Please make sure you read the chapters, "Natural Philosophers" and "Democritus", pgs. 30-48 in order to do a great job answering the blog question. Feel free to use the NP grid sheet and the NP handout as well.
The natural philosophers discussed in these two chapters sought the answers as to what substance makes up our world and how to account for perceptible changes in life.
What was the substance of life?
- Was everything made of water as Thales stated? Or air in different combinations like Anaximenes commented? Or something called the"boundless"? Empedocles went further and felt that everything in life was a combo of 4 roots - earth, air, wind and fire (Avatar, the Last Airbender anyone?) - and that all things that have ever been and will ever be come from infinte variations of those roots. Anaxagoras was ahead of his time by envisioning material items being made up of tiny particles called "seeds."
- Or, as Democritus hypothesized, is life made up of immutable, tiny particles that are much like Lego pieces? The pieces are not all uniform in size and shape, and so that's what accounts for the infinite possibilities of these pieces he called "atoms".
What makes things change (or how do we explain he changes we experience w/ our senses)?
- Parmenides believed like all Greeks that nothing could come from nothing, and so things really didn't change. If he saw that the leaves were changing colors but his reason told him that nothing could really change, so what gives? Parmenides says that you can't trust your senses.
- Well, Heraclitus says Baloney! Everything's in flux, he says, but the thing that keeps everything whole is the logos or universal reason.
- Empedocles blended both permanence and change together with his 4 roots theory. Things change, but the roots are immutable and you can trust your senses.
- Parmenides believed like all Greeks that nothing could come from nothing, and so things really didn't change. If he saw that the leaves were changing colors but his reason told him that nothing could really change, so what gives? Parmenides says that you can't trust your senses.
- Well, Heraclitus says Baloney! Everything's in flux, he says, but the thing that keeps everything whole is the logos or universal reason.
- Empedocles blended both permanence and change together with his 4 roots theory. Things change, but the roots are immutable and you can trust your senses.
One thing to keep in mind before you answer the following questions: These natural philosophers did all of this thinking and hypothesizing without the benefit of our current technology and theories.
Please answer these questions:
1. Which of these natural philosophers do you most vibe with? Why?
2. Which of these natural philosophers is the most opposite of your personal views of life / universe? Why?
250 words minimum total for both answers - Due Wednesday, March 22 by the beginning of class.
2. Which of these natural philosophers is the most opposite of your personal views of life / universe? Why?
250 words minimum total for both answers - Due Wednesday, March 22 by the beginning of class.
1. The philosopher I personally vibe the most with is Heraclitus. I most appreciate his idea that "you can't step in the same river twice"--that everything is constantly changing, and varies from one moment to the next. This fits how I perceive the world, especially the natural world. Plants, trees, flowers, and animals change constantly. A large mountain or forest might seem like it never changes, but if you study it closely you can see how much is changing and moving. I feel like I change every day, and each morning I wake up and feel like the world and my perspective on it are at least slightly different. I think that Sophie's World made a good additional point that we should notice and enjoy these changes, and take delight in the fact that the Earth is so alive. And, I also generally agree with Heraclitus' stance that the senses are reliable, because I think that within the framework of our world, the way we physically see things is accurate enough for consensus.
ReplyDelete2. I had the most problems with Empedocles' philosophy. Although it is true that some things (especially products of the natural world like animals and plants) are "obviously" made up of the four elements, I think that as you test the idea it can seem more and more ridiculous. What is sugar made of? Sheep's wool? Meat? I find his idea that change occurs as a result of things combining or separating makes more sense, but we disagree about what the "things" are.
Ella
Blair -
ReplyDeleteI personally really agree with Thales’s views of everything having an origin with, or at the least being centered around water. Scientifically this makes the most sense to me, with water being so vastly essential to life and the continuation of said life. Life began in water and is sustained, in a great majority, by water. While the way he was viewing it, as water being everything, might have been a misconstrued version of the facts, I think he wasn't that far off. All living things would not exist, were it not for water. I have a similar viewpoint on the philosophies of Anaximenes, and his theory of air. Whereas he believed that everything was comprised of air, I view it in the sense that Air is essential to everything existing.
I personally disagree with Heraclitus. His viewpoint that everything is in a constant state of flow does not sit that well with me. some things are constant, and while yes all things change, his philosophy does not actually do much to explain what is changing. He also implies that our senses are generally unreliable, which while I might somewhat agree, does little to acknowledge the fact that our senses can be generally reliable; not constantly, but usually. For example, if I see something burn, it is probably burning. Call this a gross oversimplification but, nonetheless, I do not exactly vibe with the weeping philosopher when it comes to a basic understanding of why the world is the way it is.
Enzo -
ReplyDelete1. The philosopher I vibe with the most is Heraclitus. I agree with him that the world is in constant change, most of the time not visually, but change is always happening at the atomic level, especially in living things. I also agree with his point that our senses are generally reliable, that what we see, touch, smell, etc.. is real, but sometimes our senses do mess with us or get a false image of what is occurring. His argument about opposites makes sense, because you rarely notice something you have until it’s gone. For example, if you turn on a flashlight in the middle of the day, you’ll barely notice, but in the dark it’s a completely different story. I do agree with his point that there is logos in things, and that there is some “universal reason” in the world. The more used term for it nowadays might be “common sense,” which everyone has but not everyone chooses to use it.
2. The philosopher I disagree the most with is Anaximenes. The idea that air would contain the necessary materials to single handedly create animals. I find it incredibly farfetched, even for back then, to believe that air could be compressed in certain ways to create a cow, or a dog. I sort of understand the point that rain (water) came from air, although that’s not entirely true. While there is water in air, air is not responsible for creating water on earth. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around why he thought that. Especially if you consider that he believed that earth was compressed air, as if there is soil in air. I agree with his belief of one substance, but air is very far off.
The philosopher I vibe with the most is split between two, those being Heraclitus and Democritus. I vibe with Heraclitus because of his seemingly lauded back view of things like the bumper sticker made for the assignment “Go with the flow”. His view on constant change is something I personally see as the truth but I don’t think it’s a full enough answer for how things are changing and what the building blocks of the universe are and thats where the sciences comes in. Democritus's view of atoms being immortal building blocks that make up the matter of the universe is something I do see as the actual truth of what makes up objects but his view is extremely scientific and rather boring, it lacks the fun aspect of thought that Heraclitus has especially with his “ You can’t step in the same river twice” quote. That quote is something thats really fun to think about, how the world is always changing even if that change is on a microscopic level it is still changing it reminds me of the beauty the world has how most things if not all things in nature are living and like me are always changing. So when comparing the two philosophers ideals I think Democritus is correct in his assumption of atoms being the building blocks of life but the ideals of Heraclitus is different, special it’s more something I would want to believe in rather then just seeing the scientific answer and loosing the wonder that the natural world has
ReplyDeleteFor the philosopher that is most different from my own personal beliefs is Empedocles and his views of everything combine but nothing changes. Perhaps my distaste for his view is due to my lack of true understanding of why he thought what he thought since the idea of everything combining and not changing just seems like a rather foolish idea. I can't understand what convinced him to see it as such. No matter how hard I try to force myself to understand his view of all things combining I find myself struggling to think of a example that could sway me to his beliefs like maybe his view could prove true in some forms of nature I just can’t see it working in all examples. Empedocles said that the basic elements of life are the four basics elements those being water, earth, air and fire (maybe he was the first avatar?) and with those four elements being so different from each other I find it impossible to think that those basic elements combine and stay the same to form new things I just can’t believe it or maybe I’m thinking of it to literally. The only thing that me and Empedocles have in common is the idea that the senses are extremely reliable though our reasonings for it may differ I still find common ground knowing that without the sense I have life would be far more difficult and if I humor his ideals, having the senses allows me to see the changes and the constant combination of the natural elements
Bryce-
ReplyDeleteThe Philosopher I agree with the most is Empedocles. Everything is a variant from Water, Fire, Earth, or Air. Just like in Avatar lightning is a variant of lightning, then we get to electricity, then we get to technology. Or we combine electricity (fire) with metal (earth) to get our buildings, homes, and machines. Also, when we combine electricity, metal and air we have planes and other things of that nature. I just love the idea of everything being rooted from those four elements branching out into other forms. I also agree with Democritus because he believes that we are made up of blocks that rearrange. Just like how with TV or computer screens the pixels move around every time you change something, or the 1’s and 0’s change.
The Philosopher I agree with the least would have to be Parmenides. He believes that nothing changes and I just don’t think that is correct. Everything needs to change for it to continue, nothing can stay the same forever because if it did, It wouldn’t be productive in fixing its problems (if any). Obviously nothing can come from nothing but I don’t see how that can relate to nothing being able to change. I also feel like Your senses are more trustworthy than not. Although they may not be reliable every single time, they are reliable more often than not and that is where we got the phrase “trust your gut”. His thoughts are faulty and have nothing behind them.
1. The philosopher I found most interesting was Anaxagoras, as he was the most ahead of his time, in my opinion. Given their tools to analyze microscopic substances (they had nothing), Anaxagoras had a pretty good estimate of what our world is made up of. Not only that, but he was correct in hypothesizing the similarity between the building materials, or as he referred to them, "seeds". Both water and air are made of oxygen, as are many other things, but most commonly our surroundings are made of immense amounts of carbon. His theory more commonly suggested that human cells, which contain all of our genetic code, would be able to display a number of traits in our bodies.
ReplyDelete2. The philosopher I found most opposite to my views was Parmenides. I believe that one of the only things we can really trust is ourselves, and rejected our senses and proclaiming that nothings changes when we can see other is discerning. No hate to him, I agree that human rationality is just as important as our senses, but disregarding our senses based off a rationality we aren't certain of can be unusual. I think it is very difficult for humans to wrap our heads around anything that has appearing always existed, but to say it will then exist forever is illogical. Our senses will tell us that humans, animals, and even materials decompose, so there must be change occurring. I believe that if Parmenides had decided to use both his reason and his senses, he would've been able to recognize that things can change, and things also do end, we just aren't always sure when or how.
Nathan
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I vibe with the most is Heraclitus. I think his idea that everything is constantly changing makes the most sense out of all the philosophers. For example, you might think that my notebook and folder are the same when I use them, but when I put papers in my folder and write in my notebook, they are changed because they are not the same as before. Additionally, when I leave them on my table or on the ground, they collect dust and are therefore still being changed even when they are still.
The philosopher I disagree with the most is Anaximenes. His idea that air is the single source of all things does not make sense to me. Humans breathe in air and pass through it all day. If I can pass through air, why can I not pass through the ground if air is the source of everything? This theory could make sense in modern times if you brought in the idea that atoms makeup everything and therefore solid objects are just atoms from the air pulled together. If Anaximenes knew this, I could understand his philosophy and I might believe in it more
1. The philosopher that I personally vibe most with is Empedocles. I may not necessarily agree exactly with his beliefs, but I like how he is able to take good arguments from both opposing sides of the Parmenides and Heraclitus beef and use reason to develop his beliefs. While obviously there are more than four elements, I agree with his belief that nothing really “changes”, as they are the same element, but elements can join and separate to create any number of things. This is how we now understand things to be, how things are created, why you can boil ocean water and get steam and salt, and many other things that occur in the world. Having elements as building blocks was an advanced idea at the time, and set up future philosophers to come up with the idea of an atom and there being building blocks of the universe. Another vibey part of Empedocles is his idea that love and strife are the forces at play to bind and separate elements. The idea of human emotions and concepts affecting the world’s workings obviously isn’t true, but it is such a cool concept.
ReplyDelete2. Thales is the philosopher that my views least correlate with. It doesn’t make sense to me how he can observe the world through his senses or use reason to come up with the idea that everything comes from water. If I were to see a rock, sand, fire, or bugs, it makes no sense to conclude that these come from water. Water is very important to us, but the idea of water being the source of everything is too abstract and nonsensical for me.
Mori
Which of these natural philosophers do you most vibe with? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I most vibe with is Democritus. I find that his views are the most modern and consistent with science. He believed that the basic elements of life are made up of tiny particles that you can't see from the naked eye. His theory was based on his idea that these “atoms” were like building blocks that could join together to form everything we see around us. In addition to this, he believe that these building blocks were eternal, because “nothing can come from nothing”. This makes the most sense to me because if there was nothing to start with, then nothing could be created. Democritus also believed that our senses are reliable, I find this comforting because I would like to believe that I can depend on and trust my senses to get me through life. I also vibe with the fact that he believed in nothing but material things. He didn't believe in a force or soul that could intervene in the natural process, he only believed in atoms and the void. This is similar to my belief that there is no higher power controlling us. I also vibe with how democtritus was called the laughing philosopher because he valued cheerfulness.
Which of these natural philosophers is the most opposite of your personal views of life/universe? Why?
The philosopher whos views are the least similar to my own, is parmednidies. I don’t like his idea that out senses are not reliable. This unsettles me because i want to believe that what i see, hear, taste, touch, and smell are all real and dependable. We as humans, depend on our senses every minute of every day, and If we cant trust these senses to keep us alive and aware, then what can we trust? Another philosopher who has views that are not consistent with mine, is empedocles. I dont like his theory that the basic elements of life are made up of earth, air, fire, and water. This idea troubles me because we have since found many many more elements that make up our universe.
Nina
I really most vibe with Anaxagoras because instead of thinking that everything would be created by one element or that everything is made of four different elements here air, water, fire and Earth he said that we are made of an infinite number of particles which is right. Moreover he was also right about the fact that the nucleus is revealing parts of our identity like the color of our hair, eyes and other characteristics which refer nowadays to the DNA. His moto “there is something made of everything” is also true because the water can change to ice or vapor, we can made a table by cutting a tree so we transform the tree in a table as he said “Nothing is born or perishes, but already existing things combine and then separate again”. His theory about the fact that there could be other humans on another planet and that we are made of the same substance as the Earth is also funny.
ReplyDeleteI personally don’t really vibe with Parmenides because when he said that nothing can come to nothing that’s not true as we can see a seed can become a flower, water can become ice, not all the things change but most of them. I also don’t really understand why he thinks that our senses don't give us a correct picture of the world because everything we see is true, we can see it, touch it and also feel it. It isn't a virtual thing like a mirage or an hologram. So I will finish with another question: what does Parmenides want to say about the fact that our senses don't give us a correct picture of the world ?
Clara
I most vibe with Heraclitus, as I think that every thing, more specifically, every person, is capable of change. I especially like his analogy of the river, and how no one thing is ever seen as the same. Surprisingly, a quote from a film I like was actually said by Heraclitus. It’s from Call Me By Your Name, and it goes: “The Cosmic Fragments by Heraclitus: The meaning of the river flowing is not that all things are changing so that we cannot encounter them twice, but that some things stay the same only by changing.” Upon first hearing the quote, it helped shaped my perspective on the world, and I only understand it more after looking more into Heraclitus.
ReplyDeleteDue to the fact that all of the natural philosophers had such an amazing understanding of the human condition, I don’t disagree with any of them. With that being said (and with the limited knowledge I have), out of all of them, Empedocles was the one I did not vibe with as much. This is simply due to his reliance on trusting the senses, which is something that I have found to have the potential to be wrong.
Jack W.
Democritus’s philosophy is the most intuitive and plausible to me personally. The four roots theory and water theory of the fundamental substance make a grander claim, and are more unintuitive and arbitrary. Why would water be the most fundamental substance of the universe compared to anything else, and how are the 4 categories determined? It’s a much less appealing claim compared to the idea that there are fundamental indivisible units. He also has an appealing theory of change where it's the relationships of atoms that cause the appearance of change. In conclusion Democritus has the most correct and appealing theories, the theory of change and theory of the fundamental substance. Especially when you take into account modern knowledge of atoms. His competitors theories about certain elements like fire or water being the fundamental element are unintuitive and not very plausible when compared to Democritus’s theory of atoms being the fundamental substance.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus is the most wrong and unintuitive since the law of noncontradiction is really intuitive and obvious. It’s also dumb to expect that substances must be constantly changing or that there aren’t constants in nature. His position on the fundamental substance is also worse than Democritus’s, atoms are more plausible then everything being made of fire. Fire is super duper weird and arbitrary compared to atoms. Even less plausible then water being the fundamental substance because water is more dynamic then fire and isn’t hot. In conclusion Heraclitus’s philosophy is worse than all the other philosophers because it's illogical and unintuitive.
Sam
I think I vibe with Heraclitus the most -- who was actually my philosopher for the groups we did last week. He believes that there is constant change that is balanced by an opposite constant change. I really like this way of thinking because I feel like it explains the idea of karma and that nothing is set in stone. If you do something to change your life, your life will change. Thinking like this brings me a sense of comfort because I feel like I have more control over my life.
ReplyDeleteI also believe in “what goes around comes around”, and the idea that there is an opposite change for each change supports this saying. I also liked his idea of different perceptions on different substances, for example: saltwater may hurt humans’ eyes but it is necessary for fish to live. I like to look at the world in this way, that we all need different things as individuals in order to live comfortably.
I think I vibe the least with Parmenides. He believes “all is one”, in that everything is made up of one substance. I find this really intriguing, but it doesn’t make sense to me that everything could have the same substance in them. Like -- how do a cucumber, table, and giraffe all share the same substance? I don’t like this way of thinking either because I like to think everything is different, and there are many things we have yet to discover about the world and the substances in each thing.
Mikayla
1. I vibe most with Democritus. I agree with the atom theory, and just like a lego (in Sophie’s World), they are unbreakable building blocks that can be reconstructed to make new things. I agree with his views on how atoms can’t be destroyed because since nothing can come from nothing, then atoms must have always existed (which still confuses me because then how did atoms start, but I digress). I also agree that atoms are constantly moving, causing a constant flux in nature. He believed that our senses are a result of certain atoms reaching our eyes, moderne that a bit, and I agree. When we smell, certain atoms enter our nose, and when we see, light reflects atoms whose pictures are created in our eyes.
ReplyDelete2. I disagree most with Parmenides. He believes that everything is made up of one single basic substance; while I believe all things are connected in some way, I believe everything is made up of atoms. Parmenides also believed that everything that something can’t come from nothing, so everything must always exist. I can agree with this to an extent; however, I view time as linear, so there had to be a starting point, at which point something must’ve started. Parmenides was a rationalist, meaning he strictly believed in reason even when his senses told him otherwise; he viewed his senses as a false reality, which is kind of true. We don’t actually see things; we only see the way the light reflects on them; however many things in life we cannot base on reason. We must trust our senses because we would be virtually nowhere without them. And if you can’t trust your senses, what can you trust when there is no logical reason?
Ellie
I vibe the most with Heraclitus. I agree with the fact that the world is in a constant state of change or flow. Empedocles said "pure water will continue to be pure water", but that's not true. The water will eventually get mixed up with particles that make it unpure, it will change temperature, it can become ice or vapor, you might decide to move it to a different location, and it will always be moving forward on the spectrum of time, so it's always changing. That is why when Heraclitus said "you can't step in the same river twice" I agree. Not only will everything around us always be in a constant state of change, but our consciousness is too, and if we perceive something differently, or view it from a different perspective, it changes. I also agree that there is a "universal reason" or logos that guides what happens in nature, it's physics. Not only does it explain how atoms and particles work, but it can give us a blueprint and equations to understand movement, force, matter, and energy...I also think our senses are reliable. If we look at it from a biological and practical standpoint, we can understand that our sense's only use is our own survival, and if we're still alive, why wouldn't they be reliable? Although I like to disagree with the claim that the world is made of opposites because I believe that duality is a made-up concept that brings us suffering, and the paradox and uncertainty are what can lead us to enlightening thoughts, I do believe that "god" or this sort of magical deity is made up equally of what we call good and bad. And I also agree that "god" is an unconscious being found in nature and the miracle of life that embraces the whole world.
ReplyDeleteRespectively, I would say I agree the least with Parmenides. I can understand why he made the assumptions he made, but since we will never find an answer to these questions, I like to relate more to the ones that allow room for change and aren't as limiting. I completely disagree with the fact that our senses aren't reliable, when I taste ice cream, I know it's ice cream, and if I hear someone talking, I can turn around and see that I was right. I do agree that nothing can come from nothing, or become nothing and that everything has to come from something. We know this scientifically. We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred, so therefore, if the energy in something changes, that thing does as well. We see as science develops that Paramenides was actually contradicting himself.
Malena
ReplyDeleteThe natural philosopher I vibe with the most is Empedocles. The combination of views from Parmenides and Heraclitus helped Empedocles with his final thoughts on what he believed. I agreed with his statements on the basic elements of life or what he would call “roots”, being water, fire, air, and earth. He combined the idea that ‘nothing changes' ' mixed with you must believe what you see with your eyes. Instead of believing everything changes, he thinks the four elements combine to separate only to combine again. He also believed in love and strife, love binding things together and strife tearing it apart. I enjoy that way of thinking, and I think it's very true in the sense of love bringing things together. I thought that Empedcloes' way of thinking was so happy and practical in a way. I like to believe that everything is connected and things stay the same, the idea that we just recycle our resources with the four elements. In Sophie's world I found this quote that read, “Had my eyes lacked any of the four substances, I would not have seen all of nature.” Empedocles believed that eyes consisted of earth, fire, water ,air just like everything else in nature. That is a really beautiful way of thinking to me.
The philosopher that is the most opposite from me is Thales. He believed that everything came from water. I don’t really like the idea of everything coming from one and source and more specifically from water.
Charley
1. I think I vibe most with Democritus. His beliefs are closest to what we have discovered in science today. He developed “atomism”, which is the belief that everything is made up of small invisible tiny particles. Today, we call those particles atoms. He also believes that nothing changes. This aligns with the idea that matter can’t be destroyed or made, but can only change into different forms, which is similar to what we know in science today. He also believes that our senses are reliable, which I agree with to an extent.
ReplyDelete2. There is not one philosopher that I completely disagree with, but some ideas of a few that I don’t completely agree with. For example, the idea that Parmenides has that “senses are ultimately unreliable”, I believe to be wrong. I think that what we see is what’s in front of us, and that our minds can’t really just make up things. I also disagree with the idea that Heraclitus has, where he believes that everything is always in a constant state of change. I do believe that all matter can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
ReplyDeleteThe philosopher I relate the most with is Heraclitus. I do believe that all things really do flow together. What really made me vibe with him the most was his famous quote that “ You cannot step in the same river twice, I believe everything is always going one way and once you do something there's really no going back to the way it was. Everything around us is constantly changing, and I really think Heraclitus really hit the nail with that quote. Heraclitus also believed that the world was in opposites. I think that he meant that there’s light and dark and that it’s good that we have it. I really think that there is always some good and evil in the world, and believe there is a reason for it. Not just good and evil, but there are opposites to everything. If we didn’t know what some diseases were, how would we know the treatment for them? I also found it interesting how Heraclitus really didn’t have any interest in anyone else’s opinions, and he based a lot of his knowledge on his intuition. This is another reason why I vibe with him, I like the fact that he really doesn’t care about what anyone else really thinks. I agree with his universal reason, and that everyone is guided by their own. Heraclitus was I think really relatable at least to me. I think his thoughts on change were really good and his views on opposites were also really interesting too.
The philosopher that I vibe with the least is Parmenides. He thought that everything that exists already existed. He believed that nothing can come from nothing, but to me, that really doesn’t make any sense. I sort of agree with him that maybe all things existed at one point, and he says that all things are in constant flux, but this implies that nothing had ever changed. I think that things change things are constantly changing, so his views are really the opposite of mine. In the book, it says that he never really listened to anyone else's reason, just his own. Parmenides also didn’t believe in his senses and that they gave us a false sense of reality. I believe that our senses are really important to our daily lives and we take them for granted. Every day we use our senses to help us move around and do great things. Even people who may not have all five senses still find great ways to make the best of the senses that they have. He also was a rationalist and believed that the primary source of our knowledge is the world. I disagree with him because I feel that our knowledge can be from many different things. Making mistakes, getting old, and even reading books are all ways to gain knowledge, and they’re not only just world-based things. I think maybe Parmenides’ ignorance toward things around the world probably set him back from finding out about things in the world.
1. Which of these natural philosophers do you most vibe with? Why?
ReplyDeleteI most vibe with the philosophy of Heraclitus. Particularly, his line, "We cannot step twice into the same river. When I step into the river for the second time, neither I nor the river is the same". When you first step into the river, you might shift some sand at the bottom. So the second time when you step in, your foot will not find the same hold. Additionally, the person who steps in the river has already had an experience dipping a foot in the river, so they will know what to expect the second time. I like this idea that everything is constantly changing, and being shaped by factors both internally and externally. Though I agree with Heraclitus, I also like what Democritus put forth about the atom. He theorized that our world is made up of a large number of universal building blocks that cannot be changed. At first glance, these two notions don't really go hand in hand, but Democritus' philosophy can actually support Heraclitus' idea that everything is changing. Even though the actual atoms aren't changing, they are rearranging themselves to form new things. From the human perspective, our world is constantly in change.
I also really like what Heraclitus said about opposites. He said there is good and evil in everything, and the contrasts between them are what make our world function. "If we were never ill, we would not know what it was to be well". Heraclitus perceives all negative things as having a silver lining. Without them, we wouldn't truly appreciate the good moments in life.
2. Which of these natural philosophers is the most opposite of your personal views of life / universe? Why?
The philosopher who I most disagreed with was Parmenides. One reason I liked Heraclitus so much was because he believed that everything was in a constant state of flux. Parmenides believed the opposite. That nothing can come from nothing, and everything has always existed in the state it is in. Parmenides had this belief, but he recognized that with his eyes, ears and other sensory receptors, that the world appeared to be changing. Most people would use these observations as evidence to support their argument. But Parmenides' observations contradicted his. So Parmenides chose to just ignore his senses, and go with his reason. He decided he couldn't trust the senses just because they went against his flawed logic.
But how did Parmenides develop this logic of his. Through his experiences, and his learning. And how was Parmenides able to experience the world, and interact with it in order to form this philosophy. With his senses. So how can he reject the senses, saying they cannot be trusted, when they are the whole basis with which he developed the thinking he is propagating? How are we supposed to reason at all, if we can't rely on our senses? Without them, we are just a brain, capable of thinking, but with nothing to think about.
Zane
Madison
ReplyDelete1. The philosopher I relate to most is with Heraclitus. I also believe that people, objects, and everything in the universe is always changing. Even if you can’t see it from your own eyes, very small minuscule changes are occurring every moment. Anyone can see the constant changes the Earth and its inhabitants go through: the changing seasons, natural disasters, and other natural occurrences. Because it’s fairly easy to see how many things change, I agree with the notion that using your senses are usually reliable to see the changes around us. Lastly, Heraclitus’ essence of “going with the flow” is pretty chill and letting things change is a good ideal to hold onto since I believe it’s impossible to keep something from changing.
2. The philosopher I disagree with the most is Parmenides. In my opinion, Parmenides and Heraclitus are opposites of each other where Heraclitus believes in constant change, and Parmenides believes in none. I don’t really understand how Parmenides could say that change isn’t happening when there are probably millions of examples of objects, people, and the earth changing. Parmenides must have gone through changes himself, at least puberty, right? Parmenides' rebuttal is to simply take a blind eye to all the changes and say that nothing changes; I can’t just avoid the changes happening around me, which is why I wholeheartedly disagree with Parmenides’ philosophy.
1. Each philosophy has something that I could understood and connected with, but the philosopher I connected with the most has to be Heraclitus. I agree with the statement that everything is in a constant flux and everything changes. But with I like most about him is his idea that everything has good and evil in it. Although I don’t think his idea of good and evil are the same as mine, or anyone else. I agree that every living organism has the capacity for both good and evil, It all depends on our choices. “The only thing that’s constant in this world is change.” There’s nothing that will constantly stay the same, even if the change is very small it is still change. The only thing that will never stop is change, whether good or bad.
ReplyDelete2. I really don’t vibe with any of the philosophers, but the one whose ideas were just way off to me is Empedocles. Particular because when I heard about his idea for the basic elements it made me think of Avatar. Fire, water, wind, and earth are some of the basic elements that help make up our world, but there are clear areas where those elements can’t be seen as building blocks. Particularly in space where none of those elements are consistently present. There’s no air in space, for 99% of space there is no earth, fire, or water. I can’t blame him though because his idea was based on a lack of astronomical understanding .
Joshua W
I definitely vibe with the philosopher Heraclitus the most. The idea that everything is in a constant state of change makes a lot of sense to me, whether it be on a biological level with evolution, or on a personal and mindset level with the way we perceive things and gain knowledge. His thoughts on nature’s constant change are reliable to me but I do think that everything came from something and that something has been here forever - energy stays forever - so in that sense, I can agree with Parmenides who believed nature was formed through “some universal substance”. As for my life, I like to believe that I am changing for the better each and every day and in many different ways. I am very avid about growth within oneself and it is important to change with the world around you but in a positive way. The idea that “you can’t step in the same river twice” is something that really resonates with me. Life is always moving forward because time never stops, so the idea that you will be in a different place as a different person than you were a year ago is something that blows my mind but also makes me look forward to bettering myself.
ReplyDeleteHeraclitus was really the only one who believed that things were constantly changing, so when it comes to elements and senses, I disagreed the most with Parmenides because he was so skeptical of reality. I used to think that nothing was real and this was just a matrix simulation but that doesn’t sit right with me anymore. I like to believe that the life I’m living has meaning and the choices I make are worth something. Anaxagoras stating that things can be perceived differently is something that I really vibe with, even though he believed that change is stagnant. I think in the end each philosopher has something that I vibe with and it creates a more whole sense of life for me.
Kaitlyn