Michael Ryan

PHH-3100

Dr. Nam T. Nguyen

Exam 1 Responses

I 1. Commonalities between the Pre-Socratic philosophers Thales, Anaximenes, and

Anaximander would be their view of cosmology in the sense that they strayed away from the

mythological beliefs held before. They all attempted to find the “one” explanation for the many;

the answer being the thing that every other thing was comprised of. Each of these philosophers

sought their answer in a different way, but they all attempted to find a rational answer to the

cosmos. This is why they are grouped together as the Milesian thinkers though they somewhat

differed in viewpoint it all pointed back to finding that one thing that would explain everything

else. As they were effectively the first people bothering to go against the explanation that the

gods put everything in place, their theories would have been extreme though none of their works

have survived time. Despite these theories on how the universe operates being radically different

from each other, they all tie back into the common idea of a single thing explaining everything

else, likely inspiring monism and also likely why they all get lumped together within a

philosophical context.
I 2.

Thales: For Thales, the answer to cosmology was water; he likely observed that for all living

beings’ water is essential to life and saw it as the first principle for everything. Thales also

believed that the Earth floated on water in the same way an island does. This would be a decent

answer for the question of cosmology as water being the first principle would explain a lot of

phenomena on Earth without having to accept the gods as an explanation. Water was the answer

for Thales, and he had evidence that seemingly supported his theory; out of all the primal

elements, water seems to go through the most variability having three separate states. Water is

also able to generate new earth simply by nourishing the land and is essential to all the other

primal elements. Fire without air (or water in vapor form) cannot sustain, earth without water

will eventually wither and die, and air requires water to exist, thus proving that water is the

essential principle and answer to cosmology.

Anaximander: The answer to cosmology for Anaximander did not lie within the primal

elements, but instead a fifth concept he called apeiron or the unlimited. This solution was simple

to come to for Anaximander as he thought closely about the four primal elements and realized

that should he extend one element ad infinitum, it would snuff out each of the other elements,

leaving only something we could not see, or the unlimited. Anaximander disproved Thales’

argument that water is the principle being by finding contradictory realities when fully applied

such as water only having the ability to be wet and not dry, making it impossible for it to be the

answer to Anaximander. To Anaximander, the origin of the universe came from opposites

combining such as the example of wet and dry or hot and cold except on a much grander scale,

and his idea of apeiron, while it can never really be defined, is meant to be the explanation for
these combinations. Anaximander’s viewpoint was that none of the primal elements could be the

origin as it would have erased one or more of the other elements on the process, so the unlimited

became the obvious solution to him.

Anaximenes: Anaximenes followed in Anaximander’s footsteps and proposed that something

boundless was the origin of all other things, yet unlike Anaximander, Anaximenes believed this

thing to be the elemental air rather than something indefinite. While this difference may seem

slight, it gave Anaximenes a chance to actually explain how the world operated due to apeiron

being a fine explanation, yet ultimately undefinable. For Anaximenes, it followed logically that

air was the origin of all other elements as rarefied air spawned fire, condensed air made water

and condense it further and earth was created. From this it followed that all natural phenomena

could be eventually attributed to air; he believed that air itself was divine as it gave rise to all

other life forms almost as if it was God. A reason for air being the answer the question of

cosmology would be that air, much like the apeiron, has no start or end, but is rather in a

constant state of flux for infinity. This gives it effectively the unlimited ability to create the other

elements as if there is no start and no end to air, it can cyclically create and destroy the other

elements while still remaining. This, to Anaximenes, made it the only choice in his attempt to

explain the world and how it functioned.

II 1. Protagoras

Protagoras was one of the more famous Sophists, working as a teacher in an attempt to spread

the idea of “virtue” and how it worked into our daily lives. Protagoras is known as effectively
the first relativist within Western culture; one of the more famous quotes being attributed to him

being “of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things

they are not, that they are not.” His ideas of relativism showed that there is no real objective

truth to life, but instead it is what we each make of it. This is very similar to the idea of virtue

that he attempted to teach in the sense that there is no set solution for the human race, but rather

individual solution for each different person. That quote attributed to his ideas shows relativism

at its finest as each individual is simply that, an individual who is some things and is not other

things that others may be. Protagoras’ philosophy was that our own conceptual framework of the

world impacts how we reach the “virtuous” path and that it is not simply some set of rules you

follow to reach transcendence.

Democritus

While Democritus wrote books on a plethora of subjects, the one he is most remembered for is

his proposed atomic theory of the universe stating that all things were made of indivisible objects

called atoms. These atoms were supposedly of an infinite number and always in motion,

colliding and combining in random which would seemingly account for the often-random nature

of our natural world. Democritus believed that the connectivity and shape of atoms had an

impact on their nature; for example, the atoms of iron would be strong and hook into each other

making them a solid while the atoms of water would be smooth and not hooked together in the

way metal would be. A major part of this theory was that of the empty space or void between

atoms that had to exist but could never actually be proved to. The atom to Democritus was

physically indivisible but was still comprised of different parts thus proving how Zeno’s paradox

of motion could be solved with atoms being that final “thing” that Zeno was searching for.
While Democritus’ theory seems more scientific than philosophical, it still provided a new

viewpoint for life to be looked at and was later proved correct when science caught up with his

thought.

Parmenides

The main views of Parmenides were effectively rejecting relativism and he believed in a single

Truth; his philosophical viewpoints could be boiled down to “what is is, and what is not cannot

be.” This means that the idea of “being” had to have an origin at some point as something had to

come from something as well as it being impossible for something to come from nothing. It

follows from this that “being” had to have always been in existence in order to create the world

as we see it. Parmenides believed in this single thing consisting within all of reality, much in the

same way the Milesian school of thought came to their conclusions, however Parmenides

believed that the change we see in the natural world is all merely an illusion of our senses that

could not be trusted to attain the one Truth. He believed that change is impossible as it is all part

of the unified whole that has always existed as nothing can simply spring out of nonbeing into

being. These ideas and conditions for things coming into existence or simply not being is what

Parmenides left behind for the world to interpret.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus held just about the opposite views of Parmenides in the sense that Heraclitus believed

that everything was in a constant state of flux, with the phrase “a man cannot set foot in the same

river twice” originating from him. This phrase’s meaning is that while you may physically in the
same location, the land you are on will be somewhat different, the water in the river is not the

same water you once saw, or simply put that everything is always changing. Heraclitus also held

similar beliefs to Anaximenes as he believed everything was simply fire of a different state and

that fire is just God by a different name. Heraclitus wrote that while the cycle of the world may

seem unjust to humans, but to God it was perfectly reasoned creation that would continue into

infinity. His belief that the cosmos are actually just eternal fire and that fire will eventually

“judge and convict all things” was an explanation for the divine law that mortals were never

meant to understand. Going back to his opposition to Parmenides, Heraclitus saw a world fully

realized and brought together by opposites, for example a bow only being harmonious when

combined with tension.

Pythagoras

While Pythagoras may mostly be remembered today for the Pythagorean theorem, his

philosophical ideas relate to far more than math; he believed in the transmigration of the soul as

did his followers believing Pythagoras to be the only one to remember past reincarnations. From

this idea he taught others to be virtuous to other humans as well as lesser beings as they were

simply souls in a cycle of punishment. Pythagoras’ teachings applied not only to life but math,

music and astronomy as well considering they were effectively the same thing across subjects.

Using mathematical equations, Pythagoras was supposedly able to produce “music of the

spheres,” or a symphony of inaudible music that only he was able to hear according to his

followers. This “music” is supposed to be the same harmony in which the celestial bodies move

in our solar system; math, astronomy, and music were all the same to Pythagoras, the harmonies

only being through different mediums. There was nothing Pythagoras could not calculate with
his mathematical harmonies as he could see them everywhere in life, and while math may be the

only subject most people think of when they hear of him, there is so much more he applies to.

Empedocles

Instead of prescribing to a monadic view of the world, Empedocles was a pluralist in that he

believed the four primal elements were the roots of the world with Love and Strife being the

forces that influence the change of these elements. Love and Strife to Empedocles are always in

a cosmic struggle against each other, and when Love holds supreme power the roots mesh

together and when Strife holds the same the roots separate from each other. Empedocles

followed in Pythagoras’ belief in reincarnation and denounced the killing of animals for food as

he saw them as souls simply in a cycle of punishment based on their actions until you reach the

ultimate goal. This goal for Empedocles was to eventually gain the myriad of divine knowledge

after going through cycle after cycle. Throughout each of these lives, Empedocles believed we

constantly move up in standing, gaining prominence in profession until there is nothing else to

gain from the human plane. After that last lifetime, Empedocles believed you would become an

immortal god as you gain divine knowledge transcending human thought and reason, and as you

were constantly upgrading your being throughout lifetimes, your next being would be that of a

god as well.
Socrates

Socrates is a difficult philosopher to understand as he has no written works but rather we know

about his views from different students of his such as Plato, however these students also used

Socrates as a way to promote their own viewpoints. Socrates’ main problem he wished to solve

was how to live a virtuous life, and the solution he came to is that you cannot live a good life

without thinking about your surroundings as well as your own existence. You can live a life

within patterns, doing the same thing day after day until death, but Socrates would question did

you really live or simply exist for a long period of time? Asking questions about things that

everyone else takes for granted is what Socrates was all about. There is no exact answer that

Socrates gave us on how to live a good life as there is no “right” answer to our existence, but to

Socrates not questioning that would be a life not worth living. That is the gift of humanity after

all is being able to question things, to Socrates not using that gift to question bigger things would

be a complete waste. Virtue to Socrates was brought about by questioning everything, and

despite there being no correct answer on how to gain virtue, not questioning is just existing in

ignorance.

III 1.

Plato and Aristotle I

While both Plato and Aristotle believed in universal forms for objects and concepts, they differed

greatly on how to arrive at the universal form; Aristotle believed that each iteration of a concept

or object had to be examined independently while Plato believed in the Realm of Forms wherein

each universal form existed. These differing viewpoints on how to arrive at universal forms gave
rise to the argument of empiricism versus rationalism for Plato believed that thought experiments

were enough to arrive at conclusions while Aristotle relied on his senses for observations. To

Aristotle, the senses were an essential part of determining how our reality operates and exists but

to Plato, the senses served to fool us. There was also a difference in their forms of logic with

Plato preferring inductive or bottom up reasoning wherein a conclusion is brought about by a

certain scenario that would be constructed whereas Aristotle and his deductive logic follows

premise by premise to the logical conclusion for those exact premises. Some of the more

philosophical differences between the two was famously depicted in Raphael’s School of Athens

where Plato is pointing towards the sky as he is more concerned with the abstract or utopian

sense of things while Aristotle on the other hand is pointing down as he is far more concerned

with the things he can see and the common sense of how it works. Despite their differences in

philosophy and metaphysics, both Plato and Aristotle believed in thought, it was just whether

they trusted in their senses or not. Aristotle believed them to be the backbone for his thought as

one was useless without the other; Plato created thought experiments ultimately proving that the

senses could be tricked and therefore not trusted to give reliable information. Reason was one of

the common traits between both of them and without it, no provable conclusions could be made,

but with it a whole world of harmony and answers emerge.

2. Plato and Aristotle II

In my opinion, Plato’s concepts are more plausible than Aristotle due to be agreeing with the fact

that our senses can be tricked and therefore not trusted. Plato uses the allegory of the cave to get

this point across wherein people are stuck in a cave their whole life only seeing shadows from a

fire they cannot see or know of. These shadows are the people’s reality and, in some cases,
when one leaves and tells the remaining people of the whole other world outside, they cannot

fathom it. Their entire lives were shaped based on those shadows on the wall and just accepting

that there was something else entirely would be to accept that they know absolutely nothing of

the world which is a scary concept. I truly believe that Plato was right in the sense that our

senses do deceive us at moments and with that knowledge it follows that none of our senses can

really be trusted wholly. Aristotle thought that our senses were the absolute authority to back up

thought, but when you admit that the senses can sometimes be wrong or not exactly right it

makes it somewhat hard to believe in that logic. I will use the example of a simple mirage on a

hot road giving the illusion of water being present when in fact there is none there, begging the

question if our eyes could not be trusted in that one moment, are they to be trusted at all other

times or are they simply untrustworthy? Plato believed in the Realm of Forms, a true reality that

transcends time and space containing the “perfect” version of each concept and object. This

realm is beyond the physical world and therefore beyond our physical senses but still exists even

if we cannot perceive it. Despite Aristotle being more grounded in reality, I believe that once

you accept that you can be deceived by the very thing he used as an absolute authority, it makes

it impossible to fully believe in his philosophy and makes it that much easier to accept Plato’s

beliefs as plausible.