Saturday, January 26, 2013

Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy

Wow, it has been a while! It's really hard to find the time and the drive to sit down and write a blog post. For now, I think I'll just post my semester term paper about Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophers. Enjoy!


Many people think that Greek philosophy is largely composed of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These men were indeed great thinkers, but there were many great men who came before them. Despite their brilliance, these men have been overlooked. History has only a vague recollection of their names. But these men grappled with just the same questions philosophy has been asking for years. In fact, they were the first to really ask them. This is where philosophy as we know it begins. It begins with questions like, “what is the world made of” and “how do we balance the one and the many?”
            According to contemporaries, these men wrote works of literature expounding what they thought, and they also taught other men. Many of them had disciples who followed in their footsteps. Sadly, nearly all of their works have been lost to the ages. However, we can be thankful that men like Aristotle, Plato, and others have preserved, interacted with, and remembered the ideas these men had. Today, their ideas remain as mere fragments.[1] But this does not stop us from seeing how dynamic their thoughts were.
            The Pre Socratics were pioneers because they rejected the animistic and polytheistic religions of their society, and they began to ask questions. More importantly though, they found the answers to these questions not by asking an oracle or receiving a vision, instead, they used reason and observation to come to their conclusions. Their pursuit of knowledge was one that resembles what we see in society now. Through logic and empirical evidence, they sought out answers to their questions.[2]
            It should be noted that at this time, no distinction was made between philosophy and any other science or humanity. The scientist and philosopher was one man at this time. The men of this era would simultaneously predict eclipses and talk about philosophy. They would produce maps and discuss cosmology.[3] This sometimes led to conflict with religious people because these thinkers sought rational thought rather than magic and mysticism.
            Greek thought began in Ionia. The first three major thinkers came out of Ionia in Asia Minor. These three greats, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, compose the Milesian School.[4] The Milesian School was the product of a culture that had transcended subsistence and had begun to thrive. Only then could men like Thales appear.
            Thales lived from 625 BC to 550 BC.[5] He was the first great thinker to arise out of Ionia. Thales began asking the question that dominated the first part of pre Socratic thought. What is the world made of? Thales’ answer was water. He believed that the fundamental building block of the universe was water or moisture. Other than Aristotle quoting Thales as saying, “Everything is full of gods,” we have very little of what Thales said or thought. His arguments or reasons for believing such things have been lost to us.[6] Significantly, Thales was the teacher of the next man in the Milesian School.
            Anaximander was a disciple of Thales. He too grappled with the question of cosmology. Anaximander saw Thales simple answer of water to be, well, too simple. He saw the world more as continual opposition of four basic qualities. These four basic qualities, hot, cold, dry, and wet, separate out of the “apeiron” and define each other by opposition. The apeiron was the primal mass at the beginning, which began to spin. The four elements were present but were not distinct. As the apeiron spun, the four elements coalesced into pockets of similarity. From this, the universe sprang. Anaximander has life beginning in mud and slime. He believes that men slowly evolved from an early fish like creature. Apparently, Charles Darwin isn’t all that original.[7]
            Anaximader trained Anaximenes who attempted to further refine his mentor’s philosophy. Anaximenes thought that Anaximander’s apeiron was just really too paradoxical and illogical. He chose “aer” as his fundamental element. Aer is like air, but it’s more of what we think of as mist. Anaximenes saw a flaw in his predecessor’s thinking and that was their failure to explore how their elements became what we saw in the world around us. Because, clearly, rocks don’t feel like water. How could water become rock then? Anaximenes explored condensation and rarefaction as the means whereby aer becomes the things we see.[8]
            Anaximenes also believed that there was a special kind of rare aer that is basicly soul material. A breath of this special aer is trapped in man and animals. This aer is almost a god-like thing so Anaximenes thinks that we all have a piece of this nebulous god thing inside of us. [9]
            Despite what you may think, the Milesians were not materialists. You see, for such a category to exist, the early thinkers would have to have placed a distinction between the physical and the spiritual. At this time, no such distinction existed. Their conception of such things was not split into two hermetically sealed categories like modern thought is. They were not materialists because there was only one “thing” that they conceived of. What they sought was to find the structure of the cosmos. [10]
            The two men who came after these first philosophers were the giants every Greek philosopher after them had to live in the shadow of. Their struggle between the one and the many defined Greek philosophy for the longest time. The first man, Heraclitus, believed that all was flux. The second, and more influential, was Parmenides. He asserted that all was one and that change was an illusion.[11] Men after them had the task of reconciling these two diametrically opposed ideas.
            Heraclitus was born some time around 540 BC.[12] He was known for being cryptic in his language. So much so, that he gained the nickname of “The Riddler.” While he made fun of other learned men, he took his own philosophy seriously. Heraclitus believed that the basic element of the universe was fire. Heraclitus chose fire not in quite the same way the others before him chose their elements. He chose it because it exhibited the qualities that he used to describe the movement and essence of the cosmos. Fire, by its nature, thrives on strife and destruction. The flame is fed by consuming other things. Heraclitus saw this constant tension not as an imperfection, but as essential to the One.[13]
            Consider a bow and arrow. When you pull back the arrow on the string, there is tension in the system. The bow wants to move forward. You and the arrow are striving against it. This equilibrium is how Heraclitus viewed the universe.[14] It is under constant tension. Like a fire, it is dying down in parts and burning hotter in others. This means that the total amount of substance in the universe is constant, but its distribution varies widely.[15] This is why Heraclitus said that all is flux (change).
            Heraclitus believed in a pantheistic god called The Word or The One. In this “being” (for a lack of a better term) all tension is resolved. The Word binds everything together and guides the constant flux.[16]
            Parmenides was a contemporary of Heraclitus, but he thought very differently from him. Parmenides simply believed that It is. Reality is. Becoming, Parmenides argued, was logically impossible. Either something is or it is not. If something is, then there is nothing for it to become. It simply is. But if something is not, then it can never become something because nothing begets nothing.[17] This appeared to prove that behind everything is only pure unity. By doing this, Parmenides introduces some pivotal concepts. He introduces the distinction between thought and sense. He also brings doubt upon sense and elevates thought. 
            The void, or nothingness, was believed by Parmenides to be required in order for movement to take place. But since nothingness is itself illogical, then movement is not possible. This fact, combined with the unity of all, goes to show that all the change we see is illusion. Everything is motionless and united at its core so the plurality we sense is not real.
            Parmenides had a disciple by the name of Zeno who attempted to create logical proofs to destroy that which opposed his master’s thought. Zeno developed arguments against such things as Pythagorean pluralism, the Pythagorean conception of space, as well as against motion. His arguments against motion are his most famous. He developed arguments using Achilles and the Tortoise, running across a stadium, and a bow and arrow. [18]Zeno’s goal was to show the logical inconsistencies of motion.
            So we are left with this. We sense and experience change and plurality, but thought tells us that all things must be one. The men who came next struggled with these two concepts.
            A man arose to attempt to provide an answer. Anaxagoras, a friend of Pericles, said that that which is qualitative of the whole, is ultimate. If you were to separate out the basic elements of every object, then you would have what is foundational to the universe. Thus, all things are a mixture of these core elements. We see things like rocks because rock dominates that substance, but everything is in everything else, no matter how miniscule the degree. [19]Guiding all this is Mind (or Nous). The Mind is pure thought and facilitates all motion. However, this was Anaxagoras’ back up plan that he simply resorted to when he was pressed for more than a mere natural answer. It didn’t work though because he ended up being exiled for atheism.[20]
            A very striking figure arose next. Empedocles was a flamboyant man who claimed to do miracles and to be a god. Plus, he was a pretty snappy dresser. Empedocles wrote his philosophy in verse to a lover (a male) of his.[21] Empedocles adopted Parmenides’ thoughts on the inability of things to pass out of being. He attempted to show then that there were six main elements that composed the universe. He believed that fire, water, air, earth, love, and strife were all the ultimate and unchanging elements of the universe. Change was caused by strife causing the elements to flee from one another and gather by similarity whereas love then seeks to mingle them again. [22]This cycle causes the movement we experience.
            The fact that Empedocles resorted to vague ideals as guiding principles was dissatisfying to many. Leucippus and his learner, Democritus, developed a purely naturalistic theory called Atomism. Atom in Greek means “uncuttable.” Atoms were believed to be extremely small basic building blocks of the universe. They had different size, shapes, and patterns. These little atoms swirl in the vortex of the universe and when they clump together, you get the world of sense experience.[23] Leucippus and Democritus carried the purely mechanical rationalism of early philosophy to its logical end. Atomism was the system that showed there was an ultimate and unchangeable substance behind the universe, but that it was simultaneously plural.

            The early Greeks were far more vibrant and thoughtful than is commonly imagined. It is easy to think that Greek thought begins with Socrates, but that is utterly far from the truth. We see these men exploring the problem of the one and the many. We see them exploring the distinction between rational thought and sense experience. They were men searching for answers to questions that had hardly even been asked yet.
In Heraclitus, we see the beginnings of Western thinking. With his emphasis on individuality and change, Heraclitus laid the foundation for Western thought for the next two thousand years. Parmenides appears to be much more similar to Eastern Philosophy. The unity of everything is core to his thought form. Although Parmenides was the superior thinker (his use of logic and reason was much more scholarly), Heraclitus won in the long run. Why is that? But that’s exactly the kind of questions the Pre Socratics were asking. So, let’s thoughtfully consider what they had to say.


[1] Patricia, Curd, A Presocratics Reader: Selected Fragments and Testimonia. (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996), 7.
[2] Ibid., 1-2.
[3] Ibid., 5.
[4] W. K. C., Guthrie., The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle. (New York: Routledge Classics, 2013), 22-23.
[5] Curd, xi.
[6] Guthrie, 24-25.
[7] Ibid., 25-27
[8] Frederick, Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Volume 1, Greece & Rome, Part 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Books, 1962), 42.
[9] Guthrie, 29.
[10] Guthrie, 31.
[11] Copleston, 69.
[12] Curd, xi.
[13] Copleston, 54, 57.
[14] Guthrie, 42.
[15] Copleston, 58.
[16] Ibid., 58.
[17] Ibid., 66-67.
[18] Ibid., 71-74.
[19] Copleston, 84-85.
[20] Guthrie 2013, 52.
[21] Curd, 61.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Copleston, 89-91.

Bibliography

Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume 1, Greece & Rome,                      Volume 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Books, 1962.

Curd, Patricia, ed. A Presocratics Reader: Selected Fragments and                                   Testimonia. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1996.

Guthrie, W. K.C. The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle. New York City: Routledge Classics, 2013.