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.
Good reflections and connections to other philosophers, Stefanie! Here's something to consider. Perhaps Xenophanes thinks there are ways in which humans are like God, even if imperfect reflections, but not the ways that others suppose. For he doesn't say God is not at all like mortals in any way, but that God is "not at all like mortals in body or thought." And perhaps he thinks we can't have certain knowledge of God, but we can have something less, such as reasonable belief or probable knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI too am impressed with your ability to link Xenophanes with the later philosophical tradition. I like the point Lindsay makes about the God like ness of humans.
ReplyDeleteThank you!
ReplyDeleteThat is a good point, Professor Cleveland! I hadn't thought of that. We talked about in class how he seemed to believe in the omniscience and omnipotence of God, which concords with what you said, because the source/cause of something is always greater than its effect or production. That is, that if we can look at humans and see that we know some things and have some measure of power, it would follow that if we came from God, God must be the full and perfect measure of this knowledge and power, and therefore must be omniscient and omnipotent. In this way, humans could be very much like the God which Xenophanes proposes, just not in body or in form.
Good thoughts regarding knowledge and power.
ReplyDelete