What role do our worldviews, i.e. our understanding of nature/science, the individual, society, the divine etc., take in shaping our moral philosophy or ethics? In fact what is the difference between morality and ethics itself? Furthermore, what is the nature of ethics within a religious framework? How does a particular theology condition a morality? Here in the following space we will explore these issues and more via turning to the ancient Greeks.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Pluralists
First tell me why these philosophers are deemed the pluralists and then describe the different arche of both Empedocles and Anaxagoras? Finally, tell me which of the two is more attractive of a thinker for you and why.
These two philosophers are called the pluralists because they argued that while the world is composed of unchanging elements, these elements can be mixed or separated. Both of them believe that there is no birth or death, but only mixing and separating of elements. Empedocles believes that the four main elements (Earth, Water, Air and Fire) come into being through the mixture of Love and Strife. On the other hand, Anaxagoras argues that the Mind is the arche which is unlimited, alone, and rules all things. Although they had different ideas about the composition of the universe, these two men challenged the Parmenidian belief that it is impossible for the world to undergo change.
Both Empedocles and Anaxagorus are pluralists because while they believe that all is essentially one, they feel that this oneness can be divided into individual things, which are then perceived through the senses. These individual things are made up of the universal arche, but they are also different and have particular qualities based on their composition.
Anaxagorus feels that all things in the cosmos were originally together, but that the Mind separates this material into unique things which we can perceive with our senses. Empedocles differs from Anaxagorus in that he cites the four elements as the basis for all oneness, and thus all differences. Empedocles says that Strife and Love are the forces that either unite all or cause separation into individual things. According to Empedocles things come into being through Love. Love and Strife cause cycles of change to occur, but at the same time nothing really changes since the elements remain constant.
I find Empedocles' philosophy to be more attractive because his explanation is more thorough. In addition, he seems to combine ideas about religion and the right way to live with his philosophy on the unification versus differences in all things.
Both Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they both believe that the entities of the cosmos, while eternally real and unchanging, can be mixed with and separated with each other. However, Anaxagoras believes that all things are together except the mind, which is said to know and control all things. Empedocles, on the other hand, points to the elements, and love and strife. Love is the action that mixes together and Strife is the action that pulls apart. I like the thought process of Empecdocles because it explains almost all questions you can have about it, and it is alot more grounded and sensible then the more abstract view of Anaxagoras.
Both these philosophers explain the endlessness of the universe. I find Anaxagoras’ argument of the mind being the driving force of the world interesting. He also argues that everything started at the beginning, and before the beginning there was the smaller.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they both believe that all things are together. however, for Anaxorgoras he states that the mind is said to know and control all things; he even excuses the mind out of his statement that says all things are together...except for the mind. (14. and when Mind began to cause motion, separating off proceeded to occur from all that was moved, and all that Mind moved was separated apart, and as things were being moved and separated apart, the rataion caused much more separating apart to occur. [love this quote])
Empedocles's philosophy has a stronger connection to the divine, and even describes how the humans have fallen from a pure original state and need purification in order to return to the state. He also describes six entities (earth, water, air, and fire, love, and strife) and how the interaction of these elements result in great cosmic cycles. (64. Will you not cease from harsh-sounding murder? Do you not see that you are devouring each other in the carelessness of your thought?)
Although both of them are politicians (YES), I would have to lean more to Anaxagoras for his emphasis on the mind. I feel like if the mind is a constantly sharpened tool than the society will flourish as a whole
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are considered pluralist because they rejected Parmenides monism belief. They believed that there were more real and unchanging elements that can be mixed and separated from each other. Anaxagoras believed that everything contained a portion of everything else and that the mind (nous) controlled the cosmos and our perception of things. Empedocles, on the other hand, believed that there were 6 elements (earth, air, fire, water, love and strife) that played an important part in the cosmos. I found Empedocles theories to be more appealing. I especially found interesting his choice to included love and strife as part of the unchanging elements in the universe.
The idea of pluralism emphasizes diversity of ideas, mainly applying to religious and social beliefs. In philosophy, pluralists believe that he ideas of one and many are related.
In Anaxagoras' viewpoint, Mind is the archae, allowing us to separate different parts of everything, whereas Empedocles states that all things are made of combination of the 4 basic elements -- water, fire, air and earth --but also emphasizes Love and Strife.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras are regarded as pluralists because they both argue that the universe is composed of mixtures of multiple things or elements that are not simply created from nothing nor do they perish and disappear completely. Anaxagoras arche is that in the original cosmos, all things are one except for the mind which is the only thing that can be separated from all other things. He emphasizes that this is the only separation (mind from everything else). Empedocles’ arche is that the mixture and separation of 6 entities (earth, water, air, fire, love and strife) result in the world as we know it. Empedocles’ idea focuses on a cycle of these elements, while Anoaxagoras regards the separation as only one (mind and everything else). While I find Anoaxagoras’ ideas more easy to comprehend, I find Empedocles’ more attractive because he gives a much more detailed description and focuses on multiple aspects while Anoaxagoras’ only defines our perception of the cosmos as mind and everything else.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they both believe that all things can exist, mix, and be separated from all other things. To Anaxagoras, the Mind is the arche because it is the principle "one" that is able to separate and combine. For Empedocles', Love and Strife, accompanied by the four elements are the arche, the beginning. Empedocles' philosophy is more attractive to me because not only does he state that all things are made of water, fire, air, and earth, but he also mentions that love and strife are important as elements as well. Empedocles' philosophy seems more balanced and I can appreciate that.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they both adopted a belief of diversity. They believed all things were composed of unchanging elements that could be mixed or separated into what our senses perceive.
Anaxagoras' arche was nous or the mind. All things were together except the mind. The Mind was said to know and control all things.
Empedocles' arche was based on 6 entities: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, Love and Strife. Love mixed the four elements together(coming to be) and pulled apart by strife(passing away).
I'm torn between the two. I think both make valid points, but I guess Anaxagoras arche of the mind is more understandable.
They are deemed the Pluralists because they significantly philosophized over the world being made up of multiple elements opposing aspects of monism. While Anaxagoras' views his arche where mind rules and skin, bones, and muscle are the elements, Empedocles claims six entities of air, water, fire, earth, love, and strife. Empedocles seems to be a more attractive thinker to me because of his addition of love and strife as non-material aspects of the cosmos that contribute to everyday life as witnessed.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are called Pluralists because they posited that the unity of all being exists because of the separate, "plural" elements composing all beings. Anaxagoras seems to take a much more humanistic approach to these elements' definitions, as his arche almost solely consists of the human mind (nous) from which all elements are controlled by and invented. Empedocles, on the other hand, posited that the arche ARE the elements (earth, water, air, fire) themselves, and that love is the creative force among them that brings them together and suffering is what pulls them apart. Both seem to believe in the cyclic nature of life, however, and reveal few contradictions to Parmedinian philosophy besides the definition of their arche and detail of practical proof. My favorite among them is Empedocles because he recognizes that creative energy is the root of all love, and that's definitely something I can agree with.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras are pluralists because they both believe that the basic substances of cosmos are entities and that the entities are real and unchanging, and they can be mixed and seperated from each other.
Anaxagoras believes that "All things were together" except the mind.He says that the mind sets its own things into rotation and from that things are seperated out and things are combined to produce our senses and the way we see the world.
Empedocles believes that there are 6 entities; Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Love and Strife. He believs that Earth, Fire, Water and Air are mixed together by Love and pulled apart by Strife and that this results in the way we see perceive the world.
I would have to side with Empedocles' way of the world because of the way he explains the 6 entities. I like that he believes that all is made up of air. earth, water and fire and I also like the way he brings love and strife into play and how all 6 can be mixed and seperated in everyday life.
The reason why Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists is partly due to the fact that they feel the cosmos are real elements that although cannot be changed, are real, and therefore can stand alone from each other, or be combined with one another.
The main difference between the two, in my opinion, is that Empedocles is more concerned with his six entities of Earth, Water, Love, Fire, Air, Strife whereas Anaxagoras sees all entities together (excluding the mind)
I prefer Anaxagoras's viewpoint because he deals more with the mind rather than Empedocles who deals more with the Earth.
They are pluralists because they believe that the cosmos is made from things that can be mixed like the elements(fire, wind, earth, water). The arche for Anaxagoras is the thought that "All things were together" excluding the mind. He says it is the mind that separates and recombines with everything to create the world. Empedocles arche involves the elements of water, earth, wind, and fire as well as love and strife. He thinks the world is made by a mixture and separation of these elements.
Out of the two I liked Empedocles the most because of his idea of the elements being a part in making the world. Also, the addition of love and strife was a unique addition. I thought his ideas involving the elements was more creative.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they rejected the idea that nature can be reduced to a single point i.e. monoism. They believed that there were more elements that can either be changed or mixed together.
Empedocles arche was that there are six basic entities: earth, water, air, fire, love and strife. For Anaxagoras, his arche was that "All things were together." Everything except the mind. He said that the mind controls and knows all things.
I am caught between both of the philosophers because I feel that even though both argue two different types of arche, both arche's seem to make sense.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras are called “Pluralists” because they attempted to reconcile Parmenides’ rejection of the possibility of change with the possibility of providing a rational account of the changing world of sense experiences. They each attempted a reconciliation of the Parmenidean problem of being and the Heraclitean problem of becoming. On the one hand, they accepted the idea that the basis substance of the cosmos is unchanging, but then they argued that this substance is divided into different parts with the root of things in different elements. They asserted that things both compose and decompose, thus facilitating both change and stability. They felt that they had effectively overcome the opposition between being and non-being.
For Empedocles, the origins of all things in the beginning were contained in the elements of earth, air, fire and water. Love and strife crated combinations of these elements. In the view of Anaxagoras, arche consisted of Nous (or mind) which was separate from an original state of the cosmos in which all things were together as one. To me, The more attractive thinker is Anaxagoras because he included a role of Mind or Nous in the creation of sensed objects.
Both Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they went against monism saying that the cosmos are a unity, but are also made up of parts which can be separated and mixed. The arche for Anaxagoras is the mind. He claimed the mind changed the world into its pluralist form. For Empedocles, the arche are earth, water, air, fire, love, and strife. For Empedocles love and strife move and change the other "elements" into the pluralist world he envisioned. I personally find Empedocles to be the more attractive thinker because I enjoy the idea that love is what mixes all together and strife is what tears it apart.
Empedcles and Anaxagoras are refered to pluralist for their view of the universe. Epedcles believed that universe was made of earth, wind, fire, and water and these elements could be mixed and controled by love and strife. Anaxagoras believed that the mind controled all the elements. I personally like Anaxagoras belief in that the mind has power over things. Mankind can do many great things with out minds.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they claim that the basic substances of the cosmos are entities that are eternally real and unchanging that can be mixed and seperated from each other. Anaxagoras believes that everything is made up of "all things," and that these things separate or combine to produce everything. Anaxagoras mentions seeds in the original mixture which could be the basic parts of everything or, as the book mentions, "biological seeds." He does claim, however, that the Mind is alone in that it does not contain a portion of everything, but the mind is present in some things. Empedocles believes that the cosmos consists of six basic entities: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. These enitites are mixed and separated by Love and Strife which are described as "Empedocles' two motive forces." While both believe the cosmos consists of entities, the forces that control these entites are completely different. I believe Anaxagoras is the most attractive thinker because our mind is what sets everything into motion. While love and strife are very influential, our mind can control or suppress feelings that would hinder our being.
The Pluralists were inspired by metaphysical implications. Neither Anaxagoras or Empedocles had all the empirical evidence they would have liked, but were nonetheless, ahead of their time. Searching for a rational account of the universe in Ancient Greece is moving in the right direction, but, I think, Anaxagoras hits closer to home. He refuses to make the same outlandish claims about fire and air, earth and water. Hair comes from hair, flesh comes from flesh, I'm pretty certain he was not the first person to reason this, however, he is setting up what is to come-all is under the blanket-all things have a portion of everything.
The philosophers Empedocles and Anaxagorus are both considered pluralists because they believe the world is composed of elements that can be separated or mixed. They believe these elements do not change and do not die off, but are only separated and mixed together. Empedocles believes in the four main elements fire, air, earth, and water while Anaxagorus believes that the mind is the arche and runs everything. I like both these philosophers’ ideas but, Anaxagorus’s makes a little more sense to me when he says that everything is in unity but, the mind tends to separate certain things into certain material categories.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralist because they belive that all elements known to man are essentially made of the same things, and can be separated or combined to produce anything, and indeed, everything. I would see more along the lines of Empedocles, who believed the Earth was made up of six basic entities, as opposed to Anazagoras who I believe is too abstract and not as tangible as Empedocles.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are considered pluralists because both believe that the world is a mixture instead of one divine entity. The world is comprised of a mixture of elements that can be separated from one another. Anaxagoras says that these elements are unlimited in number and each element is a conglomeration of invisible amounts of the homoiomerous things. He believes that in the original state of the cosmos "all things were together," except the mind, which set the original mixture into motion causing the parts to separate and recombine into the world as we know it. Empedocles believes that the world is comprised of six basic entities: earth water, air, fire, strife and love. This belief is the opposite of Anaxagoras who believes that flesh and bone and other homoiomerous things are the elements that fire and earth are comprised of. According to Empedocles the elements are mixed together by love and pulled apart by strife resulting in the great cosmic cycles. I think that Empedocles is the more attractive thinker. His views seem to make more sense to me. I also like his inclusion of love and strife into the cosmic order.
These philosophers are deemed the pluralist because both Anaxagoras and Empedocles believe that the universe is one that can be separated and mixed together again. Such as the universe can never be forever separated. Anaxagoras arche seems to be the concept of all things being together, for even the smallest amount can have an unlimited value. I think Empedocles arche would be the mixture and separation results in world is as one would see it. I see that Empedocles’ arche is more attractive because I understand it o mean that everything has a basic origin and from the results other things. He believes that it is impossible to come from nothing that something must develop to become something else.
These two philosophers are called the pluralists because they argued that while the world is composed of unchanging elements, these elements can be mixed or separated. Both of them believe that there is no birth or death, but only mixing and separating of elements. Empedocles believes that the four main elements (Earth, Water, Air and Fire) come into being through the mixture of Love and Strife. On the other hand, Anaxagoras argues that the Mind is the arche which is unlimited, alone, and rules all things. Although they had different ideas about the composition of the universe, these two men challenged the Parmenidian belief that it is impossible for the world to undergo change.
ReplyDeleteBoth Empedocles and Anaxagorus are pluralists because while they believe that all is essentially one, they feel that this oneness can be divided into individual things, which are then perceived through the senses. These individual things are made up of the universal arche, but they are also different and have particular qualities based on their composition.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagorus feels that all things in the cosmos were originally together, but that the Mind separates this material into unique things which we can perceive with our senses. Empedocles differs from Anaxagorus in that he cites the four elements as the basis for all oneness, and thus all differences. Empedocles says that Strife and Love are the forces that either unite all or cause separation into individual things. According to Empedocles things come into being through Love. Love and Strife cause cycles of change to occur, but at the same time nothing really changes since the elements remain constant.
An addition to my post...
ReplyDeleteI find Empedocles' philosophy to be more attractive because his explanation is more thorough. In addition, he seems to combine ideas about religion and the right way to live with his philosophy on the unification versus differences in all things.
Both Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they both believe that the entities of the cosmos, while eternally real and unchanging, can be mixed with and separated with each other. However, Anaxagoras believes that all things are together except the mind, which is said to know and control all things. Empedocles, on the other hand, points to the elements, and love and strife. Love is the action that mixes together and Strife is the action that pulls apart.
ReplyDeleteI like the thought process of Empecdocles because it explains almost all questions you can have about it, and it is alot more grounded and sensible then the more abstract view of Anaxagoras.
Both these philosophers explain the endlessness of the universe. I find Anaxagoras’ argument of the mind being the driving force of the world interesting. He also argues that everything started at the beginning, and before the beginning there was the smaller.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they both believe that all things are together. however, for Anaxorgoras he states that the mind is said to know and control all things; he even excuses the mind out of his statement that says all things are together...except for the mind.
ReplyDelete(14. and when Mind began to cause motion, separating off proceeded to occur from all that was moved, and all that Mind moved was separated apart, and as things were being moved and separated apart, the rataion caused much more separating apart to occur. [love this quote])
Empedocles's philosophy has a stronger connection to the divine, and even describes how the humans have fallen from a pure original state and need purification in order to return to the state. He also describes six entities (earth, water, air, and fire, love, and strife) and how the interaction of these elements result in great cosmic cycles.
(64. Will you not cease from harsh-sounding murder? Do you not see that you are devouring each other in the carelessness of your thought?)
Although both of them are politicians (YES), I would have to lean more to Anaxagoras for his emphasis on the mind. I feel like if the mind is a constantly sharpened tool than the society will flourish as a whole
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are considered pluralist because they rejected Parmenides monism belief. They believed that there were more real and unchanging elements that can be mixed and separated from each other.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras believed that everything contained a portion of everything else and that the mind (nous) controlled the cosmos and our perception of things.
Empedocles, on the other hand, believed that there were 6 elements (earth, air, fire, water, love and strife) that played an important part in the cosmos.
I found Empedocles theories to be more appealing. I especially found interesting his choice to included love and strife as part of the unchanging elements in the universe.
The idea of pluralism emphasizes diversity of ideas, mainly applying to religious and social beliefs. In philosophy, pluralists believe that he ideas of one and many are related.
ReplyDeleteIn Anaxagoras' viewpoint, Mind is the archae, allowing us to separate different parts of everything, whereas Empedocles states that all things are made of combination of the 4 basic elements -- water, fire, air and earth --but also emphasizes Love and Strife.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras are regarded as pluralists because they both argue that the universe is composed of mixtures of multiple things or elements that are not simply created from nothing nor do they perish and disappear completely. Anaxagoras arche is that in the original cosmos, all things are one except for the mind which is the only thing that can be separated from all other things. He emphasizes that this is the only separation (mind from everything else). Empedocles’ arche is that the mixture and separation of 6 entities (earth, water, air, fire, love and strife) result in the world as we know it. Empedocles’ idea focuses on a cycle of these elements, while Anoaxagoras regards the separation as only one (mind and everything else). While I find Anoaxagoras’ ideas more easy to comprehend, I find Empedocles’ more attractive because he gives a much more detailed description and focuses on multiple aspects while Anoaxagoras’ only defines our perception of the cosmos as mind and everything else.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they both believe that all things can exist, mix, and be separated from all other things.
ReplyDeleteTo Anaxagoras, the Mind is the arche because it is the principle "one" that is able to separate and combine. For Empedocles', Love and Strife, accompanied by the four elements are the arche, the beginning.
Empedocles' philosophy is more attractive to me because not only does he state that all things are made of water, fire, air, and earth, but he also mentions that love and strife are important as elements as well. Empedocles' philosophy seems more balanced and I can appreciate that.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they both adopted a belief of diversity. They believed all things were composed of unchanging elements that could be mixed or separated into what our senses perceive.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras' arche was nous or the mind. All things were together except the mind. The Mind was said to know and control all things.
Empedocles' arche was based on 6 entities: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, Love and Strife. Love mixed the four elements together(coming to be) and pulled apart by strife(passing away).
I'm torn between the two. I think both make valid points, but I guess Anaxagoras arche of the mind is more understandable.
They are deemed the Pluralists because they significantly philosophized over the world being made up of multiple elements opposing aspects of monism. While Anaxagoras' views his arche where mind rules and skin, bones, and muscle are the elements, Empedocles claims six entities of air, water, fire, earth, love, and strife. Empedocles seems to be a more attractive thinker to me because of his addition of love and strife as non-material aspects of the cosmos that contribute to everyday life as witnessed.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are called Pluralists because they posited that the unity of all being exists because of the separate, "plural" elements composing all beings. Anaxagoras seems to take a much more humanistic approach to these elements' definitions, as his arche almost solely consists of the human mind (nous) from which all elements are controlled by and invented. Empedocles, on the other hand, posited that the arche ARE the elements (earth, water, air, fire) themselves, and that love is the creative force among them that brings them together and suffering is what pulls them apart. Both seem to believe in the cyclic nature of life, however, and reveal few contradictions to Parmedinian philosophy besides the definition of their arche and detail of practical proof. My favorite among them is Empedocles because he recognizes that creative energy is the root of all love, and that's definitely something I can agree with.
ReplyDeleteEmpedocles and Anaxagoras are pluralists because they both believe that the basic substances of cosmos are entities and that the entities are real and unchanging, and they can be mixed and seperated from each other.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras believes that "All things were together" except the mind.He says that the mind sets its own things into rotation and from that things are seperated out and things are combined to produce our senses and the way we see the world.
Empedocles believes that there are 6 entities; Air, Earth, Fire, Water, Love and Strife. He believs that Earth, Fire, Water and Air are mixed together by Love and pulled apart by Strife and that this results in the way we see perceive the world.
I would have to side with Empedocles' way of the world because of the way he explains the 6 entities. I like that he believes that all is made up of air. earth, water and fire and I also like the way he brings love and strife into play and how all 6 can be mixed and seperated in everyday life.
The reason why Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists is partly due to the fact that they feel the cosmos are real elements that although cannot be changed, are real, and therefore can stand alone from each other, or be combined with one another.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between the two, in my opinion, is that Empedocles is more concerned with his six entities of Earth, Water, Love, Fire, Air, Strife whereas Anaxagoras sees all entities together (excluding the mind)
I prefer Anaxagoras's viewpoint because he deals more with the mind rather than Empedocles who deals more with the Earth.
They are pluralists because they believe that the cosmos is made from things that can be mixed like the elements(fire, wind, earth, water). The arche for Anaxagoras is the thought that "All things were together" excluding the mind. He says it is the mind that separates and recombines with everything to create the world. Empedocles arche involves the elements of water, earth, wind, and fire as well as love and strife. He thinks the world is made by a mixture and separation of these elements.
ReplyDeleteOut of the two I liked Empedocles the most because of his idea of the elements being a part in making the world. Also, the addition of love and strife was a unique addition. I thought his ideas involving the elements was more creative.
Anaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they rejected the idea that nature can be reduced to a single point i.e. monoism. They believed that there were more elements that can either be changed or mixed together.
ReplyDeleteEmpedocles arche was that there are six basic entities: earth, water, air, fire, love and strife. For Anaxagoras, his arche was that "All things were together." Everything except the mind. He said that the mind controls and knows all things.
I am caught between both of the philosophers because I feel that even though both argue two different types of arche, both arche's seem to make sense.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras are called “Pluralists” because they attempted to reconcile Parmenides’ rejection of the possibility of change with the possibility of providing a rational account of the changing world of sense experiences. They each attempted a reconciliation of the Parmenidean problem of being and the Heraclitean problem of becoming. On the one hand, they accepted the idea that the basis substance of the cosmos is unchanging, but then they argued that this substance is divided into different parts with the root of things in different elements. They asserted that things both compose and decompose, thus facilitating both change and stability. They felt that they had effectively overcome the opposition between being and non-being.
ReplyDeleteFor Empedocles, the origins of all things in the beginning were contained in the elements of earth, air, fire and water. Love and strife crated combinations of these elements. In the view of Anaxagoras, arche consisted of Nous (or mind) which was separate from an original state of the cosmos in which all things were together as one. To me, The more attractive thinker is Anaxagoras because he included a role of Mind or Nous in the creation of sensed objects.
Both Anaxagoras and Empedocles are deemed pluralists because they went against monism saying that the cosmos are a unity, but are also made up of parts which can be separated and mixed. The arche for Anaxagoras is the mind. He claimed the mind changed the world into its pluralist form. For Empedocles, the arche are earth, water, air, fire, love, and strife. For Empedocles love and strife move and change the other "elements" into the pluralist world he envisioned. I personally find Empedocles to be the more attractive thinker because I enjoy the idea that love is what mixes all together and strife is what tears it apart.
ReplyDeleteEmpedcles and Anaxagoras are refered to pluralist for their view of the universe. Epedcles believed that universe was made of earth, wind, fire, and water and these elements could be mixed and controled by love and strife. Anaxagoras believed that the mind controled all the elements. I personally like Anaxagoras belief in that the mind has power over things. Mankind can do many great things with out minds.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralists because they claim that the basic substances of the cosmos are entities that are eternally real and unchanging that can be mixed and seperated from each other.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras believes that everything is made up of "all things," and that these things separate or combine to produce everything. Anaxagoras mentions seeds in the original mixture which could be the basic parts of everything or, as the book mentions, "biological seeds." He does claim, however, that the Mind is alone in that it does not contain a portion of everything, but the mind is present in some things.
Empedocles believes that the cosmos consists of six basic entities: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. These enitites are mixed and separated by Love and Strife which are described as "Empedocles' two motive forces."
While both believe the cosmos consists of entities, the forces that control these entites are completely different. I believe Anaxagoras is the most attractive thinker because our mind is what sets everything into motion. While love and strife are very influential, our mind can control or suppress feelings that would hinder our being.
The Pluralists were inspired by metaphysical implications. Neither Anaxagoras or Empedocles had all the empirical evidence they would have liked, but were nonetheless, ahead of their time. Searching for a rational account of the universe in Ancient Greece is moving in the right direction, but, I think, Anaxagoras hits closer to home. He refuses to make the same outlandish claims about fire and air, earth and water. Hair comes from hair, flesh comes from flesh, I'm pretty certain he was not the first person to reason this, however, he is setting up what is to come-all is under the blanket-all things have a portion of everything.
ReplyDeleteThe philosophers Empedocles and Anaxagorus are both considered pluralists because they believe the world is composed of elements that can be separated or mixed. They believe these elements do not change and do not die off, but are only separated and mixed together. Empedocles believes in the four main elements fire, air, earth, and water while Anaxagorus believes that the mind is the arche and runs everything. I like both these philosophers’ ideas but, Anaxagorus’s makes a little more sense to me when he says that everything is in unity but, the mind tends to separate certain things into certain material categories.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are pluralist because they belive that all elements known to man are essentially made of the same things, and can be separated or combined to produce anything, and indeed, everything. I would see more along the lines of Empedocles, who believed the Earth was made up of six basic entities, as opposed to Anazagoras who I believe is too abstract and not as tangible as Empedocles.
ReplyDeleteAnaxagoras and Empedocles are considered pluralists because both believe that the world is a mixture instead of one divine entity. The world is comprised of a mixture of elements that can be separated from one another. Anaxagoras says that these elements are unlimited in number and each element is a conglomeration of invisible amounts of the homoiomerous things. He believes that in the original state of the cosmos "all things were together," except the mind, which set the original mixture into motion causing the parts to separate and recombine into the world as we know it. Empedocles believes that the world is comprised of six basic entities: earth water, air, fire, strife and love. This belief is the opposite of Anaxagoras who believes that flesh and bone and other homoiomerous things are the elements that fire and earth are comprised of. According to Empedocles the elements are mixed together by love and pulled apart by strife resulting in the great cosmic cycles. I think that Empedocles is the more attractive thinker. His views seem to make more sense to me. I also like his inclusion of love and strife into the cosmic order.
ReplyDeleteThese philosophers are deemed the pluralist because both Anaxagoras and Empedocles believe that the universe is one that can be separated and mixed together again. Such as the universe can never be forever separated. Anaxagoras arche seems to be the concept of all things being together, for even the smallest amount can have an unlimited value. I think Empedocles arche would be the mixture and separation results in world is as one would see it. I see that Empedocles’ arche is more attractive because I understand it o mean that everything has a basic origin and from the results other things. He believes that it is impossible to come from nothing that something must develop to become something else.
ReplyDelete