The Physis of Things

One of the most fascinating aspects of humanity is Man's desire to know his origin. By knowing the answer of 'When do we come from?', humanity escapes the fate of a rootless existence. Though not everyone takes an academic obligation or interest in history, everyone loves to hear about stories of the past, as if we want to place ourselves in the long story of human civilizations. Through scientific methods as much as speculation, we work together to piece together the complex puzzle of history itself. These questions were also engaged by all the key thinkers of the Classical Greece. The Presocratic philosophers worked hard to discover the 'physis of things'.

The word physis means nature in Greek, as defined in my previous article. As I have maintained the meaning of 'physis' is rather broad, and it is not limited to natural and empirical science. The Presocratic philosophers wished to discover 'arche', the source or origin of things. Indeed most of them were more ambitious than merely finding out the origin of everything : they also wanted to find out how the arche could evolve to become the things that humans experienced around them. Ever since the first Ionian philosophers from Miletus, various types of arche have been proposed as the origin of the universe, from water to air to something known as Apeiron, meaning boundless in Greek. Soon philosophers started to speculate about 'Being' - the ontological origin of things, which was the first cause of the universe. Most of these ideas concerned cosmogenesis – when the first cause went through some mechanisms to become things in the world. Because the process involved development, therefore the thinkers believed that 'arche' also included the extension. In terms of metaphysics, extension can be defined as the property of taking up space, and it is often associated with material and corporeal substances.

A rather contentious point about the difference of the Presocratic philosophy and Platonic philosophy concerns the concept of 'extension'. While the ontological proposal of all the Presocratic philosophers varied drastically, they include the properties of 'extension' in their discussion of 'physis'. For anyone who is acquainted with Plato's metaphysics and Descartes's metaphysics, that may sound counter-intuitive. Because in these dualistic systems, the mind-matter distinction rests on the important principle that mind is non-extended and matter (material in modern terms) is extended. The reason for this is because most Presocratic philosophers had a limited appreciation of the concept of 'material', and with the exception of Democritus, these thinkers tended to give vague and muddled definitions on terms like 'extension' and 'material'. Plato attempted to clarify this issue by completely omitting the sensible extension out of the realm of 'physis', which only the Eternal Forms remain. For the Presocratic thinkers, only Parmenides and his followers had a similar notion. Aristotle, more sympathetic to and in an attempt to rescue the most relevant parts of Presocratic Philosophy, an alternative approach of metaphysics. Besides the inherent nature that should count as part of 'physis', Aristotle also proposed 'kinesis' – broadly translated as 'change or movement', as an attribute of physis. Furthermore, Aristotle's philosophy was notorious for his detractors due to two further properties : the change was continuous (hence he refuted Democritean atomism); and it was teleological, meaning that it moved towards a final point of perfection.

I feel that the most important issue regarding 'physis' is to appreciate that the concept includes anything that is not originated from human and non man-made. The apparent inconsistencies of the definition by the Greek philosophers originated from the limitations that appeared in their world. By concentrating on the big picture, one can easily see that their proposals are still informative for the nomos-physis distinction. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

阿基拉

'阿基拉'不但預測了東京奧運與2020這一年無緣外, 裡面不少的情節更是諷刺地在現實世界上演着。這是印證了大友克洋的才華, 還是顯示了我們的世界愈見荒謬? 

'阿基拉'將會在6月25日/6月26日在香港重映。強烈推薦!

NOMOS / PHYSIS (Part 2)

While the nomos-physis debate reached its high point around the 5^th 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 5^th 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 17^th 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

NOMOS / PHYSIS (Part 1)

Antigone attempting to bury Polyneices.

You may remember the Sophist Protagoras' account about the origin of human civilization from my previous article. As noted in Plato's 'Protagoras', the Sophist was involved a debate with Socrates about virtue. Protagoras's story was a testament to his skill of persuasion, and the story itself was also well-executed. Starting with the mythological details that often put the audience on-the-edge, the plot eventually reached an orderly state through the emergence of institutions. This account of human history is important for the topic of this article – the 'Nomos-Physis' debate in the 5^th century BC.

Why should we be bothered with 2 words that even the spellings do not look quite right? Because the 'Nomos-Physis' debate addressed the most fundamental questions regarding humanity's relationship with the world. 'Nomos' means law and convention that originated from humans, and 'Physis' means nature. The two words take a broader scope in terms of meanings. For 'nomos', that also includes subjective properties of perceptions and sense impressions. For 'physis', the word does not only mean the natural phenomena that can be studied by empirical natural science. As the distinction between philosophy (metaphysics in particular) and natural science have been vague in the ancient times, therefore 'physis' also includes the concept of metaphysical substance (being), the concept of Divine and human 'nature'.

An early and naturalistic example was illustrated by Democritus's famous statement about the nature of reality:

‘By convention sweet and by convention bitter, 

by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color: 

in reality atoms and the void.’ 

- Democritus

To Democritus, the only metaphysically real entities were the atoms, which re-arranged and combined to become complex configurations. The atoms belong in the realm of 'physis' – they are the nature of things. Filtered by our senses, we perceive all sorts of properties – temperature, taste, texture and so on. These properties are part of 'nomos' because they depend on human perceptions and therefore they can be considered as human conventions. There was why Democritus maintained that atoms were closer to the nature of reality than all these feelings and perceptions commonplace in human existence. It would turn out that humanity's engagement with the concepts of nomos and physis were not merely limited to these proto-scientific endeavors.

The key theme of the nomos-physis debate was to argue which aspect was more important for the human civilization in general. While many philosophers have argued for either side of the debate, certain philosophers celebrated both sides and others were indifferent to the issue. Not only the debate had philosophical urgency, the implications also influenced many practical aspects of human lives.

To start with, the consequence of the debate concerns the nature of knowledge itself. In a world governed by physis, the approach to acquire true knowledge is to discover Nature itself. Through reason and impartial observations, one can discover the laws that operates in the natural world. If, by contrast, the human world is governed by nomos, approaches should be focused on the way to implement the best social, legal and political strategies to serve the best outcome for a civilization. Through the study of history, observations and introspection, one will understand how the customs and conventions shape the experience of individuals in a civilization.

The nomos-physis debate was also insightful because one often finds contradictions when they compare human conventions and laws of nature. Through an ethical dimension, should we follow our nature (even if that proves to be immoral) and should we be governed merely by man-made laws and conventions? Should a law be revolted against if it violates some laws of human nature? Are there any overlapping areas for the 2 contrasting beliefs? In the scenario of social and legal reform, the opinion on the debate can influence how the conventions and laws address nature itself. In a positivist sense, the jurist can abandon completely the consideration of any 'human nature' or moral outlook in favor of sources and conventions only.

Antigone's dilemma

The conflict of nomos and physis found its most iconic and dramatic expression in Sophocles's 'Antigone'. Antigone, who was the daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta (through their fateful incest), attempted to bury her brother Polyneices after the latter died from a battle with Eteocles. Eteocles was ironically the brother of Antigone and Polyneices, and the two brothers were found to fight on the opposite side of a wars. When both brothers died in the ensuing struggle, the new ruler, Creon, decided to give Eteocles a proper funeral, but he didn’t grant it to Polyneices because the king felt that he was a traitor. Believing in her familial duty as well as a commitment to the gods (physis), Antigone risked her neck to bury Polyneices, though laws dictated by Creon (nomos) would not allow her to do that. Antigone, risking persecution and even her life, believed in the existence of natural laws (commitment to the Divine), and in her judgment she embraced physis above nomos, even if that meant her preference would lead to her tragic martyrdom at the end.

It was unlikely that Sophocles merely wished to chronicle the tragic fate of Antigone through her confrontation with an ethical dilemma. The Greek dramatist wished to address the conflict imminent in the different expectations from nomos and physis. While one could take side with nomos and blamed Antigone to be responsible for her own miserable outcome, the fact that Antigone wholeheartedly committed to the burial suggested a moral intuition that was so common-sensial to anyone who had familial roots. The fact that she was prosecuted for that apparent moral action seemed to reflect the failure of the man-made laws to address the realm of physis that shaped human nature.

The people from ancient Greece would likely not have foreseen the impact of their heated debate on the future generations. Once there is still a point to cherish the wonder of human existence, the battle between nomos and physis will likely to continue. 


(1/2) 


2nd part:
Who were the physis philosophers? 
Were the Sophists, who were more humanistic than their philosophical predecessors, all supporters of nomos? 
How would the debate itself shape further understanding for the years to come? 


by Ed Law 
Conatus Classics