The 20th century philosopher, Karl Jaspers, calls the period from 600 - 500 B.C.E. the Axial Age. A move to more universal thinking takes place simultaneously across a wide expanse of the planet:
Greece Israel Persia India China
(the Presocratics) (later Hebrew prophets) (Zoroaster) (the Buddha) (Lao Tzu & Confucius)
We will focus on the Presocratics and the birth of Western philosophy.
1) From religious authority to philosophical reason:
Prior to these thinkers, there was a tendency to explain events mythically or theologically -- in terms of the influence of the gods. A request for explanation would be framed in terms of the will and power of God or the gods. The Nile rises and overflows its bank. Who -- which of the gods -- caused it to do so? (explanations in terms of a "WHO.") With the Presocratics, the questioning shifts from WHO caused the river to rise? -- to -- WHAT caused the river to rise? From authority to reason.
2) The search for universal intelligibility:
The thinking of the Presocratics is cosmic in scope; they seek to understand ALL THAT IS in terms of a few simple principles. Einstein said: "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." He might have added: "It is comprehensible in terms of a relatively simple set of principles". This was the approach of the Presocratics. It is no wonder then that they have been seen as giving a first sketch of what would later be scientific thinking. We might refer to them as cosmologists. In the Apology, they are called "the ones who inquire into the things in the heavens and beneath the earth."
The lines of presocratic thinking developed outside of Greece proper in 2 areas:
Southern Italy/Sicily
--
The coast of modern Turkey --
then called Greater Greece
then called Asia Minor
Mathematical Thinkers The Early Physicists
Explanation in terms of Pattern Explanation in terms of Material "Stuff"
PYTHAGORAS
-- ratio is all.
THALES -- picks water / the moist
mathematical/ geometrical mysticism
as that of which all is made
*
*
*
*
*
ANAXAMANDER (Think of word
*
"commander") -- 4 elements +
*
the Boundless or Love and Strife
*
*
*
*
*
ANAXEMENES -- picks air -- the cold
*
process of condensation & rarefaction
*
*
*
*
"Permanent" PARMENIDES
"Hurry Up" HERACLEITUS -- all is "fire"
Only the ONE is real; change is an illusion. Only change is real; permanence is an illusion.
*************************************************************************************************************************
How did such visions of the cosmos
come to be? One explanation is this:
The gods in Homer were assigned to provinces. Zeus -- the heavens; Poseidon -- the seas; Hades -- the underworld. The earth seemed to belong -- like a park -- to all the gods -- (or perhaps to a displaced Mother). Over all the gods is MOIRA -- fate -- a power older than the gods over which they have no control.
Thales announces that the ultimate "nature" (phusis) of all things is water, and that the universe is alive (empsuche) and full of spirits or gods (theoi). To say that the universe is theos is to say it is immortal, undying, eternal. To say the universe is alive (ensouled) is to say it exhibits self-motion. We might say that nature is self-moving and undying.
Here is a fragment from Thales’ pupil, Anaximander:
Things [sense #1] perish into the things [sense #2] out of which
they have their birth
according to that which is ordained; for they give reparation to one another
and pay the penalty of their injustice according to the disposition of
time.
First there are things [sense #1] -- that is the multiplicity of individual [composite] things we see around us.
What do they perish into? Into the primitive elements -- that is "things" [sense #2]:
the opposites: {FIRE (the hot)-- &-- AIR (the cold)} + { WATER (the moist)--&--EARTH (the dry)}
These are arranged in regions: Fire of the heavens
Wind and clouds
Water
Earth
Perhaps waters under or within the earth
But these elements are not everlasting nor is the separation into regions. The third and ultimate stage -- the boundless -- is alone called by Anaximander "incorruptible and undying." So we gain the following picture:
1) the primary stuff -- the boundless
2) some process of separation (by an eternal motion?)
3) the elemental forms in their appointed regions
Notice: The elements are limited. They are grouped in pairs of opposites -- contraries such as the hot and cold; the moist and dry. The contraries are at war with one another. To make a composite being (like a tree or dog or cat or human) is like stealing elements from their regions. Making composite beings is like a transgression, an injustice, a "stealing" of the primitive elements from the regions to which they are assigned. But an impersonal power (what must be; what ought to be) guarantees that composite beings will not last forever. They will die or disintegrate and the primitive elements will again return to their places.
Let us see how such a vision may have come about. We have seen that the gods in Homer are assigned provinces. We have seen that the gods are subject to an older power MOIRA -- a power which they did not make and against which they cannot stand. Zeus himself laments that it is fate that his human son Sarpedon must die. Even the gods cannot avoid what fate has ordained. Suppose that either gods or humans were to overstep their allotted share. This would be hubris -- a kind of ridiculous pride -- and would be punished by nemesis -- the agents of fate. Notice that there is a force or pattern -- MOIRA -- which is above the individual powers of the individuals gods. MOIRA is not spoken of in personal terms. To assert MOIRA is simply to say that there is a given order in the world and to add that this order is both necessary and just.
I am following Adkins here. (see his From the Many to the One) The suggestion is that behind the familiar sense of nomos -- custom, use, law -- is the older spatial significance of the province within which defined power may be legitimately exercised. The dispensing power may be thought to have two sides: The "positive" aspect is the apportioning of capabilities; the "negative" side is vengeance which strikes those who trespass. The term MOIRA leans to the negative side; it limits and forbids. The term NOMOS inclines to the positive side; normal behavior is behavior within the limits and so customary. MOIRA stands for limit in the sense of what will happen if you exceed your limit. NOMOS means more what you can do within your limits -- with the share which MOIRA has allotted to you.
In later myth and poetry, we see Zeus taking over the functions of MOIRA. Zeus here becomes a more universal and less personal God. In the philosophers we see Reason or Regularity or Pattern taking over what Zeus took over from MOIRA.
Return to Menu Page
Return to John G. Sullivan Homepage