The Sophists

It is clear from the reading that Plato holds a level of disdain and prejudice against the sophists when describing their thoughts and actions. While there is some truth that underlies these negative beliefs, there probably were a lot of good things that the sophists did during their popularity in Athens. Much of what we have today relies heavily upon the opinions and views of Plato and Aristotle. With that said, there are certainly specific ideas of the sophists that seem alarming. The fact that they charged such high amounts of money and were mainly selective towards the wealthy aristocrats of Athens stains their reputation. These practices appear disingenuous by placing the emphasis and priority on money first instead of knowledge and education. Compared to many of the philosophers in ancient Greece, they do not present themselves as lovers of wisdom and pursuers of the good. Rather, the goal seems to be make a nice living first and then share their knowledge on rhetoric.

Extending off of this lowered sense of the good, many sophists aim to win arguments regardless of whether their view aims at the good. They elevate rhetoric to a level that exceeds its value and treat it as the sole necessity to success in this life. It does not matter whether a certain view is objectively better than another. As long as you can argue your view the best, then for all practical purposes you are right and speak the truth. They have left behind many of the delineations set by morality and look to logos as "a powerful master". This explains why some argue that the sophists were moral relativists. This is extremely dangerous and invites consequences that most people would not support such as social injustices. Disregarding a view of the good and leaving society to the subject of whoever can argue their point the best opens the floor to evil individuals coming to power through their use of rhetoric. We have to keep in mind the bias that Plato brings in his writings and understand that the actual sophists could have been very different from this portrayal, nevertheless this particular view of the sophists acts as a warning to future generations about the power of rhetoric. Are most people in our society influenced by rhetoric more than the substance of the ideas argued? If so, how can we heighten people's alertness to this influence?

-BaylorBear16

Democritus and the Atomists

It is amazing to think that these Greek thinkers were able to make conclusions about the natural world around us thousands of years before they were proved correct without the technological advancements we had at the time. There are many excerpts such as 67A7 that hold so many truths about the particles of life with which much of today's science is established. Democritus and Leucippus describe their "atom" as a small particle that cannot be seen with the naked eye for the most part. They are infinite in number and cannot be divided. Through their interactions the physical material world can be explained. Although we now know that there are smaller particles than even electrons and protons, the traits of the "atom" that Democritus is describing can still be attributed to these as well.

Democritus attempts to explain everything, even thoughts, with a mechanistic theory on the atomic level. Through the movement and bumping of atoms, our senses and perceptions can be explained. Much of this holds true for many external things in this world as well as interior processes of the body. However, there seems to be an issue when attempting to explain thoughts and rationality. Most people would agree that humans have the ability to reason at a level higher than other organisms and can develop their own ideas spontaneously. This formulation of thoughts and ideas cannot be explained using the mechanistic atomic model of Democritus. We can know what parts of the brain are associated with certain thoughts and how sensations travel throughout the body through the firing of nerves. But we fail to explain how these thoughts formulate. In order for a mechanistic explanation to hold true for everything there needs to be an atom that our thoughts can be traced to and yet we have never been able to scientifically find that first cause. The thoughts just happen. Thus, it seams that there is something else immaterial in addition to a material atomic world that exists such as a soul. Do you think that there is only our material existence or must there also be something else that can help explain our being?

-BaylorBear16

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae

Anaxagoras returns us to the past philosophers of Parmenides and particularly Xenophanes. Rather than agree with Empedocles on there being two parts to the Arche (love and strife), Anaxagoras opposes this thought and sides with Parmenides in having only one: the Nous. There is a sense of unity found within Parmenides that carries over to Anaxagoras. Everything comes from one source and in this relation everything is connected together. Additionally, Anaxagoras departs from Empedocles in emphasizing seeds rather than roots as the metaphor for the parts that make up things. The idea from our class discussion that the seeds explain our ability to make an influential mark on them is interesting. They can be molded to a certain end through an outside force and the actions of things around them. It shows how we can change the shape and traits of material things and that these parts that make a whole change with our influence.

What struck me about Anaxagoras was the description of the Nous in excerpt B12 and how similar it sounds to the ideas of Xenophanes. The Nous is infinite and everything can be traced back to the Nous. It is independent or "alone itself by itself" and the purest thing possible. The Nous also knows everything about that which comes from it and is the strongest or all-powerful. All of these traits sound like the creator of Xenophanes who also was separate from his creation and yet omniscient. Also, the word Nous means mind which is something immaterial and yet has a strong relation to the material. Thus far, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras offer the closest thing to the Christian idea of God. It seems that we are slowly coming closer and closer to God through reason only to culminate in the coming of Christianity with revelation. I cannot wait to get to Aristotle and Plato who may offer the best that reason alone can give us with regards to God. Between Xenophanes, Heraclitus, and Anaxagoras who do you think offers ideas closest to the resemblance of God?

-BaylorBear16

Zeno of Elea

Zeno's paradoxes such as the millet seed and stadium show us the limit of our senses and that reason is something that we must all rely upon in order to know things (A29 and A28). Although troublesome at first, these paradoxes can be overcome by evaluating the assumptions that support them. One can also question the conclusions that can be appropriately attributed to them. Zeno seems to think that our senses cannot be trusted at all due to our inability to accurately measure the weight of a millet seed. However, this lack of ability does not necessarily lead to the doubting and distrust of our senses. This seems to be a bit of a leap. Instead, a more moderate conclusion would be that our senses are not acute or sensitive enough to discern certain physical attributes of nature. Our senses can still be trusted, but it depends on what case or task we are talking about. From this perspective, Zeno's paradoxes are important in showing us the limitations of our abilities. They show us the importance of reason and its crucial role in understanding the world around us. With reason we can know that the millet seed weighs something whether or not we feel that weight in our hands.

It seems to me that we need both reason and our senses collectively to make accurate decisions or observations about nature. Additionally, these paradoxes show how complex our senses are as we rely on all of them together to discern facts. Many of the paradoxes only test a single sense at a time, but in daily life many of our actions and observations are performed with all of the senses contributing something to the whole. Also, in using our senses we are using reason to evaluate and make judgments about what we sense. Therefore, to conclude that we can only trust our reason may not rule out the option of trusting the senses. I am not convinced that these paradoxes prove that I cannot trust my senses, but I do think they are important in reminding us of our limitations as human. Do you think Hume was influenced by Zeno, because his skepticism about doubting our senses and relying on reason or science are very similar?

-BaylorBear16

Empedocles of Acragas

Empedocles explains creation and death with the opposites of love and strife (#47, B17). There is this balance between the two of constant motion and harmony, whereby the life of this world is changing back and forth between life and destruction. There is a strange relationship between them with both being in conflict and yet they can never be separated from each other. In fact they need each other, despite their struggle. It seems that life is not even possible without both of them. This relationship is evident in nature as new life is brought about from death. It must exist for nature to flourish and is a necessary cycle. Science has shown us the benefits of this cycle through evolution and natural selection where only those with the best traits can survive.

This cycle shows us that there is some underlying good within the death and destruction that exists. Evil can lend itself to good things long term. Examples of this are the massive outbreaks of disease. Millions of people have died from disease and death is not something to take lightly, but due to these diseases humanity has become immune to many of them and scientific advances such as vaccines have come about. Another example is war where millions have died as well, and yet many technological advances would not have come about if it was not for war. In nature, natural forest fires can wipe out an entire forest and habitat, but from the ashes comes new life and fires remove all of the underlying debris on the forest floor giving it a fresh start.

This cycle of good and evil is not something new, as many eastern cultures also have a concept of two opposites in harmony together to bring about life. Empedocles seems to be hitting a strong note that is naturally found among human thought. We seek explanations to the chaos that surrounds us and attempt to bring rationality, structure, and order to the life experiences that negatively affect us. Empedocles is adding to that narrative with his own explanation of the world. Do you think Empedocles would accept the views of eastern Asia such as Yin and Yang which play a very similar role to love and strife in nature?

-BaylorBear16

Parmenides of Elea

Parmenides seems to question the ideas of this world based on sensory experience and argues that one should use their understanding through the use of reason to formulate knowledge about "what-is" (28B1, B8). Through this rejection of sensory experience the goddess makes room for her new way of thought about the world. However, this idea about experience seems impossible to actually live by for several reasons. To reject knowledge based on the senses is to cast doubt upon everything in this world. If I doubt my sensory experience, then how can I even function in this life? How can I trust anything that Parmenides is telling me or that I'm reading? How can Parmenides trust anything related to the story about the goddess? Additionally, our reasoning is constantly influenced by our past experiences whether we are conscious of it or not. The environment in which we are raised influences our development and way of thought. Babies and children are too young to reason and are constantly influenced by experience during development. To live this life it appears impossible to completely doubt sensory experience.

At the same time, Parmenides does seem to get at some level of truth behind these claims. There are things about the world and our existence metaphysically that cannot be explained through empirical sensory experience. Much of the immaterial world and belief in souls cannot be verified by sensory experience in this world and yet we believe in souls. Parmenides could be warning us not to solely believe in only the sensory world, which is a much more acceptable claim among most people. He could also be referring to the knowledge of the masses which is usually void of any use of reason. In this sense, it is important to use your reason to seek the truth rather than follow the masses who would have been largely uneducated during his time. Viewing his claim as a warning about seeking truth, rather than an absolute belief to live by, presents a better appropriation of Parmenides. Do you think Parmenides rejects the truth of sensory experience completely or can it be interpreted differently as a warning?

-BaylorBear16

Heraclitus of Ephesus

The first thing I noticed when reading about Heraclitus is the arrogance and pride that his ideas or excerpts about humans exude. Unlike the tone used by Xenophanes, which has just enough pride to force his intended audience to look in the mirror, Heraclitus seems to pass the reasonable threshold being associated with blanket statements about humanity and some personal attacks on other great thinkers. Despite these attacks, his views of a creator appear to be influenced by both Xenophanes and the Milesians as seen in excerpts B114, B30, B90, B76, and B36. Heraclitus believes in one all-powerful law that created the world around him. Similar to Xenophanes, there is a lack of humanization within his one "logos". On the other hand, this logos is exemplified as fire just as the Milesians looked to water and aer as representations of their creative substance. The logos is the source of the physical and supernatural world. Additionally, this logos is constantly a part of our lives and can be realized by everyone through "understanding".

I did find it interesting how Heraclitus emphasizes understanding and wisdom over simply having knowledge, which relates back to our previous class discussion. Philosophy emphasizes understanding and discerning the "why?" and "how?" of a moral life over memorization of facts. This is part of what makes philosophy so important, because it forces students to think deeply about questions that they have never spent the time to answer. It allows students to think critically instead of practicing checklist memorization. Having done both in my life to a significant degree, I see how philosophy has made me a better thinker and allowed me to grow deeper in my faith. It has helped me gain understanding of the world and people outside the lens of science, which is something that other fields cannot offer. How do you think Heraclitus compares to the other Greek philosophers we have studied so far? Is he proposing something totally unique or are there certain ideas that he is influenced by?

-BaylorBear16