Theories in Greek Philosophy
Copyright © 1997
Karen Barker -- All Rights Reserved.
Heraclitus was one of the first Greek philosophers who attempted to answer the question, "What is the stuff out of which the world is made?" The concept of change, in which one element changed into another was a great interest to Heraclitus. He discussed the condition in which such change could occur, in accordance with measurement. He maintained that change is eternal, that "everything changes all the time," into a different state or another and it is the principle for explaining reality. Heraclitus is the first of the monist. Heraclitus used his theory of change to explain reality.
Heraclitus claimed that change is predominant in all things, for example, the transition from day to night and strife to peace. In essence without day, there could be no night and without conflict, peace could not exist. According to Heraclitus all things had a balance of opposing forces and in the absence of this balance is chaos. He also argued that there is one principle that explained all stuffs - not particularly one stuff- this was a process he referred to as the becoming.
This becoming is ceaseless and boundless. This ceaselessness explained by Heraclitus was motion. He used the metaphor of a fire to explain his idea of that change is a ceaseless motion. The fire in motion devours stuff, and is therefore an agent of change. Change has no full development or an end. It is continuous and eternal.
According to Heraclitus change is not constant. All things move
and nothing stops in place or remains stationary. This is his
second theory of atoms. He used the analogy of stepping into the
running river to explain the idea of that, all things flow and
nothing abides. Heraclitus claimed proved that if you cannot step
into the same river twice. This explains Heraclitus claim that
change is the principle of explaining reality.
Parmenides argues that change is contradictory.
Parmenides was both a philosopher and the study of geometry. He is perhaps the first of the known Greek scientist. He used reason and logic to understand perception. Parmenides was a rationalist. He followed Thales in the chronology of Greek philosophers and so he also attempted to resolve Thales' original formula on change. Thales' claimed that all things comprise water, the idea of monism. On the premise of monism, reality was fundamentally one and therefore the notion of change must be from one to many. Consequently, Parmenides argued that change is contradictory.
Parmenides argued that change is self-contradictory, because the changes that we think we perceive to happen, simply do not occur. He rejected the concept that changes occur at all, on the premise of the ideas of what is uncreated, indestructible, eternal and unchangeable. According Parmenides, "what is, is" and "what is not, is not." This notion puts him on the opposite side of the scale to Heraclitus' argument that change is eternal and that motion exists. Parmenides maintained that we create or destroyed nothing.
Furthermore, Parmenides argued, the concept of change logically presupposed non existence. Existence is a result of the non existence. There can be no possibility of change, since change cannot exist out of non existence. Change requires non existence, yet non existence does not exist, therefore change does not exist. To Parmenides, change is a mythical concept, it is not the reality.
Reality is unchanging, permanent, and the eternal oneness. For
example, there are only one God and only one universe, which are
both eternal and unchanging. Parmenides showed the problem with
monism that motion is incompatible with reality. That change is
either one thing or the other but it cannot be both. Therefore
change is contradictory because it involves more than one element,
variety that presupposes change, a movement from one thing to
another. Herein lies Parmenides' contradiction, if motion does
not exist, change cannot exist.
The sophist's moral theory of cynical egoism
The sophists were a group of philosophers who travel to many distant places teaching any subject to anyone who wanted to learn. They were expert rhetoric. Plato viewed them as unethical, because they did not teach anything of substance. They were thorough-subjectivist. The sophist denied that in the object-subject relationship, the object dominates the theory of cognition, that is, the human mind cannot identify the object through the level of the senses and through rationality. They argued that the conscious being is the subject while the thing being perserve is the object.
The sophist denied the argument that the objective dominates the theory of cognition and that knowledge identifies the object. Cognition is dominated by the object world and truth is internalized by perception. An idea is true if it correspond to the outer reality and knowledge consist of our ideas that adhere to reality. Our grasp of reality is conditioned by our sensory apparatus. Our perception is relative to the type of sensory apparatus that the subject brings to perception to determine the outer reality. For example, the human being has a different sensory apparatus than a bat and would therefore perceive an object such as a pen differently. The former through sight while the latter through sound waves. Both perception would be true and valid.
According to the sophist, all truth is subjective. Furthermore, all things are changing, therefore if you find some objective truth, it is short lived. If every truth is fleeting, nothing is certain for too long. He claimed that this uncertainty and brevity of truth leads to hedonism and the idea that each individual should look out for his own interest and happiness. Because our own perception human beings internalize reality which result in them disagreeing on almost everything. Human beings will use whatever weapon they have - the brain, wealth, political power - against their rival to get want they want. This idea leads to the sophist main moral theory of cynical egoism.
According to the sophist, this cynicism of the human nature shows that no virtue is possible to human beings. Cynical egoism is the school of philosophy that said that human beings are corrupted and armed with a weapon to destroy each other. There is no such thing as a scruple person. We are corrupted. This idea predates to the original sin of man from Adam and Eve. Justice is the will of the stronger and therefore to make oneself happy, the sophist felt that, one should do whatever its takes - even if, it is not by honest effort or hard work - to do so. Human nature is corrupted and greedy. There is always a some sought after gains or desires either in the earthy world or in the spiritual world, therefore one should not sacrifice the self for others.
Even the most righteous and a pious person has a need or desire
to gain something for the efforts done for someone or a cause.
For example the sophist would say that Mother Theresa, our modern
day saint is after either fame and glory or she is merely acting
in the accordance with the belief value of her religion. Her gain
may not be in this world, but according to Cathology, the entry
into heaven is through doing good deeds. Therefore proving the
sophist's moral theory of cynical egoism in all humankind.
In Plato's theory of form, the ideas of change, appearance and reality all dwell in two realms. He believed that there were two worlds, one of sense perception which is physical and tangible, the other is non physical, non spatial and non temporal. We knew this as the world of Idea. Idea is real and form is an idea. The form takes its shape as thoughts. Plato agreed reaffirmed that change is contradictory and agreed with both arguments by Heraclitus and Parmenides, because he felt that they were talking of different things. Plato concludes that because the universals and the particulars are different; the universals are found only in a spiritual realm.
If the particular is knowable, therefore it is real. Nevertheless, you cannot find the universal in the particular. For example, you cannot know what a "catness," unless you know what "cat" is first. He established that there are four ways that differentiate the universal from the particular. First, the particulars are plural while the universal is singular. There are can be many attributes that represent "catness," but there can be only be one "cat." Second, the particulars are changeable where as the universal is constant. Third, the particulars are physical and tangible while the universal is an idea, intangible. Fourth, the particulars are known through the sense experience while the universal is found only in the spiritual realm.
If the universal is intangible and is not in this world, how do we know it exist? Plato had four proof that universal existed. The first argument has already been discussed. Although the universal is not in this world, it real because they as knowable. The realm of forms is not the only reality. Besides forms, there are souls and the motion they imitates. This is the Receptacle of Becoming, out which sensible things are fashioned. Plato denied the validity of knowledge about the changing world of sense experience. This leads us to his second argument.
His second argument was based on perception and change. We get our concept of perception not from this world but the from the higher spiritual world. The world we live in is imperfect therefore the universal does not exist in this world. Underlying the imperfection of this world is the concept of change. If something was perfect, there would be no reason for change. The world we live is ever changing, for example the life cycle - from young to old. The driving forces for change are the becoming, the lacking of lacking of something and the need for perfection. Therefore he invalidated the concept of perfection in a changing world. If something changes, it lacks something therefore it is imperfect.
His third proof - that was alluded previously - is the argument from the order of knowledge. Plato argue that though the use of logic the we can determine which of the two must come first, the universal or the particular. In contrast to the argument of common sense, Plato asserted that we must know the universal - that is "cat" - first before we can know what "catness," or what is the universal attributes of a "cat" is - the particular. He affirmed that if we didn't know the universal first how would be know which particulars to put into the classification of the universal.
Plato last argument is the possibility of knowledge. Plato was a rationalist and a mystic. He held that the highest truth transcend rational formulation. What we call mud is a composite of earth, air, fire and water in a certain proportion. He established the idea that, "like knows like." The human psyche is immortal and eternal. It has an unchanging identity. One part of the soul knows form and the other perceives sense objects. This also held true for his arguments on the universal and the particular. The scepticism of the existence of knowledge was dismissed by Plato. It affirmed that knowledge required objects which do not change, which has identity. For example the ideas of the unchanging one universe, which is the world of forms.
This world of forms exist in the higher reality. Plato maintained that there are two worlds realities, the spiritual world - the universal - where ideas dwell; and the bodily world - the particular - which is tangible to the human perception. In accordance with his argument on change, the spiritual world is better than the bodily world because it is unchanging and eternal, therefore it is perfect. The physical world is depends on the spiritual in just the same sense that the particular depends on the universal. The higher world is the source of the material or bodily world. This physical world is a shadowed reflection of the higher world. It is an imperfect image of the higher - therein lies perfection.
Plato reaffirmed that the universal is known through the soul.
The soul already knows the higher world, since the soul is a product
of the higher world. But the soul suffers from birth trauma, and
so in entering the physical world, the soul forgets everything
of the higher world. Therefore the world of the particular helps
to jog the soul's memory of the higher world. Therefore this concludes
the Plato's theory that the universals are found only in the spiritual
realm.
Aristotle proved Plato's theory of forms and the duality of the reality as contradictory. Aristotle held that there was but one world, the world of actual things. Form is simply one aspect of this world that is distinguishable in thought but not in shape. He maintained that, "whatness" is the form and "thisness" is the matter. Form makes each thing a thing of some kind and matter makes each thing a particular thing of a kind. Matter is the physical "stuff" out of which something is made as form is the physical shape that the thing has. Both form and matter exist in one world, that world we live in.
Each thing has a form, that in turn has a purpose or function to serve. The form has an arrangement of particles that enables it to do certain things. Matter is merely the potential for change. According to Aristotle change is simply stages of the same thing and the purpose unifies the all the steps to achievement its fulfillment. Aristotle defined contradiction in that any change that forms into something is a becoming of what it is not. Moreover change involved non existence.
According to Aristotle a contradiction involved a thing being both what it is and what it is not. He argued that there is no such thing as contradiction in this world. Contradiction occurred only in the minds of confused people. In Aristotle's two laws he affirmed that change in this world is not contradictory. He claimed that there is no time in which there is no change. Every change that occurred is caused by an antecedent change and that by another. Motion is eternal. Aristotle said that reality allows both values and sense. For example " reality rehabilitate reason as a valid instrument for obtaining knowledge," and man as a moral creature whose focus of values.
His first law is the law of identity. By this he means thing is what it is and nothing else For example chair is chair. He also says that what values you place on this perception is true and valid. The second law is the law of non contradiction which was discussed earlier, that a thing is not what it is not. For example a chair is not a table not will it ever be a table.
This is applied to change and the processes of change. Change
depends on the law of identity and the presupposed. It requires
identity, for example the thing that change is what it is and
not something else - a green pear has changes to a yellow
pear. The identity is a pear. A yellow pear is not an apple.
In the same concept a thing is what it is, the green pear grows
into a yellow pear, but is still a pear. Moreover process in itself,
is what it is not because it becomes something else. The pear
has undergone a process of potential. The actual is what it is
while the potential is the possibility to be or to mature. Things
becomes what it has the potential to be. Therefore change is not
contradictory because it is explainable either the actual or from
the actual to the potential.
Explain the two key terms of Aristotle's ethic, which are the rational and values.
Aristotle's ethic are explained in relation to the rational and the values. A rational thinker is one who thinks about everything and does not act on his feelings impulsively. Aristotle maintained that mankind should act in accordance with nature' s law. Aristotle theory of human nature stated that human beings are rational animal. Aristotle explained that mankind's reasoning mind is what distinguished him from other animals. We use our reasoning ability as a survival tool.
According to the law of nature, all animal are armed with survival units, for example, cats have claws as man has his ability to reason. And therefore they should conduct themselves rationally. This is the realm of values. The realm of values simply states what it means to be a rational being. For example thinking before you act. This is in contrast with the sophist moral ethic, in which if it feels good, do it. The sophist claimed that individuals should not sacrifice the self or his personal happiness for others.
In contrast to Plato, Aristotle viewed the highest love as the romantic love. He claimed that sexual love is the highest type of love because it promotes human happiness. He claimed that romantic love is good for human well-being because it the mean of the procreation and continuity of human the human race as well as the satisfying our bodily and emotion needs. Romantic love offers companionship, friendship and soul mate. Accordingly, anything that promotes human happiness is good. Aristotle claimed that the individual should strive to understand the laws of nature and obey them. Therefore you must fill you life with natural values and life's significance such as attaining a higher education and gaining a career. This should be done through honest effort and hard work.
Our values are what motivates us to go after our goals. For example, if happiness is your goal, you should fill your life with rational values or something that will promote your life. This is what Aristotle describe as the rational egoism. The emphasis should be self-happiness. It does not involved sacrifice because the effort is done through hard work and honest means. Aristotle does not mean we should gain self happiness by whatever means possible but only through rational self-fulfillment. We can attain happiness in the actualization of our potential through on the premise of, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." [This idea influenced modern day theories such as capitalism and laissez faire]
When the Romans conquered Greece, Greek culture became absorbed into Roman culture. Greece was a country of philosophers and so when pessimicism became a dominant issue in Greek culture - through the subordination to a new empire in which they had move from being man to slave- Rome absorbed the same sense of pessimicism concerning life in their culture. Within Greek and Roman culture there was the rise of Redemption ethic; that is, the purpose of life is to attain salvation in the higher world. The Mystery Cults in Rome preached the aspiration into the higher world through redemption and being one with God. The transition from pagan beliefs to Christianity was made easier because of this pessimicism in this world and a great desire by the people for hopes of better life in the next world.
The premise of the Mystery Cult's teaching was on faith. On the-other-hand, there was the educated Greeks and Romans pagans who believed in logics and reason. The theology of Christianity and the unexplained miracles of religion seemed absurd and irrational to the pagans. For example, the very notion of the beginning of life by Christian teaching was contradictory to the pagans beliefs. The Classical Greeks believed in the eternal universe, since creation from nothing was illogical. However, the Christians believes in the creation of life by an all powerful, loving father.
In the same sense the idea of the original sin, being disobedience to God- who is morally good and knows what is morally good- transcending through generations in human soul was totally illogical and ludicrous to the pagans. To the Greeks and Romans, ethics was a matter of rational living, in which there is effective use of mind for promoting right living in this life, the outer life. To the Jews and Christians, ethics is not a right living but a love of God and getting your soul in alignment with God in the inner life.
Consequently, since man is a sinful being because of original sin and has a natural inclination for disobeying God, we should all be punished rather than saved. Jesus then intercede on behalf of man by taking this punishment. If we accept his sacrifice on the cross for man's original sin, then man can be saved and can go to heaven. And so philosophers of the Medieval age was confronted with the problem of reason and faith and how they relate. There are three main arguments regarding the relationship between reason and faith. Reason is termed out of epistemology to mean the study of knowledge. According to Epistemology, faith begins with a revealed text, it is studied and is accepted without challenges. This is also known as blind faith. With reason there is no revealed text, but facts of nature and reality. Understanding nature through asking questions and not merely accepting events unquestioned.
According to Tetullian who was one of the early fathers in the catholic church we should accepts the teaching of religion on faith. He said, Credo quice absobrium, believe , because it is absurd. Since there was the difficulty in explaining Christianity to the pagans, Tetullian maintained the contradictions to the theology was a test of our faith, therefore we should adopt blind faith and discard reason. He maintained that the method to understand religion was through faith and not through reason. Reason does not tell us anything about religion or the bible. Religion does not have to make sense, it is by faith and faith alone. Of course this explanation did not coincide reason with faith and so St Augustine took up the argument.
Augustine agreed with Tetullian that the method of religion was faith, through the suspension of our disbeliefs. He argued that reason really had no place in the realm of religion, that is, faith prevails over religion but that does not mean that reason has no play in it all. According to Augustine, science and reason was ungodly, that is "science is the lust of the eyes." Science seek answers through our innate faculty without any aid from God. The universe was created by God and it was a conjecture for us to think we can understand God or his creations. This was like the crime of hubris, believing that we were on the same plain as God. Man commits the sin of intellectual pride if he inquires too much or too carefully about the workings of nature. The foundation of all reason is to accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In order to understand God's world, we must accept Jesus sacrifice and the bible unquestionable. He explains that God is like a playwright and he has written a play, the drama of humans. Once we understand that God is all knowing and power then we can begin to understand God's world. Knowledge of God is "subject to the admixture of many errors." [259] The complete knowledge is a gift from God. It can not be attained in natural life, unless in some mystic form and enrapture.
He agreed with Tetullian that man's life on earth was a test for the next world. A life of suffering is good while a life of self-indulgence will not pave the way to heaven. For example, like the story of Job, if we suffer and our faith does not collapse we have passed the test and our reward is entry into the gates of heaven. If you value materialism of the earth and has not truly suffer, you will not appreciate the value of this ethic. But he differs from Tetullian that cognition begins with faith but doesn't end with faith. Reason become an effective tool for understanding God's world by beginning to ask question and make sense of the world. For example, God causes earthquake but the question is by what means? Science gives intellectual credibility and is subordinate to religion, for example reason is valid only if it is subordinate to faith. If religion is still in explainable, then accept it on blind faith.
The final argument of the relationship between reason and faith comes from St Thomas, the greatest philosopher of the catholic church. He lived in the period followed by a thousand years of political dominance of the catholic church. He greatly changed the teaching of the church by incorporating the Aristotlean ideals into Christianity. The basis of his argument is that god gave us a mind to use and to reason. God created us as thinking animals by giving us reason for a purpose which should not be wasted but should be improved upon. He said, "the erring reason binds." Essentially what that meant was, if you reason in your honest and conscience best and you arrive at a conclusion that is in contraction to the church, in which you believe that your conclusion is true and most logical, then go with your mind and best judgement. Using a modern example, the issue of birth control is deemed unacceptable and unchristian by the catholic church yet it is more sensible and economically wiser to practice this method in preventing unwanted pregnancy or having too many children as financial burden.
He maintained that a reasoned out falsehood is better than a truth
accepted on blind faith. He is not saying then that the church
is wrong, but that the church is right. Only if you think conclusively
may you see that the church is right, but there is still the contradiction
then go with your best judgement. God does not expect us to not
use our ability to reason, otherwise he would not have given us
the ability. In contrast to both Tetullian and St Augustine, St
Thomas proposes the option of our best judgement and not blind
faith. He offered us the option to be leaders rather than mere
followers or sheep. Where as St Augustine might say- I believe
in order that I may understand, or when Tetullian have said -
I believe because I don't
understand, St Thomas would say- I understand in order that I
may believe.
2 of St Thomas' proofs of God's existence.
In the Medieval times, no one doubted the existence of God through reason. God created the universe. He is good, all powerful and loving. The Christian outlook on life and the problem with the theology was the belief in an omnipotent God who was at the same time a loving father. To be in right and good relation with God-father was defined by God and not by man. God, the omnipotent being decrees certain rules that man wishes not merely to strict obedience, but free and loving service. A good man who obeys God completely will achieve happiness, since happiness is a by-product of goodness. And goodness lies in maintaining good relation with God. Since is the knowledge of God, everything in its own way seeks both its own perfection and "divine likeness." To ascertain man's final end and supreme good is therefore equivalent to ascertaining the perfection of an intellectual substance. The end of an intellectual substance is knowledge- the knowledge of God, the most perfect and complete truth.
St Thomas attempted to prove God's existence through cosmological arguments, in which his arguments starts on the premise of reality. His focus was empirical, in which the facts in nature was sought through observations. His two main arguments are the argument for cause and motion and the argument for design. In the argument for cause and motion, it states that everything into existence was brought by something else into the world. For Example, the idea that God is the clock maker or the birth of a child by its parents. There is always a starting point for every creation and that is God. There is no indefinite retrograde. Once there is the first step, it leads to the second and so. The being responsible for the entire physical universe is God. He is the first cause or step. The next logical question is who or what cause God?
St Thomas said no one or thing can cause the creation of God,
since God is the first cause. The first cause must therefore be
an uncause, since if something caused it, it would be the second
cause. Something is always was, eternal and uncreated and that
is God. In response to this the atheist argued that God is fantasy
and only the universe is eternal. His second argument is the argument
of design. This argument is an analogy. It compares the universe
to a smoothly running machinery. For example the comparison between
a microwave oven and gas oven. I would say that the microwave
oven is at a higher standard and better engineering than the gas
oven because it uniformly heats up quicker and therefore warm
food up faster. St Thomas argues in favor of the genius in the
engineering of the universe. The universe operate systematically
and mechanical. For example, day runs into night and night runs
into day. The universe is outstandingly engineered and designed
that it is constant and regular. Following the idea that god is
the all knowing mathematician who created this wonderfully organized
universe. The smoothness of the universe is due to the genius
of God, its creator.
The problem of evil. What is the problem of evil?
When God created the world it was done in acordance with an intent. Everything that happens in this universe is in accordance with his divine plan. St Augustine refered to God as the playwright, who wrote and directs "the drama of human salvation." God created this world with both good and bad forces. The bad forces or human suffering is necessary so that we can learn the value of the greater rewards which is not of this world but lies in a spiritual realm. God is all powerful and knowing since he has written our fates and destinies. He already knows whether we are going to be saved or damned. God is then aand is therefore responsible for everything that happens in this world, including natural disasters and criminal behaviors. There is then the problem of free will since we are not morally responsible for our own actions or for evil acts.
If God is all powerful and good, then why does he permit evil to permeate in his world? In the same instance, since he is both powerful and good, he should have the means and desire to wipe out evil in this world. Epicurus proposed four logical possibilities. The first is that God may be all powerful but is not all good. In which case he has the capacity to abolish evil but does not have the desire to do so. The second possibility is that God is good but is not all powerful. Therefore he has the magnanimous heart and desire to end all evils in this world but lacks the capacity to do so. This brings us to the Manichean heresy who also wrestled with this problem of that God may not be all powerful, since there is the existence of the devil, who is not controlled by God. The third possibility is that God is neither good nor powerful, in which case He has neither the desire nor power to wipe out evil in this world. The last possibility propose by Epicurus is that maybe God is both good and powerful. He then has both the desire and means to wipe out evil. This then leads us back to the question of why there is evil in this world?
The answer to this problem of evil is based on perspectivism.
The problem of evil depends on whose perspective you are looking
at it from. Form a human perspective evil is evil. We view things
on a worm eye scale and how it relates to us. For example, if
some injustice occur in our personal life - murder of a close
friend - undoubtably we would view this most negatively. However
God has a bird's eye
view of life - he sees the big picture - and can see that it is
all moving towards one end that is noble and pure. For example
the idea that suffering is good because it makes us more appreciative
of the rewards in heaven; if you know hardship, you will then
appreciate and hunger for blessing. Because we are not God we
can not see it from his perspective and therefore the problem
of evil will remain an enigma. If it appears really bad, we should
suffer the strife like Job in the Bible on a matter of faith and
somehow God will resolve it in the end.