Unlike Parmenides and Heraclitus, who took a clear position on the question of whether being changes or immutable, Empedocles argued that things change, but these objects are composed of materials that do not change . The change we see is simply a cause of the interaction and changes in position of the four fundamental elements (earth, air, fire and water). Just like Heraclitus and his view that orderly change is brought about by “logos,” Empedocles also recognized that there was a force responsible for the change he brought about. In his case, the changes in the shapes and positions of the basic elements were the effect of two forces: love and conflict (or more commonly known as forces of attraction and repulsion/decomposition). Empedocles' philosophy can be compared to our understanding of physics today. This with his belief that the universe is composed of basic material particles (the four fundamental elements, in his opinion) in constant motion under the action of impersonal forces (love and conflict). That said, it's hard to argue against his philosophy when so much of what he said we know to be true today. Except, of course, for his belief that the four fundamental elements are the rudimentary material particles of matter that are the “building blocks” of the universe. The elements themselves are made up of smaller particles, which can be further broken down. Anaximander's main philosophical view is that the primary substance from which everything we know comes, is more elementary than any substance of which we have knowledge. He stated that these “basic things” are immutable, infinite and unknown. This limitless substance becomes the basis from which everything originates and is also the unifier of the universe. In... middle of paper... blic, Plato goes on to recognize education as one of the most vital characteristics of a well-run state. He understood the importance of having intellectual and sensitive beings managing a successful state. Our logic is what directs us towards logical decisions in your life, as well as keeping us away from corruption. Although Plato is completely right in recognizing the importance of knowledge in the state, I cannot completely agree with his belief that only intellectual individuals are capable of fully understanding the forms of justice and goodness. What he wanted was an “intellectual oligarchy” and while oligarchies can prove effective in state transformations, there is also a huge flaw within such a system. The flaw is that only the privileged few have a say, while more often than not the needs and desires of ordinary people are not taken into consideration..