κέραμος : Art and Science of Greek Pottery

                                         

Ideas prevail through ages and eras, yet they are often too abstract for the human mind to perceive, and are all subject to diverse interpretations and unintentional distortions. After all, that is something concrete and material in nature that provides us a window into the past lives of our ancestors - provided that they survived the history's ‘wear-and-tear challenge’.  The importance of the preservation of heritage cannot be overstated - and indeed much of our knowledge of ancient civilizations are derived from the studies and analysis of these artifacts from a long, long time ago. Let's talk about something that is hard enough to stand the test of time - the ceramics from ancient Greece!

Now, it is not mere wordplay when we say ceramics are hard. The pottery ceramic that we will focus on belongs to a large group of chemical compounds termed as ceramics. In terms of chemical composition, they are often some sort of clay or metal oxides, in particular for the pottery, they are often aluminum oxide or silicon dioxide. Due to the molecular arrangement, ceramics tend to be hard. Yet, their chemical structure also dictates them to be brittle, thus they can fracture and break into pieces easily. This property is in contrast to other sort of polymeric and elastic material, which possesses the resilience to ‘bounce back’ due to their more flexible molecular structure. For the production of ceramic pottery, they are mostly conducted through a general 2-stage approach.  The process starts with the preparation of a homogeneous and viscous paste, which is then submitted to firing - baking at a high temperature - to afford the final pottery product.  

The word ‘ceramic’ is derived from the Greek word κεραμικός , which means ‘of or for pottery’. Indeed the Greek demiogod Ceramus was designated as the protector of potters and pottery. of potters. Though the production of pottery in Greece can be dated as early as the Mycenaean  era, it is important to appreciate that the Greek civilization was certainly not the first to engage in the art of pottery. After all, the ancient Greek culture is relatively young when it is compared to the ancient river valley civilizations. Pottery and ceramic products were prevalent in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China. One should not be surprised to find out that the applications of the ceramic products were all very similar among different civilizations. From anthropology and comparative religion, it is evident that there has been some interactions between different civilizations. The Babylonians have had some interactions with Egyptians, and the latter's influence on the Greek culture is well-known. The appreciation of pottery has been extended to later time and Roman ceramics represent an important heritage of the Roman Empire. From my previous article, it can also be seen that  the Romans were also well versed in the production of building materials, where the basic approach is still applied to nowadays. 

The applications of pottery in the ancient world went hand-in-hand with the daily life of the people. The most obvious application was as various utensils and containers. The pottery products varied, and the exceedingly large-sized pottery products were to be placed at permanent locations. The more portable-sized ones can be moved around easily and thus they were used in day-to-day situations.

A more important application of the pottery products was for the diverse religious activities. While this issue may sound less relevant to a modern secular audience, the religious outlook was very important for the ancient Greeks, and indeed for any ancient civilizations. The key is that these activities often facilitate community formation for the civilization in question, and they served as a catalyst for the establishment of a cultural identity. The ceramics were used in various religious ceremonies, rituals and funerals. A classic example is the act of libation, which means the ritual pouring of wine to a deity or a spirit, often serving the memories of the dead. These pottery products are important because they give the modern people tools to reconstruct the details of the religious cults themselves. Often the vases were painted with images that described the myths and legends of the ancient civilizations. Through the analysis and interpretations of the paintings on the vases, scholars can decipher the secrets of a bygone era. The study of ancient artifacts is a large subject in its own right and I will not digress here.

The ancient Greek ceramics embrace Classical Ideals in terms of form and composition. The appearance and style reflect the Greek mindset, which is also evident in other art forms such as lyric poetry, tragedies and philosophy. If you have a chance to go to exhibitions that feature these great ancient artifacts, go for it. That is the best way you can have a satisfying peek about the ancient world! 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Sophrosyne : Art of Moderation

 

‘Looking forward’ often sounds like a positive outlook, yet there is a caveat to it. When one examines an idea, he should not jump to the conclusion that the idea is not useful as it is ‘dated’ or ‘old-school’. Such a contextual reading of things can lead one to overlook some of the most endearing wisdom of the human legacy, and often this attitude merely represents one’s obliviousness to the origin of our thoughts. The contributions from thinkers of Ancient Greece have been tremendous. They have ignited the fire of Western thoughts through the work in literature, philosophy, and science. The thinkers have also proposed to us some of the first models of an ethical life. One of the most important ethical outlooks from this era is Sophrosyne, widely considered as the golden rule of Ancient Greek wisdom.

 

Sophrosyne (σωφροσύνη) is the noun of Sophronein (σωφρονεῖν), the verb that corresponds to the same idea. Often translated as ‘soundness of mind’ (noun) or ‘thinking well’, the concept has been interpreted by many thinkers through the Archaic Greece and Classical Greece, and continued to later eras. Sophrosyne has been transformed, and encompassed wider attributes throughout history. Despite diverse opinions added to the concept, the central theme of the word has not been altered. As an opposite to hubris, sophrosyne demands a clear and rational mind, which judges and makes decisions wisely, with regards to one’s limit. It is a form of moderation for an individual to exist in the world.

 

It is quite interesting to note that, while the concept of sophrosyne has first appeared in the epic poems of Homer, later thinkers have often ‘cherry-picked’ on various parts of the concept and made their assessment by focusing on their particular interests of the concept. Thus for the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus, sophrosyne was related to physis and logos; for Socrates and his successors, the focus was on the rational examination and analysis of the concept with regards to ethics; and for the Stoics, the concept was used to establish one’s place in the universe. The later thinkers stressed about the concept of sophrosyne as akin to ‘knowing your place’ in the universe, and one’s ethical deliberations should be based on a sound mind and rational considerations. Also the concept of measure was associated with sophrosyne, as that provided a metric for one to weigh different options and choose the most well-informed actions. For Socrates, he has attempted to find an objective standard of knowledge and ethics, through his questioning and examination of general and particular beliefs. The Sophist Protagoras has gone even further to abandon any objective metric, and proclaimed ‘Man is the measure of all things.’

 

Of all the interpretations of sophrosyne, I find Heraclitus’s elaboration most inspiring. The Pre-Socratic thinker was one of the most charismatic thinkers of Archaic Greece, and his thoughts were so original that they can still be considered fascinating and contentious by today’s standard, just like when one reads Nietzsche and Zhuang Zi. Asserting that the universe was governed by the cosmic order known as ‘Logos’, Heraclitus stressed the importance of sophrosyne in the famous fragment B112, a memorable advice that deserves to be quoted below.

“Sound thinking (σωφρονεῖν) is the greatest virtue and wisdom: to speak the truth and to act on the basis of an understanding of the nature of things”

-Fragment B112

 

Thus for Heraclitus, the attribute of sophronein meant getting closer to the nature of things. Only which one embraced physis, which originated and was governed by Logos, could the individual acquire true wisdom and lived well.  This statement reflected the philosopher’s opinion that the human world, which was part of the universe, was modelled after the cosmic (divine) world. For Heraclitus, true wisdom meant the realization of the fact meant that the human world, being part of nature, was in no way distinct or separate from the cosmos. The appreciation of this limit has implications of one’s ethical outlook, as one will deliberate with considerations regarding one’s nature and limitations and avoid the influence of hubris and other folly. Thinking well is the virtue of sophrosyne. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Conatus Classics - The First Year

 

On 31^st May 2020, I have published the first article of Conatus Classics, which is a section with the intention to discuss the History of Thought. The articles in this section have spanned the broadest of scope I have ever written about the other topics from cinema and science. For the past year, I have many opportunities to explore diverse themes from philosophy, history, science, poetry, drama, politics and social science in Conatus Classics. When I write articles for Film Analysis, I often take a more liberal approach and express many personal opinions, as cinema is something that has fascinated me for many years and it is also a topic I am well-acquainted with. For Conatus Classics, I take a more objective and impartial approach, and have carried out more background research, which includes reading the original text. An improvement is probably more careful close-reading of the original sources, so that the readers can more easily appreciate the different interpretations that arise from the ideas of these curious thinkers.

 

The first year of Conatus Classics has placed an intense focus on Natural Philosophy of Ancient Greece. Almost all the Pre-Socratic philosophers have expressed opinions, or have gone as far as developing coherent philosophical systems, to account for the world in a rational way. The information acquired from the myth of the epic poets would no longer be useful for the understanding of humanity, that has given way to the use of rational speculations. These thinkers attempted to understand, amidst the ‘many’ in the universe, what was the ‘one’ that everything was originated from? In short, what is the ‘physis’ (Greek for ‘nature’) of things? The philosophical ideas from these ancient thinkers may be dated by today’s standard, yet one cannot deny the imaginative aspect of the many ideas that have survived the passage of time. Some of the ideas have even provided the foundation of different schools of thought that are still relevant today: materialism, rationalism, ontology, theology, behaviourism, you name it.  The wise men from the Pre-Socratic era – from Homer, Solon, Thales, to Pythagoras, Parmenides and Democritus – have all left lasting impressions for future people, and their impacts were no less significant than the Holy Trinity of philosophers from Classical Greece.

 

Creative juxtapositions have also been committed in a series of articles. The tragedians from the Classical Greece -  Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides – have been compared with three brilliant filmmakers of the 20^th century – Griffith, Kurosawa and Peckinpah. The more we attempt comparisons on the 2 distinct art forms, the more surprises we can discover. What have struck me are the similarities in the emphasis on the universal human issues, stressed by the artists from two millennia apart. That represent the legacy of artistic innovation offered by the members of our species.

Looking forward to the 2nd year of Conatus Classics, the concentration will be on the thinkers from Classical Greece onwards. The focus will be shifted from the heavenly bodies back to our Earth. The humanism of Classical Athens and the associated ideas would shape the Hellenistic philosophy. The diverse schools of this later era had the common theme on proposing systems for the individual to interact with the world which he was situated in. The philosophical deliberations led to implications in diverse ethical outlooks and possible ways towards ‘eudaimonia’ (commonly translated as ‘happiness’).

 

The other face of Classical Studies is focused on the Latin world. The ancient Roman Empire is renowned for its contribution to legal studies. The Roman Law serves as the locus classicus for the development of jurisprudence in the Western world. The ancient empire was also famed for its contribution in literature, rhetoric and philosophy. The studies of ancient Rome are just as interesting and inspiring as ancient Greek studies. These are the topics I will explore in the 2^nd year of Conatus Classics! 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Being Nameless with the Dao

When the Ancient Greek thinkers were experiencing a paradigm shift in the understanding of the world from the 6th century BC onwards, another intellectual force was rising at the same time in the East. The dawn of Chinese Philosophy appeared in the Spring and Autumn Period, and continued with an intense and diverse development throughout the Warring States Period. The Pre-Qin Philosophy (先秦哲學), which encompassed a number of competing schools of philosophy, laid the intellectual foundations of the most important values of Chinese culture, be it in Literature, Theater, Calligraphy and Painting. Having a strong fascination in Chinese Literature and Philosophy, I would like to share about some ideas of a fascinating school of thought of Chinese Philosophy – the Daoist school (道家), as advocated by the philosopher Lao Zi (老子) and his famous successor, Zhuang Zi (莊子).

 

The Daoist philosophy is idiosyncratic when compared to the other schools of Chinese philosophy, not only because of its apparently passive outlook of life, but also because of its more metaphysical worldview. The pre-Qin philosophy was all pragmatic and humanistic – each school wished to advocate for beliefs that would impact the human life and society in general. The Daoist outlook, by contrast, was more inclined towards nature, and that was quite similar to the natural philosophers of the Pre-Socratic period. Indeed, in the later Classical Greek era, natural philosophy has been perceived as a pointless inquiry for human existence and the thinkers placed their focus on more humanistic issues such as ethics, politics and rhetoric. That is why Daoist philosophy was considered unique and has attracted its fair share of detractors, who pointed out that the philosophy itself was not useful for any reforms on social and political issues. As we will see, Daoist philosophy is often capable of surprise and it may turn out to be useful for the human world.

‘Dao’ (道), which is translated as ‘way’ or ‘path’ in English, is the ontological entity of the universe, and it is the central component of the cosmology proposed by the Daoists. Dao leads to the genesis of all things in the world. Reminiscent of the ontological reality proposed by certain Presocratic philosophers, Dao is everlasting and it neither has a beginning or an end. There is no notion of life and death in this reality, so the whole system is harmonized and does not have any dialectical or opposite relations at all.

While I do not think that the nature perceived by the Daoist necessarily means ‘natural science’ in the modern sense of the term, it is quite evident that Dao encompasses everything from nature – including humans. Thus in Daoist doctrines, the meaning of ‘Zi Ran’ (自然, translated as ‘nature’ in English) can be compared to ‘physis’ from Greek philosophy, which excludes anything that originates from humans. The whole enterprise of Daoist philosophy is to inspire the followers to appreciate the genuine nature of things, and to retreat from the human influences – that have led to a lot of unnecessary conflicts and arguments – and live one’s life by getting closer to the way of ‘Dao’.

An important attribute of ‘Dao’, which is relevant as that serves as a contrast to other competing Pre-Qin philosophy, is the namelessness of Dao. ‘Dao’, immanent in the natural world, is abstract and it cannot be represented by language or ‘names’. In a sense, one cannot easily comprehend the nature of Dao and describe it in words how that looks like and what it is about. This is in stark contrast to the other schools of philosophy, as they often attempt to give opinions on human nature and hence how one should behave to fit in. A key example is the Confucian school (儒家).

Confucius (孔子), the founder of the school, maintained that ‘Ren’ (仁, kindness) was important because, when a person has disciplined himself through the observation of this moral requirement, that would facilitate a positive interpersonal relationship with others, leading to a stable social order at large. Confucius observed that language, one of the most important vehicles of human interactions, would impact human relationships and also the social hierarchy. Thus he proposed the need for ‘rectification of names’ (正名, Zheng Ming), the requirement that a person’s behaviour should be in accord to his title, the ‘name’.  By expressing a meaning and correspondence unambiguously, the correct ideas can be conveyed through the verbal or written means and that would lead to less conflicts and a more harmonious social order. The notion was not very different from Greek philosophy, like when Socrates pushed for clear definitions of terms when someone gave an ambiguous statement; or the sophist Prodicus who stressed on precise distinctions between similar terms.

The Confucian moral order is therefore rational and hierarchal, working through a rational stage-by-stage approach. Mencius (孟子), the successor of the school of thought, advocated that one should start a moral outlook from an individual perspective, and then influenced his family and finally the society at large (推己及人).

The Daoist philosophers, however, disagreed with this perspective of looking at life. Lao Zi, the founder of the school, has made the famous statement that:

‘The Dao that can be told of is not the eternal Dao.’ (道可道非常道)

and

‘The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth.’ (無名萬物之始)

The philosopher has stated the two most unique doctrines regarding Dao: it cannot be spoken of or stated in words. To put it in another word, if that is an alleged ‘Dao’ which can be stated in words – it is not the real thing, it is a hoax. That is why ‘wu ming’ (無名, namelessness) is Dao’s most important attribute, and it is the origin of all things in nature. If the Confucian thinkers attempted to place names on everything they experienced in life, their actions were against nature, as nature has already organized everything in unity, and the Confucians were trying to disrupt the order of nature. Lao Zi has provided a lot of metaphysical background for Daoist philosophy, but that was Zhuang Zi, his successor, who has engaged with the detractors of his era and expressed a more systematic exposition of Daoist ideas in the book that bore his name. 

(End of Part 1) 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Pozzolana : The Wonder of Roman Concrete

 

Classical antiquity has not only offered us a rich cultural heritage, that has also seen a lot of scientific achievement. When one has an opportunity to admire the architecture that originated from the Roman Empire, one should not overlook the fact that the science of building materials from the ancient times have provided the starting point for further development that is still highly relevant to this day. With previous experience in the research of Construction Materials, I find the science of Roman concrete (Latin: opus caementicium), responsible for the wonder of Roman architecture, really fascinating. For this time, it is all about science.

 

While most of us can easily appreciate the importance of cement and concrete for our daily lives, we may not necessarily know the scientific and historical background of these useful materials. To start with, concrete is a mixture of a few chemical components: a binder material, some form of aggregate, water, and some cases, further chemical additives. The binder is often called a cement, and it is like the ‘backbone’ of the concrete. The aggregate is often some form of sand of various diameters, acting as a filler material. Concrete is prepared by mixing cement, sand, and water in a well-defined proportion, when chemical reactions lead to the setting, and eventually hardening of the resulting concrete. Though it may sound trivial, this has always been the the basis for the building industry throughout human history.

 

Let’s look a bit further about the historical and scientific aspects of cement. While forms of cement have been known since ancient Egypt, Greek, and the Roman empire, the key composition of cement almost always contains some calcium compounds, like lime or calcium carbonate. The cement we know nowadays, the most classic form being the Portland Cement, was a creation from England back in the 19^th century. While there are many variations since the first development of this classic form of cement (Ordinary Portland Cement, abbreviated as OPC), the key chemical components of the cement itself are often very similar, albeit varying in proportions – inorganic compounds of calcium (Ca), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe). The Roman cement, as we will see, also contained many of these chemical components, yet its specific composition led to some interesting properties of its own.

 

Before we move on to the ancient science let me address two further issues regarding some properties of cement. The first issue is the production of cement itself. The ingredients of cement, containing inorganic salts of calcium, silicon, aluminum and iron, is heated at very high temperature (>1500 degree Celsius), and as a result a number of chemical reactions take place during the burning process, forming new chemical products. The resulting mixture is ground into a fine powder and leads to the greenish grey appearance very typical of modern cement. While we do not have to go into the chemical details, often 4 types of complex inorganic salts result: two of them are calcium-silicon salts, designated as C₃S and C₂S; one is a calcium-aluminum salt, C₃A; and a calcium-aluminum-iron salt, C₄AF. The reason why this is mentioned is because the proportion and the specific properties of the 4 salts will determine the resulting properties of the cement, and hence impacts the setting time, mechanical and durability of the concrete itself. As an example, ‘high-alumina cement’ is a version that increases the concentration of aluminum salt in the precursor mixture and leads to a richer aluminum content (more C₃A) in the resulting cement. Indeed, the various types of special cement that have emerged from the past 200 years of so originated from tuning of these properties.

The second issue is the paradoxical observation of water’s action towards concrete. Water is needed in the setting and hardening of the concrete. Yet, the strength of the resulting concrete is developed and enhanced by immersion of the concrete in water, which may sound counter-intuitive to many. That is because the calcium-based cement is a hydraulic-setting cement, meaning that the resulting concrete develops its mechanical strength in water. That would certainly sound strange to many people not in the field of construction engineering.

 

Yet, there is a caveat in the water immersion issue. While calcium-based concrete can develop strength in a water medium, we mean water only. If the aqueous environment contains other inorganic salts, just like in the marine environment, it will lead to a deterioration of the structure in terms of mechanical strength and issues in durability. Thus, underwater construction has always posed a problem for the field of building materials, and throughout history many has worked towards solving the problem. That is where Roman Concrete enters the story.

 

Roman Concrete, which has been used in the construction of many architectures since Ancient Rome, was reputed to be a very durable building material. Also, the ancient building material was in particular famous for application in underwater building work, including bridges and areas near water. The Roman concrete was also based on a calcium hydraulic-setting cement, like the Ordinary Portland Cement. The wonder behind this ancient cement can be summarized by one word: Pozzolana.

 

Pozzolana (Latin: pulvis puteolanus) is the volcanic ash found from Pozzuoli, Italy. While it is known that other civilizations, like Egypt and Greek, has adopted similar approaches in their building work, that was the Romans who have really popularized the idea and committed to large scale construction. Volcanic ash is a product of a relatively explosive volcanic eruption, often due to the rhyolite-natured magma (more felsic / acidic magma due to a higher SiO₂ content), and that contains more gas products and hence a more violent eruption. When the liquid magma is released into the air through a pyroclastic eruption, the resulting tiny fragments of glass formed from that are the volcanic ashes. The pozzolanic volcanic ash is rich in silica and alumina, and by reacting with lime, Ca(OH)₂, further products are obtained, giving rise to its specific properties. The resulting cement has a higher silica content than the standard version of modern cement, and they are not indeed very different certain specific types of cement nowadays, where additives like fly ash and fumed silica are added into the precursor mix.

 

The resulting concrete, prepared from the cement (Lime and Pozzolana), various aggregate and water, has offered a number of advantages. First, the concrete is very durable. That can be attributed to the high silica and alumina content of the cement. Also, it is very resistant to the action of salt water. Thus, in the marine environment, even if the concrete structure was submerged under water, the mechanical strength of the structure was not compromised. This can be explained as high-alumina cement is often resistant to sulfate attack and the action of other inorganic salts. One will always feel with a sense of awe how a volcano-related material can contribute so much to a long-standing construction problem.

 

The ancient cement from the Roman Empire may be from a long, long time ago, yet the concept behind such an achievement is in no way antiquated. The type of ancient cement has inspired a modern type of cement known as 'Pozzolanic Cement', which is still used in a number of regions around the world. The approach is immortalized by a named chemical reaction, and a number of international standards regarding the use of these materials in building industry. You will never view the volcanos in the same way again! 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Seeding the Universe with Anaxagoras

Anaxagoras was a Pre-Socratic thinker who was literally related to Socrates. Elder than Socrates by about 30 years, it was probable that one of Anaxagoras’ student, Archelaus, might have been a teacher for the young Socrates. Socrates has certainly been influenced by the teachings of Anaxagoras’ school of thought, yet he has since departed from his teacher’s approach for more original directions. Like Democritus of the Atomist school, Anaxagoras was a natural philosopher with a strong scientific mind, contributing not only to ontology but also empirical fields like astronomy and meteorology. The natural philosopher was also a close associate of Pericles, and the Athenian politician has learnt a lot from the wise philosopher. Presumably due to his mind-blowing philosophy (we will see how later) and the fact that he was acquainted with Pericles, Anaxagoras was soon charged with impiety – an offence that could apparently forced onto anyone who diverted from a traditional outlook of Greek religion, and he was exiled as a result. The philosopher’s reputation might be conflicted in his lifetime, yet his subsequent influence to later thinkers is profound, from theoretical science to Hegelian studies.

Anaxagoras has developed a complete system for this philosophy, and some of his key ideas are still insightful by today’s standard. Yet the interpretation of his philosophy has proved to be challenging because certain of his doctrines were expressed in rather obscure or ambiguous ways, and that resulted in drastically different interpretations from later academics, which often depended on how they defined some of the more ambiguous terms in the Pre-Socratic thinker’s work. Some of his more abstract ideas may also sound strange if we view them from the standard of modern empirical science. My aim here is to spell out the consensus of Anaxagoras’ key doctrines and hopefully provide some starting points for philosophizing his interesting ideas.

Like many of his fellow Pre-Socratic thinkers, Anaxagoras wished to find out the origin of the universe and where it was heading to. Thus he placed a lot of concerns on the issues of both cosmogony and cosmology. For the Greek thinker, every thing in the world had a tendency to be developed into its final form. Yet the attributes (or properties, a more straight-forward term to address Anaxagoras’ complex wordings) present in the final form of that thing was already latent in the original form of the thing in question. So we can say that at the start, a thing has already possessed the properties that would allow it to map out its trajectory to develop into the final form. 

The reason why this could happen was because of a property asserted by Anaxagoras. While he has used a number of different ways to describe that particular idea, including the word ‘seeds’ (which the meaning was supposed to be metaphorical rather than literal), that has been known as ‘homoeomeries’ since Aristotle. ‘Homoeomeries’ are defined as things that remain in the same form after they are divided. Intuitively the notion sounds impossible, and this concept has been the most controversial of Anaxagoras’s system. While the idea may be theoretically possible in an abstract manner, say, if one has a bar of pure gold and it is cut into half, we can argue the resulting halves are the same as the original because the gold atoms are homogeneous and there are no ways to distinguish between the before and after. Yet in this case we are assuming the particulate notion of matter, and that was probably not Anaxagoras’s intention because he was never attracted to any particulate theories of matter to start with.

Anaxagoras proposed that at the beginning of the universe, its state was an original mixture with infinite substances in it. All the substances would eventually be developed to all things in the world. Thus, these substances could be seen as the ‘seeds’ for the eventual world formation. Through the mixing of specific proportions of mixing the various substances, things are transformed into their respective final forms throughout the evolution of the universe. Before we move on we can notice an implication of Anaxagoras’s doctrine: even if the components of the ‘seeds’ are the same, if the proportions have changed, the outcome will also be very different. From this reasoning many researchers of the field have suggested that the Greek thinker has proposed the possibility of innumerable worlds, though they did not reach a consensus on whether these worlds were co-existent or successive.

So, what is the string-puller behind the whole system? Anticipating theological or even psychological perspectives in the modern sense of the term, Anaxagoras proposed ‘Mind’ (Greek: nous) as the organizing principle of the universe. Many commentators have since questioned the scope of the word, whether the philosopher intended to mean as a divine substance or merely the psychological capacities of animate things (like humans and animals) in the world. Vague as it may seem, Anaxagoras’s notion of ‘Mind’ did suggest it as a universal force of nature that facilitated the development of the universe. Thus for the Pre-Socratic thinker, Mind was infinite, pure and independent from the original mixture. The Mind initiated the transformation of the universe through a first rotatory movement, and the ‘seeds’ in the original mixture would divide and separate to start their transformations. It was also omniscient and possessed the ‘know how’ (a buzz word for our era?!) to transform the world towards its very end.  I would argue that the notion of Nous is possibly the philosopher’s most important influence to the later generations, as many will easily equate ‘Mind’ with ‘God’ through a similar line of reasoning.

Anaxagoras’s philosophy is therefore a teleological one, of which many later philosophical systems have shared similarities. An example is in Socrates’s discussion of Homeric epic, where he placed a focus on the role of military leader, having the obligation to ensure his soldiers’ survival. Socrates was teleological in the sense that he concentrated on the purpose of the leader’s action – to ensure his men were safe. In a later era, Aristotle would similarly designate the individual action of the ruler to a teleological purpose of offering advantage to the group he was governing. Aristotle pursued the concept of teleology even further. In his work on zoology, he went as far to propose his generally teleological view of nature.  The philosopher offered teleological explanations as the understanding of goals and final causes present in life. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Reality Check with Parmenides

 

In Plato's 'Phaedrus', there was a famous allegory about a charioteer controlling a pair of winged horses with very different characters. One of them, a mortal black horse, symbolized the impulses and appetites common to all of humanity. That was paired with an immortal and eternal white horse, that symbolized the positive spirit cherished by humans. As the two horses showed very different temperaments, it was up to the charioteer – who symbolized the rational mind – to control them and led their ways to a life of enlightenment. The chariot story is an allegory of Plato's theory of the soul. It is also interesting because the pair of contrasting horses points to an intellectual influence from a number of Presocratic philosophers collectively known as the Eleatic School. That included Parmenides of Elea, and his followers Melissus and Zeno.

The members of the Eleatic school were staunch rationalists. The ontology advocated by these thinkers were all speculative and rational, and their ideas were more abstract than the perceptions most people had regarding the universe in their times.

The remaining fragments of the poem by Parmenides can be considered the locus classicus of Western Metaphysics. The Presocratic philosopher was probably the first ever to propose a consistent account of the nature of reality. Parmenides wrote his poem in Homeric hexameter, chronicling the journey of a young man to meet a goddess, who the latter promised that she would tell about 'all things' to him. What she has shared with him, however, was an approach to arrive at the real knowledge of things.

The poem suggests that humanity can choose between 2 approaches to understand about themselves. The Way of Opinion (Greek: doxa) is to acquire knowledge by the action of seeming, and to know the world merely through the senses. In contrast, the Way to Truth (Greek : aletheia) is to acquire knowledge by the exercise of reason. The dialectal aspect of the 2 choices was evident: Parmenides was among the first thinker to distinguish rationally between appearances and reality, and proposed that what ‘appears to us’ is not necessarily equate what ‘is’.

Parmenides designated the metaphysical substance of his philosophy as ‘Being’. It was an unity, and some sources even stated that Parmenides proposed a spherical shape for that, which was indeed a good analogy for the idea of unity. Contrary to the human perceptions that there were motion and changes around us, the metaphysical substance for Parmenides was static, unchangeable and timeless. Parmenides’ metaphysics was revolutionary because the reality he has speculated was very different to the way humans perceived the world, through the application of the common sense. The speculative aspect of the Eleatic school, by the rigorous exercise of reason and logical deduction, would influence the future philosophers who took a rationalist approach to metaphysical issues. 

Thus Parmenides’ system was a philosophical monism, which proposed only one type of metaphysical substance. His ideas denied the notion of plurality and void (vacuum). Parmenides asserted that his metaphysical substance of ‘Being’ was indivisible and continuous. These beliefs were in the starkest conflict to the later atomists, who accepted the presence of void and divisibility of matter. More important, the Eleatic philosopher denied the possibility of ‘non-being’, which he argued as logically impossible.

The teachings by the Eleatic school were important in Greek Philosophy because many subsequent thinkers would response to the questions posed by this school of thought. That included the development of various pluralist schools and challenges from the sophists of Classical Athens. Gorgias, an acclaimed sophist, wrote 'On What is Not', spoofing the Eleatic system. He challenged the metaphysical possibility of ‘Being’, and laterally denied the possibility of Divine or a first cause. The sentiment was not dissimilar from the agnostic or atheistic views by many other fellow sophists. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

Xenophanes : Presocratic Slasher

Xenophanes was a slasher in ancient Greece. He was a poet, a philosopher, a theologian and also an avid traveler. He has lived a long life and has travelled to a number of places. If Xenophanes is a person of today, he is certainly a key opinion leader, writing travel blogs and poems and doing Facebook live. But when you look up for his username, take care and don't mix it up with 'Xenophon', who was born in later era than Xenophanes and he was one of Socrates' students.

Xenophanes was against 2 things in life – human-looking gods and jocks. Through his understanding of poetry and satirical wit, he has written a lot of poems to satirize, criticize and think about issues in the culture of his days. His critique on theological issues has led to a rational inquiry of religious and spiritual themes evident in later philosophy, like Parmenides and his successors. For his problems with the jock culture, we will deal with that in the end.

Xenophanes was original because he was one of the first Western thinkers to have a string commitment in rationalism. Through his exercise of reason as evident in his writings, he was an original architect of rationalist theology, using reason and valid speculations, rather than mythological sources, to explore the concepts of the Divine. Xenophanes was well-versed in a number of different style of poetry, yet his poems always exhibited a satirical tone and impressive witticism.

The conception of gods has already been described in the epic poems of Homer and Hesiod. Xenophanes, who was alive centuries after the two epic poets, had issues with their ideas of the Divine. First, Xenophanes was very against the notion that the Greek gods and goddesses were anthropomorphic. In his poems, the pre-Socratic philosopher mocked the idea of human-looking gods, and stated that if an ox could conceive of a ‘god’, that god would likely look like an ox too. In a satirical comment that would be considered a nasty racial slur for today, Xenophanes believed that the Ethiopian gods would resemble Ethiopians with their own facial features, which he was not particularly fond of.

Why did Xenophanes think that humans would believe their gods to be mega-versions of themselves? With an explanation that had a lot of resonance to the science of today, he believed that the images of human-looking gods were merely the psychological projections of humans. Humans made their attempts to shift the center from the Divine back to themselves, and projected their own opinions on the attributes of gods. It is as if the ancient humans were saying: ‘The gods, after all, are just like us.’ Ironically, this opinion has shared similarities in the views of some future philosophers, who embraced atheist or materialist doctrines, yet that is in no way true that Xenophanes would have denied the existence of the Divine.

Other than the issue of human looks, what concerned Xenophanes even more with regard to the Homeric conception of the gods was that they were often immoral. Indeed, the divine family on Mount Olympus has often been compared to a dysfunctional family, and every member was more than capable to claim their fair share of moral transgressions. The immorality of the Homeric gods is often overlooked by many, yet to Xenophanes that was an important issue.  Because the thinker opined that the behavior of these divine figures, who were expected as ‘role models’ for humanity, were morally inconsistent. The lack of objectivity in these antics paralleled human’s own projections of the Divine. What Xenophanes was looking for all the time was a theological outlook that was rational, objective, and could serve as an ethical guide to humanity.

‘One god, greatest among gods and men, in no way similar to mortals either in body or in thought.’

-Xenophanes

‘All of him sees, all thinks, and all hears.’

-Xenophanes

Hence for Xenophanes’ rational theology, there was a single, non-anthropomorphic God, which he often termed ‘The One’. Xenophanes’ God, to start with, is timeless. Just that all the other Pre-Socratic thinkers’ ideas of First Cause, it exists outside of time and had no beginning or end. The Divine is also rational and omniscient – it knows everything in the world. It is omnipotent, meaning that it is so powerful that it has the ability to do anything possible. We may find these attributes similar to what we think about God, and indeed it is, because the philosopher’s revolutionary way of understanding God has shaped the way how later generations would have approaches the issues of religion.

There is a caveat to Xenophanes’ assessment. From a philological perspective, many commentators have questioned the implications of the word regarding the divine in Xenophanes’ original version. As we may not be aware there are some careless duplication errors, the commentators are unsettled by the fact that ancient thinker has used a plural form for the words ‘Greatest among gods and men'.’ That appears to be contradictory to the theological views he has been expressing throughout his poems, namely that there is only one God in the universe. Most commentators have agreed that the specific issue of wording should not impact our understanding of Xenophanes’ ‘One-God assumption’, for which he has maintained firmly and consistently throughout all his surviving work.  Many scholars in the classical studies have advised the readers not to take the word too literally, saying that maybe the word ‘gods’ was just representative of Xenophanes’ often satirical tone. These ‘gods’ can just be the deputies and underbosses of the Big Boss, and no matter one wants to designate them as ‘gods’, ‘angels’ or ‘spirits’, the idea does not change. Xenophanes’ philosophical system is strictly rational and monotheistic.

Xenophanes’ opinions regarding the Divine has two important implications for later understanding of religion and spirituality. First, by abandoning the polytheistic system of Homeric gods, he introduced a monotheistic conception of the divine. Not only this has influenced much of the philosophical systems of the Presocratic thinkers, almost all these thinkers searched for and proposed a first cause of things, the theological outlook would influence many other religions that still existed today.

Second, by asserting a non-anthropomorphic divine figure , Xenophanes has provided the readers a more abstract conception of the greatest being. Ancient beliefs in gods tend to rely on some concrete conceptions, that the gods resemble humans, only are way more powerful and immortal. Early people may easily think that the gods resembled King Triton of Little Mermaid, without the little brat Ariel - an old gentleman with white beard, holder of a crane that symbolized power, and talked in a commanding yet fatherly tone. That makes sense as that would lead to an easier identification with the divine though this might be unintentional. That took the evolution of human mind to have the capacity to believe in an abstract idea, and thus Xenophanes conception could be seen as a revolutionary one.

Xenophanes’s divine foreshadowed the Parmenidian Being, but there was a difference in terms of both philosophers’ focus. Xenophanes had a more religious motivation and tried a provide a justified and rational picture of divinity, while Parmenides and his successors was concerned to postulate a metaphysical reality.

Xenophanes apparently did not share the ancient view of metempsychosis, the reincarnation of souls, with thinkers like Pherecydes and the Pythagoreans. In a satirical tone, he mocked at the notion that one should not harm a dog because the animal might be a reincarnation of one’s family in a previous life. Given this rather caustic-toned example, many would have proposed that the philosopher was not into this theory.

Xenophanes was a very special type of nerd. Believing in the power of reason, he despised the values of athleticism and festivity of his days. He certainly felt that a sound and rational mind was more preferred to physical prowess. In fact, his inclinations had a lot of influences on later Greek philosophy, as people turned their aspirations from Homeric warriors to orators with eloquence and intelligence. This slasher of the ancient times, who has contributed to so diverse fields and possessed such a dynamic stream of thoughts, was certainly no basketcase for current standard!

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

 

Conatus Classics 2020

 

Ancient Greek Thinkers

Mythos, Logos, and the Presocratics

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/05/mythos-logos-and-presocratics.html

 

Nomos / Physis

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/nomos-physis-part-1.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/nomos-physis-part-2.html

 

The Physis of Things

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-physis-of-things.html

Pherecydes

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/pherecydes-thinking-caveman.html

 

Miletus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/getting-ionic-at-miletus.html

Thales

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/2-or-3-things-i-know-about-thales.html

Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans

Part 1 : Pythagoras and Philolaus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/nailing-maths-with-pythagoras.html

Part 2 : Pythagoras and Plato – Encountering Metempsychosis

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/passing-souls-with-pythagoras.html

 

Sophocles : Antigone

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/p/classical-greek-antigone.html

Solon

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/solon-law-and-order.html

 

Homer’s People

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/11/homer-peoples-poet.html

Democritus

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/democritus-part-1.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/democritus-part-2.html

The ‘Greek Dramatists vs. Filmmakers’ Series

Introduction

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers-prelude.html

 

Homer

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/homer-first-man-of-literature.html

 

Homer and Aeschylus

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/08/from-time-to-time-homer-x-aeschylus.html

 

Aeschylus and David W. Griffith

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers.html

Sophocles and Akira Kurosawa

Part 1  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/09/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers_27.html

Part 2  http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/sophocles-x-kurosawa-riddle-of-man.html

 

Euripides and Sam Peckinpah

http://emockedlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/greek-dramatists-vs-filmmakers.html

 

Thank you very much for your support!

 

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Democritus, Part 2

‘Everywhere man blames nature and fate yet his fate is mostly but the echo of 

his character and passion, his mistakes and his weaknesses.’

- Democritus 

Democritus is the natural philosopher par excellence. Through his commitment to atomism, the ancient Greek thinker has provided us a fully naturalistic view regarding humanity. Though some subsequent thinkers might find his ideas dangerous – for Plato that was too materialistic; for Aristotle that was not continuous – classical atomism stood the test of time and it experienced an exciting revival in the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. A brief digression would be appropriate, because what happened at the later era has found a few parallels with the antiquity.

While the Pre-Socratic philosophers inquired into natural phenomena by giving up mythical explanations and divine intervention, the mechanical philosophers of 17th century interrogated nature by distancing themselves from the Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy prevalent in medieval Europe. The mechanical philosophers were the practitioners of natural philosophy, and they were often scientifically-minded and placed their trust in empirical methods for the acquisition of knowledge. Philosophers like Gassendi, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Boyle and Newton were advocates of corpuscularianism – a theory that proposed corpuscles – groups of particles (rather than individual atoms) as the origin of all things. Like atoms, corpuscles could aggregate to form more complex structures. The resulting properties of the corpuscular structure, as perceived by our senses, would lead to different observable properties we could experience. In particular, John Locke was a philosopher who endorsed corpuscularianism. His epistemology took a lot of influence from this theory, and his idea was indeed very similar to the way how modern Chemistry works. 

In Locke’s epistemology, ‘real essence’ and ‘nominal essence’ was distinguished. The ‘real essence’ of a thing was its corpuscular structure, which corresponded to its primary properties (like the ‘molecular structure’ of Chemistry). In contrast the ‘nominal essence’ of a thing was its properties that resulted from sense perceptions, corresponding to the secondary qualities (like how the chemical compound looked or smelt, for example). So in Locke’s theory the key of acquiring true knowledge was to start from an understanding of the real essence – the structure of corpuscular structure, the arrangement of the particles – and then moved up from the explanation of primary qualities to secondary qualities. The approach was not very different from an extrapolation of microscopic properties to macroscopic qualities commonplace in natural science.

It is important to note that, unlike modern physical sciences, philosophical atomism and corpuscularianism are not empirical per se, because there are no instrumentations that can verify the presence of atoms and particles. Many natural philosophers and scientists from the 17th century have attempted to use different empirical approaches to demonstrate the presence of atoms and corpuscles, yet they were mostly met with failure, either due to epistemological issues (for example, an attempt to extrapolate macroscale observations into micro-/atomic scale observations) or due to poor design of experiments (e.g. primitive microscopy and transport phenomena), resulting in invalid conclusions. It was only in later centuries that a conclusive demonstration of atomic theory for physical science would become possible.

Returning to Democritus. What did the ancient atomist tell us the nature of soul? Though described rather vaguely, Democritus believed humans possessed 2 kinds of atoms: soul atoms and body atoms. One soul atom corresponded with one body atom, and the atoms were all energetic in a sense that they travelled through the human body. Democritus also had other theories regarding various issues from vision to dreams, yet they were rather unbelievable by today’s standard. What is more important is a vision offered by both Leucippus and Democritus – that atoms were governed by necessity. The atomism from these thinkers was deterministic in nature, and it was very unfortunate that they have failed to specify what role chance might play in their worldviews. 

The atomism I have described so far has a few implications for us to bear. Thus, for Democritus there was no Aeschylean cosmic justice, as in ‘The Oresteia’. There was not a notion that the Divine would eventually come to exert justice, just because the time has not yet come. Democritus’ atomist view was distinct, and caused some controversy, because that was not teleological (and that certainly troubled Aristotle in particular). In Democritus’ system that was not a wise and all-knowing spirit to guide us, nor did we have any final purposes for our existence. Atoms were moving through the void, yet they did not know what they were going to and what they would eventually become in the final stage. That made the contentious ideas of atomism even more nihilistic: if reality is all about a bunch of atoms shooting around the universe aimlessly, that what is the point of life? What do we need to guide ourselves to lead a moral and fulfilling existence? How the doctrines of atomism could be correlated to ethical considerations have always been a challenge for the thinkers from the school of atomism. Philosophers from later era, such as Epicurus and Lucretius, have tried very hard to compile a systematic worldview that accounted for the materialistic perspective and its potential moral implications. Democritus also has stated some implications of his metaphysics for ethics, and they were mostly organized as maxims. 

Democritus, through his denial of teleological purposes and cosmic justice, took a more naturalistic view for human lives. In a view not very different from B. F. Skinner, the ancient philosopher believed our actions were the responses that originated from our interactions with the environment, rather than other spiritual factors. The behaviourist view would influence many materialists for the years to come. Democritus also advised his audience that the fear of gods was pointless. When humans did not use reason and observations to understand natural phenomena, like a thunderstorm, they would attribute these mysterious phenomena to superstitious explanations – like ‘Zeus is angry’ or ‘Hera is jealous’, and resulted in an unnecessary fear and worry. Democritus, among other fellow natural philosophers, might not be considered atheists in a strong sense, yet they all encouraged the people to focus on the real reason why the phenomena happened – the scientific reasons.  Future generations of atomist like Epicurus and Lucretius would further elaborate this line of thought in their work.

‘A life without a feast is a long road without an inn.’

-Democritus

Democritus has told us a lot about atoms, yet he also had a real lot to say about ethics. Given the large amounts of ethical statement from him, and the doubt of completeness, it is very difficult to say if he has got a consistent moral philosophy. Nevertheless, by reading many of these thoughts of wisdom, one can easily picture Democritus to be a great personality, with sparks of humor and witticism throughout his writings. While the philosopher might have devoted his life to the study of nature, Democritean ethics were full of humanistic concerns. One should not be surprised by the aim of human life endorsed by the Laughing Philosopher - to have an optimistic outlook and to achieve a peace of mind. For Democritus, happiness for life was not merely about sensual pleasure and material wealth, it was acquired from a spiritual peace and freedom from perturbation of lives. Why not let Democritus speak for himself?

 ‘For joy and absence of joy is the boundary of advantage and disadvantage.’

Democritus maintained that prior to a life of joyfulness, one should exercise reason.

‘Reason is a powerful persuader.’

Democritus believed in education. He believed an opportunity to learn could counteract against misfortune. 

‘Education is an ornament for the fortunate, a refuge for the unfortunate.’

‘The hopes of the educated are stronger than the wealth of the ignorant.’

‘Nature and teaching are similar, for teaching changes a man’s shape 

and nature acts by changing shape.’

Thus he stressed the importance of avoiding bad influences in life.

‘Frequent association with the wicked increases a disposition to vice.’

‘When wealth comes from wicked deeds it makes the disgrace more conspicuous.’

Democritus cherished values like nobility, courage and self-confidence. He felt that these were the very qualities towards a fulfilling existence.

‘Great joys come from contemplating noble deeds.’

‘Courage makes disaster small.’

‘A good man takes no account of the censures of the bad.’

Yet he might have occasional charges of sexism, like many of the ancient thinkers.

‘To be ruled by a woman is the final insult of a man.’

Nevertheless, he thoughtfully advised us not to laugh at other’s misfortunes, lest that one day, that would be our turn to suffer. 

‘Those who take pleasure in the disasters of their neighbors do not understand 

how the affairs of fortune are complex to all, and they lack appropriate delight.’

Finally, a statement strangely suitable for the current situation in our world.

‘Do not suspect everyone – but be cautious and safe.’

(End of Part 2)

Concluding Remarks

Thus we arrive at the end of Conatus Classics 2020. I feel great to have started my first article on the history of thoughts in May, and have the motivation to write a number of articles about Pre-Socratic and Classical Greece, who I have always fascinated with and yet did not have a chance to talk about that in my previous articles. I will keep up the work and continue to share with you the ideas from these great minds who have ever graced human history!

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Thank you for your support! 

Conatus Classics will see you again in 2021!