The question for Lesson 1 is: with which of the Presocratics do you most agree and with which do you most disagree? Why?
To receive full credit for this assignment, you must:
1) write a post of 6-8 sentences answering this question for yourself, then
2) provide 4-6 sentences of thoughtful feedback on each of at least 3 posts by other people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08UtxuyI9ok
https://us-lti.bbcollab.com/collab/ui/session/playback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vNlf2zGLaE
Madison
Of all the Presocratics, I would most agree with Democritus and his idea of atoms. Democritus believed that all material things were made up of tiny particles called atoms, which for the most part is true given what we know today. This idea emerged from the belief that there is a lower limit to dividing a certain item into smaller parts. Based on his reasoning and provided explanations, Democritus in reality just got lucky with this guess of his, because he had no scientific evidence or experiments to support his beliefs. One of the Presocratics I disagree with on the other hand, would be Protogas, who was the one of the most well known Sophists that supported the ideas of relativism and religious agnosticism. He strongly believed that the judgement of all things are relative to “man” and what one thinks. However, where I disagree with his thoughts are when he expresses belief in religious agnosticism, where existence of God or anything divine is unknown without materialistic proof. With what religion is known to be today, his ideas of relativism and agnosticism contradict each other, as the belief in God or any other divine power is relative to an individual and what they will choose to believe.
Michaela
Of the Presocratics that were discussed, I most agreed with Anaximenes. His theory that all is air made the most logical sense to me. I was intrigued by the “rarefaction of air to become fire and the contracts of air to be water and earth.” It is interesting to think about because we can’t see air but it has so many effects on the world. Anaximenes’ theory that each human soul is divine can even be explained in the bible when it was said that God breathes life into each human. The presocratic that I most disagreed with was Zeno. In the beginning when I heard that he thought motion was impossible it did not seem to make reasonable sense to me. After watching the video explaining his Paradox of the Runner it made sense why it was disproven. The distance is not infinite but a linear continuum.
Sherphine The Presocratic that I most agree with is Democritus because most of what he proposed is consistent with my knowledge of science. Democritus held that matter is made of infinite number of atoms that come in different shapes and are eternally in motion. According to my knowledge of science, matter is particulate in nature, and the particles that make up matter could be atoms, molecules or ions. These particles are many and they are in continuous motion just like Democritus suggested. Also particles of matter do collide and some collisions result in a reaction to form a new compound which is similar to Democritus’ idea that particles collide and stick together.
The Presocratic that I most disagree with is Zeno. I am not familiar with a scientific argument that supports Zeno’s idea that there is no motion. If there is no motion, how do we explain the fact that an object can change its location. How would light from the sun reach the earth, for instance? Zeno’s paradox of the runner is hard to comprehend, why would a mighty runner not overtake a slow moving tortoise? Generally, Zeno’s views have no correlation with my scientific knowledge.
0 comments