Parmenides was the first philosopher to sacrifice what is known by the senses, and what is known by the mind, and Plato took over this idea, so the former creates a view, and the latter creates perception.
Plato likens the shape of the line to the sun and compares the human condition to the situation of people trapped in caves since childhood in Volume 7 of 『Politeia『. They can only see the shadow of a burning fire behind their backs and only hear the voices they hear. They mistake a true being for a shadow they saw that they had never seen before.
When one of them comes out and sees the sun, it is only after some time to adapt to the light that they see the sun, which is the source of light. Here, the sun can be compared to the shape of the good in the branch world that can only be understood rationally.
Plato’s answer to those who tried to contrast nature and customs with Physis and Nomos is that all of our customs, the way of life as an individual, and the institutionalized laws within the state, should reflect reality. ‘Nature’ is not just a material world, but it should include purpose and value. Plato tried not to make a distinction between the scientific and moral worlds, namely ‘facts’ and ‘values’. In his view, the situation that should exist can never be separated from the situation that currently exists. The state and its citizens should be aware that the line itself is in a world where it is not a matter of personal preference or custom.
Epicurus’ Ataraxia
The soul is a mass of atoms that make up the soul. In Epicurus‘ philosophy, the peace of the soul, such as “Ataraxia,” refers to the state in which the atoms of the soul remain stable. But he put his soul ahead of his body.
Epicurus, on the other hand, in addition to this concept, describes atomic motion differently. It was possible to fall vertically by all the atomic weights. But then, because there could be no collisions between atoms, Lucretius said that when atoms do vertical motion, “deviation” occurs.
This deviation makes a new start possible. This idea rejects Aristotle’s teleological mindset and argues for volunteers from deviations from the atomic movement.
Democritus also talks about Parmenides’ sense and reason. For him, sense and reason show that they are inter-assistive devices for truth recognition. Sense leads to errors in the perception of reality, Even so, senses are essential in the process of thinking. These two do not divide each other but work together to form a line.
Democritus acknowledged in knowledge theory that even though the mind draws data of knowledge from the senses. Even so, the knowledge given by the senses is expressed as the knowledge of the “third-person” and contrasts with the “true” knowledge of the mind.
What the senses perceive is a second property due to differences in the shape, size, and arrangement of atoms. However, since only atoms and emptiness exist, this second nature exists only by custom.
Kalos
The beauty that the ancient Greeks thought was meaningful. There is a philosophical thought that begins with Plato in the single word Kalos that Greek people say is good and beautiful.
Some beauty in beings with intelligence and will is called virtue. But not all the beauty of human beings is a virtue….. Virtue originally refers to the beauty of the mind. However, not all the beauty of the mind can be called virtue. There is also the beauty of understanding and contemplation….. Virtue is the beauty of the mind or psychological action, related to virtues that deserve praise or criticism. Virtue is not just about contemplation, but also about propensity and will, or in general terms that people can understand well. Therefore, it would not be out of common sense to say that virtue is a beautiful heart or heart or action that comes from it….Therefore, I refer to a true virtue that belongs to the mind of an intelligent being, something beautiful with universal beauty, or something beautiful from a comprehensive point of view. In other words, it is not only beautiful in itself, but also beautiful when viewed in everything it is involved.
For us to evaluate beauty, we need a metric — metron — that is, what we call beautiful. In philosophical terms, this is called metechein.
The Greeks called each perfection an idea. This kind of perfection also exists in humans when they possess good qualities such as courage, moderation, wisdom, and the four virtues of justice. That’s why people who are right and good are beautiful with good looks and good morals. Socrates, who resembles Satyros, an anti-human monster because of this aesthetic sense of the Greeks, is also a beautiful person because he has a beautiful moral nature to look inside him. All the right human traits are based on a scale, and the scale makes the right person good and beautiful. Beauty is internally associated with good, so to speak, the luster of good.
So today we see beauty as a matter of taste, a matter of subjective aesthetic sense, and good is divided into a moral code that tells us how to act. This divide has had such daunting consequences for us that beauty has become an unbinding ornament, and good has become a moral code that has nothing to do with a satisfying life. With this in mind, Jean-Jacques Rousseau said.
When the Creator first created all things, everything was good. But as human hands touch, everything corrupts…… Humans like deformities and monsters, destroying and maiming everything. Humans do not like anything as nature is, and neither do human beings. A person must be trained to suit his or her taste as if it were a well-trained horse, and his or her position is relieved only when he or she makes it in his or her way like a tree in his or her garden.
The Concept of Humanity
When I say “humanities,” I have a very negative perception. That’s because they mistake “humanities” for a study that confronts “Christianism.” Some professors in Korea define what we commonly call humanism, humanism, and humanism as such. “It’s an intellectual movement seeking knowledge of human beings and the world, a program of learning and education, and a mental tendency of an individual when talking about an individual. ” From then on, Christian humanism, a religious academic movement, and mental attitude that explores humans and the world based on Christian faith are conceived.
The concept of Humanitas, which means “humanity,” which we call humanities, comes from the Latin word “Homo homo,” which means human beings, and means “humanity.” Today ‘humanity’ or ‘Humanitas’ in German is kind to some people I understand it as an attitude that is ready to help.
When the concept of Humanitas came from the Romans, it was different, and Renaissance humanists also understood it in its original Roman sense. The person who coined the term Humanitas was Cyrus in the first century B.C. He used this word to refer to Greek culture that has spread from most parts of the Mediterranean coast since the third century.
The fact that humanism in the Renaissance was closely related to the education of classical studies is evident in the Latin words “Humanista” and “Umanista,” which meant Humanist at the time. This was slang used by Italian college students around the 15th century to refer to professors and teachers who taught classical and classical literature.
Around the 16th century, it was extended not only to teachers but also to students and researchers. So the person who teaches Studia Humanitatis, a subject based on classical studies, was called Humanista or Umanista. Here, Studia Humanitas is what can be translated into today’s humanities, humanity, or human beings. It is the study and teaching of Um.
What is more important in the Western tradition is that this word is a Latin translation of the Greek Python (culture, education, and cultivation) by the Romans. The Greeks used Humanitas to mean culture, education, knowledge, and learning as opposed to Babaritas. I am therefore human and human. The person who owned Um meant a man of culture and knowledge. Culture has become a measure of human virtue and excellence, as only educated and educated people can become Homo Humanus, a “human-like person” who has escaped from barbarism.
the nature of humanities
To understand humanism, you need to know what the nature of humanities as knowledge is. Knowledge has
the knowledge to present a specific creed or creed. Ideology and religious knowledge belong here.
It does not deal with a specific value, but it has the knowledge to present a functional prescription. Science and technology knowledge belongs here.
It does not provide a specific belief or prescription itself, but it has the knowledge to help discover and express such knowledge.
It is knowledge of humanities such as epistemology and rhetoric that explores knowledge of the language, mindset, and effective expression methods. The first is empirical knowledge. The second is technology.
Technology is one way of proving that knowledge is not fictional. The third is argumentative knowledge. One of the most representative things here is Euclidean geometry.
Humanitas, which was actively praised in ancient times, was evaluated negatively in the Middle Ages because Humanitas in the Middle Ages was a concept that contrasted with the divine superiority to humans.
In addition, some scholars, including John Dewey, have added a negative view of humanism. In 1933, in his Humanist Manifesto, Raymond Bragg (1902-1979), a Unification Universal pastor, completely denied “any supernatural beings or cosmic beings that govern human values” and rejected Ideism and monotheism for the reason of anachronism.
He also argued that “how to determine the value and existence of all reality depends on intellectual exploration and how much they are needed by humans.” The basis of the humanistic worldview is scientific, evolutionary thought, and materialistic biology.
They wanted to say, “There is no God.” Forty years later, 『Humanist Manifesto『 added items on the importance of sexual tolerance, political freedom, economic equality, the rights of the disabled, and the importance of separation between politics and religion.
The difference between humanists and believers lies in how they understand the elements that make up the “truth.” I think the former is that truth is evolving, but the latter is equating truth with God, revealing itself through revelation as an absolute being that never changes.
Then should humanities be excluded? No, I don’t. Not at all. The world increasingly demands humanistic literacy, and so does the church. In American universities, philosophy courses at universities, which have been considered hungry, began to increase with the increase in students since early 2008. In particular, doctors, lawyers, writers, investment bankers, and other students who dreamed of various jobs chose philosophy as basic education.
This is due to the growing importance of writing, analysis, interpretation, and critical thinking rather than fragmentary practical knowledge as society becomes increasingly complex and multi-layered. In addition, it originated from the personal belief that the times demand such talented people, and philosophy is a study that meets these needs of the times. What does this tell us? Until the 18th century, there was no such thing as academic differentiation.
Ontology
One idea that Parmenides realized to people at the time was that “one word can have more than one meaning.” For example, the Greek verb einai (to be) means “there” or “to exit.” The word ‘existence’ corresponds to the word ‘on’ in Greek. Here’s “Ontologies,” which means “ontology.” ‘on’ is a participle of the verb ‘einai’. In English, it corresponds to ‘being’, a participle of the verb ‘be’. The word “existence” simultaneously implies the meaning of the verb “to exist” and three meanings of the meaning and the essence of the noun “something that exists.”
So ontology says that everything that can be said that a person is in a sense or imagination or t is called existence, and its existence is something that has led to its existence, and it wants to explore its existence in terms of its existence. Furthermore, ontology refers to both of those beings as the “being world” or “world” from a holistic perspective and promotes a fundamental and comprehensive understanding of the world.
Through this exploration of ontology, we move to metaphysics by establishing a so-called comprehensive and unified self-understanding and attitude toward the world of existence, that is, by moving toward the formation of a philosophical worldview or assuming a super empirical existence based on understanding. Metaphysics is the study of “ta metà tà physicà>’,” in other words, the other side of nature.
Ontology does not constantly stay at a specific point of view but fundamentally considers all beings from the existence of the being itself. Ontology is called existence, or existence, in terms of the beginning of the quest to bury beings in their existence, but seeks to analyze, compare, classify, synthesize, and criticize their existence from the point of view of their existence, both fundamentally and as a whole. Ontology is the work of categorizing and counting beings. And it’s a question of that category. So categories are closely related to existence.
Parmenides
Even in modern linguistic expressions, the difference between the existential and descriptive usage of this verb is not yet clear. For Parmenides, the first person to consciously reflect on logic, it seemed that the word esti (is) only can and should mean that it does exist. And this idea came to him with the meaning of a whole discovery about the nature of reality. All of his ideas of real nature arise from the attribution of this single metaphysical meaning to the verb einai (to be). There was only one existence for Parmenides.
The real one is not many but always one, and this one is opposed to many. Many things are established in several coexistences. Soon a lot is not mutually exclusive. For many things to disappear and for God to be established, an exclusive relationship, not a coexistence relationship, must be established. The extreme of exclusivity is a contradiction, and what is in contradiction is impossible to coexist and only one remains. However, contradictions are established in existence and nothing.
Parmenides says that existence exists and there is no such thing as nothing, so nothing disappears and only existence remains. It is a basic characteristic of being established because it contradicts the fact that there is no one nature. If you follow such contradictions, there is only a date that exists, and there is no movement that comes into existence. Therefore, it is fiction to say that there is a movement for everyone.
The discussion of this is a concept that best stands out in Parmenides’ philosophy. I’ll tell you about the details later, but if I can explain it here for a moment, this is what it looks like. To him, “change” means “the is nothing”. But this is impossible. There must be something because “what does not exist” means “extinction from existence.” The only initial assumption of Parmenides is that “noting” can not exist. “There’s only one thing that exists,” he says, “and in his opinion, it’s pointless to say that there’s nothing.
Myths are primitive, simple, simple, and childish, and there have been claims from ancient Greece that they are inferior to rational philosophy. In addition, mythology, studies, art, and science, including religion and philosophy, are various ways to express human thoughts. Before it was so diversely divided, mythology was in charge of it all. So, ancient mythology, including Greek mythology, has been talked about even in modern times as a prototype of human thought. Therefore, it is wrong for philosophers and religious people to argue in a way that they are superior to philosophy or religion. The development of cultural anthropology and new chemistry in the late 20th century revealed that ancient mythical thinking was not just a fantasy or metaphor, but a real experience like religion, logic, and philosophy. In other words, it is an expression of the relationship between humans and the world experienced and thought by ancient people. Studies, art, and science, including mythology, religion, and philosophy, are all different ways of expressing human thoughts, but they should ultimately be evaluated based on what value they aim for.
What is visible and what is invisible
Parmenides was the first philosopher to sacrifice what is known by the senses, and what is known by the mind, and Plato took over this idea, so the former creates a view, and the latter creates perception.
Plato likens the shape of the line to the sun and compares the human condition to the situation of people trapped in caves since childhood in Volume 7 of 『Politeia『. They can only see the shadow of a burning fire behind their backs and only hear the voice they hear. They mistake a true being for a shadow they saw that they had never seen before.
When one of them comes out and sees the sun, it is only after some time to adapt to the light that they see the sun, which is the source of light. Here, the sun can be compared to the shape of the good in the branch world that can only be understood rationally.
Plato’s answer to those who tried to contrast nature and customs with Physis and Nomos is that all of our customs, the way of life as an individual, and the institutionalized laws within the state, should reflect reality. ‘Nature’ is not just a material world, but it should include purpose and value. Plato tried not to make a distinction between the scientific and moral worlds, namely ‘facts’ and ‘values’. In his view, the situation that should exist can never be separated from the situation that currently exists. The state and its citizens should be aware that the line itself is in a world where it is not a matter of personal preference or custom.
The Importance of Perception
Parmenides was the first philosopher to sacrifice what is known by the senses, and what is known by the mind, and Plato took over this idea, so the former creates a view, and the latter creates perception.
Plato likens the shape of the line to the sun and compares the human condition to the situation of people trapped in caves since childhood in Volume 7 of 『Politeia『. They can only see the shadow of a burning fire behind their backs and only hear the voices they hear. They mistake a true being for a shadow they saw that they had never seen before.
When one of them comes out and sees the sun, it is only after some time to adapt to the light that they see the sun, which is the source of light. Here, the sun can be compared to the shape of the good in the branch world that can only be understood rationally.
Plato’s answer to those who tried to contrast nature and customs with Physis and Nomos is that all of our customs, the way of life as an individual, and the institutionalized laws within the state, should reflect reality. ‘Nature’ is not just a material world, but it should include purpose and value.
Plato tried not to make a distinction between the scientific and moral worlds, namely ‘facts’ and ‘values’. In his view, the situation that should exist can never be separated from the situation that currently exists. The state and its citizens should be aware that the line itself is in a world where it is not a matter of personal preference or custom.
