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

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

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

 

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!

Democritus, Part 1

 

If you are aware of my science blog, or you have ever encountered a gamer by the name of ‘The Laughing Chemist’ online, you may wonder where I got this alias from. The name is actually an inspiration from one of the philosophers I admire the most in the history of thoughts: Democritus of Abdera. Democritus was probably the last of the key Pre-Socratic philosophers, and he could be considered the ultimate natural philosopher of Ancient Greece. The great philosopher was committed to the almost completely materialistic accounts of everything in his world, which was a stance unprecedented until that stage of Greek philosophy. His philosophical outlook was probably the most complete and systematic of all of Pre-Socratic thoughts, from his account of reality to advice of how one should live ethically. To many, Democritus was one of the first natural scientists of humanity. His theory of atoms might have been undermined for many years in the Western culture, yet it experienced a revival in the Scientific Revolution of the 17^th century, and that would eventually become the foundations of modern physical science. From his writings one can easily get the impression that Democritus has lived as a very fine human being – his emphasis of a cheerful outlook on life has earned him the name of ‘The Laughing Philosopher’. And you will be even happier if you understand true knowledge!

There are two aspects, due to various reasons, that we are not sure about Democritus. The first aspect is the connection of Democritus to another philosopher, Leucippus. In ancient writings, the two philosophers were often mentioned together and it was alleged that Leucippus was the teacher of Democritus. While there are some sayings which are attributed to Leucippus, we are not certain if he has existed at all in history. Thus, the materialist theory of atomism tends to be associated with the Laughing Philosopher, or they are attributed to both philosophers at the same time.

 

The second aspect is the reception of Democritus in antiquity. While Democritus is considered as a Pre-Socratic philosopher, the notion is actually quite misleading because the designation implies that Democritus lived before Socrates. The truth is, Democritus and Socrates were actually contemporaries and indeed Democritus was younger than Socrates! So it is quite likely that Socrates and Democritus were aware of each other’s ideas, but we did not know if they have interacted with each other at all. The reason is because Socrates never wrote anything – all we know about Socrates’ thinking was from Plato’s work. While in Plato we have read that Socrates has shifted his focus from an interest of natural philosophy to humanism, we did not have any idea of their opinions on Democritus, because Plato did not mention Democritus at all. It was alleged that Plato hated Democritus’ ideas (it could not be proved), and that made sense because Plato would likely perceive Democritus’ materialism to be belonged to the sensual world rather than the world of Forms. It was a puzzling move because even when Plato despised the Sophists as swindlers of knowledge, he still mentioned their teachings and challenged their ideas in a number of his world. So leaving out Democritus was a big mystery. Aristotle, who also disagreed with Democritus for different reasons, was less hostile in this respect and gave the natural philosopher some credits in the development of philosophical thoughts.

 

Democritus, and his mentor Leucippus, were advocates of atomism. The word ‘atom’ should be familiar to anyone in science, yet the meaning for the ancient thinkers were broader – and in a sense less precise – than the demands from scientific rigor. The Greek word for atom is ‘atomos’, which literally means ‘uncuttable’. Literally, an atom for these materialist philosophers was a single particle. The thinkers took the liberty to say that the atoms had different size, shape, and also texture, leading to the different things that human experienced in the universe. The atomists asserted that atoms were not infinitely divisible, meaning that one could not indefinitely divided an atom to a smaller piece. There was a limit to the division, and the limit signified the essence of that thing.

 

The origin of ancient atomism followed a larger trend of the development of Pre-Socratic philosophy: the responses towards the Eleatic school of philosophy. Parmenides of Elea, who was considered as the founder of the Eleatic school of thought, was probably the first who proposed a rational account of reality in Western history. For him, the metaphysical origin was ‘being’, which was unchangeable, static and spherical. The reality Parmenides speculated was very different from the appearances our common senses addressed to us, thus he was considered as the founder of the field of metaphysics, which concerned the reality of things. Parmenides’ appearance-reality distinction would eventually be taken to extreme by later thinkers such as Plato, and his followers have proposed further accounts and questions regarding reality, such as questions of movement and multiplicity. The philosophers after Parmenides – Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus – have all come up with their own solutions to the Eleatic school’s challenges. Denying Parmenides’ assertion there are no void (empty space) in reality, the atomists believed that only atoms and void existed in the world. Democritus was innovative in the sense that he was probably the first thinker to propose and address the importance of void for out world. Moreover, atoms possessed the attributes of movement, and they were in constant motion through the void, and the atoms could collide with each other to generate new things.  It should also be reiterated that a key disagreement between the atomists and the Eleatic thinkers were the indivisibility of things. Thus one can see that the motivation of atomism was not from a desire to discover some novel ‘science’, but actually as a philosophical response to the Eleatic challenge.

 

Democritus’ materialistic account of things was therefore an eliminative atomism. That means only atoms are metaphysically real, and all other appearances are conventions or mere illusions. This standpoint was reminiscent of the nomos-physis distinction of Classical Greek, succinctly summarized by one of his most famous quotes: 

“By convention sweet and by convention bitter, 

by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention color; 

but in reality atoms and void.”

-Democritus 

The distinction between atomic reality and convention would also influence later thinkers. In the 17^th century, the natural philosophers stressed the distinction of primary qualities and secondary qualities of things (details in the next article). In short, the primary qualities reflect what the thing really is – its atomic compositions and arrangement, that will not be altered due to perception by sensory organs or other subjective factors. The secondary qualities, in contrast, are originated from sense impressions – the ‘convention’ side of things.

From the understanding of atomic properties, Democritus also proposed the mechanism for the formation of the universe. Because atoms have very different properties, they can be combined in different ways and that can result in formation of different worlds. Democritus believed that there were infinite number of worlds due to the combinatorial arrangements from atoms, and indeed he turned out to be correct from modern astronomy!

 

There are some caveats we have to be aware of regarding Democritus’ revolutionary thinking of the world. The first one is that, unlike modern empirical science, the theory of atomism was completely based on speculation. It was a rationalist account just like the metaphysical speculations of Parmenides and others. Democritus and his school certainly had no way to observe the existence of atoms, and therefore he could not claim a higher standing for empirical science than the competing theories did. Nevertheless, one should be impressed by his keen insights into things and how he successfully foresaw and inspired later generation of scientists.

 

The second point is that Democritus had a very skeptical attitude of using sense impressions to arrive at true knowledge. That should be surprising for many because many empirically-minded thinkers tended to be materialists for their understanding of the word. Democritus advised his readers against the use of their senses to know something, asserting nothing was true when one acquired them from their sense organs. While I do not think Democritus was completely hostile to observations and empirical methods (he was also an astronomer), he has addressed the possible limitations of our senses to deceive us. It is ironic that his beliefs in atomism would eventually inspire and guide the development of empirical and physical science for the centuries to come.

 

Democritus has given us a very naturalistic view of our world. Are there still any places for the Divine in human existence? What is the direction of human progress? How should we live well according to the atomist doctrines? Well, Democritus had a lot to say about all that!

 

(End of Part 1)

 

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Passing Souls with Pythagoras

In the previous article we have appreciated the importance of numbers to the Pythagoreans. Not only these ancient thinkers viewed them in a mathematical way, but also in a cosmological way. There was indeed another 'M' for these rationalist philosophers – the exploration of the nature of soul and the practical implications that resulted from these understandings. Besides mathematics, there is metempsychosis. 

Metempsychosis, also known as the transmigration of souls, is an ancient doctrine that sounds like a plot twist from a ghost story. First proposed by Pherecydes, and possibly some other civilizations outside Greece, this weird idea was important for the foundation of ancient philosophy. We can go further to state that the doctrine of metempsychosis is the central theme of Pythagorean philosophy, as that impacts the school's general outlook and ethical attitude. 

Metempsychosis is a reincarnation theory that asserts the immortality of the soul. The soul is a metaphysical substance that is eternal and cannot be destructed. As the soul has to combine with a corporal body to form a living whole; once the body has perished, the soul will leave the body and attach to another body. That can be another human body or an animal body (!!). The process will continue due to the eternality of the soul. 

While I have mentioned before that the conception of the bodily and corporeality was rather vague and inconsistent for many Presocratic philosophers, it was reasonable to assume that soul was an immaterial substance – a point much stressed by Plato in later times. It was also evident that, while the philosophers from the Presocratic era did not deny the importance of a soul-body unity, they seemed to have elevated the status of the soul and have undermined the corporal aspects of humanity, a preference also carried to the extreme by Plato. 

There were practical and ethical implications of metempsychosis for Pythagoras and his followers. The Pythagoreans were committed to a vegetarian diet in the fear that they might 'eat up' their human companions from a previous life. Of course, the idea sounds rather ludicrous for modern readers. The thinkers were also oblivious to the fact that plants also had lives – so they could not rule out the possibility of metempsychosis to a plant. Nevertheless, we could not ask too much from these ancient thinkers, after all. Another implication was ethical in nature. As it was possible to have a transmigration of one's soul to a lower form of animal life, the Pythagoreans behaved in a moral and rational way, to avoid such a punishment from happening for their next lives. The most long-term consequence was their emphasis on the care for their souls. While the corporeal body could be destroyed, it was the immortal soul that should be maintained in a positive way, for the sake of one's well-being. 

Pythagoras and Plato 

While the Presocratic philosophers endorsed the idea of soul transmigration and were committed to lead a lifestyle that addressed their beliefs, they might not have foreseen the fact that the idea would be instrumental for the construction of a complete philosophical system that influenced much of Western thought. It was up to the intelligent Plato of the Classical Greece to see all the connections, and synthesized the ideas of Pythagoras and Parmenides to build his school of philosophical thoughts. 

In general, Plato agreed to the idea of metempsychosis, because the doctrine fitted very well with his own idea of recollection. Though he did not totally agree to all the viewpoints from the Pythagoreans, as expressed through his work, 'Phaedo', one could be assured that Plato endorsed the conclusions of the doctrine and saw the instrumental value of metempsychosis to his own work. 

Plato agreed to the notion that soul was eternal and indestructible, and he also stressed the immaterial nature of soul. Being immaterial was important for Plato's dualistic system because that suggested its abstract nature and its inaccessibility from the senses. For Plato, the most perfect things were the Forms, the perfect ideas which were eternal and 'out-of-this-world'. Plato rigorously distinguished between appearance and reality, much like what Parmenides did – the 'appearance' was the imperfect, sensible world we existed in; and the 'reality' was the perfect, ideal, and transcendent world where all the eternal Forms were situated in. The transcendent world was a metaphysical world where we were inaccessible to through our senses – a Holy Grail one could never achieve. 

While the soul-body interaction of the Presocratic thinkers were vague, Plato took a more decisive step, by designating the soul to the transcendent world of the Forms, and detached it conceptually from the corporeal aspect of humanity. This notion was best illustrated by the famous myth in 'Phaedrus', where a charioteer controlled a pair of horses (the trio served as an analogy of the soul) towards the realm of enlightenment, a metaphor for the transcendent world of the Forms. 

So, next time when you are finding out the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle, do not forget the awe inspired by this ancient lover of wisdom! 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics