Choose ONE to journal on:
1. Socrates believed in seeking an objective truth. Do
you believe there is a truth or rather many truths from many different
perspectives? If there are many truths, then how can we ever determine
guilt in a court of law? If there is an objective truth, then how can we
make sure it is valid and not just the most powerful person's opinion?
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.
18 comments:
I believe that there are many truths in this world and that with enough digging you can find another truth within every truth you claim is true. There is no one truth for any situation on this planet because no matter you can always find another solution to the same problem in different ways. The other question is how can one determine guilt in the court of law if there are so many truths and I have an answers for that. Many people are raised on the same beliefs as others such as don't kill or steal from others. So if someone where to steal something and explain why they did it their truth wouldn't matter because in this world its the majority wins. In more people believe one truth than the other than the other truth is seen as a lie and discredited and that's how people are seen as guilty.
I think there is a truth, but a lot of varying realities that create that truth. My issue with courts of law is that I am all for acknowledging wrong doings of an individual so that the individual can work to correct that on their own. I'm not for courts of laws deciding to play God. Also, given the corruptness of our legal system, how can one sinner call out the sin of another? I have a lot of problems with courts of laws. As far as ensuring that the truth is a valid one and not just an opinion of power, I think the only way to do so is to follow an idea like that of the Magna Carta. No one should be above that truth. Even the most powerful should have to acknowledge or deal with that truth. A really good example of this is something like death, that no matter how rich, beautiful, or powerful an individual might be, we all have to endure.
In response to the second prompt:
-You could argue either way that things change or don't change. Water can evaporate into steam or freeze into ice, which most people would define as change. Similarly, ice and steam are still made up of hydrogen and oxygen on a chemical level, so you could say there isn't any change because of that. It's ultimately a matter of perspective.
-It's not cheating, we just have more insight into the nature of things then either Parmesan or Harry Potter had. They were just working with what they had in ancient Greece, whereas we have benefit from having a plethora of scientific data available to us through the internet.
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?
The 21st century has helped Heraclitus the most between Heraclitus and Parmenides. Modern science has proved that everything down to atoms change constantly. The atom gives off and receives electrons causing it to constantly change. In certain situations atoms can even change their number of protons to change into a different substance. It has also been proven that the human body undergoes some sort of change every day. This puts a large amount of proof on the Heraclitus side of the issue. The only part that goes in Parmenides was would be the fact that protons, neutrons, and electrons have not been seen to change shape which means the parts of the atom never really change. In a way this can be seen as cheating when analyzing Ancient Greek philosophy because it gives us more to work with than they currently have. In Ancient Greece they would have never had proof that things like the atom exist so everything could just be put in terms as a theory. We are using modern data to cheat in the fact that we can look at their theories and decide if they were right or wrong using facts they never had.
1. I think that there are multiple truths, not just one truth. Everyone has different perspectives on things in life, and one truth isn’t necessarily right for everyone since no one thinks exactly the same way. It is important to have many different perspectives in this world because it opens up our minds to different ideas and creativity. It also offers views on subjects that we may not have thought or known about. We can determine guilt in the court of law because of society’s standards and morals that have been around for years that people have been living with since they were created.
I believe that there are many truths from many different perspectives. I believe this because we all have our own unique ways of interpreting and understanding issues in the world. This sometimes becomes a problem when dealing with the court of law. For example, if someone is against the death penalty yet in one state the death penalty is legal, the differing opinion of the person does not matter because in the end, the law ultimately dictates how we run our society. In a court of law we follow the constitution, which sways to one side, and although one can argue against it or not agree with the constitution in the end we still have to obey the law. So I think that while there are many truths and different perspectives, we are sometimes forced to lean one way or another because we are subjected to the law of the land.
I believe there are many truths and not just one, and it is all based on your perspective. People can have a different perspective on a murder trial. A serial killer can justify everything that he/she has done and that would be his truth. How to determine which truth is the best to use in this case is using ethics. Ethics are moral rules that in society it is viewed as right to follow them. Although the murderer believes it was perfectly okay to kill those people, it is morally wrong to do so, and his truth would be denied. There are many truths out there from peoples perspectives but it depends on the society you are in, and ethics to determine which one would be used. Christians believe that God is real and use the Bible to back them up and that is their truth, while an atheist would look at their argument and call it all lies and speak their truth. Truth is all based on perspective.
2. 21st century science can help us determine who was right by using new discovered theories and answer to science question they had no way of solving back then.I don't think its cheating to evaluate the philosophies of ancient Greek, because that is the whole point of philosophy and the sciences is to build on what people thought and get closer to the objective truth. If we couldn't evaluate the philosophies and sciences of ancient societies we wouldn't be able to move forward in science and the philosophies.
I believe there is an objective truth because when an action occurs it can really only be seen as two things, good or bad. If an action takes place it can only be deciphered as a good or bad action, that means there is one objective truth to what occurred and one wrongdoing. On the other hand the idea of many truth doesn't work because any other truth is influenced by individuals beliefs and when their influenced truth comes into conflict with another truth it creates the cycle of many false truths. Justice is not made by peoples opinions and beliefs but on what is ultimately truth.
1. I believe that there is objective truth when it comes to the physical. In other words I think that science can lead us to objective truth, but something abstract like morality cannot have an objective truth. A few examples of this would be: we know that the circumference of a circle is the diameter multiplied by pi or that e=mc^2. However you would have a moral dilemma when it comes to a scenario that involves going back in time and killing baby hitler. yes you could be sparing millions of peoples live's but you would still be killing an innocent child who not done any wrong. Or if you donate your life savings to charity you would be doing something that is very kind, but you are doing it because it makes you feel good. Meaning it still isn't 100% generosity.
2. We can use modern day science to study the physical realities of our world that are predictable and reliable. I don't think that it is cheating to evaluate the philosophies of the ancient Greeks because, evaluating their merit is doesn't undermine the thinking that they did. We are just fact checking them.
1. There are many perspectives which have their own truths. The prompt for this question says "Choose ONE to journal on." From one perspective, I could conclude to only journal on one of the prompts given. From another perspective, I could conclude this is an instruction to journal about prompt one, as it clearly says "Choose ONE" Does this mean I should journal about one prompt, or journal about prompt one? To be safe I am currently journaling about prompt one. The legal system should clearly define facts and definitions before making a verdict.
Truth is relevant to the state of reality, making it objective. Perception, varying widely, is intrinsically subjective. Seeing a real thing (truth) through a tinted lens (opinionated nature of perception) prevents it from being perceived as it actually exists. Therefore: truth cannot be ascertained. A judgement, such as fault for an action or circumstance, could only ever be the perspective of the judge (never the objective reality). The validity of an "objective truth" cannot be determined because the true state of reality cannot be grasped.
I believe that there are many types of truths in this world, to say otherwise would be ridiculous. If there was just one single truth to subjects, things would be unequal in the world. For example, a man is on trial for killing someone. However, in his case the killing was done in self defense. In this instance the killing would be justified and the defendant not guilty. However if there was just one truth of the law like, "do not kill others," the defendant would jailed unjustly.In any case, to answer the question of how to determine guilt in a court of law is fairly simple. It would be determined through the facts of the case, all details would be inspected and looked at.
I believe if we use 21st century science we can determine whether Heraclitus or Parmenides was correct. Today's science shows that energy connotation be destroyed, but it changes into different types of energy and if there is change then Parmenides would be wrong and therefore Heraclitus is correct. When examining these old Greek philosopher we must remember that the sciences we use now still apply to their and just because they did not have this information does not mean we cannot use it to our advantage.
- Lucas
1.) I believe there is an objective truth and that it is created through multiple realities. The way the truth is created is not from an individual's perspective because they've lived only their reality. With that being said you should be able to determine if what someone says is the truth because if it is a single powerful persons opinion of the truth you'll be able to find flaws in it.
I think that there are many truths and that they can all tell something to someone and that when we search for truth then there are many paths that we must follow in order to find these truths. In a court of law whether it is someone that has good skills at making a good argument or that they know how this court will decide their fate then truth in this case there should be only one and that it is from those who are the victims or those that are accused of the crime. There are things that we have no that they did not have back in the time when it was decided on others opinions and ideas of what had really happened. The truth in the case of murder should be from the evidence that has been found and that the people of the crime should be suspected and that the court or jury should not have bad will against this person before the day of the court comes.
Post a Comment