2. The argument that the world consists of numbers to its bare essence goes far back in history, often times even being seen in discussions dating back to the first recorded occurrence of numbers. Philosophers tend to see the world to be made up of something beyond mortal comprehension, which could support why Pythagoras chose to denote the bare materials of world creations as numbers. They are a man-made creation, which would be something that people could then grasp an understanding of. There is no true history to them, they have been an invention of man, used solely by man, and were only intended for man. Pythagoras often saw numbers solely for their mathematical uses rather than their social or philosophical uses, “The Pythagoreans recognize only one kind of number, mathematical number, but they say that it is not separate, but perceptible things are made up of it” (103). This would contrast the idea of them being a building block of the world since he would often only see them as mathematics. If he only saw the numbers for math uses, then how would he have applied them to the world? It could be argued that he saw the world as an endless mathematical equation that could not be solved by mortal means, however this would then bring up questions regarding why the numbers were chosen in the first place. Would this mean that every entity in the perceivable world has a purpose that it must fulfill, as based on the numbers that its fundamental essence is based upon? If not this, then the claim that all numbers exist in musical harmony brings forth prompts of how the numbers often seen as a pattern in music could show that the whole of the world flows inside a symphony. This could be supported by the idea that man has always been able to facilitate people to organize and work alongside one another, leading to people functioning almost as a coherent song. However, this line of thinking would require a bit more inquiry as to Pythagoras’ musical background to see how much basis he truly held with it.

3. The first of Heraclitus’s saying that will be examined is “…the universe is for those who are awake is single and common, while in sleep each person turns aside into a private universe” (38), and the second being “They tend away from that with which they are in most continuous contact” (38). The first quotation from him deals with the idea of the collective unconscious, a world privy to none, yet accessed by all. The idea he presents from the start seems to be that everyone experiences the same reality every day, not seeing anything differently from one to the other. This can be seen as a continuous understanding between all of mankind, as people tend to perceive the world the same as others see it, however this may not always necessarily be true. He notes that the universe is common, whilst they are awake, which would indicate that people can see the universe differently separate from the one that can only be seen during sleep. Heraclitus argues that the world of dreams is one only experienced by the person who dreams it, something many can accept with relative ease. It would be difficult to imagine somebody else having the same nightmare as one another, or having a paralleled fantasy in their dream, simply because not everyone would think or wish for the same thing. The second quote deals with an idea of people choosing to shy away from that which they are most familiar with. Almost all people try to keep a supposed “continuous routine”, as much of a repetition as that is. This idea is one that not everyone can keep consist however, the world is ever changing which naturally invites chaos into their daily lives. In turn, people would naturally be afraid of the idea of consistency as it is something that they do not have any, or extremely little experience of. These two quotes share a common theme of acting upon people’s natural unconscious desires. Both show that people will naturally perceive the world differently, one based on a desire to see change whilst the other is based on a way of seeing. Neither is incorrect, both act as fundamental blocks for the other to surface upon.

5b. The Atomists had some of the closest understandings to modern realizations of the core constructs of the world. They understood that everything has similar core essences, referred to as atoms in modern sciences, however they had varying pathways to comprehending how they functioned or came to be. One of their key searches to prove the idea of a singular core-essence was the idea of how things would move from place to place. For something to move into an empty space, there has to be nothing in the new spot, this would be considered a void in their understanding. Of course, in modern day science it is understood that atoms are everywhere so there is no true void except where there is no matter, however for the Atomists this idea would be thought upon later. Their key argument was that, “…that without void it is inconceivable that there could be such a thing as change of pace…” (173). This understanding was interesting to think about in terms of molecular understanding as they had already grasped that a void was required for objects to move into a new spot, otherwise as they noted later objects could be infinitely stacked upon one another, removing all understanding of individual identity. This is quite similar to the idea of teleportation and how people would fear that if they were moved to a spot that was previously occupied by another entity, would they be assimilated into the latter? Without this foundation of a building block that supports all existence, people would truly be able to merge in and out of other entities without restriction otherwise. The fact that man cannot preform this would indicate that there must be something that refuses to give way in the fundamental build-up of all matter. As demonstrated in the lecture previously, people cannot move into a table if it is already there, we are stopped by the initial build or construct which will not permit us to enter said space. The Atomists founded their beliefs upon this ideal and would lay the foundation for much of modern day sciences. 

6. The thought process of how objects do not truly exist is one that often sends people into a dumbfounded state. How could things not exist if we not only interact with them every day but also are able to clearly envision and concept them in our minds? The only issue with this is that Gorgias’ argument isn’t exactly far off if taken in the perspective that he holds that if objects did exist, man could not express their existence. He mainly focuses on the idea that objects cannot be brought into reality if they are thought of, as one of the examples brought up in the book denotes, “For it is not the case that if one thinks of a man flying or a chariot being driven in the sea” (235). What Gorgias most likely intended to express with ideas such as these is not that objects truly have no form, but rather that the objects one perceives in their own mind are not truly what is seen in the real world. Everyone experiences the world in their own cognitive format, be that similar to the collective masses’ interpretation or not, it is all a matter of how man communicates with one another and interacts with it. The idea does hold some falsehood however, as Gorgias claims that things cannot be expressed to one another due to their lack of existence. He holds steady that objects truly do not exist, which is something that can be argued, however if they did exist then how would man not be able to communicate this fact to one another? If one interacts with an object, then shares it with another to interact with as well, then is that not communication and mutual understanding of its existence in totality? The argument he brings forth only serves as a blockade to prevent people from understanding material existence for the reality they perceive, rather than conceiving the truth behind how existence functions. In my opinion, Gorgias seems to be similar to the people who would always argue with something just for the sake of putting up an argument. He does not wish to find any truth or apply an observation to a phenomenon, rather he only intends to set back man in its search for the truth behind the universe. However, this is just one opinion, not the truth of his ideals.