and a Platonic realm of the Forms.The truth is that the ideas or Forms are what really exist The Republic, the most famous dialogue, gives Platos best-known account of the Theory of Forms. According to the theory, what is truly real are not the objects we encounter in sensory experience but, rather, Forms, and these can only be grasped intellectually. either physical objects are copies of these original entities. The Forms exist in another plain of reality- in an immaterial realm. In Platos similes of The Cave and The Divided Line, he argues that to gain knowledge of the Forms, a person must be re-oriented, away from being concerned and caught up in the world of the senses the mind as a whole must be turned away from the world of change until its eye can bear to look straight at reality, and at the brightest of all realities which is what we call the good.Beauty is another sta ndard of a form, there is only one Form of Beauty, but many things can be beautiful. Characteristics of forms according to Plato ageless, eternal, unchanging, unmoving, and indivisible. Note For some reason Im very confused with questions 9 & 10, Im not able to separate properly between Platos theory on Knowledge and Forms, I tried my best and because I wasnt able to express my views correctly I had tocopy some stuff from the entertain and the slides. 11) Explain and evaluate Aristotles notion of the 4 causes. Four Causes refers to an influential principle in Aristotelian thought whereby causes of change or apparent movement are categorized into four fundamental types of answer to the question why? Aristotle held that there were four kinds of causes1- Formal cause What is the thing? In other words, what is its form? This cause determines what a thing is. It is akin to the essential place or form. 2- Material cause What is it made of? This cause determines what a thing is made of. 3- Efficient cause What made it? This cause determines how an object is made or created.4- Final cause What purpose does it serve? This cause determines the purpose of function of an object, person or state of affairs. That is, for what end was it made. 12) Explain and evaluate Aristotles 10 categories.Aristotle thought that there were yet other ways that humans use to think about things so he substantial ten basic categories of being. These categories allow us to comprehend various aspects of any things being. Not only do we want to know that a thing is we want to know what it is and how it functions. These are the 10 categories or predicates to distinguish one object from another.1. Substance2. Quantity3. Quality4. birth5. Activity6. Passivity7. Date/ Time8. Place9. Posture10. piece/ PossessionNote I wasnt able to come up with an explanation other than just naming the categories by reading the set aside and slides only. I searched the internet and found several articles which I saved, but I couldnt get myself to write anything here based upon them. 13) Explain and evaluate Aristotles thirdman argument and theory of forms. This was actually hypothecate by Plato as a way of criticizing his works on the Theory of Forms. The Third Man rail line (TMA) is one of the most compelling arguments against the Theory of Forms. Aristotle thought that Platos theory was metaphorical and meaningless. His own views are that the Forms are universalssomething that more than one individual can be. Plato says what connect two coins together is circularity. Aristotle says, what connect the individual objects with the form of circularity? Some other form? What connects that form to the form of circularity this will result in an infinite progression of forms It was Aristotle who actually developed the man example. Its designed to play up the problem of infinite regress in Platos work on Forms.For example, a man who is described as a man because he has the Form of a man, then a third man (or Form) would be needed in order to explain how the man and the Form of the man are both classed as man. This leads to an infinite regress, as to explain how the third man and the form of the third man are classed as man, you would need a fourth man and so on. The Third Man Argument isnt simply infinite regress, but that each particular form would regress infinitely based on the definition of participation. 14) Compare and production line Platos view of Forms with Aristotles view of forms. Their views were different, but to some extent similar. Aristotle does not agree with Plato about the nature of ideas, forms for Aristotle exist only in the objects, not in some separate reality, it makes no sense to splatter about participating in some immaterial essence in a separate realm. Im going to take a long shot at this and say, Plato was an idealist, and looked to the skies and other worlds for his answers, while Aristotle was focused on the world around him.Aristotle was more of a realist, he liked more scientific studies and practical philosophy, and came up with some practical everyday logic which we use today without even realizing it. He disliked theories for which there was no proof or reason, and criticized Platos theory of forms. 15) Aristotle says Everything which comes into being is brought about by something else if that were the case, would existence not be a paradox as Gorgias points out? Explain. If this were true, then how or what caused the Big-Bang? Personally, Im a big worshiper of the Big-Bang theory (as you can probably see from my answers in previous questions), even though I have to admit is mysterious, and confusing it intrigues me, the fact that we arehere, how did we get here? I find it to be sort of mystical, and fantastic.I used to be atheist, but always had that little pinching feeling that theres got to be another explanation to ALL these, so I have to agree with Aristotle everything comes into being from/by something el se. Just look at the DNA molecule, such a meticulous process, and happening constantly in every living thing, ever sincewhen? The beginning of times, how did it began?, when did it began?, how does DNA knows what to do, in which order and when to do it? So, yes, Aristotle was on the right track, in my opinion, and the only paradox I see is, the who or what started it all, just like what came first, the chicken or the nut case? You cant get something from nothing, as such, there must be a being that is pure actuality which sets into motion the world, the world of potential and decayable things. On the other hand, Gorgias proposedThat nothing existThat if anything does exist, it is incomprehensibleThat even if it is comprehensible, it cannot be communicated Gorgiass propositions are said to be logical contradictions, how can they be logical if they contradict each other? How is it that nothing exists? Im definitely puzzled, and if it does exist, its incomprehensible? Was he question ing his/our own existence? How can something be comprehensible but cannot be communicated? I have no explanation for Gorgiass propositions as a matter of fact I dont really understand or know how to even try to make sense of them.