Unlike Parmenides and Heraclitus, who took a clear stance on whether being is changing or unchanging, Empedocles argued that things do change, but these objects are composed of materials that do not change. The change that we see is merely a cause of the interaction and changes in position of the four basic elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Much like Heraclitus and his views that orderly change is brought about by the “logos”, Empedocles also recognized that there was a force responsible for the change brought about. In his case, changes in the forms and positions of the basic elements was an effect of two forces – love and strife (or more commonly known as the forces of attraction and repulsion/decomposition). The philosophy of Empedocles can be likened to our understanding of physics today. What with his belief of the universe being composed of basic material particles (the four basic elements, in his point) constantly moving under the act of impersonal forces (love and strife). With that being said, it’s difficult to argue against his philosophy when much of what he said we know is true today. Except, of course, for his belief that the four basic elements are the rudimentary material particles of matter that are the “building blocks” of the universe. The elements themselves are made up of smaller particles, which can be broken down even further.
Anaximander’s main philosophical view is that the primary substance out of which everything we know comes from, is more elementary than any substance which we have knowledge about. He stated that this “basic stuff” is unchanging, infinite, and unknown. This boundless substance becomes the basis out of which everything stems from and is also the unifier within the universe. One...
... middle of paper ...
...blic, Plato goes on to recognize education as one of the most vital features of a well-run state. He understood the importance of having intellectual, sensible beings running a successful state. Our rational is what directs us towards logical decisions in your life, as well as maintaining us a distance away from corruption. Though Plato is completely correct in recognizing the importance of knowledge in state, I can’t fully agree with his belief that only intellectual individuals are ever capable of fully comprehending the Forms of justice and good. What he wanted was an “intellectual oligarchy” and even though oligarchies may prove effective in the transformations of a state, there is also a huge fault within such system. That flaw being that only the privileged few have a say, where more often than not, the needs and wants of the common people are not thought of.
Plato believes that education is wisdom and through literary mechanisms such as the Allegory of the Cave he shows the importance of education in achieving enlightenment. Believing that only the philosopher-kings should be educated, for reasons unstated, Plato argued that education enables the philosopher-kings to guide the masses and make good decisions on behalf of the Republic. Defining wisdom is a difficult and often contentious undertaking. Throughout history, important thinkers like Plato provide a different understanding of the purpose of life and of the meaning of wisdom itself. Plato saw wisdom as an external force that could only begin to be seen by human
Plato's Republic is widely regarded as a masterpiece of social and political philosophies. He believed that all men were not created equal, but not in the physical sense that history has shown. He meant intellectually. When referring to democracy, he looks upon it as something that would result in tyranny and chaos. "Tyranny by the poor," is why he believed that an aristocracy would be a better ruling tool than a democracy (Plato, B.C.). He criticized democracy as a way for which anarchy to breed and that political equality, as it partially exists now, inevitably leads to democracy. Although I object to the idea that I am not equal to some others, Plato is right in saying that the average citizen should not be trusted with the decision of electing officials in the case that they are not knowledgeable.
in the spiritual and moral life of the ancient Greeks, where in the same place
Plato views the democratic state as a city “full of freedom and freedom of speech[,]” where its citizens “have the license to do [whatever they] want” and the right to self-determine. Plato however, sees this insatiable desire for freedom at the expense of neglecting everything else as the downfall of democracy. To clarify, a society that is staunchly protective of its equality and freedom will be particularly sensitive towards any oppositions that seem to limit them, to the point where it actively attempts to “avoid [obeying the law and] having any master at all.” Thus, “unless the rulers are very pliable and provide plenty of that freedom, they are punished by the city and accused of being oligarchs.” Since those in power fear the accusations of those being ruled, they become docile and submissive. On the other hand, those who are ruled are encouraged by their rulers’ meekness and, convinced of their inherent right to freedom, begin to behave as their own rulers. Thus, this blind chase for unconditional freedom will propagate disorder across the society, and eventually cause the people to see “anarchy [as] freedom, extravagance [as] magnificence, and shamelessness [as]
Plato’s version of the involves a selective process where the government selects what job the people will have when they are children and groom them to only be able to do that said job. Keeping information away from certain people is Plato’s idea of keeping a just city-state. His belief could cause more harm than good because it creates large divides in the society, create unknowledgeable people to have all the power, and lead to problems with everyone within the government.
Rather than the practical pursuit we are accustomed to, for Plato, Politics is an intellectual faculty. Governance by non-philosophers is to be governed by opinions, beliefs and self-interest; in contrast the philosopher ruler will govern with virtue and justice with no hidden agenda. The philosopher is in love, in love with learning, knowledge and truth. It is important to make a distinction here between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of truth, because knowledge is not necessarily the truth.
Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, once said that "all men possess by nature a craving for knowledge." This idea has been explored for thousands of years within various cultures throughout the world. Within Aristotle's own culture, many greek myths were developed that pondered the idea of the constant search for knowledge. One of the most famous perhaps is the myth of Daedalus and Icarus. This myth tells the classic story of a man, Daedalus, who wishes to escape the island of Crete with his son Icarus. He creates wings for both himself and Icarus but warns his son that he should not attempt to fly too low near the water or too high near the sun for fear of death. Icarus does not heade his warning and flies high near the sun. The myth ends in tragedy with Icarus falling to his death and drowning in the sea. The myth of Daedalus and Icarus is a classic example of the consequences of gaining too much knowledge. Remnants of this tale can be seen throughout the western world an in some of the greatest literature. The Greeks are known for their contributions to government, culture and philosophy. Their influence can still be seen today. The Greeks produced ideas that laid the groundwork for modern civilizations and they pushed the boundaries of knowledge in several areas. However, some of the most celebrated Greek thinkers questioned the limits of knowledge and its implications. The story of Daedalus and Icarus reflects the Greek philisophical concept that restrictions should be placed on knowledge and this idea can be seen in several important woks of western literature.
Plato or is his mouthpiece in the Republic, Socrates, developed many philosophies and ideas that were way before its time. As the Republic and the city became more and more luxurious, the fear of jealousy from neighboring colonies and/or groups arose. Also, before allowing the thought of tyranny to enter the minds of any of the guardians, Socrates believed he needed to educate and train them from an early age like a puppy. With people they are familiar with, along with loved ones, the guardians will be respectful and calm. But, once a threat rises, the guardians become a guard dog instead of a puppy and fight with great valor and pride. In conclusion, in my opinion, the reason Plato proposed to censor the educational curriculum of the guardians
... educated to become the best in the state. Aristotle’s ideal state only consists of free men, who choose a government to suit the personalized state, however, Plato structures the ideal state down to the last detail.
Aristotle and Plato were once philosophers in Ancient Greece who studied to a great extent ethics, politics and science. Aristotle was influenced by Plato as Aristotle was his student, just as Socrates, another big Greek philosopher, influenced Plato. Although, their ideas may be obsolete by modern standards, they still continue to have historical value. Thus, these ancient notions are often explored as they molded modern thinking to what it is today. Regularly examined, The Republic, by Plato and Politics by Aristotle, were each written in attempt at explaining political theory. Despite the fact, Plato taught Aristotle, Aristotle had different philosophical ideas on justice and injustice, morality, human life, the human soul, regimes, political
Philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. The philosophies of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had different points of view but they were also similar in some ways. For example, all three philosophers had their own thoughts on the subject of justice and government. Socrates belief on this matter was that democracy was an unwise form of government.
He writes, for example, that within the framework of a democratic society, young people begin to imitate adults and compete with them in reasoning and in affairs that results in contention between generations. “The forgiving spirit of democracy” is the spirit of slavery since ordinary people become slaves of the part of the population that begins to govern the country by becoming a major political force. Supporters of democracy think that they have a true idea of the correct version of the political regime, but according to Plato, they are far from the truth, since they have no idea of the correct structure of the state. I can say that I agree with Plato 's ideas on democracy and its supporters since in fact, we can observe the phenomenon of injustice and tyranny in many democratic countries. Under the guise of democratic ideals, modern society shows the commitment of the various anti-moral and anti-social phenomena that cannot be regarded as positive. People have become slaves of money and power, and in a society that calls itself ‘democratic’ the power belongs to separate individuals while other people are their slaves although they do not understand this
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.
Plato thought education at all levels should be the state’s responsibility. His reasoning was that the individual
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,