Blake's PreSocratics Questions

Hello, again!

Below are my answers to te PreSocratic questions I was assigned.  If you want me to email you a file just let me know.

All the best,
Blake

2.  In what way does Heraclitus offer a new way of understanding the arche? In what ways is he still similar to his Milesian forebears?

• The philosophers in the Milesian school (Thales, Anaximander, & Anaximenes) each believed that the universe’s arche (‘principle’, ‘originating source’, ‘first principle’) is found in the underlying basic substance from which all things are made.  This underlying substance “constitutes the real and basic nature of all that makes up the cosmos”. (PR 9)
• Material monism.
• Thales thought the arche was water; Anaximander thought it was the infinite indefinite; Anaximenes thought it was air (perhaps better translated as dense mist).
• A major insight from these philosophers is the notion of unity in difference.
• The universe is varied in many ways and yet these philosophers saw underlying unity—in their case they thought the unity resided in a single unified substance.  They thought that by understanding this underlying unity they might understand the universe.
• Thought that the source of change and motion was in the arche, or fundamental substance, itself.
• On the surface, several elements in Heraclitus’ philosophy appear similar:
• He designates fire as the primary element from which all else comes.
• He proposes a series of transformations, similar to those proposed by Anaximenes, whereby fire becomes other substances.
• Anaximenes thought that air became fire when rarified, and first water and then earth and stone when condensed.
• Heraclitus thought that fire, when condensed, becomes water, and water becomes earth. Interestingly, soul arises from water indicating that Heraclitus identified soul with fire.
• But these are not the most important similarities.
• It’s unclear whether Heraclitus was literally a material monist.  His cosmology allows for no claim that any element came first chronologically; and in speaking about transformation he says that fire dies to become water and water dies to become earth. This may indicate that the transformation between elements is more drastic, and that water is not just a form of fire
• It may just be that Heraclitus thought that fire best characterized the fundamental insight of his philosophy, and that he didn’t mean for us to take him literally when he said that everything is made of fire.
• Regardless, there are deeper similarities between Heraclitus and his Milesian forebearers.
• Most importantly, Heraclitus continued along the path of unity in difference.
• Heraclitus also saw an underlying unity to the universe (which he calls the logos) and thought that coming to understanding this unity was the key to understanding the universe itself.
• Heraclitus criticized Pythagoras, the poets (Homer and Hesiod), and many other wise men for engaging in much learning (polymath) but missing what was ultimately most important—the underlying unity among all things.  Notably, he didn’t criticize the Milesians.  Perhaps this indicates that he thought there methods were on target, though their conclusion may have been off.
• Also important was the Milesian’s insight into the source of change being found within the arche itself.
• Though Heraclitus may have been influenced by his Milesian forbearers in these regards, he developed these principles far beyond anything they had conceived.  Much more than the Milesians, Heraclitus emphasizes the unity of diverse elements in the cosmos, and the idea that change is an essential part of the ordering of things.
• Heraclitus teaches that the Cosmos is in a constant state of flux, with the elements changing into one another—nothing ever is, things are always becoming.  However, he indicates that in these changes proportion is maintained, and that the changes balance out. Thus, the universe is always the same, ever changing, but with “fire being kindled in measures and being extinguished in measures.” (Heraclitus)
• In other words, there is an underlying unity to the universe.  The catch is that change, opposition, flux, etc. is essential to this unity.
• This is why fire characterizes his philosophy so well.  The essence of fire includes flux and opposition.  A flame is never still.  It is always moving.  It is also born out of the consumption of energy and fuel.
• Though this opposition and flux may seem chaotic, it all unfolds according to the logos, which is the arche, the fundamental unifying factor, of the universe.
• The universe isn’t a wildfire but a controlled flame.
• This position suggests some ways in which Heraclitus’ view differs from that of the Milesians:
• First, Heraclitus teaches that the change and opposition in the cosmos is essential to the unity of the universe.
• The Milesians never conceived of opposition being necessary in this way.  In fact, they thought that the unity came back to a stable, eternal substance.  (It might be fair to say that this stable substance is and is not merely becoming?)
• Though the Milesians thought that the source of motion could be found within the basic substance, they didn’t conceive of motion to be essential to the unity of the universe in the same way that Heraclitus did.
• Heraclitus teaches that the “strife” is the cosmos is just.
• This seems to contrast with Anaximander’s view that one element’s encroachment was a departure from justice that needed to be rectified.
• Finally, Heraclitus suggested that the key to understanding the universe was to understand the logos.  The logos seems to be a principle that governs all things rather than a substance.  This may be the start of a turn from the visible to the intelligible.

7.  Based on the readings available to you in Curd, compare and contrast Heraclitus and Pythagoras with respect to their characterization of the archê and the task of philosophy.

·      Pythagoreans on the arche.

o   Number is the organizing principle that makes sense of the chaos in the cosmos.

§  It brings things into harmony (harmonia).

o   Number governs everything.

§  Rumor has it that the Pythagoreans first drew this insight from observing harmonics and how musical harmonies proceeded according to mathematical relations.

o   Moreover, numbers are everything—that is, everything is made of numbers.

§  This is harder to understand, but here’s part of an explanation:  the One is the point, two is the line, three is the surface (plane), four is the solid.  Everything is made of points, lines, planes, and figures and so everything is made of numbers.

§  Aristotle interprets, “The elements of number are the even and the odd, and of these the latter is limited and the former unlimited.  The One is composed of both of these and number springs from the One…”

o   Numbers are knowable.  Since numbers are the arche of the universe, we can come to know and understand the universe by coming to know the arche.

·      Heraclitus on the arche.

o   (This is a very brief overview.  See the above question for more on Heraclitus).

o   The organizing principle of the universe is the logos.

o   Everything is in flux and opposition.

§  This change and conflict is essential to the unity of the universe.  The logos is found within the flux.

·      This is why Heraclitus claimed that fire was the fundamental element of the universe (though how literal he was being is contested).  A fire is something that is essentially changing and striving and consuming.  This is how Heraclitus viewed the universe:  a shifting reality organized by the logos.

§  This “stife” isn’t bad.  In fact it’s just.

o   We can come to know the logos and thereby come to know and understand the universe.

·      Similarities with respect to their characterization of the arche.

o   The universe is organized according to a unifying principle.

o   The universe is knowable and knowable through grasping the unifying principle.

·      Dissimilarities with respect to their characterization of the arche.

o   For Heraclitus, the organizing principle is essentially based in change and opposition; for Pythagoras, the organizing principle is found in stable and eternal numbers.

·      Similarities and dissimilarities with respect to their characterization of the task of philosophy.

o   The Pythagoreans were almost a religious community.  The matematikoi focuse more on Pythagoras’ philosophical teachings about number, but there were another group of followers called the akousmatikoi who focused on Pythagoras’s teachings on religion and on how to live.

§  Pythagoras was a man of great learning who was deeply concerned with how to live.

§  Though much of his life is mysterious, he took the time to gather extensive general human knowledge.

§  He must have thought that this human knowledge would help people grasp their place in the universe and how to live.

·      Presumably, if we examine human practices and everyday things we can find the harmonia in them (as determined by number) and this will give us insight into how to live.

o   Heraclitus, on the other hand, thought that Pythagoras was wasting his time in gathering this knowledge.

§  He didn’t think that there was any insight to be found in “much learning” (polymath) or human knowledge.

·      Gathering human knowledge won’t help you see the underlying logos.

o   Perhaps the key difference (which goes back to a difference in their conception of the arche):  Pythagoras believes that in order to understand the changes that are occurring over time, you need the harmony imposed by number.  That is, you need to get rid of the flux and see the stable harmony that lies beneath.  According to Heraclitus, everything is essentially in flux—there is no stable order underneath.  Only by admitting that everything is essentially in flux can you come to understand the logos.

§  In other words, Pythagoras thought that our task was to see through the flux, to find the stable order underneath.  Heraclitus thought that our task was to see the flux itself and recognize the unity in it.