solved 1. What does – and does not – make sense

1. What does – and does not – make sense about these Presocratics’ idea of what the Fundamental Stuff of the Universe (Urstoff/Arche) is? How can we logically understand the dilemma of sameness vs. change, and “many-ness” vs. “one-ness”?2. Is relativism correct? That is, is every assertion mere opinion/ preference and nothing more? Is subjectivism correct? That is, is there no objective reality, but only mere perception?What is Protagoras’ most famous saying? What is Relativism? How can it be addressed? What are the Three Denials of Gorgias? And how do they relate to three fields of philosophy?3. Should I obey the law merely when I would otherwise get caught, or always? (Or almost always?) What does and does not constitute a valid exception to this obedience?- What, in ancient Greek thought, is the primary purpose of the Law? Why not break the law if it benefits you and you wouldn’t get caught? (Why wouldn’t Socrates escape prison?)4. Is there a soul truly distinct from (transcending) the body? If so, is it immortal, or does it cease to exist at death?- What are some ways of understanding what is meant by “the soul “?What are some philosophical arguments for and against the existence/immortality of the soul? What are Socrates’ arguments on this question?There is a 1,500 word minimum not including the questions if listed.Briefly address what the philosophers have said on these questions while developing your own stance on/answer to the question. Please make sure it consists primarily of your own thoughts — that is, your own personal, independent working out of the answers to the questions above. At least mention (at least as a starting point) some things that the philosophers studied have said in answer to these questions (Ex.Socrates). Please do also try to make sure that the distinct points you make in your paper each have their own separate paragraph. Make sure to have a separate section for each question and write down what the question is at the top of each section. You are of course free to disagree with any philosopher we cover; but if you do, then please explain why you disagree and explain where you think the opposing argument is wrong. Try your best to philosophize: and in philosophy, we are expected to present reasonable arguments for our positions and not pretend that merely by stating our opinions/preferences/feelings they are automatically worthy of credenceIf outside sources are used, cite and include works cited page.