The Pre-Socratic Philosophy

1668 Words 7 Pages
Beaujorne Sirad A. Ramirez
Philo 201

The Implication of the Presocratic Philosophy

In the contemporary times, scientists have been exploring the beginning of everything. From the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution, scientists searched and analyzed the universe and the possibility (and impossibility) of coming from nothing and the hereditary lineage as animals from monkeys. The very idea of beginning shows the very origin that will make people understand their very selves and why people are acting this way. By tracing the origin, one looks for a reason on how everything became into its present form. The origin describes the reason for everything.

On the other hand, the search for the origin is not a novel idea. Since the Ancient
…show more content…
Each Pre-Socratic philosopher has a specific understanding of the world and the universe we live on. In the island of Miletus, the search for the origin of everything began with the Milesian School in the persons of Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. The first philosopher of the origin of things is Thales. For Thales, water was the reasonable beginning element of all things since water is observably present in everything in the form of moisture . On the other hand, Anaximander realized that a materially oriented beginning of the universe or of the world is not possible since the four elements of nature, namely: water, air, fire and earth, are continually changing from one state to another . For Anaximander, a realistic start of the world or the universe should not be bounded and free from being observed physically. With this, Anaximander posited that the boundless or the apeiron is the reasonable start of the universe. On the contrary, the student of Anaximander, namely, Anaximenes posited that the beginning is not physically observable but bounded. The reasonable beginning of the world and the universe for Anaximenes should be single and infinite and it can be seen in the very process of nature wherein the endless process of change and motion spontaneously occurs . For Anaximenes, such descriptions fit a certain element. This element is …show more content…
If Heraclitus believes that the constant thing is change, Parmenides believed that nothing changes. For Parmenides, there is no such thing as destruction and generation since such changes are apparent only . For Parmenides, everything is simply “is” or “is not”. We can understand from the thought of Parmenides that everything can be separated by understanding something by their “being” and by their “being not”. Parmenides introduced a world with opposing attributes. Consequently, Zeno of Elea would support and fortify these thoughts of Parmenides. However, Zeno produced paradoxes that would apparently strengthen the arguments of his teacher, Parmenides. A paradox is a contradictory statement to describe something and this has been the brand of understanding that Zeno advocated. Though these paradoxes, Zeno described the indivisibility of space. One of the famous paradoxes of Zeno is the Achilles paradox. The Achilles paradox tells the competition between Achilles and the tortoise by showing that no matter who finishes first the race, the runners will cover the same infinite space . Neither runners are advancing nor

Related Documents