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:
2. I don't find it cheating to use modern science in order to try and decipher what the Greeks were trying to convey. Because we have the technology and the tools to combat these ideas, we have the right to do so. And with using the modern technology, we can clearly see that everything is constantly changing. Atoms are constantly moving, and every surface is constantly in flux.
Heraclitus can be proven correct by modern science. The fact that cells are always changing and things are always moving, means that change happens all the time. Parmenides can be proven because the cells that "change" are still the same cells. They perform the same acts as the previous cell did.
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?
Using the basic science of today the beliefs of both can be seen and proven. No i do not feel it is cheating using modern day science. I feel this way because it is a benefit through using it because you gain a better understanding.
1. Some philosophers believe that the world is made up of the four elements: Water, earth, fire, and air. In some cases, the philosophers are even more specific, claiming that water is the basic building block for all life. An example to disprove these theories is that there are much more complex objects on earth than just those four elements. Things are not all wet (water), things are not all hot (fire), things are not all dry and dirty (dirt), and things are not all invisible and light (air).
2. We can use science to prove that Heraclitus was in fact correct. Even if we cannot see changes, they are always happening. I think using modern science to evaluate how "good" a philosopher is is cheating. A good philosopher should be someone who's argument is strongest. for example, even though we know things are always changing it doesn't mean Paramenides was bad in saying its impossible.
I agree with the ideas of Parmenides and his theory of "nothing." I do not believe that the idea of "nothing" can exist because the world is made up of constant matter. Empty space cannot exist because there are always atoms. I do, however, believe that change is possible. I think that change creates and unites our world. Parmenides's idea that actual change is impossible does not make sense to me because people, seasons, and thoughts are constantly changing.
The Pre-Socratic philosophers believed that many things were the building blocks of life. Thales believed that water was, his student, Anaximander, disagreed. Anaximander's student Anaximenes believed that are was the building blocks of life. Really, they are both right. Water makes up much of our bodies and our Earth. Air is everywhere and in everything and we need it to live. But they are both somewhat wrong in a way too. Although fire needs air to thrive, it can be put out by both water and air. Also, how can something be made of water if it's dry? All together, they are both correct in some ways, and incorrect in others.
Thales believed that the world was made of water, and this is true because many things are composed of it, we cannot live without it, and it helps things grow. However, many things are dry so this theory was disproved. Anaximander believed that things are made of basic stuff, which he called the "boundless", and this was later supported by Leucippus and Democritus and eventually was proved by the modern day study of atoms. Anaximenes believed that the "basic stuff" of life is the air, which is supported by the fact that we need it to survive, and without it, fires go out. However, air is invisible and not tangible so things like humans and trees and nature could not exist without another form of building block.
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?
Thales believed that the world was compose of water. It made sense to him because living things need water to survive. Anaximander believed he was wrong because not everything is wet. He believed that everything is made of the boundless. Anaximenes, Anaximander's student, thought that that the concept of the boundless was too vague and came up with the idea that everything is made of air. Air is not a solid so things can't be composed of air.
2) 21st century science proves that things change and will continue to change. Whether it is physical change or emotional change. It also proves that things can change but still remain the same. We as people can have emotional change but we still remain the same person. We haven't "changed". I don't think it is "cheating" in my opinion because we use the information that the philosophers gave us to examine, prove or disprove their theories. We use the resources that they gave us to advance our thinking and theorize our thoughts in the 21st century.
Modern science could be used now-a-days to prove philosophers such as Heraclitus correct. You could use modern experiments to prove that change actually does occur, such as chemical changes that you can do in an everyday chemistry lab. Even I myself have conducted such experiments. I don't believe that this is "cheating" because it is another method of proving one's theory that uses a combination of logic and observation of the senses.
2. I do not believe that it is cheating to use modern science to prove or oppose ideas thought up by greek philosophers, because that's what those technologies are there for. If we're not using them to find the real truth about the world we live in then what's the point?
21st century science can be used to prove Heraclitus was correct in that nothing stays the same. Now we can look at the atomic level and know that everything is constantly changing form. I don't think it is "cheating" to use modern science to evaluate the philosophies because the ideas are meant to be changed,improved or dismissed as we learn more.
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?
21st century science can be used to prove that Parmenides was correct. We know that molecules and atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. You can change somethings appearance, for example color or shape, but it will still be composed of the same molecules and atoms as it was before. It is not cheating to use modern day science because the world should be explained by the truth, no matter what time period it is.
Heraclitus and Parmenides have similar theories and they are both proven correct by modern science. I don't believe it is cheating by using modern science to try and figure out what the Greek Philosophers of that time were trying to say. I believe it makes it less interesting but I wouldn't consider it cheating because things of their time are very complicated according to us and not much evidence is left so we need to use our own ways to figure out what they were saying.
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?
I don't think it's cheating to prove or disprove any ideas. I think its good that scientist still think about things that the ancient Greeks once did. I don't think either of them have been proven right or wrong yet. It has been proven that things are always change but it has also been proved that nothing can go from nothing to somthing.
Heraclitus philosophy can be proved by 21st century science because every thing is constantly changing and there is never a point when something is not. We can prove this because it we look at people, cells, and over time we see that they were always changing.
Parmenides philosophy can be proved because nothing truly changes because it never really goes away. its always there as some sort of substance.
2. I don't think it would be considered cheating if we can prove which ideas were in fact correct. That would just grow our understanding of the world if we knew for sure that this idea or belief does make sense and is right. Personally I would agree with the idea that we're constantly in a flux simply because we aren't toddlers our whole life..we grow older, we mature. We just don't stay the same.
Post a Comment