The view of Heraclitus regarding the nature of reality
Heraclitus’s argument on the non-existence of reality is a contradiction of anything that is perceived as permanent (Moore & Bruder, 2013). Heraclitus believes that change only happens under a cosmic order. In this regard, everything exists as a single entity, as well as the opposite of the same.
The view of Empedocles
Empedocles agrees that change is real, but the components of the changing objects remain unchanged. Empedocles’s argument seeks an explanation of why change happens (Moore & Bruder, 2013). Empedocles uses the example of earth, air, fire, and water to explain objects of change. On the other hand, Empedocles uses love and strife to explain what causes the change in reality.
The view of Anaximander
Anaximander argues that the source of all things cannot be merely based on physics. Anaximander agrees that there are forces beyond human understanding that determine the existence of things.
The views of Parmenides and Heraclitus
Parmenides and Heraclitus have different explanations of reality. Heraclitus argues that reality is ceaseless while Parmenides views the same as unchanging (p. 33).
The views of Protagoras
Protagoras views are that moral relativism is best analyzed through man. In this regard, man’s moral conduct and actions can only be based on knowledge, temperance, and courage.
The views of Pythagoras
Pythagoras believed in orderliness and harmony of things. In this regard, the use of numbers to enumerate change of things sequentially shows the connectivity of the same to other universal elements (Moore & Bruder, 2013, p. 25).
The views of Anaxagoras
Anaxagoras argues that what is perceived as reality is created by the human mind (p. 29). Anaxagoras arguments try to relate mind and reason. By using the concept of preponderance, Anaxagoras argues that the mind in itself is made of particles and atoms. thus, the ability to conceive actual physical things in the universe.
The early Greeks who had a reasonable conception of the nature of reality
The Atomists led by Leucippus and Democritus’ approach to reality is reasonable. The Atomists’ approach has been rendered by metaphysic as true regarding atoms, motion, free will, and determinism (p. 32).
Plato’s criticism of the views of Protagoras
Plato argues against Protagoras’ views that knowledge is absolute. Plato views knowledge as a combination of sensible perceptions, thus making the same relative (p. 43).
How Plato claims people can know the Forms
Plato argues that people can now the Forms as a way of deriving absolute truth and becoming wise. The shadows and the unchanging Forms explain ways of knowing the Forms. Ignorance hinders absolute truth while love makes people perfect in true knowledge (p. 45).
Aristotle’s notion of the 4 causes
The four causes are material, formal, efficient, and final. The causes are instrumental in explaining how substances are formed and change. The causes explain why a change in the formation of substance is directed to a distinct objective or end (p. 65).
Aristotle’s 10 categories
The ten categories are “substance, quantity, quality, relationships, place, time, posture, constitution, passivity and activity” (p. 67). The categories are instrumental in understanding the essence of the existence of a being or substance. The categories also aid in analyzing the function of a being (p. 68).
Aristotle’s third man argument and theory of forms
Aristotle’s Third Man Argument asserts that there must be additional Forms that bond with the circularity of Form. In this context, Forms are considered universal, depicting that there is more than one particular that can be used in describing an individual, thing, or substance (p. 69).
Plato’s view of Forms with Aristotle’s view of forms
Plato asserts that Forms exist in circularity and independently. Aristotle argues that Forms are not independent and share particular things and elements that imply an aspect of universality.
Aristotle says “Everything which comes into being is brought about by something [else]” if that were the case, would existence not be a paradox, as Gorgias points out?
No, Aristotle’s argument is correct based on the cause and effect relationship concept (p. 70). Aristotle’s use of the discursive argument is correct since the world is imperfect based on human life and experiences (p. 70).
Reference
Moore, B. N & Bruder, K. (2013). Philosophy: The power of ideas (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.