While
the nomos-physis debate reached its high point around the 5th
century BC in ancient Greece, the earliest Presocratic philosophers have
already explored and touched on this important topic, when the trend of
switching the approach from mythos to logos was prevalent in Greek
thinking.
In
general, most of the Presocratic philosophers until the emergence of the
Sophists could be considered philosophers focusing on the 'physis' side. Most of the thinkers until Socrates were fundamentally
interested in the origin of the universe, and in particular, the substance that
served as the first cause of all things. It was through the speculation of a
first cause that they elaborated their unique philosophical viewpoints. From
the material monism of the philosophers from Miletus, through the rational
theology and metaphysics by Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenides,
to the pluralistic nod atomistic positions of later philosophers, the thinkers attempted
to discover physis of things. A common feature important of note was that all
these philosophers celebrated the rational mind, and tended to discredit the
use of empirical observations or perceptual experiences to arrive at true
knowledge. Due to the limited resources for any scientific endeavor, the
Presocratic philosophers tend to view phenomenal experience with a healthy dose
of skepticism, or even undermine that as misleading illusions to our
understanding.
The engagement with physis could also be seen from
Greek culture. Aeschylus, celebrated as one of the key tragedians of ancient.t
Greek, tended to muddle up the command and laws from the Divine physis with
human conventions nomos. Ig was not uncommon for a character in an Aeschylean
play to pass the blame of his / her action to the command of the gods.
Nevertheless, Aeschylus was forward-thinking in the sense that he addressed the
view that an individual should be responsible for one's action. For 'Oresteia',
while one can argue much of the story had some forms of Divine intervention,
physis would eventually lead to nomos, dictated by the fair trial in the Greek
city. The Greek dramatists have provided complex interpretations of the
nomos-physis debate in their plays, and that will be the focus of a future
article.
The
5th century saw the rise of the Sophists – the professional teachers
and rhetoricians in Greece, and there was coincidental with the apex of the
nomos-physis debate. It should not be surprising to see the Sophists were
participated heavily in this contention, and were importance in the
implications of the debate. For philosophy until Socrates, the thinkers have
mainly been focusing on the nature and origin of the universe. Be it material
monism, the Divine or Being, or some ontological forces that shaped every
aspect of the universe, the central concern has never been humanistic. The
emergence of the Sophists was a controversial one, because by that time people
tended towards a more dogmatic view of life. They believed that arete (an area
of excellence for a person) cannot be taught, because that is seen as
unnatural. Yet, the Sophist challenged this notion of knowledge and they indeed
charged high fees to teach different areas of the knowledge to the students who
could afford that. This was instrumental to the upper-class people, because
from these skills they mastered public speaking and rhetoric, debating skills,
and other relevant sets of skills that would likely lead to political power and
other benefits. Thus for thinkers like Socrates, Plato and Aristophanes, they
were seen as mercenaries of knowledge rather than true philosophers.
From
the assumptions of Sophism one would expect they were more inclined on the
nomos side, as they shared human-oriented visions regarding their work. Yet, it
is not totally true. Because Sophism itself was more of a common commitment
than a consistent philosophy. The only attribute all these Sophists were a
common aim to teach knowledge to their students, and Sophists did compete with
each other and disagree on many issues. For Sophists like Protagoras and
Prodicus, they embraced the nomos side. Protagoras' more famous dictum was 'Man
is the measure of all things'. This statement testified the Sophist's humanism
and that the individual was responsible for the value judgments of different
things around him.
In
contrast, for Sophists like Hippias and Antiphon, they were inclined on the
physis side. Hippias was believed to be one of the famous thinkers in the West
to explicitly state the term 'natural law', and believed their existences were
more important the conventions dictated by humans. Antiphon also believed in
the existence of natural law, and he believed self-interest (or
self-preservation) was the ultimate natural law that governed humanity.
Antiphon despised nomos because he seemed to observe inconsistencies in the
man-made laws and conventions, and that also resulted in some elitism and
prejudice against other less-civilized racial groups. It is also curious to
note that a number of later Sophists were concentrated on human-centered
assumptions like egoism or even moral nihilism when they attempted to delineate
the whole debate between nomos and physis.
The
nomos-physis did not end by the passing of the above thinkers. The topic has
fundamentally changed the ancient world, and has provided a framework for
thought when one wanted to understand his relationship to his surroundings. The
face of the nomos-physis has undergone various metamorphoses throughout human
history, leading the direction for the development of Western thought.
An
important consequence that arose from the Nomos / Physis distinction could be
evident in the Scientific Revolution in the 17th century. Humans
have the convictions that, if they can apply science to understand the natural
world, they can likely adopt these methodologies to understand the human world
and diverse better systems for the well-being of people. The law of nature in
the universe, which are the ones that can be discovered by reason and also
empirical methods. Many philosophers believe the existence of 'state of nature' of humanity, and their corresponding ethical implications. Philosophers like Grotius, Hobbes and Locke believed
these laws existed and could be discovered by scientific methods to improve the
conditions of humanity, yet other thinkers tended to be skeptical of the existence of these
laws.
A
fundamental conceptual debate in modern psychology is the 'nature vs. nurture
debate'. Arguing whether one's character and personality is originated from
one's biological and genetic makeup (nature) or originated through experience
and learning throughout life (nurture), the question itself is just a version
of the 'nomos-physis' debate. The topic is a hot one because that also is
related to the gene-environment interaction concept in Evolutionary Psychology,
a subject that is fascinating in its own right. Social constructivism, which is
a theory from social science, is also related. The nurture-oriented concept
suggests that an individual or a group of individuals in a social structure
will construct their own reality. The fact that the constructivist position
seems to deny an objective reality poses a challenge to approaches of
scientific method, and there is no surprise that Social Constructivism has
sparked intense debate. One can easily see that many issues have the origin
from this ancient debate.
My
discussion for the nomos-physis debate has reached the end. Not only the debate
itself has inspired developments of ideas in philosophy and science alike, it
has also influenced art and culture. Artists and dramatists cannot wait to
share their unique opinions on the issue through their work. In future
articles, I will discuss how the nomos-physis debate has influenced the work of
various dramatists in Greece.
(2/2)
by Ed Law
Conatus Classics
