Ethics

In our restatement of Einstein's theory we say, "the most incomprehensible thing about reality is that it is knowable." From what I have gathered from Heraclites this statement holds water. Heraclites states "It is in changing that things find response". Through this statement we can conclude that the only thing we can know is that the world is constantly changing. If the world is constantly changing, that would cause one to think that it could never be knowable, but if the world is constantly changing and we know this then we do have knowledge of the reality surrounding us.

If we are looking at Einstein's theory from Parmenides point of view, it would make no sense. Parmenides thought that if things change, then the world we live in must be an illusion, and we must not even know the real world. In this statement Parmenides is saying the exact opposite thing that Einstein was saying. He is saying that reality is incomprehensible and since reality is incomprehensible the we must be living in the illusion of reality. Parmenides states more to back his statement saying that "what really is cannot have come to be, for there is nothing outside reality that could have been its source. In this statement he is saying that there is no creator so there could not be any reality. Parmenides thinks that there is no one god that is a great creator of everything, which would mean that through this view we must be living in a false sense of reality. I believe that Parmenides is saying that we should only believe in what we have experienced because what we have not, cannot be known. Parmenides says, "we cannot put things that do not exist into our mind; we can only truly think about or know things that are." I think that Parmenides ideas and knowledge on reality do not support the theory of Einstein's.

Now I am going to compare Descartes theory to Einstein's. Descartes starts by trying to disprove his senses. Descartes disproves his senses by saying that they may just be deceiving him, like others who believe their senses are true but yet they are not. If he thinks this way he believes it could just be a dream, Descartes turns back and then says he must be awake because of math and geometry. Once he finds himself to be awake he determines that there must be a god and if there is a god would this god deceive. Descartes determines that god is all good and would not deceive. He then wonders if there is any god or is it evil. He later disproves that and then goes on to determine that he exists because he is awake, and therefore he is living thinking thing. He turns back around to the conversation about whether evil created this reality saying that if it does, then he will always have himself, being "I", because "I" think. This is where Descartes says "I think therefore I am." Descartes already knows that he exists and reality exist because he has already put his faith into that. By putting his faith into his decision he can know that he is living in reality and that this reality is knowable. Which is very similar to Einstein's, but Descartes uses faith to make his decision Einstein most likely used math and physics.

When you put Leibniz's theory next to Einstein's you can see similarities and they lead to the same end. Leibniz uses "Monadology" to explain his theory of reality. He begins by explaining what a monad is, "a simple substance that goes to make up composites. He then concludes that monads can be created and destroyed but only by a "super natural" being. By this he is already introducing the idea of god. He things begins to differentiating his "monads" to Newton's "atoms". He then decides that monads are living things. The monad is a living thing that is in a sense programmed with different characteristics that allow it to develop in a certain way. He then concludes that monads are really us, and the difference between these are our perceptions. He then concludes that what reality is, is a perceiving monad. With this thought process Leibniz has proved that reality exists and by knowing that it does exist shows that he has knowledge of the reality. Leibniz and Einstein's statements did compare similarly.

When we look at Locke's theory of reality, we can see that he disagreed with Descatres, but still found a reality. Locke did agree with the objections that Descatres made about his senses. Locke begins here and says that the senses are not necessary needs. What I believe he is saying is that our senses, taste, odor, sound, touch can be fooled, and that if our senses can be fooled then how does one know if that reality is certain. Locke goes on to say that these are "secondary qualities". The Ð''primary qualities" are our ideas that resemble the way something really is, like solidity, extension, figure, and