Parmenides' Poem

Upon reading Parmenides' poem, I was surprised, because it seemed as if he was reverting to the ways of Homer and Hesiod. In part, I think he has. He uses the same musing style of the Greek poets to talk about how he figuratively journeyed to visit a goddess who dispensed Truth and wisdom to him. An allegorical understanding of his poem is crucial to deriving its meaning. Parmenides mentions the roads of Night and Day - Night and Day are two goddesses - which lead to a gate opened by a being named Justice. The goddess which actually dispenses Truth to Parmenides is Night, who just happens to be Zeus's counselor. Night is known for counseling Zeus in how to maintain unity in all he does. This turns out to be a key point for understanding Parmenides' metaphysics, which deal quite heavily with the concept of unity throughout the cosmos. Hence, I think it is safe to conjecture from his allegorical poem that Parmenides believes in an absolute, unified Truth which lights the way to Justice, a concept Plato later explores (I actually just really love Plato, so I have to talk about him in every blog post. I would say I'm sorry but......it's Plato......)

In aphorism 7, Parmenides says "do not let habit, rich in experience, compel you along this route, to direct an aimless eye and an echoing ear and tongue, but judge by reasoning...". It would seem that here he is rejecting the senses as a way to empirically gather truth; thus, he is no materialist. He continues with an interesting exploration into what he dubs "what-is" and "what-is-not". Throughout all of his aphorisms, he seems to be saying that Truth will reveal itself and sort itself out. Truth is that which is "what-is", and as the name reveals, it just simply is. Falsity is that which is "what-is-not" and is sure to pass away, leaving Truth behind - as long as we use the logos of our wisdom and judgment, that is.

 My favorite quote of Parmenides' is when he says "Nor will the force of true conviction ever permit anything to come to be." If you allow it to sink in for a moment,

No

Really







Let it sink in.





It's really quite profound. What-is will always be. What is Truth will always be. What is Right will always find its way to the surface, leaving what-is-not behind. It doesn't matter what we want Truth to be. It doesn't even matter what we think Truth must be. It doesn't matter what our senses tell us Truth is. Truth is still there, lingering, unified, one, whole, complete. Because any falsity in our thoughts and convictions simply is-not. The pure conviction on our part that Truth is this or that means nothing, because we cannot bend Truth to our will. Truth will simply always be there, waiting for us to discover it, giving us glimmers here and there if only we stop and think and perceive. And even if we never find Truth, maybe that's ok. Maybe it's only about the journey, and about searching, and in the end, Truth will always be, and we'll find out what what-is is anyways.

Coming Soon: A Presentation on the Epistemological Musings of Democritus!

After reading Democritus's aphorisms and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on him, I have come up with the following conclusions about his epistemological thoughts:

At first glance, Democritus actually appears to be a relativist. In aphorism #49 he says "In reality, we know nothing about anything, but for each person opinion is a reshaping of the soul atoms by atoms entering from without", which sounds like we can never know truth, but can only have our opinions on it.  He then, however, seemingly contradicts this with aphorism #57 where he says "To all humans the same thing is good and true, but different people find different things pleasant." His actual epistemological theory appears to be a combination between the two: there is an underlying objective truth, which no one can ever really know (Aphorism 50); however, each person has their own conjecture about this truth, and that conjecture is formed by the atomic action related to their soul.

Democritus vehemently opposes the idea that senses can lead to perception, calling them the "bastard sort of judgment" (Aphorism 45), but doesn't expound upon his idea of what "legitimate" judgment entails. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does describe his theory of perception, however. We can establish from his aphorisms that he believes that matter does not degenerate, but rather atoms simply shift in the emptiness. All of these atoms are sort of moving around with the same pulsating motion (Aphorism 26). Perceptions are formed by atoms sloughing off of other surfaces and coming into contact with our souls, and clinging to them. He refers to these atoms as "images".
We then get this very Plato-esque vibe from him. There is truth, but we don't know it. We can only know these images, or our own perceptions of the Truth. In aphorism #4 he says "Truth is appearance and appearances are opposite and infinite", meaning that there are countless opinions/images, and if we could know what that one True appearance really was, then we could know truth. His reason for trusting in perception/"images" yet not the senses comes to us in aphorism #5: "Atoms are so small they escape our senses"; thus, Democritus distinguishes between perception and the senses.
In aphorism #42 he talks about how some people conjecture that atoms move the soul, and the soul moves the body. He then says "The soul does not appear to move the body in this way, but through choice of some kind and through thought." He doesn't say much more on this topic, but it seems that the knowledge of the soul evades him as does knowledge of the Truth...perhaps they are one and the same, and knowing the soul would mean one could know Truth as well.

As for ideas about my lesson, I will definitely have a handout and sort of a lecture time, but then I'm thinking of an activity - maybe showing a scene from the Matrix at the beginning (because I feel like in talking about what appears real, one should always show the Matrix), or having some sort of activity where you reach into different bags and feel things that are "Truth", but then you have to say what you THINK it is (showing how perception is different than reality).

Pythagoras

While other Philosophers were deciding what basic material the world was made up of, or what God's nature was, Pythagoras was more concerned with deciding what ordered the cosmos. While everyone else was concerned with substance, Pythagoras was more concerned with method. None of Pythagoras's aphorisms provided to us even show that he expressed an interest in encountering any sort of divinity or source of the order that the universe demonstrated.

He did, however, believe that both humans and animals have souls, which must mean that he was concerned with some aspect of the transcendence of temporal life. Usually this sort of thinking reveals a belief in a deity or theory about an afterlife. One of the aphorisms attributed to him mentions the cyclical-reincarnation theories of the Egyptians, which in true Pythagorean nature, is precise and ordered, stipulating that the soul must past through all terrestrial, winged, and marine animals before becoming human again, and that the entire circuit takes 3,000 years. 3,000 years is an even number, and is divisible by 10.

Pythagoras's quest for order overflowed into every aspect of his life, as evidenced by aphorism # 14.

Do not stir the fire with a knife - Use things for their proper purpose, like spoons for stirring.
Rub out the mark of a pot in the ashes - Restore things to their previous, ordered condition.
Do not wear a ring - I suppose you'd need to wear two, so it would be an even number...
(Etc).

I know that many Philosophy/Humanities majors may comment that Math is not their thing (as I was just about to end my post by doing), however, I realized that there is always a certain order to thought processes presented in philosophical theses, and that order is what enables us to understand the progression of an argument (though I am doubtful as to whether this is the type of order Pythagoras meant), and so, even a Math-hater can find a reason to love Pythagoras! After all, the first philosophers were "Natural Philosophers", whom we now refer to as "Scientists," and at many points the disciplines of science, math, and Philosophy are intertwined - perhaps that point is in regard to the natural, mathematical, and moral order of the universe.

Xenophanes: Where Epistemology Begins

Whereas Heraclitus was concerned with the division between knowledge and comprehension, Xenophanes was concerned with the division between knowledge and belief. He argues emphatically against Hesiod's conception of the Greek gods, which is shocking because it doesn't really seem like he's reached an epistemological explanation for an objective, singular God's existence. He claims to have reached his explanation of God through rational inquiry, yet he also claims that God is "not at all like mortals in body or thought." This reminds me of Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, in which Descartes rationally deduces that there must be a God with x, y, and z qualities, partially because he sees imperfect parts of these x, y, and z qualities within himself, and the source of something is always more perfect and more grand than the product or the effect. In this way, he deduces that we are reflections of God, hence made in His image. For Xenophanes to claim that God is not at all like mortals, it makes me wonder how Xenophanes came to any sort of rational conclusions about God's nature.

Xenophanes' biggest argument against the Greek gods was his rejection of the idea that they were born and died and thus were not eternal. It follows that he believes God to be eternal, but it still seems as though he cannot know anything about God, because he also claims that no one can ever know the truth about God/the gods. It then becomes a matter of belief, at the point where one's rational inquiry runs out, and the point at which you can know the truth runs up against a wall. (I feel like there's a term for this philosophy - the idea that you know as much as you know, and then the rest must be taken on faith).

William James' lecture on "The Will to Believe" in 1896 fully rejects this philosophy, as James thinks that it is proper to believe in the existence of religious principles and God, even if there existed no rational or epistemological basis for knowing that God existed.

Heraclitus: The pre-Plato Platonist

Heraclitus does not so much ask or attempt to answer why the earth was made, but is more concerned with how we can come to understand why the earth was made. His many aphorisms claim that we can think and learn all that we like, but it does not mean that we can understand things or have proper insight. In this, he becomes a precursor to Platonic thought. Heraclitus writes that there exists an independent, objective Truth (much like Plato's idea of the forms) which we know of because of divine inculcation, but we are all asleep with regards to being able to truly understand it (Plato depicts this with his famous allegory of the cave). In essence, the divine law answers any and every question we can ever ask with regards to substance, method, why, or how, if only we can learn the proper insight that discovering the answers requires. We know the logos exists, but still need to remember how to wake up to its Truth.

Despite entering the Philosophical conversation post-Thales who disregarded Hesiod and Homer's discussion of the gods as the source of the universe, Heraclitus provides an intriguing return to the question of divine authority, using Thales' own declaration that the universe came from a single source for justification. Heraclitus proposed the idea of the logos, the single divine law of the universe. Heraclitus used this idea as both a substance - the stuff that the universe was made of - as well as a method - the law that governed the stuff that the universe was made of. By using logos as both a substance and a method, Heraclitus accomplished something that neither Thales, Anaximander, or Anaximenes, was able to do while simultaneously fulfilling their monistic hypotheses as well.
Just as "the beginning and the end are common on the circumference of a circle", Heraclitus proposes that all is tied up together in divinity. Thus, the quest has come full circle (pun intended), and has somewhat reconciled Thales with Homer yet also managed to make epistemological progress in many different directions as well.

Why am I here?

Hey there everyone!

I'm Stef! I love Jesus, thinking, drinking coffee, cooking and baking, eating all things chocolate, engaging in debates of all sorts, reading everything I can get my hands on, wearing comfy sweaters, singing, writing poetry, walking barefoot in the rain, and serving others.

I'm originally from Papua New Guinea, where I spent 17 years growing up as a missionary kid. My parents and younger sister still live over there, while my brother and I attend college here in the United States. My roots are still sunk deeply in Papua New Guinea, and my experience as a missionary kid has shaped the way I think and go about life in many key ways.

I go to Baylor University where I study Philosophy, Spanish, and pre-Law, work in the BIC and Philosophy departments, am a member of the Mock Trial team, participate in the BIC and Honors Programs, and teach an ESL class to under-privileged Hispanic adults.

This blog is going to be formed as an ongoing conversation with the texts and other members of my History of Classical Philosophy class. I am taking this class because I think understanding from whence our great thinkers came is extremely essential to how we interpret the works they have left behind for us to read and learn from. I am interested in Philosophy as a whole because I am extremely interested in thinking critically about different schools of thought in my own little quest for the correct way to approach the world in which we live. I desire to be a lover of wisdom, and discover all that being a philosopher entails. In addition, Philosophy teaches one to think in a certain way that prepares an individual wholly for many aspects of life and vocation.

Proverbs 4:6-7, "Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding."

Creationism vs. Science in the PreSocratic Era

The growth of Philosophy into all that it is today was caused by one man's rejection of the blindly accepted status quo, and his subsequent rational inquiry about the nature of justification. This was not Plato's exploration of justice, but rather Thales' search for justification of previously accepted truths, such as the origin of the world.

Prior to Thales and the other preSocratics existed a group of intellectuals who, in their writings, invoked the Muses, which reflects an uncritical belief that there existed an objective source and an authority for their thoughts. No explanation, no logical proofs, and no rationale was necessary to first show that the Muses existed as their inspiration for certain grounded reasons. Rather, theogonists such as Hesiod used the Muses as their mouthpieces for their stories of creation. A substance, a method, and a motive for the gods' creation of the world were superfluous, because the Muses offered to Hesiod a divine warrant which was to be unquestioned.

Thales rejected this lack of rational explanation, and began searching for a more definite foundation for the existence of the world, rather than that the gods had just breathed it into being. The definite foundation he decided upon was water, of all things. He hypothesized that the (flat) earth floated on its surface, and that everything on earth was formed by water: water was the basic foundation of all materials on earth. Thales' supposed 'rational inquiry' into the origin of the world started with a belief  (see next paragraph) that the entire world floats on water. Anaximander, Thales' student, rejected his hypothesis and instead stated that the world was made of an unknown sort of boundless matter. Anaximenes in turn rejected Anaximander's hypothesis and decided that air was the thing that all things on earth were made up of. He improved upon his predecessors in the sense that he proffered methods (such as condensation and rarefaction) for air to do its work. Water, the boundless, and air, are a far cry from the atom, but what I find interesting is not their missing of the accurate mark, but their lack of an explanation as to why the earth was made. All three offered a substance and one offered a method, but no one offered a motive or cared to explain why the earth was formed or came into being. This seems, to me, to be the most important starting place in a quest for justification, which is what Thales claimed to be primarily concerned with, and which it is apparent he is concerned with, due to his immediate rejection of divine intervention as justification for the world's existence.

The irony is that Thales' logical hypothesis was actually still a belief. He had never observed with any of his senses water taking any permanent shape or form in the world, and he had never seen water conforming to the behavior he claimed it did. He chose to believe that his logic was True, even if he had never obtained any solid proof regarding its trueness.

Interestingly enough, centuries later we've still not reached a truly empirical answer for the absolute origins of the universe. I believe Thales' reaction to divine authority still pervades society to this day. Thales' refusal to use divine intervention as a warrant for the origin of the earth is reflected today in the fact that many scientists do not view creationism, or divine intervention by God, as a plausible or factual explanation for the existence of the world. After all, the early Philosophers were also the first scientists in that they were interested in the origins and tendencies of nature and life. It is shocking that we rarely hear about the preSocratics (after all, Plato and Socrates stole the thunder of the Philosophy world), yet they left a pervasive mark on the world that is still evident centuries later: "mere" belief is still not considered to be a plausible key to Truth, because it is not the sort of theory that can be justified empirically.

As if Truth were strictly empirical.