In Metaphysics chapter 4, pages 8 to 10, Aristotle, a 4th century BC Greek Philosopher , rightfully states that the pluralist school of thought; which included Anaxagoras and Empedocles, does not have coherent argument characteristics for the following reasons: Empedocles theory of love and strife is self-contradictory likewise, Anaxagoras uses the theory of “nous” as an excuse to explain what was unknown at the time. In Metaphysics, Aristotle, elaborates on ways that pre-Socratic philosophers theorized and claiming them to be unstable theories that need empirical evidence in order to be credible; a posteriori arguments. The pluralist school of thought encouraged and attempted to balance Parmenides rejection of change with the theory of there being constant change in the way the world is experienced or perceived. In addition, this school believed that the material world is composed of different elements and not just one element. This school of thought …show more content…
In this way, Aristotle states that there is a lack of sufficient information in this theory. When further analyzing Empedocles argument, it raises the question of how can love and strife, a force, compose the physical elements that are visible; fire, earth, air, and water. Love and strife have no observable or empirical evidence, therefore how can it be the cause or the ‘maker’ of something that does have the empirical observability. In this way, Empedocles theory of love and strife being the force to compose physical elements is incoherent as there is no actual way to show that there is such a force that creates these elements. The best that Empedocles can do is keep his theory of elements, as it is more consistent and we are able to deduce in a