Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between Parmenides and Heraclitus
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Similarities between Parmenides and Heraclitus
Vidas Sileikis
First Writing Assignment
Dating back to Thales, we first learn about metaphysical beliefs. He shows us the idea of Monism as the belief that “one” thing is the cause of everything else. Furthermore, the Arche is created meaning origin in Greek which meant that the one “stuff” is basis of the rest of the universe. For Thales, Arche is water. Stemming from Anaximander and Anaximenes, we learn about the ideas of Appearance vs Reality which is basically the real stuff versus many appearances which brings us the question what is an illusion and what is real? We learn about the concept of reason which is trust versus mistrust of reason. This causes the paradox of the “one” and the “many” as they both are seemingly absurd and self-contradictory
…show more content…
Furthermore, this means that Heraclitus’ concept of change was rejected as there can be no logical explanation because we have to think of something in terms of what it is not. Parmenides starts off with the basic claim of Monism which meant that reality was fundamentally one. We are introduced with two quotes that are supporting claims called premises which seem self-evident. As quoted by Parmenides “What is, is.” and “What is not, is not.” Parmenides basic argument causes the notion of change to become self-contradictory. To elaborate further, change on the level of appearance simply does not occur, this is an illusion. Parmenides reasoning explains that “Nothing exists” is contradictory and his 3 premises of the quotes and monism result in the famous conclusion. Whatever is, is 5 things: Uncreated, indestructible, eternal, and unchangeable. Parmenides explains that the ‘it’ is basic as it is ‘one’ can’t be created or destroyed. Parmenides creates the reduction ad absurdum argument which means assuming the opposite of one’s own belief. To further his argument, he tries to convince us through logical argument (reasoning).
This causes two opposing arguments of appearance vs reality between Parmenides and Heraclitus’. For reality, we are presented with the idea of constant change by Heraclitus’ but as Parmenides argues and reasons there is no ‘real’ change that ever occurs.
…show more content…
This causes Heraclitus to argue that even with constant change we still have “All change occurs according to a certain universal principles of reason.” As explained by Heraclitus, there is no ‘one’ but rather a concept of process. This gives the one and many theory the conditions in which one thing becomes something else. Heraclitus’ shifts away from the idea of monism as ‘one’ and defines it as a constant change by many gods making him a polytheist. This begins to make more sense as to why Heraclitus’ believed in change metaphysically. Heraclitus’ believed in Pantheism which meant that the “God” or “Gods” identified with the ordered cosmos themselves. This gives Heraclitus’ a chance to have logos on a cosmic level instead of individual. Another huge idea by Heraclitus’ is his idea of emergent properties versus parts only. There is much less value for an iPhone 6 if it is taken apart and completely disassembled then given to a person. In accordance to emergent properties, an assembled iPhone 6 would have a completely different meaning and functionality including value therefore change is
What we see is not the truth, but rather our interpretation and distortion of the things we struggle to perceive, as our imagination fuses with our conception of reality. We conceptualize these omnipotent forces through our uses of symbols – to create an understandable world through abstractions – in order to explain what these forces are. [INTRODUCE CAPRA]
Sometimes, what we see and remember is not always accurate or real. For instance, Gould talked about a trip that he took to the Devils tower when he was fifteen, he remember that he can see the Devils tower from afar and as he approaches it, it rises and gets bigger. However, about thirty years later, Gould went back to see the Devils tower with his family, he wanted to show them the awesome view of the Devils tower when it rises as they approach closer to it, but when they got there everything was different from what he remembered. Then he found out that the Devils tower that he saw when he was younger wasn’t really...
Hesiod’s Theogony and the Babylonian Enuma Elish are both myths that begin as creation myths, explaining how the universe and, later on, humans came to be. These types of myths exist in every culture and, while the account of creation in Hesiod’s Theogony and the Enuma Elish share many similarities, the two myths differ in many ways as well. Both myths begin creation from where the universe is a formless state, from which the primordial gods emerge. The idea of the earth and sky beginning as one and then being separated is also expressed in both myths.
The Theaetetus is composed of three main parts, each part being allotted to a different definition of what constitutes as knowledge. While the Theaetetus is focused primarily on how to define knowledge, the arguments faced by Socrates and Theaetetus greatly resemble arguments made by different later theories of knowledge and justification. I will argue in this essay that due to the failure faced by Socrates and Theaetetus in their attempt at defining knowledge, the conclusion that would be best fit for their analysis would be that of skepticism. In doing this I will review the three main theses, the arguments within their exploration that resemble more modern theories of knowledge and justification, and how the reason for the failure of the theories presented in the Theaetetus are strikingly similar to those that cause later theories of epistemology to fail.
To some the causes and effects of things are mutually exclusive, and coexistence with one another. When observing specific equipment or even life, the question stands that there must be an account that took place before such items ceased to exist. Particularly, Aristotle argues that each thing, whatever it may be, will have causes, or types of explanatory factors by which that thing can be explained. The significant knowledge of causes allows for specific accounts to be known. It’s like questioning what occurred first the chicken or the egg. Anything in life offers a question of cause; something must have been in order to bring about the nature of today. These causes are apparent in answering everyday questions, which in turn explains that the causes of life clarify the being of which stood before it and such causes amount to same entity.
Roman and Greek mythology are filled with multiple interpretations of how the creator, be it the gods or nature, contributed to the birth of the world. These stories draw the backgrounds of the gods and goddesses that govern much of classical mythology. Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Hesiod’s Theogony are two pieces of work that account for how our universe came to be. A comparison of Theogony with Metamorphoses reveals that Hesiod’s creation story portrays the deities as omnipresent, powerful role whose actions triggered the beginning of the universe whereas in Metamorphoses, the deities do not play a significant role; rather the humans are center of the creation. The similarities and differences are evident in the construction of the universe, ages of man, and the creation of men and women on earth.
A simple process formed the backbone of most Greek philosophy. The ancients thought that by combining two equally valid but opposite ideas, the thesis and the antithesis, a new, higher truth could be achieved. That truth is called the synthesis. This tactic of integrating two seemingly opposite halves into a greater whole was a tremendous advance in human logic. This practice is illustrated throughout Oedipus at Colonus in regard to Sophocles’ portrayal of vision, sight, and the eye. In Colonus, there are many and varied descriptions of the aspects of the eye, whether the eye be human or divine. To Sophocles, the eye must have been a synthesis, both physical and spiritual, yet something apart from both.
The problem of the one and the many consists of two parts that are quite evident in the one and the many. The one is used in referring to that which is a unifying force in many theories of the universe; it is that from which all things are made and that to which all things return, most theories consider it an indestructible non-creatable substance infinite in existence at least but on occasion infinite in diversity. Sometimes philosophers use the one to explain a theory of Arche, which refers to the originating order of all that is. The many refers to that which ...
Aquinas' change is defined as taking a characteristic of an object out of potentiality into actuality. This can only be accomplished by something that is already in reality. He also states that an object's property cannot be in reality and potentiality at the same time. A pot can be actually hot and potentially cold, but it cannot be both actually hot and potentially hot. Because of this necessity of the object changing to be in reality while the change occurring to be in potentiality that an object cannot change itself.
Rene Descartes certainly didn't lack for credentials. As the "Father of Rationalism," "Father of Modern Philosophy," and originator of Cartesian geometry, he had more than enough interests to fill his spare time. But his role as "Father of Skepticism" helped popularize a major change in thinking about the nature of human experience. Dualism, or the doctrine that mind and body are of two distinct natures, is one of the key philosophical problems inherited by psychology. In both philosophy and psychology there have been several attempts to reconcile the mind and body.
He then go on to giving us the theory of flux by Heraclitus. The theory of flux is based on the claim that all things are constantly changing. The view is that no objects is stably consistent with stably existing properties. The explanation for this is that everything in which any basis can be functional, according to one perception, can also have the cancelation of that basis applied to it, according to an opposite perception. Socrates gives us a few statements that Heraclitus implies with his theory. The first is that all qualities do not exist in time or space independently. The second is that qualities do not exist except in perception of the...
Aristotle’s notion of cause represents his idea of how everything comes into being. All change involves something coming from out of its opposite. These causes are split into four: material cause, efficient cause, formal cause and final cause. Change takes place in any of these causes. A material cause is one that explains what something is made out of. An efficient cause is what the original source of change is. A formal cause is the form or pattern of which a thing corresponds to. And a final cause is the intended purpose of the change. All of these causes Aristotle believes explains why change comes to pass. A good example of this is a baseball. The material cause of a baseball is are the materials of which it is made of, so corkwood, stitching, with a rubber core and wrapped in leather. The efficient cause of the baseball would the factory where the ball was made or where the materials were manipulated until they corresponded into a baseball. The formal cause of the ba...
To begin, the concept of unity follows the Aristotelian proposition that nothing can be added to or taken away from a perfect work of art. Next, proportion, or the harmony of the parts to the whole and to each other is, based the mathematical and geometric relationships discovered by the Ancient Greeks. Finally, clarity refers to the logical quality of design, as well as the luminosity of coloration. Therefore, St. Thomas explains that beauty is intimately tied to knowledge, and that we form our judgments according to what pleases us.
According to Plato, his Theory of Forms states perfection only lives in the realm of thought. There only exists one of every ideal and the rest is just a copy. This one creation is called a form, the most flawless representation of an idea. In the physical world everything is a copy of these forms and all copies are imperfect. Plato believed in two worlds; the intelligible world and the illusionistic world. The intelligible world is where everything is unchanging and eternal. We can only grasp the intelligible world with our mind. It is the world of ideas and not senses. A place where there are perfect forms of the things we know on Earth. According to Plato everything in the world we live in is an illusion. All objects are only shadows of their true forms. His theory further states every group of objects that have the same defying properties must have an ideal form. For example, in the class of wine glasses there must be one in particular that is the ideal wine glass. All others would fall under this ideal form.
Finally, the theory of Ideas reaches new height in the Sophists. The theory of Ideas in this work is a new concept because he redefines and extends it. The Sophist presents that there are hierarchy of Ideas and the whole complex of Ideas in defining the meaning of Sophistry. There are five categories of the sophist: motion and rest, sameness, difference, being, and non-being. Plato uses logos to define the meaning of each of the categories in which the being is dynamic and there is relationship among them which unity is important.