1. Explain Aristotle’s defense of real change and real difference against Parmenides. The Argument of Parmenides originated as a Pre Socratic Philosopher on the question of the day. “What is the nature of reality? (This is the first metaphysical question that all Pre Socratics were responding too) Parmenides answer to the metaphysical question was Permanence (change is an illusion) *Discuss Parmenides’ arguments for the conclusion that reality is only one sort of thing which never changes.
Immanuel Kant’s Impact on Enlightenment Values For thousands of years, religion was used to help answer universal phenomenon’s. It wasn’t until Greek philosopher’s, such as Socrates and Aristotle, around 300 – 400 BC, started challenging religious ideals and looking at reason in the senses. These Greek philosophers, set the foundation and influenced many philosophers to come. Centuries later, a philosopher name Immanuel Kant, dedicated his life to find the parallels between the natural world and rational thinking. Yet, connections between Kant and other philosophers can be made with their collaborative ideas on acceptable political discussion and disobedience.
Saint Anselm came up with the ontological argument that only a fool would believe that God does not exist. An ontological argument is hand in hand with a Platonic a priori where there is a strong attempt made to prove that God exists by the concept of his existence. Saint Anselm’s argument is that even someone thick minded, or has a low IQ can state that there is a God, and for this to be possible, God must exist. He backs his argument up by comparing what is imagined up in the mind and what is in reality. Reality is existence, and imagining something up is nonexistent.
“Condemned to be free,” a quote from Jean- Paul Sartre, a atheistic existentialism philosopher who had a different view on human nature also known as existentialism. Sartre strongly believed that humans were free to create their own nature without a God, and were not made to have a purpose in life (pg. 67). I found this philosopher very interesting because I agree with believing that humans are fully responsible for their own actions. In addition, as Sartre stated, “we must suffer the anguish of own decision making and accept responsibility for its consequences,” which means that even though humans have the right to make their own choices, they also have to be responsible for the pain that comes along with it (pg.67).
In the middle of the speech, Haimon says, "To reason correctly, the gift to speak, the soul- A man like that, when you know him, turns out empty" implies that Creon is actually an empty shell with no human soul inside by using the god's gift to let we speak as human in an illogical , creating an unjust law. The "gift" implying that the power that we have to speak has been given naturally unlike other things that we are required to buy to own. Not only that Haimon is strongly letting Creon know that he have no crate this law wise enough, and there's still time to change it before it's too late. At the end of Haimon's speech, he says. "The reasonable thing is to learn from those who can teach" implying that Creon should learn from his own son because he's the one who know what is reasonable -fair, logical and those who can teach is those who can explain their decision in a logical way unlike
There are many arguments by philosophers in which they prove which element is the most crucial in life. Heraclitus’s main belief is that nothing in the universe is permanent and that fire was the one and only constant while Anaximenes beliefs included that air was the “one”, and did not believe in the power of gods. Now Thales believed that water was the base substance of the universe. Some argue and debate that fire is the most important, while others say air or water is. So when broken down into each of their elements we can take a look at what differs each of the Pre Socratics from one another and what they have in common.
For example, Kant upholds the notion of a universal, a priori law. Instead, Nietzsche rejects the existence of structures that objectively determine such concepts, claiming them to be mere projections of a week will. As such, in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, he contends: ‘there are no moral phenomena at all, only moral
Sartre commented that, “We should refer here to Hegel’s statement: ‘Wesen ist was gewesen ist.’ Essence is what has been…Essence is all that human reality apprehends in itself as having been.” What does Sartre mean by this proclamation that existence precedes essence? He makes his meaning clear that the human reality of man first “surges up in the world and defines himself afterwards.” Further, “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.” Thus, “there is no human nature.” Sartre reasons that there is no human nature “because there is no God to have a conception of it.” No proof of the non-existence of God is given; we may freely counter-axiom to the contrary. Yet the existence or not of God is not dispositive of there being a human nature in the first instance. That God exists and has a conception of a human nature does not require its existence – this being tantamount to a form of the ontological proof. Likewise the non-existence of God does not preclude a human nature.
Philosophy does not have complete answers, which makes some folks frustrated (Russell, 14). Human beings want conclusions. If someone questions something and another person questions the same thing, but they both come up with a different solution to that same questions, they want to find out who is right. It is in human nature to want to know the truth. People almost always believe that the truth is the right answer.
Therefore, an eternal being was never produced by another being. The Big Bang Theory is not wrong but it does not cancel out the fact that an eternal being exists. For the explosion of the Big Bang Theory to happen there had to be something to produce it, which is an eternal being. In conclusion, my reconstruction of John Locke’s argument in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I rejected premise number 4. Which is “if bare nothing cannot produce a being, then an eternal being exists”.