Getting Ionic at Miletus

Individuals and places perish throughout the long span of history. Yet if one has made significant contributions to the well-being of humanity, future generations will remember these passengers of time. There was once a city-state in ancient Greece worthy of such attention, as it is now widely acknowledged as the origin of Western thought – Miletus!

Miletus was an ancient Greek city of Ionia, which was the district at the central part of the western coast of Asia Minor. The city-state (polis in Greek) resided on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. The region of the long-gone Miletus of becomes part of present-day Turkey.

Taken from McKirahan – Philosophy before Socrates (2^nd Ed.).

Annotations in red by E. L.

Because of the location near the coastal area, Miletus was active in commercial activities and soon prospered to become a wealthy polis at the 6th century BC. Trading activities were as prominent as cultural activities, knowledge and ideas were exchanged both inside and outside of Miletus. Indeed, the intellectuals from the coastal city-state has learnt a lot from the other civilizations, like Babylonians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians, either through communication of trade or traveling.

If there was a key reason for Miletus to become the origin of Western thought, it was because of the intellectual atmosphere that encouraged discussion and expression of new ideas. The freedom of thought encouraged the thinkers to propose their own viewpoints about nature and practical issues, debated with each other and tolerated the diversity of perspectives.

Thus the philosophers from Miletus - Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes - were known as 'Milesian philosophers', and with the other thinkers in the Ionia area, they were collectively labeled as 'Ionian philosophers'. The trinity of Milesian philosophers were common in their doctrines of material monism – each of these thinkers proposed a material substance as the origin of all things. That reflected the first philosophers of ancient Greece have been influenced by each other due to location proximity.

The Fate of Miletus

Miletus was an important city-state for ancient Greece, not only due to its rich intellectual heritage, but also due to some political and military conflicts that led to events shaping the history of the Classical Greece era. At far as the 6^th century BC, the Persian Empire had a lot of control on a number of Greek city-states. While the Persians assigned a number of tyrants to rule the Greek city-states, the citizens from these polis soon felt a lot of discontent regarding the Persian rule. With the action of two defecting tyrants from Miletus, the people there joined forces with a number of other city-states at the Ionia area, leading to the Ionian Revolt. While the Ionian people met a few initial victories, soon the Persians gained the upper hand and captured Miletus as a result. The Greeks and the Persians would clash a few more times in the following 50 years, and the Ionian Revolt served as the prelude to the Greco-Persian Wars. Eventually the Greeks emerged as the victor after the half-century struggle, entering the golden age of Classical Greece.

Miletus proved to be an strategic city for diplomatic and commercial purposes for the next 1800 years or so. The Turks have taken the city twice, first in the 14^th century and second through the fall of Constantinople in 1453, signifying the end of the Byzantine Empire. The Turks and later, the Ottoman Empire, recognized the geographical advantage of Miletus and used that as a harbour to facilitate commercial trade with the nearby European countries. Miletus was abandoned in the 15^th century due to severe formation of silt and destruction through erosion. Though the ancient city of Miletus has long gone for 500 years, the fact that it has witnessed the dawn of ἀλήθεια (Aletheia, Greek for 'truth') will continue to leave a lasting impression on the lovers of wisdom. 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

                                                                                                                              

Pherecydes : The Thinking Caveman

Before we start to investigate the key thinkers from the Presocratic era of Classical Greece, it is important to appreciate the precursor thinkers that took us from a world governed by 'mythos' to a world of'logos'. Pherecydes of Syros was one of the exemplary representatives of this group. While many people tended not to count him as a Presocratic philosopher, his ideas have certainly influenced a number of Presocratic philosophers and the generations beyond Classical Greece.

While the biographical details of Pherecydes were not well-documented, he was known to exist around the 6^th century BC and there were some writings attributed to his authorship. It was alleged that Pherecydes lived in a cave for most of his life, making him an ancient version of the thinking caveman. Pherecydes was more considered as a theologian than a strict philosopher, because while his ideas might have led to further development in Greek philosophy, his motivation was spiritual and religious. Pherecydes predominantly resorted to mythological explanations in his proposal of his worldview, yet his ideas were surprisingly forward-thinking and had some resonance to the 'logos'-oriented philosophy of the Presocratic era. That brings up a general point I have mentioned in my first article : that the whole of Greek culture, or indeed any culture, was shaped as much by rational inquiries of history and also imaginations provided by myths of the culture. One cannot undermine the contributions by artists, poets, and mythographers alike because what they said were 'fictional' and not about 'truths'. While most of the epic poems by Homer were likely to be fictional, one cannot deny that his imaginations and caliber with words have moved many and shaped the culture of Classical Greece. After all, contribution to knowledge should not only limited to 'thinkers' or 'philosophers' alike.

Pherecydes was one of the first ancient Greek thinkers to propose a cosmogony of universe, where he proposed the origin of cosmos in the world. His model had a mythological perspective, thus it would be of little instrumental use for modern audience. Yet, his proposal foreshadowed the metaphysics of the divine and the elements that comprised his vision of the universe, all divine by nature, would be secularized and naturalized by future philosophers when they put forward their own cosmological theories. The three divine elements were Zeus (the divine aspect), Earth (the spatial aspect), and Time (the temporal aspect). Such a conception of the cosmos was no different from many of the later metaphysical theories, which were more concerned with a rational argument to arrive at the conclusions.

Pherecydes was also the first thinker to propose the idea of metempsychosis - the transmigration of souls. He was among the first thinkers to assert that the soul was immortal, and could not be destructed like bodies and material objects. The eternity of the soul meant that it would travel through the underworld in the afterlife and associated itself with different bodies. While this idea sounded more like the plot of an upcoming horror or fantasy movie (with some certain doses of CGI), the ancient idea has influenced the thoughts of Pythagoras and his followers – the Pythagoreans. Metempsychosis served as the central idea of Pythagorean philosophy, and influenced the outlook of these thinkers. Plato, by adopting the idea of metempsychosis (mainly attributed to Pythagoras), reinforced the concept of the immortality and timelessness of the soul and its metaphysical importance over the body and the material realm.

The thinking caveman could therefore be considered as a proto-philosopher of the ancient age! 

by Ed Law  

Conatus Classics

The Physis of Things

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

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

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

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

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

阿基拉

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

'阿基拉'將會在6月25日/6月26日在香港重映。強烈推薦!

NOMOS / PHYSIS (Part 2)

While the nomos-physis debate reached its high point around the 5^th century BC in ancient Greece, the earliest Presocratic philosophers have already explored and touched on this important topic, when the trend of switching the approach from mythos to logos was prevalent in Greek thinking. 

In general, most of the Presocratic philosophers until the emergence of the Sophists could be considered philosophers focusing on the 'physis' side. Most of the thinkers until Socrates were fundamentally interested in the origin of the universe, and in particular, the substance that served as the first cause of all things. It was through the speculation of a first cause that they elaborated their unique philosophical viewpoints. From the material monism of the philosophers from Miletus, through the rational theology and metaphysics by Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Parmenides, to the pluralistic nod atomistic positions of later philosophers, the thinkers attempted to discover physis of things. A common feature important of note was that all these philosophers celebrated the rational mind, and tended to discredit the use of empirical observations or perceptual experiences to arrive at true knowledge. Due to the limited resources for any scientific endeavor, the Presocratic philosophers tend to view phenomenal experience with a healthy dose of skepticism, or even undermine that as misleading illusions to our understanding.

The engagement with physis could also be seen from Greek culture. Aeschylus, celebrated as one of the key tragedians of ancient.t Greek, tended to muddle up the command and laws from the Divine physis with human conventions nomos. Ig was not uncommon for a character in an Aeschylean play to pass the blame of his / her action to the command of the gods. Nevertheless, Aeschylus was forward-thinking in the sense that he addressed the view that an individual should be responsible for one's action. For 'Oresteia', while one can argue much of the story had some forms of Divine intervention, physis would eventually lead to nomos, dictated by the fair trial in the Greek city. The Greek dramatists have provided complex interpretations of the nomos-physis debate in their plays, and that will be the focus of a future article.

The 5^th century saw the rise of the Sophists – the professional teachers and rhetoricians in Greece, and there was coincidental with the apex of the nomos-physis debate. It should not be surprising to see the Sophists were participated heavily in this contention, and were importance in the implications of the debate. For philosophy until Socrates, the thinkers have mainly been focusing on the nature and origin of the universe. Be it material monism, the Divine or Being, or some ontological forces that shaped every aspect of the universe, the central concern has never been humanistic. The emergence of the Sophists was a controversial one, because by that time people tended towards a more dogmatic view of life. They believed that arete (an area of excellence for a person) cannot be taught, because that is seen as unnatural. Yet, the Sophist challenged this notion of knowledge and they indeed charged high fees to teach different areas of the knowledge to the students who could afford that. This was instrumental to the upper-class people, because from these skills they mastered public speaking and rhetoric, debating skills, and other relevant sets of skills that would likely lead to political power and other benefits. Thus for thinkers like Socrates, Plato and Aristophanes, they were seen as mercenaries of knowledge rather than true philosophers.

From the assumptions of Sophism one would expect they were more inclined on the nomos side, as they shared human-oriented visions regarding their work. Yet, it is not totally true. Because Sophism itself was more of a common commitment than a consistent philosophy. The only attribute all these Sophists were a common aim to teach knowledge to their students, and Sophists did compete with each other and disagree on many issues. For Sophists like Protagoras and Prodicus, they embraced the nomos side. Protagoras' more famous dictum was 'Man is the measure of all things'. This statement testified the Sophist's humanism and that the individual was responsible for the value judgments of different things around him.

In contrast, for Sophists like Hippias and Antiphon, they were inclined on the physis side. Hippias was believed to be one of the famous thinkers in the West to explicitly state the term 'natural law', and believed their existences were more important the conventions dictated by humans. Antiphon also believed in the existence of natural law, and he believed self-interest (or self-preservation) was the ultimate natural law that governed humanity. Antiphon despised nomos because he seemed to observe inconsistencies in the man-made laws and conventions, and that also resulted in some elitism and prejudice against other less-civilized racial groups. It is also curious to note that a number of later Sophists were concentrated on human-centered assumptions like egoism or even moral nihilism when they attempted to delineate the whole debate between nomos and physis.

The nomos-physis did not end by the passing of the above thinkers. The topic has fundamentally changed the ancient world, and has provided a framework for thought when one wanted to understand his relationship to his surroundings. The face of the nomos-physis has undergone various metamorphoses throughout human history, leading the direction for the development of Western thought.

An important consequence that arose from the Nomos / Physis distinction could be evident in the Scientific Revolution in the 17^th century. Humans have the convictions that, if they can apply science to understand the natural world, they can likely adopt these methodologies to understand the human world and diverse better systems for the well-being of people. The law of nature in the universe, which are the ones that can be discovered by reason and also empirical methods. Many philosophers believe the existence of 'state of nature' of humanity, and their corresponding ethical implications. Philosophers like Grotius, Hobbes and Locke believed these laws existed and could be discovered by scientific methods to improve the conditions of humanity, yet other thinkers tended to be skeptical of the existence of these laws.

A fundamental conceptual debate in modern psychology is the 'nature vs. nurture debate'. Arguing whether one's character and personality is originated from one's biological and genetic makeup (nature) or originated through experience and learning throughout life (nurture), the question itself is just a version of the 'nomos-physis' debate. The topic is a hot one because that also is related to the gene-environment interaction concept in Evolutionary Psychology, a subject that is fascinating in its own right. Social constructivism, which is a theory from social science, is also related. The nurture-oriented concept suggests that an individual or a group of individuals in a social structure will construct their own reality. The fact that the constructivist position seems to deny an objective reality poses a challenge to approaches of scientific method, and there is no surprise that Social Constructivism has sparked intense debate. One can easily see that many issues have the origin from this ancient debate.

My discussion for the nomos-physis debate has reached the end. Not only the debate itself has inspired developments of ideas in philosophy and science alike, it has also influenced art and culture. Artists and dramatists cannot wait to share their unique opinions on the issue through their work. In future articles, I will discuss how the nomos-physis debate has influenced the work of various dramatists in Greece. 

(2/2) 

by Ed Law 

Conatus Classics

NOMOS / PHYSIS (Part 1)

Antigone attempting to bury Polyneices.

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

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

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

‘By convention sweet and by convention bitter, 

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

in reality atoms and the void.’ 

- Democritus

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

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

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

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

Antigone's dilemma

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

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

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


(1/2) 


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


by Ed Law 
Conatus Classics

Mythos, Logos and Presocratics

The history of thought has always been a fascinating subject to me. While the life of a human being is mortal, the ideas can be passed through different eras and inspire further generations. That is why great thinkers are immortalized – because people will remember their insightful ideas that shape the understanding of knowledge and human history in general. We need to develop such a historical outlook because not only that addresses the question of our origin, but also guides our way to further develop these ideas for later generations. I have often mentioned different philosophers and thinkers when I discussed about great filmmakers in 'Film Analysis', and I feel that the ideas of thinkers deserve formal treatment rather than merely some occasional 'party-crashing' entries in my film blog. So, I decide to put together a new section about the intellectual history of humanity.

I do not intend to call this a 'philosophy' series, because while philosophers have provided starting points and guided us through the road to wisdom, the approach is rather limited in scope and also they cannot discredit contributions from other practitioners. Be it scientists, poets, politicians, dramatists, artists, or even entertainers, they can also put forward ideas that inspire people. Who would doubt the influence of Charles Chaplin to humanity, even if he was not seen as academic in any way? Do the members of the Monty Python have to become philosophers to express insightful ideas? Moreover, I certainly have no ambition to become a walking encyclopedia in philosophy as it does not appear to be the most interesting alter-ego one can be easily conceived of. Why not understand the context of these great ideas and how they may influence us? Thus, 'history of ideas' seems to be a more appropriate title.

It is generally agreed that the emergence of Socrates served as the key turning point for Western intellectual history, due to his attempts to build up a rational and systematic approach to philosophy. His efforts have led him to be called 'the Father of Philosophy'. Yet it is important to appreciate that there were already intellectual activities before Socrates – and many of these thinkers are not as well-known as the Three Musketeers of Classical Greek Philosophy – Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers are known as 'Presocratic philosophers', literally meaning 'before Socrates'. Presocratic philosophers also include the ones who appeared in the same era as Socrates (such as Democritus), and the Sophists, who, according to Plato, often debated with Socrates because the latter felt that they often used bad argumentation and rhetoric to achieve their own ends rather than using reason to look for truths.

Thus, the birth of Western philosophy appeared in ancient Greece in the 6th century BC. By that time Greece was already a thriving center for cultural and intellectual activities. Because of an efficient means of transportation and the geographical advantages, Greek cities such as Athens and Miletus became hubs for the exchange for commercial products as well as ideas. Thinkers originated from many parts of Greece, and some also came from neighboring regions like the islands of Italy. One should be impressed by the fact that, given a rather limited condition, these ancient thinkers have used their imaginations to benefit their civilization and framed the way further ideas were conceptualized.

Even before the first philosophers emerged, people have been involved in all sort of cultural and intellectual activities. The prosperity of many of the Greek cities was instrumental to the development of early thoughts. Everyone has already thought about the questions the first philosophers would soon address: poems like those from Homer and Hesiod were already enriching the intellectual experience of humanity. The emergence of the Presocratic philosophers represented a turning point to Western thought because that signified a paradigm shift of thinking, coining the term from Thomas Kuhn. The change was summarized in a phrase - 'from mythos to logos'.

The world 'mythos' meant mythology and the 'logos' meant account in Greek. Before the emergence of the first philosophers, people explained and understood the things around them by attributing to mythological and idiosyncratic explanations. Observing the change in weather, they would attribute explanations like 'Zeus was angry' or 'God A was quarreling with Goddess B'. Too often the plot elements involved some form of incest, moral transgressions or outrageous family dysfunctions – you get the idea of these ancient soap operas.

The first philosophers sought for answers there were not mythological or superstitious, as these answers could not yield any concrete concepts that would be beneficial for mankind. Many of the philosophers, all the way to until the last 200 years before the rise of anti-metaphysical positivism, could be called 'natural philosophers' because they were considered as proto-scientists, who attempted to use naturalistic, and empirical methods whenever possible, to approach the problems they encountered. The directions for the philosophers to tackle the problems differed. For the Milesian school and the Atomists, they attempted to use as much observations as they could to draw conclusions and explained natural phenomena. For philosophers like Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans and the Eleatic School, they appealed to reason or intuition to discover the metaphysical reality. For the Sophists, they shifted the focus of philosophical inquiry from the theological foundation of metaphysics to a humanistic one, and they focused the studies on the human institutions like conventions and language. In the 5^th century, the Sophists in particular have been involved in the Nomos-Physis debate – the convention (nomos) versus nature (physis) distinction important for humanity, and the issue had important consequences for naturalistic, social, legal and political areas alike.

The spirit of mythology has not been completely exorcised - even in Greek culture the need for myths persisted. In Aeschylus's famous play 'Oresteia', cosmic justice from the gods mingled with human justice provided by positive law, and the line between spiritual and secular became blurred as a result. In Plato's 'Protagoras', when the Sophist Protagoras debated with Socrates, he expressed a thesis of the origin of human civilization based on mythology, because he  believed his audience would be more interested in hearing mythical tales. Nevertheless,  his account evidently demonstrated a mythos-to-logos transition of Greek culture.  A further example is provided by the historian Hecataeus of Miletus. While he was probably one of the first historians to apply a rational critique on historical information, and attempted to eliminate myths from historical facts, he did occasionally attributed explanations to some mythological sources such as Homer's poems. These scenarios are not very different from the modern life. While one can take a completely secular and rational outlook towards life, without any burden on spiritual values and faith, having a religious outlook is still being respected in any societies with a tolerance of diversity.

The significance for the insights of these thinkers was not limited to antiquity. Their theories were developed, challenged and systematized by the later philosophers, leading to the development of the whole history of Western philosophy. The ideas of Presocratic philosophers have survived the era of out-of-this-world metaphysical speculations and Medieval dogmatism, and experienced a resurgence in the era of Renaissance Humanism. Thereafter, the Scientific Revolution of Europe has renewed interests in Presocratic atomism, which led to the revolutionary theory of corpuscularianism in the 17th century. These ideas eventually served as the foundation of modern physical science. The age of Enlightenment embraced an appreciation of classical art and ideas, and thinkers and artists alike continued to return to the Classical era for inspirations on their own work and ideas they wish to develop. The ideas of the Presocratic philosophers have influenced thinkers as  diverse as Spinoza, Hegel, Wagner, Marx, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer, Popper and many more.

The Presocratic philosopher Democritus was known to have said 

I would rather discover one cause than gain the kingdom of Persia.

While I cannot deny the temptation offered by the latter option, I presume the motivation to ask 'Why?' is the way to a valuable asset known as wisdom, and indeed the power of knowledge itself.

by Ed Law

Conatus Classics

Blade Runner and Postmodernism

Blade Runner is a key example of a postmodern film. It encapsulates every single key elements regarding the postmodern condition, and addresses our awareness of modern times. The major reason why modern film audience finds so much resonance is ‘Blade Runner’ is due to its realistic portrayal of the contemporary situations they find themselves in.

The postmodern condition was defined by the philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard as the 'incredulity towards metanarratives'. Metanarratives are the structures that organize knowledge in a given era. They are the shared stories that members of a given culture or civilization have a sense of belonging to. It is the shared history that binds all the members together for a give culture.

Lyotard pointed out that in the ancient times, the metanarratives tended to be folk myths about the heroic deeds of the ancestors of the culture. By answering the question of 'when do we come from', these stories became ritualistic in terms of narrative, yet they were essential to organize the members of the culture, from the shared history for their origins.

For the modern era, Lyotard has also identified 2 key metanarratives. The first metanarrative is a teleological one, and it can be considered Hegelian. By using reason, humanity can strive for a final purpose of their existences, leading to absolute knowledge and the most perfect form possible. The second metanarrative is a socially-relevant one, in tune with socialism and Marxism. The metanarrative concerns the progress of human history, and by adopting the right kind of social reform, that will lead to an utopian condition.

One can easily see that all these metanarratives have a common feature : they try to organize knowledge and bind individuals together, so as to move towards a common aim. An individual, subject to the power of a metanarrative, feels that he has to belong and thus becomes a part of the grand narrative. This possibility is challenged by many thinkers of Postmodernism, as human existence in the modern era has become more fragmented rather than unifying.

In the world of ' Blade Runner', the metanarratives that governed it were put to challenges. The most obvious statement was the one from Tyrell's company. In an attempt to transcend the limit of humanity, Tyrell's company created bioengineered replicants as a new type of workhorse for humanity. The company's 'more human than a human is our motto' seems to be an idealistic direction at first sight. Yet, the metanarratives of absolute knowledge and technological progress have been put into question, because the film suggests that both of them may not be achievable at the end of the day.

The fact that technology could make more powerful replicants did not benefit humanity. By contrast, that actually threatened human welfare and led to the inception of blade runners. The motto was a deception : because when the company has made something beyond human, they only used it for the purpose of exploitation by other humans, as slaves, workers and pleasure models. There were no enlightenment of humanity in this scenario, because these novel life forms have not been granted any human dignity and they were always seen as sub-human.

Also, 'absolute knowledge' turned out to be a false promise. The emergence of replicants has actually blurred the line of human / non-human and raised epistemological questions around the definition of humanity. Is that you have to have a non-engineered life or a mind which is not implanted by someone else's memories? Roy Batty, having been a powerful replicant yet constrained by his 4-year lifespan, appeared to live fuller and has more enriching experience than Deckard and the other humans (To add to the insult Roy also had Pris as a girlfriend and Deckard was filing for a divorce until he met Rachel). The replicant also had more human characteristics like empathy, desire, instinct for self-preservation and fear of death, unlike the other human characters who were consumed by the cold and sterile environment. In this line of reasoning should Roy Batty be qualified as a human being, and be seen on equal terms with the other 'cold-fish' human characters?

That leads us to a philosophical question. Throughout the thousand of years, thinkers have been debating what really is reality and what approach can we reach that knowledge. As early as Parmenides in Ancient Greece, the 'appearance versus reality' question has emerged as the key theme of Metaphysics. Many philosophers have agreed that that exists an ultimate reality – the standard final answer for philosophy. Many of these philosophers believe that rational thinking is the only approach that can reach this final point, and they tend to distrust our senses as misleading and giving us false illusions regarding reality. Metaphysicans strive to look for reality, and often distrust appearance, as perceived from our senses, as mere illusions. This is 'metaphysical speculation', a term in particular preferred by the philosophers and scientists who believed in a more positivist or empirical approach. Because metaphysical statements are often unobservable and non-verifiable, positivists see these statements as speculative and meaningless. They are armchair philosophy – when a different thinker comes to sit on the armchair, a different answer will emerge.

In fact, from the earliest days of Western philosophy, certain thinkers have already cast doubt on such a metaphysical approach. The Sophist Protagoras has advocated a form of phenomenalism, and that was an empirical doctrine which was developed and embraced by some later philosophers. He believed that 'what is true for an individual is what appears to him from (subjective) sense impressions'. For Protagoras, an objective point of view did not exist, and that depended on the human's perspective. Therefore there is no point to engage in any metaphysical speculations, like whether there is objective knowledge or morality and the existence of God.

While the approach of phenomenalism may seem shallow because that appears to not bother with an objective reality, the approach challenges that we may be going the wrong direction when understanding ourselves. If our beliefs are always speculative, how can we be certain about the knowledge we have attained? In 'Blade Runner', such a question has been posed, though there may turn out to be more than one correct answers. Advocates of phenomenalism want to focus on knowledge that is attainable and observable, and get rid of the speculative aspect of knowledge. That just shows how complex human existence can be.

Juxtaposition is also a key idea of postmodernism. To juxtapose, is to overlap new and old elements into the same frame, thus creating a mixed totem of epoch. Blade Runner is about juxtaposition in many aspects. First, it is a film with multiple genres. Certainly, it will not be too hard to see it as a Science Fiction, yet the film contains notions of Film Noir - the expressionistic lighting and style, the underdog private eye, the femme fatale, and to a lesser extent, Western - the idea of bounty hunters. It belongs to the sub-genre of cyberpunk, juxtaposing with explicit contrast,  high material technology with low mental life. All the images in Blade Runner are splattered with novel technology and cultural heritage. Police hoover crafts flying through modern cityscapes and pyramid-like buildings, digital television screens on buildings, showing traditionally attired Japanese ladies, various people of different nationalities speaking different languages, Deckard eating sushi and drinking Tsing Tao beer. Blade Runner seems atemporal, or as Prince Hamlet would have put it, ‘the time is out of joint’. It is as if the wheels of time have been uncoupled, news and olds are merged into an organic unity. What we can see, is a mesmerizing and complex world, which is more than similar to our current, diverse lives.

Similar to ‘The Terminator’, the humans in ‘Blade Runner’ cannot be separated from their interactions with the machines and technology. The spatial dimension to define the Blade Runner lifestyle is the cyberspace. As the French philosopher Jean Baudillard has stated, the experience of postmodern condition appears like a simulacrum – as if we have entered into the game zone of a simulation. Isn’t that the case for our lives? We cannot live without social network, photo sharing sites, and, not to make myself hypocritical, this is a blog, right? This is absolutely true that cyberspace has led us all closer, but are we in control of ourselves, or are we over-relying on the material computer world?

Anyone who has watched Blade Runner should vividly remember one of the key mise-en-scenes of the film – the barrage of commercial brands throughout the film – be it Atari, Bell, Pan-Am, Coke and a million others. Indeed, consumerism is a postmodern condition. Quite unfortunately, some of us can be dehumanized in a sense by material consumption. These consuminators are absorbed into the various brand names, which they believe their shelves are defined by the very brands they are consuming. Our identities are defined by our personal cognitive beliefs, rather than an external, material or monetary force. To be original, one should certainly not to become too postmodern and succumb wholeheartedly to the clutches of simulacrum and consumerism, as it will certain stifle real thinking.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis

The Color of Pomegranates

'The Color of Pomegranates' is a poetry film from Sergei Parajanov (1924-1990), who was a Soviet filmmaker of Armenian descent. The film concerned the life of Sayat-Nova, the 18^th century Armenian poet. The story, however, was not presented in the style of 3-hour biographic films from American cinema. Parajanov presented the story in a poetic style, where the cinematic images were associative rather than narrative. The viewers have to construct the personality of Sayat-Nova themselves by engaging with the poetic images. Because of the stylized composition, the film did resemble the tippy drug films of the late 1960s, making it an unique cinematic experience.

Sergei Parajanov was considered as a bad boy in cinema, yet that certainly came with a cost for him. His cinematic style was so unique that he has established a firm spot in European Art Cinema, and he was admired by filmmakers like Godard, Antonioni and Tarkovsky. It was however his unique approach to film art that has attracted unwanted attention : when he was making films in the 1960s, his style served as a conflicting departure from the sanctioned style of Soviet Union of the day - Socialist Realism. Now that may not be a fair description for Parajanov - before 1965, most of his films were comfortably situated in the realm of Socialist Realism. After the viewing of Tarkovsky’s 'Ivan's Childhood', Parajanov was enlightened by the experimental nature of the film and came up with his own poetic style. From the late 1960s to early 1970s, Parajanov was marginalized by the Soviet Union film community, and given his controversial personality outside of cinema, he was imprisoned intermittently all the way to his death. For the last 25 years of his life, Parajanov has only made 4 feature films, all suffering from limited distribution and severe marginalization from the community alike. It was only at the final years of his life, when audience started to be aware of his work and watched in awe of these stunning achievement, which were created through so many constraints.

Parajanov’s discovery of his personal style reflected a larger trend of the art cinema of 1960s, which was the emphasis of Modernism in film art. Modernism was an important artistic force in the early 20^th century, coinciding with the dawn of cinema. The guiding principle of Modernism was the motto ‘from mimesis to poiesis'. For the Western literature of the late 19^th century, most authors intended to represent the world in a realistic approach, as if they were mimicking reality. Authors like Zola focused on human behaviors and observable phenomena around them, and this tendency was certainly influenced by rise of the positivist approach towards social science of that era. Termed 'naturalism', the practitioners from literature shared similarities to empirical scientists, who tried to test hypotheses and confirm theories through observation and experimentation.

At the early 20^th century, the movement of Modernism has shown a burgeoning development and many artists from different fields alike were having strong commitment to this interesting style. Modernism focused on poiesis, the experimentation of form and content. From the influence of Freud, Proust and Nietzsche, many of these artists focused on the inner mental (and unobservable) lives of individuals, through the applications of techniques such as oneiric imageries, multi-person narratives, stream of consciousness and internal monologues. Rather than a unified and coherent self implied by the naturalists, the modernist's individual self was fragmented, and this notion challenged the very conception of any essentialism regarding humanity.

It is ironic that Modernism has never become a mainstream style, as most practitioners tend to prefer a coherent narrative when telling a story. Indeed, when Parjanov first submitted the script of 'The Color of Pomegranates' to the studio, problems already emerged. His script was met with comments like 'subjective', 'incomprehensible' and 'unclear'.

The non-narrative tendency of the film was most evident from the composition in its many frames. Parajanov staged much of his film in the style of tableaux, featuring a lot of frontal, shallow focus and portrait shot. The stylized flatness from the visual feel resembled the films of Pier Paolo Pasolini, and the frontal / shallow focus combination also recalled many of Robert Bresson's films. Any attempt to establish a narrative continuity was derailed by the frequent use of jump cuts throughout the film. One can easily feel the deliberation by Parajanov here – through the cinematic juxtaposition, he created a kind of cinematic rhythm rarely seen in films. The poiesis from the image and sound of the film evoked the Imagist poems of Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot. The spatial and temporal unity, as the key rule of great story-telling and cherished by some many filmmakers, has been deconstructed by this poetic warrior of cinema.

Even from the opening minutes of the film, Parajanov was already trading metaphoric images with the audience. Through a number of shots portraying still life and objects, Parajanov challenged the viewers to construct the meanings and the own perspective about the film, and the life experience of the Armenian poet. Parajanov showed himself to be a master of composition and mise-en-scene, and through the use of repetition of some key images throughout the film, that served as an imprinting effect on the mind of the viewers.

Even when young, Sayat-Nova has already demonstrated the key attributes of a gifted poet - by carrying out the metamorphosis of concrete sense impressions, desire and feelings into abstract metaphoric images. The way of poetry needs to transform from the concrete into the abstract, and to engage in a higher level of formalization and sublimation of thoughts.

However gifted one might prove himself to be, the essential component poetry are the vivid imaginations and the experience through life. Numerous critics have interpreted the significance of pomegranates in the film, and I don't have much to add to the established meanings. It is worth reiterating, though : the diverse taste of pomegranates symbolizes the various periods and sentiments of one's life. It is even more than that: through association one can put in all sort of meanings to this fruit, from the contrast of life and death to fertility and degeneration. It appears to me that the juices, flowing profusely from the fruit, also takes a sensual meaning, as if it symbolizes some sort of temptation through its uncanny resemblance to bodily fluids.

If we go further and see the development of Sayat-Nova into a poet, he seems to move through the phenomenal stage into the noumenal stage. That is, he experienced the sensuality throughout his life and eventually settled in an ascetic lifestyle, working as a monk and focused on creating art. The sexual awakening for Sayat-Nova happened in an early stage, when he spied upon the nude King and Princess in the sulfur baths. Desire might lead to inspiration, but when it was not controlled it would not lead to anything contributive. Through a nicely executed dream sequence, the poet had an opportunity for self-reflection and eventually decided to withdraw himself from the worldly desire and committed to asceticism.

A nice point from some viewers was that the poet sacrificed himself in a symbolic way – to give up his own self-interest and worked towards more universal aims. The recurring image of the dagger, along with some other Christian symbolisms, signified this martyrdom, charting Sayat-Nova’s journey towards a pure and spiritual existence. As per the Freudian sublimation, the impulses have been contained and put into creative use, inspiring the lovers of art from the future generations.

by Ed Law
Film Analysis

Winter Light

'Winter Light' is the second film of an informal trilogy by Ingmar Bergman, which is preceded by 'Through the Glass Darkly' and is followed by 'The Silence'. The trilogy explores the spiritual issues of human existence. A trend can be observed through the three films – from the spiritual perspective common in many of Bergman's earlier films to the more secular perspective in his later films. Though I prefer a more secular reading of 'Through the Glass Darkly' (mental illness as opposed to spiritual experience), for many Bergman's intention in the film was to demonstrate the possibility of spirituality. 'The Silence', in contrast, was signifying God's silence, and the film placed its focus on humanistic issues. That made 'Winter Light' an interesting transition because, this middle film appeared to have the most ambivalent tone in all three films. Conflicting interpretations abound from different viewers, and Bergman welcomed both spiritual and secular interpretations. He seemed to suggest that, no matter how modernized human societies have become, the issue of faith is just as thought-provoking as ever.

In 'Winter Light', Tomas was a pastor in a small rural church. His responsibility was to provide a channel for people to be closer to God. Yet, as many critics have agreed, what Bergman has tried to do in the film is to 'smash the proof of God'. Through Tomas' observations, he had plenty of evidence to conclude that (a) either God did not exist, or (b) God was not benevolent. Thus no place of Theodicy, and no pre-established harmony advocated by Leibniz.

Organized religion, for which Tomas was part of, has become a meaningless ritual, and it has failed to enlighten the people. Tomas suffered a spiritual crisis himself, and was consumed by apocalyptic paranoia. Marta, who was Tomas' ex-mistress and felt that Tomas has alienated her in their relationships, has proactively tried to mend fences with him. Yet, she was the most avid disbeliever of God. The whole issue has become a psychological one – when people encounter bad things in their lives, they are willing to deny God's existence in order to reconcile the harsh reality with their experience.

The scenario of 'Winter Light' reminds me of Paul Schrader's book on Transcendental Style. Tomas has passed through the 'everyday' – carrying out his duties in the church and also making sense of God's teachings for the people around him. He then faced 'disparity' - from his own experience and his interaction with others, he was on the verge of losing his faith no matter how he has tried to convince himself about religiosity. Thus, was 'transcendence' possible for Tomas?

That came to the most contentious part of the film, where viewers have drawn up their own conclusions. Bergman gave an open-ended answer. At the end, Tomas had to carry out the ceremony service even when there was only one person in the Church. More ironies were apparent – that single person was Marta, and the self-proclaimed atheist started to pray. The outcome regarding Tomas was just as ambivalent. While he has sorted out his thinking and come to admit of God's silence, something he would rather choose not to believe; he still provided the consolation of God's benevolence through the ceremony. Was it an existential understanding of his own status, or was the doubt regarding God's absence a necessary part to reach a firmer faith to God, like Christ on the Cross? As for Marta, while some viewers might interpret Tomas has convinced Marta of God's presence through the film, it could also simply be that Marta treasured the compassion with Tomas and came for an emotional support. Bergman might be subtle here, yet the focus has displaced from the existence of God to the possibility of human relationships, the central theme that has defined so many of the masterpieces in his later years.

by Ed Law

Film Analysis