Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Six

by Dave Seng

Part five can be found here.

Apart from the ancient political philosophers, however, the ancient poets, historians, and playwrights also presented significant insights into the idea of democracy. The earliest examinations of democracy are given to us from Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides. These contributions are important because they shape the entire Western debate about consensual government.

The first impulse of shared rule is found in the Iliad, one of two surviving works of the blind poet Homer. The Iliad is one of the earliest writings of Western literature and tells the story of a coalition of Greek forces that attacked Troy in Asian Minor around 1184 – 1174 B.C. The Trojan Paris ran off with the beautiful Greek queen, Helen. Helen’s husband Menelaus and brother-in-law Agamemnon (also a king) gathered a great military expedition to retrieve Helen and punish Troy. Throughout Homer’s narrative, Agamemnon would meet with his generals and soldiers in a kind of tribal war council for military advice and guidance in conducting the siege. All soldiers participated in these councils. We learn this from Odysseus’ comment to a deserter “you count for nothing, neither in war nor in council.”1 At one point, after a defeat by the Trojans, Agamemnon considers leaving Troy and going home. Odysseus convinces Agamemnon to continue prosecuting the war because the soldiers would rather stay, fight, and die with honor, rather than leave in shame. Agamemnon is forced to seek a better way and he democratically seeks advice from anyone who would give it. Homer tells us,

At that the king of men Agamemnon backed down;

“A painful charge, Odysseus, straight to the heart.

I am hardly the man to order men, against their will,

to haul the oar-swept vessels out to the sea. So now

whoever can find a better plan, let him speak up,

young soldier or old. I would be pleased to hear him”.2

In this single passage Homer gives us an early glimpse of the necessary elements of consensual government including mutual debate, discussion, and consensus building. Agamemnon was not willing to force his troops to do something against their will but rather, was willing to listen to any soldier young or old for a better plan. Essentially, Agamemnon gave up his authority and placed it in the people, (in this case, his soldiers) and sought to hear them and listen to them, also another quality of democratic leaders. Democracy also has a pragmatic emphasis and the Greeks understood this too. Achilles’ great friend, Patroclus, tells us, “the proof of battle is action, the proof of words, debate.” The Greeks loved to debate but also understood the necessity of action. Democracy itself survives by debate, consensus building, and putting ideas into action.

Sometimes authors will criticize Homer as undemocratic.3 In one passage in book two, Odysseus punishes Thersites for insolence and yelling obscenities at Agamenmon. The fact that Thersites is punished is taken as proof that Homer does not support free dissent and is therefore undemocratic. It is difficult, however, to make this charge because Odysseus and Agamemnon are sensitive to the needs of their soldiers, offers them a voice in decision making, and will listen to them (even deserters are allowed to attend the council) . Odysseus does punish Thersites but it was for breaking military protocol, insubordination, and arguing over plunder. Odysseus may have been wrong for punishing Thersites, but that is a separate question from whether or not he was a democrat.

One can find both elements of democracy and elements of aristocracy in the Iliad. A democratic influence can be seen when his main characters are open to the advice of common soldiers and not just the aristocracy or landed nobles. However, the Iliad is not a treatise on political theory. Homer never gives the kind of systematic analysis of government or the state in the way a Plato or Aristotle would. The Iliad is a great work of imaginative poetry exploring the existential human predicament of living life in the face of death, war, and the mortal struggle for immortality. It is also worth remembering that Homer was telling his story at the same time as the rise of the Greek city-states (around 700 B.C.). Homer was speaking of events that occurred almost 500 years prior to his telling of the story, and having familiarity with the changing political structures of his time, could have inserted democratic ideas into the oral tradition. Homer was telling his story when different conceptions of government were being explored. No longer was aristocracy, oligarchy or monarchy the only options for the citizens of emerging city-states. Like the poet Hesiod, it is possible that Homer understood the changing political climate of his times (although Hesiod was no friend of rule by the people) and realized the significant shift from aristocracy to popular or democratic rule. Nonetheless, it is Homer who gives us the first minute glimpse of consensual government in the history of Western civilization. However, it is Herodotus that gives us the first historical debate on the values and dream of democracy.

The Greek historian Herodotus provides the first political discussion in Western thought about the benefits of democracy against the strengths of oligarchy, and monarchy.4 This debate sets up the entire conversation in Western thought regarding many of the challenges and advantages of democracy as a form of government. Ironically, this early debate over consensual rule did not occur in Greece but in Persia. Herodotus sets the scene after Darius I rises to power through a conspiracy of seven men from the aristocratic class of Persia. These men resented the fact that Persia was ruled by a Mede and decided to kill their king, Smerdis the Magian. After their successful coup, the men debated about how to set up the new government and how to best rule the Persian kingdom. Otanes, one of the conspirators, suggests democracy (the rule of the many), Megabyzus submits oligarchy (the rule of the few) as the best form of government, and Darius argues for monarchy (the rule of one).

Otanes, arguably the first promoter of consensual government in Western history, gives a profound speech explaining the merits of rule by the people. He remembers the tyranny of one of their former kings, Cambyses, and argues for democracy because their kings have been unaccountable. He asks the question,

“How indeed is it possible that monarchy should be a well adjusted thing, when it allows a man to do as he likes without being answerable? Such license is enough to stir strange and unwonted thoughts in the heart of the worthiest of men. Give a person this power, and straightway his manifold good things puff him up with pride, while envy is so natural to human kind that it cannot but arise in him.”5

Otanes understands that unrestrained power will easily corrupt the best of men. Centuries before Lord Acton, Otanes was aware that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Otanes also hints at one of the greatest concepts and values in the history of Western thought – the necessity of public audit and accountability for political leaders. Human nature is too easily corrupted and needs to be held responsible for its actions. But the worst of all, according to Otanes, is that the king, “sets aside the laws of the land, puts men to death without trial, and subjects women to violence.”6 Otanes is also pointing us to the necessity of the rule of law. But Otanes goes further; he envisions a government where everyone is equal before the law. He explains,

The rule of the many, on the other hand, has, in the first place, the fairest of names, to wit, isonomy; and further it is free from all those outrages which a king is wont to commit. Their places are given by lot, the magistrate is answerable for what he does, and measures rest with commonality. I vote, therefore, that we do away with the monarchy, and raise the people to power. For the people are all in all.7

Otanes understands that democracy can succeed if everyone falls under the same rule of law, if official leaders are held accountable, and procedures and decisions ultimately rest with the “commonality”.

Megabyzus, another conspirator, suggests setting up an oligarchy (or rule of the few). Long before Plato, Megabyzus was concerned that democracy was nothing more than mob rule. He called it a “rude unbridled mob” and explains,

The tyrant in all his doings, at least knows what he is about, but a mob is altogether devoid of knowledge; for how should there be any knowledge in a rabble, untaught and with no natural sense of what is right and fit? It rushes wildly into state affairs with all the fury of a stream swollen in the winter, and confuses everything.8

Megabyzus is the first to articulate that the idea of shared consensual rule will be a disaster if the uneducated are allowed to participate in government. He believes a few of the worthiest citizens should rule the many. According to Megabyzus, the best of the aristocratic class should rule Persia and the collective wisdom and advice from these men will prevail and provide the finest form of government. In other words, Megabyzus believes that the ignorant and common people are incapable of governing themselves and he believes the wisdom of the best men (in Megabyzus’ understanding the aristocracy) acting in concert will ensure the best type of rule.

Darius then speaks about the strengths and benefits of monarchy. He agrees with Megabyzus about weaknesses of democracy. He believes democracy will ultimately become a form of mob rule, or tyranny by the majority. He also thinks, however, that oligarchy will break down among competing aristocrats. He thinks the oligarchs will end up fighting among themselves, civil war will break out, and the safety of the kingdom will be at risk. The oligarchs will be too busy fighting among themselves to address real issues of crime, foreign policy, or administering justice wisely. Darius claims that ultimately one oligarch will win and become the monarch which supports his view that the best form of government is monarchy. On the other hand, he believes a benevolent monarch will have the best interests of his people in mind and will rule in a magnanimous and prudent way. Darius explains,

What government can possibly be better than that of the very best man in the whole state? The counsels of such a man are like himself, and so he governs the mass of people to their heart’s content; while at the same time his measures against evil-doers are kept more secret than in other states.9

Interestingly, one of Darius critiques of democracy has to do with crime. He believes democracy will foster crime (“malpractices” and “villainies”) to such an extent that someone will come to the defense of the commonality and be so admired that this person will become a king. Darius’ other argument for monarchy is an appeal to tradition. He appeals to the ancient hereditary laws that support monarchy (never asking if these laws are right or wrong). Darius, became Darius I, expanded the Persian Empire but was defeated by an alliance of Greek forces at the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. when he tried to invade Greece.

In the next post, we will discover what ultimately happened to Otanes’ vision of democracy and an Athenian poet who found himself defending the idea of democracy.

1 Homer. Iliad. Trans. by Robert Fagles. (New York: Penguin Books, 1991), 106.

2 Ibid. 433.

3 For example, Paul Woodruff in his book, First Democracy simply states, “Homer is no democrat,” on page 129. Professor Woodruff is wrong.

4 Herodotus lived between 484 – 425 B.C., he probably wrote his History around 440 B.C.

5 Herodotus, 107.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., 108.

9 Ibid., 108.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Five

by Dave Seng

Part four can be found here.

Aristotle is important to the history of democracy in many ways. Here, an examination of some of his most important contributions is in order. Aristotle contributed to the development of democracy by arguing for a greater role of the middle class in consensual government, a robust view of natural law, and a belief that institutions shape the civic virtues and values of the citizenry. Aristotle had a high view of the state, as is clear from the opening lines of his Politics. The state is, in fact, the most encompassing of human institutions and strives for the highest good for the human being, whom Aristotle called not only a “rational animal” but also a “political animal.”1 Aristotle explains his fundamental point of departure in the opening passage of his Politics,

Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other and at the highest good.2

Aristotle rejected Plato’s utopian idealism, intellectual elitism, and communism. He also maintained a healthy and realistic fear of what he called “extreme democracy” (mob rule, again). But he nevertheless believed that some kind of democracy was possible and believed that the middle class was able to play a part in consensual democratic government under the rule of law. After all, he realized that the middle class has a greater stake in the success of the state. Furthermore, Aristotle believed it was possible to create a mutually beneficial government between the aristocratic and middle classes of society. Somehow government must accommodate and make use of the rank and file of the ordinary citizenry with its collective experience, insight, and good sense. Aristotle explains,

The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet and hands, and senses; that is a figure of their mind and disposition.3

Aristotle believes that shared rule between the many and the few is possible. Even so, he is aware that democracy has its problems. He understands the real danger of the tyranny of the majority and rejects populism. He also understands the degenerative character of human nature. Aristotle, however, thinks that the greater danger lies in keeping the many out of political rule. He seeks a balance between the rule of the few (in his understanding the best citizens) and the many. He tells us,

There is still a danger in allowing them [the many] to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates into account, but they do not allow them to hold office singly. When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the state (just as impure food when mixed with what is pure sometimes makes the entire mass more wholesome than a small quantity of the pure would be), but each individual left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment.4

Part of Aristotle’s political project was to discover a way the middle class could share power with the aristocracy. In Aristotle, we begin to see the Western value of the many and shared consensual government. He does not believe the many should obtain every single office in the state, but they should have deliberative and judicial functions for the purposes of legal recourse and to hold magistrates accountable. Aristotle understood the state would have a stronger stability when citizens shared power and were responsible for the success of the state. On the other hand, he understood the temptation of human nature to devolve into a crass extreme democracy, clash of wills, and mob rule. Aristotle’s solution to this problem was to formulate a conception of natural law.

Natural law points to the general and universal rules of conduct, both personal and social, derived from nature, which is conceived as rationally ordered.5 Natural law is also known from human nature (human nature being a phenomenon in the world more generally). One of Aristotle’s most important contributions to political thought is his understanding of natural law as the foundation of all social and political institutions. In his Ethics, Aristotle distinguished between conventional law, or law that is established by general agreement, and natural law, which is derived directly from the natural order of the world and from built-in tendencies of human nature.6 Again, here is a connection between metaphysics, epistemology and social-political thought. Aristotle finds in the universe fixed essences in the particulars of this world. He believes that these fixed essences of things define the orderliness and lawfulness of the cosmos, and can be rationally inducted, articulated, and useful to all areas of life including the structures of our political institutions.

Along with other fundamental principles, the foundation of our social and political life is rooted in human nature. This is why in his Politics, Aristotle is profoundly concerned with the civic virtues and character of the individual citizen. The character of our or social and political life is based in the very nature of things and our political institutions simply reflect human nature. For Aristotle, his statement that “man is a political animal” is as much a statement about actual human nature as is “man is a rational animal.” The basic principles of social existence and institutions are not, therefore, “up for grabs”; rather, they up for rational discovery, expression, and application.7

Aristotle also realizes, however, that the state is in some sense “a creation of nature” and is prior to the individual and necessary for the cultivation of civilization and human virtue. (In Aristotle’s view it is the role of the state and civil institutions to create civic virtue among its citizens.) However, there is a sense that the state is prior to the individual simply because the state is a creation of human nature and a social instinct has been implanted into humanity to form governments and states. He explains,

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above humanity; he is like the

Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one,

whom Homer denounces – the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be compared to an isolated piece at draughts.

… The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue , which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.8

History certainly illustrates the concept of human nature and “that man separated from law and justice is the worst of all.” Aristotle is not the only thinker in Western thought to be persuaded with the idea of natural law. Natural law theory has been embraced by thinkers as diverse as the Greek and Roman Stoics to St. Thomas Aquinas in the middle ages, and John Locke in the early modern era.9 Natural law theory serves to bolster democracy by providing a legal foundation for all human action and behavior. The Greeks had a profound respect for the rule of law and believed that the idea of law itself was a gift from the gods.

1 Miller, 498.

2 Aristotle, Politics, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 9, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 445.

3 Ibid., 479.

4 Ibid.

5 Miller, 585.

6 Ibid., 494.

7 Ibid., 500.

8 Aristotle, Politics, 446.

9 Aristotle, Stoic thought, and others have shared the general view of reality that social and political values are built into the world and human nature from the start. Natural law theory was also rediscovered during the renaissance.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Four

by Dave Seng

Part three can be found here.

The ancient theorists of political philosophy were, of course, Plato and Aristotle. Plato was no friend of democracy, while Aristotle believed a certain form of democracy was possible (though he rejected what he called “extreme democracy”). Both of these thinkers are important not only for their ideas but how they set the stage for subsequent thought and development about the dream of democracy. Also, these ancient political philosophers were very much concerned with human nature – with the enduring drives, passions, fears, hatreds, and aspirations of human beings (elements of humanity that are true across time and space). For the ancients, these important elements of human nature were the starting point of their political (and ethical) philosophy. This was especially true for both Plato and Aristotle.

Plato wrote one of the most important books in political history called the Republic. It is not only a work on politics and the state, but describes the intricate relationships between political thought and ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and even art. Plato had a peculiar view of the state but his understanding of the state comes from his theories of knowledge (epistemology) and reality.

In order to understand how Plato’s epistemology influenced his political theory, it is important to see first what forms of government he rejects. Moving from bad to worse, Plato rejected timocracy, by which he meant the rule by those who are primarily motivated by ambition and honor. In such rulers, an inferior part of the soul, the spirited and emotional part, has gained dominance. He also rejected oligarchy or plutocracy, the rule of the (few) rich. According to Plato, a preoccupation with wealth is even more base than a preoccupation with honor, and, moreover, the rule by the wealthy would inevitably bring about class warfare and alienation.1 Next he rejected democracy as yet a further degeneration of government, though what he meant by this word is something different from a modern understanding of it. For Plato, in a smallish city-state like that of Athens, democracy meant the actual and equal participation of every citizen in the affairs of state, rather than participation by representation.2 When one examines Plato’s formation of democracy it is easy to see that democracy has evolved and developed from his conception of it. Plato’s classic critique of democracy is that majority rule ultimately becomes mob rule. Finally, Plato rejected despotism and dictatorships as acceptable forms of government.

Plato’s solution was to create a regime of the best, or better yet – an aristocracy. But Plato didn’t mean rule by the landed nobility. Aristocracy simply means “rule of the best” and for Plato the best were philosophers. And this is where Plato’s epistemology comes into play. Plato believed philosophers were the only ones who have escaped the world of becoming and peered into the transcendent world of pure being. From this, Plato believes philosophers can discover the absolutes of truth, goodness, and beauty. Philosophers are those who have been unchained from the mundane elements of this world and able to discover the ultimate truths of reality. According to Plato, they have escaped the darkness of the Cave and have beheld the Good.3 Plato himself calls this the central thesis of the Republic: “Philosophers must be kings.”4 In the Republic, Plato uses Socrates to explain why a philosopher king would be the best ruler,

Unless either philosophers become kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for wisdom; unless that is to say political power and philosophy meet together, while the many natures who now go their several ways in the one or the other direction are forcibly debarred from doing so, there can be no rest from troubles, my dear Glaucon, for states, nor yet as I believe, for all mankind; nor can this commonwealth which we have imagined ever till then see the light of day and grow to its full stature. This it was that I have so long hung back from saying; I knew what a paradox it would be, because it is hard to see that there is no other way of happiness either for the state of for the individual.5

Plato believes that the best form of rule is the “philosopher king” and such a person will have the innate qualities of temperance, courage, graciousness, and one who loves truth, justice, and wisdom. Plato rhetorically asks the question “Since the philosophers are those who can apprehend the eternal and unchanging, while those who cannot do so, but are lost in the mazes of multiplicity and change, are not philosophers, which of the two ought to be in control of the state?”6

Plato did try to install a philosopher kingship in Syracuse but was asked to leave when his project failed. It is difficult to conceive of such a regime in the twenty-first century. It is unlikely that, today, many will accept the idea that philosophers should rule over the masses. Not everyone holds to Plato’s metaphysics of truth and reality and it would be difficult to find a Platonic philosopher-king today that will appeal to a majority of people. History has rarely seen a philosopher given to political pursuits, or a politician given to philosophical investigation. While there have been many political philosophers throughout history, few have been able to combine a genuine pursuit of philosophy with the pragmatic, consensual, and daily concerns of political life. (A couple of rare exceptions would be Marcus Aurelius and perhaps Vaclav Havel in the twentieth century.) Nonetheless, any form of intellectual aristocracy would fail to gain the consent of a large segment of a society that is always suspicious of intellectual or philosophic elites. Furthermore, not everyone would like other features of Plato’s social-political program. While it is true that he was one of the earliest advocates of women’s rights (the philosopher-king could easily be a woman for Plato), he also proposed a full-scale social program of shared community property and children, eugenics, arranged marriages, and censorship. While Plato was no friend of democracy, his critiques of shared rule have shaped the discussion of democracy for thousands of years. It was Plato’s student Aristotle that is among the first of the ancient theorists to give a presentation and defense of democracy. The next post will explore the political contributions Aristotle makes to political thought.

1 Miller, 494.

2 Ibid.

3 In the Republic, book seven, Plato gives his analogy of the cave. Plato argues that most people take this world for ultimate reality when in fact the particulars of this world actually reflect transcendent reality that is more real than this world. Only by escaping the embodied reality of this world – the cave – and peering into the transcendent realm can one find truth and ultimate reality.

4 Miller, 494.

5 Plato, The Republic, 473C – E, tr. Francis MacDonald Cornford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945).

6 Ibid., 484B.

Intellectual History, Liberal Arts, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Lucretius: A Conversation Between Science and Philosophy, Part Three

by Dave Seng

This concludes our series on Lucretius’s poem, The Way Things Are in which we have explored the intimate connection between science and philosophy. In this post, we will make some important concluding comments and connections.

Find part one here.

Find Part two here.

When exploring issues regarding the world we live in, both science and philosophical reflection are necessary. The distinction between essence and substance is why reflection on nature always involves both science and philosophy. Things which are composed of essence and substance have an immaterial and material character to them. Perhaps another example regarding physical reality and metaphysics, drawn from mathematics will help. The concept of numbers can be derived and abstracted from one physical object, two physical objects, etc. One can easily understand that two tables plus two tables equals four tables. However, the principles, axioms, and rules of logic which make algebra, calculus, and geometry are not strictly empirical and require a metaphysical foundation1. In both, substantial objects and mathematical realities, science and philosophy are interacting.

What is to be said of the ideas of cause and substantial change given the principles of induction, uniformity, and the conservation of energy which Lucretius points out? The principles of uniformity and conservation (among others) are properties of Being. Another property of Being is causality or the notion of cause among things that change. The notion of cause or the principle of causality, has both philosophic and scientific implications. As demonstrated, Lucretius is interested in exploring the nature of causation in physical reality. He tells us that he is interested in the causes of events (3), the causes of things (3), and the causes of movement (16) and effects which derive from natural laws (85) which we can understand to be uniformity, conservation, and causation (among other natural laws). In the realm of becoming and physical existence, it is reasonable to think that things exist in a cause and effect relationship. Linguistically, logically, and analytically it does not make any sense to speak of a cause without an effect or an effect without a cause. By definition, an effect is that which has an antecedent cause. Lucretius understands this and holds to a general theory of causation which says that that which comes into being (contingent effects) must have a cause. Events, effects, and created or living things have a cause which explains the nature or reason for their existence. This is why the law of causality is considered an extension or application of the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Actions and events cannot precede themselves just as non-being can not create Being. For something to create itself, it would have to exist prior to its existence which violates the law of noncontradiction. As Lucretius reminds us “nothing comes from nothing” (3). Philosophically and analytically, nothing is not a thing. It is a little weird to try to describe nothing ontologically because it has no existence whatsoever and is completely outside our knowledge of things in this world. The best one can do is call it pure or absolute non-being. It is impossible to think of nothing because if one tries, one is thinking of something and to think of something is not thinking of nothing. In Aristotelian terms, nothing or non-being has no act or potency.

Aristotle describes metaphysics as the study of being and the first principles and highest causes of reality. “Therefore it is of being as being that we also must grasp the first causes” explains Aristotle (Aristotle, Vol. 7, 522). Today, we can count among the first causes of reality the laws of logic, the law of causality, essence or form, the law of uniformity, mathematical truths, and many others. Strictly speaking, metaphysics is the study of transcendent realities which cannot be grasped by means of the senses. But there is an overlap between metaphysics and the physical sciences. Metaphysics points people to the logical structure of the world and in this sense, metaphysics allows people to study the world in the most general way. Metaphysics, as the study of “being as being,” is a body of knowledge about the world. Further, metaphysics shows us how truth is made coherent in any human field (all fields of knowledge want to correctly apply the law of noncontradiction, for example). Lucretius understands that there are basic laws of nature worthy of reflection. He acknowledges many important and foundational principles of reality. Upon reflection, we see that scientific laws are not strictly empirical but rely on metaphysical foundations. In this way, we understand that questions about the nature of the universe always involve both science and philosophy. Both are needed to interpret reality correctly.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Lucretius. The Way Things Are. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 11. Encyclopedia

Britannica, Inc., 1999.

1Mathematics is not always inductive or empirical. It also works deductively. Alan Turing, for example, built a calculating machine based on abstract laws of mathematics and logic (principles of metaphysics). His machine and the theory behind it laid the foundation for generalized modern computing. Metaphysics and logic can have a direct result in the physical world.