Intellectual History, Logic, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Pre-Socratics: What Have We Learned?

by Dave Seng

For this post, we will conclude our series on the pre-Socratics and the problem of the one and the many.

Part one can be found here, part two here, and part three here.

I want to provide a short summary of what we have learned about the metaphysical thinking of the pre-Socratics and provide a short note about what I have in mind for the next couple of essays.

In our recent series exploring the intellectual contributions of the pre-Socratics, we focused on the ancient problem of the one and the many (what I will call the one-many problem, OMP). The OMP is the underlying theme of Western metaphysics. When philosophers examine the intelligible along with the sensible, the definite and infinite, the universal and particular, the nature of change, or the role of the state and the individual, the question of the OMP is always underneath the inquiry.

As we have seen, the OMP is central to Being, Nonbeing, Becoming, and the nature of change in the physical world. In this sense, metaphysics is closely related to physics. (One of the best books on this topic is Roger Trigg’s Beyond Matter: Why Science Needs Metaphysics.)

We also learned that the OMP is a question that relates to the nature, character, and origin of the cosmos. The earliest philosophers where exploring the metaphysical foundations of the universe as they looked for the source of Being and the nature of Becoming in our world. The field of metaphysics seeks to discover, explicate, and lay out the most basic principles and properties of the world (and all of Being) and the pre-Socratics were the first ones to apply reason and develop this method. Since it is impossible to deny that something such as the universe is, the next question is, “is it one or many?” Errors occur when either unity or the many is made primary. We also saw that the pre-Socratics were the first to apply the laws of logic, such as the law of identity and the law of noncontradiction, to the nature of reality (the Being-Becoming relationship) and discovered the metaphysical emphasis of the laws of logic. The OMP only makes sense in a world governed by logic, order, and uniformity in the natural world and the pre-Socratics understood this point. It is also the reason Aristotle focuses so much of his attention on it in his Physics.

Although it not always explicit in every philosopher, the OMP is the underlying central metaphysical concern of much of Western intellectual history. In the next couple of essays, we will discover how the OMP leads Plato to the discovery of form and how it enlightens Aristotle in his doctrines of immanent form, change, act, and potency.

Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Nature of Reality and The One and The Many, Part Three

by Dave Seng

Part one of the series can be found here.

Part two of the series can be found here.

It is impossible that what is, can also be what is not. (Restatement of the Law of Noncontradiction.)

Do you believe that all of reality came from one source? If you do, you are in agreement with one of the oldest cosmological and metaphysical theories of all intellectual history. You also might find yourself in agreement with the pre-Socratic monists who believed that Being is unified into one essential metaphysical scheme. If you disagree with the monists, however, you too might find yourself at home with the pre-Socratic pluralists whose understanding of reality also enjoys an ancient provenance. At this point, we will not answer this important conversation but I do hope to point out some things that we can learn from it. First, the question itself, whether reality ultimately came from one source, is one in nature, or is simply a collection of random diverse things, is still alive and with us today. We see this in debates about the fine-tuning of the universe (mostly from physicists), and various intelligent design theorists (generally from biology), who point to a theistic God as the source of reality, and those who would fall into a similar category as the pluralists who point out the diversity, randomness, and chaotic aspects of the natural world. The great question of the one and the many just will not go away. The other thing we can learn about this conversation is how it centers on what the ancient philosophers called Being (the nature of all reality). As we will see in future posts an important reformulation of the question of the one and the many has come to be known as Being (the one) and Becoming (the many). We can use the terms interchangeably. Everything we discussed in parts one and two about the problem of the one and the many can be applied to the concepts Being and Becoming. This brings us to the important discussion between Heraclitus and Parmenides.

We will begin with Parmenides. Parmenides (ca. 475) was a philosopher who lived in Italy, founded the Eleatic school of philosophy, and taught that it is rationally necessary that reality be one and immutable. Parmenides went as far as to deny motion and change, teaching that such things are an illusion. Being (the principle which unites all reality) must be one. If Being is one, it can not change, and it can not be many. Being can not include nonbeing or becoming as that would be a defect in Being. For Parmenides, change involves imperfection, temporality, and mutability. Change in particular things must be counted among the many (the diversity of all things around us). If change is imperfect, according to Parmenides, it can not be one. If all reality is essentially one, change must be illusory. Parmenides is famous for such pronouncements as “It is necessary to say and think what is. For Being is, and Not-Being is not” and “whatever is, is.” Essentially, Parmenides utterly denied the reality of the sensible world along with all plurality and motion. As radical as Parmenides sounds, there might be an element of truth in his position. He was, after all, making a statement about reality and the essential nature of things. Most philosophers think things have an essential nature that makes them the kind of things they are. A cat has an essential nature that makes it different from a cephalopod. If the essential nature of a cat changes, it is no longer a cat but something else. This is known logically to us by way of the logical laws of identity and the law of noncontradiction (here we notice the metaphysical implications of the laws of logic). Something can not be what it is and something else in the same way and the same relationship. Essence, essential being, is what it is. This has to be for things to make conceptual sense to us.

On the other hand, it would seem foolish to deny that things change. After all, cars, airplanes, and great Blue Whales (among other things) are all capable of traversing large amounts of land, airspace, and water. We understand that movement, motion, growth, and change are part of everyday experience and it does not seem reasonable to deny this aspect of reality. This brings us to Heraclitus (ca 500 B. C.) who taught that all things are in a state of flux governed by a divine, cosmic Law. Several of Heraclitus’s statements have been preserved. He is known for saying things like, “the sun is new every day,” “we are and we are not,” and in reply to Parmenides, “whatever is, is changing.” He is probably most famous for the phrase, “you can not step twice into the same river.” The idea is that once you put your foot into a river, different water will be flowing by the time you put your other foot into it. For Heraclitus, all reality is constantly changing, dynamic, and in flux. It is important to realize that, Heraclitus too, is making a statement about reality. As we move and do things throughout our day, we are changing. As all things exist in time, everything we experience is in a different segment or time frame. In some sense, things are constantly changing.

The tension remains, however, that if everything is in a state of becoming as Heraclitus taught, what is it that perdures when things change? Things do not change into nothingness because nothing (or non-being) is not a thing. Nothing in the physical cosmos can violate the law of conservation. On the other hand, if things have an essential nature and are not completely changing, then rational communication, law and justice, and science are possible. These are important metaphysical concerns that are sometimes overlooked by scientists and others working in the social and behavioral sciences.

This is the difficulty—the tension between Being and Becoming—that was given to Plato to address in his day and has become a central part of the Western intellectual tradition and how we understand that nature of the world around us. The tension is still with us today and the conversation is still alive. In our next post, we will see how Plato attempted to answer the question of Being and Becoming and then we will look at how Aristotle answered the problem.

Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

The Nature of Reality and The One and the Many, Part Two

by Dave Seng

We cannot stop at a principle containing separate parts; there must always be a yet higher, a principle above all such diversity. – Plotinus.

In a recent post, I discussed the metaphysical problem of the one and the many. Although this question of reality has largely been forgotten in contemporary philosophical literature, it is very significant and does not seem to go away. After all, the human impulse to make sense of the many different and changing things around us is deep and profound. We can see this drive in almost every human endeavor. Whenever a historian creates a powerful story of the past using a multiplicity of evidence, he or she is confronting the question of the one and the many. When an attorney seeks an action in the court of law and gives diverse reasons or causes for that action, we see the question of the one and the many at work (or the legal question “how ought justice be correctly distributed?” is another form of the same question). The whole point of science is not to leave us with a diverse set of facts but to attempt a singular unified theory that makes the most sense out of those facts. That is why Aristotle devotes the first part of his Physics (a work about the foundation of science and the natural world) to the question of the one and the many. Even the postmodern critical theorist who wants to privilege the diversity of things to the detriment of unity and coherence still provides a narrative of why that is so (for to reject a “metanarrative” or to provide a “metanarrative” of another kind, is still to give a narrative in the attempt to make sense out of things). The question of the one and the many is with us today.

Some scholars think that the question of the one and the many was the original question of philosophy. One of the reasons for this is that it was the central question of the pre-Socratics who handed it over to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the rest of Western intellectual history. As the name suggests, the pre-Socratics were a group of philosophers that lived before Socrates. In fact, this group laid out the basic question that all philosophy and other fields still attempt to answer today. But who are these philosophers?

I can only give a brief overview of the pre-Socratics here. I will provide a list of resources at the end of this post for those who want to explore the topic further. For our purpose, and by way of introduction, I will discuss the important schools and ideas of the pre-Socratics, and in our next post, I will discuss the primary significance of Heraclitus and Parmenides. For now, let us examine the earliest of Western philosophers, Thales.

Thales, the first metaphysician in recorded history, lived around 600 B.C. and came from what is called the Ionian tradition. He lived in the city of Miletus on the western coast of Ionia (now Turkey). Thales and his followers have come to be known as the “Miliesian Monists” due to the fact that as they sought an answer to the question of the one and the many, they emphasized that all reality can be reduced to one basic principle. (Monism is the idea that all reality is in some sense one and unified in its essence or nature.) If all things have an essence or basic nature, they reasoned, so does the cosmos. In Thales’ case, he posited water as the basic essence of reality. It might seem odd that such an ancient thinker has become famous due his idea that water is the essence of reality. However, Thales is among the first thinkers in the Western intellectual tradition to ground his thinking on evidence, examination, common sense perception, and evaluation as authoritative in all matters of belief and conduct, what is now called rationalism. He did not turn to the Greek anthropomorphic gods, goddesses, or other mysterious forces to explain the natural world around him. He was the first to provide an argument based on evidence and reason regarding the natural world. We do not, however, know exactly why he chose water and not some other element. Perhaps he chose water due to the fact that all living things need it to survive, or that it exists in three different states (liquid, gas, solid), or that it is the most plentiful substance on the planet. After all, it is reported that Thales wrote a book about navigating the seas. The important thing to understand at this point is that Thales emphasized unity and “the one” when it came to the question of the one and the many and chose water as the essential nature of reality. Other early monists lived and worked in this tradition as well, such as Anaxemines (550 B. C.), who proposed that air was the basic essence of reality because it is a sort of life-principle, and Heraclitus (500 B. C.), who taught that although reality is always changing, fire was the one element that holds all things together and provides balance and order in the cosmos.

There also were pre-Socratics who emphasized change, the many, and the diversity we see all around us. These thinkers are known as “the Pluralists” because they sought to identify reality with a plurality of substances while maintaining that each particular thing is a Being and one and immutable. Of this school is Empedocles (450 B. C.), who taught that reality is combined of the four elements of earth, fire, water, and air and are held together by the force of Love which combines things, and torn apart by the power of Strife which separates. Among the Pluralists, we find the first atomists, Democritus (425 B. C.) and Leucippus (450 B. C.) who identified reality with an infinite number of indivisible material particles (atoms) moving randomly in space. The Greek word atomos means “uncuttable” or something that is irreducible. These thinkers believed that the universe came about by a mechanical combining or coagulation of an infinite number of atoms.

No matter which school of thought these pre-Socratic philosophers came from, it can now be understood why they are considered the first metaphysicians and cosmologists due to their investigation of nature and their desire to find a unifying reason or cause for the universe.

Things get really interesting when we come to Parmenides and Heraclitus. It has been said that all of Western philosophy is just a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. (Dr. Mortimer Adler once joked that it was Aristotle who wrote the footnotes.) Nonetheless, the metaphor might be more complete to say that all of philosophy is a series of footnotes to Parmenides and Heraclitus because of the foundational questions they raised about reality. The discussion between Parmenides and Heraclitus is so important that it will be the topic of my next post. For now, it is important to know that the problem of the one and many can also be understood as what philosophers call Being and Becoming, universal and particular, appearance and reality, unity and diversity.

Science still struggles to maintain a balance between these concepts (and we will talk more about that in future posts). For now, just one quick example of this tension between the one and the many can be seen in “chaos theory” and similar fashionable theories we see today. When scientists say things like chaos is an agent of order or that there is a thing called “sensitive chaos” they are really violating the law of noncontradiction and speaking nonsense. If chaos were to be an organizing process of a whole, or a creative agent, it would not be chaos. It is really a reformulation of the problem of the one and the many. If the one is many, it is not one. If reality is one, it is not many. The problem persists and it was the pre-Socratics who first pointed out this metaphysical situation. In additional posts, we will explore how Plato and Aristotle attempted to solve this problem (through the discovery of form or essence) and we will learn that how we answer this problem will affect how one does science and ultimately shapes our world view.

To dig deeper into the pre-Socratics, explore these resources:

Jonathon Barnes. The Presocratic Philosophers. Revised ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982

James N. Jordan. Western Philosophy: From Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.

John Burnet. Early Greek Philosophy. Fourth Ed. Macmillan Publishing Co., 1930. (One of the best standard treatments of the pre-Socratics, although from a positivist perspective. Excellent selected fragments and commentary.)

Fredrick Copleston. A History of Philosophy. Baltimore: Newman Press, Vol. 1.

Logic, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

Addendum: Being, Cosmology, and the Principle of Simplicity

by Dave Seng

Nothing comes from nothing. – Lucretius

[Note: I will follow up on my post regarding the problem of the one and the many soon. Before I do that, however, I wanted to develop this excursus regarding the question of cosmology and the principle of simplicity a little more.]

One of the greatest questions of Being (all of reality) is how it all started. What philosophers call Being, however, does not strictly mean physical nature as it can include abstract ideas such as mental concepts, consciousness, aesthetic theories, human rights, mathematical axioms and formulas, emotions and intuition, moral goods and the like. Being includes both concrete physical objects and immaterial entities. Nonetheless, the question about the cause of existence is central to the study of Being. Martin Heidegger believed that the question, “why is there anything rather than nothing?” is the most important and foundational question of all philosophical inquiry. Another way of looking at this question is what is known as cosmology. Cosmology is the investigation of theories regarding the explanation, nature, origin, and development of the universe. Many philosophers and cosmologists are interested in “first cause” types of theories or arguments. This line of thought explores whether or not there is an ultimate cause of all events and existence, which logically does not itself have a cause.

Philosophers, such as Aristotle and Aquinas, believed that the basic elements of the universe—time and motion—were eternal. They did believe in a “first cause,” but their first cause was the greatest in a hierarchy of causes and realms of being. Plato was one of the first philosophers to articulate the idea that the universe must have a temporal starting point.

In light of our expanding cosmos and what scientists tell us about cosmic background radiation, it would seem that Plato is closer to the truth. Most cosmologists and physicists today believe that the universe had some kind of beginning. One widely acknowledged possibility of the origin of the universe is the “Big Bang” theory. This theory is a cosmological model which states the present hypothesized expanding universe has resulted from an explosion of concentrated matter (the point of singularity) fifteen or twenty billion years ago. All space, time, and matter are a result of that initial detonation.

Of course, the Big Bang hypothesis raises some questions. In a common sense and scientific understanding of reality, which assumes cause and effect relationships, what caused the Big Bang? What caused the cause of the Big Bang? What caused the highly concentrated matter to exist in the first place? Why did it suddenly defy the laws of inertia? These are some big questions given the principle of causality—the basic belief that every physical thing or event that comes into being is caused by virtue of something outside itself. In other words, the principle of causality is the idea that every contingent thing (things which are dependent for their existence on something else) comes into being by something external to it.

Philosophers and cosmologists have addressed these questions in two basic ways. On one hand, some have explored the possibility of an infinite regression, the idea that what caused the cause of the Big Bang produces a series of causes that recede into infinity. Others, however, have investigated the evidence which suggests a significant possibility that the universe has a real actual first cause and definitive starting point in space and time. Logically, the answer must be one or the other—either an infinite series of events or an actual first cause.

Philosophers are still debating this ancient question and have come up with some very complex reasoning about whether an infinite series is possible or not. At this point in the conversation, however, I think it is worthwhile to apply the law of noncontradiction and the principle of simplicity to these questions. The law of noncontradiction states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. Applied to the Big Bang model, which claims that a single compressed piece of matter and energy spontaneously created the universe from nothing violates the law of noncontradiction. The universe, in the point of singularity, would have had to exist prior to the detonation. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect which is impossible. It can not be and not be at the same time. Furthermore, nothing is not an entity. In philosophical terms nothing has no existence or being whatsoever—it does not exist, it is not a thing, it has no ontological properties, it has no potential. One can not even think of nothing because to think of it is to think of something. Because nothing is “not a thing” it has no causal powers. “Nothing,” as Martin Luther once quipped, “is not a little something.” To exist or “to be” means to stand out of nothing. Self-creation of contingent things is impossible which is why we don’t see it in our everyday experience. As many philosophers throughout history have stated, “nothing comes from nothing.”

Given the force of the principle of causality and the law of noncontradiction, we have a very good reason to apply the principle of simplicity with regard to the origin of the universe. The principle of simplicity states that one explanation ought to be preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler ideas. Many philosophers accept the notion that the simplest explanation that makes sense out of most of the facts is the best. It would seem, then, that since a self-created universe is impossible (employing the law of noncontradiction), the simpler theory, and one to be preferred, is one of an actual temporal First Cause. God must exist as the ultimate cause of the contingent, physical universe. Any attempt to show the possibility or impossibility of an infinite series of causes neglects the law of noncontradiction, leaves unanswered the questions of how the series started due to the fact that all events have antecedent causes (do the laws of inertia apply to an infinite series?), and how the condensed matter and energy came into existence in the first place, which is the entire question at hand.

The idea that the cosmic evidence points to a divine creator is certainly not new. It is, however, important and significant. It is the logical implication of the principle of causality, the law of noncontradiction, and the principle of simplicity. Taken together, we find that a First Cause makes the most sense out of the given data and unifies our experience of reality both simply and profoundly.