西方哲学史的开端
在世界上我希望的那个地区
你承认是希腊的例如NC
和小亚细亚
已知的第一位说话的哲学家
至少说一下我的 Letus 的叶子
来自差不多那个位置
亚洲西海岸的中心
小泛印度，换句话说就是希腊
现在分散在爱琴海周围的殖民地
通常开始的问题是
那么你如何解释
西方哲学在例如一个
在古希腊地区，有
几行解释是
重要的当然是它
站在东方的十字路口
和西方，我们的传统观念
会受到互动的挑战
仅仅因为东方文化
贸易路线来的方式
穿过小亚细亚，顺流而下
山谷河流蜿蜒而下
到大海所以这是蜿蜒的山谷
那里和贸易路线是那样的
这么好的跨文化刺激
导致询问一些基本的
问题
强调的第二件事
很多，我认为适当的是
早期的希腊哲学家是
真正的前科学科学家，他们
正在询问有关自然的问题
世界关于自然秩序关于
他们提出问题的自然过程
关于基本元素 什么基本元素
或元素是所有富人的基础
天地间的家具
我们看到的原因是什么
解释变异的过程
事物和发生的变化
那种早期哲学的问题
自然原始宇宙学问题
关于宇宙的起源，因为我们
知道它开始出现，你可以看到
他们如何与
东西方的区别
随之而来的刺激
两人互动的神话
进入某种程度的冲突，但
还有第三个特点是
非常重要，我想我已经
变得越来越特别
早期希腊诗人的重要性
戏剧家们坚信
我们在自然界观察到的宇宙秩序
也是一种道德秩序 一种宇宙概念
正义是一种浮出水面的东西
一些早期的文学人物
在奥德赛和伊利亚特之间
开始出现在
奇怪的是它在埃斯库罗斯和
索福克勒斯它的存在使得
问题是是否有命令
包含道德秩序的宇宙
如果这是一个道德宇宙，我们如何
解释这个事实，所以我们真的
两种哲学思想
解释希腊语的起源
这里的哲学是一种简单地专注于
关于物理宇宙的思考
另一个关于反思
他们相信存在的道德秩序
在自然的过程中所以我
今天想做的是专注于
首先，他们对
物理订单，然后下一次
将我们的注意力转向道德秩序
看看那好吧
记住看看大纲
我刚刚给了你前苏格拉底
苏格拉底之前的哲学家们
请注意，我已将它们分组到
原则分组是根据你
下各种一元论的通知
罗马人一二和三反对
多元主义，也就是说这个问题是
是否存在一个基本要素
这说明了一切或是否
有许多基本要素可以
明明是一种质的
一元论或多元论 可能是这样
质量是一个基本要素是
许多基本要素，但它也涉及
一个定量的问题是否有
宇宙在数字上是一
包罗万象的固体球体或
数量上是否有很多
现在听起来可以区分的东西
深奥的原因很简单，你
认为你和我不同
am 这意味着有很多
不同的东西，所以用定量
一元论将要错过将要
提出一些非常基本的问题
关于我们感觉的可靠性
体验因为如果感觉体验
告诉我们我们人数众多，但
理论变成一切都是温暖的
在数量上也有问题
一切皆为一的理论
否则我们的感觉有问题
经验，以便以后出现
当我们进入标记为 le 的组时
Attucks 绝对一元论命名为 le Attucks
在位于意大利脚趾的 Elio 之后
其中一些人是这样的
数量问题出现在那里，但在
一开始我们就很天真
马来西亚人的一元论
定性多元化或定性
一元论现在有多少基本元素
记住他们从来没有在
他们从未去过的化学讲堂
看过元素表
并给他们留下深刻印象
事情的安排
最初的倾向是寻找一个
基本元素，当你阅读这些
材料，我希望你会阅读
通过小学和中学
前苏格拉底学派的材料
当你阅读这些时，本周末
你会发现失败的材料
以为一切终究是
可归约到从一派生
他现在称之为水的元素
片刻无视你没有的事实
认为这是他不想要的元素 h2o
知道那些可怜的东西你会看到
仍然听起来很狂野
假设一切都由水组成
好吧等一下
水是一种适应性极强的
事物
它有液态固态和 Vina
它不仅对您的生活至关重要
生命购买但植被
注意周围的一切都是棕色的
这儿旱情很严重
夏天我想我已经修剪了我的前草坪
自 6 月初以来一次，这是一个受欢迎的
改变，但这是一个悲剧，是的，我知道
水是一切事物的基础
虽然那是必要的
可以理解贝利的推测，但
也许这是基本的东西，他
不是公司里唯一的人
你注意到阿那克西曼德的名字
谁因为他承认你有
不只有湿你只有干
你也有他开始看到的干燥
你有相反的品质和相同的
在其他方面热和冷光和
黑暗的男性和女性，并在尽可能多
如果你有相反的属性没有人
可以比其他人更基本
假设基本元素必须是
无法定义的东西，那就是
pyrin 这个词的意思是它不能
被定义它不能被描绘标记
离开希腊世界 巴黎意味着边界
分界线 Alpha 基元
使其为负，因此在 PI 杆上它没有
定义
无法定义的你认为和考生
另一方面认为空气是
基本的必需品，所以你开始得到
这个品种和什么浮出水面，如果
你熟悉希腊文学
什么浮出水面是事实，他们是
玩弄各种元素
希腊人甚至在他们的
文学地球空气火和水
这是四个经典的希腊语
一些人认为他们
代表四种生活必需品
地球食物空气呼吸火温暖水
喝点东西
滋养或他们远和水
生活必需品，但你注意到
我们这里有湿疹膝盖这里我们
以后有失败我们会发现
赫拉克利特和一些斯多葛学派
插上火
Yesi 换句话说
他们构思的元素
他们熟悉的元素
其中哪一项是最基本的，或者是
这些都不是修改
应该很好，马来西亚人在问
这些相当简单的问题过程
他们认为可能发生的变化
在空气的情况下解释为
产生水分的冷凝是
一个
有各种各样的可能性
另一方面，在这些提案中
毕达哥拉斯和赫拉克利特偶然
这就是你遇到的毕达哥拉斯
数学 数学家认为
产生了众所周知的东西
毕达哥拉斯定理
直角三角形的斜边
等于上的平方和
另外两侧
记住毕达哥拉斯还好毕达哥拉斯
和赫拉克利特看似独立
彼此的
在六世纪后期
相同的四五百
六世纪后期我们说
自然有两个，因为它是两个
每一面都同等重要
一个双方面理论现在你可以得到
也许我的意思是一个粗略的想法
双重方面，如果你考虑
关于一个几乎的对象的问题
在这种文化中变得罕见的巫师
你知道这是杯子的时代
比精致的英式中国茶杯
和碟子 但至少你知道
碟子的形状
是一个巫师凹或凸是从
一种俯视它的观点
从上面它从另一个凹进去
仰望它的观点
有人带着它它的凸面
两个方面，可以说
源 a 既是凹面又是凸面是
谈两面性
源的好现在什么毕达哥拉斯
赫拉克利特印象深刻的是
一切都有两个方面
一方面自然界中的一切
似乎正在发生变化
另一方面是为了我们
调用自然可预测性的一致性
是的，我
哦，是的 – 想想那个变化
赫拉克利特建议基本
元素就像火你知道火是
总是在变化
你有没有注意到坐在一个
在冬天你会得到壁炉
被闪烁的火焰迷住了
总是在变化 是的
几乎难以专心阅读
围绕着火的哲学
原因
另一方面不断变化的音乐
手这是一个有序的宇宙有
规律性，你知道某些种类的
木头会燃烧并赢得虽然潮湿如何
他们想要，所以你有改变和
订单更改和订单和毕达哥拉斯
和赫拉克利特独立于每个
其他人试图准确地谈论那个
赫拉克利特的做法是
暗示我们拥有的是火或
一些火热的蒸汽加热上升的蒸汽
上升一切上升和变化
和闪烁和燃烧等等
向前
火加上某种可理解的
他现在称之为拉各斯的可追溯订单
你以前遇到过这个词
使徒约翰就是这个词
将在他的第一行使用
福音一开始就是这个词
他在我们的 KN ha Lagos 开始
他会说的拉各斯
这是它第一次出现的地方
在希腊思想中，约翰后来改编了一个
根据希伯来语的伟大构想
对他的目的的构想
另一方面，现在观看我们的
数学家毕达哥拉斯也讲
事物的变化和想法 fari
蒸汽是他暗指的东西，但
而不是谈论拉各斯他
谈论的是一种数学
按数学顺序排列两件事
两件事，这样你就可以代表所有
数字上的各种不同的形状
你认为这是一种数学形式
宇宙，在那里你可以追踪
数学顺序这就是为什么他是
他对几何感兴趣，所以你有
这两个强调有一个
订购茴香给 Naevia
对于所有的变化过程和
预期主题的脚注
下一次这意味着在所有的
生活的变化，我们应该过
合理有序的生活是的
道德源于这口井
毕达哥拉斯和赫拉克利特另一方面
当你到达 Ailey 附楼时
他们绝对不想要多元主义不
两个方面的歧视没有世界
变化和巴门尼德非常
直率的时尚宣告改变
是一个失败者多元化是虚幻的
身体运动是幻觉
只是幻觉的方式，如果你
想要你必须思考的真理之路
从所有感官中抽象出来
抽象地思考，如果你想看
更多思考的含义
抽象地很好，你可以阅读
巴门尼德选择和考夫曼
选集，但要注意 Z 没有
因为 Ino 试图证明
这种通过提出悖论来实现的绝对一元论
变化是一个悖论
自相矛盾
不可能发生的事情，例如我
以追赶的头发为例
乌龟和野兔抓到了吗
乌龟不，因为你在这里看到的是
乌龟所在的线
移动但到达那里的时间
野兔已经到了那么远的时候了
乌龟到达那里头发得到
那么远
但乌龟到达那里的时间
虽然在这里反对那么远，因为
他们的头发不断向前推进乌龟
因为乌龟不断前进
野兔永远捉不到乌龟
他已经吃过了，那就是
虚幻的你认为它做了一些
马路对面的鸡没有因为
如果街上有这么多，那么首先
鸡将距离 H al ves 减半
将距离减半，然后鸡
将剩余距离减半然后它
将剩余距离减半然后它
有剩余的距离然后
剩余然后剩余然后从不
过马路你看到小米
种子被认为是最小的
现在没有种子的种子
展示多元主义的矛盾本质
Zeno 摆出这个姿势会有多少声音
小米种子掉下来就没有声音了
好吧，放下一袋小米
种子多少声音会使零
一万倍，这是zilch no
声音
但你听到了第三个错觉
从理性上讲，这是不可能的
幻觉是感官的方式
复数的事物，我们
看到是一个松散的 e 作为复数
变化和运动的过程是
从严格逻辑的虚幻
立场不能改变没有
复数现在我不认为有
有过发展的学派
被称为芝诺主义或巴门尼德主义
因为那些人​​代表了一个
某种逻辑上的终点，没有人
想要跟随他们是一回事
说感觉有时是一种
失败的
说这种感觉是一回事
感知是相对的，并且肯定会变化
我们会发现很多人柏拉图和
等等等等说，但要说
他们完全是沉香阵
好吧，如果你说那你为什么要说
你想对谁说，为什么
如果那样说的话，其他任何声音
位置是正确的为什么还要记录什么
芝诺和巴门尼德这样说的话
位置正确
这是弄巧成拙，是的，他
但重点不在于立场
他们想出了但种类
他们提出的问题是什么意思
说一切都是一个整体
这大概是一个宇宙吧
并不意味着巴门尼德的思想
但另一方面，这是一个世界吗
激进多元主义的一切
分离的激进个人主义
一种无政府主义的宇宙，没有
法律和秩序，如果它实际上是什么
前苏格拉底主义者对我们所做的就是提出
问题，而且很多时候它远不止于此
重要的问题表面是什么
什么答案浮出水面
这些人当然很好
当你谈到多元主义者时，你可能
说这是一股清新的空气
因为这里有彼得的人
Cleese and Eggs 吉里斯·德谟克利特
看到许多不同的东西
事实上，empedocles 全部 4/4
气火水
所有四个要素，为了
解释那种过程
涉及他想出了某种
你说的宇宙历史周期性地
看到事情这样发展
的整合与解体
贯穿历史的元素
宇宙的但充满了基本的
另一方面，elements an X a giris
那里认为他们很多
成为解决各种问题的基本要素
无论如何，定性的东西
不同的他称他们似乎所以你的
身体会有骨种子的种子
皮肉的种子血的种子
肌肉的种子 头发的种子等等
有一些建议和
它可能是黑头发的种子或种子
卷发的浅色头发种子或
我们要去的直发种子
停止这种多元主义，但随后
假设了这样一个无限
不同事物的多样性
这些种子你打算怎么算
为了人体的有序统一
并且对于宇宙和
所以exodus所做的就是谈论
他所谓的套索或思想，好像在那里
是某种宇宙思维将事物吸入
在有序的方向上有序的统一
你可以看到某种神圣的绞索
在探索宇宙的源头时
尽管摸索着一些秩序
你会看到的至高无上的概念
神学的开端
古希腊人与某些人的区别
他们的神话
是的，但另一方面，当你
到达德谟克利特，图片是
不同，因为虽然阻碍了疼痛
和 NX a giris 是定性的
多元主义者好吧
质的多元论者德谟克利特是一个
定性一元论一切皆为一
质量相同但数量不同
多元然后是说物理的东西
由无穷小的原子和
原子这个词的字面意思是它不能
被分割它不能被分割成不可分割的
物质颗粒 好吧 所以物理的东西
我们知道是由一个巨大的
原子数不可分割的小球和
猫之间的质的差异
卷心菜和领花和
王者你看定性
差异是由于组合
产生那些定性的原子
不同组合的差异
现在的想法是比花椰菜王
原子有不同的形状
并以某种方式旋转
宇宙漩涡自然运动
在这个宇宙漩涡中翻滚
相互碰撞钩子
结合如此大的聚集体形成和
完全是偶然的结果
机械加工
天上万物，
地球是在这个过程中形成的
历史所以你在这些中得到了什么
最后的人特别有趣
因为前松鸡是
提出一种目的论解释
目的论解释
有这个宇宙的头脑命令
用这些可以理解的方式来做事
另一方面，德谟克利特
有一个纯粹的机械解释有
一个纯粹的机械解释盲目
偶然结合产生的力量
组成的企业集团的种类
宇宙
就好像有人拿走了一整捆
和捆绑和捆绑的个人
字母和旋转足够长的时间
周日版的
芝加哥论坛报你看到那种
解释
绝对的机会，但显然你在这里
有两个哲学家提交
完全不同的方向是的，他是
机械的唯物主义，其中
除了物质原子之外，什么都不存在
被偶然的力量所感动
另一方面是目的论
正在推动的解释
任何一种的方向
有神论的形而上学或某种
唯心主义
但一些解释看到了一些
一种理性的非物质现实
该条例的会计处理
宇宙现在有一个快速的破败
在我拿起并拉一些之前
线程在一起让我暂停你
了解故事
你想清楚罗莎什么
是的，因为所有的原子都是独立的
原子在性质上是相同的
定性相同所以定性
monist 但数量上的复数
他们中的所有人都在质量上
一样
是的，得到这个有意义吗
你的腰带和作为一部分的术语
你活跃词汇的一部分是
这个关头的部分任务 whoo
哦，椎弓根缓解还好
我倾向于说不，我认为他是
探索一种目的论的观点
这个原因在那个循环的真主
元素组合和
分离他归因于
循环处理成两个力，他
叫爱和恨吸引排斥
现在取决于你如何看待这些条款
爱和恨，他们可以简单地
吸引力的隐喻术语和
我们在磁性中想到的排斥力
和电我知道在这种情况下它
将是一个机械的东西，但在
另一方面，如果你把爱和恨
有一些内在的导向，因为
自然的亲和力你会看到它没有
必须有意识
在春天生长的水仙花或
转向光意味着
你会看到意识，但只要
有一个命令已经结束
那么你可以说这是
目的论的开始所以我倾向于
说凭经验是不行的
以一种或另一种方式进入清晰
但我认为他正在走向
目的论观点是的
好的，现在我想让你得到这个
前苏格拉底的一般结构
尽可能地减少时间
你会花很多时间在
就在今天和下次，但我们会
一次又一次地回顾它
它会成为参考点
记住我的病变还好
定性一元论者
简单的排序我的病变
毕达哥拉斯的双重方面理论和
Heraclitus the le Alex 他们是绝对的
一元论多元论者假设
机制与目的论问题和
你要做的阅读将把
这些骨头上的肉结构
现在重要的是我想要什么
下划线是那种问题
这些人正在抚养我们想到的
公元前 600 年左右的失败，好吧 Fey 是
大约公元前 600 年
苏格拉底我们大约在公元前 400 年，所以我们有
基本上是一个 200 年的跨度，其中
前苏格拉底主义者在工作 200
年跨度，它们实际上是
制定哲学议程
西方哲学曾与之合作
自从他们制定了一个
西方的哲学议程
从那时起，哲学就一直与之合作
现在也许你倾向于问得好
我们为什么要好好对待他们的议程
事情是它是如此的编织成
西方思维模式在每个
纪律不仅在哲学中
出于简单的原因，每个学科
最新的科学出现在
你看到的哲学的衍生品
你注意到你的科学教授如何
拥有哲学博士学位和
他们中的许多人从未见过内部
哲学课堂除了人
喜欢这里的小教堂谁审计
哲学课程保佑她受伤是的他
仅仅因为自然哲学
所谓自然哲学
哲学之类的东西
伙计们正在做的是苗床出来
其中经验和数学
科学随后发展，是的，他
如果你带博士。南沙课程
科学史你会发现
贯穿所有的科学史
大约文艺复兴时期是
基本上是我们所做的一种
哲学史 是
然后你开始得到发展
独立于天文学和物理学
后来的化学哲学
生物学社会学直到
1990 年代中期的世纪心理学
科学直到 20 世纪初
1910 年以后现在的杂志是什么
哲学被称为
哲学心理学科学方法
等我知道那是一口
议程就是这样创建的
使用但前苏格拉底被携带
在古代和自然哲学中
中世纪并传入
现代
所以有因为问题是
询问仍然是基本的
元素或如果不是基本元素是什么
基本的东西是的，他是否愿意
质子或怪癖让您选择我们
还在问同样的问题
你如何描述因果关系
过程和起作用的因果力量
产生相同类型的变化
很好地质疑那个议程是什么
那是什么议程，我认为你可以
很清楚地看到它是那种
你应该做的议程
或多或少地介绍了您的
我们通常尝试的入门课程
在一个我们打电话的问题中得到问题
形而上学是否贴上标签
这样形而上学中的问题有
与现实的本质有关
这是关于自然世界的问题
机制和目的论或问题
关于
物质本身是否真实
正如乔治·伯克利 (George Burkley) 认为的那样
心和物是两种不同的类型
身心问题中的物质
在谈论人的本质时
天气发生的一切都是由于
确定性的因果过程
计划或是否有这样的事情
是否有免费
宇宙秩序的最终来源是否
事实上，上帝存在那些是
形而上学的问题，你可以看到
那是议程的一部分然后
由前苏格拉底主义者提出，现在我也
建议其次有一个
表面下的进一步议程
知识论的认识论在哪里
你会发现其中有一些
彻底的古人
经验主义者说我们所知道的都来了
从 Sense 经验和确实
西利好像是这样说话的
多元主义者当然会，尽管他们
偶尔会有超出的猜测
基本上经验主义者是不同的
像巴门尼德这样的理性主义者和
从此完全贬低芝诺
体验和看到那只是抽象的
逻辑思维确实给了我们可靠的
知识是一种
所以认识论问题是
提出我们如何知道如何
可靠的是经验只是为了什么
抽象理性思维的程度
提供知识这两个如何
相关的你第三次看到那个议程
有一个关于道德和的议程
关于社会 如果你喜欢社交
哲学 因为正如我暗示的那样
毕达哥拉斯和赫拉克利特
坚持认为，如果这是一个理性的
有序的宇宙然后我们应该生活
如果我们想合理安排生活
融入宇宙想要找到我们的
地方是二世，甚至德谟克利特
表明理性引导的生活是
机械唯物主义的价值
宇宙怎么来的好这些盲人
力量会导致快乐和痛苦，所以如果你
对因果关系有足够的了解
通过什么来处理和指导你的生活
你知道因果过程，你可以
然后尽量减少痛苦并追求
快乐，但这需要理性
从这些位置引导生活
流动道德立场什么是好的
生活和我们必须做什么去追求
所以西方的整个议程
那么哲学似乎是隐含的
至少在其基本术语中阐明
通过这些前苏格拉底

the history of Western philosophy begins
in that area of the world which I hope
you recognize as the eg NC with Greece
and Asia Minor
the first known philosopher who’s talked
about at least say leaves of my Letus
came from just about that location in
the center of the west coast of the Asia
Minor pan India in other words the Greek
colonies scattered around the Aegean now
question that one usually starts with is
how do you account then for the rise of
Western philosophy there in the eg an
area in ancient Greece and there are
several lines of explanation which are
important one is of course that it
stands at the crossroads between east
and west where our traditional ideas
would be challenged by the interaction
with Eastern culture simply because of
the way in which the trade routes came
through Asia Minor and down the meander
Valley the river meander meanders down
to the sea so this is the meander Valley
there and the trade routes come that way
so alright cross-cultural stimulation
led to the asking of some basic
questions
a second thing that is emphasized a
great deal and I think appropriately is
that the early Greek philosophers were
really pre-scientific scientists they
were asking questions about the natural
world about the natural order about the
natural processes they raise questions
about basic elements what basic element
or elements underlie all of the rich
furniture of the heavens and the earth
that we see what are the causal
processes that account for the variation
of things and the changes that occur
that sort of question early philosophy
of nature primitive cosmology questions
about the origin of the cosmos as we
know it began to arise and you could see
how they could be connected with the
differences between East and West and
the stimulation that comes with the
mythology of the two interacting and
coming in to some degree of conflict but
there is a third feature that is
tremendously important and I think I’ve
come to think increasingly particular
importance the earlier Greek poets
dramatists had the conviction that the
cosmic order which we observe in nature
is also a moral order a notion of cosmic
justice is something that surfaces among
some of those early literary figures in
between the Odyssey and the Iliad it
begins to appear in
he odd it’s explicit in Aeschylus and
Sophocles it’s present so that the
question is whether there is an order to
the cosmos that includes a moral order
if this is a moral universe how do we
explain that fact so then we have really
two philosophical lines of thought in
accounting for the origin of Greek
philosophy here one that focuses simply
on reflection about the physical cosmos
and the other about reflection on the
moral order which they believed to exist
in the processes of nature so what I
want to do today is to focus on the
first of these their attention to the
physical order and then next time to
turn our attention to the moral order
take a look at that okay now with that
in mind take a look at the outline that
I’ve just given you of the pre-socratic
philosophers those prior to Socrates you
notice I’ve grouped them where the
principle grouping is in terms you
notice of various kinds of monism under
Romans one two and three as against
pluralism that is to say the question as
to whether there is one basic element
that accounts for everything or whether
there are many basic elements that would
be obviously a kind of qualitative
monism or pluralism it’s the case maybe
quality is the one basic element are the
many basic elements but it also involves
a quantitative question whether there
the universe is numerically one
all-inclusive solid kind of sphere or
whether there are numerically many
distinguishable things now that sounds
abstruse for the simple reason that you
think you are something different than I
am which implies there are many
different things so with a quantitative
monism are going to miss is going to
arise some a very fundamental question
about the reliability of our sense
experience because if sense experience
tells us we are many in number but the
theory becomes that everything is warm
in number there’s something wrong either
with the theory that everything is one
or else something wrong with our sense
experience so that will arise later on
when we get down to the group labeled le
Attucks absolute monism named le Attucks
after Elio which is in the toe of Italy
where some of these people were so that
quantitative issue arises there but at
the outset we’re dealing in that naive
monism of the Malaysians with a
qualitative pluralism or qualitative
monism how many basic elements are now
remember they’ve never been in the
chemistry lecture hall they’ve never
seen the table of the elements
and impressed as they are by the ordered
arrangement of things
the initial tendency is to look for one
basic element and as you read these
materials and I hope you will have read
through the primary and secondary
materials on the pre-socratics by the
end of this week as you read these
materials you’ll find that failings
thought that everything was ultimately
reducible to derived from the one
element he called water now for the
moment disregard the fact that you don’t
think it’s an element h2o he wasn’t to
know that poor thingies you’ll see it
still sounds like rather a wild
hypothesis everything composed of water
well wait a minute
water is a remarkably adaptable kind of
thing
it comes in liquid solid and Vina
it is essential to life not only to your
life buying but to vegetation
notice how brown everything is around
here you’ve had quite a drought this
summer I think I’ve mowed my front lawn
once since early June which is a welcome
change but it’s a tragic one yes II know
water is so fundamental to everything
that goes on that necessity though
understandably Bailey’s conjectured but
maybe this is the basic stuff well he
wasn’t the only person in the business
and you noticed the name of Anaximander
who because he recognized that you have
not only wetness you have only dryness
you have also dryness he began to see
you have opposing qualities and the same
in other regards heat and cold light and
dark male and female and in as much as
if you have opposing properties no one
can be more basic than the other he
suppose that the basic element must be
something that is undefinable and that’s
what the word at pyrin means it cannot
be defined it cannot be delineate marked
off the Greek world Paris means a border
demarcation line the Alpha primitive
makes it negative so at PI rod it has no
definition
undefinable you think and examinees on
the other hand thought that air was the
basic essential and so you begin to get
this variety and what’s surfacing if
you’re familiar with greek literature
what surfacing is the fact that they are
playing with the various elements that
the greeks talked about even in their
literature earth air fire and water
those are the four classic Greek
elements some have suggested that they
represent the four necessities of life
earth food air breath fire warms water
something to drink
nourishes or they are far and water for
necessities of life but you notice that
here we have an eczema knees here we
have failings later on we’ll find
Heraclitus and some of the Stoics
plugging in on fire
Yesi in other words in terms of the
elements as they conceive them the
elements with which they were familiar
which one of these is most basic or is
it none of these as an ex amenda
supposed well the Malaysians were asking
these rather simple questions processes
of change they thought could be
explained in the case of air with
condensation which produces moisture yes
a
there’s are all sorts of possibilities
in these proposals on the other hand
Pythagoras and Heraclitus incidentally
that’s the Pythagoras you meet in
mathematics the mathematician that
produced what becomes known as
Pythagoras theorem that the square on
the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle
is equal to the sum of the squares on
the other two sides
remember that Pythagoras okay Pythagoras
and Heraclitus seemingly independently
of each other
in the late sixth century that’s the
same the four or five hundred in the
late sixth century we’re saying that
there is two to nature as it were two
sides each of which is equally important
a double aspect theory now you can get
perhaps a rough idea of what I mean by
double aspect if you consider the
question about a object that’s almost
becoming rare in this culture a sorcerer
you know this is the age of mugs rather
than delicate English China with teacups
and saucers but at least you know the
shape of a saucer
is a sorcerer concave or convex yes from
one point of view looking down on it
from above it’s concave from the other
point of view looking up at it as
somebody carries it along it’s convex
two aspects to it so to say that a
source a is both concave and convex is
to talk about the double aspect nature
of the source okay now what Pythagoras
and Heraclitus are impressed with is
that there are two aspects to everything
in nature on the one hand everything
seems to be in a process of change on
the other hand there is order what we
call uniformity of nature predictability
Yesi
oh yes – to think of that change
Heraclitus suggested that the basic
element is like fire you know fire is
always changing
have you noticed sitting around a
fireplace in the winter you get sort of
mesmerised by the flickering flames
there are always changing yes it’s
almost hard to concentrate on reading
philosophy around the fire for that
reason
constant change music yet on the other
hand this is an ordered universe there’s
regularity you know how certain kinds of
wood will burn and win though wet how
they want so you have both change and
order change and order and Pythagoras
and Heraclitus independently of each
other tried to talk about precisely that
the way in which Heraclitus does it is
to suggest that what we have is fire or
some fiery vapor heat rising steam
rising everything rising and changing
and flickering and burning down and so
forth
fire plus some sort of intelligible
traceable order that he calls Lagos now
you’ve run across that word before
that’s the word that the Apostle John is
going to use in the first line of his
gospel in the beginning was the word
he’s in our KN ha Lagos the beginning
the Lagos he’ll say
this is where it first begins to appear
in Greek thought and John later adapts a
great conception in the light of Hebrew
conceptions to his purposes
watch it now on the other hand our
Pythagoras the mathematician also talks
of things changing and the idea fari
vapor is something he alludes to but
instead of talking of Lagos what he
talks about is a kind of mathematical
order two things a mathematical order
two things so that you can represent all
sorts of different shapes numerically
you think this is a mathematical kind of
universe where you can trace out the
mathematical order this is why he was
interested in geometry is he so you have
these two emphasizing that there is an
ordered anis to Naevia
for all the processes of change and
footnote in anticipation of the theme
next time that means that amidst all of
life’s change we should live a
rationally ordered life yes a
the ethic arises from this well
Pythagoras and Heraclitus on the other
hand when you get to the Ailey annex
they want absolutely no pluralism no
discrimination of two aspects no world
of change and Parmenides in very
forthright fashion declares that change
is a loser plurality is illusory
physical motion is illusory the senses
are simply the way of illusion if you
want the way of truth you have to think
in abstraction from all of the senses
think abstractly and if you want to see
more of what is meant by thinking
abstract ly well you can read the
Parmenides selections and the Kaufman
anthology but give attention to Z no
because Ino tried to make the case for
this absolute monism by posing paradoxes
change is a paradoxical
self-contradictory
thing that couldn’t occur for instance I
take for instance a hair that is chasing
a tortoise and does the hare ever catch
the tortoise no because you see here is
the line along which the tortoise is
moving but the time it gets to there the
hare has gotten that far now the time
the tortoise gets there the hair gets
that far
but the time the tortoise gets there
though here against that far and because
their hair keeps advancing the tortoise
because the tortoise keeps advancing the
hare never catches the tortoise
he’s already eating it and that’s
illusory you think it does some a
chicken of across the street no because
if this much is the street then first
the chicken halves the distance H al ves
halves the distance then the chicken
halves the remaining distance then it
halves the remaining distance then it
haves the remaining distance then the
remaining then the remaining then never
gets across the street you see millet
seeds were regarded as the smallest
seeds that there are not seeds now to
show the paradoxical nature of pluralism
Zeno poses this how much sound would one
millet seed make if you drop it no sound
all right drop a sack of 10,000 millet
seeds how much sound will it make zero
times ten thousand which is zilch no
sound
but you heard the third illusion
rationally it’s impossible the way of
illusion is the way of the senses the
plural at plurality of things that we
see are a looser e as plurality
processes of change and motion are
illusory from a strictly logical
standpoint there can be no change no
plurality now I don’t think that there
are has ever developed school of thought
known as Zeno ism or Parmenides ism
because that those people represent a
sort of a logical terminus that nobody
wants to follow them to it’s one thing
to say that the senses are sometimes a
losery
it’s one thing to say that sense
perception is relative and changing sure
and we’ll find lots of people Plato and
so on and so forth say that but to say
that they are completely aloes array
well if you say that why would you say
it to whom would you say it and why
other any sound in saying it if that
position is correct why even record what
Zeno and Parmenides say it if that
position is correct
it’s self-defeating yes he
but the point is not the position that
they came up with but the kinds of
issues they’re posing what does it mean
to say that everything is one whole that
this is a uni verse well presumably it
doesn’t mean what Parmenides thought in
it but on the other hand is this a world
of radical pluralism with everything
disassociated radical individualism in
an anarchistic kind of cosmos with no
law and order if it in effect what the
pre-socratics did for us was to pose the
issues and very often it’s far more
important what question surfaces were
what answers surface
it certainly is with these people well
when you get to the pluralists you might
say this is a breath of fresh air
because here you have people in Peter
Cleese and eggs a giris Democritus who
see a multitude of different things
empedocles in fact picks up on all 4/4
air fire and water
all four elements and in order to
explain the kind of process that’s
involved he comes up with some sort of a
cyclically you of cosmic history you say
seeing things going that way with
integration and disintegration of the
elements all the way through the history
of the cosmos but the full of basic
elements an X a giris on the other hand
there thinks they’re much
be a basic element solve every kind of
qualitative thing no matter how
different he calls them seems so your
body will have seeds of bone seeds of
skin the seeds of flesh seeds of blood
seeds of muscle seeds of hair so on so
forth and there are some suggestions and
it might be seeds of dark hair or seeds
of light hair seeds of curly hair or
seeds of straight hair we’re going to
stop this sort of pluralism but then
having postulated such an infinite
diversity of different things all of
these seeds how are you going to account
for the ordered unity of the human body
and for that matter of the universe and
so what an exodus does is to talk about
what he calls noose or mind as if there
is some cosmic mind drawing things into
ordered unity in an ordered direction
some sort of divine noose you can see
that in groping for the source of cosmic
order though groping towards some
concept of a Supreme Being you’ll see
the beginnings of theology in the
ancient Greeks in distinction from some
of their mythology
yes he but on the other hand when you
get to Democritus the picture is
different because while impede achlys
and NX a giris were qualitative
pluralists okay
qualitative pluralists Democritus is a
qualitative monist everything is of one
on the same quality but a quantitative
pluralist then is to say physical things
are composed of infinitesimal atoms an
atom the word literally means it cannot
be split it cannot be cut an indivisible
pellet of matter okay so physical things
that we know are composed of a vast
numbers of atoms indivisible pellets and
the qualitative differences between cats
and cabbages and collar flowers and
kings you see the qualitative
differences are due to the combinations
of atoms producing those qualitative
differences different combinations for a
king than a cauliflower now the idea is
that the atoms come in different shapes
and whirling around in some sort of
cosmic vortex natural kind of motion
rolling around in this cosmic vortex
collide hook onto each other
combine so larger aggregates form and
there is a result of sheer chance
mechanical processes
the whole body of things in heaven and
earth has been formed over the course of
history so what you get then in these
last people is particularly interesting
because whereas an ex a grouse is
suggesting a teleological explanation a
teleological explanation that is to say
there is this cosmic mind that orders
things in these intelligible ways okay
on the other hand Democritus
has a purely mechanistic explanation has
a purely mechanistic explanation blind
forces combining by chance to produce
the kinds of conglomerates that make up
the cosmos
it’s as if somebody took a whole bundle
and bundles and bundles of individual
letters and whirled around long enough
and out came the Sunday edition of the
Chicago Tribune you see that sort of
explanation
the sheer chance but obviously here you
have two philosophers handing heading in
vastly different directions yes he a
mechanistic kind of materialism in which
nothing exists but material atoms being
moved by chance forces okay
and on the other hand a teleological
explanation which is pushing in the
direction of either some kind of
theistic metaphysics or some kind of
idealism
but some explanation which sees some
immaterial reality of a rational sort
accounting for the ordinance of the
cosmos now there’s been a quick rundown
and before I pick up and pull some
threads together let me pause did you
get the story
what do you want to get clearity Rosa
yes because all of the atoms individual
atoms are qualitatively the same
qualitatively alike so a qualitative
monist but a quantitative plural as many
of them with all of them qualitatively
alike
yeah does that make sense getting the
terminology under your belt and as part
of your active vocabulary is part of the
part of the task of this juncture whoo
oh and pedicle ease okay
I’m inclined to say no I think he’s
groping towards a teleological view for
this reason that in that cyclic Allah of
the elements combining and
disassociating he ascribes that
cyclically process to two forces that he
calls love and hate attraction repulsion
now depending how you take those terms
love and hate they could be simply
metaphorical terms for attraction and
repulsion as we think of it in magnetism
and electricity l see in which case it
would be a mechanistic thing but on the
other hand if you take love and hate to
be some inner directedness because of
natural affinity you’ll see it doesn’t
have to be conscious any more than a
daffodil growing up in the spring or
turning to the light implies
consciousness you’ll see but as long as
there is is an order that is end
oriented then you could say this is the
beginning of a teleology so I’m inclined
to say that empirically is isn’t out
into the clear yet one way or the other
but I think he’s edging towards the the
teleological view yeah
okay now I want you to to get this
general structure of the pre-socratic
period down as well as you can when
you’re going to spend a lot of time on
it just today and next time but we’ll be
referring back to it again and again
it’ll become point of reference okay so
keep in mind the my lesions okay
qualitative monists of a rather
simplistic sort the my lesions the
double aspect theories of Pythagoras and
Heraclitus the le Alex they’re absolute
monism the pluralist suppose the
mechanism versus teleology question and
the reading that you’ll doing will put
the flesh on these bones the structure
is important now what what I want to to
underscore is the kind of question that
these people are raising we we think of
failings as about 600 BC okay Fey is
about 600 BC by the time we get down to
Socrates we’re about 400 BC so we’ve got
essentially a 200 year span in which the
pre-socratics are at work two hundred
year span in which in effect they are
formulating the philosophical agenda
that Western philosophy has worked with
ever since they are formulating a
philosophical agenda that Western
philosophy has worked with ever since
now maybe you’re inclined to ask well
why should we take their agenda well the
thing is that it is so into woven into
Western thought patterns in every
discipline not just in philosophy in
every discipline for the simple reason
that the latest Sciences emerged as
spin-offs from philosophy you see have
you noticed how your science professors
have Doctor of Philosophy degrees and
many of them never saw the inside of a
philosophy classroom except for people
liked up to chapel here who audits
philosophy courses bless her hurt yes he
simply because natural philosophy
so-called philosophy of nature natural
philosophy the sort of thing that these
guys are doing is the seedbed out of
which the empirical and mathematical
sciences developed subsequently yes he
if you take dr. Spratlys courses in the
history of science you’ll find that the
history of science up through all
approximately the renaissance is
essentially one strain of what we do in
the history of philosophy yes
then you begin to get the development of
astronomy and physics independently of
philosophy later of chemistry and of
biology sociology doesn’t begin until
the mid-1990s century psychology as a
science not until early 20th centuries
laters 1910 what’s now the journal of
philosophy was called the journal of
philosophy psychology scientific method
etc I know that’s a mouthful that’s the
way it was so the agenda that is created
using but the pre-socratics was carried
on in natural philosophy in ancient and
medieval times and transmitted into
modern times
so there are since the question were
asking is still what are the basic
elements or if not basic elements what’s
the basic stuff yes he whether you want
protons or quirks take your choice we’re
still asking the same kinds of questions
and how do you describe the causal
processes and the causal forces at work
that produce change same type of
questions well what is that agenda
what is that agenda and I think you can
see pretty clearly that it’s the kind of
agenda that you should have been
introduced to more or less in your
introductory course where we usually try
to get questions in one we call
metaphysics whether or not the label
that way questions in metaphysics having
to do with the nature of reality whether
it be questions about the natural world
mechanism and teleology or questions
about
whether matter is real in itself or not
as George Burkley thought yesthey when a
mind and matter are two different kinds
of substances in the mind-body problem
in talking of the nature of persons
weather everything that occurs is due to
causal processes in a deterministic
scheme or whether there’s such a thing
as free well whether there is an
ultimate source of cosmic order whether
in fact God exists those are
metaphysical questions and you can see
that that is part of the agenda then
posed by the pre-socratics now I’ve also
suggested that secondly there is a
further agenda under the surface in
epistemology theory of knowledge where
you find there are some of these
ancients who are thoroughgoing
empiricist saying all that we know comes
from Sense experience and indeed
Seeley’s seems to talk like that
certainly the pluralists do though they
do have occasional speculation beyond
that basically empiricists as distinct
from rationalists like Parmenides and
Zeno who disparage completely since
experience and see that only abstract
logical thought really gives us reliable
knowledge is a
and so epistemological questions are
posed about how we know just how
reliable is experience just to what
extent can abstract rational thought
provide knowledge how are these two
related you see that agenda thirdly
there is an agenda about ethics and
about society if you like social
philosophy because as I hinted both part
both the Pythagoras and Heraclitus
maintain that if this is a rationally
ordered universe then we should live
rationally ordered lives if we want to
fit into the universe want to find our
place yes II and even Democritus
suggests that a life guided by reason is
a value in a mechanistic materialistic
universe how come well these blind
forces cause pleasure and pain so if you
gain enough understanding of the causal
processes and guide your life by what
you know of the causal processes you can
then minimize the pain and pursue the
pleasure but that takes a rationally
guided life so out of these positions
flow ethical positions what is the good
life and what do we have to do to pursue
it so the this whole agenda of Western
philosophy then seems to be implied
spelled out at least in its basic terms
by these pre-socratics