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.

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.

Metaphysics, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

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

by Dave Seng

“The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe.” – G. K. Chesterton

It is important to think about our most basic ideas, conceptions, and assumptions. After all, our foundational principles and ideas shape and inform what we think and how we act towards many other things in life. It is even more important to think about the first things of all reality. How we decide these questions will determine how and what we think about other things. For example, someone thinks that all reality is really mass and energy in motion, then it will be easy to understand where they fall on moral issues regarding the beginning and ending of life. On the other hand, if one believes in a supernatural or incorporeal reality then we know what he or she thinks in a variety of other things. Our most commonplace expressions of political policy, ethical decisions, and our understanding of the natural world such as change, cause, mass and energy, reflect assumptions about our basic ideas of the universe and our place in it. As G. K. Chesterton explained, “The most practical and important thing about a man, is still his view of the universe. We think that for a landlady considering a lodger, it is important to know his income, but still more important to know his philosophy. We think that for a general about to fight an enemy, it is important to know the enemy’s numbers, but still more important to know the enemy’s philosophy. We think the question is not whether the theory of the cosmos affects matters, but whether in the long run, anything else affects them.”1 Everyone, whether we realize it or not holds basic ideas—a philosophy—regarding humankind’s curiosity about itself and the universe of which he or she is a part. I’m convinced that the most important questions in life are metaphysical in nature. All the important questions we can explore are, in the final analysis, a result of what we think about the nature of reality.

This is just as true today as it was for a collection of philosophers who lived in the ancient world known as the pre-Socratics. I will explain who the pre-Socratics were and what they believed in an upcoming post. For now, it is enough to know that the pre-Socratics were the world’s first metaphysicians and in one way or another shaped the field of philosophy ever since. This post will focus on their influence and seek to explain why their primary question—the problem of the one and the many—is a significant difficulty for us today. I will post an essay or two to explain how different pre-Socratic philosophers answered the question. Then, we will discover how nearly every philosopher from Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Augustine through Aquinas, Kant and Hegel and even postmodern and critical theorists today still struggle with the question of the one and the many and its relevance for us in our current intellectual and cultural climate. First, however, let’s examine the classical problem of the one and the many and why it is still important.

What is this problem of the one and the many? Philosopher Ed Miller articulates the problem this way: The problem of the one and the many is “the problem of identifying the ultimate reality (the One) that underlies all things (the Many) and of explaining the relation between them or how the Many derives from the One”.2 It is a problem because logically the many can not be one (or it would not be many) and the one can not be many (or it would not be one). According to the law of noncontradiction, the one cannot be many at the same time and in the relationship.

The pre-Socratic philosophers were perplexed by the question of reality. They were puzzled by the nature of existence and what it means to exist in a world of change, contingency, and finitude. Yet somehow something holds this world together in unity. How do all things relate to one reality? Not everything is pure chaos. Finite things have unity or oneness. At the same time, all of reality (Being) seems to be coherent, ordered, and rationally discernible. Could it be there is an underlying reality that is revealed in the many things around us? If so, how is this underlying reality related to or connected to the individual things we encounter every day?

The fundamental issue is, coming from the fact of existence (Being), what do all things have in common? It seemed to the pre-Socratics that behind the vast multiplicity of things that make up the universe, there is some principle of unity, the very insight that is embodied in our word universe, which means “combined into one”.3

This quest to find unity out of diversity demonstrates the human impulse to seek an explanation for things. Generally speaking, the best explanation is the one that is simple, unified, and rationally coherent—what philosophers call the principle of simplicity. This principle states that one explanation is preferred over another by virtue of its employment of fewer and/or simpler factors. In philosophy, science, and everyday life, we tend to accept the simplest explanation that makes the most reasonable sense out of the given facts. We take unity as a principle of explanation because it unites, integrates, and encompasses that which is known. We do not like needlessly complex answers to questions. Complex answers certainly can be found for complex questions but the principle of simplicity explains why a single simpler answer that incorporates and makes sense out of a diversity of facts is often preferred. As we shall see in upcoming posts, the pre-Socratics may seem to be naive and unscientific, but their quest for an account for the unity from the many and what it means to provide an explanation for something is not at all unreasonable or irrelevant. 

The question of the one and the many shapes how we think about a variety of things. It is not an abstract problem strictly for the amusement of philosophers. In history of Western thought, the basic themes of being and becoming, the intelligible (mental and conscious) and sensible, the definite and infinite, same and other, particular and universal, and existence and nothingness all relate to the question of what reality is and how the many diverse things that exist relate to it. These themes point to the relationship everything takes part in and the underlying reality that makes things one, in other words, the unity of Being. The question of the one and the many may take on different names but in various ways, the inquiry is the same.

We can see how the issue works out today. Physicists have been concerned with the divisibility or indivisibility of matter and the strange behavior of sub-atomic particles for a long time. Why is it that physics is fairly regular and ordered at the macro level but not at the quantum level? Nevertheless, something unites the two. This is what John Boslough was getting at when he wrote, “Only by reconciling the two seemingly irreconcilable areas of physics can theorists hope to find a unified field theory that will explain the workings of the entire universe”. In some ways, the question of the one and many has become more relevant today than it was for the pre-Socratics. The quest, however, to find an underlying reality which unites everything else remains. How is it that time keeps moving forward when sensible particular things stop? What keeps time continuous? Time seems to be divisible yet there is an underlying unity to it. This is a question of the one and the many. In the realm of politics, one might ask, does the individual exist for the benefit of the state or the state for the individual? If so, in what way? How should the state be united for the common life of the many? What unites a community into a state? During the founding of America, the Federalists solved this problem with the slogan, e pluribus unum, “from the many, one”. But what happens when unity breaks down? These are important existential questions that will affect everyone at one time or another.

In the following posts, I hope to explore the ramifications of important metaphysical questions that center around the problem of the one and the many. We’ll discover how physics is applied metaphysics, social science is applied metaphysics and why Kant was right when he argued for a metaphysical foundation for ethical decisions.

We will continue to explore the question of the one and the many. For now, I hope that we can see that we all have been influenced and impacted by this most practical and metaphysical question of reality.

[Note, some of my readers have indicated that my posts are conceptually difficult for them. I apologize. I have tried to write at the beginning and intermediate levels but I know I often fail. In light of this, I have created a philosophical glossary to help out. In the meantime, I will still try to explain things more carefully because philosophy is important for all human flourishing.]

1G. K. Chesterton, Heretics (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1905) P. 15.

2Ed Miller, Questions that Matter, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1996) P. 59.

3Daniel Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (Tan Books, 2009), P. 12.