The Pre-Socratic View Of The World

One of the greatest questions that we, as mankind, have had the liberty in trying to decipher is how we came to be. How was the universe formed? How did the world become as it is? What are the building blocks of all things? Some say the world just is. Others take refuge in the “Big Bang.” Some firmly believe that God created both the heavens and the earth. In this essay, however, I am going to divulge the thoughts and reasons behind some of the Pre-Socratic views of the Cosmos and the building blocks of the “stuff” we find on earth. There are some very differing views of how the world became what it is today. Many of the Pre-Socratic philosophers would also agree. Thales might tell you the world began from water. Anaximander might say the boundless, …show more content…
He produced the idea that everything comes from this indefinable idea of the “boundless.” The Greek word for boundless is Apeiron which also means infinite. Anaximander describes this idea of the boundless to be indefinite, moving, directive and most importantly eternal. With all of these qualities, it falls into the category of divine. Anaximander then provides us with the idea that the “Apeiron has given rise to hot and cold but doesn’t tell us what the hot or cold is.” He suggests that from the Apeiron comes the hot and cold and from the hot and cold or substantial opposites, comes the generation of the stuff in the sensible world. So essentially, from this boundless principle that Anaximander gives us comes this idea of substantial opposites. These boundaries that are given to us, however, are solely the primary stuff, the beginning stuff. There is a quote, “The boundless is the original material of existing things; further, the source from which existing things derive their existence is also that to which they return at their destruction, according to necessity.” I think this is a very interesting take on Anaximander’s part. Honestly, part of me thinks that, being Thales’ pupil, he was rather forced into this role of having to try and identify a source of everything in the world and he just decided to choose something that really covered everything because he couldn’t decide on an element. I …show more content…
This way of thinking is really completely different than what had been divulged before them. Founded assumedly by Leucippus, the atomists believed that the world was composed of these tiny little particles called atoms that floated around in empty space or “void.” The atomists claim that these atoms are unable to be cut, changed or destroyed, which is what we similarly believe today. However, the catch for the atomists is at this point in time, there was no way for them to be able to prove they were right. There was no scientific equipment that they could have used to test their theory. As I said, the theory of atomism was originated by Leucippus who was soon followed by Democritus who was a student of Leucippus. Atomists claim that these atoms have distinct characteristics. They are colorless, indestructible, solid, indivisible, etc. They can be any shape or size and are spread throughout the world and universe at a continuous movement within the void. One thing that I have a question with is when these atoms collide and bounce off each other, the atomists claim that sometimes they latch on and form objects, ones that we see today, how do they stay latched on? What occurs to allow this to happen? Two sort of ideas came out of atomism. The idea that everything in the universe is made of matter which is materialism. And a side effect of that idea is that all events are determined by the