Anaximander Vs. Heraclitus

929 Words4 Pages
Anaximander and Heraclitus both believed that everything has always existed. Nothing can come out of nothing which means that everything must came out of something. For Anaximander, everything comes from the boundless and will return to the boundless. The boundless is infinite and it always existed. All things that come from the boundless come in opposite pairs like hot and cold. The claim that there is the “boundless” is logical. Even though the claim doesn’t correspond to a fact, it doesn’t mean that the “boundless” doesn’t exist. Hence, this type of explanation adheres to the coherence theory. Heraclitus believed that the basic substance of everything was fire. To him, fire is the basic substance that causes transformation of things, since within fire there exists change and opposites. People can perceive the change with their logos, their reasons. For example, when we use fire to burn a piece of paper, we create smokes and ashes. The logos enable us to reason that fire causes the transformation of paper into ashes. This type of explanation adheres to the correspondence theory because we can comprehend it using logos. We can see and feel the fire as it transforms the paper. 6. Why did Socrates not plead for his life? What are the ideals for which he was willing to die? Do you think they are worth dying for? Socrates did not plead for his life because he valued justice and truth more than his life. He rejected his punishments for him because they contradicts to his ideals of truth and justice. His defense for his ideals caused his death in the end. The punishments given to Socrates were exile, giving up on his philosophy and death. Socrates refused to be exiled for punishment because that would send him wandering around and be resented by more people. He also reject the condition to give up his philosophy in return forgiveness from the court. He said
Open Document