Philosophy Questions Essay

1) Ex opusifestly (the main ideas and gazes) and estimate (by giving arguments) the view of Heraclitus regarding the nature of reality? Heraclitus was star of cosmosy pre-Socratic philosophers, and hes considered to be the most important and influential. I dont pick out why, I find him a bit pitory. His way of recovering was the result of perception and intuition. He detest rational, logical, conceptual thought. His pronouncements were resolvely self-contradictory. We ar and at the confus satisfactory time ar not. Being and nonbeing is at the same time the same and not the same. (Im tot each(prenominal)y confused) He posed two main ideas 1- The Heraclitean school of thought of flux or Every social function is Flux This doctrine of flux (or as I understood it Everything flows) says that the whole humankind is in a constant quantity state of variegate. He expressed this view with his famous remark You shagnot vestal t integrity in the same river twice. This remark raises an important philosophical problem of identity or sameness over change. This question doesnt apply just to rivers, precisely to anything that change over time plants, animals, it applies to great deal too, the problem of personal identity you atomic number 18 not the same person today as you were yesterday. 2- Things change. (Even though I find him contradictory, I do construct to agree that eitherthing is in a state of constant change).Heraclitus wasnt just looking for the indigenous substance, he believed that everything was ceaselessly changing and he was looking to explain these constant changes or trans dustations. He didnt believe change was random, instead, he saw all change as determined by a cosmic order he called the Logos ( Grecian for word) jibe to Heraclitus, all is lift. Fire, whose nature is to ceaselessly change, is the fundamental substance of the universe, as yet more than water because fire trans realises solids into liquids and because it was forever in motion. He was besides a materialist (all objects be physical or material). I didnt escort him well, in my opinion I think he just wanted to contradict Parmenides, for the heck of it.2) Explain and adjudicate the view of Empedocles?Empedocles was an another(prenominal) major Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, also a materialist. His Pluralistic views decl ard that everything is make of 4 elements (or roots, to put it in his own terms) air, water, fire, and flat coat.His ism is best known for being the originator of the quartet-element theory of matter. He diplomatically sided partly with Parmenides (being is invariable) and partly with Heraclitus (being is ceaselessly changing). He thought that true statementful reality is permanent and unchangeable, save he also thought it absurd to dismiss the change we experience as mere illusion. Because of this he was possibly the first philosopher to attempt to reconcile and combine the app atomic number 18ntly conflictin g metaphysics of those before him. Although he declared that true(p) reality is changeless, objects do appear to change and this apparent change is brought to the highest degree by the variate of the congress proportions of the four elements.Empedocles also recognized that an account of reality must explain not but how changes in the objects of experience occur but why they occur. In other words, he attempted to issue an explanation of the forces that cause change. He taught that the grassroots elements enter new combinations under two forces or agents beloved and strife which are essentially forces of attraction and decomposition. He was a competent scientist regarded unhomogeneously 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) Explain and gauge the view of Anaximander?The reciprocal ohm of the Milesians, a pupil of Thales, sought 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 like water, fire, earth, and air, but that the beginning is endless and unlimited and does not age or decline and that it is what all things come from. A primordial mass, containing everything in the cosmos, does it sound familiar? Big-Bang Theory, maybe? Anaximander maintained that the staple substance out of which everything comes must be even more elementary than water and every other substance of which we cook friendship. He thought the basic substance must be ageless, boundless (Greek apeiron, that is, that which has no boundaries) or infinite, changing, undefined, and indeterminate. He doubted whether any fundamental or primary substance would experience in an unmistakable pure form.In a sense he was correct, as we today know that we dont observe the primary substance anywhere in the being even atoms are compose d of small 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 concord that the world could be reduced to ane thing, but never agreed on what that wholeness 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 integral idea of change was impossible. H Maintained everything is constantly changing and becoming slightlything else. P States, everything is constantly staying the same.H Thought reality is ceaselessly changing, permanence is an illusion. P Being is unitary, an dedifferentiated whole, eternal. All of us, although we seem individual, are part of one great unity or whole. This view is known as monism. Parmenid es 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 before him. speckle Milesians, Heraclitus, and the Pythagoreans looked rough at the world to find answers and tried to figure 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 easy and logic) He based his philosophy on principles of reason, which just means that they are known preceding to experience. For example if something changes, it becomes something different. Thus, he reasoned, if being itself were to change, and therefore it would become something different. But what is different from being is nonbeing, and nonbeing just plain isnt. Thus, he concluded, being does not change. Question 1 explains Heraclitu s in detail.I wouldve love to see these 2 up close and personal debating, what a pair 5) Explain and evaluate the views of Protagoras.A sophist, and an expert in rhetoric, was best known for 3 claims. a) That man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a manner of radical relativism) Man 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 knowledge the question is what example 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 humanity as a whole. Cultural relativism view claims that ethics is determined by each culture. What is decline and wrong ought to be determined by culture. Individual 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 have acted correctly. Whatever you believe to be true, is true. descriptive relativism says that as a matter of empirical fact, different cultures have 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 existence) He said virtually 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 brio 6) Explain and evaluate the views of Pythagoras.Not untold is known about Pythagoras because he wrote nothing, and it is hard 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 slightly secret, and controversy clay over the exact content of these doctrines. Pythagora s is said to have maintained that all things are numbers, numbers are ideas, ideas are immaterial, therefore all things are immaterial (Idealist) Everything is composed of numbers, could mean, all things express 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 encounter frequently. This is the idea that the fundamental reality is eternal, unchanging, and accessible only 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 amidst matter and mind. Unlike Empedocles, he believed that everything is infinitely divisible. He is known best for two theories. First, he held that in the physical world everything contains a portion of everything else. The second i s the theory of Mind (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 surrounded by mind and reason. Mind, according to him, is separate 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 expanding upon of the universe (some coming to be), the evolution of our entire universe since the Big-Bang, and how many planets, stars, gal axies, etc, have already passed outdoor(a). Anaximander, another Milesian thinker, rejected Thales, and competed instead that an indefinite substance the Boundless was the source of all things. According to Anaximander, the arctic and wet condensed to form the earth while the hot and dry 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 pantheists, to have believed that there were many worlds or universes, some coming to be, others passing out- of-door. 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 criticism 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 influence 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 valid as the next persons.Plato thinks that because this world is constantly changing, that truth in this world is impossible, truth for him is something, eternal. Plato also believed obj ects 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 rattling are as valid as the next persons, then the person who views Protagorass theory as false has a valid view. Protagoras did frustrate in some trouble for his philosophy, and he was also frequently criticized for inciting social disorder by encouraging people to make out the gods and live rational lives. In the Theaetetus, Plato also tried to show that another popular idea about knowledge is mistaken. This is the idea that knowledge may be equated with sense perception. Plato had several reasons for thinking that this equation was false. oneness reason for thinking that knowledge is not just sense perception is the fact that knowledge intelligibly involves more than sense perception. Another reason is that you can reta in knowledge even after you are no longer sensing 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 perfective tense beauty 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 mildews because the objects of sense perception are real only to the extent that they participate in the somas. 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 authoritative, unchanging Form or Forms. Physical objects are imperfect copies. Like Hera clitus, 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 dress for my daughter, so I have to think of a kind of dress, her size, what color, all the materials Ill need in general, and how to sew it together. So the dress idea is going to be born before I sew the actual dress. afterward 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 Theory of Forms is also called the Theory of Ideas. In other words the nature of reality is a physical realm and a Platonic rea lm 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. All 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 example of a form, there is only one Form of Beauty, but many things can be beautiful. Characteristics of forms according to Plato a geless, 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 book 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 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 homogeneous to the essential property 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 developed 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. mensuration3. Quality4. Relationship5. Activity6. Passivity7. Date/ Time8. Place9. Posture10. Constitution/ possessionNote I wasnt able to come up with an explanation other than just denomination the categories by reading the book 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 ar gument and theory of forms. This was actually formulated by Plato as a way of criticizing his works on the Theory of Forms. The third gear Man Argument (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 conjoin 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 highlight the problem of infinite rehash 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 Contrast 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 talk 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 hard-nosed philosophy, and came up with some practical everyday logic whi ch we use today without even realizing it. He disliked theories for which there was no verification 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 worshipper 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 else. proficient look at the DNA molecule, such a meticulous process, and happening constantly in every living thing, ev er 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 pelt? 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 perishable 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 unbelieving his/our own existence? How can something be comprehensible but cannot be communicated? I have no explanation fo r Gorgiass propositions as a matter of fact I dont really understand or know how to even try to make sense of them.