Heraclitus V. Parmenides Essay

Heraclitus V. Parmenides Essay.

The heavily studied philosophical debate that has been carried for centuries on the nature of being and the perception of it, displays the vast differences between the two philosophers Heraclitus and Parmenides. One which believed in a singularity of things, while one differs and carries the philosophy of a duality of reality. One that believes that the changes in perception are deceitful, while the other displays a philosophical view that our perceptions essentially relative and always changing based one of nature.

One believes that reality and nature is constant , while the other believes that everything is constantly changing , and that even the flowing river that one may step his foot in will not be the same river the next time around.

Heraclitus believed things were ever-changing, and that may be true. Science and physics( which is an arm of philosophy tells us that when force is applied to things there is the possibility of a change in the molecular make up of the item.

It is like a formless matter. Once the matter has been molded into a particular form it is more than likely to lose atoms during the process. I believe the example of the flowing river is a pretty clever one. Being that the river is ever flowing there is constant erosion occurring as the constant (the bed of the river) interacts with the moving (the flow of the water). In actuality even the small acts such as shaking hands involves the exchange of atoms and molecules.

Parmenides presented a conflicting philosophical opinion to that of Heraclitus. Parmenides presented the view that the state of being in nature is constant. It does not change and that our perception of reality may at times be very deceitful. While I do not agree with this in regards to the state of being and nature I do think this argument would hold much weight and would be considered a solid truth in terms of psychology. A person’s psychological makeup could very well affect the way a person views reality, and could present falsehoods. One of Parmenides’ most popular argument of that something that is not cannot be feasibly proven as it is not in a state of being. I would argue that it could simply as the inverse of something that is.

While both have left a longing impression on the western philosophy and we are still arguing the same debate that they did today, I would have to agree with the argument of Heraclitus on the topic of the status of being. Things are always changing; we live with gravity which in itself causes us to change, without it we would not age nearly as quickly as we do. I find the difference in the argument in the duality and constant being of nature to be one of a matter from a modern perspective as looking at things from a macro and micro perspective.

On the macro side things look the same and unchanged as it takes drastic force or influence to change things, but on the micro level even the small of acts cause for a strong movement of atoms. I would have to agree with Heraclitus, although Parmenides does present a very valid argument when placed in proper context.

Heraclitus V. Parmenides Essay

Reflection Confession of St. Augustine Essay

Reflection Confession of St. Augustine Essay.

St. Augustine uses his focus on the fact that God may exists in the same extent which wisdom and truth exists, which is as concepts or ideas in the mind but not reality. He shows that there is evidence of God but not a powerful creator. To Augustine, God exists but requires him to exist for the basis of his argument. St. Augustine focuses on memory as an unconscious knowledge, which eventually leads him to his knowledge of God. Augustine is no longer telling events of the past, but only of present time.

Augustine starts his analysis of memory in a description of a house.

The storehouse is a place where objects are retrieved, deposited, and re-stored; just like the memory where images are kept, and in need recovered. Augustine gives a characterization of memory as if it was materialistic; it is reliable, everything has its own place in it, and it can contain unlimited information. The memory exists in all things in the past, present and no one can take it away from us.

St. Augustine believed that the ideas in someones memory must have been in his mind before he learned it, waiting to be recognized.

Augustine suggests, “It must have been that they were already in my memory, hidden away in its deeper recesses, in so remote a part of it that I might not have been able to think of them at all, if some other person had not brought them to the fore by teaching me about them” (X: chapter 10, 218). In recognizing an idea the inclusive memory he has in his mind. In addition memories that are neglected slip back into remote places of the memory and these memories evolve becoming new ones again. Augustine then started to focus on the search of God in his memory.

The search of God in one’s memory was troubling matter for Augustine; God cannot be attained through the powers of memory, which beast’s posses. Augustine is suggests looking for God in a different place, outside of the memory. An issues which is brought up by Augustine is the consequences of not finding God in the memory. In order to remember something, it must be in the memory. Therefore the question raised is: “How, then, am I to find you, if I have no memory of you? ” (X: chapter 17, 224). This is the same question that was raised in book I of Confessions: How can we know God if we don’t know what he looks like? Un like St.

Augustine’s answer in book I, in Book X he suggests that even if something is lost from one’s memory he should look for it in his memory. Augustine believed that one’s memory could reform the knowledge of God, similarly to happiness that could be finding in enigmatic parts of the memory. “… and ask all men whether they wished to be happy, all would reply they did. But this could only happen if happiness itself, that is, the state which the word signifies, were to be found somewhere in their memories” (X: chapter 20,227). Augustine suggests that one had the knowledge of happiness in the past; therefore he knows what it is.

“It may be that we were all once happy individually, or it may be that we were all in Adam, the first sinner” (X: chapter 20, 226). Augustine concludes that he cannot find God in his sense, his emotions or his mind that is mutable. Augustine asks where he can find God if he is not in his memory, and concludes that there is one characteristic of God that can explain it. God is transcendent “Whether we approach you or depart from you, you are not confined in any place” (X: chapter 26, 231); God transcendent Augustine’s mind where ever he was looking. In order for God to transcend the mind, it should have been known first.

Therefore, it can be observed that the search for God is still an interior search. Theological anthroplogy is the statement of understand both God and understand what is to be human. An open question, what is it to be human is in a sense that every actions of an individual and the communities determine what we as humans and the world is like. The only way to answer the questions can only be deteremined by what will happen to the world because of what we cause. In the relation to the discussions the ideas of St. Augustine and theological anthropology which is the concept of ‘person’.

Reflection Confession of St. Augustine Essay

Clarke’s Cosmological Argument Essay

Clarke’s Cosmological Argument Essay.

Clarke begins his argument by asserting the obvious–that based on experience, all of the beings that surround us today do exist. These beings, encountered based on one’s experience, are dependent on a prior cause. In other words, everything that exists must have been caused by something else that also exists or has existed; and for something finite to exist today, such as any being in this world, it would mean that there must have been something that has existed since infinity.

According to Clarke, there are only two plausible explanations as to how such a premise could be upheld.

First explanation he gives, is that there could have been an infinite regression of dependent things, each one causing the other. However, Clarke is quick to reject such an idea, because the series of such dependent beings must have a cause outside of the series; the infinite series of beings cannot exist on account of causation within itself. He even goes so far as to call such an argument “absurd” (Clarke, p.

23). His claim is quite clear, and it is very logical and intuitive that no effect can be its own cause nor can an effect precede its cause.

Thus, this explanation is not sufficient as to support the existence of the things experienced by everyone today. The second possible explanation Clarke gives–and it is the one he supports–is that there must have existed such a Being, who is independent of any other and who is necessary, which is to say that It is the cause of everything else that has ever existed. In addition to saying that this Being is the reason every other being exists, the author emphasizes the fact that this Being is the cause to itself as well, because of its self-existent nature.

In the end, Clarke uses a “reductio ad absurdum” argument to assume that if an infinite series did exist, it would lead us to the conclusion that this series exists on the account of causation within itself, which is impossible. Therefore, Clarke can eliminate the first explanation and state that there must have been such a Being, independent and self-existing, for the all the other dependent beings to exist. The infinite chain of dependent beings is not feasible because it is impossible to be caused by nothing, which is what is suggested by such a regression.

Thus, when one thinks about the cause and effect rule, one sees an ultimate Being, who fits in perfectly in the beginning of time, being the cause to Itself and everything else from then on. While the argument is sound and very convincing, there are a few problems with it. The most obvious is the causation aspect of God’s existence–if everything needs a cause, why doesn’t God? The cause of all the other dependent beings is easily explained by God’s existence, but it is very unclear as to how one can define God as a Being without a cause.

And even a stronger point to make is that, if Clarke can declare existence of a self-causing being, why can’t he not declare an infinite series to be self-causing as well? Thus the argument has some holes in it, as Clarke proclaims that everything that exists must be caused by something; however, for some mysterious reason, in Clarke’s argument, God is the only being enabled to exist without abiding to the cause-effect rule. In addition to this critique, one can question the very definition of God in Clarke’s argument.

For instance, it is impossible to know whether the Being that is the cause of all existence, can be qualified as the same all good, all powerful God that people worship still today, and who still exists today. The proponent of this critique would argue that even if it is possible for such an independent Being, who is the cause of all the dependents beings, to exist, it does not mean that this Being is still in existence nor does it mean that this Being is worth worshipping, since we do not know anything about Him besides that He was the cause of everything.

Despite these obvious flaws in the argument, Clarke would still argue that his explantation is sound on account of a few omitted aspects in the critiques. First off, the basic definition that Clarke gives to such a Being, who is the cause of everything else that exists, is that this Being is independent or self-existing. This is means that His own existence can be explained by His own nature–he does not require a cause, just because His mere existence as the cause of every other being, explains His own existence.

These dependent beings are contingent on God, according to Clarke, and that is why it makes Him higher and greater than anything else that exists. An infinite series of dependent beings having a cause within itself is not possible, since it would mean that the entire regression would have to be necessary, and because each dependent being in the series is dependent on the foregoing, and not a single one of those beings is necessary, one cannot declare the entire series as necessary.

In addition, Clarke would argue that since this Being is the cause of everything, He must be powerful enough to still exist as an independent Being today, since His existence does not depend on anything else. And while one could not physically prove that God is all good, one equally could not prove that He is evil in any way. Even though Clarke does not offer any more information on this topic, it does not mean that this argument is false.

Religion is the main actor in the society, when it comes to whether or not we should worship this independent Being. In conclusion, Clarke goes through two potential explanation as to how beings exist today, and while refuting one of the ways with a “reductio ad absurdum” argument, he confirms that there must be an independent Being, who is the cause of all dependent beings, and who exists solely because of the nature of His own being.

Clarke’s Cosmological Argument Essay

Anselm’s Cosmological Argument Essay

Anselm’s Cosmological Argument Essay.

Anselm seeks to explain the existence of a greatest being, i. e. God. He approaches this task not via our experience of the universe, but rather attempts to explain it solely based upon reason. Anselm attempts to prove the existence of God by providing us with a logical explanation, based upon our understanding, definition, and necessity of God. It is inconceivable for God not to exist. There is a certain nature through which everything that is exists, Anselm explains, is caused to exist by something.

Everything that is, exists by virtue of something, and nothing is able to exist through nothing. The underlying assumption here is that things do not exist through themselves for there is no need for their being. Leading to conclude that it is implausible that anything at all is able to exist because of nothing, and that nothing should exist because of something. Building upon earlier argument, Anselm concludes that “whatever is […] does not exist except through something.

” Since, according to him, this premise is true and since, as pointed out earlier in his argument, everything that is exists either through itself or through something, there must be one, or many, beings though which all things that are exist. Our existence and the existence of everything there is, therefore, must be explained by a virtue of a higher being, or several of them. Anselm identifies and explores several possibilities of existence of a higher being, or beings.

He points out that there may be several beings, rather than one, that are the ultimate cause of everything that exists, and presents one with his critical analysis of such idea. Anselm argues that if there is more than one of such beings then they themselves must exist either through (a) one being, (b) separately through itself, or (c) mutually through one another. If, he states, these beings exist through one supreme being, then all things that exist cannot exist through more than one being. Following this premise, Anselm concludes that all things that exist must therefore exist through this one supreme being.

If, however, there are many beings, which exist separately and each through itself, then there must be a certain “power or property of existing through self”, by which they are able to exist. Building upon this premise, Anselm goes on to explain that it is because of this particular “power or property” that each of these beings is able to exist. Thereby concluding that these beings exist by virtue of one greater power, without which they cannot exist. Once again we are back to the same argument that only one being can exist, for plurality does not explain itself.

Lastly, a third alternative proposed by Anselm deals with beings existing mutually through one another. He argues that such thought is contrary to reason. For, it is irrational that “anything should exist through a being on which it confers existence. ” In other words, there cannot be a being that is a giver and a taker. That, which exists by its own virtue and is yet dependent on itself for existence. Taking all of the arguments and points stated above, Anselm concludes that there can only be one greatest being, i. e. God, and it is through him that everything that is exists.

If everything that is, exists by virtue of something, and nothing is able to exist through nothing, then God simply cannot be conceived not to exist. God is that, “which alone exists in the greatest and highest degree of all” and nothing greater can be conceived. For, everything that exists, exists through this greatest being, but it alone exists through itself. One aspect of Anselm’s argument that stands out in particular is a premise upon which the whole argument is based. Explicitly, “Everything that is, exists either through1 something, or through nothing.

But nothing exists through nothing. For it is altogether inconceivable that anything should not exist by virtue of something. ” This, he holds to be the self-evident truth. Once again, the underlying assumption here is that things do not exist through themselves for there is no need for their existence. Such things therefore cannot be the cause of their own existence. Therefore, it must exist by virtue of a greater being. BIBLIOGRAPHY S. D. Deane, (Trans. ), St. Anselm, Basic Writings (Second Ed. ), La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1994.

Anselm’s Cosmological Argument Essay

Moral Agency Essay

Moral Agency Essay.

Most philosophers suggest only rational beings, who can reason and form self-interested judgments, are capable of being moral agents. Some suggest those with limited rationality (for example, people who are mildly mentally disabled or infants[1]) also have some basic moral capabilities. [3] Determinists argue all of our actions are the product of antecedent causes, and some believe this is incompatible with free will and thus claim that we have no real control over our actions. Immanuel Kant argued that whether or not our real self, the noumenal self, can choose, we have no choice but to believe that we choose freely when we make a choice.

This does not mean that we can control the effects of our actions. Some Indeterminists would argue we have no free will either. If, with respect to human behaviour, a so-called ’cause’ results in an indeterminate number of possible, so-called ‘effects’, that does not mean the person had the free-thinking independent will to choose that ‘effect’.

More likely, it was the indeterminate consequence of his chance genetics, chance experiences and chance circumstances relevant at the time of the ’cause’. In Kant’s philosophy, this calls for an act of faith, the faith free agent is based on something a priori, yet to be known, or immaterial.

Otherwise, without free agent’s a priori fundamental source, socially essential concepts created from human mind, such as justice, would be undermined (responsibility implies freedom of choice) and, in short, civilization and human values would crumble. It is useful to compare the idea of moral agency with the legal doctrine of mens rea, which means guilty mind, and states that a person is legally responsible for what he does as long as he should know what he is doing, and his choices are deliberate.

Some theorists discard any attempts to evaluate mental states and, instead, adopt the doctrine of strict liability, whereby one is liable under the law without regard to capacity, and that the only thing is to determine the degree of punishment, if any. Moral determinists would most likely adopt a similar point of view. Psychologist Albert Bandura has observed that moral agents engage in selective moral disengagement in regards to their own inhumane conduct. [4].

Moral Agency Essay

Midas Case Study Essay

Midas Case Study Essay.

Winners: From the customer’s perspective the winners which ensures they utilise Midas are Speed and Price. In order to assess the anticipated impacts of the introduction of maintenance services on the existing business process it is necessary to analyse the potential fit of the new business with the existing areas. This analysis will indicate whether or not the process can be effectively integrated within the existing production process without jeopardising the company’s existing winning qualifiers.

Potential negative impacts ?Need to new skills within taskforce ? training is necessary; ? Complicates the operation process; ?Demands on physical space and potential capacity constraints; ? Pressure on storage space of inventory ? may require offsite storage which may complicate the operation process; ? Additional labour demands; ?Planning complexity; ?New machinery will be required creating further pressures on location space; ? More time is required to offer all services;

?Possible bottlenecks in the operation process; ?Customer awareness of new services needs to be addressed.

The problem with the proposed introduction of the maintenance services is that Midas is moving from specialised services, namely mufflers and brakes into more general services such as maintenance.

The potential negative impacts have been outlined above, and the successful product line extension must be managed to ensure effective allocation of resources so that the existing businesses are not harmed.

Suggested implementation We believe that the inherent nature of the maintenance services is different in form from the very specialised areas of replacement mufflers and brake servicing. Therefore we believe that effective product extension should be introduced in an isolated manner to ensure that the existing operation processes are affected as little as possible. Additional space, additional equipment and labour force retraining would be required in order to implement this new service.

Certain information should be gathered from the shop owners. Midas should find out the amount of available resources (labour, space, etc? ) to gain a clearer picture of storeowners’ ideas/feedback, and to engage them in the product line extension. The storeowners are closer to day to day operations and therefore are better suited to assess the viability of the extension.

Extension of the services should be restricted to those stores that have sufficient resources (including floor space, under-utilised labour, and inventory storage onsite) to allow product line extension so as to ensure that the Midas brand image in their main business of muffler and brake servicing are not harmed by capacity and service problems. Extension of the services should be monitored by preset criteria by the head offices in the various countries. If the service proves successful the viability of purchasing extra land to expand these services in other stores should be explored.

You may also be interested in the following: mrs midas analysis

Midas Case Study Essay