Introductory Lecture: Two Fundamental Approaches to Philosophical Study PDF

**I. Introductory Lecture: Two Fundamental Approaches to Philosophical Study** For most of you, if not all, this is your first formal study of Philosophy. We will not begin our study by clarifying what philosophy is or more properly how to philosophize or to do philosophy? Why? It is because philosophy, like basketball or painting, could only be understood after one does it himself or as one is exposed to the different philosophical enterprise. Rather, let us start our study by distinguishing two basic or fundamental approaches to philosophical study: Thematic and Historical. **A. Thematic Approach** - theme: topic, subject, issue, question - in thematic approach to philosophical study, one deals with a particular topic, subject, or issues like: - reality - knowledge - good - man - god - nature - politics - science - language - culture - other disciplines might deal with some of these topics, but the manner in and the aim for which philosophy deals with them is distinct from other disciplines. - though it is difficult to clarify in a definite and universal way the method and aim of philosophy (as distinct from the natural sciences and other disciplines). We could point three important tools or types of thinking which are used in the philosophical inquiry into these different topics and issues: - Critical: try to come to the ultimate question with everything we say, believe, construct - Analytical: break down the topic, subject, issue under consideration into constitutive parts. - Synthetic: try to connect, to see the relation of the different constitutive elements **B. Historical Approach** - history: study of the interaction/interrelations of events, places, people in their chronological sequence - in the historical approach to the study of philosophy: - we try to study the different philosophies of different persons who belonged to a particular time and particular place. - we try to understand the relationship of the different philosophical insights (ideas, thoughts, system) and methods to the: - person/s - event - place or situation in life (sitz em leben) - other philosophies - at the time when it evolved, arose, developed (Synchronic Approach) - and we try to understand the relationship of different philosophical insights and method to the: - person/s - event - place or situation in life (sitz em leben) - other philosophies - before and after it evolved, arose, developed (Diachronic Approach) **C. Importance of Historical Approach** 1. Necessary/indispensable in appreciating and comprehending a particular philosophy and different philosophies. - in science and mathematics, one could learn different mathematical and scientific concepts, principles and laws without knowing their historical development - in philosophy, one could not grasp adequately Plato's Theory of Form, Aristotle's Hylomorphic Theory, St. Thomas Aquinas distinction between essence and existence without considering their historical context. 2. Necessary/ indispensable if one wants to engage himself in serious philosophical enterprise or philosophizing - to philosophize is to enter into a philosophical tradition which spans more than 2,500 years and there is no way one could enter into that tradition except by way of history. - past philosophies are not dead museum pieces -- relics from the past which practically have nothing to do with the present. Rather, they are living ever- living classics -- comprising a permanent repository of ideas, doctrines, and arguments and a continuing source of philosophical inspiration and suggestiveness to those who philosophize in any succeeding age. **II. Introduction: Ancient Greece** (Its Land, History and people) **A. Pre-Note: Ancient Greece** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ANCIENT PERIOD: 200 BC -- The Rise of the Greek Civilization Hellenic (2000-338 BC) Hellenestic (338 BC -- 200 BC) Roman (200 BC -- 500 AD) 500 AD -- The Fall of the Roman Empire Medieval Period 500 AD -- The Fall of the Roman Empire Early Medieval (500 -- 1200) 1200 -- Recovery of the Ancient Learning from the East Later Medieval (1200-1500) 1500 AD -- The Renaissance Modern Period 1500 -- The Renaissance Period Early Modern Period (1500 -- 1789) 1789 -- the French Revolution Contemporary (1789 -- Present) \- Ancient Greece refers to the land of Greece and its people at the period between 2000 BC to 500 AD which is a period of great genius and accomplishment and which would define greatly the western civilization - One of their greatest accomplishments was Philosophy. **B. Origin of Greek Philosophy: From Myth to Logos** Introduction: - in this section, we will discuss how philosophy began among the Greeks in ancient time - at the start the Greeks like all the ancient people had only myths as a way of viewing their world, of perceiving, explaining, and valuing their world. - their myths did not only express their worldview but also defined it. This worldview or type of thinking is what we call MYTHICAL WORLDVDIEW OR MYTHICAL THINKING - in other words, the Greek like all the ancient people encountered, explained/ understood and valued the world from the viewpoint of myth, from the mythic perspective. - but the Greeks, unlike other ancient civilizations, broke out of this mythical thinking, worldview and discovered a new way of viewing their world radically different from which was expressed and defined in the myths. This new type of thinking or this new worldview is what we called LOGOS -- the philosophical way of looking at the world, a scientific/ rational worldview or thinking. - in the subsequent discussion, we will try to grasp the difference between the two ways of viewing the world and how the Greeks broke out or moved from one to the other. **a. Myth** - first let us look at how it was like to have a mythical worldview. To come to this, we address the following topics: - Definition of Myth - Ancient and Contemporary Views on Myth - Functions of Myth - The World from the Viewpoint of Myth 1.Definition - Etymological meaning - from the Greek word mythos, which means a story, a tale, a narrative. - definition of Paul Ricoeur - a traditional narration which gives an account about the events that are supposed to have happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing grounds for the ritual actions of men of today, and in a general manner establishing all forms of actions and thought by which man understands himself in his world. - Our simpler definition - a narrative account about events that are supposed to have happened at the beginning of time and which has the purpose of providing an explanation about the present situation: - Phenomena of this World - Human reality - Origin of the Gods - Myths are Etiological explanations - explains something in terms of what is supposed to have happened at the very beginning 2\. Ancient and Contemporary Views on Myth \- Paul Ricoeur reminds us that how we view myth in Contemporary time and how the ancient time viewed it are not the same. i. In Ancient Time: Myth = History - - - - ii. In Contemporary Time: Myth ≠ History - myth is not history because events narrated in the myths are not actual historical events - time in the narrative could not be referred or connected with the time of history (the time -- sequence as we write it) - places of the mythical narrative could not be connected with our geographical space - persons involved in the narrative are not actual historical persons. - For contemporary, modern men/women, myth is only myth, not history (demythologization) - yet, for contemporary men, it does not mean that there is no truth -- value in the myth, i.e. it does not signify, refer, point, correspond to, manifest or unveil any reality at all. - Though, Myth is not historical, it has truth -- value: about not what actually happened as narrated (literal, historical meaning) but about the person who narrated it or to whom it is meaningful. Myth does not only point but a powerful means of revealing/disclosing: - Sigmund Freud: Unconscious - Carl Jung: Collective Unconscious - Rudolf Bultmann: Existential Situation - Mircea Eliade: experience of what they claim as divine or totally other (religious experience) - Paul Ricoeur: bond between man and what he considers sacred 3\. Functions of Myth - myths serve three functions to the ancient people: i. Expressive or Projective Function - Express their inmost realities and forces -- their psyche: - their joys and sorrows - their ideals and limitations - their dreams and nightmares/frustrations ii. Educative Function - serve as models, guides - to behaviour - of how to deal with life, with others iii. Explanatory Function - provide an explanation, a framework for understanding, making sense of the world in which they live. - answers the questions human raise about the world in which they live: - Fundamental/Depth/Vertical Questions - Where do we come from? - Why are we here? - does the world have a purpose? - What is our place in the universe? - What is evil? Good? - Why is there evil? Sickness? Pain? Death? - Where do we find happiness? - Superficial/surface/horizontal questions - Why is there a rainbow? - What makes some fruit sweet and others sour? - Why is there lightning? Thunder? 4. The world from the Viewpoint of Myth - let us now try to examine: - What kind of a world did ancient people experience which the myths tried to make sense and only myth could make sense. - Or the other way around: what kind of a world which the myths structured or led them to experience i\. world is governed by external forces which are greater and more powerful than men - E.g. the strong waves of the sea is due to forces outside of the sea. ii. Those external forces have no consistencies, no order, no pattern: they are arbitrary and whimsical iii\. External forces are like human beings: capricious, whimsical, arbitrary iv. Consequently, external forces are personified (anthropomorphism): they act, behave and are shaped like men and women except they are more powerful - These personified arbitrary, whimsical external forces are the gods and goddesses - Thunder, storms, calamities are caused by the gods and goddesses v\. if the external forces which are personified in the gods and goddesses and which govern our world behave arbitrarily -- i.e. without order, pattern, our world and the forces governing it could not be explained or made sense by logical sequence, pattern or structure except by narrative pattern or structure: putting them in the structure of space -- time sequence. **b. Logos** - now we will try to find out - how Logos (the philosophical, rational and scientific worldview or way of thinking) arose among the Greeks - how the Greek mind broke out of the mythic worldview - this we will do by examining the experiences which occasioned the shift - to get into these experiences, let us examine and trace the different words that were used by the first philosophers in a radically new way or sense. - these words had been used before in ordinary speech and even in the myths - but they took a radically new meaning among the philosophers - let us be reminded that words and their meaning - arise, are formed out of experience - form and deepen, structure one's experience - the words we will examine: - Cosmos - Physis - Arche - Logos 1\. Cosmos - before the coming of philosophy - Cosmos (a noun form) was originally used in a verb -- form which means: to order, to arrange, to marshal - in fact, Homer in his Epics used this word in a verb -- form to refer to the activity of a Greek general marshalling the troop for battle. - Cosmos was eventually transformed into a noun -- form and was used to refer to: - any orderly, arrangement - and moreover a beautiful arrangement, i.e. something that attracts, evokes positive feeling - with the first philosopher, with the coming of philosophy - the word cosmos was applied or used to describe not just anything but the totality of things, the entire universe as ordered and beautiful. - based on the present available text that we have, the first to use cosmos in this sense was Heraclitus, yet the Milesian philosophers could have used it also - what experience did this new application of the word express? What kind of experienced did it structure or define? - it is the experience that despite the variety of experiences, the diversity of things in this world, despite the seemingly disconnectedness of things, person and events, despite the apparent absent of pattern, the world as a whole, in its totality is orderly, is beautiful. - in short, it is an experience that there is an underlying order and beauty in the universe, in the totality of things. 2\. Physis - before the coming of Philosophy - Physis was originally a verb -- form which means to grow, in other words, it was originally used to describe the activity/ act of growing - eventually, physis was transformed into a noun- form - it refers to anything that grows, i.e. which moves by itself, changes by itself. E.g.: - animals, plants - Clouds - heavenly bodies - rain - mountain - in contrast to, as distinct from techne which refers to - man -- made things - products of man's interaction with things of nature or natural things (physis) - e.g.: chair, table, sandals - they do not grow or move by themselves - with the first philosophers, with the coming of philosophy - first, physis refers to the totality of things as not man -- made, but growing, moving by itself - in this sense, physis could be translated as Nature (capital) - Second, physis refers to the intrinsic feature or reality of things (what is within things): - which remains the same through all the changes a thing undergoes and which makes a thing to be what it is. - which accounts or explains the growth, the changes, characteristics and features of a thing. - in this sense, physis could be translated as the nature of things i\. physis as the intrinsic unchanging reality which makes a thing to be what it is - a thing changes and grows through the years, yet it is still the same thing with all the changes and modification it has undergone. E.g. a tree, man, a dog, etc. - why? Because there is something within it which remains the same, unchanged through all the years of change, modification, growth. - and this intrinsic/ underlying reality makes a thing to be as it is: what makes a tree to be a tree, a man to be a man. - the underlying unchanging reality which makes a thing to be as it is is made more manifest as a thing continues to change, to grow ii. physis as the intrinsic unchanging reality which accounts or governs the changes and growth of things - changes arise from the intrinsic unchanging reality - and the intrinsic unchanging reality governs, orders, defines, determines, the changes, growth of things - thus, a mango seed grow into a mango tree, and not a cow or man - summary: with the coming of philosophy, physis came to mean from anything that grows to: - everything/ the totality of things as growing - unchanging intrinsic reality of things - which makes a thing to be what it is - which governs, rules, and from which arises the changes a thing undergoes. 3\. Arche - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4\. Logos - - - - Anthology (anthos: flower; logo, collect) - - - - - - 1\. Reflection: gathers all his/her experiences in silence - observes them from a distance and closely - compares them with one another - examine them 2\. Insight: discovers, comes to see or unfold: - Unity (cosmos) - Order - Beauty - Principle (arche) - Nature (physis) - behind diverse, changing, un/disconnected experiences 3\. Articulation: expresses/speaks through some words, statements what is thus discovered or unfolded - - C. Summary: World from the viewpoint of +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | | Myth | | LOGOS | +=================+=================+=================+=================+ |  | Pure |  | Underlying and | | | Multiplicity, | | Fundamental | |  | Diversity |  | Unity amidst | | | | | | |  | Pure Change, |  | Diversity | | | Flux | | | |  | | | Unchanging | | | Diversity and | | Reality, | | | change without | | Underlying | | | connection, | | Change Order, | | | | | Connection, | | | without order, | | Pattern | | | pattern | | underlying all | | | | | changes and | | | External forces | | diversity | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ | | |  | Intrinsic, | | | | | Underlying | | | | | Reality | +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+ **III. Pre-Socratics** **A. Introduction: Question of Sources** - We are studying philosophers who lived 26 centuries or 2,600 years ago. How do we know that what w claim as his thoughts are really the thoughts of this or that philosopher? - Our reply/basis: his writing; we base them on his writing; his text is our basis for studying his thoughts. - But there are problems: - Do we really have the writings of the philosophers we are studying? - How could we be sure that they are really their writings? What is the basis or proof? - With regard to the Pre- Socratic philosophers (those philosophers before Socrates), these problems are not only very relevant but very acute, much serious or difficult. Why? - though most of them put their thoughts in writing - some in prose, others in verse - some wrote just a single work, others in several volumes - a collection of all their works would have made an impressive library - yet none of those works survive intact or complete for us to read - some of them endured/survived for 10 centuries or 1,000 years - e.g. Simplicius (c. 500-540 AD) who worked in Athens was able to consult the texts of Parmenides, Melissus, Zeno, Anaxagoras among others; yet Parmenides at that time was already a rarity. - But none has come down to our present time. Why? - Pre-Socratics were never best-sellers; thus people were least inclined to preserve their works. - Thus, our present study and knowledge of the Pre-Socratics philosophers unlike our knowledge of Plato and Aristotle is not gained or based directly from works they themselves wrote. It depends and is based on indirect sources which could be classified into basic types: Doxographies and Fragments - **Doxographies**: Witness/Account of Later Greek Authors - doxography comes from the Greek word "doxone" which means opinion - doxographies are: - opinions of the later philosophers and writers on the philosophers before them - commentaries, reports, summary accounts of later philosophers or authors on the works and thoughts of previous philosophers - example of doxographies: - Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his works, Physics and Metaphysics, gives summary accounts and critique on the thoughts of : Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Phytagoras, among others - Galen (c. 129-200 AD): History of Philosophy - there were efforts for systematic collection of the different doxographies of the previous philosophers. This began with Theophrastus (371-287 BC), who had profound influence on the historiography of Greek but most of his works are lost.\\ - Evaluation of Doxographies: - in themselves, they are of uncertain value; they could not be relied upon for the following reasons: 1\. written centuries long after the thoughts which an author tried to give an account - from what the source did he draw his information? - we must wonder if the information flowing down through long years was not sometimes contaminated with falsehood or at least with inaccuracies 2\. written by men with different outlook and interest, who had their own biases and prejudices - each author has particular aim/agenda for his book/s where we find the doxographies and he would fit the doxographies into his/her own agenda or aim: - e.g.; Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics - Aristotle's aim is mainly to present his own philosophy of Nature - the Pre-Socratics are seen in these works in the light of his philosophy, in fact as inferior forms. Aristotle sees his philosophy as a much better development of the earlier philosophies. - Yet it is very important for the following reasons: 1. 2. - Fragments: Direct Quotations made by later Authors - fragments: - not a piece of historical artifact or a historical relic - e.g., a piece or scrap of paper torn out of a work of one of the Pre-Socratics and surviving by some fluke of time. - rather passages (words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs) from PreSocratic writings preserved as quotations in the writings of later authors. - statements from Pre-Socratic philosophers quoted by later authors. - E.g.: - Aristotle rarely bothers to quote the Pre-Socratics directly but prefers to give summary account and critique of their thoughts - Plutarch (46?-20? A.D.) -- several of his moral essays contain quotations from Pre-Socratics - Simplicius (6^th^ Cent A.D.) -- particularly his commentary on Aristotle's Physics contains quotations from Pre-Socratics - Herman Diels (19^th^ cent) and Walter Kranz (20^th^) -- German scholars who collected and edited all the available Greek fragments and provided reference numbers for each fragment. They also gave German translation to these fragments: - they constitute as our most precious and reliable testimony - thus with more fragments we have of a Pre-Socratic philosopher, the more we could form a tolerably determined idea of his thoughts. - yet we have difficulties/problems in dealing with the fragments. The difficulties are on various levels, namely: 1. - E.g., we find fragments or purported direct quotation in Simplicius' commentary on Aristotle's Physics - The first problem is to establish that his work of Simplicius that we have right now where we find the fragments is really an authentic copy. - Why is this a problem? Why can't we assume simply that this is an authentic copy? - Simplicius wrote his commentary on Aristotle's physics in 6^th^ cent. A.D. - And the earliest copy that we have dates back only as far as the 12^th^ century. - in other words, we do not have the original work of Simplicius but only a copy. More precisely, we only have a copy of a copy of a copy........ - Thus, we can't assume that our present copy is authentic, we need to establish that it is really a faithful copy of the original work of Simplicius. 2. - Even we have established that we have an authentic copy of the work where we find the fragments or purported quotation, we have another problem or difficulty: HOW ARE WE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE QUOTATIONS FROM A PHILOSOPHERS CLAIMED BY THE AUTHOR ARE REALLY THE VERY WORDS OF THE PHILOSOPHER OR TEXT LIFTED FROM HIS WORK? - to do this: - first we need to know whether the author, like Simplicius really intended to directly quote from a particular work of a Pre-Socratic - this is not easy to establish in all cases. - it is easy when there is an explicit indication of the author - e.g., the author writes or remarks: "x" says..."..."..."x" says in these very words that... - but it is really difficult when there is only implicit indication - e.g. "x" says that - this may indicate also a paraphrase, a comment, a summary account, not necessarily a direct or verbatim quotation. - second, after establishing that the author intends to directly quote, we still need to establish that the intended quotation is an authentic quotation because not all purported quotations are actual quotations. - even with the good intention of the author, he might be copying from a inauthentic or corrupted source. - we can only approximate the genuineness of the quotation because it is hard to find the original works. 3\. Interpretation - even if we have establish that we have an approximately genuine quotation, we have a difficulty in understanding the words - we have difficulty in understanding the different words of a quotations - the words may mean differently from how the words mean right now - some words are really difficult to understand - we have difficulty in understanding the sense of a quotation - even if we understand the words of a quotation, we still could not understand the quotation. Why? Taken out of context and sometimes virtually senseless. 4\. Relation of the different fragments \- even if we have understood the quotations, the fragments, it is hard to establish their relationship. **B. The Cosmologists** - we label/call the Pre-Socratics or the philosophers before Socrates as Cosmologists. Cosmology refers to the philosophical study of the world in its totality or in short, Philosophy of Nature. The Pre-Socratic philosophers were philosophers of Nature: their primary and central theme of philosophical speculation was Nature. - Aristotle was the first to call them in Greek as "Physikot" or "physicists" and their activity as physologia or "physics". For Aristotle and post-Socratic philosophers, they divided the subject6s or themes of their philosophical inquiry into three parts: 1. 2. 3. - - - - - - - - - - a\. The Early Ionian or Milesian School: Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes Introduction: Miletus, the birthplace of Philosophy - philosophy began with Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. They were Ionian, i.e. they lived in the region of Ionia, particularly in the city-state of Miletus. Thus, philosophy began outside the mainland of Greece (Hellas) or the Greek Archipelago. - During the period between 650-500 B.C., City-states of Ionia, especially its principal city-state, Miletus, were richer and highly civilized than those in Hellas. **Economy** - sea-port, thus trading and commercial city - traded with the Eastern Empires, with the Egyptians and other colonies or citystates in Thrace, Bosphorus, and coast of Black Sea - very prosperous **Culture** - through trade and commerce, it had contact with other civilizations - with the Egyptians and Babylonians, they learned navigation, astronomy, mathematics, mechanics, and meteorology. - with the Lydians, they learned new techniques and form of pottery, sculpture, and poetry - with these influences and with their wealth, arts and literature flourished; majestic architectural and sculptural pieces were created. **Politics** - internally, very turbulent/stormy factional politics, often leading to strife and even bloody revolution. - externally, neighbours to powerful empires - Lydia: uneasy symbiosis - Persia - 546, Persians defeated the Lydians and Ionians were under the rule of Persia which was more oppressive - 494, destroyed and ruined the Ionia after the revolts. 1. **Thales (c. 625-545BC)** 1. Source - we rely more on secondary sources: - not on fragments but mainly on doxographies: on the reports, summary, accounts and commentaries which were based most probably on oral traditions rather than on any written works. 2. Person - - - - - 3. Thoughts - we do not have any fragments from Thales, all we have are doxographies: reports, summary, accounts, comments by subsequent authors. - more specifically, we rely on accounts and commentaries of Aristotle on Thales' philosophicalscientific doctrines as our best source - Aristotle himself speaks with caution, i.e., his approach to Thales is cautious, noncommittal, , not definite, certain in his account. - "they say", "that it was said", "some say" - This indicates that Aristotle does not depend or rely on any writing of Thales, but on the account of others, most probably oral. - More importantly, Aristotle tends to use the thoughts of Thales and of those before him to clarify and advance his thoughts and questions. \(a) On the Water as the Proto-Arche (First Principle) i. Text from Aristotle: *"Some say that the earth rests on water. This is in fact is the oldest view that has been transmitted to us, and they say that it was advanced by Thales of Miletus who thought that the earth rest because it can float like a log on something else of that sort (for none of these things can rest on air, but they can rest on water -- as though the same must not hold of the water supporting the earth as holds of the earth itself." - Aristotle. On the Heavens* ii. Interpretation of the Text - For Aristotle, Thales taught that water is the proto-arche of Nature, of Cosmos, i.e. - the origin and source of all things - what remains the same, unchanging, constant n all the diverse things and in all the changes of all things. - what governs, orders all the things and their diversity and changes. \(iii) Why did Thales choose water as the proto-arche? \- There are no fragment nor even doxographies ti base our answers: our answers are purely speculative. 1\. Aristotle: - not sure why Thales chose water as the prto-arche - but he ventured to offer and speculate some answers - perhaps Thales noticed that: - nourishment of all that exists is something moist - heat itself comes from the moist - seeds of everything have a moist-nature - and water is the natural principle of moist - in short, the basis is biological 2. John Burnet - Burnet, a historian of Greek thought offered his own speculation on this question - for him, the reason was probably meteorological for: - water descends from the cloud and arises from springs deep within the earth. - water appears in all forms -- as steam, liquid, and as solid - ocean surrounds us 3. Modern Scholarship - Thales knew or at least was familiar with the different mythologies of Ancient Civilizations, like Egypt and Babylonia. In their mythologies, they all began the story of creation with water. E.g. in Genesis: and these emphasized the pre-existence of water -- that water had been already there before anything began. - these mythologies express the universal experience of the great importance of water for those who till the earth, there can be no life without water. 4. Fr. Roque Ferriols - Fr. Ferriols, a Filipino Jesuit who teaches philosophy at ADMU suggested that the water of Thales should not be taken too literally but is a parable, a fable about the ultimate foundation, the proto-arche, the first principle of the universe. - It's a fable that reminds us that whatever our view on proto-arche, it is like water, not yet solid, not yet reliable. We need to look for something more solid, closer to the truth, to the true proto-arche. - Thus, the water of Thales is not an answer but an invitation for us to question whatever we have so far conceived as the proto-arche , and to search for more solid foundation, for a truer proto-arche of the universe. \(b) On the Nature of Souls i. Text: *"Thales, judging by what they report, seems to have believed that the soul was something that produces motion, in as much as he said that the magnet has a soul because it moves man." -- Aristotle. On the Soul* *"Some say that soul is mixed with the universe. Perhaps that is why Thales thought everything was full of gods." -- Aristotle. On the Soul* ii. Interpretation - Difficult to interpret: cannot be interpreted with certainty - But the text is stretched by some to support that Thales taught the existence of the World-Soul like the Neoplatonists - It could also be a religious utterances of Thales rather than philosophical insight - It could express his awe and wonder before nature; seeing things as moving overwhelmed him; he is before something he could not completely grasp beyond his reach. \(4) Significance of Thales as the First Philosopher according to Fr. Ferriols - Thales as a philosopher - he wonders at all the experiences, at all the things of the world, and he wonders at them as a whole, in their totality, and in their ultimacy. - And the question he asks, Can man have knowledge, understanding of the world as one reality, as one totality? Can man come to know and understand the world in its ultimacy? - And his answer was yes: - Because man has a restless mind and through which he can enter into the reality in its totality and ultimacy. - If he trusts on this capacity, and decides to undertake a journey, he will be led into a new of looking, a new way of understanding and a new way of living (a new lifestyle) - Thales as a First Philosopher - Thales is considered even in Ancient time, as the first philosopher: the "School" named him as the First Philosopher. - In what sense is Thales, the First Philosopher? Did the philosophical search, the philosophical journey first begin with Thales? - When a new kind of understanding, thinking starts, men would not notice the beginning. No one reports on every detail of a new birth. But when the new thinking comes to maturity, men will look back into the past and in the cloudy memory, they notice the image of a hero of a new thinking. - And when Ancient Greek philosophy came to maturity with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, they tried to look back into the past in order to trace its beginning, and it was the image of Thales that really shines through. That's why they called him as the First Philosopher. **2. Anaximander (c.610-540 BC)** \(1) Source: - On Nature - *"they gave justice and reparation to one another for their injustice in accordance to time"* 12B1. Simplicious, Commentary on the Physics *-* This is earliest surviving words of western philosophy - \(2) Person: - Like Thales, Anaximander was from Miletus - An associate, a disciple, a pupil of Thales - not necessarily that he studied or worked directly under Thales - but a generation younger than Thales who followed the line of thought of Thales took over and improved his thoughts. - Like Thales, he was a polymath: an astronomer, navigator and inventor - he produced a star-map, and a map of the world \(3) Thoughts \(a) The Apeiron \(i) The Apeiron (The Infinite) - the Proto-Arche is not water nor one of the four fundamental elements: earth, water, air, and fire. - But, something more fundamental and something prior to the four fundamental elements - this something is the Apeiron - Literally: the infinite, limitless, unbounded - No beginning (ungenerated) - No end (indestructible, deathless, unperishing) - Infinite in time (eternal) - Infinite in extent (no boundary, boundless) - Indeterminate: could not be limited by anything \(ii) Why the Apeiron as the Proto-Arche and not one of the four fundamental elements? - Aristotle and other subsequent thinker give us the possible reasons of Anaximander, one or more of these reasons may come from Anaximander himself. - The proto-arche must be underived principle. The principle "which has no principle but itself is thought to be a principlefor everything else and to govern everything" - None of the four elements could be proto-arche for none of them could be the principle of itself. Each of them needs another principle for the following reasons: - Another principle is needed to account, explain the motion, changes of the elements. E.g. - Water itself changes from one form to another: steam, liquid, solid - if the arche is the unchanging that governs and accounts and which is the origin of these changes, the water could not be its own principle/arche. It need another principle. - the same with fire, air, earth - Each of the elements needs another principle to explain its origin and destruction - Water is something that comes to be (generated) and ceases to be (destruction) - From what does water come to be? What makes water come to be? - It could not come from water itself, for it does not exist before, that is why it comes into existence. - Since the four elements are contraries, opposites: one of the elements could be the proto-arche -- the principle of the other elements and of all things. Water: cold and wet - Fire: warm and dry Air: warm and wet - Earth: cold and dry - if water is the proto-arche, fire could not be derived from it for fire is complete opposite to water. Water could not bring fire into existence since opposites destroy one another, water puts out fire and fire makes water disappear. - Thus, none of the four fundamental elements could be the prto-arche, but the pro-arche is other than the four elements, more fundamental than the four elements. \(b) His Cosmogony and Cosmology - Cosmogony: Origin of the Universe; Cosmology: the constitution of the universe - Cosmogony: - How does the apeiron become the source of all things? How did all things come into existence from the apeiron? How did the differentiated, finite world that we have right now come from the apeiron? - Cosmology: - How are the different things which come from the apeiron arranged, ordered? How are the earth, wind, water, fire, heavenly bodies arranged and ordered? - For Anaximander, the process of coming into existence of all things from the apeiron is DINE: eternal vortex motion of the apeiron. - the apeiron is in eternal vortex, spinning motion (e.g. spinning wheel) - through this spinning/vortex motion, the different element were generated, separated, differentiated from the apeiron - Since in spinning motion, the first and furthest to be generated and separated is the lightest, and last and nearest to be generated is the heaviest. - the first and furthest to be generated and separated from the center was FIRE, which forms like a ring: Ring of Fire - the second and next further was AIR since it is the heavier than fire but lighter than water and earth. Air encloses the ring of fire but has breathing holes (tubular channels). The ring of fire is seen through the holes, thus they appear as stars, sun and moon to us. The waning of moon and the eclipse of sun are explained in terms of blocking of the holes. - the third to be gathered and nearer to the center was WATER. It covers partially the earth. - the last to be generated and at the very center was the EARTH, cylindrical in shape. It is aloft, not supported by anything but resting where it is because of the equal distance to everything. *(c) On Dike/Justice: Making Amends for Injustice:* i. Text a fragment -- the most ancient philosophical fragment that we have *"they give justice and reparation to one another for their injustice in accordance with the arrangement of time."* ii. Interpretation: a. - injustice consists in this (cosmic injustice): the generated elements go beyond to their designated places: one element dominated other elements at one period of time. - Basis: CHANGING SEASONS. How do the changing seasons indicate that there is injustice? - When the elements were generated and separated from the apeiron by means of a vortex motion, each of them has its own designated place with its own corresponding set of qualities that are opposite to one another. - the kind of climate/weather which these elements bring with their corresponding qualities are: **Element** **Qualities Season** ------------- -- ---------------------- Earth Cold and Dry Autumn Water Cold and Wet Winter Air Warm and Wet Spring Fire Warm and Dry Summer - If they were just as their designated places, there would have been no changing of seasons: autumn, winter, spring, summer - But we have, in fact, changing of seasons. Why? Because they do not remain on their designated places: one element dominates other elements at some period of time: - During Winter, the element Water which is wet and cold, goes beyond its designated place and encroaches, trespasses, dominates the earth. It takes possession of the earth, forcing the cold and dry (qualities associated with the earth) to depart. - During Spring, it is the time for Air -- warm and wet to dominate and encroach on other elements - During Summer, it is the time for Fire -- warm and dry, to dominate and encroach on other elements - During Autumn, it is the time for Earth -- Cold and dry, to dominate and encroach on other elements. - This situation of the predominance and encroachment of one over the other is injustice. b. - In order to remedy the injustice (adikia) -- to correct the dominance and trespassing of one element over the others, each element makes amends, satisfaction, restitution for the injustice. - This satisfaction and restitution is done according to the proper order of time. - time makes each of them to remedy for its injustice - how? - Through the regular cycle of time - time-sequence is repeated in circular manner - in this circular movement of time, the injustice is remedied: this circular movement of time makes each element to make satisfaction, restitution for its injustice: - in Winter, the cold and wet encroaches and predominates - but in Spring, time forces cold-wet (Winter) to make satisfaction/restitution for the injustice by making it withdraw to make room for the warm-wet (spring) to come. - in Summer, time forces warm-wet (Spring) to leave, to make room for warm and dry to come. - In Autumn, time forces warm and dry (Summer) to leave, to make room for cold and dry to come. - In Winter, time forces cold and dry (Autumn) to leave, to make room for cold and wet to come. - Thus, no element will predominate and trespass permanently. In this way, injustice is remedied: there is satisfaction, restitution for whatever injustice there is in the universe. But this is not yet the ultimate justice. - In the ultimate end of time: - time will bring all things to their ultimate end, to the original order of things, where there is no injustice, i.e. opposites do not predominate, trespass over one another, because all of them will have returned to the original unity of the apeiron, to the quietude/solitude from which they have been separated. \(4) Significance a. A response to a (perceived) logical difficulty in Thales' theory b. Postulation of a theoretical entity to explain observable phenomena c. The postulation of something beyond experience was not new (cf. the gods). What was new: what is postulated is not personified or anthropomorphic. It is a kind of matter. d. Problem: how can the apeiron contain the opposites it gives rise to and still be simple **3. Anaximenes (flourished c. 525 BC)** 1. Source: - - *For he says that matter which is concentrated and condense is cold, while that which is rare and slack is hot.* Plutarch, The Primary Cold *Our souls, he says, being air, hold us together, and breath and air contain the whole world.* Plutarch, On the Scientific Beliefs of the Philosophers *Air is close to the incorporeal; and because we come into being by an outflowing of air, it is necessary for it to be both infinite and rich because it never gives out.* Olympiadorus, On the Divine and Sacred Art of the Philosopher's Stone 2. Person - some sources offer precise dating of Anaximenes but interpretation of them is controversial. Thus, they are ureliable. - We may be satisfied with the thought that he flourished in the middle of the 6^th^ century B.C. - from Miletus, like Thales and Anaximander - said to be student/disciple of Anaximander - whether or not this is literally true, his work certainly followed the same general pattern of Anaximander. 3. Thought \(a) On the Proto-arche: Infinite Air i. Text: *Anaximenes....also says that the underlying nature is one and inifinite like (Anaximander), but not undefined as Anaximander said but definite, for he identifies it with air....* Theophrastus ap. Simplicium, Phys. ii. Interpretation: - for Anaximenes, the proto-arche is one of the four fundamental elements: Air - but Air is not like any other elements because it has the character of the apeiron of Anaximander - Infinite/Boundless in extent - Infinite/Boundless in quality - In its original and neutral state: can't be seen and homogeneous - Unlike the apeiron and like the other elements, it has definite nature \(iii) Why Infinite Air as the Proto-Arche? \- We cannot be sure of the reasons which determined his choice, we can venture and speculate the following reasons as the most probable: 1\. Of the four fundamental elements which are opposites in qualities. Air holds an intermediate position, i.e.: \- it lies between the heaviest: earth and the lightest: fire - it lies between the dryness of the earth and wetness of water - it lies between the coldness of water and warmness of fire. 2\. To synthesize the proto-arche of Thales with the proto-arche of Anaximander Thesis: Anti-Thesis: Synthesis: Thales' Proto-Arche: Anaximander's Proto-Arche Anaximenes' Proto-arche: **Water** **Apeiron Infinite Air** \(b) Cosmogony and Cosmology \(i) Cosmogony - the origin of all things from the infinite air: the coming to be/generation of all other things from the infinite air. How did all things come into existence from the infinite air? - unlike/in contrast to Anaximander's vortex motion as the process which accounts for the origin of all things from the apeiron. Anaximenes accounts the origin of all things from the infinite by the process of RAREFACTION and CONDENSATION: - rarefaction: - process of making a thing rare, less concentrated, less condensed, less compressed - condensation: - process of making a thing more compressed, more condensed, more concentrated - When air is compressed and rarefied in various degrees, it takes qualities and forms into other elements - when air is compressed/condensed, it becomes heavier, colder, darker - When it is compressed to the utmost, it becomes Earth: heaviest, coldest and darkest - When it is compressed but not to the utmost, it becomes Water: less heavy, less cold, and less dark than the earth. - when air is decompressed or rarefied, it becomes, it becomes lighter, hotter and brighter - when rarefied to the utmost, it becomes fire: the lightest, hottest and brightest - when rarefied but not to the utmost, it becomes the perceived air, taking a definite quality. - Thus, everything is made of air. The diversity of things is due to the various state of decompression and compression of the infinite air. - Consequence of the Anaximenes' Process of Rarefaction and Condensation - Anaximenes, though unaware, he reduced all qualitative differences into quantitative differences - If all things and their differences are just due to the lesser degree or greater degree of compression or decompression of the infinite air and since these degrees of compression or decompression are in turn reducible in terms of number, quantity and mechanical structure, then all things could be reduced to numbers. - This implication would be made explicit and carried to its ultimate consequences by the Pythagoreans later. \(ii) Cosmology: - Earth: flat and round disk suspended, floating on air - Sun and moon: flat disks and bright fiery (extremely rarefied air) which ride upon or move above the earth like a cap but not under it - Other heavenly bodies: - at a great distance, there is outer sphere of the universe - this outer sphere is a hardened air and forms like vault - Stars are like nails which have been fixed into the vault of the heaven: they shine as they reflect the light coming from the sun. (iii) Man as Microcosm of the Universe Text: *Our souls, he says, being air, hold us together, and breath and air contain the whole world* Plutarch, On the Scientific Beliefs of the Philosophers Interpretation: - Soul (psyche) - living/life-principle: what makes a thing alive - identified with the breath because without breath, there is no life. - Anaximenes sees man and the world as similar and even the same in their fundamental aspects: - sees man, a small part of the universe, yet: - the same in structure and elements as the whole universe - thus, a small representation, a small replica of the universe (microcosm -- small universe) - Why? - Just as the soul/breath of man holds him together, governs all things in man, brings order and unity in man. - Breah/air holds and governs the whole world together, brings order and unity to the totality of things, to the universe, cosmos. 4. Significance of the Ionian/Milesian School: a. They were the first to deal with the things in their totality, with the world as cosmos - first to encounter the world as one reality where there is: - unity amidst diversity - unchanging reality beneath the changes - where there is order, harmony and connectedness amidst the diverse and separate realities. b. They were the first to look for the intrinsic ultimate/first principle of the whole universe (proto-arche) - proto-arche: - the origin and source of all things - what remains the same, unchanging, constant in all the diverse things, and in all the changes of all things - what governs, orders all the things and their diversity and changes - they looked for this not outside but within the world itself -- an underlying reality - consequently, they tried and initiated to give a rational explanation of the world, departing from the mythical explanation, i.e. by means of telling stories about gods and goddesses c. The Proto-Arche is something material, lies in some material stuff. They identified the whole universe with the world b. **Xenophanes (c.560-470 B.C.)** a. Source - - b. Person - from Colophon in Ionia - peripatetic poet (traveling rhapsodist) - professional reciter of poems - recited/sang poems during festival, social events, and private events. - poems recited: - the verse/poems of others like the traditional poems of Homer and Hesiod - his own verse/poems: - silloi: sarcastic verses - subjects: drink, love, war, games, historical themes - a number of his poems are philosophical in content - he travelled around the towns of Greece and mostly in Southern Sicily - familiar with the thoughts of the Milesians and Pythagoreans - Problem/Question: Was he simply a poet or was he also a philosopher? - later traditions regarded him as a serious philosopher, a teacher of Parmenides, and the founder of the Eleatic School of thought. - however, many modern scholars doubted whether he was a systematic thinker and some even denied that he ever wrote a properly philosophical poem. - Nevertheless, there are enough fragments which show that his verses have philosophical content. This warrants not only for calling him as a philosopher but also for considering him as one of the early philosophical geniuses of Ancient Greece. - with regard to his relation to Parmenides and the Eleatic school, it is difficult to establish any direct relationship. c. Thoughts \(1) On the gods and goddesses \(a) His Criticism of the gods and goddesses of the Greek popular religion - Xenophanes criticizes the Greek popular religion, particularly how it conceived, understood and portrayed the gods and goddesses - The gods and goddesses of Greek popular religion are the gods and goddesses of Homer and Hesiod in as much as the Greek popular/common view of man, of the world, of the divine: - were expressed, articulated in them - were derived, determined by them - he found the Greek popular conception, understanding and portrayal of gods and goddesses as ridiculous and unacceptable. \(b) What is unacceptable, ridiculous in the Greek popular religion's conception of gods and goddesses - What did Xenophanes find unacceptable and ridiculous in the Greek popular religion's conception of gods and goddesses? - the gods and goddesses except that they are more powerful than men/women, are the same as men and women: - shape and form: shape/physical structure - color of the eyes, shape of the nose, hair - clothes - speech - they are born - thoughts - pattern of Action/Behavior (Moral) \(c) Why is this conception unacceptable? - these gods and goddesses are conceived, understood, shaped, portrayed, created according to the image of man. - what he is. - what he acts and thinks - how he is shaped - rather than according to who God really is - those gods and goddesses are nothing but the projection and reflection of who man is: - what is man is projected into these gods and goddesses - they reflect more who man is, how he understands himself especially his baser aspects. - tell me who your gods and goddesses are, and I will tell you who you are. \(2) On the One God - - - a. - The Milesian philosophers were looking for the one proto-arche, for the One which is - the source and origin of all things - the unchanging reality of all diverse things and of all changes - governs and rules, orders, harmonizes everything. - For Xenophanes, the one proto-arche is God: - God is the proto-arche - not water, apeiron, infinite air or one of the four fundamental elements - This One God, this God who is one and only proto-arche is totally beyond - God is not simply numerically one - God is not simply the number one in the order of greatness - God is one in the sense that he is absolutely and supremely different, unique to anything of this world, to anything that exists: world of things, world of men, world of gods and goddesses, in every respect: in thought, shape, etc. b. \(i) Knowledge of God (Divine Knowledge) compared to Human knowledge - Man/woman sees/hears/knows - in parts - and through a process - God sees/hears/knows - everything as a whole - in one instance - in short, once and for all \(ii) Power of God (Divine Power) compared to Human Power - human power over the world - men/women have power over, can control/govern the world - by means of their mind and hands/body - through their plans and actions - yet no complete control/power over it - they must harmonize themselves with and respect the orders/laws of the world in order for them to have control over it, and even to transcend it - they could not put themselves in complete opposition with the world - they are drawn, affected, carried by the forces of the world. - Divine power over the world - God has complete power over the world with his mind alone - God governs the world with his rational power and free will - this implies that our world is not governed not by whims and caprices, or by some irrational or impersonal power - God does not need to harmonize with the forces/laws/order of the world in order to control and govern it. - God is never drawn, affected, and carried by the forces of the world. \(iii) God as Immobile/Unchanging/Eternal - the one God does not change in any respect - Xenophanes denies any form of change in the One God \(3) Man's Knowledge of the One God - - - - - - - - - - \(4) On Human Knowledge \(a) Xenophanes denies that man could attain complete knowledge of anything and of all things \- no man or woman knows everything about anything, and about all things - man could not attain the complete, absolute truth. \(b) Even if man attains the complete truth, he could not see, perceive it clearly as the complete truth. \- even assuming that man could attain the complete truth, he does not know that he already attains the truth nor could he adequately say something about it. c. - though man could not come to the complete truth -- i.e., he could not attain nor perceive clearly the complete truth, he knows something -- there is some truth in what he knows. - furthermore, in time, by inquiry, he makes better discoveries, he knows something more true than what he has known before. - the new knowledge is not yet the complete truth, yet it is better than the previous: it is nearer to the complete truth, clearer than the previous knowledge. - Thus, man must not stop inquiring, finding a much better truth, better knowledge than before. c. **Pythagoreans** - the next school of thought that appeared after the Milesian School is the Pythagorean School. - the Pythagorean refer: - to those who followed the school of thought founded by Pythagoras - to the followers/students of Pythagoras, who studied and belonged to the school (learning institution and society) founded by Pythagoras - to understand this school, we will examine firs its founder, Pythagoras. d. Pythagoras (c. 530 B.C.) - we know very little about Pythagoras - Pythagoras is little more than a name - Nothing at all with certainty - Why? - the school/society/community he founded was a secret organization - "there silence was of no ordinary kind" - the internal order, doctrines of the society was all well-kept secret by the members who vowed to keep that way - the life of their master was also a well-guarded secret. - yet there are a number of legends about this name Pythagoras. If we try to disentangle the more probable historical facts about this man (though with great difficulty), we could come up with these more or less probable historical details: - born in Samos Island (off the coast of Ionia) in c. 530 B.C. - in Croton, he established a school, a learning institution which was at the same time a religious group/society: the members constituted as an ascetic brotherhood - the Pythagorean society got involved with the politics of the locality and aroused some hostility the citizens. - they were eventually forced or (more mildly) were obliged to leave Croton. - Pythagoras and his disciples settled in nearby city of Mesopotamia where he died. e. Thoughts Pre-Note: - Pythagoras most probably did not put down into writing his thoughts, ideas, teachings nor did his early followers. - But the school of thought, the community he founded lasted for more than a millennium - later Pythagoreans put their teachings into writing and several of their works survived. These various works of later Pythagoreans projected back/attributed to Pythagoras certain philosophical ideas. And it is very difficult to decide which in the later works really belongs to Pythagoras, which are primitive or early features of the school and what belongs to the later development. - Because of this difficulty, we will not distinguish: - the original thoughts of Pythagoras and the development of his thoughts by his disciples - early thoughts of the Pythagoreans and the later developments - Rather, we will discuss the Pythagoreans school in a general way without tracing and distinguishing the development of the school from Pythagoras to the Pythagoreans of much later period - And because of the difficulty of interpretation, we will have to limit ourselves to pointing out in broad strokes rather than in specific details the important feature of this school. \(1) INTEREST/ORIENTATIONS OF THE SCHOOL - to understand the general teachings/doctrines of the school, we will first clarify the various orientations, interest, concerns of the school which Pythagoras founded. - The school has three central interests, concerns: RELIGION, POLITICS, AND SCIENCE \(a) Religious Orientation/Concern - the school, society founded by Pythagoras took the form of a religious sect, a secret and ascetic brotherhood/community. It was some kind of religion with its set of rules and taboos, doctrines and ritual ceremonies like other religions. a. Religious rules and taboos - do not eat meat and beans - do not wear clothes made of wool - do not pick up anything fallen - make up their bed right after waking b\. Religious doctrines - Metempsychosis: transmigration of souls/reincarnation - Catharsis: purification of the soul from the impurities of the body \\ - Cosmos: the world as ordered and beautiful - Theoria: contemplation and disinterested meditation of the world c. Religious rituals and ceremonies - initiation rites - prominent features of other ceremonies: snakes and dances \(b) Political Orientation/Concern - the exact nature of their political concern is not clear - at certain period, the Pythagoreans got involved and embroiled with politics of their local community such that they were forced to leave to locality as the citizens reacted violently, persecuted them and burned their houses. - What really happened: What was the extent of their political involvement? We could think of two possibilities: - Pythagorean school, by the way they organized themselves, by the way they lived, challenged the political order of their locality, specifically the aristocracy. In short, **NO DIRECT POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT.** - Pythagoreans were directly involved with the local politics by trying to challenge the structure of the community, by imposing their ideals, ways of life on the local community. In short, **DIRECT POLITICAL** **INVOLVEMENT** \(c) Scientific Orientation/Concern - the Pythagorean community was not only a religious and political group - more importantly, it was also a school in two senses: - Institution of learning - a well-organized and structured group of persons from whom and with whom one learns and discovers the truth about things by adopting certain disciplines or by undergoing the program of studies - the program of studies involves or consists of some key and selected areas/fields of inquiry - the Pythagorean programs of studies consisted of: medicine, music, astronomy, ethics and mathematics - School of thought - specific way of inquiring, studying, explaining, understanding reality - the Pythagoreans tried to study the different areas of inquiry in terms of HARMONY - thus, the key concept and primary concern in the inquiry, study and explanation of things is harmony. - Now let us examine the different fields of inquiry in which Pythagoreans were interested and let us see how they studied and explained in terms of harmony \(i) Medicine - deals with human health and sickness - the Pythagoreans studied, understood, explained sickness and health in terms of the harmony or proportion of the different elements/humor of the body. - For them, health is due to the proper proportion of the different elements of the body. There is health when there is proper harmony/balance of the different elements. - Sickness is due to disproportion or imbalance or disharmony of the different elements - To diagnose a particular disease (i.e. to find out the specific cause of a particular disease), one has to find out what element or elements are our of proportion with other elements. - To find a cure and to restore health, one has to discover the proper proportion and how to restore the proper proportion. The prescription has to do with restoring the proper proportion/balance. \(ii) Music - deals with sound which has melody and harmony which is pleasing to hear. - What makes the sound pleasing, melodious and harmonious? - It's the proper proportion of the different sounds: - in their succession (melody) - in the same instance (harmony) - the essence of music: PROPER PROPORTION/BALANCE OF THE DIFFERENT SOUND - study of music then has to do with the study of the proportion of the different sounds - The Pythagoreans discovered the different ratio/proportion for the different musical notes/sound. The ratio could be expressed in and reduced to numbers. How? - by studying relationship of the length of the strings and their corresponding musical notes, they found out that: - if one unit of string is equivalent to the first note: e.g. do, then: - ½ of this string is the octave or the eight note: 2^nd^ do - 2/3 of this string is the fifth note - ¾ o this string is the fourth note - Furthermore, for Pythagoreans, music has relation to the soul - it affects harmony of the soul - the sickness of the soul is due to the disharmony of the soul - this disharmony is cured by music which restores the harmony just like medicine restore the harmony of the body. \(iii) Astronomy - deals with how the universe is ordered or arranged - for the Pythagoreans, the universe is well-ordered and beautifully arranged - this is how the cosmos is arranged - earth and other heavenly bodies are perfect spheres - basis: not from actual observations but religious assumption that circles are identified with eternity, with perfection - earth, which is a perfect sphere itself, is located, suspended at the center of the universe (geocentric model) - heavenly bodies (moon, planets and stars) - are located at fixed distances which are at a definite ratio. Thus their distances between one another are wellproportioned. - move around the earth at regular/unchanging rate in perfect circular orbit - because of the definite and well proportioned ratio of their distances and their regular rate of motion, they emit a pleasing sound, musical notes. They call this as the Harmony of the Spheres - They make a distinction between the sublunary and translunary sphere +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Sublunary Sphere | Translunary Sphere | +===================================+===================================+ | Motion is not circular but linear | Circular motion | | | | | Temporal, transitory | Eternal | | | | | Greneration and death | No birth, decay, death | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ \(iv) Politics/Ethics - Virtue is right or good action - For Pythagoreans - Virtue is matter of proportion, proper balance - Proper proportion/balance is a matter of action - the middle of two extreme forms of action - neither too much nor too little - They came up with corresponding number of each virtue - e.g.: justice is four, marriage is three (v) Mathematics - for the Pythagoreans, mathematics was the science par excellence. Why? - The key to inquiry, study and understanding of reality, of different fields of discipline is harmony. - And number is the foundation/basis of harmony - harmony is best known and accounted in terms of ratio or proportion of the different elements - and to understand the ratio/proportion is to know its numbers, its numerical value - in short, harmony is based on ratio/proportion and the basis of ratio/proportion is numer - Thus, science of number (mathematics) is the foundation of all studies, the science of all sciences - geometry, arithmetic: the ultimate key for - for making the world intelligible - for discovering the truth of things - the discovering the ultimate principle of the universe - with the Pythagoreans, mathematics became pure mathematics - Before, mathematics, like the mathematics of the Babylonians and Egyptians, was an art of actual counting and measurement using particular tool and technique - E.g. Geometry: - deals with actual measurement using particular tools and techniques - actual measurement/empirical observation was used both in the discovery and proof. - But with the Pythagoreans, mathematics became pure mathematics - independent of empirical observation - became axiomatic-deductive discipline - they came up with mathematical results and they demonstrated them as certain without resolving to empirical evidences but by just relying on the human intelligence -- i.e. what human perceives as necessarily true (self-evident principles, axioms) and what the human mind infers from other things it knows (reasoning). \_\_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_ Given: AD = AE : DB = EC \_\_ \_\_ Prove: AB = AC An equal added with an equal remains equal \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_ AE = AD : EC = DB \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ AE + EC = AD + DB \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_ AE + EC = AC : AD + DB = AB \_\_ \_\_ Therefore: AB = AC 2. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE SCHOOL \- Though the Pythagoreans in their almost 1,000 years of history vary in the in the details of their thoughts, they accept common fundamental assumptions on which the Pythagorean system of thought is founded. a. The Inner Structure of the Universe is Mathematical - unlike the Ionians/Milesians who thought that the proto-arche, the first principle (origin and source of everything, underlying and unchanging reality, and what rules and governs everything) is some material reality or corporeal stuff - the Pythagoreans held that the proto-arche is not a material reality or stuff but NUMBERS -- geometric figures or forms \(i) What led the Pythagorean to hold this view? - For the Pythagoreans, in their study of the different disciplines or fields of inquiry (Medicine, Music, Astronomy Ethics, Politics, Mathematics), they realized that the key to inquiry, understanding, and explaining a particular reality is HARMONY. - and harmony could only be understood in terms of the proportion/ratio of the different elements which constitute a particular reality. - And proportion/ratio is in turn reducible to and expressible in numbers - Thus, they came to realize that the ultimate key to knowing and understanding reality is number - If number is the ultimate key to knowing and understanding any particular reality, then they argued that it is the ultimate/first principle of reality itself. - And proportion/ratio is in turn reducible to and expressible in numbers. - Thus, they came to realize that the ultimate key to knowing and understanding reality is number - If number is the ultimate key to knowing and understanding any particular reality, then they argued that it is the ultimate/first principle of reality itself. - Significance of this insight: - identification of the rational order with the order of reality; in this case the rational order is understood mathematically - great and novel insight into a new reality, new entity radically distinct from what is material. \(ii) What did Pythagoreans mean by number? - - - - - - **.** (a point is made of one point) = 1 **..** (a line consists of two points) = 2 **.** **..** (an angle consists of three points) = 3 **..** **..** (a solid consists of four points) = 4 - ![](media/image2.jpg) - - 1 to 4 units - triangular in shape - the odd and even numbers are identified with certain geometric figures: **...** **...** **...** 1.3.5 (odd) = square **....** **....** **....** 2.4.6 (even) = rectangle \(iii) What is the most fundamental number or geometric form or figure? - at first, we could think of the "unit square", a square whose sides are equal unity -- i.e. each side consists of only one unit - but for the Pythagoreans, from square unit, we could still come up with a more fundamental spatial pattern when we a diagonal line, dividing it: Triangle - for the triangle, we could no longer come up with a more fundamental spatial pattern because if we divide the triangle, we still end up with a triangle. - Studying the triangle, the Pythagoreans came up with the Pythagorean theorem: a^2^ + b^2^ = c^2^ - But a unit triangle, the most fundamental triangle would have an irrational number for its one side (the hypotenuse), the diagonal side. 1^2^ + 1^2^ = c^2^ **c = 1.33333333.....** - this implies that the most fundamental reality is itself irrational - this discovery has been called the Great Scandal of the Brotherhood - It was said that when one of them members revealed this to the outsider, his brothers drowned him in the ocean. b. The Soul is Imprisoned in the Body (soma sema) \(i) What is man for the Pythagorean? MAN IS HIS SOUL - for the Pythagoreans, the physis/nature of man is his soul - the underlying reality which remains the same in man, the unchanging reality is his soul - the underlying reality which makes a man a man is his soul \(ii) Man's soul migrates from one body to another (metempsychosis) - - - - - \(iii) Salvation/liberation of man consists in the liberation from the body, from the transmigration of the soul to the different bodies c. The Soul is Purified by Contemplation - How does the soul liberate itself from the body, from the process of transmigration? - The answer of the Pythagoreans is CATHARSIS OR PURIFICATION - CATHARSIS OR PURIFICATION - is the entire process by which a man discovers his own self, his own nature and identifies himself with his soul, and no longer identifies himself with his body. - Catharsis involves: FINDING THE PROPER OBJECT OF THE SOUL, AND EVENTUALLY DISCOVERING ONE'S TRUE SELF AND IDENTIFYING WITH THE SOUL. \(i) FINDING THE PROPER OBJECT OF THE SOUL \- to find the proper object of the soul means to desire and know what is really proper to it and this involves: 1\. one must not desire and know things as they appear to the body, what is presented by the senses - objects of the sense: not proper objects of the soul - they abre chaotic, in constant flux, without order - if they are objects of the soul (what the souls desires and knows) they will bring the soul down deeper to his prison; the soul will become more stuck with the body, making more enslaved. 2\. one must desire and know beyond and beneath what is presented to the senses - one must desire and know the inner working and underlying reality of things - this underlying reality and dynamism which is the proper object of the soulis not chaotic and in constant flux, but beautifully ordered, unity in diversity, unchanging/permanent. 3\. one must desire and know the underlying reality and dynamism (truth) for its own sake (contemplation) - when one has come to desire and know the underlying reality and dynamism, he must desire it with detachment and disinterestedeness. - one must desire and know it for no other reason except for its own sake, for itself. - This kind of detached meditation is what the Pythagoreans call as contemplation \(ii) DISCOVERING ONE'S TRUE SELF AND INDENTIFYING WITH THE SOUL - When one attains contemplation of its proper object, he begins to discover and identify himself with his soul. - And one is no longer attached, identified and imprisoned by his body 3. Philosophy as Way of Life: Hodos Biou d. Philosophy as a Theoretical Discipline - involves certain discipline in the search and discovery of truth - form of knowledge and speculation e. Philosophy as a Way of Life - philosophical truth discovered through philosophical discipline has orientation, implication for practical, day to day life. - it leads to a particular way of living, valuing, perceiving the day to day life - and one's way of life, how one lives his day to day life leads him to the search and discovery of particular truth. c\) Significance of the Pythagoreans 1. 2. 3. 4. d. **Parmenides and the Eleatic School** a. Parmenides (c. 515 B.C.): Life and Person - According to Diogenes Leartius in his Lives of the Philosophers - Parmenides was born in c. 515 B.C. in Elea, a Greek colony in Southern Sicily (Magna Graecea) - said/claimed to be a pupil of Xenephanes - most probably they did not meet or know each other - though Xenophanes indisputably influenced him - closely associated with Ameinas, a Pythagorean and was said to study under him. He was laid to rest by Ameinas. And in gratitude, Parmenides set up a shrine for him. - because of this, some scholars are led to look but in vain for Pythagorean element in his thoughts. - But he was influenced by the thinking of the Pythagoreans and had direct contact with them considering that the Pythagoreans flourished in this region during his time. - Plato claimed that when Parmenides was around 65 years old (c.450 B.C.), he came to Athens where he talked and debated with the young Socrates. - He founded his own school, known as the Eleatic School - this means that there was a group of persons who studied, followed, defended and developed his thoughts. - He produced one short written work, known by the traditional title, On Nature - Written in verse form, in a particular form of poetry, hexameter i.e. six measure per verse - Consists of three parts: - Prologue - Way of Truth - Way of Opinion - Fragments of this work from different sources: - the whole of the Prologue - most of the Way of Truth - some fragments on the Way to Opinion - his influence on later Ancient Greek Philosophers - Plato dedicated one of his dialogues to Parmenides - through Plato, Parmenides had an unrivalled influence in the course of Western Philosophy. - Aristotle studied the works of Parmenides carefully. b. Thoughts of Parmenides - Introduction: Sources of our study - though substantial portion of his poem, On Nature has survived, its interpretations presents real difficulty - Why? Reasons: - His meaning is rarely plain in the first glance - Some lines are obscure to the point of unintelligibility - Based on his work, we could divide his thoughts into two parts: - Way of Truth - Way of Opinion 1. WAY OF TRUTH - in this part of his work, Parmenides deals with the questions: - What is the way to the truth, the way that leads to the truth? - What is really real? What are the attributes, characteristics of reality? \(a) The Mind as the Way to the Truth - Introduction: Clarification of the Terms - hodos: means way, path, road - methodos: - literally, it means through the way - the means, instrument - Aletheia: unveiling, uncovering, truth - uncovering, unveiling of what is really real, of reality itself, of things as they are. - Way of Truth: - the way/path or instrument that leads to the unveiling of what is really real, of reality in itself, things as they are. - for Parmenides, the path/way of truth is THE MIND (nous) \(i) The only object of the mind is being (what is, what exists, that which exists) - Parmenides began by considering two possible objects of the mind and he saw two possible objects: - what does not exists, or non-being, or that which does not exist - what exists, being, or that which exists - What does not exists or non-being could not be the object of the mind - it is impossible for the mind to know, perceive what is not, what does not exist. - in other words, one cannot think, inquire or know of what does not exists cannot be thought, is not intelligible. - Why? - Not because non-being is inaccessible to the mind or the mind has no access to non-being - but to say that one thinks of nothing is equivalent o saying that one is not thinking at all - or more precisely, it is to say that one is thinking and not thinking at the same time which is absurd, self-contradictory. - The only object of the mind is what exists, or being - Only what exists is what mind knows, perceives, inquires - We can only think of what exists, being, that which exists - Why? - One can only think if he thinks of what exists, being, that which exists. - "For without what is, in which it has been expressed, you will not find thinking." \(ii) There is identity between what one is thinking (object of the mind) and what exists (Being/Reality) - what one is thinking is what really exists, what is really real - what exists is what the mind knows, what mind thinks about \(iii) Criterion of Truth: Intelligibility/Rationality - If there is identity between objects of the mind and reality, then we have a principle, a criterion, a basis on which to discern what is really real from what is not, what is true from what is not true: INTELLIGIBILITY - Whatever the mind conceives, whatever is intelligible to the mind is necessarily real. - Whatever the mind could not conceive, whatever is unintelligible or absurd to the human mind is not real. - Thus, the way to the truth is the Mind. \(b) The Attributes/Properties of Reality, of what Exists - after demonstrating that the mind is the way to the truth, to what really exists, Parmenides now tries to clarify what really real is, the nature of reality, in terms of its attributes/characteristics. - How do we come to know the attributes of what really exists? - With the Criterion of Intelligibility, the mind will lead us to the attributes of being. How? - What is unthinkable/absurd is not the property of what really exists - What is unthinkable is what leads the mind to contradiction, i.e. it makes the mind to affirm what is is what is not, and what is not is what is. - A is not A; Not A is A. - What is thinkable, conceivable is what the properties of being are, i.e. what is affirmed by the mind about being which does not lead to contradiction. \(i) Uncreated and Unperishable - If being is created, this implies transition from non-being to being - If being is perishable, this implies transition from being to nonbeing - Yet the mind could not conceive these transitions without contradicting itself, the mind could only conceive these transitions by contradicting itself. Why? - it has to conceive non-being - but it could not conceive non-being, to conceive nonbeing is not to conceive at all; to think of non-being is not to think at all. - Consequently, the mind conceives non-being which it could not conceive; or the mind conceives non-being and at the same time it does not conceive at all. - This is absurd: a self-contradiction - In order for the mind not to affirm anything absurd about being, it must deny any transition from being to non-being, or nonbeing to being. In short, it must not affirm any form of generation or destruction. - It must affirm that being is ungenerated, indestructible. Only in this way, it could conceive being, without conceiving of nonbeing. Only in this way, it could affirm of something of being without contradicting itself. \(ii) Unchanging - Change implies something new has come to be - Where does this new come from? It either comes from: - What already exists - If this is so, then there is nothing new at all - What does not exist - Since nothing comes from nothing or from nothing, nothing comes - This means that there is nothing new at all. - To affirm that being changes is to affirm that there is something new but there is nothing new at all. Thus, we have a contradiction: there is something new but there is nothing new. - In order not to contradict, one should not predicate change to being; one should not affirm any change in being - Rather, one should predicate permanence to being; one should affirm that being is unchanging. \(iii) Immovable, Indivisible, Full and One - space is nothing, not real, non-being, inconceivable, unthinkable - motion, division, not being full, plurality all imply that space is real. And to say that space is real is contradiction. Thus, one must deny motion, division, plurality and affirm that being is immovable, indivisible, full and one. - Motion: - implies space is real for there is only motion is space is real - but pace is non-being, not real - Thus, we end up affirming that what is not real is real; what is not is; A is not A. - In short, we end up in contradiction when we affirm that being moves - In order not to end in contradiction, we must affirm that being is immovable - Division: - Implies that space is real because one can divide something only because there is space. - But space is not real - Thus, again we end up in contradiction - In order to avoid this, one must deny any division in being; one has to affirm that being is indivisible - Full: - No empty spaces in being; thus we avoid contradiction, i.e. affirming that space which is non-being is real/being - One: - plurality implies space is real because things are many because they are separated by spaces. - but space is not real - thus, again we end up in contradiction; space which is not real is real. - In order not to end up in contradiction, one must only affirm the absolute unity of being, that being is one. \(iv) Spherical - being is not extended infinitely because4 if it were, it could not be conceived as infinity is inconceivable - Thus, there is a limit; being is bounded and it is bounded equally on all sides: spherical Conclusion: the being of Parmenides is a material reality since it is finitely extended and bounded equally on all sides (spherical) though it is ungenerated, indestructible, unchanging, immobile, one and full. 2. WAY OF OPINION \(a) Opinion (doxa) - opinions are appearance, what appears to us, what seems to us - as distinct from the truth (aletheia): reality as it is, being in itself as it is unveiled, unfolded before us \(b) The Objects of the Senses are Opinions - the object of the senses: - what the senses know/perceive is only Opinion (Appearance) - what appears to us, what seems to us - not what reality is, being in itself, what is really real - Why? - Object of the senses; generated, perishing, constant flux, in motion; diverse/plural, in various shapes/figures - while reality in itself, being in itself is: ingenerated, indestructible, unchanging, immobile; one/full; spherical - thus the object of the senses could not be reality in itself but reality as it appears to us, as it appears to the senses. \(c) Non-identity between the Object of the Senses and Reality - what our senses tell us is only and only Opinion (doxa): things as they appear to us, what seems to us - they do not tell us things as they are - Thus, there is no identity between what I perceived by the senses and reality in itself. \(d) Object of the Senses could not be the Criterion of Truth - the objects of the senses could never be the basis for judging/discerning what is true or false. - The senses could never be the way to the Truth but only to opinions. c. Significance of Parmenides 3. The Birth/Rise of Ontology - things manifest different and multiple qualities/characteristics/properties/predicates; things are: - colored -- green,yellow, orange, blue, red, etc. - warm, cold - long, short - large, small - hard, soft - animals - plants - rocks - stars - fire - boat - chair - for Parmenides, these qualities of things are manifested to the senses - these qualities are studied by physics; or physics deal with these qualities - but when things are considered by the mind alone, they manifest a property hich is most universal and the most fundamental: THE PROPERTY OF BEING -- that things exist, that they are. - Being is the most fundamental property of things that the mind discerns because before they are white or red or warm, things are, exist. - Being is the most universal property/predicate because it is the most common property of all things as all things, in so far as they are things exist. - This property manifests itself only to the mind (nous); only the mind grasps, discerns this property. - Parmenides was the first to be interested in clarifying nd understanding this most fundamental and universal property of beings: BEING, EXISTENCE, IS. - First to study things in so far as they are being; study of being qua being (ontology) - Particularly: - What do we mean when we say a thing exists? - What makes an existing thing exist? - What is the fundamental structure/ What are the elements and attributes of being? 4. Distinction between the Mind and the Senses - Parmenides was the first to make a significant and radical distinction between the mind and the senses. He makes distinctions from the two sides: objective and subjective sides. - **From the Objective Side:** - What is known by the senses and what is known by the mind are radically distinct +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | WORLD OF THE SENSES | WORLD OF THE MIND | +===================================+===================================+ | What is known by the senses | What is known by the mind | | | | | Changes, diversity, chaos | Permanence, unity, order | | | | | World of Seeming, Appearance | Real World | | | | | - World as it appears to the | \- Reality in itself, reality as | | senses | it is | | | | | - Not reality itself | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ - **From the Subjective Side:** - the faculty of knowing within man, there is radical distinction between the sense faculty and faculty of the mind +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | FACULTY OF THE SENSES | FACULTY OF THE MIND | +===================================+===================================+ | Grasps the world as changing, | Grasps the world as permanent, | | diverse and chaotic | one and ordered | | | | | Grasps the apparent world, | Grasps the world as it really is, | | seeming world | the real world | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ e. **Heraclitus (c. 500 B.C.)** d. Life and Works - came from Ephesus in Asia Minor, perhaps lives his entire life in Ephesus - he flourished at around 500B.C. - he was a contemporary of Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides - he was much younger than Pythagoras and Xenophanes - much older than Parmenides - was familiar with the thoughts of Pythagoras and Xenophanes but most probably not familiar with the thoughts of Parmenides - there is no evidence that he met them personally - Apart from these, nothing is known for certain about his life. But, we know many legendary stories of his life, especially from the account of Diogenes Laertius, which is not very liable. We take them into consideration simply in order to illustrate the personality of Heraclitus or at least to have a glimpse on how he was known or perceived by an Ancient Greeks. - he was from a royal family of Ephesus and was next in line to the throne, to rule the city. But he surrendered his right in favour of his brother and dedicated himself to philosophy. - when the Ephesians asked him to write laws for them, he refused on the grounds that the city had already been mastered by a wicked constitution. - Furthermore, he remarked that the Ephesians deserved to be hanged down to the last man and they should leave the city to the young fro they expelled Hermodorus, the best man among them and his best friend. - He retired into the temple of Artemis and played dice with children. When the Ephesians stood around him, re remarked (Why are you staring? Isn't it better to do this than to play politics with you?' - He used to say: as a young man, he knew nothing, and when he became an adult, he learned everything from himself. - In the end, he left the city and lived in the mountains where he fed on plants and herbs. - When he contracted a dropsy (excessive fluids in one of his tissue or organ) - he returned to the town/city for cure - he asked doctors in his riddling fashion: if they could change rainstorm into drought. - but they failed to understand his riddle - he buried himself into a dung, hoping that the dropsy would be vaporized by the heat of the dung. - but no success, he eventually dies, probably at around the age of 60. - Character of Heraclitus that we could discern from the legendary accounts: - arrogant, contemptuous of fellow men (misanthrope), sarcastic, impulsive, melancholic - most probably, he wrote a book, in prose form, consisted of unconnected aphorisms but these aphorism were very difficult to understand as testified b; 1\. One Anecdote on Socrates: \- When Euripes gave Socrates copy of Heraclitus book and asked him what he thought of it, he replied: *"What I understand is splendid, and I think that what I don't understand is so too -- but it would take a Delian diver to get to the bottom of it."*

Introductory Lecture: Two Fundamental Approaches to Philosophical Study PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue