Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Pythagoras

(Originally written August 31, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones

Ch. 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy

Parmenides

• Saw that Thales' philosophy suffered from the problem of change.
• Concerned himself with analyzing the concept of change, not particular changes
• He was a monist, believing that reality is fundamentally one
• He added two self-evident premises:
• What is, is
• What is not, is not
• Viewed all change as illusionary
• The notion of change is self-contradictory
• His two self-evident premises are true in tautologies (A is A) but do not remain true when he adds his whole theory to them
• What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. There can be no object existing as nothing.
• Nothing exists is self-contradictory
• Through his monism and two self-evident premises, he deduced that:
• Whatever is, is uncreated
• Is indestructible
• Is eternal
• Is unchangeable
• If things were created they were either created from nothing or out of something. There is no nothing. Thus, if things were created, they were created out of something else. Monism denies that something else exists. Thus, everything that is, is uncreated.
• Things cannot be destroyed because destruction leads to nothing and nothing cannot exist.
• Things that are uncreated and indestructible are obviously eternal.
• Things that change produce nothing out of old things; thus, everything is unchanging

Zeno's Paradoxes

Zeno was a pupil of Parmenides.

He developed a paradox which showed that motion was impossible.

Aristotle's version: "Before any distance can be traversed half the distance must be traversed. These half distances are infinite in number. It is impossible to traverse distances infinite in number" (Jones, 22).

Zeno illustrated the paradox this way. 

A- Achilles

T- a Tortoise

Achilles can begin to pursue the tortoise but, he will never over take it.

Achilles is now where the tortoise began, but the tortoise has moved.

Achilles gets closer to the Tortoise but still has not taken him over. The distance becomes shorter and shorter, but some distance will always separate them.

"These contentions still worry philosophers and mathematicians" (Jones, 23).

Linehan - Why? Zeno has completely ignored concepts of space and time. He has proved something in a vacuum. We do not exist in a vacuum (or the very least not Zeno's version).

Despite the logical reasoning of Zeno, it is at odds with common sense.

The belief and trust in reason over sense perception by some Greek philosophers led to a profound skepticism.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Logical consistency vs. sense perception

Logical consistency has a number of advantages over sense perceptions:

1) It is indubitable

2) It is universal

Rationalists follow logical consistency; empiricists use sensory perception

Neither pure rationalism nor pure empiricism is satisfactory.

The Pluralists

Parmenides argument was hypothetical: if the Milesians' monism is correct, change is impossible.

Parmenides did not question Monism and that is where he failed.

Monism, at least the materialistic form the Milesians pursued, gave way as their premises were questioned. Greek pluralism was born.

Empedocles

Empedocles s the first known pluralist.

He accepted the Parmenidean thesis that nothing is created or destroyed.

He believed that reality was a plenum, a completely full world.

Pluralism replaced monism and motion occurred when two objects exchanged places.

Motion is possible in a plenum, if pluralism is true.

He believed that the many objects were combinations of the four elements: earth, air, fire and water.

Each of the elements was eternal, uncreated, indestructible and unchanging.

There are two types of motion:

1) Love - a motion of uniting things

2) Strife - a motion of separating things and returning to the original element

The world prices was a constant cycle of mixing the four elements. Love is the motion here. Then, gradually, strife replaces love and the four elements begin to be separated. This process continues on and on and on.

The four elements were eternal, the things they created, the things we see, were unstable and finite.

His process anticipated the "survival of the fittest" evolutionary theory.

Empedocles called the process god and worshipped it. He denied his god any anthropomorphic qualities.

Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras was an Ionian and the first critic of Empedocles.

He was troubled by the thought of four elements miraculously coming together in some mixture to form particular things like cabbage or a lion.

He held the Parmenidean notion of change being illusionary.

He believed that:

1) The stuff of the world was eternal

2) There is a many, each one of the many is a Parmenidean one

3) There is a motion within the plenum

He denied that change, resulting in the transformation was possible and maintained that everything existing was a combination of all the stuffs in this world. The particular stuff that is dominant in each thing denotes what that thing is.

Anaxagoras denied Empedocles' two motions of love and strife and replaced them with a single motion: mind.

Mind is material; it sets all things in order.

By setting mind to make all things right he implied purpose, but contradictorily held that mind was purely mechanistic.

Mind (the motion of the world) sets up a vortex which separates the various stuffs from the elements. Eventually, the vortex will rotate wide enough so that every stuff will be separated from every other stuff.

Estimate of Anaxagoras' Theory

The theory of Anaxagoras denied the spirit of the Milesian science.

Empedocles and Anaxagoras failed to solve the basic problems of the Milesians, but they were able to articulate them better.

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans

The life of Pythagoras is virtually unknown and his views are nearly indistinguishable from his followers.

Pythagoras was reported by Heraclitus to have been one of the most scientific men and a religious philosopher.

Pythagoras was born in Samos, but found the colony of Croton in southern Italy around 530 BC.

Croton was a religious fraternity that conducted scientific experiments. They believed that science was a major part of their worship.  

Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras and Pythagoras

(Originally Written August 31, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind Ch. 1 "Pre-Socratic Philosophy"

Parmenides:

-Saw that Thales' philosophy suffered from the problem of change
-Concerned himself with analyzing the concept of change, not just particular changes
-He was a monist, believing that reality is fundamentally one
-He added two self evident principles:
1. What is, is
2. What is not, is not
-Viewed change as illusionary
-The notion of change is self-contradictory
-His two self-evident premises are true as tautologies, but do not remain true when he adds his whole theory to them
-What is not, is not means that there is no nothing. There can be no object existing as nothing
-Nothing exists is self-contradictory
-Through his monism and his two premises, Parmenides deduced that:
1. Whatever is, is uncreated
2. Whatever is, is indestructible
3. Whatever is, is eternal
4. Whatever is, is unchangeable
-If things were created they were either created from nothing or out of something. There is no nothing, thus if things were created they were created out of something. Monism denies that something else can exist and thus, everything is uncreated
-Things cannot be destroyed because destruction leads to nothing and nothing cannot exist
-Things tat are uncreated and indestructible are obviously eternal
-Things that change produce nothing out of the old thing, thus everything is unchangeable.

Zeno's Paradoxes:

-Zeno was a pupil of Parmenides
-He developed a paradox that showed motion was impossible
-Aristotle's version of the paradox: "Before any distance can be traversed, half the distance must be traversed. These half distances are infinite in number. It is impossible to traverse distances infinite in number"
- Zeno illustrated the paradox with Achilles and a Tortoise. Achilles can begin to pursue the Tortoise but he will never overtake it. Achilles may catch up to where the Tortoise has been but the Tortoise has moved. Achilles gets closer to the Tortoise, but still has not taken him over. The distance becomes shorter and shorter but no matter how close Achilles gets, there is always some distance.
-"These contentions still worry philosophers and mathematicians" (Jones, 23).
-Despite the logical reasoning of Zeno, it is at odds with common sense
-The belief and trust in reason over sense perception by some Greek philosophers led to a profound skepticism

Rationalism and Empiricism

-Logical consistency vs. sensory perception
-Logical consistency has a number of advantages over sense perception, it is indubitable and it is universal
-Rationalists follow logical consistency; empiricists use sense perception to guide them
-Neither pure rationalism nor pure empiricism is satisfactory

The Pluralists:

-Parmenides argument was hypothetical: if the Milesians' monism is correct then change is impossible, therefore change is impossible.
-Parmenides did not question the monism and that is where he got off course
-Monism, at least the materialistic form the Milesians pursued gave way as their premise was questioned and in this questioning of the monism premise, Greek philosophy was born

Empedocles:

-Empedocles was the first known pluralist
-He accepted Parmenides' notion that nothing is created or destroyed
-He denied Parmenides' notion that motion is impossible
-He believed that reality was a plenum, a completely full world
-Pluralism replaced monism and motion occurred when two objects exchanged places
-Motion is possible in a plenum if plurality exists
-He believed that the many were combinations of the four elements: earth, air, fire and water
-Each of the elements was eternal, uncreated, indestructible and unchanging
-There are two types of motions:
1. Love - a motion of uniting different things
2. Strife - a motion of separating two things back to their elemental form
-The world process was a constant cycle of mixing the four elements. Love is the dominant motion here. Then, gradually strife replaces love and the four elements begin to be separated. This ebb and flow process continues on and on.
-The four elements were eternal, the things they created, the things we see were however, unstable and finite
-His process anticipated the survival of the fittest evolutionary theory
-Empedocles called the process 'god' and worshipped it. He denied his god any anthropomorphic qualities

Anaxagoras:

-Aanaxagoras was an Ionian and the first critic of Empedocles
-He was troubled by the thought of four substances miraculously coming together in some mixture to form things like cabbage or a lion
-He believed Parmenides had it right when he said that change was illusionary
-He believed that the stuff of the world was eternal
-He believed that there is a many and that each one of the many is a Parmenidean one
-He believed that there is motion within the plenum
-He denied that change resulting in transformation was possible and maintained that everything existent was a combination of all the stuffs in this world. The stuff that is dominant in each particular thing denotes what that thing is.
-Anaxagoras denied Empedocles' two motions of love and strife and replaced it with a single type of motion, mind
-Mind is material and it sets all thing in order
-By setting mind to set all things right he implied purpose, but he contradictorily contended that mind was purely mechanical in essence
-Mind (the motion of the world) sets up a vortex which separates the various stuffs from the elements
-Eventually the vortex will rotate wide enough so that every stuff will be separated from every other stuff

Estimation of Anaxagoras' Theory:

-The theory of Anaxagoras amounted to the denial of the Milesians' scientific spirit
-Empedocles and Anaxagoras did not solve the basic problems the Milesian school faced, but they did articulate them better

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans:

-The life of Pythagoras is virtually unknown and his views are nearly indistinguishable from that of his followers
-Pythagoras was reported by Heraclitus to be one of the most scientific men of his age and a religious philosopher
-Pythagoras was born in Samos and then emigrated to Southern Italy circa 530 B.C. He founded a society at Croton
-Croton was a religious fraternity that was very scientific. They believed their science was a part of their worship

Class Notes on the Pre-Socratics

(Originally Written August 31, 2006 in History I)

Class Notes

"Chris' [paper] is a bit wordy and while he produces warm feelings in my heart, he gets the same amount of points" - Jim Spiegel

Major periods of Ancient Philosophy:

1. Pre-Socratic (6th-5th Century B.C.)
- interested with cosmology and physical philosophy

2. Socratic (5th-4th Century B.C.)
-Socrates, Plato & Aristotle
-mostly focused on ethics

3. Hellenistic (3rd century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Cynicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism

4. Philosophy of the Roman Empire (1st Century B.C. - Middle Ages)
-Stoicism, Neo-Platonism, Early Christian, Neo-Aristotelian, Hellenistic branches

Pre-Socratic Problems:

1. The problem of the one and the many
-Metaphysical: one substance vs. many substances
-Epistemological: universal vs. particulars (what do I know?)

2. The problem of permanence and change
-Metaphysical: flux vs. permanence (What is reality?)
-Epistemological: How do I know perpetual flux or permanence?

Milesian Philosophers:

Thales (circa 624 BC - 546 BC)

-contemporary of Jeremiah, alive during the fall of Jerusalem
-did not write anything
-predicted an eclipse of the sun in 585 BC
-redirected a river for the Ionians during a struggle with Persia
-geometrician of note
-cornered the olive oil market
-very few fragments of his teaching survive:
 "all things are water", "all things are full of soul"
-he was a monist, monism: all reality is made of one stuff
-for Thales, the one stuff was water
-he was a materialist, nothing beyond the physical world exists, everything is matter.
-he was a hylozoist, hylozoism - all material substances have life in them
-he was a naturalist, using naturalistic explanations and mechanistic approaches to problems

Anaximander (circa 610 BC - 545 BC)

-pupil of Thales
-engineer/traveler
-first Greek cartographer
-invented the sun dial
-believed in a catastrophic flood because there were marine fossils in the mountains
-believed that life began in the moist of the world
-early evolutionary theorist
-wrote a treatise
-he was a monist, "apeiron" (the boundless) was his one substance.
-The boundless was natural matter with no determinant qualities, it was an eternal substance
-held a cyclical cosmology - periodic creation and destruction of the universe
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach

Anaximenes (circa 585 BC - 525 BC)

-he was a monist, air was his one stuff/substance
-he accounted for change: Fire <-> Air <-> Wind <-> Water <-> Earth <-> Stone
-he was naturalistic and mechanistic in approach
-he was a materialist

Other Pre-Socratics

Heraclitus (circa 544 BC - 484 BC)

-From Ephesus
-aristocratic
-poet/philosopher
-taught Cratylus (Plato named a dialogue after Cratylus)
-wrote in aphorisms
-known as "the obscure"
-pantheistic to varying degrees
-held a low view of humanity and was very pessimistic

1. Basic Cosmic Elements were not primary
2. Divine Fire - most basic/primary substance (Restless fire)
3. Flux - the constant change
4. Logos - the pattern of life, "formula", "Ratio", "Word", "Pattern"
5. Tension of opposites - strife
6. Human Nature - Ethics, the human soul is part of the Divine Fire and will return to the Divine Fire after death

Quick notes on Hume

(Originally Written August 31, 2006 in Epistemology)

Skepticism regarding the senses in David Hume.

Hume was a Scottish empiricist (1711-1776).

Hume doubted if we could have empirical or metaphysical knowledge.

In Treatise of Human Nature (1739), Hume asks why do we believe in individual physical things? To answer this question he posits three hypotheses:
1) Our knowledge is based on our senses
2) Our knowledge is based on our reason
3) Our knowledge is based on our imagination

Hume rejected the first two, leaving only imagination as the basis of knowledge, but denies that this is a proof.

Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Heraclitus

(Originally written August 30, 2006 in Book 10)

Classics of Philosophy
Louis Pojman

Pre-Socratic Testimonies

Thales

1. [A12] Thales is the origination of the theory that all stuffs in the world came from an original substance. He founded monism. This original substance is constantly changing, yet remains its original self at some level. For Thales, this substance is water. It is water because everything proceeds from the nourishment of water and water is essential for everything's growth. - Aristotle

2. Thales is one of the Seven Wise Men. He was the first to pursue natural philosophy. Water was the beginning and the end of the world. Water is the causal agent of all things occurring naturally. Water, the causal agents is the impersonal force called god; god or water is eternal. In addition to being the first to pursue natural philosophy, was the father of Greek astronomy. - Hippolytus

3. [A22] Thales believed the soul to be a cause of motion. He held that "all things are full of god". Since water is the god and the primary substance, all things are gods or a manifestation of god. Souls are the cause of motion, thus water formed as a soul is a special type of the god that is in all things. - Aristotle

Anaximander

1. [A9] Like Thales, Anaximander believed all things came from a single substance. He denied that this substance was water or any other element. He believed the substance to be one of an indefinite or boundless nature. His poetic language shows how everything continues to change from opposite to indefinite to opposite to bring "Greek" justice to the world of substances. - Simplicius

2. [A10] Anaximander, Thales' companion, held that the boundless was the sole causal agent of origin and destruction in the physical world. He held that time was infinite and cyclical. As for the physical shape of earth, he believed it to be cylindrical. The physical universe was formed by substances breaking off from the boundless, first hot and cold, then a fire which formed earth and the stars. Man's origin came about from an evolution from fish - PseudoPlutarch

3. [A11] The earth is self-sustaining, unsupported by anything. He held we walk on the surface and there is surface opposite that surface. he held the heavenly bodies to be circles of fire, surrounded by air. Eclipses occur when breathing holes are blocked. Living creatures came to be through the moist being evaporated by the sun. Man was originally a fish-like creature. All things in nature originate from other things. - Hippolytus

Anaximenes

1. [A7] Anaximenes believed air to be the source of all other substances. Air produced the gods and all other things came from the divine. Air is perpetual motion and this causes all the changes in the air to produce the substances we all see. Dispersed air becomes fire, condensed air becomes wind, condensed air becomes wind, condensed wind becomes water, condensed water becomes earth, condensed earth becomes rock. Temperature causes the condensing and dispersing. The earth is flat and supported by air. All other heavenly bodies are the same. Like Anaximander, he believes all natural weather is caused by other manifestations of the first substance, in this accuse air. - Hippolytus

2. [B1] Hot or cold are not substances, but properties of substances - Plutarch

Heraclitus

The Word (logos)

1. [B1] The word is forever and forever incomprehensible. The Word is the cause of all things, but men comprehend it as much as they comprehend waking while sleeping.

2. [B40] Collection of data is not knowledge. Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus were collectors.

3. [B50] All things are one, despite their appearances, thus sayeth the Word.

The world is everlasting fire.

4. [B30] The world is uncreated and eternal. It is a fluctuating fire

5. [B31a] Fire became sea, sea became earth and fire, wind.

6. [B90] The substances are exchanges with fire.

7. [B60] Everything that appears different is really the same.

8. [B12] "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow" (Pojman, 14).

9. [A6] All things are in perpetual motion. -Plato

10. Everything is in flux. -Plato

11. [B10] Everything comes from and returns to one thing (which is fire).

12. [B51] Man does not understand that everything comes from and returns to one thing (which is fire).

13. [B88] Everything is opposite, living and dead exist simultaneously in all beings; as one is engaged in proximity to one it is never separated from its opposite.

Soul is fire

14. [B36] Souls die becoming water; water dies becoming earth; but, earth gives brith to water and water to soul

15. [B119] "The character of man is his destiny"

16. [B114] Human law springs up from the divine law and common sense is knowledge of the divine law.

17. God is all opposites as fire is

18. The oracle of Delphi is mysterious, neither revealing nor concealing, only showing signs.

Homer, Hesiod, The Milesians, Heraclitus & Xenophanes

(Originally written August 30, 2006 in Book 10)

Book 10: History of Philosophy I

This note book, or at least the beginning of this notebook is dedicated to the readings for History of Philosophy I.

The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones

Chapter One: "Pre-Socratic Philosophy"

When did Western Philosophy begin?
-In the 6th century B.C. with Thales. Thales is the father of Greek and thus, Western philosophy.
-"But, the history of philosophy itself does not have a definitive starting point" (Jones, 1).

It's impossible to pinpoint a time when there was no philosophy; thus no pinpoint of a beginning. Philosophy began as a gradual continuum and exists in that state today.

God and Nature in Homer

Zeus is not the omnipotent God in Christianity. He is "dominated by the members of his household" (Jones, 4).

The Homeric State was a monarchy, but no king was to be absolute. The nobility and warrior class played a part in limiting the king's power. But, a king often overrode the nobility and nobody complained.

Nature was not viewed as cyclical by Homer. Yes, there were regular occurrences, but when irregularities occurred they were attributed to the gods.

The gods were impulsive and that nature was the cause of life's irregularities.

While the gods were impulsive they operated under some form of rationale. (i.e. they punished Achilles for his excessive anger).

Lack of moderation and hubris (insubordination) were great iniquities for Homer. Arrogance came out of men of excess or hubris. Arrogant men were rarely tolerated by the gods.

In the Illiad Achilles is punished for his lack of moderation: Agamemnon is not punished for his infliction of misery and suffering, but for his violation of the god's regulations.

Homer does not make the gods to be moral role models. He does not believe the divine rules were established by the gods for the benefit of man.

The gods were egotistical, lustful, selfish, vain, unscrupulous, dishonest and childish.

Homer's men worship the gods because they were powerful, not because they are good.

Worship is a business transaction between a god and a man.

Homer's gods are causal agents. They are the cause of the regular state of affairs and the disruptive irregularities of life as well.

Above the dos is a blind will known as fate. Fate was above both gods and men. It was impersonal and unresponsive to anybody's volition.

God and Nature in Hesiod

Hesiod was probably from the 8th century B.C.

To Hesiod, Zeus was justice and justice would eventually punish the wicked and make restitution for the abused.

Homer saw the greatest sin of man being hubris (insubordination) or "not knowing one's place". Hesiod contrastingly saw man's worst iniquity as the oppression of the weak by the strong.

Zeus was moral and powerful enough to enforce the divine law in Hesiod, not the impotent, immoral god of Homer.

"Fate became the concept of a pervasive moral law" in Hesiod. (Jones, 6).

Hesiod sets man apart from the rest of nature. The Greeks took pride in their humanity and believed that humans had to live up to a higher standard than animals, a human responsibility.

Moderation is one of the great differentiators between humans and animals.

Despite Hesiod's innovations, his cosmogony is very anthropomorphic.

Thales

Thales was from Miletus, a Greek colony in Ionia (on the coast of Asia Minor)

He predicted an eclipse in 585 B.C.

He believed water was the cause of all things and that all things were filled with god or filled with soul.

Thales marked a chance for science to be founded; prior to him everything was attributed to the gods. Thales' belief of water as the cause of all things shifts causation from the supernatural to the natural and thus, under the scope of science.

Thales is remembered because he was the first man to answer the question: Why do things happen as they do? without giving a total answer of because of the gods...

Thales assumed that:
1) There is some one thing that was the cause of everything else (monism is born)
2) That the cause was in fact a thing or the "ultimate stuff"
3) The ultimate stuff is active and contains an internal principle of change

The third assumption is what Thales meant by stating that things are full of gods. Gods were causal agents in Ancient Greece. Thus, Thales was stating things happen because "things" change. Since things were causal agents and the common religion held gods to be the sole causal agents, by believing things to be causal agents he called them gods.

Thales marks a chance for an expansion of knowledge for Ancient Greece. It is actualized when Thales' successors acutely critiqued each others' hypotheses and moved from the stage of myth to philosophy.

Anaximander

Anaximander was a Milesian and a younger contemporary of Thales.

He wrote a book and a single sentence survived: "From what source things arise, to that they return of  necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of time" (Jones, 11).

Anaximander agreed with Thales in that:
1) There is a one "stuff"
2) There is a process by which this one stuff becomes the many individual things that exist.

He also added a third:
3) This process is a necessary one

HE believed this first stuff was not water or any other element, but something preceding the elements and this substance was "boundless"

Anaximander contended that water couldn't be the first substance because things that are dry would have to be made of water. This is a logical contradiction and Anaximander exploited it.

Anaximander noticed that the world existed in opposites: hot-cold, wet-dry, etc. Each of these opposites would become its own opposite.

A substance returns to the boundless and reemerges as the opposite or some in betwixt substance.

He believed the world to be overall disorderly and felt the orderliness of the world was an abnormality and needed an explanation.

Anaximander put forth a precursor to modern evolutionary theories to explain how the boundless stuff became the many things in existence.

Anaximenes

Anaximenes was the third Milesian philosopher and critiqued Anaximander's theory the way Anaximander critiqued Thales' theory.

Like the other two Milesians, Anaximenes believed in a one stuff.

Anaximenes doubted the boundless stuff because it had no characteristics. He rejected it because Anaximander's view held conflicting positions: a material evolutionary process and a boundless infinite stuff are incompatible.

He explained that qualitative changes were changes in the destiny of air:
Air dilated becomes fire
Air condensed becomes Wind
Wind condensed becomes water
Water condensed becomes earth
Earth condensed becomes rock

Neither Thales nor Anaximander nor Anaximenes knew anything of scientific experimentation and thus never tested their theories.

The Milesian philosophers were ignorant of scientific method (as were all Greeks) but the Milesians laid the foundation for the scientific method.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus was another Ionian.

HE held that the world was composed of an everlasting fire.

Heraclitus believed the problem of one substance becoming many substances was an insoluble one, as long as the "one substance" is taken to be a material thing.

He held that his one substance, the everlasting fire, was not a material thing, but a process of perpetual change.

Heraclitus proposed everything was in a constant state of flux. He then stated things appear to be still, but that is because the flux is constant. Heraclitus developed the notion of appearances and reality.

Moral and Social Theory

The Milesians were focused on the nature of the physical world. Heraclitus was primarily concerned with man and his destiny.

He believed the social world existed in flux, just like the physical world.

He held war to be the "king of all" and believed strife to be justice. He held this because without strife there can be no peace.

Strife was the hidden tensions between opposites.

His contempt oft he public masses can be summed up in his aphorism: "Asses would rather have straw than gold" (Jones, 17).

Religion

The men who accepted the Milesian science rejected the old religion of Homer and Hesiod. Heraclitus was Milesian in thought and looked down on the public for their adherence to the old religion.

Heraclitus was not an atheist. He believed god was connected to the everlasting fire. He believed this god to be indifferent to men.

His rejection of a personal god, but acceptance of the universal nature of god laid the foundation for the concept of natural law.

Despite his rejection of common Greek religion and a personal deity, his theological concepts of "logos" and man's chief good as being "listening to the logos" were absorbed into Stoicism and Christianity.

Logos was the process for Heraclitus.

He was both a scientific and religious philosopher.

Xenophanes

Xenophanes discovered every man makes god in his own image.

Xenophanes was an Ionian and followed Heraclitus in his religious views.

Xenophanes believed in one God who is not in form or thought like men. This God sees all. But, he was probably still a pantheist like Heraclitus.

The religion of Xenophanes and Heraclitus cut away at the ancient myth religion of Greece and caused the undermining of the Greek society. The collapse of the ancient religion led to the decline of morality in Ancient Greece.

Axiomatic Geometry

The Greeks took a basic geometric understanding from he Egyptians and developed it.

Axiomatic Geometry slowly formed over the 6th and 5th B.C. The Earliest complete text is Euclid's Elements written about 300 BC.

Axiomatic Geometry starts with self-evident statements (axioms) then uses logical reasoning to produce theorems. Theorems are then combined with one another to form more complex theorems and so on. Euclid had a large demonstrable book by the end of his reasoning.

Axiomatic geometry pushed Greeks to rely on reasoning rather than sense perception.

Euclid's theorems were not challenged until the 19th century. "Most of Western Philosophers have regarded it as the paradigm of human reasoning" (Jones, 20).

Ancient testimonials on Anaximander

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

 Classics of Philosophy, Louis Pojman

Anaximander:

1. Like Thales, Anaximander believed all things came from a single substance. He denied though that this substance could be water as Thales held, nor could it be any element. He held that this substance must be one of an indefinite or boundless nature. His poetic language shows how everything continues to change from opposite to indefinite to opposite to bring Greek justice to the world of substances. -Simplicius on Anaximander

2. Anaximander, Thales' companion held that the boundless was the sole causal agent of origin and perishing in this world. He held that time was infinite and cyclical. As for the physical earth he held it to be cylindrical. The physical universe was formed by substance breaking off from the boundless, first hot and cold, then a fire which formed both the stars and earth. Man's origin came about from evolution from fish. -Psuedo Plutarch on Anaximander

3. The earth is self-sustaining, unsupported by anything. He held that we walk on the surface and there is a surface opposite that surface we walk upon. He held the heavenly bodies to be circles of fire, surrounded by air. Eclipses occur when breathing holes are blocked in the sky. Living creatures came to be through the moistness being evaporated by the sun. Man was originally fish-like. All things in nature originate from other things. -Hippolytus on Anaximander

Ancient testimonials on Thales

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

Classics of Philosophy, Louis Pojman

Thales:

1. Thales is the originator of the theory that all stuffs in the world come from an original substance. He founded monism. This original substance is constantly changing yet remains its original self at some foundational level. For Thales, this substance is water and water is essential for everything's growth. -Aristotle on Thales

2. Thales is one of the Seven Wise Men. He was the first to pursue natural philosophy. Water was the beginning and the end of the world. Water is the causal agent of all things occurring naturally. Water, the causal agent is the impersonal force called God. God or water is eternal. In addition to being the first to pursue natural philosopher, he was the father of Greek astronomy. - Hippolytus on Thales

3. Thales believed the soul to be a cause of motion. He held that all things are full of gods. Since water is the God and also the primary substance of all things all things are gods or a manifestation of God. Souls are the cause of motion. Thus, water formed as soul in a special type of the God in all things. -Aristotle on Thales

Axiomatic Geometry

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Axiomatic Geometry:

The Greeks took a basic geometric understanding from the Egyptians and further developed it.

Axiomatic Geometry slowly formed over the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. The earliest complete text is Euclid's Elements written circa 300 B.C.

Axiomatic Geometry starts with self-evident statements (axioms) then uses logical reasoning to produce theorems. Theorems are combined to form more complex theorems and so forth and so on. Euclid had a large demonstrable book by the end of his reasoning.

Axiomatic geometry pushed Greeks to rely on reasoning rather than on sense perception.

Euclid's theorems went unchallenged until the 19th century. Many western philosophers have regarded the Elements as the paradigm of human reasoning.

Xenophanes

(Originally written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Xenophanes:

Xenophanes was an Ionian and followed Heraclitus in his religious views. Xenophanes believed in one god who is not in form or thought like man. Xenophanes' one god saw everything, but he still had pantheistic tones like Heraclitus.

The religion of Xenophanes and Heraclitus cut away at the ancient myth religion of Greece and caused an undermining of the foundations of all Greek society. The collapse of the religion led to the immorality in later Greek life.

Heraclitus

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Heraclitus was an Ionian. He held that the world was composed of an everlasting fire.

Heraclitus believed the problem of one substance becoming many substances an insolvable one so long as the primal substance is taken as a material thing.

Heraclitus believed that the fire which was everlasting was not a "stuff" but a process of perpetual change.

Heraclitus proposed everything was in a constant state of flux. He then stated things appear to be still, but that is only because the flux is constant. Heraclitus developed the notion and subsequent problem of appearances vs. reality.

Heraclitus' Moral & Social Theory:

The Milesians were focused on the nature of the physical world solely. Heraclitus on the other hand, was primarily concerned with man and his destiny.

Heraclitus believed the social world existed in flux just like the physical world.

He held war to be as the king of all and believed that strife is justice. He held this because without strife their could be no peace. To Heraclitus, strife was the hidden tensions between opposites.

Heraclitus was sympathetic to the nobility in his beliefs.

His contempt for the public can be summed up in his aphorism: "Asses would rather have straw than gold" (Jones, 17).

Heraclitus' Religion:

The men who accepted the Milesian science rejected the old religion of Homer & Hesiod. Heraclitus was Milesian in thought and looked down at the public for their adherence to the old religion. Heraclitus was not an atheist though. He believed god was inextricably connected to the eternal process of change. He believed the god to be indifferent to men.

Heraclitus rejected the notion of a personal god, but his retention of the universal nature laid the foundation for his belief in the concept of natural law.

Despite his rejection of common Greek religion and a personal deity, his theological concept of "logos" and man's chief good as listening to said "logos" became absorbed in later Stoic and Christian traditions. "Logos" was the social process for Heraclitus.

Heraclitus proved to be both a scientific and religious philosopher.

Heraclitus in his own words and Plato on Heraclitus

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

Classics of Philosophy, Louis Pojman

Heraclitus:

The Word (Logos)

1. The Word is forever and forever incomprehensible. The Word is the cause of all things, but man comprehends it as much as they comprehend waking while sleeping.

2. Collection of data is not knowledge. Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus were collectors but not knowledgeable.

3. All things are one, despite their appearances, thus sayeth the Word.

The World is Everlasting Fire

4. The world is uncreated and eternal. It is a fluctuating fire.

5. Fire became sea, sea became earth and fire became wind.

6. The substances are exchanges with the fire.

7. Everything that appears different is actually the same.

8. "On those stepping into rivers staying the same other and other waters flow"

9. All things are in perpetual motion - Plato on Heraclitus

10. Everything is in flux - Plato on Heraclitus

11. Everything comes from and returns to one thing, which is fire.

12. Man does not understand this coming and returning to the fire.

13. Everything is opposites, living and dead exist simultaneously in all beings as one is engaging in proximity to one or the other, but cannot be fully separated from its opposite.

Soul is Fire

14. Souls die, becoming water, water dies, becoming earth, but earth births water and water births soul.

15. "The character of man is his destiny"

16. Human laws spring from divine law and common sense is knowledge of the divine law.

17. God is all opposites just like fire.

18. The Oracle of Delphi is mysterious, neither revealing nor concealing, only showing signs.

Anaximenes

(Originally written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Anaximenes:

Anaximenes was the third Milesian philosopher and critiqued Anaximander's theory the way Anaximander had critiqued Thales' philosophy. Anaximenes was a younger contemporary of Anaximander.

Like Thales and Anaximander, Anaximenes believed in the one stuff (monism). But unlike Thales' water or Anaximander's boundless, Anaximenes believed that one stuff to be air.

Anaximenes doubted the boundless stuff because it had no characteristics. He rejected it because Anaximander's view held conflicting points: a material evolutionary process and a boundless infinite stuff were incompatible in Anaximenes' mind.

He held that qualitative changes could be explained as changes in the destiny of air. Air dilated into a rarer form became fire. Air condensed became wind. Wind condensed became water. Water condensed became Earth. Earth condensed became rock.

Neither Thales nor Anaximander nor Anaximenes knew anything of experimentation and thus, never tested their theories.

The Milesian philosophers were ignorant of scientific method (as were all Greeks), but the Milesians laid the foundations for the scientific method.

Anaximander

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Anaximander:

Anaximander was also from Miletus and was a younger contemporary of Thales.

He wrote a book and a single sentence has survived: "From what source things arise, to that they return of necessity when they are destroyed; for they suffer punishment and make reparation to one another for their injustice according to the order of time" (Jones, 11).

Anaximander agreed with Thales' presuppositions that A) there is a one stuff (monism) and B) there is a process by which this one stuff becomes the many things that exist. To these two he added a third presupposition, C) this process is a necessary one.

He believed that this first stuff was not an element like water, but something that preceded the elements and that this substance was boundless.

Anaximander contended that water couldn't be the first substance because things that are dry would have to have been made by water. There is a logical inconsistency in Thales' theory and Anaximander exploited it.

Anaximander noticed that the world existed in opposites: hot-cold, wet-dry, etc. Each of these opposites would eventually become the other. They did that by returning to the boundless substance and then reappearing as a substance's opposite.

He believed the world to be overall disorderly and felt that the orderliness of the world had to be explained.

Anaximander put forth a pre-cursor to modern evolutionary theories to explain how the boundless stuff became the many things in existence.

Ancient testimonials on Anaximenes

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

Classics of Philosophy, Louis Pojman

Anaximenes

1. Anaximenes believed air to be the source of all other substances. Air produced the gods and all other things came from these divine beings. Air is in perpetual motion and this causes all of the changes in the air to produce the substances we all see. Dispersed air becomes fire, condensed air becomes wind, condensed wind becomes water, condensed water because earth and condensed earth becomes rock. Temperature causes the condensing and dispersing of air. All other heavenly bodies are the same. Like Anaximander, he believes all natural weather is caused by other manifestations of the first substance, in his case, air. - Hippolytus on Anaximenes

2. Hot or cold are not substances, but properties of substances in Anaximenes. - Plutarch on Anaximenes

Thales

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Thales:

Thales was from Miletus, a Greek colony in Ionia (on the east coast of Asia).

He predicted an eclipse in 585 B.C.

He believed waster was the cause of all things and that all things were filled with gods.

Thales marks a chance for science to be founded. Prior to him everything was attributed to the supernatural. Thales' belief of water being the cause of all things brings causes under the dominion of the natural world and thus, under the umbrella of science.

Thales is remembered because he was the first man to answer the question, why do things happen as they do? without giving an answer that began or ended with because of the gods.

Thales assumed:
1) There is some one thing that was the cause of everything else (monism)
2) That the cause was in fact a thing or an 'ultimate stuff'
3) The ultimate stuff is active and contains an internal principle of change

The third assumption is what Thales means by stating that things are full of gods. Gods were causal agents in Greek thought. Thus, Thales was stating that things happen because things change, not because gods change things. The idea of processes was born in Thales' philosophy.

Thales marks a chance for an expansion of knowledge for ancient Greece. This expansion manifested itself as Thales' successors acutely critiqued each others' works and submitted an improved hypothesis moving away from mythology towards philosophy.

Homer & Hesiod

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in History I)

The Classical Mind by W.T. Jones

Chapter 1: Pre-Socratic Philosophy

When did western Philosophy begin? In the 6th century with Thales.
Thales was the father of Greek philosophy.

"But, the history of philosophy itself does not have a definitive starting point" (Jones, 1).

It's impossible to pinpoint a time when there was no philosophy, thus no pinpoint of a beginning. Philosophy began as a gradual continuum and exists that way presently.

God and Nature in Homer:

Zeus is not the omnipotent God of Christianity. He is dominated by the members of his household analogous to a human father of ten is.

The Homeric state was a monarchy, but no king was absolute. The nobles and the warriors played a part in limiting the kings' powers. But a king often overrode the wishes of the nobility and no one dared complain.

Nature was not seen as a cyclical event in Homer. Yes, there were regular occurrences, but when irregularities occurred they were attributed to the acts of the gods.

The gods were impulsive and they acted in some sort of rational manner, i.e. punishing Achilles for his excess.

Lack of moderation and hubris (insubordination) were the great iniquities in Homer. Arrogance came out of men of excess or hubris. Arrogant men were rarely tolerated by the gods.

In the Illiad, Achilles was punished for his lack of moderation. Agamemnon is not punished for his causing misery and suffering, but for his violation of the gods' regulations.

Homer does not make the gods to be moral role models. He does not believe the divine rules were established for man's benefits. The gods are egotistical, lustful, selfish, vain, unscrupulous and dishonest.

Homer's men worship the gods because they are powerful, not because they are good. Worship is a business transaction between a particular god and man.

Homer's gods are causal agents. They are the cause of the regular state of affairs and the cause of all the disruptive irregularities of life.

Above the gods is a blind will known as fate. Fate was above both gods and men, unresponsive to anyone's volition.

God & Nature in Hesiod:

Hesiod was probably from the 8th century B.C.

Hesiod wrote against the power grabbing of the nobility.

To Hesiod, Zeus was justice and justice would eventually punish the wicked and correct the abuse.

Homer saw the greatest iniquity of man as insubordination or not knowing one's place in life. Hesiod saw the greatest iniquity of man to be the oppression of the weak by the strong.

Zeus was moral and powerful enough to enforce the law in Hesiod. "Fate became the concept of a pervasive moral law" in Hesiod (Jones, 6).

Hesiod sets man apart from the rest of nature. The Greeks took pride in their humanity and believed that humans had to live up to a higher standard than animals, a human responsibility. Moderation is one of the great differentiating aspects between humans and animals.

Despite Hesiod's innovations, his cosmogony was very anthropomorphic.

The Doom of Descartes

(Originally Written August 30, 2006 in Epistemology)

PHI 432 Epistemology
Dr. James Spiegel

Plato - knowledge = justified true belief

Epistemology - the science of knowing and the study of knowledge

History of Epistemology

Plato defines knowledge as a justified true belief and it's all good until Descartes.

Descartes sets off the Modern Epistemological revolution. He states that "the knower" is the starting point of knowledge.

Socrates, Aristotle and Plato all assumed that we can know. Descartes does not assume this. Thus, when Descartes calls into question the ability to know and sets the standard of knowledge as indubitable, he dooms modern epistemology to absolute skepticism.

Love of Wisdom

(Originally Written August 29, 2006 in History I)

Philosophy - Philo + Sophia meaning love of wisdom

Branches of Philosophy:
1. Ontology - study of being
2. Epistemology - study of knowledge
3. Axiology - study of value

Thoughts on Logic and God

(Originally written August 27, 2006 in Book 6)

Wow! It's been almost two weeks since I've read or wrote in a journal. That's sad. I'm ashamed of myself.

Well, I was dealing with mind on the 15th, but I don't really feel like staying on that topic at all. I am fixated currently on simples, composites and beings.

I have recently thought about the notion of God being a metaphysical simple and I cannot accept this though.

A simple is a single entity that cannot be dissolved or broken down. If God were a simple he would have only one characteristic. If the Bible is true and Yahweh is the true God, then the idea of God as a metaphysical simple is obviously false. God is triune and thus a composite of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. While all three combined are one, each is completely distinct.

Let's first deal with the idea of a triune God. A being that is one and yet three at the same time is a logical impossibility. Logic therefore demands that we deny this being's existence or accept a logical impossibility. But I wish to show that this set of choices is actually a logical error in and of itself.

How is the law of contradiction a fallacy? If the law of contradiction does not present all of the posiblitites then it is guilty of the fallacy of the excluded middle. The options that God does not exist (the Christian triune one) or accepting a logical fallacy is not the whole conclusion.

The Christian God is not physical. Therefore, applying physical laws to him is illogical. laws that pertain to bodies cannot hold bodies beings in their rules. Thus, logical laws, which apply in this world needn't necessarily apply to God.

I can't concentrate!

Italian Renaissance - Russell

(Originally written August 17, 2006 in Book 7)

Well, I haven't delved into Russell's book in about two and a half weeks. It's time to get back to the basics.

Stress. What a common feeling these days.

"The Italian Renaissance"

Florence was the most cultured city in the civilized world at the time.

Florence was divided into three conflicting classes:
1) The Nobles (mainly Ghibellines)
2) The rich merchants (Guelf)
3) The small men (Guelf)

The Guelf defeated the Ghibellines in 1266.

In the 14th century the small men over powered the rich merchants.

The conflict resulted in Democracy, but the Medici family ultimately took control of Florence.

Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464) was the first of the family to dominate Florence uncontestedly.

Lorenzo the Magnificent (Cosimo's grandson) reigned from 1469-1492.

Lorenzo's son, Pietro was expelled in 1494 and a puritan sort of revival lasted in Florence until the Medici were restored in 1512.

Pope Leo X was elected in 1513. He was one of Lorenzo's sons.

The Medici family governed Florence until 1737 under the title of Grand Dukes of Tuscany.

The temporal power of the Pope increased dramatically during the Renaissance. The increase of temporal power robbed the Papacy of its spiritual authority.

Italy was dedicated to culture, but not to morality during the Renaissance.

Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) was the first humanist Pope.

Humanism began to replace piety and orthodoxy until the sack of Rome in 1527.

Pope Leo X (1513-1521) marked a return to spiritual reformation in the Papacy. It was needed after the world popes of the Renaissance.

Naples and Milan were constantly subject to invasion by the French but were defeated by Spanish troops. Spain was closely allied with the Pope.

The Reformation, Counter-Reformation and the sack of Rome by a Protestant army in 1527 put the Italian Renaissance to an end.

The Renaissance was not a time of great philosophical growth.

The Renaissance did set up the great philosophical advance of the 17th century with two things:
1) A real interest in Plato
2) A choice between Aristotelian Scholasticism and Platonism. It broke down the rigid scholastic system.

The humanist movement was too focused on rediscovering ancient wisdom to produce any original philosophy.

The humanists disliked the way the world popes of the renaissance defiled the Church, but were too involved in the same pope's courts to initiate reform.

"The evils of papal corruption were obvious, but nothing was done about them" (Russell, 503).

Morals were low in this time, but architecture, painting and poetry prospered. Leonardo, Michelangelo and Machiavelli were produced in this time.

Metaphysics - Chapter 12

(Originally written August 13, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Ch. 12 - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 12 - Concluding Meditation

Van Inwagen doubts that any metaphysical mystery or unresolved question will be solved or answered.

So today she asked me to be her fiancee and not her husband. Not yet. Which basically means that she does not want a physical or any physical aspect of the relationship. I still need to be the husband financially, emotionally and every other facet - but, to hell with the physical aspect. That's so fucking easy for her. Fuck my wishes. They are not as important. I'm so pissed off. I've been trying to get a hold of her since 7 pm. It's now 10:45. No luck. Of course not. She's probably busy with a friend. I have a sickening feeling that she's doing something with Brad. I might lose my mind if she is.

Well, I finished van Inwagen's book Metaphysics. I don't agree with him on very many issues. I can't quite put my finger on it though.

Metaphysics - Ch. 11

(Originally written August 13, 2006 in Book 11)

Life is shit. It will always be shit. Dress it as nice as you can, but never allow hope to fill you because then the shit tastes worse than ever.

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 11 - The powers of Rational Beings & the Freedom of the Will

Determinism vs. Free-Will

Common opinion holds that free-will is required by morality.

Free Will is the possibility of having choices then consciously making a choice between alternatives. Determinism holds that there is only one possibility and thus, no choice.

Determinism holds that while it appears that choices are being made between alternatives there are not really alternatives because the laws of nature demand a set future.

Incompatiblists hold that free will and determinism are incompatible. Compatibilsts hold that free-will and determinism are in fact, compatible.

Hobbes, Hume and John Stuart Mill were compatabilists. Kant was not a compatibilist.

Humean cause and effect declares that causes and effects are always events (also called event-causation).

Agent-causation states that events can be caused by agents, i.e. a person.

Metaphysics - Ch. 9 (B)

(Originally written August 11, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 9 (continued)

The relativity of identity theory and fourth dimensionalism are strange. "Very few philosophers have any sympathy with the theory of relativity of identity" (van Inwagen, 175). There are a few solid proponents of fourth dimensionalism but most regard it as a crazy metaphysic.

Van Inwagen asks can a physicalist believe in the identity of a human person without appealing to the relativity of identity or fourth dimensionalism? He answers yes, citing that living organisms (humans) are "a kind of storm of atoms that is constantly, and very rapidly changing its membership".

Linehan - I would say then in order to accept it we must have solid proofs or evidence of physical thoughts. If physicalism is correct then philosophy necessarily must be an empirical science. If everything is physical then everything must be physically observable. It may be that we are not scientifically advanced enough to observe physical thoughts, but I find no compelling reason to believe this. It is like a belief in aliens. We cannot prove or disprove their existence, but I find no compelling reason to believe they exist.

It seems that physicalism is incompatible with life after death. But, the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead "implies that our future life is not something that happens in the natural course of events" (van Inwagen, 178). But the resurrection of the dead not combined with a belief in a non-physical soul is problematic.

Arguments for physicalism

There are four arguments which van Inwagen believes tips the scale in physicalism's favor.

1) The interaction argument - it is a difficult task to understand how a non-physical thing could interact with a physical thing. Why even try?

2) The argument from common speech: common speech shows that we perceive ourselves as something physical.

3. The remote control argument - Dualism operates like a remote control. The consciousness is like the remote and a TV is the body. If dualism is right then a blow to the TV would damage the body but leave the consciousness alone. But, if a person is struck in the head they lose consciousness. Thus, there can be no remote, except an internal, physical one.

4) The duplication argument (van Inwagen calls this the strongest argument for physicalism). A duplicating machine will produce an exact replica of a human being and the replica will have all the static and dynamic characteristics of the real human being.

Plato would say that the duplicate would be cloned dead. Descartes would say that the duplicate would be mindless and simply be a human organism, incapable of thought and sensation.

Van Inwagen states that he has shown physicalism more plausible than dualism, but nonetheless though and feeling remain "impenetrable mysteries".

Linehan's arguments against these four:

1) The interaction argument - The non-physical cannot easily causally interact with the physical. Rain makes people sad. A physical action outside of a person's body causes an emotion inside of a person. Even if this is a totally physical phenomena it is just as difficult to explain as a non-physical - physical causal relation. Why would an unconscious thing be painful enough to affect a conscious thing?

2) The argument from common speech - this argument is ridiculous. Language is symbolic and used to make the communication of ideas easier. Colloquialisms and slangs prove my point. Sam could say that a car "X" is cool or hot without meaning physical temperature. It is an expression.

3) The remote-control argument - This is a good argument, I need more time to consider it.

4) The duplication argument (the strongest) - Pure hypothetical nonsense.

Metaphysics - Chapter 9 (A)

(Originally written August 10, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Chapter 9 - The Nature of Rational Beings: Dualism and Physicalism

Human Nature is a set of characteristics of rationality.

What makes humans capable of rationality? How is rationality realized? How is conscious experience realized? Answers to these questions are difficult to come by and belong to the field of philosophy of mind rather than metaphysics. Metaphysics can answer the question: what kind of thing is a human being? The answer to this will partially answer the previous questions.

What kind of thing is a human being? There are two seriously taken schools of thought today: 1) physicalism and 2) dualism.

Physical things are beings made up entirely of three elementary particles: up-quarks, down-quarks and electrons. Non-physical things are things not made up of any physical parts. Composite things are things made of both physical and non-physical parts.

Physical properties are properties possessed by physical things.

"The thesis the human persons are physical things is called physicalism" (van Inwagen, 151).

Physicalism is also a theory that the only individual things that exist are physical objects.

Dualism is the thesis that human beings are non-physical things.

Some idealists hold that there are only non-physical things.

Dualists believe that human beings have a dual nature. They hold that the person is a non-physical thing but its intimately connected with a physical human organism, the body.

How do the person of humans "x" and the human organism "x" interact?

Dualistic interactionism is one theory of how they interact. It states that the person X is in a 'cause and effect' relationship with organism X.

The account of the causal relations between person X and a certain organism X that make that organism person. X's body is dualistic interactionism. Dualistic interactionism holds that a person (non-physical) and its corresponding organism (physical) can affect one another.

Plato & Descartes were interactionists.

Some metaphysicians who are dualists reject dualistic interactionism because of the problems associated with a non-physical thing being able to effect a physical thing.

Descartes' follower Nicholas Malebranche proposed a theory called occasionalism. Occasionalism holds that when a person wills to do something with its physical body, God or some other being appropriates things to happen in the way a person wills it to. Changes in person or organism are to caused by each other. Changes are 'occasions'.

Another dualistic alternative to interactionism is 'epiphenomenalism'. Epiphenomenalism comes from the Greek word meaning 'by-product'. It holds that changes in a person can be caused directly by changes in a particular organism, but changes in the person never causes changes in that organism.

Dualistic interactionism does not demand that person can exist apart from its correlating organism.

Plato, an interactionist, believed that the soul (the person) would automatically continue to exist when its correlating body died. His argument for this was: the soul is a metaphysical simple and that a thing can only cease to exist by coming apart and since a soul is simple it cannot come apart.

Physicalists hold that the person is or is a part of the organism so they don't have any mind-body problems. Physicalists hold that emotions or any mental changes are merely changes of quarks and protons and how they are interacting.

The 'identity theory' is the theory that holds that emotions or mental changes are certain physical changes in the cerebral cortex.

Some philosophers and psychologists deny that mental changes take place altogether; i.e. behaviorism and eliminative physicalism.

The two most important theories about the nature of human beings are dualistic interactionism and physicalism (with the identity theory). Can either theory be proven or shown to be superior to the other?

Dualistic Arguments:
1. Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy
-I can conceive of my body not existing
-I cannot conceive of myself not existing
-Thus, body and otherwise personhood are not the same
-Since personhood is not tied up with physical existence then personhood is not physical by nature.

Descartes' argument is flawed because he used the true principle. If 'X' has a property 'Y' lacks, then X is not identical with Y, but misapplied the term 'can be conceived by me not to exist' as a name of a property.

2. Another argument for dualism
- Physical things are incapable of thought and sensation
- Mental things are capable of thought and sensation
- Human persons are capable of thought and sensation
- Therefore, human persons are not physical things

Two questions arise from this argument
1) Why should we believe that physical things are incapable of thought and sensation?
2) What is a mental thing?

If physical things could have thoughts or feelings then we would be able to observe physical or material things like thoughts. We cannot however find these thought, thus there must be something other then a physical thing to hold thoughts: a mind or a mental thing.

Physicalists would agree that the physical things called thoughts are mysterious and we could not recognize them.

Thought and sensation are mysterious by nature and it does not matter whether you are a physicalist or a dualist, they are mysterious.

Since the dualist demands the existence of non-physical things and the physicalist demands the existence of physical things (that are equally unknowable or mysterious as non-physical things) it would seem that the dualist faces more challenges than the physicalist.

Another argument for dualism consists of supposing that there exists a rational being that is physically radically different to us. This is entirely possible. Thus, a being that is rational is therefore similar to humans but since it needn't posses a similar brain then physicalism seems to fail.

If physicalism is true then our physical brain mysteriously produces physical thoughts. But, if there theoretically exists a rational being physically dissimilar to us then how can a physical phenomena produce thought? Physicalists would argue stating, can there really be a rational being that differs so radically from humans? Then a proponent of this argument could argue that type-token distinction can prove that it is hypothetically possible for a rational being to exist that is radically different from humans. [A type is an event, i.e. death. A token is a particular type, i.e. Lincoln's death]. Thus by examining the type: death, and various tokens of of death: Lincoln, Caesar, My Grandad (Ed Linehan), Princess Di. My Grandad's death was from natural causes (heart failure). Princess Di's death was from a car wreck. Lincoln and Caesar were assassinated. All four are tokens of the type death. But Lincoln and Caesar are also tokens of the type assassination. A person can argue that rationality is thus a type and man's rationality is therefore a token of a type.

Type-Type physicalism claims that every mental event-type is identical to a physical event-type. Type-Type physicalism is such a strong thesis that few physicalists accept it.

Token-Token physicalism claims that each concrete mental event is identical with a concrete physical event, a particular change in the physical state of someone's brain.

Dualism can account for the "so-called identity of the person across time". Physicalism cannot. If physicalism is true then each human is a hunk of matter, a certain assemblage of atoms or elementary particles. But, no human being is the exact same hunk of matter he or she was ten years ago. This makes physicalism seem absurd.

Dualists do not face this problem because they hold the the human person is a metaphysical simple, a thing without parts.

Physicalists will sometimes state that a human person existing over time with a personal identity is merely a fiction used to make explanations easier. They maintain that no one who existed ten years ago exists today but we can say that they do for simplicity's sake.

Some physicalist philosophers offer "psychological continuity theories of personal identity" stating that the hunk of matter composing person X ten years ago causally created memories that the hunk of matter composing person X today now carries.

No matter what thought, causal relations cannot connect two completely different hunks of matter without a distorted view of identity or how things persist through time.

Proponents of psychological continuity must make a strange assumption about identity or how things persist in time. Those that do not are inconsistent. (A strange assumption is not equal to an absurd assumption. Physics is full of strange assumptions).

The first assumption is that there is no such thing as identity. The relativity of identity theory can state that X is the same person as Y, but X is not the same combination of matter as Y. By using the relativity of identity theory, physicalists can state that a person is the same through time because the way that the person's mental properties now have evolved from the person's mental properties ten years ago causally.

The second assumption is that human beings are not 3-D things that persist through time, human beings are 4-D things that are extended in time.

Some philosophers hold that in addition to the 3-D region of space that every human occupies the y also occupy a region along the space-time lne.

Four-dimensionalism does not therefore have to rely on the relativity of identity theory, they merely have to state that the person X ten years ago is a part of the same person (though a different one) that exists currently.

In essence a person exists in dimensions we don't always see. The person exists over a span of space-time but in our 3-D world we only observe the part that exists at that very moment.

Four dimensionalists hold that no atom is a part of a human only that a part of an atom was a part of a particular human at some point in time. Four dimensionalists believe though that we are composed entirely of atoms, but they have difficulty because in reality they state, "each momentary three-dimensional cross section of me is composed entirely of momentary cross sections of atoms" (van Inwagen, 174).

Metaphysics - Ch. 7

(Originally written August 7, 2006 in Book 6)

Metaphysics - Peter van Inwagen

Introduction to Part Three: The Inhabitants of this world

What makes a being rational? A capability to make statements, give orders and ask questions. Rationality is a great divide between animals and humans. Animals are completely irrational; they do not have it.

Chapter 7: What Rational Beings are there?

1. Human (only undisputed existence)
2. God
3. angels
4. gods
5. elves
6. fairies
7. trolls
8. rational aliens
9. rational computer
10. rational robots

Why are there rational beings?
1. They were created with a purpose by a personal deity
2. They exist due to an impersonal force (meaningful)
3. They exist as a necessary truth
4. They exist simply by chance.

Scientifically, the probability of life beginning on earth is incredibly unlikely. Given the enormously rare chance of the cosmos existing in the fine-tuned manner it does, it is plausible that it exists in such a way because it has been fine-tuned by a designer.

Diary Entry: 8/6/06

(Originally written August 6, 2006 in Book 5)

There is enough of left of this book to state anything uber serious so I'm just gonna recap my life recently. Firstly, the wedding is coming up in 90 days. 90 days and I'm going to be married. Wow. I'm nervous, excited and scared that things aren't fully planned yet.

Recently I've been struggling a lot with her past, specifically B___. I know in my head it's in the past. Why can't my heart come to the same conclusion. It's tough. My body gets all tense and I get this sick feeling in my stomach every time I think about it. I'm not sure what to do about it. The feelings are very acute and don't last very long. They don't come often, but it is painful, extremely painful, when they do. It makes me sick and I get this weird feeling in my shoulders. The amazing thing is that the sound of her voice is what gets me through the pain when I'm at work. It's the touch of her that gets me through when I'm at home. Love is a funny thing you know?

Secondly, we have a friend of hers staying with us at the apartment. She is in college and had to leave an abusive home situation. It's really sad to see families torn apart. It's my solemn promise to never produce a home that is abusive and to protect it from all forms abuse.

This brings me to the subject of children. I'm nervous and anxious about how she is going to handle a pregnancy. I'm also scared that she might have another miscarriage. I hope and pray that she will be blessed with the strength to handle it and that she will be spared any more heartache. I ask also for the strength to support her as best as I can.

I don't know when we are going to start having kids. I don't want to wait a long time. I mean if we wait until our bachelor's degrees are done then it is two years. If we go to the Dominican then there's another two years. That makes us like 26 or 27, meaning we are like 44 or 45 when they finish high school. That makes me nervous if we have four or five kids because we'll be somewhere between 50 & 60 when they youngest graduates. I guess I don't have to worry about this too much now.

I don't know what it is about this time of year, but I get very distracted in my studies. It's only been two years that I've really pursued reading for my own works, but last year at this time I had a hard time focusing. I'm ready for school I guess.

I've been painting a lot recently. I don't know why. It seems to be my passion-do-jour.

I hate this job. The hours are horrible. Friday 4pm - 8am. Saturday 4pm - 10pm. Sunday 4pm - 8 am. But we desperately need the cash. I'm struggling so bad with debt. I'm trying so hard but I can't seem to break through. I hope she can pick up a couple of weddings or senior portrait clients. That would be great for us financially and I know she'd enjoy it a lot. She is truly a gifted artist, but she lacks confidence right now. I think if she made some money doing this stuff it would really boost her confidence.

Well, it looks as if this book is coming to an end. I hope I can focus myself well enough to finish my two current projects. I am attempting to write a fiction book called "Project Utopia" and a book on my metaphysical beliefs. I really want to accomplish these goals, but I am already losing interest in the projects. I pray for persistence, something I really lack.

As I come to the end of another notebook where do I stand? I am understanding more and more philosophy but am I making a difference in anything? I wonder if I will ever accomplish anything in the realm of philosophy. I wonder if I will ever finish what I start. I have so many questions and I do not know if I will ever get the answers. Can I be content with God and what He provides for me? I hope so because that is all I can ever hope for.

End of Book 5: 7/16/06 - 8/6/06

Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is continued in Book VII on page 19.

Fundamentalism

(Originally written August 4, 2006 in Book 5)

I'm sitting here watching PBS and there is some woman putting forth some of the most subjectivist, relativist hogwash. She is a Buddhist "nun". I use quotations because any religion that is not Christianity that uses terms like 'nun' or 'monk' is a perversion of the word.

She's sitting here talking about how the 'evils' of fundamentalism have harmed the world. Fundamentalism to a bad cause is evil, but fundamentalism to the true cause is as righteous as wicked men can hope to get. It sickens me that the word 'fundamentalist' has negative connotations. It is an utter shame.