January 28th
Choose ONE to journal on:
1. Considering the beliefs of the pre-Socratic philosophers: what are the basic building blocks of life? What are examples to prove that these items are the basic building blocks? What are examples to disprove that these are the basic building blocks?
2. How can 21st century science be used to prove that Heraclitus or Parmenides were correct? Is it "cheating" in your opinion to use modern day science to evaluate the philosophies of the Ancient Greeks?
Write a minimum of a full paragraph to answer of the prompts above. Don't just state your opinion - SUPPORT it. You are trying to make a persuasive argument.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Question 2:
Heraclitus believed that the "basic stuff" of the world was not just one thing, but the process of changing connected everything together. Parmenides was the complete opposite, believing everything was set in stone and your life was predetermined before you were even born. With modern science we can easily prove that change is not the "basic stuff" but atoms are. We do not know yet if our life is predetermined or not, but science shows us that we can always strive for more. Programs such as NASA show us there is more to our world than our small blue planet. We are just a thin needle in an endless haystack known as the universe, so how could we not control our lives in some way? I do not believe it is cheating to use science to disprove old philosophies, because philosophy is forever changing and when new information is obtained we must formulate new ideas to fit them.
According to modern science, all matter is conserved. This may confirm the ideas of Parmenides. Additionally, we know that the composition of substances can be changed in chemical reactions, which supports the ideas of Heraclitus. What it all boils down to is that the entire concept of change is open to interpretation. While things definitely change, the differing meanings of change make this question impossible to answer without a solid definition of change. It may be unfair to use modern science in criticizing the philosophies of people who did not have the benefits of understanding it. However, if the argument is purely linguistic, modern science may in fact be irrelevant to its answers.
2. They were both correct depending on how basic the building blocks they considered. Parmenides was correct in the fact that the very basic building blocks stayed the same, oxygen is always oxygen even if it is in H2O or CO2. Heraclitus was also correct inn the fact that things are always changing, even though the basic atoms always stay the same, compounds change over time. As an example, plants during photosynthesis convert CO2 into oxygen and people turn the oxygen back into CO2.
Question 2:
Modern science can both prove and disprove both Heraclitus' and Parmenides' theories. We know that everything is made of atoms that can't be created or destroyed. This agrees with Parmenides' theory of nothing changes and nothing can come into or out of existence. Therefore one can argue that nothing really changes because nothing can't be something and nothing doesn't exist. Science also supports Heraclitus' theory of everything is constantly changing. Atoms are constantly moving which causes different states of matter. Since one is always moving externally and internally one is never actually the same. Our skin falls off microscopically and is always changing. Our bodies always grow. I don't think this is cheating but it proves and defeats both theories since we know so much more than they did. These types of questions aren't usually asked in modern times because we already know scientifically the basic answers.
Modern science has shown that matter is neither created nor destroyed when things change form. Chemical reactions simply rearrange atoms; the basic "building blocks" of nature remain the same. Even the energy and is simply converted from one form to another. This knowledge supports Parmenides' hypothesis that nothing changes. He believed that the universe was "one object" in which everything was constant; science supports this idea that there is a set amount of matter and energy that simply changes forms. Heraclitus' idea that change is constant can also be backed up with the modern knowledge that chemical reactions are always occurring and are the basis of life.
1.The basic building blocks of life are that there's too much stuff in the world for life to be composed of only one thing,also that the world can be explained through numbers for example people find patterns and sequences that can be explained through numbers.Differences occur with how dense something is.Perception is also tricked by our senses because we believe what might not actually be there because we are confused and it is all illusory.
Examples to disprove these basic building blocks are that differences occur through elements and that our vision is accurate we all see the same things for example color, and it is all real.For the theory that the world is made of numbers and that they can explain everything can be disproved by stating that mathematical sequences cannot explain things such as weather for example.
#2:
21st century science proves that both Heraclitus and Parmenides are correct in some of their beliefs about the world around them. The science of atoms and molecules proves that Parmenides is correct, the basic 'stuff' of the universe can never change. However, it can rearrange itself to create different things, which is where science proves Heraclitus correct. Science now knows that humans, plants,and animals are always changing because they are always creating new cells. Those cells even change over time, as mutations happen. In these ways, both philosophers were correct.
I think that it is okay to use modern scientific proof to evaluate Greek philosophers' ideas. I think that you first must evaluate the merit of their argumentation and reasoning skills as it stood during their time, and then with the insight into the world we have now. Some ideas could've been totally unsubstantiated gibberish in ancient Greece, but now have been proven very true by scientific discoveries. I actually think that it is a better mark of a good ancient philosopher when they had good reasoning for their time, rather than if their ideas were proven true by scientific discoveries. However, it is good if you have both.
1. Considering the information and resources they had back then; the thought of having building blocks was a good idea. The thought of the basic form of life would be an answer to one of the bigger questions. They could've proved that "air" was the building block of life or maybe even "water". If we keep on listing things off there are more then a hundred things that we need in order to survive. That is what disproves this theory. Almost everything in nature we need. It all works together to make a habitat for us to live in. It's not just "basic building blocks" it's more of each building block is a type of element we need to survive.
Thoughts on the building blocks of life
The basic building blocks were once believed to be water, however this had little opaqueness and so was discarded. Indeed it became the boundless, however this idea was also discarded as nothing cannot exist. Instead the element of air was used. This was also thought to be wrong however as air holds no opaqueness.
Finally, people believed that the basic blocks of life was the very fundamental of change. However, with the attacks on whether change really exists or not this theory can also be disproved.
Heraclitus believed that everything is constantly changing. Parmenides believed that senses fool people into thinking this way, but that change does not exist. Modern science would support Heraclitus in the sense that all living things grow, solid objects can be reshaped, and all kinds of molecules can join together or break apart to form entirely different things. On the other hand, No matter how many changes things go through, they stay the same. For example, even if you burn a book, the matter that made up that book still exists. It can't just be taken away. I don't believe that using science to evaluate old philosophies is "cheating." It is just a way to better explore those ideas.
1.
To Thales, water was the basic building block to everything. This was a good theory because most of everything in this world needs water to live. However, water contains smaller elements (Hydrogen, Oxygen). Anaximander had the basic theory of atoms, which is relevent to the 21st century, although he just said a "boundless" substance. Anaximenes thought air was the basic building block, which makes sense because "air", like water, is useful to all living things. Air, again, is made up of smaller elements. Pythagoras thought numbers. Numbers are a constant. However, numbers aren't a substance.
1. According to pre-Socratic philosophers the basic building blocks of life are things like water, air, numbers. I can disapprove that water and air are not the basic building blocks of life because neither are a solids.
2. Well they technically were both right and wrong. Now we know that the Earth spins on a axis and rotates around the sun. The Earth is changing its position and which way it is facing the sun. So, Heraclitus was correct in saying that everything is constantly changing. However Parmenides was also correct because the Earth has been doing this since the beginning of time. I don't think it's cheating because it existed but the Ancient Greeks didn't know about it.
I'm going along with how Pythagoras thought the world was made up of numbers and lines. That doesn't mean i'm wholeheartedly agreeing with him, the world can't be made up of numbers, something that was created by people. The whole concept of dots and lines building objects is a good idea, considering atoms form those imagined dots and lines on the object, that connect together to make an object. Take a square box, for example, it consists of lines that create the three dimensional outline, and dots to fill in the solid space. These dots and lines are made from atoms, that have been proven by science to exist, therefor it's not such a bad idea that the world is made up of these imaginary dots and lines. If there was empty space, there would just be an absence of dots, and an outline off of already existing objects.
1. The basic building blocks of life according to the pre- Socratic are made of the same stuff. Many other philosopher argued that the world isn't made of one thing, but multiple things that aren't the made of same stuff, and most of these thing are illusory.
1. Some of the pre-Socratic philosophers considered water, the Boundless, air and change to be some of the basic building blocks of the universe. The universe is too complex to have just one basic building block in my opinion. Water used the aruguement of that it sustains all life and if you dig deep enough in the earth you will find it. However, there are substances that don't have water, and if you dig deep enough in the earth you will find lava too. The Boundless is basically change. The only constant is change, because you can never step in the same river because the water is always moving and changing but it is also the same river because it is the same name and geographic area as before. Air is argued as the basic stuff because it is everywhere, in water, in us, it is what fills the space between us. Air also can permiate almost all things. In outerspace there is no air though.
Prompt 2.
It's definitely cheating to use modern science to evaluate what the Ancient Greeks believed. Using modern science would entirely discount almost every ancient philosophic idea that was thought, but if you take modern science out of it, the ancient philosophers had good ideas, like the idea that everything is made up of ONE thing. Obviously that thing isn't water or fire or air, but it is atomic particles.
Who is "god"? This is your post. Please post it in the comments section in the future.
Modern Day Mr. H/P
Modern day science, in my opinion, should not even be considered when thinking about philosophy. To me, philosophy should be about "the bigger picture" questions, and not just about what we can only see.
My take on it, is that if we are looking at what is real from a scientific view, -although I realize science was part of philosophy- we should lean towards Mr. H's view. Clearly change occurs in nature and science. If we look at what is real from a religious view, I think Mr. P's view on what is real is very accurate. That change does in fact not affect the person. If we should look past age/what someone looks like, and see who the person is, no change occurs.
The pre-Socratic philosophers laid the groundwork for Socrates, reasoning that the world must be made of SOMETHING. Thales, the founder of Western philosophy, deduced that the "basic stuff" that the world is made of must be water! What made him come to this conclusion? Well, for one, water is of vital importance to life. He also observed that the planet was surrounded by it, what he could see of the world that is. However, to of his students, Anaximander and Anaximenes, disagreed. Anaximander thought that water was too particular to be the "basic stuff", and decided that the world must be made of something that hadn't any characteristics of it's own. He called it "the boundless". Anaximenes disagreed with him as well, claiming that his "boundless" was too vague, and reasoned that the world MUST be made of air.
Obviously, they were all wrong, but you have to give them credit for trying. MOVING ON.
Pythagoras comes along claiming that numbers were the basic explanation for all reality, which was a pretty wild concept. THEN Heraclitus was all like, "DUDE! Water doesn't stop moving, so you can't step in it twice! SO THAT MUST MEAN THAT THE WORLD ISN'T MADE OF A SUBSTANCE, BUT OF A PROCESS! THE PROCESS OF CHANGE!" He used fire as a metaphoric symbol to describe his theory, which was even crazier than the number guy. Then Parmenides chimed in with an "I don't think so," claiming that change is an illusion, the world is a single, continuous object, and that empty space can't possibly exist.
Again, wrong, but brilliant in itself.
Parmenides had a student. Oh yes, he did. His name was Zeno, and he argued that there can't be things like time and change. But then, there were Leucippus and Democritus who developed the theory of the atom.
BINGO.
Post a Comment