<<

“The only true is in knowing that you know nothing…”-

Marshall High School Mr. Cline Western Civilization I: Ancient Foundations Unit Three EA * The Pre Socratics • The Archaic age saw a change in the way people thought of themselves. They became much more individualistic, and less focused on putting the before their own needs.

• To go along with this change to the focus on the individual one can also look to the development and origins of philosophy. The periods of development of philosophy center on the most renowned of , Socrates, so that the period of philosophy before him is simply defined as the Pre Socratic Age, and those philosophers who came before him simply as The Presocratics.

• So let us examine the history of philosophy in this age by asking you to look out the window at the world around you. What do you see? Everything you can describe is . Now look at those things you described and tell me what they are doing. These actions are examples of change. The questions that should occur to you as a result of these observations are, “What is matter?” and “What are all of these things made of?” and possibly “What causes these changes?”

• A person of the ancient era would look to to answer these questions. For example, the sun is the god , or , driving his chariot across the sky. A modern person knows the sun is a giant fusion reactor floating in the void of space. So what makes our modern understanding of the nature of the sun different from the ancient one? * The Pre Socratics • Religion tends to be an inflexible thing, so people tend to believe things that are disproven for long after the that they are. For example, that the sun is a chariot on driven across the sky, despite the fact that no one has ever seen any flying horses.

• By contrast, modern people tend to look for explanations in observable nature, through forces we see and understand. For example, though none of us has ever been to the sun, we can observe similar phenomena here on . After general observation of these phenomena, we can apply what we learn about nature on Earth to make conjectures about the sun. Moreover, we are not married to any specific idea or , if it can later be proven wrong. “The sun is fire” is not , just an idea, and as an idea we can identify problems with it: • How could a fire’s heat reach too far? • How can you have a fire in a ? • How come the sun does not burn out?

• Because we subject our to critical analysis, false explanations can be refuted, and as we take in new observations we can come up with new theories to overcome these problems, making refinements along the way. In short, by observing nature, we can understand how it works. We can explain the , not by reference to the divine, but by reference to the mundane and observations that make up our lives. * The Pre Socratics

• Today we call this process . In Ancient , they called it philosophy.

• The word philosophy is composed of the Greek word philos meaning love of, and meaning wisdom. So philosophy is literally the love of wisdom.

were engaging in philosophical thought about 200 years before Socrates, even though when we think of Greek philosophers Socrates, and automatically come to .

• The Presocratic philosophers attempted to tackle the same questions that I asked of you at the beginning of this discussion; what are things made of? And why do things change? These questions seem to have begun as a matter of linguistics rather than science.

• The heart of the problem was the Greek word esti or to be. If the sun is gas, then the sun is not a man in a chariot. If the sun is here, then the sun is not there. While these may seem like perfectly logical statements to us, had not been invented when the first philosophers began writing in 600 B.C. * The Pre Socratics

• What upset the Presocratics was not that the sun was not Helios in a chariot, but that the sun both was and was not. It seemed wrong for the sun not to be. Everything must be something at all , no matter what changes we might see.

• A group of philosophers known as Monists decided that everything in the universe was comprised of a single substance. For Thales (624-546 B.C.), the first Greek , that substance was water. He noted that water could become a solid or a gas or a liquid. Though ice is a solid and is not a liquid, it is always water. From this he determined that everything in the universe must be water in different states. He described water as the first constant in the universe. All of the other presocratics would follow his example in trying to describe the constants, or first principles, of the universe.

• For Thales’ student (610-546 B.C.) the constant could not be something with set characteristics like water. Instead he argued that the universe was made up of some stuff without any characteristics at all and that matter gains its characteristics (hot, cold, hard, soft, etc.) from being separated from this indefinable whole. * The Pre Socratics

• Anaximenes (585-528 B.C.) decided that this stuff without qualities was . The other elements like earth and water were made by compressing air, while fire was made by spreading out air thinly.

• We call these first three philosophers the Monists because they beloved the universe was made of just one material. They are also called the because they all came from the city of .

• Meanwhile on the island of , (582-496 B.C.) proposed a very different constant for the universe: . We all remember that Pythagoras was famous for his theorem a2+b2=c2, but Pythagoras was not trying to help you calculate the sides of a right triangle when he came up with this theorem. He was trying to explain a basic constant in the universe, which he would demonstrate as follows: * The Pre Socratics

• Pythagoras would have a person draw a right triangle. • He would then use tiles to draw a square on each side (which is where we get the word squared) • He would then have people count the of tiles on each side, and lo and behold, the number of tiles on the always equaled the sum of the tiles from the other two sides.

• Pythagoras realized that by doing this over and over and over again that no matter the size or shape of the right triangle, the number of tiles in the squares of the sides always equaled the number of squares on the hypotenuse. While the many triangles we perceive might seem different, they all follow the same constant rule.

• This was not the only constant that Pythagoras discovered. He was also the first to explain the mathematic ratios of . No matter how long a string is, another string, one sixth its length, would produce a . Realizing that these sorts of ratios pop up everywhere, Pythagoras supposed that numbers and ratios were the main constants of the universe. * The Pre Socratics

of (534-475 B.C.) had a very different idea. To him, the only constant was change. He believed opposing forces of the universe were constantly trying to tear the world apart. These constants were only held together by a natural or . He compared this to the two ends of a bow pulling away from each other. Left to their own devices this would create a worthless stick, however when held together by the natural string of logos they make a powerful and dynamic tool.

• Like Pythagoras, Heraclitus had decided that the constants of the universe were not in matter itself, but rather in how matter behaves. From him we received the adage, “All things change, so that all things may remain the same.” His ideas would later be revived in theory.

• Directly opposed to Heraclitus was of Elea (510-440 B.C.) Parmenides was so hung up on the is/is not problem that he denied all change of in the universe, and his work is some of the most difficult to understand. * The Pre Socratics

• Basically Parmenides postulated that the entire universe was one giant sphere of unidentifiable stuff. In this he copied Anaximenes in thinking that to have characteristics of everything, the main stuff of the universe had to have no characteristics of its own. Yet Parmenides went further.

• Parmenides denied that this stuff ever broke away from the original stuff to form other things. For him the universe just is. It never was not and it always be. To say that an apple is different from an orange is to say that the apple is not an orange, and this is unacceptable. For him, things never changed, and they could never move. To say that the apple fell from the tree is to say that the apple is not on the tree any longer.

• Parmenides philosophy would have lasting implications for future philosophy by placing ideas on a higher order than observation, as you would have to ignore the evidence from your senses to accept his theory, which would not be very scientific. * The Pre Socratics

• Another resident of Elea, Zeno (490-430 B.C.) attempted to demonstrate Parmenides theory with a series of paradoxes. In these Zeno would attempt to prove that things like change and motion were impossible. One example may suffice to explain his theory.

• Imagine shooting an arrow from a bow from A to point B. Between the target and the bow are a series of halfway points. Halfway from the bow and the target is point A, halfway from point A to the target is point B, halfway from point B to the target is point C, and so on. Zeno’s point is that there is an infinite number of halfway points between the bow and the target. Though the arrow will always get closer to the target, it will never reach it. It will always be halfway from where it was to where it is going.

• This idea flies in the face of normal observation, suggesting that we cannot trust our senses to see the . Zeno’s paradoxes would pave the way later for Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and Plato’s notion of Ideal Forms which are also unchanging, eternal and hidden from our senses.

• Given where they are from, Parmenides and Zeno are known as the . * The Pre Socratics

• The Pluralists (490-430 B.C.) and (500-428 B.C.) took their ideas from their predecessors and mixed them into a single coherent system. Like the Milesians, they insisted that matter had to be eternal and unchanging. However, unlike the Milesians, they had no problem with there being more than one sort of matter.

• Empedocles believed that there were four sorts of matter: earth, air, fire and water. Combinations of these basic elements resulted in the wide variety we see. Anaxagoras held that there was an infinite variety of basic materials to work with. Flesh is made out of flesh particles, eyes are made out of eye particles, thought made out of thought particles and so on. Empedocles believed that these pieces flopped around, forming different shapes at random until they found arrangements that made the animals, plants and materials we know today. This makes him the earliest precursor of the theory of evolution. * The Pre Socratics

• Like Heraclitus and Pythagoras, the Pluralists also believed in a force outside of matter that made matter behave as it should. Yet Empedocles and Anaxagoras disagreed on the number and nature of this force. Anaxagoras agreed with Heraclitus that a single natural force held the disparate forces of the universe together, though he called this force , or mind, rather than logos.

• Empedocles, by contrast, thought there were two forces, love and strife, that governed the universe. Love brought disparate elements together, while strife tore them apart. These two forces ran in cycles. Love brings all of the matter in the universe into a mixed singularity, then strife spreads it out among the universe until love drags it back in again. With this, Empedocles made the first philosophical description of a cyclical universe. Replace love with gravity, and strife with energy, and you’ve got our modern Big Bang Theory. * The Pre Socratics

• Finally, we come to the Atomists. Today, we understand atoms as the basic building blocks of the world, and tend to think of this as a modern discovery. But the of atoms was first suggested 2,500 years ago by a philosopher named . We know almost nothing about this philosopher, but the works of his student (460-370 B.C.) have survived in fragments.

• Democritus seems to have been the first universal philosopher. His works included writings on , , literature, history, anthropology, causation, and religion. Yet, since none of his books survived, his overall impact on philosophy is unknown.

• Democritus greatest achievements from a scientific perspective are the theories of void and . Unlike all of his predecessors, Democritus had no problem with is not. In fact, he insisted that at least some of the volume of the universe must not be, or it must be empty. Otherwise, nothing would be able to move at all, since everything would be pressing against something else. He called this empty space the void. * The Pre Socratics

• We call the void today, a vacuum. With the help of technology we have discovered that exist out in space, and even within atoms. Democritus had none of this helpful technology, and what is remarkable is that Democritus, without any means of observing a vacuum, came up with the notion of the void through and imagination alone.

• But he did not stop there. Democritus suggested that the universe is an infinite void. Within this void are tiny, indivisible units called atoms. These atoms come in a variety of shapes. Some shapes complement each other, fitting together to make a particular substance. Water atoms mix with grape atoms and spirit (alcohol) atoms to make wine. Water atoms and oil atoms cannot fit together, and will always separate. Things taste sour because they are made up of sharp atoms that cut the tongue. Things are heavy because their atoms are smashed together tightly. Things are lighter because their atoms are spread out and loosely connected. It is mind boggling to think that someone, without the aid of electron microscopes and advanced mathematics, could have simply thought his way to , and it seems that Democritus did just that. * The Pre Socratics

• Like all the Presocratics, a lot of what Democritus postulated was wrong. Democritus thought atoms were indivisible. Today we know that they can be divided (you just don’t want to be around when it happens!) just like we know that everything is not made of water, and it is not love, but gravity that holds the universe together.

• Yet, the Presocratics made the first step toward scientific . They postulated theories for how the universe worked based not on gods and myth, but on observations and reason. * The Socratics • Socrates and Philosophy

• It is difficult to say anything certain about Socrates. Though he is considered the 'Father of Philosophy,' Socrates himself never wrote a thing.

• What we know of him comes from the accounts of his friends and students writing long after his death.

• Despite this limitation, we are fairly certain about a few things. We are pretty sure that Socrates was born in around 469 B.C. He may well have followed his father's trade as a stone mason. He probably served in the Athenian army at some point in his life.

• In his later life, Socrates apparently was a man of some importance. He was a member of Athens' , a citizen council that voted on important matters of state.

• Sometime along the way, Socrates became interested in philosophy.

• Though his ideas earned him many friends and students among the elite of Athens, Socrates seems to have also upset a lot of people with his philosophical inquiries. * The Socratics • Socrates and Philosophy

• Socrates was brought to trial in 399 B.C. under charges of corrupting the youth of the city. He was found guilty and sentenced to death by drinking hemlock poison.

• The Socratic Problem

• That is what we know about Socrates, but this short account raises as many questions as it answers.

• What was Socrates' philosophy?

• Why did the Athenian city state consider Socrates so dangerous?

• And, finally, why did his successors consider him so important?

• To answer these, we must attempt to draw reliable information from some obviously biased and often clearly fictitious sources. * The Socratics • Socrates and Philosophy

• This issue is known as the Socratic Problem. Though several ancient authors mention Socrates, our primary source is his student Plato.

• We have two good reason to distrust Plato's accounts of Socrates.

• The first is obvious. As Socrates' student, his account is clearly biased in his master's favor.

• The second is more complicated. After Socrates' death, Plato began writing a series of dialogues featuring his master.

• In these dialogues, Socrates engages in philosophical debates with other wise men of his age.

• The problem is that it is difficult to tell which ideas belong to Socrates and which ideas belong to Plato.

• It is generally believed that Plato's early dialogues are attempts to preserve his master's message, while his later work is more original. * The Socratics • Socrates and Philosophy

• When we look at his dialogues we can see a rather clear distinction between the two.

• In his early dialogues, Plato has Socrates ask a lot of questions.

• In his later dialogues, Plato has Socrates make a lot of statements.

• From this evidence, scholars believe that Socrates' contribution to philosophy was a way of asking questions, questions which his successors then tried to answer.

• He, himself, never answered these questions, as it seems his purpose was to force his students to examine what they thought they knew more closely.

• This methodology is known as The .