Mariela the Philosophy novice

The two founders of atomism, Leucippus and Democritus, took the well accepted ideas of Parmenides about the being and the non-being. They claimed that all that we see is composed of small elements, the atoms, these are the being. Another component of the physical world is the void, the non-being. Atoms, as product of random motion, enter void to give it a sense of being. What separates the theory of the Atomists from Parmenides is that their atoms are unlimited in amount, compared to Parmenides’ being as one and whole. I would like to briefly explore what I think are fundamental implications of two of the concepts covered by the atomists’ theory. I would like to give my opinion on the implications of the atomists idea of atoms birthing difference and their idea of what they consider real. The different combinations of atoms give rise to the different things seen. Assuming that all combinations of atoms give rise to differences can have consequences on how we view equality. Can ...

Parmenides differs from the rest of the pre-socratics previously studied (the Milesians, Xenophanes, Heraclitus and Pythagoras) in that his thought transcend the material into the abstract, asking questions about our existence and reality, essentially a start to the arena of metaphysics. Parmenides  is an example of the way we should elevate our minds into the abstract. It is an invitation to live in a more contemplative way, contemplating using logic and reasoning. Through his poem and the imagery of roads and paths, he describes our reality as having two ways the way of the Truth and the way of Opinion. The way of the Truth is the road less traveled by regular people, they go for the way of Opinion. The way of Opinion is based on the experiences that we live day to day, what we see right in front of our eyes. The way of the Truth is the one you want to be in to live well. To live in this way you have to understand the concepts of the "what is" and "what is not"....

Reading Heraclitus of Ephesus adds to my questions on the relationship between truth and knowledge. At end of last post and by the comments, it is clear that sometimes knowledge cannot get us to the truth. Knowledge without insight is not enough if the truth is wanting to be found. Today's philosopher says this and he calls people who gain knowledge with no insight a bunch of... dreamers asleep, to put it in nice words.  Heraclitus is saying that we are able to gain the knowledge and truth at the same time only by having insight, bridging the gap between the divine knowledge and human knowledge that Homer opened or aggravated. Heraclitus uses the word logos to describe what he believes in. Curd defines Heraclitus' logos as the "objective and independent  truth available to all." We all have the capacity to gain this independent truth but only through insight. Curd is really clear at stating that this insight is not just the inquiry aspect but the "understand...

Last time I ended class with this thought: Xenophanes changed the Homeric views on god. It helps us question if religions define god for what it truly is. With the progression of their theories, I see the Milesians and Xenophanes and think that maybe the mind needs to be constantly evolving to get closer to the truth. Reading Pythagoras made me think about the relationship between truth and knowledge. Curd shows us a fragment were Plato makes a parallel between Homer and Pythagoras. They look alike in the fact that they both had people that followed them. The major distinction is Pythagoras striving for knowledge, his followers the mathematikoi and akousmatikoi both looking to gain knowledge in what they each venerated, while Homer convinced his followers by   his stories that reflected some of the truth about their society.   Curd mentions this fragment “Much learning does not teach insight. Otherwise it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras and moreover Xenphane...

As we progress on our studies of the Presocratics, I am starting to see a deviation from the traditional thinking of the greeks. Homer presents us with gods who are human like and to some extent mundane, that do the same things as humans. I have a feeling that the Milesians' quest for an arche  based on matter, physical things that are unique and "pure" like the water, air, and infinity, reflects the search for an origin different than the Homeric gods. An origin that is different from the human nature, savage and mundane. According to A Presocratic Reader , Xenophanes rejected the Homeric Olympian gods. Although the book suggests that it is unclear if he agreed on one god or a god superior to all gods, he is the first philosopher to suggest a non-anthropomorfic god. A god that is unique for itself. Was he inspired by Anaximander's principle of the apeiron, that which is the boundless and mystical? I feel the he was indeed, because Anaximander's principle is the...

Learning about the first philosophers like the Milesians was important to me for understanding the characteristics of the history of philosophy. The school of thought of the Milesians taught that the explanation to their questions and inquiries were found in the principles of matter. The three Milesians Patricia Curd talks about in her book A Presocratics Reader are Thales (the founder), Anaximander (his pupil), Anaximenes (the youngest). It was helpful for me to compare them to understand the nature of the beginnings of philosophy. Previously, it was implied that philosophy surged from the mytho-poetic traditions that inspired the earliest philosophers. Can we say that this is true from Thales, the “founder of philosophy”? The three Milesians knew that the question to all their answers relied on a principle. The principle is differently defined per each philosopher. Thales’ principle is that water is the basic unit of life, the arkhē, the beginning and origin. This sounds like ...