The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter X: Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy
The Hegira took place in 622. Syria was invaded and conquered by 636. By 650 Persia was conquered. India was invaded in 664. Egypt was conquered in 642. Carthage in 697. Spain was conquered by 712. But at the battle of Tours in 732 the Western expansion of Islam (outside of Sicily and Italy) was halted.
Islam began as a simple monotheism, a revival against graven images and a duty-bound ideal to conquer the world.
The various sects of Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians living under the conquest of the Arabs were free to practice their religion if they paid a fee. "The populations, moreover, in order to escape the tribute, very largely abandoned Christianity for Islam" (Russell, 421).
The Arabs were primarily concerned with conquest and plunder. Because wealth was their primary concern and not religion, they were able to rule a large territory of people that didn't share the same religion as their rulers. "The Persians, on the contrary, have been, from the earliest times, deeply religious and highly speculative. After their conversion, they made out of Islam something much more interesting, more religious, and more philosophical, than had been imagined by the Prophet and his kinsmen" (Russell, 421).
The Sunni and Shiah split right after the death of the Prophet. The Persians, who became Shiah, helped overthrow the first Islamic rulers, the Umayyad dynasty in the middle of the 8th century.
The Abbasids who replaced the Umayyads were much more fanatical in their adherence to doctrine.
Trade was essential in the Islamic world and the trader was venerated because Mohammed had been a trader.
"The distinctive culture of the Muslim world, though it began in Syria, soon came to flourish most
in the Eastern and Western extremities, Persia and Spain" (Russell, 423).
Kindi was the first to write philosophy in Arabic. The Persians were heavily influenced by India. Firdousi, (Ferdowsi) the author of Shahnama comes from this tradition and is regarded as to be the equal of Homer.
Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was born in Bukhara (Modern Uzbekistan) in 980 and lived until 1037. His philosophy is more Aristotelian and less Neoplatonic than his Muslim predecesssors.
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was born in Cordova and lived from 1126-1198. Averroes was often seen as a heretic and after the Reconquista Islamic philosophy stopped being speculative. In Spain because of the Christian encroachment and in the rest of the Islamic world because a rigid orthodoxy became the norm.
"Averroes, like most of the later Mohammedan philosophers, though a believer, was not rigidly
orthodox. There was a sect of completely orthodox theologians, who objected to all philosophy as
deleterious to the faith. One of these, named Algazel, wrote a book called Destruction of the
Philosophers, pointing out that, since all necessary truth is in the Koran, there is no need of
speculation independent of revelation. Averroes replied by a book called Destruction of the
Destruction. The religious dogmas that Algazel specially upheld against the philosophers were the
creation of the world in time out of nothing, the reality of the divine attributes, and the
resurrection of the body. Averroes regards religion as containing philosophic truth in allegorical
form." (Russell, 426).
Maimonides, the important Spanish Jewish philosopher spent most of his life in Cairo. He reconciled Aristotle with Jewish theology and believed that "philosophy and revelation come together in the knowledge of God. The pursuit of truth is a religious duty" (Russell, 427).
The Jews considered Maimonides to be a heretic and even enlisted the Christian ecclesiastical apparatus to persecute him.
Showing posts with label Aristotle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aristotle. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Bertrand Russell
Ch IX Ecclesiastical Reform in the 11th Century
The level of education rose enormously in the clergy and considerably in the aristocracy during this time. The Normans had kicked out the Saracens from Sicily and curbed the activities of the Scandinavians with their conquests in France and England. Unlike the brief Carolingian renaissance, the gains made in the 11th century had some sticking power.
The reforms were primarily against simony and concubinage.
Simony was a sin, but it also meant that the bishops were selected based on wealth and not merit. And, bishoprics costing a fortune, the newly purchased position was then exploited to recoup the lost income in the purchase.
Clerical celibacy had been admired but was not routine. The imposition of celibacy on the priests made it impossible for a priest to pass Church lands on to his children and further removed the priests from the laity by showing the celibate life of the priest to be greater than the married life of the commonfolk.
The reform of the Church began primarily with monastic reform. The reform of the Papacy was more the work of the Emperor.
Emperor Henry III (1039-1056) deposed the pope Gregory VI, who though a reformer, had acquired the papacy by simony. Henry III would go on to appoint four popes and after the death of Henry III the papacy, which had its moral authority restored by the Emperor declared independence and then superiority over the emperor and two hundred years of tug-a-war ensued.
During the reign of Henry IV the selection of the Pope was codified to essential be a position chosen by the Cardinals, freezing the Emperor out. It was during Henry IV's reign that the investiture crisis began.
The philosophical activity of the 11th century came entirely from monks connected with the reform movement. They including Peter Damian, Berengar of Tours, Lanfranc and Saint Anselm.
Saint Anselm is most famous for the ontological argument, but he also had a foundation in Augustine and Plato. Through neoplatonic arguments he derived another proof for God and proof for Trinity. (Plotinus also had an argument for a trinity, though not one the Christian orthodox could accept).
Anselm, like most of his predecessors were more Platonic in their Christianity. After Aquinas, Christian philosophers became more Aristotelian. Roscelin, a younger contemporary of Anselm, marks the beginning of the Aristotelian bent and scholastic philosophy.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
The Religious Development of the Jews
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
Bertrand Russell
Book Two Catholic Philosophy
Introduction
The Middle Ages was dominated by the Church and thus intellectual thought was also dominated by churchmen.
There is a dualism present in the Middle Ages, the dualism of clergy and laity, of Latin & Teuton, of the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God, of spirit of flesh and of Pope and Emperor.
The early part of the Middle Ages is dominated by Augustine and Plato. The latter part is dominated with St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
The misery of the Middle Ages "heightened the intensity of religious feeling". Nothing in the world which was full of death and war and strife was of value except for virtue because that steadfast virtue would lead to eternal bliss.
Part I. The Fathers
Ch. I The Religious Development of the Jews
"The Christian religion, as it was handed over by the late Roman Empire to the barbarians,
consisted of three elements: first, certain philosophical beliefs, derived mainly from Plato and
the Neoplatonists, but also in part from the Stoics; second, a conception of morals and history
derived from the Jews; and thirdly, certain theories, more especially as to salvation, which were
on the whole new in Christianity, though in part traceable to Orphism, and to kindred cults of
the Near East" (Russell, 308).
The most important Jewish elements in Christianity according to Russell:
1. A sacred history that justifies the ways of God to man
2. The existence of a select few whom God especially loves, i.e. The Chosen People or the elect
3. A new concept of what is righteousness. Practical philanthropy as part of the Christian concept of virtue comes from the Jews.
4. The Law
5. The Messiah, the Christians simply moved the prosperity from a temporal plane to a heavenly one
6. The Kingdom of Heaven
Judaism became different from other contemporary religions when it became exclusive and monotheistic. "Jeremiah and Ezekiel, especially, seem to have invented the idea that all religions except one are false, and that the Lord punishes idolatry" (Russell, 310).
The captivity periods in Jewish history were understood to be a justification of the nationalistic and doomsday prophets of earlier times.
The Jews looked to God as a parental relationship and the Jews could be purified through God's punishment.
Judaism also moved from a sacrificial religion to a non-sacrificial one when the Temple was destroyed.
Isaiah greatly increased the belief in a Messiah, possibly as a result of Persian influence.
The Hellenization of Jews was difficult. Jerusalem fell in between the Seleucid and the Ptolemies. When in 175 B.C. the Seleucid king Antiochus IV sought to fully hellenize the Jews he was met with resistance. In 170 B.C. the Jews revolted. This is the history told in the First Book of Maccabees.
It was during this time that the Jews started to believe in an immortality in order to account for the good suffering and the belief that God would reward the good.
Some Jews living in the diaspora were hellenized, but the survival of Judaism is the result of brave Jews in Jerusalem who fought to preserve the original and uniqueness of their monotheistic faith.
The Jewish focus on the Law made them an intensely conservative group.
Both Jews and Christians think a lot about sin, but Christians thought of themselves as sinners while Jews mainly did not.
After the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70 the Jews of the Diaspora became increasingly important, especially the very Hellenized Jews of Alexandria.
Philo, a contemporary of Christ, is the perfect illustration of Greek influence on Jews. Philo was orthodox in his religion and a Platonist in his philosophy. He was very important to the early Christian Fathers.
The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIX The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
Rome had a major impact on later cultures in a number of ways, the most important of which were a long peace to allow the transmission of ideas, Greece and the east's influence on a large Empire because that influence included Christianity and the transfer of Hellenistic ideas to Islam where it was kept for later use.
With the power of Rome coming to full fruition under Caesar Augustus, "The Greek world lost its youth, and became either cynical or religious" (Russell, 273).
As far as the direct effect Rome had on Greek thought, two thinkers emerged as important that had been greatly effected by Roman rule. The historian Polybius, born circa 200 BC and Panaetius the Stoic were contemporaries and both friends of Scipio the younger.
Epictetus, though a Greek, spent most of his life in Rome. Plutarch also spent a long time in Rome and was changed by it.
Most Greek thinkers however were not impacted by a favorable view of Rome and the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire split along Greek and Latin lines.
Rome was "culturally parasitic on Greece. The Romans invented no art forms, constructed no original system of philosophy, and made no scientific discoveries. They made good roads, systematic legal codes, and efficient armies; for the rest they looked to Greece" (Russell, 278).
The older Romans saw the adoption of all things Greek as moral decay.
As the Western part of the empire decayed and the Emperors became more and more generals and semi-barbarians the West fell out of love with the Greek culture and culture in general. Non-Hellenic religion introduced through Greece to the Romans however had a much longer lasting audience.
Numerous Pagan religions spread into the empire from as far away as Persia, Babylonia and Egypt.
Elagabalus, the emperor from 218-222 came to power and acted like a godking from the Medes or Phoenicians. He ascended to the throne from his place as a chief-priest in the cult of the sun God and had a private chapel with statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ.
The Persian religion of Mithras, a competitor of Christianity was wildly popular with soldiers in both the East and the West.
Constantine finally ushered in the Christian age, what Russell calls a politically successful attempt at introducing a new religion for stabilizing purposes. He notes that the major difference between Christianity and other eastern religions really boiled down to its successful implementation.
"The fact that we are acquainted with what was done by the Greeks in art and literature and philosophy and science is due to the stability introduced by Western conquerors who had the good sense to admire the civilization which they governed but did their utmost to preserve" (Russell, 281).
Russell notes that while Rome may have never risen to the level of culture that Athens of Pericles had, but the stability and scope of the empire allowed for mass quantity to come down the ages and that sometimes that quantity is just as good as quality.
The Islamic conquest of the East saw their intellectuals take on Greek learning. They are responsible for the rise in Aristotle's estimation.
"In philosophy, the Arabs were better as commentators than as original thinkers. Their importance, for us, is that they, and not the Christians, were the immediate inheritors of those parts of the Greek tradition which only the Eastern Empire had kept alive" (Russell, 283).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIX The Roman Empire in Relation to Culture
Rome had a major impact on later cultures in a number of ways, the most important of which were a long peace to allow the transmission of ideas, Greece and the east's influence on a large Empire because that influence included Christianity and the transfer of Hellenistic ideas to Islam where it was kept for later use.
With the power of Rome coming to full fruition under Caesar Augustus, "The Greek world lost its youth, and became either cynical or religious" (Russell, 273).
As far as the direct effect Rome had on Greek thought, two thinkers emerged as important that had been greatly effected by Roman rule. The historian Polybius, born circa 200 BC and Panaetius the Stoic were contemporaries and both friends of Scipio the younger.
Epictetus, though a Greek, spent most of his life in Rome. Plutarch also spent a long time in Rome and was changed by it.
Most Greek thinkers however were not impacted by a favorable view of Rome and the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire split along Greek and Latin lines.
Rome was "culturally parasitic on Greece. The Romans invented no art forms, constructed no original system of philosophy, and made no scientific discoveries. They made good roads, systematic legal codes, and efficient armies; for the rest they looked to Greece" (Russell, 278).
The older Romans saw the adoption of all things Greek as moral decay.
As the Western part of the empire decayed and the Emperors became more and more generals and semi-barbarians the West fell out of love with the Greek culture and culture in general. Non-Hellenic religion introduced through Greece to the Romans however had a much longer lasting audience.
Numerous Pagan religions spread into the empire from as far away as Persia, Babylonia and Egypt.
Elagabalus, the emperor from 218-222 came to power and acted like a godking from the Medes or Phoenicians. He ascended to the throne from his place as a chief-priest in the cult of the sun God and had a private chapel with statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana and Christ.
The Persian religion of Mithras, a competitor of Christianity was wildly popular with soldiers in both the East and the West.
Constantine finally ushered in the Christian age, what Russell calls a politically successful attempt at introducing a new religion for stabilizing purposes. He notes that the major difference between Christianity and other eastern religions really boiled down to its successful implementation.
"The fact that we are acquainted with what was done by the Greeks in art and literature and philosophy and science is due to the stability introduced by Western conquerors who had the good sense to admire the civilization which they governed but did their utmost to preserve" (Russell, 281).
Russell notes that while Rome may have never risen to the level of culture that Athens of Pericles had, but the stability and scope of the empire allowed for mass quantity to come down the ages and that sometimes that quantity is just as good as quality.
The Islamic conquest of the East saw their intellectuals take on Greek learning. They are responsible for the rise in Aristotle's estimation.
"In philosophy, the Arabs were better as commentators than as original thinkers. Their importance, for us, is that they, and not the Christians, were the immediate inheritors of those parts of the Greek tradition which only the Eastern Empire had kept alive" (Russell, 283).
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Aristotle's Physics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXIII - Aristotle's Physics
Aristotle's physics were important and unquestioned until the time of Galileo. Today they are necessary to understand the history of philosophy, even if they are insignificant considering modern science.
Aristotle described the nature of a thing as its end. (An acorn's nature is to grow into an oak).
Motion is the fulfillment of some potentiality in Aristotle.
All the ancient philosophers except for Plato believed time was uncreated. Aristotle, in spite of being such a bulwark in Christian theology for thousands of years, found himself abandoned in this notion by the subsequent Christians who followed him dogmatically.
Aristotle taught that everything beneath the moon (sublunary) was subject to growth and decay. Everything above the moon was ungenerated and indestructible.
He taught the earth was spherical and the center of the universe.
Everything in the sublunary sphere was composed of the four elements. The heavenly bodies were composed of a fifth element.
Aristotle's physics is incompatible with Newton's first law of motion.
Aristotle's Logic
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXII Aristotle's Logic
Aristotle's influence was large in general. It was largest in the field of logic. "Even
at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the
discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely
antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy" (Russell, 195).
Aristotle's most important work in the field of logic is the syllogism, an argument made up of major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
If Aristotle's logic had been the beginning of logic and not the end, it would be easy to estimate it as historically important. But, because it was adhered to for thousands of years as the totality of logic it has some deficiencies: formal defects in the system, an over-estimation of the value of the syllogism and the over-estimation of deduction.
The formal defects in the system arise when the particulars and universals are blurred. Aristotle's system allows a lot of things to be assumed that are not necessarily true.
There are other forms of deduction and the syllogism has no priority over any other deductive argument.
All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz. the statute books or the scriptures" (Russell, 199). Even though Aristotle allowed for the importance of induction in his writing, his followers did not often mention it and thus, caused errors by accepting premises as being self-evident when they were in fact inductive in nature. Thus, if the premise is arrived at through inductive reasoning it is probably true rather than absolutely true. Two absolutely true premises lead to an absolutely true conclusion. But, if the premises are probably true than the conclusion must be probably true as well. You can see where the errors come from.
Aristotle had ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and affection. Russell states that the definition of categories is muddy and he says that their use in philosophy is not useful.
Aristotle described a definition as a statement of a thing's essential nature, its essence. Russell argues that a thing does not have an essence, only a word can have an essence.
Russell also attacks the Aristotelian doctrine of substance, stating that a substance is merely a collective name for a number of events. By defining those events as a substance philosophy has made a bunch of metaphysical mistakes.
"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are
wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant" (Russell, 202).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. XXII Aristotle's Logic
Aristotle's influence was large in general. It was largest in the field of logic. "Even
at the present day, all Catholic teachers of philosophy and many others still obstinately reject the
discoveries of modern logic, and adhere with a strange tenacity to a system which is as definitely
antiquated as Ptolemaic astronomy" (Russell, 195).
Aristotle's most important work in the field of logic is the syllogism, an argument made up of major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion.
If Aristotle's logic had been the beginning of logic and not the end, it would be easy to estimate it as historically important. But, because it was adhered to for thousands of years as the totality of logic it has some deficiencies: formal defects in the system, an over-estimation of the value of the syllogism and the over-estimation of deduction.
The formal defects in the system arise when the particulars and universals are blurred. Aristotle's system allows a lot of things to be assumed that are not necessarily true.
There are other forms of deduction and the syllogism has no priority over any other deductive argument.
All the important inferences outside logic and pure mathematics are inductive, not deductive; the only exceptions are law and theology, each of which derives its first principles from an unquestionable text, viz. the statute books or the scriptures" (Russell, 199). Even though Aristotle allowed for the importance of induction in his writing, his followers did not often mention it and thus, caused errors by accepting premises as being self-evident when they were in fact inductive in nature. Thus, if the premise is arrived at through inductive reasoning it is probably true rather than absolutely true. Two absolutely true premises lead to an absolutely true conclusion. But, if the premises are probably true than the conclusion must be probably true as well. You can see where the errors come from.
Aristotle had ten categories: substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action and affection. Russell states that the definition of categories is muddy and he says that their use in philosophy is not useful.
Aristotle described a definition as a statement of a thing's essential nature, its essence. Russell argues that a thing does not have an essence, only a word can have an essence.
Russell also attacks the Aristotelian doctrine of substance, stating that a substance is merely a collective name for a number of events. By defining those events as a substance philosophy has made a bunch of metaphysical mistakes.
"I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are
wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant" (Russell, 202).
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Aristotle's Politics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. 21 Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle's politics are interesting because of their historical insight into the culture surrounding them. They are not useful for a modern statesman to study to implement something from them.
The State is the highest form of community.
The State is prior to the individual. An individual cannot reach his highest good without functioning within a good state.
"Without law man is the worst of animals" (Russell, 186).
Slavery was natural because some are made to rule and some to be ruled.
Slaves are better off when ruled by masters than if they were free because of their inferior nature. Just like dogs are better off domesticated than feral.
War is justified when the war is waged against those who are inferior and refuse to accept their inferiority. The problem with this theory is it justifies all slavery and the notion that might makes right.
Aristotle was against capitalistic style trade and found the retail trade to be lowly.
Usury was despised. Lending at any profit remained reviled throughout the ancient times right on up to the Reformation.
Aristotle argues against Plato's Utopia. Russell notes that his arguments against Plato are rather weak. "I do not agree with Plato, but if anything could make me do so, it would be Aristotle's arguments against him" (Russell, 189).
Aristotle argues that the greatest crimes come from excess, not want. Nobody becomes a tyrant to avoid being cold.
"A government is good when it aims at the good of the whole community, bad when it cares only
for itself" (Russell, 189).
Three good governments: monarchy, aristocracy & constitutional government.
Three bad governments: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
External goods being acquired does not create virtue. But, the acquisition of virtue leads to the accumulation of external goods.
Monarchy is the best, followed by aristocracy and then constitutional government. Tyranny is worse than oligarchy. Oligarchy is worse than democracy.
Oligarchy is when the rich rule without a care for the poor. Democracy is when the power is in the hands of the have-nots and they disregard the interest of the rich.
"Democracy, Aristotle says, arises from the belief that men who are equally free should be equal in all respects; oligarchy, from the fact that men who are superior in some respect claim too much. Both have a kind of justice, but not the best kind. 'Therefore both parties, whenever their share in the
government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution'" (Russell, 190).
Three things needed to prevent revolution: government propaganda in education, respect for law and justice being served in law and administration.
Aristotle believed that all men deserved equality according to their proportion. The problems with that are myriad. But, what happens is that virtue, which is difficult to define and quantify becomes connected with money, which is easy to quantify. Thus, in Aristotle's equality according to their proportion will always lead to equality according to their income level.
"All social inequality, in the long run, is inequality of income" (Russell, 191).
Aristotle believes citizens should be the landowning gentry who do not have to work for a living. Tradesmen and merchants need not apply.
Education is reserved for children who can become citizens. Useful arts and trades can be taught to the slaves and lower classes.
Education needs to be catered to the type of government in which the pupils are being taught. Democratic education will thus differ from oligarchical or monarchical.
The purpose of education is virtue, not utility.
"The aim of the State, in his view, is to produce cultured gentlemen - men who combine the aristocratic mentality with love of learning and the arts" (Russell, 194).
Bertrand Russell
Ch. 21 Aristotle's Politics
Aristotle's politics are interesting because of their historical insight into the culture surrounding them. They are not useful for a modern statesman to study to implement something from them.
The State is the highest form of community.
The State is prior to the individual. An individual cannot reach his highest good without functioning within a good state.
"Without law man is the worst of animals" (Russell, 186).
Slavery was natural because some are made to rule and some to be ruled.
Slaves are better off when ruled by masters than if they were free because of their inferior nature. Just like dogs are better off domesticated than feral.
War is justified when the war is waged against those who are inferior and refuse to accept their inferiority. The problem with this theory is it justifies all slavery and the notion that might makes right.
Aristotle was against capitalistic style trade and found the retail trade to be lowly.
Usury was despised. Lending at any profit remained reviled throughout the ancient times right on up to the Reformation.
Aristotle argues against Plato's Utopia. Russell notes that his arguments against Plato are rather weak. "I do not agree with Plato, but if anything could make me do so, it would be Aristotle's arguments against him" (Russell, 189).
Aristotle argues that the greatest crimes come from excess, not want. Nobody becomes a tyrant to avoid being cold.
"A government is good when it aims at the good of the whole community, bad when it cares only
for itself" (Russell, 189).
Three good governments: monarchy, aristocracy & constitutional government.
Three bad governments: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
External goods being acquired does not create virtue. But, the acquisition of virtue leads to the accumulation of external goods.
Monarchy is the best, followed by aristocracy and then constitutional government. Tyranny is worse than oligarchy. Oligarchy is worse than democracy.
Oligarchy is when the rich rule without a care for the poor. Democracy is when the power is in the hands of the have-nots and they disregard the interest of the rich.
"Democracy, Aristotle says, arises from the belief that men who are equally free should be equal in all respects; oligarchy, from the fact that men who are superior in some respect claim too much. Both have a kind of justice, but not the best kind. 'Therefore both parties, whenever their share in the
government does not accord with their preconceived ideas, stir up revolution'" (Russell, 190).
Three things needed to prevent revolution: government propaganda in education, respect for law and justice being served in law and administration.
Aristotle believed that all men deserved equality according to their proportion. The problems with that are myriad. But, what happens is that virtue, which is difficult to define and quantify becomes connected with money, which is easy to quantify. Thus, in Aristotle's equality according to their proportion will always lead to equality according to their income level.
"All social inequality, in the long run, is inequality of income" (Russell, 191).
Aristotle believes citizens should be the landowning gentry who do not have to work for a living. Tradesmen and merchants need not apply.
Education is reserved for children who can become citizens. Useful arts and trades can be taught to the slaves and lower classes.
Education needs to be catered to the type of government in which the pupils are being taught. Democratic education will thus differ from oligarchical or monarchical.
The purpose of education is virtue, not utility.
"The aim of the State, in his view, is to produce cultured gentlemen - men who combine the aristocratic mentality with love of learning and the arts" (Russell, 194).
Aristotle's Ethics
Ch. XX Aristotle's Ethics
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Russell notes that Aristotle's Ethics appeal to middle-aged men and have been used by middle-aged men to "repress the ardours and enthusiasm of the young".
The good is happiness, an activity of the soul.
2 parts of the soul:
1) Rational
2) Irrational (divided again into two:)
a) Vegetative
b) Appetitive
2 kinds of virtues (that correlate to the parts of the soul):
1. Intellectual - come from teaching
2. Moral - come from habit
The Golden Mean - each virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. Russell points out that this is problematic as truthfulness is a virtue but doesn't seem to be a mean between two vices.
"Aristotle's opinions on moral questions are always such as were conventional in his day" (Russell, 174). Thus, they differ occasionally from modern points because of an inherent aristocracy in Aristotle's world view. The relationships within the power structures of Aristotle's time lead to points that would seem horrible to the modern reader: "In unequal relations, it is
right, since everybody should be loved in proportion to his worth, that the inferior should love the
superior more than the superior love the inferior: wives, children, subjects, should have more love
for husbands, parents, and monarchs than the latter have for them" (174).
Aristotle's ideal individual is not the Christian saint. He should have proper pride, despise what is worthy of being despised and he should be magnanimous (great-souled).
The magnanimous man by definition must be higher than others and seeks only honor in what he does. Honor from unworthy people is beneath him and he despises them rightly.
"He is one who will possess beautiful and profitless things rather than profitable and useful ones" (Russell, 176).
The magnanimous man must be rare, not because virtue acquisition is hard (which it is) but because there cannot be too many magnanimous men in a given society. Thus, Aristotle approves of Monarchy as the best political system, aristocracy as second best.
"This brings up a question which is half ethical, half political. Can we regard as morally satisfactory a community which, by its essential constitution, confines the best things to a few, and requires the majority to be content with the second-best? Plato and Aristotle say yes, and Nietzsche agrees with them. Stoics, Christians, and democrats say no. But there are great differences in their ways of saying no." (Russell, 176-77). Russell states that Stoics and Christians disagree with it because they see social injustice as being less important than the greatest good (virtue). They do not need to change the circumstances around them to be virtuous because being virtuous is above politics. The democrat holds private property and power to be the highest good (at least in a political context). Thus, the democrat cannot abide a system that plays favorites to only a few.
The Stoic-Christian view of virtue dismisses the intellectual virtues of Aristotle because the poor and humble can be as virtuous as the wealthy and powerful. Pride is also seen as a vice in Stoic and Christian worldviews, opposed to Aristotle's view as pride being a virtue.
Aristotle subordinates ethics to politics; and, being Aristocratic his ethics reflect a view that heaps praises on to a few rather than to the masses.
Christianity has narrowed the term, "ethics". A better educated man is not necessarily a more moral man. In fact, the two have no connection whatsoever in the Christian worldview. Aristotle had a much broader definition of the term, "ethics". Thus, a more educated man was obviously a more moral man in his estimation.
More modern theories have begun to mirror Aristotle's ethical theories. They define what is the good and list out ways of reaching it. For Aristotle, this good is happiness. That happiness is only open to the philosopher seems to have no problems for Aristotle in his theory.
To judge an ethical system three questions to ask:
1) Is it internally consistent?
2) Is it consistent with the rest of the author's views?
3) Does it give answers to ethical problems that are consonant with our own feelings.
If the answer to 1 or 2 is no then the philosophy is intellectually wrong. If the answer to 3 is no we cannot say it is wrong only that we do not like the ethical system.
Aristotle is mostly internally consistent according to Russell.
Aristotle's metaphysics is pretty consistent with his ethics.
Aristotle sees virtue as a means to an end. Virtues result in happiness.
A difference between happiness and pleasure: there can be no happiness without pleasure but they aren't synonymous.
"Happiness lies in virtuous activity, and perfect happiness lies in the best activity, which is contemplative" (Russell, 181).
Leisure is essential to happiness.
God is pure contemplation. Man, when he is contemplative, is godlike. The philosopher, who is afforded time to contemplate by wealth/status is the most godlike.
Ethics is a subject on which modern advancements make no impact because no scientific advancements can ever be made in ethics.
"There is in Aristotle an almost complete absence of what may be called benevolence or
philanthropy. The sufferings of mankind, in so far as he is aware of them, do not move him emotionally; he holds them, intellectually, to be an evil, but there is no evidence that they cause him unhappiness except when the sufferers happen to be his friends" (Russell, 182-83).
There is an emotional poverty in Aristotle's ethics that is not found in earlier philosophers.
"What he has to say is what will be useful to comfortable men of weak passions; but he has nothing to say to those who are possessed by a god or a devil, or whom outward misfortune drives to despair. For these reasons, in my judgement, his Ethics, in spite of its fame, is lacking in intrinsic importance" (Russell, 184).
Monday, September 16, 2019
Aristotle's Metaphysics
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Bertrand Russell
I took a bit of a hiatus from this book and other history of philosophy books with the intention of reading everything written by Plato and then I would move on to Aristotle, then Augustine, then the next, etc., etc. Reading primary works alongside the histories. I've read a lot of Plato, but not every word and am now simply trying to clean up my "current reading list" on Goodreads. I want to finish the two history books and move on to another subject. I have a complete works of Plato that I'll get to someday.
Ch. XIX Aristotle's Metaphysics
In studying Philosophers one must study both who the influences of the philosopher were and who they influenced.
Russell criticizes many whom Aristotle influenced but puts the blame more on those individuals than on Aristotle, noting that any ancient philosopher would have wound up being saddled with criticism if Aristotle had been replaced by any other ancient philosopher as the one who became dogmatic in the hands of later philosophers.
"He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought, and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal" (Russell, 159).
Aristotle became a bedrock in Church theology and since the 17th century, "almost every serious intellectual advance has had to begin with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine" (Russell, 160).
Aristotle was born circa 384 BC in Thrace. At 18 he became a pupil to Plato. In 343 BC he became the tutor to Alexander the Great.
Aristotle lived in Athens until the death of Alexander. He fled the city when the Athenians rebelled against Alexander's successors and died a year later.
Russell suggest that neither Augustine nor Alexander had much of an impact on each other.
Aristotle is very different to his predecessors, writing as a professor and not an inspired teacher. There is no Bacchic enthusiasm in Aristotle.
Aristotle's metaphysics is a combination of Plato and common sense.
Aristotle believed universals cannot exist by themselves but must exist in particular things.
Russell claims that Aristotle's theory of universals is not clear, but it was an advancement in human thought.
For Aristotle, a universal is something that can be predicated to many subjects, i.e. man, dog, cat. An individual is a particular thing, Chris, Gallifrey, Porch Kitty.
Aristotle's metaphysics also emphasizes "essences". This is what you are by your very nature, a property of which you cannot lose without ceasing to be yourself.
Both individual things and species of things have an essence.
Aristotle has an important distinction between form and matter. The form is what gives boundaries to the matter to make whatever you are observing a thing. The form gives unity to the matter. The unity has a teleological aspect to it in Aristotle.
"The form of a thing, we are told, is its essence and primary substance" (Russell, 166).
There is a scale of actuality and potentiality in Aristotle. That which has more form has more actuality.
The soul is the form of the body in Aristotle.
In Aristotle, God is pure form and pure actuality. There is no potentiality; thus, no change. God is immutable.
Three types of substances in Aristotle:
1) The sensible and the perishable (plants and animals)
2) The sensible but not perishable (heavenly bodies)
3) The non-sensible and non-perishable (God and man's rational soul)
Aristotle argues that God exists from the argument of First Cause
Aristatle has an eternal, most good God that men must love. But like Spinoza's God, Aristotle's God cannot love men.
Four Causes in Aristotle
1) Material - the Matter
2) Formal - the essence
3) Efficient - the agent that brings the change (only modern cause)
4) Final - the end goal (teleological)
"The unmoved mover may be regarded as a final cause: it supplies a purpose for change, which is essentially an evolution towards likeness with God" (Russell, 169).
God is the final (teleological) cause of all activity.
For Aristotle, the soul was the final cause of the body. He taught against the transmigration of souls, believed asking whether the soul and body were one was as meaningless a question as to whether the wax and the shape given to it by a stamp were one and believed that mind and soul were different.
Aristotle differentiates between mind and soul, granting the mind a higher place than soul.
The mind is implanted in the soul and incapable of being destroyed.
The mind can be immortal even if the rest of the soul is not.
The soul gives form to the body by making it a unit.
"It seems, from these passages, that individuality--what distinguishes one man from another--is
connected with the body and the irrational soul, while the rational soul or mind is divine and
impersonal." (Russell, 172).
The irrational part of us separates from each other but the rational part unites us. Aristotle taught that the rational mind takes part in the divine which is immortal. It is our duty and goal to take part in as much divine immortality as possible but if we were to achieve this wholly we would become part of the divine immortality and cease to be an individual.
Russell admits that there are other ways of interpreting Aristotle but believes his interpretation is the "most natural".
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Criticism of the Forms
(Originally written November 10, 2016 in Book 26)
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Criticism of the Theory of Forms
The problem is how things of this world interact with the eternal forms to gain reality. It is difficult to see how Plato's spatio-temporal world is not just mere appearance.
Plato even suggests in the Parmenides that the notion of participation is confused.
Plato's attack on the theory of forms in Parmenides shows just how intellectually honest Plato was.
"He believed that the truth, insofar as men can attain it, emerges in the thrust and counter-thrust of argument conducted jointly by truth seekers" (Jones, 207). Plato's whole career through the dialogues was an exercise in truth-seeking.
Platonism moves on the assumption (according to Platonic Physics) that everything corporeal is a combination of the elements (fire, earth, water and air). Thus, there doesn't need to be a form for "mud" or "hair". Hair exists as a combination of the elements which are participating in the eternal form of each element.
Participation is the big hole in Plato's theory. He described participation as being akin to an object and its shadow. But this analogy breaks down because the relationship between an object is spatiotemporal and forms exist outside of time and space.
The problem for Plato is how to bridge the gap between the physical world which would be unknowable if they are not objects of the form (because of the problem of permanence) and the form world, which is knowable; but, if there is no participation then it too is unintelligible.
Plato bridged this gap with his notion of "psyche". The "psyche" (soul) was capable of knowing the eternal forms. Psyche contained the mind, which can knwo forms. Psyche also contained the passions (emotions) which are in tune with the physical world. Hence the psyche, contained in every man was the bridge between the form world and the sensible one.
But this creates only a complicating duality in the psyche itself.
He held that knowledge, at its best, trancends the conceptual communication modes.
Plato, in his work, was not totally systematic. But he provided a framework for Aristotle to work in a more unified way.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
Chapter 5 - Plato: The Special Sciences
Criticism of the Theory of Forms
The problem is how things of this world interact with the eternal forms to gain reality. It is difficult to see how Plato's spatio-temporal world is not just mere appearance.
Plato even suggests in the Parmenides that the notion of participation is confused.
Plato's attack on the theory of forms in Parmenides shows just how intellectually honest Plato was.
"He believed that the truth, insofar as men can attain it, emerges in the thrust and counter-thrust of argument conducted jointly by truth seekers" (Jones, 207). Plato's whole career through the dialogues was an exercise in truth-seeking.
Platonism moves on the assumption (according to Platonic Physics) that everything corporeal is a combination of the elements (fire, earth, water and air). Thus, there doesn't need to be a form for "mud" or "hair". Hair exists as a combination of the elements which are participating in the eternal form of each element.
Participation is the big hole in Plato's theory. He described participation as being akin to an object and its shadow. But this analogy breaks down because the relationship between an object is spatiotemporal and forms exist outside of time and space.
The problem for Plato is how to bridge the gap between the physical world which would be unknowable if they are not objects of the form (because of the problem of permanence) and the form world, which is knowable; but, if there is no participation then it too is unintelligible.
Plato bridged this gap with his notion of "psyche". The "psyche" (soul) was capable of knowing the eternal forms. Psyche contained the mind, which can knwo forms. Psyche also contained the passions (emotions) which are in tune with the physical world. Hence the psyche, contained in every man was the bridge between the form world and the sensible one.
But this creates only a complicating duality in the psyche itself.
He held that knowledge, at its best, trancends the conceptual communication modes.
Plato, in his work, was not totally systematic. But he provided a framework for Aristotle to work in a more unified way.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
The History of Western Philosophy Ch. 11 - 14
(Originally written June 7, 2016 in Book 26)
What a fantastic day. Bill fixed our Volvo two days ago and then today, boom! The same thing happens. This time though the car died right in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour. Other than that today was grand. No, I'm actually not too annoyed (and obviously don't blame Bill; though, that first sentence might've seemed to indicate it). The only truly frustrating thing was the car died. C'est la vie?
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 11 - Socrates
Socrates is a man we may know much or little about because two of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato wrote volumes about him. Those voluemes however don't always sync up to provide a precise picture.
Xenophon defends Socrates too well. If Xenophon's analysis was wholly correct Socrates would never have been put on trial. But one of the few undisputed facts we know about Socrates is his trial and death in 399 B.C.
Xenophon and Plato both agree that Socrates was concerned with putting the right people into powerful positions.
The problem with taking Xenophon's Socrates as the historical one is the fact that Xenophon makes Socrates so pure he wouldn't have been accused of corrupting the youth. The problem with taking Plato's Socrates as the historical model is Plato's ability as a writer.
Plato's Apology is widely considred as historical. This is Socrates' defense at his trial (which Plato was present at).
The grounds for Socrates' trial seems pretty lear: Socrates was evil, curious and constanly making the right seem wrong and the wrong seem right. The real grounds for the trial also seem clear: he was aristocratic and many of his pupils wre of that class and had acted perniciously while in power.
According to Athenian law, when Socrates was found guilty and stenced to death he was to offer a suitable, lesser punishment for the jury to choose between. Instead he annoyed the court by offering to pay a tiny fine so he would not be mistaken as accepting cupability.
The prosecutors held that Socrates did not follow the religion, introduced noew gods and taught (corrupted) the youth with such ideas.
In his defense Socrates states that he is on trial because the Oracle at Delphi had claimed him to be the wisest man. In pursuit of disproving this he has made many enemeies by exposing those who thought they were wise as being unwise.
In attacking one of his prosecutors he points out that he is on trial for introducting new gods but this prosecutor is accusing him of atheism.
In his defense he states, "fear of death is not wisdom, since no one knows whether death may not be the greater good" (Russell, 87).
After convicted of death, Socrates shames the court, "If you think that by killing men you can prevent someone from censuring your evil lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honourable; the easiest and the noblest way is not to be disabling others, but to be improving yourselves" (Russell, 89).
On death he contends, either death is a good, dreamless sleep or a migration to another world.
Plato describes him as the Orphic saint: "in the dualism of heavenly soul and earthly body, he had achieved the complete mastery of the soul over the body" (Russell, 91).
Socrates was more concerned with ethical questions than scientific knowledge. He believed however knowledge was important because no one sinned on purpose. Thus, by acquiring knowledge one could abstain from sin.
"The close connection between virtue and knowledge is characteristic of Socrates and Plato. To some degree, it exists in all Greek thought, as opposed to that of Christianity. In Christian ethics, a pure heart is essential, and at least as likely to be found among the ignorant as among the learned. The difference between Greek and Christian ethics has persisted down to the present day" (Russell, 92).
The dialectic, seeking knowledge via question and answer wasn't invented by Socrates; but, he definitely used it and developed it.
Chapter 12 - The Influence of Sparta
To understand philosophers from Plato onward it is necessary to know about Sparta. Sparta had a double impact on Greek thought; first, through reality and second, through myth.
The reality of Sparta was the Spartan defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
The myth is the impact of Lycurgus, immortalized by Plutarch, and its impact on later philosophies including Rousseau, Nietzsche and National Socialism.
Sparta arose out of some Dorian conquerors in Laconia. They reduced the indigenous population to serfdom. The citizens of Sparta owned the land but were forbidden to cultivate it because of the demeaning nature of the work and its interference with their time as soldiers.
The Helots worked the land. The Helots were Greek and resented the order of things. They rebelled often. The Spartans maintained a Police State apparatus to control the Helots and once a year declared war on them to weed out agitators.
"The sole business of a Spartan citizen was war, to which he was trained from birth" (Russell, 95).
Children who passed their inspection after birth were educated solely to become good and loyal soldiers. Those who did not pass this intial inspection were killed.
Boys became men at 20 (serving in the military). They became citizens at 30.
No Spartan was to be poor or rich. Their currency was made of iron.
Women received the same physical training as the men. They were forbidden to show any emotion that didn't coincide to the state's favor.
Sparta was ruled by two kings from two different hereditary lines. The two kings belonged to the thirty-man Council of Elders. The Council tried criminal cases and prepared matters for the Assembly. The Assembly was a body of all citizens who could only vote yes or no on matters.
In addition to these three bodies there were the Ephors. There were five Ephors who acted as the Supreme civil court and had criminal jurisdiction over the two kings.
Tradition held that Lycurgus laid down the Spartan law in 885 BC.
Most other Greek city-states admired SParta. Paritally as an ideal from a bygone era. Partially as a model of stability. Partially for their near invincible status in battle on land.
Aristotle was intensely critical of the Spartan way of governance. Aristotle probably was writing of the real Sparta whereas Plato and Plutarch wrote of the mythical Sparta. Pultarch's praise of Sparta and Lycurgus was of great importance to post-Renaissance thinkers.
Sparta was isolationist, often foiling pan-Greek alliances and forbade its citizens from travel and allowed very few foreigners into the city for fear of corrupting the values of the state.
Chapter 13 - The Source of Plato's Opinions
Plato and Aristotle are the two most influential philosophers in history, and Plato is more important than Aristotle.
Plato's top ideas: 1) Utopia, 2) Theory of ideas, 3) arguments in favor of immortality, 4) his cosmogony, 5) knowledge as reminiscence rather than reception
Plato was born in 428/7 BC during the early years of the Peloponnesian War into an aristocratic family. He was a young man when Athens was defeated by Sparta and coupled with his aristocratic background was staunchly anti-democratic, blaming it for the Athenian defeat.
He was a pupil of Socrates.
He was an admirere of Spartan government (primarily because of his anti-democratic bent)
He was influenced by Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Socrates, each leading him to a pro-Spartan outlook. From Pythagoras came the other-worldliness, religious and mystical bent. From Parmenides came the beleif that reality is eternal and change illusionary. From Heraclitus came the belief that nothing is permanent in the sensible world. From Socrates he took the obsession with ethics and a teleological view of the universe.
Chapter 14 - Plato's Utopia
Plato's most important dialogue is The Republic. In it is contained the earliest of Utopias.
One conclusion of Plato is that rulers must be philosophers.
The purpose of The Republic is to define justice.
Plato works to define justice by defining an ideally just state.
In this state he divides citizens into three classes:
1) Common people
2) Soldiers
3) Guardians
The guardians are the sole holders of political power, initially selected by a legislator but then passed through hereditary means. (Plato does allow for exceptional men to rise from the other two classes and for an ill-fated guardian to drop).
The guardians, as politcal agents, are Plato's main concern and that main concern begins with the proper education to rule.
Education was divided into Music and Gymnastics. Music covered everything considered today as culture. Gymnastics concerrned physical training. Musical education was about educating the ruling elite to become 'gentlemen'.
The training up of gentlemen began young. Stories were told to children only if they were approved. Homer & Hesiod were not allowed because:
1) They show the gods misbehaving
2) They cause the fear of death
Sidenote (Future Modern Ancient Greeks)
When discussing political systems with some Alien, the hero gets offended when America is not mentioned. The Alien responds, "Oh yes... the great petry dish, the grand experiment politik, the new Rome, a system built on complete contradictions, an aristocracy so perfect it fooled the lower classes into believeing it was egalitarian in nature. It was perfect until you side-tracked into a primitive hero worship of completely unimportant entitites. There's nothing wrong with admiring or even elevating your artists to godlike status but when you elevate your inartistic to artistic and then what you call the artistic to the status of demigods you get a rather sad and debased populace. A pity really becaue everything was going so well. You survived your Punic war with the Soviets but will you survive long enough to allow the rise of a new Parthia to give you the impetus to survive a millenia? Or have you sped up your timeline and already become decadent and too self-obssessed and self-assured to recognize the imminent but slow rot that overtakes all empires? Not of course you, per se, because you are now a child of the stars and without the wherewithal to return home to the decaying America. But even if your America could cut out the corrosion and you found an astronomically improbable way home, would you be satisfied with life back on a primitive planet now that you have seen just a portion of what other worlds have to offer?" The alien continued with his political treatise in soliliqy as (our hero) ost all sense of national pride and pondered a suddenly existential question, if he ever could make it home, would he want to?
Sidenote complete
3) The homeric poems approve of uncontrollable laughter
4) Homer praises lavishness
Homer and Hesiod cannot be taught in the ideal State because the ideal gaurdians of that State must respect religion (misbehaving gods of Homer are unworthy of respect), must be willing to die for the State and thus, cannot fear or mourn death, be in control of their emotion (no great mirth() and be temperate and praise temperance and simplicity.
Education of the gaurdians also forbids any stories where the wicked are happy or where the good are unhappy.
Plato also banned drama because authors and actors would have to portrait either villains or those beneath their status; thus, debasing themselves.
Music, diet and exercise were also strictly monitored for ideal outcomes.
The young gaurdians must also see no ugliness until they are fully trained and then be exposed to temptations that must be found untempting and terrors which must not terrify.
Economically, Plato insisted on a communist approach where the gaurdians have little private property but are not lacking or unhappy. Poverty and wealth both produce ills so both will be banished.
Wives and children will be common to all men who are gaurdians.
Women gaurdians will be equal to all men gaurdians and recieve the same education.
Interestingly, marriage ceremonies where bride and groom will be chosen (they think) by lot will actually be arranged by legislators to produce the best offspring.
Children will not know who their parents are and parents will not know their children. Thus, children are common to all parents.
Women are to bear children between 20-40. Men to father children should be 25-55. ALl sex outside of these ages is fair and free.
All this reorientation of familial structures is to create a loyalty to the State as the primary focus.
The government is to be built on one great lie, "one royal lie", to get the whole thing in motion.
This lie is that God made men of three kinds - gold, silver and brass/iron. The men made of gold are to be the gaurdians. The men made of silver are to be the soldiers. The men made of brass and iron are to do the manual labor.
The lie was well thought out. Plato assumed that the first generation of Utopia wouldn't buy it, but subsequent generations through indoctrination would.
Plato reaches his definition of justice in the three types of men God created living in harmony. The city becomes just when each is doing the job he ought to do without interfering with anyone from another class.
Like philosophers before him, and the poets who lived before the dawn of philosophy, Plato embodies the Greek notion of fate - everything having its place and function. Justice was the harmony of living within the boundaries of this fate.
Plato's definition of justice allows for inequality without injustice. The gaurdians, even though the smallest class, rule because they are the wisest and fated to do so. Injustice would only occur if someone from the lower two classes was wiser than a gaurdian. That is why Plato allowed exceptions for promotion or demotion.
Plato, unlike many later Utopians, saw his Utopia as viably feasible and wished to implement it. Unfortunately he chose to try with Syracuse and it failed. Soon thereafter the rise of Macedonia made the polis antiquated and the notion of establishing a Utopian city-state impossible in the face of empires.
What a fantastic day. Bill fixed our Volvo two days ago and then today, boom! The same thing happens. This time though the car died right in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour. Other than that today was grand. No, I'm actually not too annoyed (and obviously don't blame Bill; though, that first sentence might've seemed to indicate it). The only truly frustrating thing was the car died. C'est la vie?
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 11 - Socrates
Socrates is a man we may know much or little about because two of his pupils, Xenophon and Plato wrote volumes about him. Those voluemes however don't always sync up to provide a precise picture.
Xenophon defends Socrates too well. If Xenophon's analysis was wholly correct Socrates would never have been put on trial. But one of the few undisputed facts we know about Socrates is his trial and death in 399 B.C.
Xenophon and Plato both agree that Socrates was concerned with putting the right people into powerful positions.
The problem with taking Xenophon's Socrates as the historical one is the fact that Xenophon makes Socrates so pure he wouldn't have been accused of corrupting the youth. The problem with taking Plato's Socrates as the historical model is Plato's ability as a writer.
Plato's Apology is widely considred as historical. This is Socrates' defense at his trial (which Plato was present at).
The grounds for Socrates' trial seems pretty lear: Socrates was evil, curious and constanly making the right seem wrong and the wrong seem right. The real grounds for the trial also seem clear: he was aristocratic and many of his pupils wre of that class and had acted perniciously while in power.
According to Athenian law, when Socrates was found guilty and stenced to death he was to offer a suitable, lesser punishment for the jury to choose between. Instead he annoyed the court by offering to pay a tiny fine so he would not be mistaken as accepting cupability.
The prosecutors held that Socrates did not follow the religion, introduced noew gods and taught (corrupted) the youth with such ideas.
In his defense Socrates states that he is on trial because the Oracle at Delphi had claimed him to be the wisest man. In pursuit of disproving this he has made many enemeies by exposing those who thought they were wise as being unwise.
In attacking one of his prosecutors he points out that he is on trial for introducting new gods but this prosecutor is accusing him of atheism.
In his defense he states, "fear of death is not wisdom, since no one knows whether death may not be the greater good" (Russell, 87).
After convicted of death, Socrates shames the court, "If you think that by killing men you can prevent someone from censuring your evil lives, you are mistaken; that is not a way of escape which is either possible or honourable; the easiest and the noblest way is not to be disabling others, but to be improving yourselves" (Russell, 89).
On death he contends, either death is a good, dreamless sleep or a migration to another world.
Plato describes him as the Orphic saint: "in the dualism of heavenly soul and earthly body, he had achieved the complete mastery of the soul over the body" (Russell, 91).
Socrates was more concerned with ethical questions than scientific knowledge. He believed however knowledge was important because no one sinned on purpose. Thus, by acquiring knowledge one could abstain from sin.
"The close connection between virtue and knowledge is characteristic of Socrates and Plato. To some degree, it exists in all Greek thought, as opposed to that of Christianity. In Christian ethics, a pure heart is essential, and at least as likely to be found among the ignorant as among the learned. The difference between Greek and Christian ethics has persisted down to the present day" (Russell, 92).
The dialectic, seeking knowledge via question and answer wasn't invented by Socrates; but, he definitely used it and developed it.
Chapter 12 - The Influence of Sparta
To understand philosophers from Plato onward it is necessary to know about Sparta. Sparta had a double impact on Greek thought; first, through reality and second, through myth.
The reality of Sparta was the Spartan defeat of Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
The myth is the impact of Lycurgus, immortalized by Plutarch, and its impact on later philosophies including Rousseau, Nietzsche and National Socialism.
Sparta arose out of some Dorian conquerors in Laconia. They reduced the indigenous population to serfdom. The citizens of Sparta owned the land but were forbidden to cultivate it because of the demeaning nature of the work and its interference with their time as soldiers.
The Helots worked the land. The Helots were Greek and resented the order of things. They rebelled often. The Spartans maintained a Police State apparatus to control the Helots and once a year declared war on them to weed out agitators.
"The sole business of a Spartan citizen was war, to which he was trained from birth" (Russell, 95).
Children who passed their inspection after birth were educated solely to become good and loyal soldiers. Those who did not pass this intial inspection were killed.
Boys became men at 20 (serving in the military). They became citizens at 30.
No Spartan was to be poor or rich. Their currency was made of iron.
Women received the same physical training as the men. They were forbidden to show any emotion that didn't coincide to the state's favor.
Sparta was ruled by two kings from two different hereditary lines. The two kings belonged to the thirty-man Council of Elders. The Council tried criminal cases and prepared matters for the Assembly. The Assembly was a body of all citizens who could only vote yes or no on matters.
In addition to these three bodies there were the Ephors. There were five Ephors who acted as the Supreme civil court and had criminal jurisdiction over the two kings.
Tradition held that Lycurgus laid down the Spartan law in 885 BC.
Most other Greek city-states admired SParta. Paritally as an ideal from a bygone era. Partially as a model of stability. Partially for their near invincible status in battle on land.
Aristotle was intensely critical of the Spartan way of governance. Aristotle probably was writing of the real Sparta whereas Plato and Plutarch wrote of the mythical Sparta. Pultarch's praise of Sparta and Lycurgus was of great importance to post-Renaissance thinkers.
Sparta was isolationist, often foiling pan-Greek alliances and forbade its citizens from travel and allowed very few foreigners into the city for fear of corrupting the values of the state.
Chapter 13 - The Source of Plato's Opinions
Plato and Aristotle are the two most influential philosophers in history, and Plato is more important than Aristotle.
Plato's top ideas: 1) Utopia, 2) Theory of ideas, 3) arguments in favor of immortality, 4) his cosmogony, 5) knowledge as reminiscence rather than reception
Plato was born in 428/7 BC during the early years of the Peloponnesian War into an aristocratic family. He was a young man when Athens was defeated by Sparta and coupled with his aristocratic background was staunchly anti-democratic, blaming it for the Athenian defeat.
He was a pupil of Socrates.
He was an admirere of Spartan government (primarily because of his anti-democratic bent)
He was influenced by Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Socrates, each leading him to a pro-Spartan outlook. From Pythagoras came the other-worldliness, religious and mystical bent. From Parmenides came the beleif that reality is eternal and change illusionary. From Heraclitus came the belief that nothing is permanent in the sensible world. From Socrates he took the obsession with ethics and a teleological view of the universe.
Chapter 14 - Plato's Utopia
Plato's most important dialogue is The Republic. In it is contained the earliest of Utopias.
One conclusion of Plato is that rulers must be philosophers.
The purpose of The Republic is to define justice.
Plato works to define justice by defining an ideally just state.
In this state he divides citizens into three classes:
1) Common people
2) Soldiers
3) Guardians
The guardians are the sole holders of political power, initially selected by a legislator but then passed through hereditary means. (Plato does allow for exceptional men to rise from the other two classes and for an ill-fated guardian to drop).
The guardians, as politcal agents, are Plato's main concern and that main concern begins with the proper education to rule.
Education was divided into Music and Gymnastics. Music covered everything considered today as culture. Gymnastics concerrned physical training. Musical education was about educating the ruling elite to become 'gentlemen'.
The training up of gentlemen began young. Stories were told to children only if they were approved. Homer & Hesiod were not allowed because:
1) They show the gods misbehaving
2) They cause the fear of death
Sidenote (Future Modern Ancient Greeks)
When discussing political systems with some Alien, the hero gets offended when America is not mentioned. The Alien responds, "Oh yes... the great petry dish, the grand experiment politik, the new Rome, a system built on complete contradictions, an aristocracy so perfect it fooled the lower classes into believeing it was egalitarian in nature. It was perfect until you side-tracked into a primitive hero worship of completely unimportant entitites. There's nothing wrong with admiring or even elevating your artists to godlike status but when you elevate your inartistic to artistic and then what you call the artistic to the status of demigods you get a rather sad and debased populace. A pity really becaue everything was going so well. You survived your Punic war with the Soviets but will you survive long enough to allow the rise of a new Parthia to give you the impetus to survive a millenia? Or have you sped up your timeline and already become decadent and too self-obssessed and self-assured to recognize the imminent but slow rot that overtakes all empires? Not of course you, per se, because you are now a child of the stars and without the wherewithal to return home to the decaying America. But even if your America could cut out the corrosion and you found an astronomically improbable way home, would you be satisfied with life back on a primitive planet now that you have seen just a portion of what other worlds have to offer?" The alien continued with his political treatise in soliliqy as (our hero) ost all sense of national pride and pondered a suddenly existential question, if he ever could make it home, would he want to?
Sidenote complete
3) The homeric poems approve of uncontrollable laughter
4) Homer praises lavishness
Homer and Hesiod cannot be taught in the ideal State because the ideal gaurdians of that State must respect religion (misbehaving gods of Homer are unworthy of respect), must be willing to die for the State and thus, cannot fear or mourn death, be in control of their emotion (no great mirth() and be temperate and praise temperance and simplicity.
Education of the gaurdians also forbids any stories where the wicked are happy or where the good are unhappy.
Plato also banned drama because authors and actors would have to portrait either villains or those beneath their status; thus, debasing themselves.
Music, diet and exercise were also strictly monitored for ideal outcomes.
The young gaurdians must also see no ugliness until they are fully trained and then be exposed to temptations that must be found untempting and terrors which must not terrify.
Economically, Plato insisted on a communist approach where the gaurdians have little private property but are not lacking or unhappy. Poverty and wealth both produce ills so both will be banished.
Wives and children will be common to all men who are gaurdians.
Women gaurdians will be equal to all men gaurdians and recieve the same education.
Interestingly, marriage ceremonies where bride and groom will be chosen (they think) by lot will actually be arranged by legislators to produce the best offspring.
Children will not know who their parents are and parents will not know their children. Thus, children are common to all parents.
Women are to bear children between 20-40. Men to father children should be 25-55. ALl sex outside of these ages is fair and free.
All this reorientation of familial structures is to create a loyalty to the State as the primary focus.
The government is to be built on one great lie, "one royal lie", to get the whole thing in motion.
This lie is that God made men of three kinds - gold, silver and brass/iron. The men made of gold are to be the gaurdians. The men made of silver are to be the soldiers. The men made of brass and iron are to do the manual labor.
The lie was well thought out. Plato assumed that the first generation of Utopia wouldn't buy it, but subsequent generations through indoctrination would.
Plato reaches his definition of justice in the three types of men God created living in harmony. The city becomes just when each is doing the job he ought to do without interfering with anyone from another class.
Like philosophers before him, and the poets who lived before the dawn of philosophy, Plato embodies the Greek notion of fate - everything having its place and function. Justice was the harmony of living within the boundaries of this fate.
Plato's definition of justice allows for inequality without injustice. The gaurdians, even though the smallest class, rule because they are the wisest and fated to do so. Injustice would only occur if someone from the lower two classes was wiser than a gaurdian. That is why Plato allowed exceptions for promotion or demotion.
Plato, unlike many later Utopians, saw his Utopia as viably feasible and wished to implement it. Unfortunately he chose to try with Syracuse and it failed. Soon thereafter the rise of Macedonia made the polis antiquated and the notion of establishing a Utopian city-state impossible in the face of empires.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Hippo
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Hippo was a Pythagorean from the 5th century BC
-Aristotle was not exactly kind to Hippo: "One would not propose to place Hippo among these men because of the poverty of his thought" (Barnes, 183).
-Like Thales, Hippo thought the primary substance to be water, he came to this thought by seeing that water gives life to everything and when water is taken away life dries up as well.
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Hippo was a Pythagorean from the 5th century BC
-Aristotle was not exactly kind to Hippo: "One would not propose to place Hippo among these men because of the poverty of his thought" (Barnes, 183).
-Like Thales, Hippo thought the primary substance to be water, he came to this thought by seeing that water gives life to everything and when water is taken away life dries up as well.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Zeno
Zeno
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Zeno's Paradoxes
1) Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-way theres are infinite. It is impossible to go distances infinite in number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2) Achilles and the Tortoise - Achilles if he is chasing a tortoise will never actually overtake the tortoise in spite of seeming to be faster. No matter how fast Achilles runs he never catches where the tortoise is because of something akin to the half-way theres paradox. Achilles always ends up at a starting point of the tortoise.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Plato writes a fictional encounter between Zeno and Socrates in his dialogue Parmenides.
-Zeno was 40 when Parmenides was 65 (it was said the two were lovers)
-Zeno visited Athens for a festival when Socrates was very young
-The interaction between Zeno and Socrates has Zeno claiming that while it may seem counterintuitive to assume that only one thing exists, the opposite is actually true. By embracing monism you get less ridiculous logical outcomes than by embracing dualism or pluralism.
Zeno argues that pluralism demands that everything be infinitely divisible. If things are divided so often eventually the parts that constitute the whole will become so small they will decrease to nothing. Nothing cannot exist so there can be no division whatsoever. In this way he aims to show that the pluralists have even more crazy assertions than the monists because if everything is made up of infinitely divisible things then everything is made from things that are essentially nothing, which is a logical absurdity. This is the puzzle of dichotomy.
The whole point of Zeno's puzzles or paradoxes are not to do away with the One of Parmenides, "but rather with a plurality of things (by showing that those who hypothesize a plurality are committed to inconsistencies), thus confirming Parmenides' argument that what exists is one" (Barnes, 104).
Aristotle was not exactly kind to Zeno in his book Physics. He states that Zeno argues fallaciously and that he set up arguments simply to embarrass people. Aristotle tallies some arguments Zeno gives against motion:
1) The infinite half-way there paradoxes
2) Achilles and the tortoise
3) The traveling arrow stands still (based on the half-distances and the Achilles one)
Aristotle argues that Zeno's paradoxes are based on an erroneous presumption that time is made up of instances. But Aristotle argues that time is the limitless thing.
Zeno argues against space and places saying that if anything exists it will be in a place. But if a place exists then it will be in a place and if the place that holds the place exists it will too have to be in a place. Zeno uses the infinite regression to argue that places therefore can't exist.
Another quote from Zeno (though its veracity is doubted) about the impossibility of motion is "What is moving moves neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not" (Barnes, 108).
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Zeno's Paradoxes
1) Motion is impossible. Before you go some place you must go half-way there. These half-way theres are infinite. It is impossible to go distances infinite in number. Therefore, motion is impossible.
2) Achilles and the Tortoise - Achilles if he is chasing a tortoise will never actually overtake the tortoise in spite of seeming to be faster. No matter how fast Achilles runs he never catches where the tortoise is because of something akin to the half-way theres paradox. Achilles always ends up at a starting point of the tortoise.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Plato writes a fictional encounter between Zeno and Socrates in his dialogue Parmenides.
-Zeno was 40 when Parmenides was 65 (it was said the two were lovers)
-Zeno visited Athens for a festival when Socrates was very young
-The interaction between Zeno and Socrates has Zeno claiming that while it may seem counterintuitive to assume that only one thing exists, the opposite is actually true. By embracing monism you get less ridiculous logical outcomes than by embracing dualism or pluralism.
Zeno argues that pluralism demands that everything be infinitely divisible. If things are divided so often eventually the parts that constitute the whole will become so small they will decrease to nothing. Nothing cannot exist so there can be no division whatsoever. In this way he aims to show that the pluralists have even more crazy assertions than the monists because if everything is made up of infinitely divisible things then everything is made from things that are essentially nothing, which is a logical absurdity. This is the puzzle of dichotomy.
The whole point of Zeno's puzzles or paradoxes are not to do away with the One of Parmenides, "but rather with a plurality of things (by showing that those who hypothesize a plurality are committed to inconsistencies), thus confirming Parmenides' argument that what exists is one" (Barnes, 104).
Aristotle was not exactly kind to Zeno in his book Physics. He states that Zeno argues fallaciously and that he set up arguments simply to embarrass people. Aristotle tallies some arguments Zeno gives against motion:
1) The infinite half-way there paradoxes
2) Achilles and the tortoise
3) The traveling arrow stands still (based on the half-distances and the Achilles one)
Aristotle argues that Zeno's paradoxes are based on an erroneous presumption that time is made up of instances. But Aristotle argues that time is the limitless thing.
Zeno argues against space and places saying that if anything exists it will be in a place. But if a place exists then it will be in a place and if the place that holds the place exists it will too have to be in a place. Zeno uses the infinite regression to argue that places therefore can't exist.
Another quote from Zeno (though its veracity is doubted) about the impossibility of motion is "What is moving moves neither in the place in which it is nor in the place in which it is not" (Barnes, 108).
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Pythagoras
Pythagoras
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
"About the life of Pythagoras we know almost nothing; we know even less about his views, as distinguished from those of his followers" (Jones, 31).
-Probably born in Samos off the coast of Asia Minor and emigrated to Southern Italy around 530 BC
-Founded a society, primarily a religious society in Croton. The society conducted some scientific research and dominated the politics of Croton for a time. The science they practiced seemed to be a part of their worship of god.
-Pythagoras was both scientific and religious
-The religious temperament of Greece was changing around the time of Pythagoras. The Olympic gods were being given lip service and the old Greek notion of religion with it. The quest for immortality was gaining sway as a new worship of Dionysus began to sweep through Greece.
-The worship of Dionysus was scandalous to the conservative Greeks. "The ceremonies took place, often at night, in remote places, and women - the scandal of conservative males - took a prominent part in them. In a frenzy of intoxication the worshipers tore living animals apart, drank their blood, and danced to the point of exhaustion. They felt the spirit of the god pass into their bodies; the union so passionately desired was consummated, and the worshipers exulted in a supreme happiness and utter freedom from any sort of restraint" (Jones, 32). This was a far cry between the business like transactions made between the earlier Greeks and the gods of Olympus.
The Pythagoreans took the Bacchic rites of worship and elevated it to an intellectual level. Rather than using wine to achieve intoxication, the Pythagoreans used music to purify their soul.
-The Pythagoreans believed in an immortal soul that passed through a cycle of births, coming back as different things determined by the kind of life led by the soul in the preceding existence.
-The goal of the Pythagoreans was to be released from the cycle of birth and death. It was accomplished through attaining wisdom.
There were three types of men in the Pythagorean system (stated in allegorical form based on the Olympic games)
1) The lovers of gain - those who sold souvenirs
2) The lovers of honor - the competitors
3) The lovers of knowledge - the spectators
The idea was that the Pythagoreans, by contemplating on the eternal truths to which their science afforded them access to would eventually lead to their escape from the cycle of birth and death.
For the Milesian three the use of science was to satisfy human curiosity and had some practical application. For the Pythagoreans the use of science was the method to spiritual redemption.
Mathematics was the principle science of the religion of the Pythagoreans. The tetraktys played an important part in their cosmology. (Tetraktys are triangle numbers in sequence, 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, etc.)
They also developed the arithmetic mean and the harmonic mean. They used this in their metaphysics and cosmology to show that the conflict of opposites, a key component in early Greek philosophy, could be solved by means of harmonizing. They also used the idea of the mean in medicine and ethics. In medicine, health was the mean of a harmony of opposites, neither too hot nor too cold. The use of the mean in ethics led to the idea of moderation that persists in later Greek thought.
Unlike the Milesian three and their disciples, the Pythagoreans were not monists. They were dualists. Their two principles were the Limit and the Unlimited. The Unlimited was a mass of indeterminacy and indefinities. The Limit was fire.
The Pythagoreans saw the cosmic order as having a unity that is in nature mathematical. "The Pythagoreans' most notable achievement, certainly, was the concept of the 'cosmos' - the notion that the universe is not a chaotic hodgepodge but a thoroughly ordered system in which every element is harmoniously related to every other" (Jones, 38). While this was already nascent in Greek thought, but the Pythagoreans made it explicit. This meant that the universe was completely knowable.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Pythagoras was one of the most intellectually important men of all time
-Demonstrative deductive mathematics began with Pythagoras
-Native of Samos, flourishing around 532 B.C.
-"Some say he was the son of a substantial citizen named Mnesarchos, others that he was the son of the god Apollo; I leave the reader to take his choice between these alternatives" (Russell, 29). This particular sentence might have been the one that truly made me enjoy reading Russell initially ten years ago.
-Samos, like Miletus, was a commercial city
-Samos was ruled by Polycrates, a tyrant not known for his moral scruples. He killed his two brothers and used his considerable navy as a nationalized piracy ring
-Samos grew in stature after Miletus was subdued by Persia
-Polycrates tried to play both sides against the middle in the Persian and Egyptian wars, and used his political enemies to do so. Eventually, this caught up with him and led to his crucifixion by the Persians.
-Despite being treacherous, Polycrates was a patron of the arts. Pythagoras however, did not like Polycrates and left Samos on account of him.
-After leaving Pythagoras may have visited Egypt and learned from that visit. Regardless if this is true or not, he ended up settling down at Croton, in Southern Italy.
- Like Miletus and Samos, the cities of southern Italy were commercial hubs.
- At Croton, Pythagoras founded a society with various disciples and school for mathematics
- Unfortunately Pythagoras wore out his welcome at Croton and left for another southern Italian city, Metapontion
-Pythagoras was both a mathematical thinker and a mystic. He founded a religion based on transmigration of souls. His religion was a sort of reformation of Orphism, which itself was a reformation of the religion of Bacchus or Dionysus
-Much of Pythagoras' religion was otherworldly, placed value in the unity of God and condemned the visible world as illusionary and bemoaned that it obscured the view of the real things.
Religious beliefs:
-believed the soul to be immortal
-the soul is transformed into other kinds of living things
-everything in existence is born again and so nothing is absolutely new
-everything that has life should be treated as family
-the rebirth cycle is the wheel of birth, to escape most effectively is to be a philosopher
"In the society that he founded, men and women were admitted on equal terms; property was held in common, and there was a common way of life. Even scientific and mathematical discoveries were deemed collective, and in a mystical sense due to Pythagoras even after his death" (Russell, 33).
Believed there to be three types of men:
1) lowest - those who buy and sell
2) middle - those who act and do things (the competitors)
3) highest - those who observe (the philosopher)
For Pythagoras the chief good was the contemplative life. Hence, the spectators/philosophers who contemplate are better than those that do/competitors. This is somewhat backwards to today's thoughts where those that do are considered more valuable than those that watch.
Pythagoras was a religious philosopher and a mathematical one. The contemplation that he achieved brought about mathematics for the sake of mathematics, it didn't need utility.
"Personal religion derived from ecstasy, theology from mathematics; and both are to be found in Pythagoras" (Russell, 37).
The combination of mathematics and theology began with Pythagoras.
Pythagoras is influential in numerous fields. What he began found its way into numerous thoughts/worldviews. "But for him, Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought logical proofs of God and immortality" (Russell, 37).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-"We hear more about Pythagoras than about any other Presocratic philosopher. For the school of thought to which he gave his name lasted for a millennium, and several works by later Pythagoreans have survived. Yet in many ways Pythagoras is the most obscure and perplexing of all the early thinkers" (Barnes, 28).
-The legend of Pythagoras rapidly built up around him.
-Isocrates mentions an interesting thing about Pythagoras: "He was the first to bring philosophy to Greece, and in particular he was concerned, more conspicuously than anyone else, with matters to do with sacrifices and temple purifications, thinking that even if this would gain him no advantage from the gods it would at least bring him high repute among men" (Barnes, 31).
Aristotle, in a lost work, attributes many miracles to Pythagoras. First, Pythagoras bit a poisonous snake that bit him and it killed the snake. Second, Pythagoras showed his thigh was made of gold. Third, he appeared in two cities simultaneously.
The teachings of Pythagoras can be divided into two categories: mathematico-metaphysical and moral.
Porphyry wrote that Pythagoras said that the soul was immortal, that it changed into other kinds of animals. He also stated that Pythagoras taught the history repeated itself from time to time and thus, nothing was ever truly new.
Diodorus wrote that Pythagoras was vegetarian because eating meat was horrible on account of the soul of the animal. He also wrote that Pythagoras claimed to remember his past life as Euphorbus who was killed by Menelaus in the Trojan war.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Have Pythagoras be a charlatan. He sets up a community to do 'communal work for the good of the community' but it really just puffs up his own image.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
"About the life of Pythagoras we know almost nothing; we know even less about his views, as distinguished from those of his followers" (Jones, 31).
-Probably born in Samos off the coast of Asia Minor and emigrated to Southern Italy around 530 BC
-Founded a society, primarily a religious society in Croton. The society conducted some scientific research and dominated the politics of Croton for a time. The science they practiced seemed to be a part of their worship of god.
-Pythagoras was both scientific and religious
-The religious temperament of Greece was changing around the time of Pythagoras. The Olympic gods were being given lip service and the old Greek notion of religion with it. The quest for immortality was gaining sway as a new worship of Dionysus began to sweep through Greece.
-The worship of Dionysus was scandalous to the conservative Greeks. "The ceremonies took place, often at night, in remote places, and women - the scandal of conservative males - took a prominent part in them. In a frenzy of intoxication the worshipers tore living animals apart, drank their blood, and danced to the point of exhaustion. They felt the spirit of the god pass into their bodies; the union so passionately desired was consummated, and the worshipers exulted in a supreme happiness and utter freedom from any sort of restraint" (Jones, 32). This was a far cry between the business like transactions made between the earlier Greeks and the gods of Olympus.
The Pythagoreans took the Bacchic rites of worship and elevated it to an intellectual level. Rather than using wine to achieve intoxication, the Pythagoreans used music to purify their soul.
-The Pythagoreans believed in an immortal soul that passed through a cycle of births, coming back as different things determined by the kind of life led by the soul in the preceding existence.
-The goal of the Pythagoreans was to be released from the cycle of birth and death. It was accomplished through attaining wisdom.
There were three types of men in the Pythagorean system (stated in allegorical form based on the Olympic games)
1) The lovers of gain - those who sold souvenirs
2) The lovers of honor - the competitors
3) The lovers of knowledge - the spectators
The idea was that the Pythagoreans, by contemplating on the eternal truths to which their science afforded them access to would eventually lead to their escape from the cycle of birth and death.
For the Milesian three the use of science was to satisfy human curiosity and had some practical application. For the Pythagoreans the use of science was the method to spiritual redemption.
Mathematics was the principle science of the religion of the Pythagoreans. The tetraktys played an important part in their cosmology. (Tetraktys are triangle numbers in sequence, 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, etc.)
They also developed the arithmetic mean and the harmonic mean. They used this in their metaphysics and cosmology to show that the conflict of opposites, a key component in early Greek philosophy, could be solved by means of harmonizing. They also used the idea of the mean in medicine and ethics. In medicine, health was the mean of a harmony of opposites, neither too hot nor too cold. The use of the mean in ethics led to the idea of moderation that persists in later Greek thought.
Unlike the Milesian three and their disciples, the Pythagoreans were not monists. They were dualists. Their two principles were the Limit and the Unlimited. The Unlimited was a mass of indeterminacy and indefinities. The Limit was fire.
The Pythagoreans saw the cosmic order as having a unity that is in nature mathematical. "The Pythagoreans' most notable achievement, certainly, was the concept of the 'cosmos' - the notion that the universe is not a chaotic hodgepodge but a thoroughly ordered system in which every element is harmoniously related to every other" (Jones, 38). While this was already nascent in Greek thought, but the Pythagoreans made it explicit. This meant that the universe was completely knowable.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
-Pythagoras was one of the most intellectually important men of all time
-Demonstrative deductive mathematics began with Pythagoras
-Native of Samos, flourishing around 532 B.C.
-"Some say he was the son of a substantial citizen named Mnesarchos, others that he was the son of the god Apollo; I leave the reader to take his choice between these alternatives" (Russell, 29). This particular sentence might have been the one that truly made me enjoy reading Russell initially ten years ago.
-Samos, like Miletus, was a commercial city
-Samos was ruled by Polycrates, a tyrant not known for his moral scruples. He killed his two brothers and used his considerable navy as a nationalized piracy ring
-Samos grew in stature after Miletus was subdued by Persia
-Polycrates tried to play both sides against the middle in the Persian and Egyptian wars, and used his political enemies to do so. Eventually, this caught up with him and led to his crucifixion by the Persians.
-Despite being treacherous, Polycrates was a patron of the arts. Pythagoras however, did not like Polycrates and left Samos on account of him.
-After leaving Pythagoras may have visited Egypt and learned from that visit. Regardless if this is true or not, he ended up settling down at Croton, in Southern Italy.
- Like Miletus and Samos, the cities of southern Italy were commercial hubs.
- At Croton, Pythagoras founded a society with various disciples and school for mathematics
- Unfortunately Pythagoras wore out his welcome at Croton and left for another southern Italian city, Metapontion
-Pythagoras was both a mathematical thinker and a mystic. He founded a religion based on transmigration of souls. His religion was a sort of reformation of Orphism, which itself was a reformation of the religion of Bacchus or Dionysus
-Much of Pythagoras' religion was otherworldly, placed value in the unity of God and condemned the visible world as illusionary and bemoaned that it obscured the view of the real things.
Religious beliefs:
-believed the soul to be immortal
-the soul is transformed into other kinds of living things
-everything in existence is born again and so nothing is absolutely new
-everything that has life should be treated as family
-the rebirth cycle is the wheel of birth, to escape most effectively is to be a philosopher
"In the society that he founded, men and women were admitted on equal terms; property was held in common, and there was a common way of life. Even scientific and mathematical discoveries were deemed collective, and in a mystical sense due to Pythagoras even after his death" (Russell, 33).
Believed there to be three types of men:
1) lowest - those who buy and sell
2) middle - those who act and do things (the competitors)
3) highest - those who observe (the philosopher)
For Pythagoras the chief good was the contemplative life. Hence, the spectators/philosophers who contemplate are better than those that do/competitors. This is somewhat backwards to today's thoughts where those that do are considered more valuable than those that watch.
Pythagoras was a religious philosopher and a mathematical one. The contemplation that he achieved brought about mathematics for the sake of mathematics, it didn't need utility.
"Personal religion derived from ecstasy, theology from mathematics; and both are to be found in Pythagoras" (Russell, 37).
The combination of mathematics and theology began with Pythagoras.
Pythagoras is influential in numerous fields. What he began found its way into numerous thoughts/worldviews. "But for him, Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought logical proofs of God and immortality" (Russell, 37).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-"We hear more about Pythagoras than about any other Presocratic philosopher. For the school of thought to which he gave his name lasted for a millennium, and several works by later Pythagoreans have survived. Yet in many ways Pythagoras is the most obscure and perplexing of all the early thinkers" (Barnes, 28).
-The legend of Pythagoras rapidly built up around him.
-Isocrates mentions an interesting thing about Pythagoras: "He was the first to bring philosophy to Greece, and in particular he was concerned, more conspicuously than anyone else, with matters to do with sacrifices and temple purifications, thinking that even if this would gain him no advantage from the gods it would at least bring him high repute among men" (Barnes, 31).
Aristotle, in a lost work, attributes many miracles to Pythagoras. First, Pythagoras bit a poisonous snake that bit him and it killed the snake. Second, Pythagoras showed his thigh was made of gold. Third, he appeared in two cities simultaneously.
The teachings of Pythagoras can be divided into two categories: mathematico-metaphysical and moral.
Porphyry wrote that Pythagoras said that the soul was immortal, that it changed into other kinds of animals. He also stated that Pythagoras taught the history repeated itself from time to time and thus, nothing was ever truly new.
Diodorus wrote that Pythagoras was vegetarian because eating meat was horrible on account of the soul of the animal. He also wrote that Pythagoras claimed to remember his past life as Euphorbus who was killed by Menelaus in the Trojan war.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS - Have Pythagoras be a charlatan. He sets up a community to do 'communal work for the good of the community' but it really just puffs up his own image.
Heraclitus
Heraclitus
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-For Heraclitus, the original stuff is fire. "This world...was ever, is now, and ever shall be an everlasting fire" (Jones, 14).
-Heraclitus was influenced by the Milesian three, but was more subtle and refined
-Heraclitus' notion to resolve the problem of how one thing becomes every thing and is still one was to make the 'one thing' a non-material thing. For Heraclitus, the one thing then was the process itself.
-For Heraclitus, who like most men have difficulty in truly thinking abstractly, let alone communicating abstract thoughts, he called this process 'fire', which is always changing and yet still fire.
-The problem for the Milesian three was they held a belief in unity and still needed to reconcile the fact that things changed. Heraclitus however in proclaiming process as the one thing went to the extreme and created the problem of permanence. Because everything was fire and process, everything was always changing. This is the state of flux.
-Flux accounts for the change. Permanence is accounted for by accepting that the thing that is changing appears permanent because the rate of change is always the same.
-In addition to the Milesian three's problem of one and the many, Heraclitus has the problem of the world as it appears and the world as it really is.
-Heraclitus did not stop at describing the physical world as the Milesian three did. He dabbled into more areas.
-He used the eternal flux in describing how politics works as well. The political system is a constant tension of opposites. For example, without strife peace could not exist.
-Heraclitus' political theory was representative of his time. There was constant strife between the various city states and peace only existed when neither of the warring city states had enough power to overcome the other. Likewise, in the individual city states the nobles and the commoners only achieved a balance of peace when neither party was powerful enough to impose their will on the other. Heraclitus was on the side of the nobility.
-Heraclitus was contemptuous of the masses.
-In addition to social theory, Heraclitus showed an interest in religion. For Heraclitus, his aristocratic contempt for the masses extended to his religious sentiments. Accepting the scientific nature of the Milesian three, he rejected the contemporary religion of the masses.
-Heraclitus is quoted as saying 'the wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man'
-Heraclitus sometimes identifies his god as the process of flux
-Heraclitus' god was not personal. It was indifferent to human conceptions of right and wrong, justice and was immune to men's prayer.
-Heraclitus equated the flux/process sometimes with 'logos'.
-Some passages indicate that Heraclitus' ethics held that the chief good of man is to listen to the logos and even become absorbed by the logos
-Heraclitus was both a scientific and religious philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
[The Greeks] "discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible" (Russell, 39). The limitation to this Greek way of thinking though is that it is reasoned deductively from self-evident facts rather than inductively from empirical observations.
-Heraclitus was an aristocratic person from Ephesus.
-famous for his theory that everything is in a state of flux
-He was mystical in thought
-Fire was the fundamental substance
-everything is born by the death of something else
-there was a unity in the world, but that unity came out of the combination of opposites
-believed that mankind was so inherently bad that only force would compel them to act for their own good
-believed that War was necessary and good
-believed that strife was justice and that all things come into being and pass away through strife
-"His ethic is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche's" (Russell, 42).
-The soul was a mix of fire and water, the fire being the noble part.
-Claimed the 'dry' soul was the best, but that it is pleasurable to the soul to get 'wet'. Hence, the asceticism
-He was hostile to the Bacchic religion, for example he wrote "They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing this, would deem him mad" (Russell, 43).
-Perpetual change was the state of the world.
-The unity in the world was a result from diversity.
-His god did not care about mankind - "To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right" (Russell, 44).
-Like Hegel, Heraclitus seems to believe that a synthesis of opposites creates the world as it is.
-Heraclitus has a sense of cosmic justice in his system as no single thing can ever prevent one thing from totally taking over its opposite
-For Heraclitus, his God is distinct from the gods. His God is the embodiment of cosmic justice.
-Both Plato and Aristotle agreed that Heraclitus taught that nothing ever is, everything is always becoming.
-"The doctrine of perpetual flux, as taught by Heraclitus, is painful, and science, as we have seen, can do nothing to refute it. One of the main ambitions of philosophers has been to revive hopes that science seemed to have killed. Philosophers, accordingly, have sought, with great persistence, for something not subject to the empire of Time. This search begins with Parmenides" (Russell, 47).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Heraclitus came from Ephesus in Asia Minor, circa 500 BC
-He was nicknamed 'The Obscure' and 'The Riddler'
-Even Socrates, when given a book of Heraclitus by Euripides states what he understood was splendid and was sure that what he didn't understand was splendid as well.
-Heraclitus rebuked and condemned a lot of people for their ignorance in his writings
-He claims all things are one, 'day and dusk - for they are one', 'the path of the carding-comb is straight and crooked', 'the path up and down is one and the same', etc.
-He was very critical of everyone he disagreed with, which was basically everyone. "Much learning does not teach thought - or it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus" (Barnes, 53).
-He defines wisdom as the ability to grasp the knowledge of how all things are steered through all.
-He was regarded by some of the ancients as arrogant and purposefully obscure
-He claimed that all things were made of fire and perished back into the fire
-Everything that exists is harmonized by the transformation of opposites
-Everything is full of souls and spirits
-He distrusted sensory perception
John Stobaeus quotes a couple of interesting Heraclitus sayings:
-It is better to hide folly than to make it public
-It is not good for men to get what they want
-To be self-controlled is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature.
-All men can know themselves and control themselves
Again, he is not very complimentary of the common man: "For what thought or sense, he says, do they have? They follow the popular singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad and few good" (Barnes, 58).
He claims that most men satisfy themselves like beasts. The best men seek fame from mortals.
He is especially critical of Pythagoras. "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he made a wisdom of his own - much learning, mere fraudulence" (Barnes, 59).
-He held that the world was uncreated
Stobaeus says "Heraclitus said that a man's character is his fate" (Barnes, 62).
On God Plutarch remarks that Heraclitus believed "In all respects superior to us, [god] is especially unlike and different from us in his acts; but of divine acts, the majority, according to Heraclitus, escape our knowledge through lack of trust" (Barnes, 66).
He claimed that philosophical men must be versed in many things
He distrusted the senses - bad witnesses for men are eyes and ears of those who have foreign souls (the mark of a foreign soul is to trust in non-rational perceptions)
War is to be praised in Heraclitus because it brings about strife, which is justice.
Aristotle describes his cosmology as the harmony achieved through the blending of the most contrary principles.
Again, he's not real complimentary of the masses, claiming that donkeys would prefer rubbish to gold.
The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
-For Heraclitus, the original stuff is fire. "This world...was ever, is now, and ever shall be an everlasting fire" (Jones, 14).
-Heraclitus was influenced by the Milesian three, but was more subtle and refined
-Heraclitus' notion to resolve the problem of how one thing becomes every thing and is still one was to make the 'one thing' a non-material thing. For Heraclitus, the one thing then was the process itself.
-For Heraclitus, who like most men have difficulty in truly thinking abstractly, let alone communicating abstract thoughts, he called this process 'fire', which is always changing and yet still fire.
-The problem for the Milesian three was they held a belief in unity and still needed to reconcile the fact that things changed. Heraclitus however in proclaiming process as the one thing went to the extreme and created the problem of permanence. Because everything was fire and process, everything was always changing. This is the state of flux.
-Flux accounts for the change. Permanence is accounted for by accepting that the thing that is changing appears permanent because the rate of change is always the same.
-In addition to the Milesian three's problem of one and the many, Heraclitus has the problem of the world as it appears and the world as it really is.
-Heraclitus did not stop at describing the physical world as the Milesian three did. He dabbled into more areas.
-He used the eternal flux in describing how politics works as well. The political system is a constant tension of opposites. For example, without strife peace could not exist.
-Heraclitus' political theory was representative of his time. There was constant strife between the various city states and peace only existed when neither of the warring city states had enough power to overcome the other. Likewise, in the individual city states the nobles and the commoners only achieved a balance of peace when neither party was powerful enough to impose their will on the other. Heraclitus was on the side of the nobility.
-Heraclitus was contemptuous of the masses.
-In addition to social theory, Heraclitus showed an interest in religion. For Heraclitus, his aristocratic contempt for the masses extended to his religious sentiments. Accepting the scientific nature of the Milesian three, he rejected the contemporary religion of the masses.
-Heraclitus is quoted as saying 'the wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man'
-Heraclitus sometimes identifies his god as the process of flux
-Heraclitus' god was not personal. It was indifferent to human conceptions of right and wrong, justice and was immune to men's prayer.
-Heraclitus equated the flux/process sometimes with 'logos'.
-Some passages indicate that Heraclitus' ethics held that the chief good of man is to listen to the logos and even become absorbed by the logos
-Heraclitus was both a scientific and religious philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
[The Greeks] "discovered mathematics and the art of deductive reasoning. Geometry, in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible" (Russell, 39). The limitation to this Greek way of thinking though is that it is reasoned deductively from self-evident facts rather than inductively from empirical observations.
-Heraclitus was an aristocratic person from Ephesus.
-famous for his theory that everything is in a state of flux
-He was mystical in thought
-Fire was the fundamental substance
-everything is born by the death of something else
-there was a unity in the world, but that unity came out of the combination of opposites
-believed that mankind was so inherently bad that only force would compel them to act for their own good
-believed that War was necessary and good
-believed that strife was justice and that all things come into being and pass away through strife
-"His ethic is a kind of proud asceticism, very similar to Nietzsche's" (Russell, 42).
-The soul was a mix of fire and water, the fire being the noble part.
-Claimed the 'dry' soul was the best, but that it is pleasurable to the soul to get 'wet'. Hence, the asceticism
-He was hostile to the Bacchic religion, for example he wrote "They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him doing this, would deem him mad" (Russell, 43).
-Perpetual change was the state of the world.
-The unity in the world was a result from diversity.
-His god did not care about mankind - "To God all things are fair and good and right, but men hold some things wrong and some right" (Russell, 44).
-Like Hegel, Heraclitus seems to believe that a synthesis of opposites creates the world as it is.
-Heraclitus has a sense of cosmic justice in his system as no single thing can ever prevent one thing from totally taking over its opposite
-For Heraclitus, his God is distinct from the gods. His God is the embodiment of cosmic justice.
-Both Plato and Aristotle agreed that Heraclitus taught that nothing ever is, everything is always becoming.
-"The doctrine of perpetual flux, as taught by Heraclitus, is painful, and science, as we have seen, can do nothing to refute it. One of the main ambitions of philosophers has been to revive hopes that science seemed to have killed. Philosophers, accordingly, have sought, with great persistence, for something not subject to the empire of Time. This search begins with Parmenides" (Russell, 47).
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
-Heraclitus came from Ephesus in Asia Minor, circa 500 BC
-He was nicknamed 'The Obscure' and 'The Riddler'
-Even Socrates, when given a book of Heraclitus by Euripides states what he understood was splendid and was sure that what he didn't understand was splendid as well.
-Heraclitus rebuked and condemned a lot of people for their ignorance in his writings
-He claims all things are one, 'day and dusk - for they are one', 'the path of the carding-comb is straight and crooked', 'the path up and down is one and the same', etc.
-He was very critical of everyone he disagreed with, which was basically everyone. "Much learning does not teach thought - or it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes and Hecataeus" (Barnes, 53).
-He defines wisdom as the ability to grasp the knowledge of how all things are steered through all.
-He was regarded by some of the ancients as arrogant and purposefully obscure
-He claimed that all things were made of fire and perished back into the fire
-Everything that exists is harmonized by the transformation of opposites
-Everything is full of souls and spirits
-He distrusted sensory perception
John Stobaeus quotes a couple of interesting Heraclitus sayings:
-It is better to hide folly than to make it public
-It is not good for men to get what they want
-To be self-controlled is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature.
-All men can know themselves and control themselves
Again, he is not very complimentary of the common man: "For what thought or sense, he says, do they have? They follow the popular singers and they take the crowd as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad and few good" (Barnes, 58).
He claims that most men satisfy themselves like beasts. The best men seek fame from mortals.
He is especially critical of Pythagoras. "Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, practiced inquiry more than any other man, and selecting from these writings he made a wisdom of his own - much learning, mere fraudulence" (Barnes, 59).
-He held that the world was uncreated
Stobaeus says "Heraclitus said that a man's character is his fate" (Barnes, 62).
On God Plutarch remarks that Heraclitus believed "In all respects superior to us, [god] is especially unlike and different from us in his acts; but of divine acts, the majority, according to Heraclitus, escape our knowledge through lack of trust" (Barnes, 66).
He claimed that philosophical men must be versed in many things
He distrusted the senses - bad witnesses for men are eyes and ears of those who have foreign souls (the mark of a foreign soul is to trust in non-rational perceptions)
War is to be praised in Heraclitus because it brings about strife, which is justice.
Aristotle describes his cosmology as the harmony achieved through the blending of the most contrary principles.
Again, he's not real complimentary of the masses, claiming that donkeys would prefer rubbish to gold.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Thales
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathon Barnes
2001
Chapter 2 - Thales
According to Aristotle, Thales was the founder of natural philosophy and lived sometime between 625 BC and 545 BC. He is famous for observing or predicting an eclipse on May 28, 585 BC.
Thales may have or may not have written a book. There were no existing texts authored by him by the time of Aristotle so all knowledge we have of him comes from later writers.
"Thales was a man of practical wisdom, one of the so-called Seven Sages of early Greek history, and he was regarded by posterity not only as an original contributor to science and philosophy, but also as an astute statesman" (Barnes, 9).
Herodotus notes that he formed a political system for Ionia and that he engineered an easier crossing point for an army, marking both his ability as a statesmen and an engineer.
Aristotle notes that Thales held that everything was made from water and that water was the material principle of the world. This material principle comes and goes and is born and destroyed, returning to the original principle; thus, the substance remains while its properties change. He also notes that Thales seems to have believed that the soul was the cause of motion and that the soul is mixed with everything in the universe. "Perhaps this is why Thales thought that everything was full of gods" (Barnes, 12).
Proclus, a student of Aristotle, gives Thales credit for numerous geometrical functions that were used in practical matters, like the theorem that states a pair of triangles with one equal side and two equal angles are equal, which Thales used to determine the distance of ships out to sea.
Many ancient writers said Thales was descended from an exiled Phoenician family, but this is doubtful. He is most likely a native of a well-to-do Milesian family.
Various ancient writers have said that he was a great many things, and a great many first of things. He is thought to have been an early astronomer, geometry master, philosopher, scientist and an early proponent of the notion of an immortal soul.
Hermippus quotes Thales giving thanks for three things: "First, that I am a man and not a beast; secondly, that I am male and not female; thirdly, that I am Greek and not foreign" (Barnes, 15).
He was ascribed numerous aphorisms, my favorite of which is when he claimed that life is no different than death. A smart ass then asked, why don't you die? To which, Thales replied, because death is no different than life. In dealing with sin he said that no man can escape the notice of the gods if he does wrong, even if he thinks of doing wrong. When someone who had committed adultery asked him if he should lie about it in court, he told the man perjury is no worse than adultery.
His ethical stance comes from another aphorism in answering the question 'how can we live most justly? To which he replied, by not doing ourselves what we blame others for doing.
A History of Western Philosophy - The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Thales was from Miletus, an Ionian colony on the coast of Asia. According to Aristotle, who lived 250 years later, Thales believed that water is the cause of all things and that all things were filled with gods.
While much of our knowledge of Thales is conjectural and second hand (and third hand and fourth hand, etc.) just those two things show that Thales viewed the world process in natural terms, in breaking with the more mystical earlier elements of Greek thought. His cosmology wasn't quite science yet, but it was no longer a mere genealogy of deities describing natural events.
Thales, being interested in the natural world must have seen water as being able to transform into various things (air through evaporation, earth through witnessing deltas, etc.) and his predisposition to believing that the world was somehow one thing, water seemed like a natural choice.
Thales was a break from the Hesiods of the world. Hesiod was a master poet, but his Theogony was merely a poetic genealogy of gods wrapped into a creation myth. Later poets could improve upon the poetry aspect and be better poets than Hesiod, but they would still be trading in myths. Thales' greatest contribution was his breaking from the myth business and entering the scientist business. Better science and scientists would come along after Thales, but without his break from myth, science could never have started. Thales proposed a theory, something testable. And while water may not be the original substance, it could be falsified, rejected and a new theory could be produced. Hesiod's Theogony cannot be refuted, it can only be written from a different point of view, if the different point of view had a more fluid style of poetry.
"Thales' name is remembered then, because he was the first person whom we know to have answered in natural terms the question, 'Why do things happen as they do?'" (Jones, 9). Much of western philosophy for a long time was shaped by testing Thales' assertion, rejecting or revising it because of the various paradoxes it produced.
Thales' first major assumption was monism. That is to say, that there was one thing that was the cause of everything else. His second major assumption was that this one thing was in fact a thing, not a god. Thirdly, he assumed that the ultimate stuff is active and can change. In his notion that 'everything was full of gods' he was not making a theological statement, rather explicitly denying divine causation. The Greek notion, beginning with Homer, was that the gods were causal agents. By Thales' assertion that everything was full of gods, he was denying the Homeric notion that the gods caused change, but the thing itself was the cause of change.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter II - The Milesian School
Miletus was a flourishing commercial city in Asia Minor when Thales was making his discoveries. But it was a city rife with class struggles between a large slave population and the lower and upper classes. The commercial nature of the Ionian coastal towns brought them into contact with the Kingdom of Lydia and Egypt. These contacts brought them contact with the wider ancient world.
"His science and philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation" (Russell, 26).
A great story that Russell relates is that Thales was made fun of for being poor. So, Thales purchased all of the olive presses in the town in winter at a low price and rented them out for an exorbitant profit in summer time. He is said to have stated, 'philosophers could be rich if they wanted, but their aims are elsewhere'.
Jonathon Barnes
2001
Chapter 2 - Thales
According to Aristotle, Thales was the founder of natural philosophy and lived sometime between 625 BC and 545 BC. He is famous for observing or predicting an eclipse on May 28, 585 BC.
Thales may have or may not have written a book. There were no existing texts authored by him by the time of Aristotle so all knowledge we have of him comes from later writers.
"Thales was a man of practical wisdom, one of the so-called Seven Sages of early Greek history, and he was regarded by posterity not only as an original contributor to science and philosophy, but also as an astute statesman" (Barnes, 9).
Herodotus notes that he formed a political system for Ionia and that he engineered an easier crossing point for an army, marking both his ability as a statesmen and an engineer.
Aristotle notes that Thales held that everything was made from water and that water was the material principle of the world. This material principle comes and goes and is born and destroyed, returning to the original principle; thus, the substance remains while its properties change. He also notes that Thales seems to have believed that the soul was the cause of motion and that the soul is mixed with everything in the universe. "Perhaps this is why Thales thought that everything was full of gods" (Barnes, 12).
Proclus, a student of Aristotle, gives Thales credit for numerous geometrical functions that were used in practical matters, like the theorem that states a pair of triangles with one equal side and two equal angles are equal, which Thales used to determine the distance of ships out to sea.
Many ancient writers said Thales was descended from an exiled Phoenician family, but this is doubtful. He is most likely a native of a well-to-do Milesian family.
Various ancient writers have said that he was a great many things, and a great many first of things. He is thought to have been an early astronomer, geometry master, philosopher, scientist and an early proponent of the notion of an immortal soul.
Hermippus quotes Thales giving thanks for three things: "First, that I am a man and not a beast; secondly, that I am male and not female; thirdly, that I am Greek and not foreign" (Barnes, 15).
He was ascribed numerous aphorisms, my favorite of which is when he claimed that life is no different than death. A smart ass then asked, why don't you die? To which, Thales replied, because death is no different than life. In dealing with sin he said that no man can escape the notice of the gods if he does wrong, even if he thinks of doing wrong. When someone who had committed adultery asked him if he should lie about it in court, he told the man perjury is no worse than adultery.
His ethical stance comes from another aphorism in answering the question 'how can we live most justly? To which he replied, by not doing ourselves what we blame others for doing.
A History of Western Philosophy - The Classical Mind
W.T. Jones
1980
Chapter 1 - Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Thales was from Miletus, an Ionian colony on the coast of Asia. According to Aristotle, who lived 250 years later, Thales believed that water is the cause of all things and that all things were filled with gods.
While much of our knowledge of Thales is conjectural and second hand (and third hand and fourth hand, etc.) just those two things show that Thales viewed the world process in natural terms, in breaking with the more mystical earlier elements of Greek thought. His cosmology wasn't quite science yet, but it was no longer a mere genealogy of deities describing natural events.
Thales, being interested in the natural world must have seen water as being able to transform into various things (air through evaporation, earth through witnessing deltas, etc.) and his predisposition to believing that the world was somehow one thing, water seemed like a natural choice.
Thales was a break from the Hesiods of the world. Hesiod was a master poet, but his Theogony was merely a poetic genealogy of gods wrapped into a creation myth. Later poets could improve upon the poetry aspect and be better poets than Hesiod, but they would still be trading in myths. Thales' greatest contribution was his breaking from the myth business and entering the scientist business. Better science and scientists would come along after Thales, but without his break from myth, science could never have started. Thales proposed a theory, something testable. And while water may not be the original substance, it could be falsified, rejected and a new theory could be produced. Hesiod's Theogony cannot be refuted, it can only be written from a different point of view, if the different point of view had a more fluid style of poetry.
"Thales' name is remembered then, because he was the first person whom we know to have answered in natural terms the question, 'Why do things happen as they do?'" (Jones, 9). Much of western philosophy for a long time was shaped by testing Thales' assertion, rejecting or revising it because of the various paradoxes it produced.
Thales' first major assumption was monism. That is to say, that there was one thing that was the cause of everything else. His second major assumption was that this one thing was in fact a thing, not a god. Thirdly, he assumed that the ultimate stuff is active and can change. In his notion that 'everything was full of gods' he was not making a theological statement, rather explicitly denying divine causation. The Greek notion, beginning with Homer, was that the gods were causal agents. By Thales' assertion that everything was full of gods, he was denying the Homeric notion that the gods caused change, but the thing itself was the cause of change.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter II - The Milesian School
Miletus was a flourishing commercial city in Asia Minor when Thales was making his discoveries. But it was a city rife with class struggles between a large slave population and the lower and upper classes. The commercial nature of the Ionian coastal towns brought them into contact with the Kingdom of Lydia and Egypt. These contacts brought them contact with the wider ancient world.
"His science and philosophy were both crude, but they were such as to stimulate both thought and observation" (Russell, 26).
A great story that Russell relates is that Thales was made fun of for being poor. So, Thales purchased all of the olive presses in the town in winter at a low price and rented them out for an exorbitant profit in summer time. He is said to have stated, 'philosophers could be rich if they wanted, but their aims are elsewhere'.
Sunday, April 19, 2015
Eudaimaniacs
Eudaimonia is the Greek philosophical notion, of the highest good of human kind.
There was debate in the Ancient philosophy of Greece on what that highest good was. Socrates taught that eudaimonia was taking good care of the soul so that it is in the best possible shape (having the most virtue). In Plato the eudaimonia also rested with the soul, but rather than having the most virtue possible, it was that the soul was perfectly balanced. In Aristotle eudaimonia was using, to the fullest extent possible reason - which set man apart from the animals. Epicurus was hedonistic, but a long-term hedonist. For him, the eudaimonia was the long term best pleasure with as little bit of pain as possible. In Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, eudaimonia was an end. In Epicurus, eudaimonia was a means toward happiness.
Using these four basic stances I think a short story could come together about four persons living out these philosophies to the nth degree. Living there lives totally dedicated to the highest good of human kind, but in a post-apocalyptic setting and the characters could be crazed and delusional and thus, Eudaimaniacs.
There was debate in the Ancient philosophy of Greece on what that highest good was. Socrates taught that eudaimonia was taking good care of the soul so that it is in the best possible shape (having the most virtue). In Plato the eudaimonia also rested with the soul, but rather than having the most virtue possible, it was that the soul was perfectly balanced. In Aristotle eudaimonia was using, to the fullest extent possible reason - which set man apart from the animals. Epicurus was hedonistic, but a long-term hedonist. For him, the eudaimonia was the long term best pleasure with as little bit of pain as possible. In Plato, Socrates and Aristotle, eudaimonia was an end. In Epicurus, eudaimonia was a means toward happiness.
Using these four basic stances I think a short story could come together about four persons living out these philosophies to the nth degree. Living there lives totally dedicated to the highest good of human kind, but in a post-apocalyptic setting and the characters could be crazed and delusional and thus, Eudaimaniacs.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Parmenides & Proverbs
(Originally Written February 11, 2014 on scrap paper now lost)
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I - Ancient Philosophy
Chapter 4 - Heraclitus
Xenophanes taught that gods were made up through anthropomorphic tendencies. He believed in only one God, but that God was not like man in either thought or form.
He also believed knowledge of God and gods to be impossible, "even if a man should chance to say something utterly right, still himself knows it not. There is nowhere anything but guessing (Russell, 40).
Xenophanes was a rationalist who disliked the mystical elements of Pythagorean thought.
Heraclitus lived around 511 BC in Ephesus. He was a mystic, believing the fundamental substance to be fire. He believed that everything was born by something else's death.
Heraclitus had a very negative view of mankind. He believed it was only force that compelled man to be good.
He believed war was not only a fact of life, but necessary to maintain existence. War brings death. Death brings life to the better things.
He was ascetic and proud of his asceticism.
The soul was made of fire and water. The better the soul, the more fire it had. The "dryer" the soul, the better it was.
He believed the world to be uncreated and eternal.
He believed that everything was in flux.
The constant flux produced strife. Strife produced conflict and that conflict proved to create the balance that exists in life. The flux had the effect of creating the cosmic justice that kept everything in its place and from one thing or one man from attaining too much power.
"The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has. The wisest man is an ape to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man" (Russell, 44).
Heraclitus' metaphysical notion of the endless flux is the stated by Plato to be: nothing ever is, everything is becoming. Aristotle described it as 'nothing steadfastly is'.
The doctrine of perpetual flux is a horrifying thing to men who seek something permanent. Science and philosophy have been trying to escape Heraclitus for thousands of years.
Chapter V - Parmenides
Parmenides countered Heraclitus' notion that everything is always changing by stating nothing ever changes.
Parmenides lived around 450 BC in southern Italy.
Parmenides taught that both thought and language require objects outside of themselves. You can't think of an object if that object doesn't exist.
Parmenides believed that in order for words to have meaning they must be attached to an object. If that object existed in the past it maintains some existence, otherwise we could not use the word meaningfully.
Chapter VI - Empedocles
Empedocles lived around 440 BC in Sicily. He claimed to be a god.
Empedocles was an old combination of science, religion and philosophy. His science and religion were often times at odds with one another.
Empedocles discovered properties of air and centrifugal force by experiment. He had a scientific belief in an odd version of survival of the fittest type of evolutionary theory.
Empedocles believed not in one primordial substance, but four: earth, fire, wind and water. However, love and strife were on equal footing with the aforementioned substances. Love brought about the combination of the elements. Strife brought about the dissolution of the elements.
Love and strife fought one another. There were periods of time when one mastered the other. Chance and necessity brought about the changes in the universe, not some overarching purpose.
Chapter VII - Athens in relation to culture
The greatness of Athens began when they defeated the Persians at Marathon (490 BC) and defeated Xerxes (480 BC).
Athens grew rich and prosperous after this under the guidance of Pericles until about 430 BC.
During this time Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides flourished.
Proverbs 8
8:9 - "To the discerning all of them are right. They are faultless to those who have knowledge".
The wisdom of the Lord is known to the discerning. It is faultless to those who have knowledge. THen do the unbelieving have no knowledge, no discernment?
Help me to seek you that I may find your wisdom. Help me to seek you God.
Proverbs 9
9:10 - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding"
Proverbs 10
"The way of the Lord is a refuge for the righteouss"
Lord, may you be my refuge. Put in me a desire to seek you always. Light my heart on fire so that it burns for you. Help me to turn from folly and wickedness. Keep my paths straight. Bless this request my God, my King.
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Book I - Ancient Philosophy
Chapter 4 - Heraclitus
Xenophanes taught that gods were made up through anthropomorphic tendencies. He believed in only one God, but that God was not like man in either thought or form.
He also believed knowledge of God and gods to be impossible, "even if a man should chance to say something utterly right, still himself knows it not. There is nowhere anything but guessing (Russell, 40).
Xenophanes was a rationalist who disliked the mystical elements of Pythagorean thought.
Heraclitus lived around 511 BC in Ephesus. He was a mystic, believing the fundamental substance to be fire. He believed that everything was born by something else's death.
Heraclitus had a very negative view of mankind. He believed it was only force that compelled man to be good.
He believed war was not only a fact of life, but necessary to maintain existence. War brings death. Death brings life to the better things.
He was ascetic and proud of his asceticism.
The soul was made of fire and water. The better the soul, the more fire it had. The "dryer" the soul, the better it was.
He believed the world to be uncreated and eternal.
He believed that everything was in flux.
The constant flux produced strife. Strife produced conflict and that conflict proved to create the balance that exists in life. The flux had the effect of creating the cosmic justice that kept everything in its place and from one thing or one man from attaining too much power.
"The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has. The wisest man is an ape to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man" (Russell, 44).
Heraclitus' metaphysical notion of the endless flux is the stated by Plato to be: nothing ever is, everything is becoming. Aristotle described it as 'nothing steadfastly is'.
The doctrine of perpetual flux is a horrifying thing to men who seek something permanent. Science and philosophy have been trying to escape Heraclitus for thousands of years.
Chapter V - Parmenides
Parmenides countered Heraclitus' notion that everything is always changing by stating nothing ever changes.
Parmenides lived around 450 BC in southern Italy.
Parmenides taught that both thought and language require objects outside of themselves. You can't think of an object if that object doesn't exist.
Parmenides believed that in order for words to have meaning they must be attached to an object. If that object existed in the past it maintains some existence, otherwise we could not use the word meaningfully.
Chapter VI - Empedocles
Empedocles lived around 440 BC in Sicily. He claimed to be a god.
Empedocles was an old combination of science, religion and philosophy. His science and religion were often times at odds with one another.
Empedocles discovered properties of air and centrifugal force by experiment. He had a scientific belief in an odd version of survival of the fittest type of evolutionary theory.
Empedocles believed not in one primordial substance, but four: earth, fire, wind and water. However, love and strife were on equal footing with the aforementioned substances. Love brought about the combination of the elements. Strife brought about the dissolution of the elements.
Love and strife fought one another. There were periods of time when one mastered the other. Chance and necessity brought about the changes in the universe, not some overarching purpose.
Chapter VII - Athens in relation to culture
The greatness of Athens began when they defeated the Persians at Marathon (490 BC) and defeated Xerxes (480 BC).
Athens grew rich and prosperous after this under the guidance of Pericles until about 430 BC.
During this time Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides flourished.
Proverbs 8
8:9 - "To the discerning all of them are right. They are faultless to those who have knowledge".
The wisdom of the Lord is known to the discerning. It is faultless to those who have knowledge. THen do the unbelieving have no knowledge, no discernment?
Help me to seek you that I may find your wisdom. Help me to seek you God.
Proverbs 9
9:10 - "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding"
Proverbs 10
"The way of the Lord is a refuge for the righteouss"
Lord, may you be my refuge. Put in me a desire to seek you always. Light my heart on fire so that it burns for you. Help me to turn from folly and wickedness. Keep my paths straight. Bless this request my God, my King.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Kingdom Triangle - JP Moreland
(Originally Written August 15, 2009 in the Journal)
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Kingdom Triangle
JP Moreland
Zondervan Publishing, 2007
Religion cannot be a hobby.
Moreland pushes for Christians to have a deeper understanding of Christianity so that we can speak of it intelligently.
A secular worldview is thin, lacking the framework to make sense of value. An ethical monotheistic worldview is thick. In ethical monotheistic views the value of human beings is intrinsic. When we hear of "people of the week" in naturalistic settings they are borrowing from a thick worldview to comprehend it. They have to abandon their worldview to understand what they are showing.
Scientific Naturalism:
1. A theory of limited knowledge
2. A creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary biology.
3. A physical view of reality, all that exists is physical or depends upon physical existence.
These three work together. A limited theory of knowledge justifies a creation story based on the atomic theory of matter and biology. And, the biology creation story justifies the physical view of reality.
What is real in a naturalist worldview depends on three things.
1. It is knowable in their theory of knowledge.
2. Its origin can be accounted for in evolution
3. It can be described by the language of chemistry and physics
Two forms of scienticism:
Strong - scientific knowledge exhausts what can be known
Weak - other knowledge can be had (i.e. ethics) but scientific knowledge is vastly superior
This is self-defeating as the definition does not meet its own standards
The natural view of reality is reductionism. It reduces things to identify with it and eliminates what it cannot reduce.
Physicalism (the reduction of everything to physical) however fails to account for what the world is as it is now, consider consciousness, secondary qualities, normative properties and the entire evolutionary framework (the Big Bang and natural laws are taken as brute fact).
Naturalism is doubly determined, the state of the universe is fixed by laws and the actions of things are set by their atomic and subatomic parts.
Life loses all meaning in this view of reality.
To explain the meaning of life a naturalist approaches it in three flawed ways:
1. Superficially: life is meaningless
2. Circular: the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life
3. Repugnant: hedonistic, life is meaningful so long as it is enjoyed
Six keys to a rich, objective meaning of life:
1. Free Will to ground responsibility, creativity, praise and blame
-William Provine stated, "Free will as traditionally conceived... simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as correctly conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." Many times naturalism employs utilitarian justification in ethics that can lead to horrific moral implications.
2. Real intrinsic value that can be known and factored into our lives.
-In order for objective meaning to exist value must have three things true of it: There are things that are intrinsically good, things that must be ends of themselves. Two, human beings must be capable of knowing what is intrinsically valuable and what is not. Three, human beings, their products, actions and relationships must be intrinsically valuable. The naturalist view denies, necessarily, any intrinsic value. But they call morals and ethics either subjective or another simple evolutionary event.
3. The ability to acknowledge the reality of evil, provide an explanation of its origin and offer hope that it is ultimately redeemed and defeated.
-Naturalism fails to explain the reality of evil and is hopeless in offering hope in the midst of it.
4. Human beings must have equally intrinsic value simply as such.
5. There must be teleology and purpose in the cosmos relevant to human life.
-The Aristotelian notion of final cause is obsolete in naturalism. Living without teleology is utterly existentially repugnant. Nothing makes sense without teleology. Language itself implies teleology.
6. There must be a satisfying answer to the question, "Why should I be moral?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)