Our Long and Continuing Journey in Search of Knowledge
By G. David Kennedy
(Please do not copy or disseminate this material without identifying authorship. I intend to develop each section with other projects
I’m working on for possible publication. So if you spot inconsistencies or factual errors, please let me know.)
Introduction
Every journey has to start somewhere but where does one begin when their purpose is to discover how
we came to understand the world. Creating an itinerary for such a journey is a challenge because our
distant ancestors traveled along a bumpy road that often led to detours and almost always was strewn
with obstacles. Some of the obstacles were of their own making like the creation of myths and the
resistance to change. Other obstacles surpassed their ability to even comprehend let alone move beyond.
Was intelligence a factor? No. It was mainly because they had less leisure time, fewer resources and little
of the right kind of experience to build on. Their concerns were more practical than theoretical so they
asked different questions and often looked to magic or the gods and the spirit world for answers.
Nonetheless, a lot was achieved in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE by the Egyptians and Babylonians
so we will begin with them in Section I.
In Sections II, III and IV, we will visit myth making, the transition of mythos to logos and the reasons why
the transition was neither complete nor lasting. In Section V, we will go to the Greek colonies and to
Athens where we will learn about the first natural philosophers and their theories concerning: the origin of
the world; the nature of change; the reliability of our senses; and the underlying hidden reality of things
(arche/theos). In Sections VI and VII, we linger in Athens to find out how Plato and Aristotle dealt with the
problems and questions raised by the first philosophers. In Sections VIII, IX, X, XI and XII, we visit with
the natural philosophers of the Hellenistic era, the Roman Empire, Latin Europe and the Arab world to
learn about their contributions, if any, to our knowledge quest. We conclude Part One with Sections XIII
and XIV where we will pause to reflect on the nature of Biblical truth, science as ‘priestcraft’, the
etymology of the word God and logocentrism.
In Part Two, Sections XV - XXI, we will travel to places that take us into the Modern Era. There, we will
dwell for a time on: 1) the gradual decline in the explanatory utility of substance and qualitative factors; 2)
the scientific and industrial revolutions; 3) the advances in chemistry and astronomy; 4) the
mathematization of natural philosophy and classical physics; 5) the advent of professional science; and 6)
thermodynamics.
In Part Three, Sections XXII - XXXI, we sail the unchartered waters of modern physics on a voyage that
takes us to uncertain territory while offering hope for a deeper understanding of our world. Along the way
we will learn about: 1) electromagnetism; 2) the atom; 3) the periodic table; 4) modern telescopes; 5) the
standard model; 6) special relativity, general relativity and gravity; 7) quantum mechanics; 8) accelerators
(quantum microscopes); 9) supersymmetry and superparticles; and 10) modern cosmology (the big bang,
inflation, and the steady state theory).
In the Conclusion, we will consider the implications of living in a world about which we believe we know a
great deal; yet, ~95% of it remains mysterious, unobserved and so far undetectable by our sophisticated
instruments. We will also learn that even if physicists explain the ~95%, the likelihood of them developing
a “theory of everything” is very low. Furthermore, if physicists do come up with such a theory, a proof of
its veracity is improbable. Why this is so should become apparent after we visit with: 1) Gödel’s
Incompleteness Theorem; 2) a mind independent world circumscribed by a mind dependent
epistemology; 3) the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth; 4) Davidson’s
triangulation theory of truth; 5) the certainty of formal systems like mathematics; 6) knowledge as justified
true belief rather than absolute and certain; 7) knowledge as survival value; and 8) the inescapable
realization that much of what we take to be knowledge is inferential, probabilistic and contingent yet
seemingly very reliable.
Part One
I) Egyptians and Babylonians
The ancient Egyptians were skilled architects, builders, glass-makers, metalworkers, craft-level chemical
manufacturers and excellent administrators. They created a civilization that flourished for over 2,000
years. Their accomplishments in mathematics and astronomy were used to build impressive temples and
pyramids. They developed a 12-month year and 30-day month calendar that made planting and
harvesting decisions easier. Of particular note to us, their calendar is the ancient origin of our own and
they were literate so we have good records of what they did.
The Babylonians of Mesopotamia (present day Iraq) were also literate and they excelled in both
astronomy and mathematics developing them to a much higher degree than the Egyptians. They tracked
the movements of celestial bodies and charted the heavens more extensively. And they created a
sexagesimal or base 60 place-notation system for writing large numbers that was unique in the ancient
world. To illustrate, consider any three digit number; in a decimal system, you have a ones, tens, and
hundreds place; in a sexagesimal system, you have a ones, sixties and 3600s place. Clearly, a base 60
number system is easier to use when working with large numbers and, given that 6 X 60 = their ~360 day
year and 60 divided by 5 = 12 lunar cycles, a strong interest in astronomical phenomena likely influenced
its creation. For numbers less than 60, the more common aggregation method (think Roman numerals)
was used because of its simplicity. While our base ten place-notation system has its origin in biology (ten
fingers), rather than astronomy, we, nonetheless, use their sexagesimal system to mark time (60 seconds
in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour) and to measure angles (a right angle = 90 degrees and a circle =
360 degrees).
As impressive as the achievements of the Egyptians and Babylonians are they seem to have limited their
quest for knowledge to religious and practical concerns rather than speculating or theorizing about the
how and why of things. For example, even though the Egyptians excelled at governance and were
effective administrators, they did not develop political theories. Similarly, the Babylonians recorded
extensive information about eclipses and other astronomical events but they did not develop a conceptual
model of the universe. Although accomplished mathematicians, neither society developed mathematical
proofs or theorems. This does not mean the Egyptians, the Babylonians and the people of other primitive
cultures were not curious about their origins, the heavens above and the mysterious forces around them.
Surely they were. Curiosity is deeply rooted in human nature. We are pattern seeking creatures with a
ceaseless yearning for knowledge about ourselves and the world we live in. So, how did our ancient
ancestors satisfy their need to know? Well, to explain what they could not understand, they created
myths.
II) Myth Making
To better understand myth, it may be helpful to know a little about how myth is created. The following
eight principles were primarily taken from a lecture by Elizabeth Wayland Barber, Professor of Linguistics
and Archaeology at Occidental College and co-author of When They Severed Earth from Sky: How the
Human Mind Shapes Myth. 1) Memory Crunch: Most myth was created before we could write. For a
myth to remain intact in the oral tradition, it must be: a) very important; b) relevant; c) relate to something
still visible or to an ever present need; and d) be encoded in a memorable way. Our challenge is to
decode the message and discern meaning. 2) Silence Effect: The mythmaker makes no attempt to
explain what is expected to be known, it’s assumed. Needless to say, this creates problems for us in our
efforts to understand ancient myth. 3) Lethe Effect: What is not said will eventually be forgotten. This
creates problems for future generations as they try to understand the myths of their ancestors. We are in
this situation today. (Note: In Greek mythology one who drinks water from the river Lethe in Hades will
forget the past.) 4) Camera Angle: To understand a myth, you have to see it from the viewpoint of the
mythmaker and his culture. In ancient times, the ‘camera angle’ would have been passed on orally from
generation to generation; today, we rely on archaeologist anthropologist and linguists to provide the myth
maker’s viewpoint. 5) Freezing: The conversion process by which myth becomes orthodoxy. Religions
tend to interpret certain myths as historical facts. This freezes (concretizes) meaning and reduces a
universal concept to a particular one important to that religion but the deeper richer meaning is often lost.
Worse yet, over time the Judeo-Christian tradition deemed all myths except those contained within the
Old and New Testaments to be false, labeling folks who believed otherwise heretics. 6) Reinterpretation:
In my opinion, the real power of myth flows from this mythmaking principle. It alerts us to a positive effect
of the silence and Lethe principles. Myths are passed on from generation to generation; things get left out
or reinterpreted in new ways that are meaningful to the current generation; what gets left out is no longer
important or relevant. Freezing blocks this most useful aspect of mythmaking. 7) Analogy: Phenomenal
regularities are explained by associating them with similar more familiar events. New experiences are
related to things we already know. 8) Willfulness: When something important happened in ‘sacred time’,
the ancients thought of it as being willed without thinking of it as part of some overriding divine plan. Since
they did not see who was doing the willing, they assumed invisibility. This is the basis for the idea of
spirits in general and specifically as applied to the forces of nature. It also explains why the ancients
thought of heavenly bodies as gods. For them, only special spirits or gods could explain the objects that
inhabited the sky above and moved in orderly ways.
An ever present mythical theme, not only appearing in Greek thinking and Christianity but also in
philosophies and ideologies, is the Myth of Universal Renovation. When this myth is striped of the cultural
clothes hiding the underlying ‘truth’, it can be found in unexpected places - Platonic Idealism, German
Idealism, the French Revolution (Robespierre’s Republic of Virtue) and in totalitarian movements. The
depiction of the ‘hero’ varies appearing as a savior, revolutionary or reformer. Familiar motifs, such as:
death, resurrection and rebirth are recast in secular terms as the ending of a social system followed by a
new beginning (utopia) made possible because of the hero’s deeds or grasp of an ideal. Seeing modern
philosophical or social movements as having mythological connections smacks of overdetermination to
me but some anthropologists and linguists discern similarities.
Our oldest written records date to 5,200 years ago, but we have been speaking and mythmaking for a
much longer period - perhaps 60,000 or more years. However, it was only about ninety years ago that
Western scholars began to understand ancient myth as ‘true stories’ rather than fables or works of fiction.
We now know that the myths of traditional societies conveyed important truths, provided behavior models
and gave meaning and value to life. It would be difficult to properly interpret the meaning of what they did
(customs and rituals) and did not do (taboos) without reference to their myths. Not all myths were created
to convey religious meaning but unless certain myths are viewed in a socioreligious light, their true
meaning will remain hidden and they’ll be written off as merely entertaining fictional literature. That’s
exactly what happened to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Enuma Elish, to Greek mythology in general and to
the Iliad and the Odyssey in particular. Although never considered sacred texts, the Iliad and the
Odyssey, popular showcases of Greek myth, were consulted by Ancient Greeks for moral guidance in
much the same way as Christians consult the Bible today.
III) Mythos to Logos and the Birth of Logocentrism
Creation myths are found in all cultures. They are sacred stories that usually begin with an unexplained
uncaused spontaneous event, or with the deliberate act or thought of an eternal deity. In some myths,
order comes out of chaos or form is given to the formless; in others, emanations flow from a Cosmic
Unity, a Oneness or from Nature; in still others, the world is created out of nothing by a Supreme Being or
out of some primal ‘stuff’ by a lesser deity. While the details vary, genesis unfolds via a series of
differentiations, separations or actions. The creation process usually begins with a duality and continues
until a plurality of things exist. Which duality comes forth first and in what order varies by culture. Here are
some common duads: gods and goddesses, cosmic forces and divine ancestors, night and day, heaven
and earth, male and female, good and evil, love and strife, on and on.
The genesis story conveys a sense of wholeness in that all of nature is connected to the same substance
or to a single being. Although this connection weakens with each unfolding, the link to human conduct still
persists. From this comes the feeling of oneness that many people have with the primal ‘stuff’, the One,
Nature or with a Supreme Being. The notion of Providence and our concern with conforming to its divine
will is a slightly more sophisticated version of this way of thinking; as are, cosmic or divine teleologies,
pantheism, panentheism and panpsychism, and even our need for harmony and to be part of a group or
community. Providential thinking links just about everything that happens in the world to divine will. For
example, victory in battle, a bounteous harvest and good health are indicative of a harmonious
relationship with the divine while defeat, poor crops and illness are seen as evidence of disharmony or
sinfulness.
Mythical narratives are a curious mixture of instruction, hyperbole and imagination. Some myths tell
stories about happenings rooted in a culture’s ‘sacred time’ or forgotten history. Others explain things like
the structure of the universe, the organization of society and how the living should interact with the gods,
one another, and the dead. Truth lies in the narrative’s meaning not in the veracity of the story or
explanation. So, in this sense, all myths are true because they convey meaningful information about
beliefs, mores and practices. Typically, myths are reinforced by rituals designed to arouse emotions that
ingrain the ‘truths’ as feelings rather than ideas or concepts. As such, it is very difficult to dislodge these
‘truths’ especially if one is exposed to mythical thinking at an early age. However, indoctrination alone
does not fully explain the staying power of myth. Another important factor is need satisfaction. Myths are
passed on for generations because they strengthen community bonds, alleviate fear, lessen anxiety, and
satisfy the need to know. As to the last factor, it is less important today except for literalists and others
seeking certain and absolute answers to metaphysical questions. Note: Unlike many philosophy
professors, I use the term metaphysics as a referent for epistemology as well as ontology.
As mentioned in the first section, our ancestors did not engage in myth-making because they lacked the
capacity for rational thought. Given the importance of gods, divine ancestors and the spirit world in their
lives, it was not unreasonable for them to have imagined a three-world universe connected by a cosmic
axis, tree of life, or totem. A universe where: 1) gods and divine ancestors inhabit the upper heavenly
world; 2) human beings and the stuff of everyday life occupy the middle world; 3) subterranean spirits
and the dead dwell in the lower world; and 4) where the upper and lower worlds are mirror images of the
middle world and communication and movement between the worlds is possible.
Nor was it unreasonable for the Babylonians to: 1) make detailed observations of celestial bodies
because they thought the movements of stars, planets, comets and the moon influenced human behavior
and events; 2) apply mathematics to their many observations and thereby discover regularities and
predictability which gave them a sense of control; 3) plan religious rituals in harmony with important
happenings in the sky; 4) liken the heavens to a holy scroll on which the gods wrote messages that
priests translated using astrological charts; 5) believe their group was in harmony with the heavens when
they did what the messages degreed thereby strengthening their bond with the gods and giving them a
greater sense of community and inner calm.
As early as 60,000 BCE, behaviorally modern humans were using reason, although not exclusively, to
resolve religious concerns, solve practical problems, and to increase their chances of survival. Long
before the advent of philosophy and science, reason was used to: 1) figure out ways to propitiate the
gods identified with the forces of nature; 2) maintain group identity and harmony; 3) assure victory in
battle and plan for plentiful harvests; and 4) to build tables, chairs, tools and the like. But something was
lacking. That something was logos.
At the end of the second millennium BCE, the accomplishments of the ancient Greeks paled in
comparison to the Egyptians and Babylonians but this changed dramatically around 580 BCE. It was then
that the transition from mythos to logos began and it is this change, built on the applied scientific
achievements of the Egyptians and Babylonians, that we will turn to now. It all started in the Greek colony
of Miletus, and later in other cities of the Greek Diaspora mainly on the island of Sicily and in the boot of
Italy. These cities were situated along major trade routes which provided many opportunities for traders
and merchants to acquire great wealth while exposing them and their customers to different cultures and
religious traditions. Out of this commerce came the necessary economic freedom and cultural liberalism
that made it possible for intellectuals to think about theoretical issues rather than solely religious and
practical ones. Also, the various religious traditions gave different and all too often conflicting answers to
questions about who created the world and why it was created. As a result, people became skeptical
about whether religion can provide absolute and certain answers to these questions, and whether these
are even the right questions to ask.
Eventually, this doubt inspired a movement away from the mystical and supernatural to a search for
naturalistic ideas inspired by logo-centric thinking. People focused on material or physical processes and
asked new questions about what the world is made of and how things come to be, change and cease to
be. Also, citizens in these cities and elsewhere in the Greek World were enjoying more leisure time and
the freedom that comes from financial independence and a weak priestly class. Furthermore, they held
the simple belief that the world is comprehensible and open to rational inquiry. This allowed Thales (636546 BCE) and others to focus on the greater natural world in search of order rather than messages from
the gods. Chaos, the Greek personification of the original disorder in the universe was gradually giving
way to Cosmos, the Greek concept of an orderly universe. Unlike the Egyptians, Babylonians and other
primitive societies, the intellectuals of ancient Greece focused primarily on how nature works rather than
the works of the gods. As a result, myths about the origin of the world (cosmogony) were replaced with
logo-centric theories about the nature of the world (cosmology).
IV) Temperament, Worldviews, and Religion (Concretized Myth)
The ancient Greeks did in fact focus on the natural world but their theories were not entirely free of
mythos. This is understandable as almost all of them grew up at a time when myths were commonly used
to explain what was beyond their ability to comprehend. Logos had much to overcome. Consider the
following: 1) W. K. C. Guthrie, in The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to Aristotle reminds his readers of
how close early Greek thinkers were to the magical stage of thought and that all during the classical
period many ordinary people still believed in magic which they practiced as a primitive form of applied
science. 2) F. M. Cornford, in From Religion to Philosophy, argues that people are predisposed to one of
two basic philosophical temperaments which he identified as mystical and scientific. He found a
correlation between temperament and the two early Greek mythos traditions which he classified as
Mystery and Olympian religions. The adherents of the mystery religions understood and related to the
natural world in non-rational but not irrational ways while those believing in Olympian Gods developed
rational and even scientific practices. 3) Bryan Magee, in The Story of Thought, refers to people with
a mystical temperament as 'having a religious bent' and he claims they are more likely to find comfort in
Platonism. He identifies people with a scientific temperament as 'down-to-earth, worldly and
commonsensical' linking them with Aristotelianism.
The dynamic interaction of one’s philosophical temperament with their life experience gives rise to a
philosophical worldview. Everybody has a worldview although most people are unaware of what theirs is
or that it plays a role in determining beliefs and behavior. Something this important requires further
explanation. So, what is a philosophical worldview? It’s your natural inclination to favor one of two
fundamentally different and opposing ways of understanding and relating to the world. Why this is so is
not entirely clear as worldviews are grounded in shared experiences. It likely has something to do with
two factors: first, the way we interpret a shared experience; and second, the degree to which we need
absolutes and certainty to justify our decisions. Since both factors are influenced by philosophical
temperament and nurturing, the nature-nurture dynamic is at work here as well. Moreover, it remains an
open question as to whether we are born with temperaments that clearly favor one worldview over
another; if we are, pure expressions of the dominate temperament are rare. Most people’s behavior is
influenced by a complex mixture of the two temperaments even though the inclination to act in
accordance with the dominant one is ever present. Also, life experience can strengthen or weaken the
dominant temperament and the degree to which inclinations influence behavior often varies with the
circumstances surrounding an event or action.
The nature-nurture dynamic has given rise to many variations in how human beings relate to the world;
however, I think all the variations are fundamentally grounded in just two worldviews that find expression
in either idealism, spiritualism and supernaturalism or in materialism, physicalism and naturalism.
Idealism, spiritualism and supernaturalism share the ontological view that ultimately everything that
exists can be shown to be spiritual or mental and that abstract things have a concrete existence which is
more fundamental than sensory things. Their epistemology draws heavily on histories found in myths and
holy books as well as in poetry, abstract art and subjective accounts of individual and shared
experiences. They take ideas and experiences that may be appropriate in these limited areas, apply them
to the whole of reality and reinforce them with ritual. While reason plays a role for some, what is ultimately
accepted as truth is done so because of non-rational albeit not irrational considerations, and faith is an
extremely important influence on how personal experience is interpreted. Materialism, physicalism and
naturalism share the ontological view that in the final analysis all phenomena can be demonstrated to be
material or physical in nature and that mental and spiritual phenomena are either nonexistent or have no
existence independent of matter. Their epistemology draws heavily on observation and experimentation.
The source of their knowledge is the work product of science as they give unrestricted validity to the ways
of thinking that scientists have found effective in a certain restricted sphere. While feelings and emotions
play a role in discoveries, what is ultimately accepted as knowledge is always guided by reason.
As long as there is a gap between what reality is and what we know of it, the defenders of these
worldviews will continue to oppose one another. They do so with good reason as both worldviews are
linked to experience as well as temperament; however, the adherents of idealism, spiritualism and
supernaturalism do not build on experience or interpret it in the same way as the scientist. In the main,
the two worldviews have different objectives and follow different methodologies; but, most critically,
neither worldview can inform the other about its initial premises as those premises essentially assume the
other position is wrong.
Religion is grounded in mythological thinking and it is the primary vehicle by which the idealism/
spiritualism/supernaturalism worldview has been carried into modern times. Joseph Campbell wrote in
The Hero With a Thousand Faces that most people think “myth is the other guys religion”. This is most
instructive because it succinctly highlights the fact that we can easily recognize the mythological
underpinnings of someone else’s religion but we fail to see or at least acknowledge the myth in our own.
Campbell also tells us that all myth and most religions are true metaphorically and that we miss what
really is important by focusing on veracity rather than meaning. Both myth and religion help us relate to
our environment and to one another but, according to Campbell, religion freezes or concertizes myth into
historical fact. This makes it more difficult for some religions to respond to scientific developments and to
the needs of the faithful who live in an ever changing world. Myth outside of religion is flexible; as such, it
can respond more quickly than religion to the changing needs of individuals and society. Questions about
veracity arise only when we get stuck in the symbolism and interpret the metaphors as fact instead of
looking beyond to the suggested deeper meaning. I think most theologians understand this but they do
not effectively share their insight with the faithful who, for the most part, are stuck in the symbolism.
V) The Pre-Socratics (580-370 BCE) – First Principles and the Ultimate Substance (Arche)
In ancient times, Athens was a city-state and the cultural center of the Greek world but all the first
philosophers, the pre-Socratics, lived elsewhere in Greek colonies, either in Asia Minor (present-day
Turkey), Sicily or southern Italy. Anaxagoras was the only one to ever travel to Athens where, later in our
journey, we will find Plato, Aristotle and many other philosophers. The pre-Socratics were not scientists in
any modern sense but they did study nature so they are called natural philosophers. They began their
quest for knowledge with a firm conviction that the cosmos is governed by orderly processes which can
be understood with the use of reason. They believed that natural phenomena are explained by other
natural phenomena, not by supernatural or mystical beings or events. Also, some of the first natural
philosophers developed their abstract principles and logo-centric theories using practical knowledge and
techniques taken from the Egyptians and perhaps Persians.
Like the myth makers before them, the pre-Socratic natural philosophers were familiar with the four
substances or elements, so many of them identified the ultimate substance - arche - as either air, fire,
water, earth, some combination of these observables or something more fundamental, something
unobservable. For example, Thales (circa 580 BCE) claimed, based on observations, all things were
composed of water, Anaximenes (circa 545 BCE) said it was air, and Heraclitus (circa 470 BCE)
thought fire was the source and end of everything. Empedocles (circa 440 BCE) claimed everything was
composed randomly of a mixture of the four substances which he called the ‘four roots’ or elements.
Anaxagoras (circa 500-428 BCE) replaced the ‘four roots’ with 'infinite seeds' which were used by a selfordering first principle called Nous (Mind) to create the world and all the things in it. Unlike Empedocles’
randomly evolving universe, Anaxagoras’ universe was designed by a god-like intelligence (Nous) or at
the very least, was organized according to an intelligent rational order.
Others had different ideas some of which seem to expand the concept of arche to include rational
explanations or ideas in addition to material stuff. In so doing, I believe they transformed arche into logos;
for example, Anaximander (circa 610-546 BCE) claimed, based on reason alone, the ultimate substance
(arche) could not itself be one of the four elements, it had to be a primal substance, something more
fundamental than the elements; hence, unobservable and boundless. (Christians would later ascribe
these attributes to God the Father.) Xenophanes (circa 570-478 BCE) said the arche is God and God is
Being. His God is unmovable but he can move all things with his mind. He also deduced from his
examination of fossil and other empirical evidence that the material arche must be two substances He
chose water and earth as all things “that come into being and grow are earth and water.” Hence, he is
likely the first to combine empirical evidence with deduction to support a theory. For Pythagoras (circa
572-500 BCE), geometrical forms and numbers are most basic or, at the very least, geometry and
number manipulation can help us explain what it is. Parmenides (circa 515-440 BCE) believed that
Being is eternal and indivisible. Thinking about Being is fundamental because only thoughts exist and he
takes the idea “it is” to be a self-evident truth about Being. Denial of this is self-contradictory as the very
claim that something is not is proof that something is. Why? Because “nothing” (non-being) cannot be
thought without thinking of it as something (Being). So, there is no nothing, there is only Being. If nothing
exists, it is not nothing, it is something. For nothing to exists, it has to be something rather than nothing. In
itself nothing does not exist except as Being.
In my view, the absurdity of this belief is perpetuated by Zeno’s famous Runner’s Paradox which pits the
mathematical concept of infinity against experience. Given any race, a runner must cross an infinite
number of finite intervals to get to the finish line. Say half the distance then a quarter, an eighth and so on
to infinity. Although each interval takes a finite time to cross, it is not possible to cross an infinite number
of intervals in a finite time period. Using reason alone, we would have to conclude that the runner will
never make it to the finish line. Of course this is ridiculous and Zeno knew it. Nevertheless, he put forth a
flawless, logically valid mathematical argument that we know to be empirically false. Here we have the
beginning of a distinction between knowledge based on the senses and that based on reason. Later this
distinction would develop into empiricism and rationalism. (Modern mathematicians, using calculus, have
since demonstrated that the infinite sum involved in the Runners Paradox does sum to 1.)
Remarkably, Leucippus (circa 460 BCE) and Democritus (circa 460-370 BCE) thought everything was
composed of atoms which they described as indivisible units of undifferentiated eternal (uncaused rather
than self-caused) bits of substance that move freely in a void. An atom has only mathematical properties
of size, shape and relative location. What we perceive as color, smell and taste are not properties of
individual atoms but come out of their arrangements and shapes.
As to change and motion, the Ancient Greeks distinguished between circular motion and linear motion.
Circular motion was believed to be perfect motion; as such, things that move in circles do not change. But
linear motion was thought to be imperfect motion so things that move linearly do change. However, they
used one word (kinesis) to refer to both motion and change; therefore, linear movement – going from one
place to another – entails kinesis while circular movement – starting in one place and ending in the same
place – does not. Of course, the early Greeks knew their world was in flux but they did not understand
why so they yearned for a rational explanation. There were many. Empedocles said change occurs when
the four roots or elements mix together to form one thing and eventually fall apart only to recombine into
something else. In his scheme, the elements provide permanence while change is apparent when the all
too mythical figures (some call forces) of ‘Love’ and ‘Strife’ act on the elements. Heraclitus explained
change as a natural process involving the continual creation and destruction of elements brought about
by fire. For him, permanence is found in logos, the unchanging principles that regulate change. He also
valued the sense experience which, when rightly interpreted, can provide knowledge about the natural
world.
In opposition to Heraclitus, Parmenides argued that change is not possible and, since our senses tell us
that things change, sense perception is useless as a source of knowledge. He thinks of reality as that
which is (Being) and that which is not (non-being or nothing); however, what is nothing is also Being.
Therefore, nothing in itself does not exist except as Being. And since Being is perfect and complete, it
cannot change. That which is, always is, and nothing ever comes out of nothing because it is not, hence
change is an illusion. Even though Parmenides’ arguments were contrary to everyday experience, there
was a lot of interest in his work as permanence was thought to be a necessary attribute of the ultimate
substance (arche/theos). If they knew what remained constant while everything else changed they
believed they would be able to establish those illusive self-evident first principles on which unassailable
knowledge could be built. To appreciate theos as arche see: The Greek Philosophers: From Thales to
Aristotle (pages 10, 11, 32 and 118).
As to the cosmos itself, the pre-Socratics held theories ranging from the most primitive to the prescient.
For example, Thales believed the earth was flat and encircled by water which was not very different from
the commonly held view of a saucer-like earth supported by columns and surrounded by water.
Anaximander moved away from this primitive view and developed the first geocentric model of the
universe. He envisioned a cylindrical-shaped earth with two flat ends that hung in the heavens and was
held in place by opposing forces. Pythagoras said the earth is a sphere and that it is not at the center of
the universe but neither was the sun. He believed all heavenly bodies, including the earth and the sun,
revolved around an unseen ball of fire at the center. Not a heliocentric theory but one likely influenced by
an Indian astronomer who held such a theory. His name is lost to history but he wrote about a spherical
earth moving around a sun at the center of all spheres.
All educated Greeks readily accepted Pythagoras’ argument for a round earth but they rejected his other
views finding the idea of an earth-centered universe very appealing. As we will discover, over the years
improvements were made to the geocentric model by Plato, Aristotle and, in the 3rd century BCE, by
Apollonius. However, Ptolemy, more than any other natural philosopher, is associated with the geocentric
model because the improvements he made in the 2nd century CE produced more accurate predictions.
Although the pre-Socratics were successful in undermining the traditional, religious and moral values of
their time, they engendered a new skepticism and confusion due to the many different ideas about the
fundamental nature of reality, the conflicting explanations of how change occurs and the competing
models of the cosmos. However, what is important here is not the failure to reach agreement rather it is
that the claims made were supported by natural phenomena and processes not by appealing to the gods
or myths. Moreover, starting with Thales, there was a willingness to speculate about the unseen reality
that lies behind external appearances and to theorize about the hidden causes of everyday observations
and events. In other words, the pre-Socratics stopped asking who (gods/God) and why (meaningfulness)
type questions - practical and religious questions - and began to ask what (arche) and how (logos) kinds
of questions - speculative and theoretical questions.
VI) Plato (427-347 BCE)
Plato tried to reconcile the views of Heraclitus and Parmenides by creating a dualistic model of the
universe. He put perfection and permanence in a transcendent mental realm of Forms or logos outside of
nature and relegated the ever-changing imperfect world of matter to a less real realm. He also divided
substance into Form and matter. In so doing, Plato wants us to believe that a substance exists in nature
(its matter) and outside of nature (its Form) at the same time. Platonist take Form to be a referent not only
for essence, ideal and soul but also for nous, mind and psyche whether particularized to a person, thing
or idea, or universalized to the world, a group or concept.
Plato explains his epistemology and ontology in precise technical terms in the Simile of the Line and
allegorically in the Myth of the Cave. Both can be found in his most important work, the Republic. My
version of the Simile of the Line is depicted below in Table A and his allegories are discussed in
subsequent paragraphs.
Table A
Plato's Simile of the Line
(Doctrine of Ideas)
I) Conception – Thinking grounded in the certainties of Form-focused reasoning from which we acquire
KNOWLEDGE.
Levels of Awareness
Levels of Reality
(Epistemology)
(Ontology)
a) Knowledge: a priori inductions1 made as we move
a) Forms: grounded in the Good, the essence
upward through higher & higher levels of particular
of things or ideals that exist in another realm.
Forms to the Good, and making a priori deductions1 as The most real, most certain and most valuable
we go back down, with ‘the Good’ in mind, through the things. Forms are the highest level of mental
same lesser Forms reaching conclusions on the way.
things (abstractions) believed to have concrete
existence.
b) Understanding: a priori deductions from Form
b) Concepts: shadows or reflections of Forms;
images to arrive at concepts without considering
theories, math, and definitions. Things are seen
sensory information which is not necessary to fully
as types: classes, categories or archetypes.
understand things.
Concepts are the lowest level of mental things
(abstractions) believed to have concrete
existence.
II) Observation -- Experience grounded in the uncertainties of sense perception from which we acquire
mere OPINION.
Levels of Awareness
Levels of Reality
(Epistemology)
(Ontology)
a) Belief: a posteriori inductions from actual
a) Particular objects: natural and man-made
particular things to arrive at generalizations
physical things believed to be less real than mental
based on sensory information.
things (abstractions).
b) Conjecture: a posteriori inductions from
b) Images of particular objects: reflections or
images of particular things based on sensory
shadows of physical things; pictures, paintings and
information or mistaken reality.
sculpture; things mistaken for reality.
Footnotes:
1.
2.
A belief, proposition, or argument is said to be a priori if its truth can be known independently of observation. When truth is
established by reason alone, it is believed to be absolute and certain. If truth can be established only through observation, that
belief, proposition, or argument is said to be a posteriori. When truth is based on observation, it is understood to be contingent
but reliable .Induction involves reasoning from particulars to the most general as well as inducing concepts from particular
observations. Deduction involves reasoning from the general to particulars as well as deducing a concept or theory’s
applicability to a particular observation. All knowledge of the Forms is acquired independently of observation via induction as
one moves upward through the forms to the Good and deduction on the way down with the Good in mind.
The Platonic conceptual framework has led to an uncritical reliance on introspection, the mistaken notion that a priori
knowledge is more reliable than a posteriori knowledge, and to a universe divided into a transcendent intelligible world and a
visible physical world. This has led to the equally mistaken belief that inward reflection can, by some yet to be explained
mechanism, provide a connection with ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is variously interpreted but it generally means a
transcendent spirit, mind or essence. Also, proponents seem not to be concerned with understanding consciousness in itself
only its contents and its relationship to a world-soul, god or meta-mind. They see life as a journey toward self-knowledge which
can only be achieved by bridging the divide between human consciousness and a higher-consciousness, between the soul and
the world-soul, between spirit and god or between mind and meta-mind.
Just as we need sunlight for the eyes to see, we need the Good for the mind to know. The imagery is
clear; darkness is associated with lower levels of awareness and ignorance while light is associated with
higher levels of awareness and knowledge. In Looking at Philosophy, Donald Palmer tells us that Plato’s
Myth of the Cave is an allegory for education and enlightenment. We are asked to imagine prisoners
chained to posts in a subterranean cave. The cave is lit by a single fire that casts shadows of people and
artifacts on a wall in front of them. They see only these shadows and hear only echoes of voices which
they mistake for reality. Imagine further that a prisoner gets free of his shackles, turns around, sees the
source of the shadows behind him and beyond to a bit of sunlight coming through the cave’s opening. He
moves toward the light and begins to climb the steep path out of the cave into the sunlit world above. As
his eyes get accustomed to the light, the former prisoner sees only shadows of trees, then the actual
trees and eventually, he is able to see the sun itself.
Education is likened to the difficult climb out of the dimly lit cave and seeing the sun is likened to
enlightenment. The allegory continues in Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas with a comparison of levels of
awareness to events in the cave. Conjecture is likened to seeing shadows of artifacts in dim light; belief is
likened to seeing actual artifacts in dim light; understanding is compared to seeing shadows of natural
objects in bright light; pure reasoning is compared to seeing actual natural things in bright light. Just as
the sun is the source of the brightest light in the visible realm, the Good is the source of Ultimate Truth in
the intelligible realm; so, seeing the sun is like beholding the Good. I also think the Myth of the Cave is an
allegory for the transition from mythos to logos and even for Our Long and Continuing Journey in Search
of Knowledge. The unchaining of the prisoner in the cave equates to an unshackling or unfettering from
myths, traditions and authoritarian views. This freedom provides the opportunity to start the slow difficult
climb out of the cave which relates to the arduous task of learning the truth by educating ourselves. When
we finally see the sun, it is the symbolic equivalent of being educated, enlightened, wise and morally
advanced.
As we have seen, Plato’s ultimate substance is the Good or Super Form which gives absolute meaning to
other Forms in a hierarchical epistemological and ontological framework that explains reality. Reality is
grounded in the Good which is the source of being, and all knowledge is ultimately knowledge of the
Good. Everything in the imperfect world of change moves toward the Good unconsciously striving for
perfection which is defined as the best a thing can be, limited only by its essence. Yet, the Good does not
create anything. Why? Because the realm of the Good and the Forms is outside of time and space. It is
distinctly separate from nature and beyond our closed universe. Plato did not believe something within
nature could be the cause of it; the universe must have an external cause which is its own cause. In other
words, it must be a necessary substance - an immutable, infinite self-caused thing that cannot be other
than what it is. It cannot be a contingent substance - a mutable, finite caused thing that could be other
than what it is.
Detractors of Plato’s idea that the universe must be caused by a necessary mental substance existing
outside of time and space rightly ask:



How can a necessary substance be the cause of a contingent substance?
How can something outside of a closed universe affect things within it?
By what mechanism does a non-physical essence outside of time and space change physical things
in time and space?
These questions raise the familiar permanence-change issue expressed as a tension between the
necessary and the contingent, between being and becoming, between the eternal Forms and the less real
ever-changing world we live in. Plato’s attempt at bridging these dichotomies is the Demiurge - a creator
god who is co-eternal with the Forms and matter. This divine artisan fashions existing chaotic matter into
geometric Forms and eventually into an intelligently ordered world using the Forms as templates. Given
the world is made of matter, it cannot be perfect. It is, however, the best possible world because the
Forms were used to mold it.
Moreover, matter is ensouled which means it is, in some sense, alive. Since the soul is created it is not
eternal like the Forms and matter; however, once created the soul lives on forever, it’s immortal. Whereas
the body itself, although made of matter which is eternal, is neither eternal nor immutable. The body
decays back into formless matter while the soul transmigrates or is reborn in another body. So, we have
an immortal soul which, in its most fundamental sense, is a life giving principle. It animates particular
matter like bodies and when a body decays, it returns to animate another body. If human beings neglect
or misuse their intellect, the gods transmigrate their souls into non-human bodies as punishment. Thus,
lower animals do not have souls of their own as they are given the souls of unfit humans.
Plato’s soul, psyche or self is more complicated than just described, it has a tripartite nature which, when
writ large, corresponds with the three social classes of the old Greek polis or city-state: rational/rulers,
spirited/soldiers and appetitive/workers. In the self, harmony prevails when individuals act in accordance
with their inborn nature; in the polis, justice prevails when citizens act in accordance with class-defined
roles as dictated by their nature. When these ideas are carried into the Roman period and beyond, we get
a model of a just society in which the rulers are aristocrats, the spirited are military and police, and the
appetitive are workers and peasants. Aristocrats rule because they are believed to be wise. They use the
military and police, the naturally action-minded, to help control the workers and peasants who are
presumed to be unruly.
A modern but quite different version of this three-part concept of self can be found in Sigmund Freud’s
work. He divides the self into a superego or moral aspect, ego or source of rational action and id or the
animal side of our nature. The superego is as irrational in its pursuit of morality as the irrepressible id is in
satisfying its appetitive needs; whereas the ego, grounded in the real world, appeals to reason to resolve
the resulting non-ending conflict within the self. Unlike Plato’s optimistic view that sees the rational self as
dominate, Freud is pessimistic because he sees the subconscious-driven irrational id as more dominate
than the equally irrational but less powerful superego. However, both subvert the least powerful but
rationally-inclined ego which is helpless in warding off disharmony; consequently, individuals often
become neurotic and societies warlike.
Back to Plato. The Demiurge employs a geometric building-block creation scheme that is closer to
atomism than any emanation account. Out of formless matter, simple right triangles are created and
these are used to build complex polyhedra. Four of them are the familiar elements: a 4-sided tetrahedron,
fire; a 6-sided cube, earth; an 8-sided octahedron, air; and a 20-sided icosahedron, water. Unlike atoms,
polyhedra interconvert. They can breakdown into their constituent triangles and reform into one of the
other four elements or into even more complex objects. Clearly, Plato’s ontology was strongly influenced
by Pythagoras' belief in the mathematical underpinnings of the universe.
When Plato’s views are combined with Anaxagoras’ concept of Nous and Plotinus’ love-imbued Good, we
have a rational basis for the worldview of idealism/spiritualism/supernaturalism and later, Christianity. In
the Christianized version, the Good becomes God; the transcendent realm, heaven; the Demiurge, Jesus
or a Providential God; and in various ways nous/mind/psyche become interchangeable with soul. The
Demiurge and Providential God connection arises out of the comparable roles played by the Demiurge in
Plato’s imperfect world and that of a Providential God in Christianity. Since Plato’s imperfect world is in
constant decay, it requires the Demiurge’s ongoing creative attention. Similarly, although God’s creation
is perfect, we have free will; as such, divine intervention is necessary from time to time to correct our
mistakes. This notion of Divine superintendence was very important during the Middle Ages and beyond
to the Modern Era but it was not universally accepted. Basically, natural philosophers and theologians
either associated themselves with Descartes who did not require a providential God or Newton who did.
Finally, in Plato’s universe, the moon, sun, planets and stars are perfectly round bodies that move within
their separate circular orbits around a fixed earth at the center. The moon is set in the orbit closest to
earth, the sun is next, then the planets with the stars in the outermost sphere (domain of influence). The
motions of the heavenly orbits keep the moon, sun, planets and stars in order and all motions are regular,
constant and mathematically harmonious. Recall that the Ancient Greeks distinguished between circular
motion and linear motion. Circular motion was believed to be perfect motion; as such, things that move in
circles do not change. But linear motion was thought to be imperfect, so things that move linearly do
change. The moon, sun, planets and stars move in perfect circles; therefore, no change occurs in the
superlunary heavenly realm. Whereas, things on earth in the sublunary realm move linearly, so they do
change. Plato also embraced this view of the universe as did Aristotle so I will discuss it further in the next
section.
VII) Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle rejected the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus - the idea that there are just atoms and the
void (empty space). He thought atoms lacked sufficient complexity to be a substance, and he thought
space without matter was illogical. He also strongly rejected Plato’s ‘other-worldliness’ saying that there is
only one world and we live in it, and that the essence of a substance cannot exist separate from the
substance itself. He believed the distinction between essence and matter exists in thought only, not in
fact. However, he claims that a thing’s essence can be extracted directly from it and that both
permanence (being) and change (becoming) can exists in a single substance. While it can be said that
Aristotle was primarily concerned with becoming and Plato with being, Aristotle saw the world as a
paradoxical conjunction of the two. He saw the world as a living organism moving along with all its parts
toward a definite goal or purpose. Aristotle spent much of his life observing nature so it is not surprising
that his model of the universe was an organism rather than a machine as it would become much later in
Newton’s time.
The differences between Plato and Aristotle’s views are significant but there are some striking similarities.
Both developed a four tiered hierarchical progression toward their idea of the Ultimate (Plato’s Good and
Aristotle’s Prime Mover). Recall that the Good is the Superform for absolute truth and wisdom. It grounds
all reality and bestows worth. Similarly, the Prime Mover is a god-like, although non-anthropomorphic,
embodiment of happiness described as the perpetual contemplation of truth. Both should be understood
metaphysically rather than theologically, beholding ‘the Good’ is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining
knowledge; whereas, emulating the Prime Mover is a necessary prerequisite for obtaining happiness and
perfection. The Good can be correctly thought of as ‘Truth’ or ‘ultimate reality’, and the Prime Mover as
the embodiment of that which is eternally engaged in thought but neither should be thought of as a
precursor to the Christian God.
While the Prime Mover serves as an ideal of perfection in the same way as Plato’s Good, it is also like the
Demiurge operating as an integral concrete part of nature within time and space. However, unlike the
Demiurge, the Prime Mover is not involved in creation. It functions as a perfection-driven purpose or final
cause rather than a creator. Everything in nature moves toward the Prime Mover in search of perfection,
the source of happiness. The Prime Mover is the epitome of perfection so by emulating it we can attain
happiness. Aristotle conceived the Ultimate - the Prime Mover - to be pure actuality, a perfect substance
that is its own reason for being; as such, it does not change, yet it is concrete rather than abstract.
Unlike Plato, Aristotle’s cosmos has no beginning in time; but like Plato, he believed in a universe in
which things that move linearly change and things that move in circles do not. This apparent contradiction
arises out of the way the Greeks understood motion and change as discussed above. In Aristotle’s
universe, the outermost sphere of the unchanging superlunary realm is the domain of the Prime Mover.
There is nothing - no space or matter - beyond the Prime Mover.
Understanding the universe as comprised of orbitals moving around the earth within specific naturally
occurring separate spheres is part of Aristotle’s doctrine of natural place and motion - his theory of
mechanics. Both realms of Aristotle’s geocentric universe exist in a single material world, however, the
superlunary realm is infused with a special kind of matter, a fifth substance called quintessence or ether.
All heavenly bodies are made of this mysterious substance which explains the changeless nature of the
moon, sun, planets and stars. Quintessence is distinct from fire, air, water and earth which are the basic
elements of the ever-changing sublunary realm. This quasi-dualistic theory of matter was common in
Greece at the time.
Again, in a metaphysical rather than theological sense, the Prime Mover is the formal cause of all
knowledge as well as all motion and change in a preexisting universe which is composed of a plurality of
forms and quality-less substances (prime matter). To better understand this and to see how Aristotle
resolves the Heraclitian-Parmenidean dilemma, we need to take a closer look at form and matter, and the
motion equivalents of actuality and potentiality. To emphasize Aristotle’s material conception of reality,
the ‘f’ in form is never capitalized.
A form is a thing's unchanging essence, its 'whatness' or function, it’s that which is 'substantial' to what
the thing is; whereas, matter is the 'principle of individuation relating to a things uniqueness, its 'thisness',
it’s that which is 'accidental' to what the thing is. To account for motion and change, Aristotle redefines
form as actuality and matter as potentiality. This distinction which also is only in thought and not in fact is
best explained by his example of the acorn as potentiality and the oak tree as actuality existing in the
substance of one thing. The acorn strives to be an oak tree. In Aristotle's view, nature is a teleological
system in which self-actualized substances seek perfection limited by their essences. In other words, a
thing's potential is actualized by its form (essence) or cause and all things strive to become fully
actualized thereby achieving the level of perfection allowed by their particular essences. Moreover,
Aristotle’s theory of mechanics states that nothing can achieve full potential outside its natural place or
rest state. Motion is explained here in terms of displaced objects moving back to their natural places - a
return to harmony by restoring the natural order of things. Where this doctrine was applied to social
structure, it was an impediment to social mobility serving as a reason to reinforce the traditional role of
aristocrats as naturally equipped to govern.
Aristotle breaks down form or essence into four different but completing causes: material cause - the
matter of which a thing is made; efficient cause - the activity/force that brings about change; formal cause
- the immutable essence or that which a thing strives to become as defined by shape, structure and
especially function; and final cause - the immutable and ultimate purpose of a thing. Aristotle claimed that
a substance undergoes change in order to achieve its essence; thus ‘goodness’ involves movement
toward and ultimate fulfillment or realization of a thing’s final cause. For a rock, it is rockness; a horse,
horseness, and so on. In each case, ‘whatness’ is defined by that thing’s final cause or the highest
function or purpose for which it was designed. For humans, it is perfecting the use of reason; in other
words, becoming more like the Prime Mover. Simply stated, the four self-actualized causes compel all
things - animals, mineral and vegetables - toward perfection limited only by their respective essences.
(See Table B, Aristotle's Doctrine of Becoming Compared to Aquinas Adaptation, page 19). Another,
perhaps more helpful, way to understand Aristotle’s four causes is not to think about them as causes but
as the qualities or attributes a thing has that must be explained in order to truly know it.
Since Aristotle claims that only material substances exist and that there are many different kinds of
material substances, some philosophy professors consider him a monist – only material substance exists
- while others take him to be a pluralist - many different kinds of material substances exist. Contrastingly,
substance dualists believe there are only two kinds of basic substances – mental and material. For
Aristotle, the source of all substances is prime matter - an unknown universal material substance that has
no qualities until combined with a form. Prime matter and primary qualities - pairs of contrary qualities like
hot/cold, wet/dry - combine to form the four basic elements of fire, earth, air and water. Individual objects
or beings arise when formless or quality-less matter is ‘imprinted’ in some unexplained way with a form.
After imprinting, matter and form can no longer exist independently. All substances - living and non-living
things including humans - are teleological systems striving for self-actualization and for whatever
perfection that is allowed by a substance’s particular essence. Artificial things (artifacts) lack an internal
principle of change - they do not have potentiality. Only an outside agent can cause non-natural things to
move or change.
Duns Scotus (1266-1308) criticized Aristotle’s theory of natural place and motion calling it
‘necessitarianism’ as it denies volition and does not account for observed differences in the strengths of
individual wills or intelligence. He argued that the essence of human substance must comprise many
‘forms’ of which the faculty of volition is one and the element of ‘thisness’ or individuality is another. By
not limiting essence to a single form and by elevating the principle of individuation (thisness) to the status
of a separate form distinct from the form of humanness, Scotus provides a mechanism that explains
person-to-person differences in willing and intelligence.
Without diminishing the significant contributions to the history of thought made by Aristotle as well as
Plato, it seems clear that both of them created metaphysical versions of the old mythological themes. For
example, Cosmic Oneness and formless beings became the Good or Prime Mover; emanations became
levels of awareness and levels of reality or teleological systems, emulation and potentiality. For sure, they
attempted to remove mythos from their thinking but they were successful only to the extent that they
detected it. As with the pre-Socratics before them, they too grew up in societies shaped by myth. So,
while we should be impressed by what they did contribute to our knowledge and understanding of the
world, we should not allow their primitive views to unduly influence us today especially in light of how
much more we, even as lay persons, know about the way the world really works.
VIII) Hellenistic Age and the Romans (323 BCE-476 CE)
There were a few interesting developments in cosmology during the Hellenistic age, a period that begins
with the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE and ends with the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30
BCE. For example: around 240 BCE, Eratosthenes confirmed the spherical shape of the earth based on
his observations and calculations and he was the first to estimate the earth’s circumference and axis tilt.
(The earth’s circumference is 24,902 miles; by some accounts, Eratosthenes estimated it to be roughly
25,714 miles, an error of only 3%.) Around 280 BCE, Aristarchus correctly claimed that the sun is at the
center of our planetary system; yet, Aristotle’s geocentric model prevailed for another ~1600 years, albeit
with some improvements by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE. Aristarchus also connected the cyclic nature
of our seasons to the earth’s yearly rotation around the sun, and our day-night cycles to the earth’s daily
rotation on its axis. By the way, around 499 CE, an Indian astronomer proposed the same heliocentric
model of the solar system presciently specifying that planets follow elliptical orbits in their rotations
around the sun.
In the main, the Romans lacked interest in theoretical science preferring instead to develop syntheses of
the best of Greek thought and to work on political, military, engineering and architectural projects. They
were not very good theorist but they were especially good at governance, winning wars and building
things. However, in the 2nd century, Ptolemy (circa 100-170), a Greek-Roman citizen of Alexandria,
made changes to Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe. Unfortunately, he perpetuated earlier errors
by adding more ‘wheels inside wheels’ (epicycles and deferents) and he continued to show celestial
bodies rotating around the earth in their own spheres at different speeds and radii. But because of its
greater predictive capability, it became the standard for more than thirteen hundred years before being
shown to be wrong.
IX) Historical Overview of the European Middle Ages (5th-15th Centuries)
The period in European history now known as the Middle Ages begins with the collapse of the western
half of the Roman Empire in 476 and ends with the fall of the eastern half of the Roman Empire
(Byzantine Empire) in 1453. (Some historians set the end date to coincide with the onset of the Italian
Renaissance in the 15th century.) Although the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire continued to thrive as a
powerful economic, cultural and military force, the western half of the empire disintegrated. The ensuing
period, known as the Early Middle Ages or Dark Ages (5th-10th centuries), suffered a loss in centralized
government, deurbanization and constant warfare as well as a decline in population, reduced trade and a
dearth of scholarly work. The only remaining unifying forces were tribal loyalty, military might and
Christianity - Catholic and Arian.
Although Arianism spread throughout the mostly pagan Germanic tribes, a new convert to Catholicism,
Clovis (466-511), unified all the warring Frankish tribes in 509. Thereafter, a long line of Christian kings
ruled the Franks during almost 500 years of cultural decline. Western Europe experienced a brief respite
during the reign of Charlemagne (circa 747-814), the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. He, along
with a Catholic cleric Alcuin (732-804), brought about a revival of culture and learning centered in
Aachen (a city southwest of Cologne). This short-lived cultural renewal, known as the Carolingian
Renaissance, was an emphatically Christian renaissance. It helped bring the Arian-leaning Frankish
Church more in line with the Catholic Church in Rome which was becoming politically powerful in much of
Europe. It also began the transformation to manorial feudalism. While the Holy Roman Empire lasted until
1806, Carolingian influence and political unity declined in the 10th century, yet religious unity lasted until
the Reformation. Furthermore, as we shall see, the cultural and economic story during the remaining five
centuries of the Medieval period was a mix of prosperity and decline.
During the High Middle Ages (11th-13th centuries) the Catholic Church reached the peak of its political
power and influence. The first universities were established, intellectual, spiritual and artistic works were
produced, and many scholars turned away from Plato to Aristotle for more worldly answers to theological
and philosophical questions. Also, a rapid increase in population greatly improved the economy.
However, in the Late Middle Ages (14th and 15th centuries), the people of Europe experienced famines,
plagues, religious upheavals, peasant uprisings and economic stagnation. As a result, populations
decreased and centuries of prosperity came to an end. Despite these calamities and political instability,
much of the cultural progress achieved during the High Middle Ages survived and scholarly work
continued in the universities although participation was limited to clergy and aristocrats.
Finally. unlike today’s trivial and frivolous versions, astrology, alchemy and natural magic flourished as
serious areas of study during the European Middle Ages. Also, the ancient notion of a sympathetic union
with the One, now taken to be the Christian God, was ever present in Medieval occultism - the belief in
hidden or secret explanations and meaning available only to those who can access the mysterious and
supernatural. Occultism survives today in most religions as well as in the belief that we live in a unified
and meaningful cosmos, and in the belief that there is “something more” out there which will, if found, fill
one’s life with meaning. As to the latter, this transcendent impulse is common among lapsed Christians
and Jews who describe their need for “something more” in ambiguous subjective terms using the popular
catch-all word spiritual. While “something more” and spiritual are not objectively defined and will likely
remain forever elusive, the need and the search continues. There have always been, and probably
always will be, people who believe in a transcendent source of messages that reference holy books,
provide moral guidance, or give meaningful answers to life’s problems.
Even today, occultists and their modern counterpart, new age spiritualist, continue to: look for hidden
sources of knowledge beyond what can be observed; seek new ways to connect with nature, god or the
Ultimate Whatever; and they continue to think that supernatural and/or mysterious forces, or at least
something non-physical, will explain what science has yet to explain and even provide them with a
meaning for life. Whether you believe this mindset is helpful for a modern lay person or scientist to have
or not, clearly, occultism powered the study of natural philosophy in Medieval times. Moreover, in varying
degrees and expression, it was a factor driving the work of Copernicus, Newton and almost everybody in
between during the Scientific Revolution. Much more needs to be said about the philosophy and theology
of the Middle Ages beyond what this brief overview captures so let us go back to the beginning of the
period.
X) Neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism as Authoritative Sources in the Medieval Europe
Saint Augustine (354-430) taught that the Bible should be interpreted in accordance with the received
wisdom from authoritative sources. For Medieval theologians this was initially and primarily neo-Platonism
and Aristotelian logic but also, much later, Aristotle’s metaphysics and natural philosophy. At various
times during the Middle Ages, neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism stood in conflict with one another but for
the most part, the intellectual foundation for Christianity primarily rests on a Christianized synthesis of the
two. Drawing on this intellectual foundation, they:
1. Took the Good and to a lesser extent the Prime Mover to be God.
2. Sided with Plato in believing that the world is not eternal and that it was created by a single being out
of preexisting matter; however, the Christian church would eventually declare creation ex nihilo to be
dogma.
3. Understood the Christian creation story in terms of Plato and Aristotle’s cosmologies as modified by
Ptolemy.
4. Interpreted Plato’s creation account to mean the world was intelligently designed by an eternal good
creator who is pleased with his creation.
5. Believed the Forms and the formal cause to be metaphors for Jesus Christ.
6. Took the Demiurge and the efficient cause to be God in the form of the Holy Spirit operating in the
world.
7. Transformed Plato’s theory of knowledge into the Beatific Vision. If one truly knows what it means to
be righteous they will behave righteously becomes, once one beholds God in heaven they are no
longer capable of evil.
8. Developed Aristotle’s concepts of form and matter, substance and accident into technical theological
descriptions that distinguish God, human beings and other beings from one another.
Many modern theologians argue today, as the Carthaginian theologian, Tertullian (~160-230) did almost
2000 years ago, that it is a mistake to justify Christian dogma using the received wisdom of the Greek
philosophers. Christianity needs no justification, faith and the Bible are sufficient for belief. Tertullian may
have carried his faith too far saying: “Credo quia absurdum” –“I believe that which is absurd.” Even
though he knew about the many Greek accomplishments and that the Greeks were admired throughout
the Mediterranean World, Tertullian rejected all their philosophy believing it was pagan doctrine and that it
was made obsolete by the Gospels. In any case, the early Church Fathers did seek intellectual
justification for their beliefs in Greek philosophy, primarily neo-Platonism and Aristotelianism.
Augustine drew primarily on neo-Platonism to develop his theology. His conception of evil as a lack, an
incompleteness, as less real comes from the Simile of the Line. Things that are most real are good while
the least real are evil, and there are gradations; the more real a thing is, the more goodness it has. The
less real a thing is, the worse it is. In this context, sin is not a thing, it is an absence of goodness; that is,
living a life without God. Since the mortal body is less real than the immortal soul, the body is evil and the
soul is good. So it follows that the needs of the body - food, sleep, merriment and sex - are bad or at least
subservient to the needs of the soul – spiritual nourishment, eternal salvation and a reunion with the
ultimate Good, God.
Augustine had no use for Aristotelianism which is not surprising as many of Aristotle’s views are
in obvious conflict with basic Christian theology, for example: 1) The universe is eternal - there was no
creation. 2) While the Good and Christian God are outside of time, the Prime Mover is within time. 3) The
Prime Mover is indifferent to human affairs as he cannot contemplate anything inferior to himself. He
doesn't even know we exist - no personal God. 3) The soul is not immortal. 4) The goal of life is
happiness. 5) Pride is a virtue and humility is a vice.
Although Aristotle’s ideas were initially eclipsed by neo-Platonism, his work did reach the Medieval mind
and eventually influence Christian thinking. Consider the following: Boethius (480-525) translated the
works of Aristotle and other Greeks into Latin and he was the first to bring attention to the problem of
seeing universals or Plato’s Forms as real things. Moreover, his translations and commentaries were
nearly all that was known about Greek philosophy beyond neo-Platonism. Thierry of Chartres (circa
1100-1156) rewrote Plato’s Timaeus in Christian terms. The Demiurge became God the Father (creator)
and the Holy Spirit (sustainer); the Forms became Jesus, the Word and son of God. Just as the Forms
and matter are coeternal with the Demiurge, Jesus is coeternal with God the creator and sustainer.
Jesus is that through which all things are made; in this sense, he takes on the same role as the Forms.
Thierry also Christianized Aristotle’s theory of change applying it to the Holy Trinity and the basic
elements. The efficient cause is God the Father, the unknowable creator; the formal cause is God the
Son, the model for what we strive to become; the final cause is God the Holy Spirit, the knowable
sustainer and it is through His operation in the world that we come to know God; the material cause(s)
is/are fire, water, air and earth which were still accepted as the four basic elements in the 12th century.
Albertus Magnus (circa 1200–1280) wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s work and his student, Thomas
Aquinas, Christianized Aristotle’s ideas. Since Aquinas’ writings became the standard Christian
philosophy of the high and late middle ages, his views will be covered separately in Section XI;
Duns Scotus (circa 1266-1308) was critical of Aristotle’s theory of motion. He deemed it
‘necessitarianism’ because it did not account for observed individual differences in strengths of will or
intelligence. He argued that the essence of human substance must be composed of many forms including
a form for the faculty of volition and a form for the element of ‘thisness’ or individuality. While Aristotle
confined the principle of individuation (thisness) to matter, Scotus elevated it to the status of a separate
form distinct from the form of humanness. In so doing, he accounted for individual differences in willing
and intelligence; William of Ockham (circa 1280-1349) formulated some of Aristotle and Boethius’ ideas
into a Doctrine of Nominalism to counter the Platonists’ view known as realism.
XI) Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Aristotelianism in the European Middle Ages
The hostility of early Christianity toward pagan philosophers, especially Aristotle, was ever present during
most of the Medieval period. It continued into the 12th century but began to change when Aristotle’s thisworldly views were seen to be more in-tune with the times. Aquinas must have understood this because
he took on the challenge of reconciling Aristotle’s ideas with Christian beliefs. His commentaries on
Aristotle's work were held in such esteem that Aristotle became known simply as ‘The Philosopher’.
Dante called Aristotle the “master knower” and in the Divine Comedy, he placed him in Limbo with the
good pagans along with Socrates and Plato. Aquinas believed that: faith-based truth complements the
truth found in reason; we can come to know God and His existence through our knowledge of the world;
and the existence of God can be proven using some of Aristotle’s ideas.
Ever since St. Augustine, Church leaders and theologians believed that natural philosophy should be in
the service of religion; so, it is not surprising that natural law became synonymous with God’s law. Also,
during the High and Late Middle Ages, all schools were affiliated with religious institutions which explains
why educated men and women continued the Augustinian tradition of reconciling new findings with the
Bible. However, as more of the classical Greek philosophers’ work became available, a tension
developed between faith and reason. Aquinas addressed this problem by stating that truth is attained
using logic, reason and revelation. As such, there should be no conflict between natural philosophy and
revelation. Both express the same truth arrived at differently. He goes on to say that revelation, when
supported by reason, gives us certain knowledge but not all revealed truth can be supported by reason.
This means some revelation must be accepted on faith alone until natural philosophy produces the
inevitable support. Clearly, Aquinas believed revelation trumps natural philosophy; but, he did not appear
to support “blind faith” which restricts adherents to a literal reading of the Bible, even when doing so goes
against established science.
According to Aquinas, certainty is attained when natural philosophy and revelation come to the same
conclusion. This certain knowledge is what he called natural theology which is illustrated in the Venn
diagram below by the darker blue of the overlapped ellipses.
Natural
Philosophy
(Natural Law)
+
+
Natural
Philosophy
(Natural Law)
+
Revealed
Theology
+
(Divine
Law)
= Eternal Law
Revealed
Theology
(Divine Law)
Natural
Theology
(Certainty)
What did Aquinas see in Aristotle’s work that could make a contribution to Christianity? The answer lies in
his Doctrine of Becoming (Four Causes) and his division of substance on which Aquinas’ God proofs rely.
However, contrary to the popular view, Anthony Flew in A Dictionary of Philosophy (pages 121 and 122)
says: “Aquinas does not set out to prove God created the world only that He sustains it as an efficient
cause”. In fact, Aquinas argues that it is not illogical to believe, as did Aristotle, that the Universe had no
beginning. Furthermore, he points out that the argument claiming that there must have been an uncaused
First Cause is self-contradictory. If everything must be caused, how can there be something uncaused it’s not consistent, thus not logical. Moreover, Aquinas’ own argument can be used to defeat his proof for
sustaining efficient causes. He knew that a sustaining efficient cause also requires an antecedent cause,
a First Efficient Cause or something that is its own reason for being. So while both arguments are easily
refutable, Aquinas assumes the existence of God, as Aristotle assumed the existence of a Prime Mover,
to avoid what appears to be an inescapable infinite casual regress. Aquinas’ does support his assumption
with a proof but it is a tautology – a proof that is essentially definitional in that the predicate is contained in
the subject. The attributes or properties an efficient first cause must have are affirmed by convention to
be the attributes and properties of God. Finally, keep in mind that while Aquinas ultimately takes God to
be the creator of the universe, Aristotle believes the universe always existed.
Aquinas builds on Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality as applied to an analysis of substance
in terms of the four causes operating within a self-contained teleological system as illustrated in Table B
below:
Table B
Aristotle's Doctrine of Becoming (Theory of Change)
Compared to Aquinas Adaptation
Aristotle
Material The stuff out of which things are made. The
cause most fundamental stuff is matter in which a
thing’s ‘thisness’ or principle of individuation is
found. Matter is reinterpreted as potentiality.
Efficient The activity, force or drive that actualizes and
cause sustains a substance’s potentiality. Nature is
an overriding guiding principle for the motion
of all things which strive to be in their natural
place, actualized.
Formal The thing a substance strives to become
cause which is to fulfill its actuality. Actuality is found
in the essence or ‘whatness’ of a substance.
Essence or form is reinterpreted as actuality.
Final
The ultimate purpose of a substance which is
cause to become fully actualized or achieve
perfection within the limits of its essence. For
humans, it is perpetual contemplation in
pursuit of knowledge.
Aquinas
A change in matter (‘thisness”) is deemed
accidental as it does not cause a change in
a thing’s essence.
Even though no cause can be found in the
observable world that is the efficient cause
of itself, God is the name everyone gives to
the First Efficient Cause.
A change in form (‘whatness’) is deemed
substantial because it would be a cause
that changes the very essence of what a
thing is.
The attainment of full and final knowledge
of God which can only be achieved in
death by participating in the Beatific Vision.
XII) The Arab Contribution to Medieval Scholarship
As stated earlier, few scientific advances were made in Christendom during the period from 476 to around
1000. Although much scholarly work was done during the Carolingian Renaissance, it was done primarily
to answer theological questions rather than to advance science. Things began to change around the year
1200 because Latin translations of Greek and Arabic texts, brought into Western Europe by merchants
and Muslims via Spain and Byzantium, became available to scholars. In addition, the Greek manuscripts
that were preserved in monasteries after the fall of Rome were also being translated into Latin. Still
another source of information came later from the many scholars who left Constantinople after the
Ottoman Turk conquest in 1453.
The availability of all this knowledge from antiquity and the development of it by the Arabs had an
immediate impact on intellectuals in Europe. In particular, it deepened the interest in science of Robert
Grosseteste (1168–1253), a Franciscan bishop and the first chancellor of the University of Oxford. Along
with his student Roger Bacon (1220–1292), a Franciscan friar, they became advocates for teaching
Greek natural philosophy in the universities of the Christian world. Also, Bacon’s use of mathematics and
experimentation in studying science was instrumental in the development of the scientific method which is
so important to our search for knowledge. Even so, changes in cosmology would have to wait two
hundred years. Why? Historians give two reasons for the delay: 1) the Black Death (1334-1354) killed
three-quarters of the population of Asia and Europe; and 2) Church teaching and influence - the
Ptolemaic earth-centered model of the universe was consistent with the Bible and refuting it was
considered heretical.
While I have not delved deeply into the specific contributions made to Western Culture and knowledge by
the Islamic world, suffice it to say that they built extensively on the scientific and mathematical
foundations taken from the Greeks and they passed this knowledge on to the scholars of Europe. Given
these contributions and our shared Abrahamic spiritual tradition, it is not unreasonable to conceive of the
modern West in terms of its Greek, Latin and Arabic foundations. Today, the latter is insufficiently
acknowledged; however, during the Middle Ages, all three cultures played a role in: 1) greatly increasing
the availability, albeit only to the rich initially, of scientific, medical and technical knowledge; 2) posing
new astronomical questions which they understood to be problems but were unable to answer; and 3)
developing schools to study all the newly available information. In the Latin world, monastic and cathedral
schools developed along the Roman model and eventually grew into universities. The universities served
as depositories of knowledge and they fostered a disputative method of inquiry known as Scholasticism.
In the Islamic world, mosques and madrasas (schools) were centers of learning.
XIII) Biblical Truth, Science as ‘Priestcraft’ and the Etymology of God
History tells us that the elimination of mythical thinking has neither been easy nor has it been completely
successful. Why? In a word, temperament. Also, the worldview that includes idealism, spiritualism and
supernaturalism has a powerful ally, the Church. Recall that beginning with Saint Augustine the Church
Fathers have held that every effort should be made to reconcile the Bible’s intended meaning with natural
philosophy. When agreement is not possible, Biblical truth holds until it is. However, since God’s word is
believed to be the higher authority, there is a presumption that reconciliation will always, even if a long
way off, uphold Church dogma but not necessarily doctrine or theology. Underlying the Church’s
confidence in this view is the belief that science is in the service of religion. During the medieval period,
most natural philosophers accepted this view along with neo-Pythagoreanism. So, when Galileo (15641642) claimed that “nature is the book of God” written in the language of mathematics it was not a big
surprise.
In Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition, Darren Staloff tells us: “Galileo is saying that in
effect, nature is God’s second revelation and that science is a sort of ‘priestcraft’ which reveals to us
God’s will in mathematical formulas with which his creation is embodied”. While God’s word and
mathematics were at the center of their knowledge quest, the axioms derived from the Classics and
deductive reasoning were not. However, toward the end of the Late Middle Ages, the received intellectual
authority enjoyed by classical philosophers and theologians was being replaced by inductive reasoning
based on evidence derived from experience. Even so, natural philosophers continued to believe they
were doing God’s work, that natural laws were put in place by God and that these laws work in
accordance with God’s design. This remained the dominate worldview in the western world until around
the middle of the 19th Century.
Interestingly, if we remove the central role of God from the thinking of the medieval natural philosophers,
we are left with the idea that the universe is governed by natural laws which are discoverable with the use
of reason. Recall that this idea was first postulated by the pre-Socratics who attempted to identify the
fundamental principles that would be self-evident to adherents of the two worldviews discussed in Section
IV. As we have seen, the Greeks, Latins, Arabs and indeed all civilizations have been unsuccessful in
their search for knowledge about which all would agree. Why? Again, in a word, temperament.
Another less understood obstacle standing in the way of agreement is etymological confusion. In their
quest for first principles, the Greeks used the term theos (god) when referring to that which is the ultimate
stuff or explanation as well as that which is beyond our ability to know. Although theos is the Greek word
for god, clearly, the Ancient Greeks defined god in metaphysical rather than theological terms. They took
god to be an attribute or predicate not a being or subject. So they did not, as we do today, assert the
existence of god and then identify his attributes. Instead, they identified what they believed to be
everlasting, more than human or awe inspiring attributes, and then, whatever being, power or force they
found in nature that had these attributes, they called it theos, a god. Whereas we may say God is an
unseen force, God is love or God is the ultimate whatever, the Ancient Greeks would have said an
unseen force is theos, love is theos or the ultimate whatever is theos.
In A Dictionary of Philosophy, Anthony Flew says: “the term [theos] was commonly used in [Greek]
philosophy to refer to the ultimate ground or explanation of all things.” I believe it is this metaphysical
meaning that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) had in mind when he proclaimed “God is dead”. He was
referring to god in the Greek epistemological sense. What is dead, is theos, the belief that absolute
certain knowledge is attainable. Nevertheless, because of the Christianization of Greek Philosophy during
the Middle Ages, the modern meaning of theos/god is etymologically linked to theology and religion. For
example, consider this connotation of theos in the Judeo-Christian definition of God: God is a Supreme
Being having two paradoxical attributes, essence and actions. God’s essence is unknowable yet he
makes himself known by his actions or operations in the world. With this definition of God, Theos has
become a being rather than an attribute, a subject rather than a predicate.
XIV) Logocentrism and Its Detractors
Thinking that there is a logos, a God, gods, an ultimate substance or that there are first principles (arche)
discoverable out there or within ourselves has inspired philosophers, theologians and scientists
throughout history. For example, in the Republic, Plato posits Forms as the logos of the really real; in the
Gospel of John, John depicts Jesus as the logos of a moral life; with Rene’ Descartes (1596-1650), the
logos turns inward and becomes the cogito (“I think therefore I am”); for John Locke (1632-1704), natural
law is logos; G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) believes only ideas exist so he takes Idea with a capital “I” to be
logos; and in modern physics, the search for a theory of everything is the ultimate expression of logocentric thinking.
However, not all modern philosophers embrace Logocentrism - a term coined by Ludwig Klages in the
1920s to signify logo-centric thinking as a “structure” underlying metaphysics. Chief among the critics of
Logocentrism is the father of Deconstruction, Jacques Derrida (1939-2004). He rejects the binary nature
of logo-centric thinking because it privileges one of two related terms over the other; that is, it sees one
term to be closer to the logos and the other as something less. For instance: being over becoming, Form
over matter, mind over body, rationalism over empiricism and vice versa, reason over emotion and lately
emotion over reason. Derrida believes Logocentrism is restrictive as it often freezes or seeks to freeze the
logos of truth and meaning in a world where metaphysical certainty seems to be beyond our reach. In
linguistic terms, we seek certainty in a transcendental signified (meaning) so that all signifiers (words) can
refer back to it and forever fix meaning for everything. Since this is not possible, we end up in a state of
suspension which the Greeks called aporia - waylessness. Derrida accepts this suspended state, in which
truth and meaning are deferred, as unavoidable so he argues for a positive adaptation of aporia. An
adaptation that: 1) joyously affirms an attitude of playfulness toward the world; 2) basks in the innocence
of becoming; and 3) frees us from fixed beliefs and origins. In other words, aporia is good as it opens our
minds to endless metaphysical and scientific possibilities, and it avoids the guilt some feel because they
cannot find meaning in their lives.
The Pragmatist, Richard Rorty (1931-2007), continues this theme with his controversial take on the
contingency of truth and traditional philosophy. Essentially, in recognition of philosophy’s failure to solve
the perennial problems over the last ~2500 years, he tried to reconstitute it as a discipline engaged in
“edifying pragmatic discourse” with the purpose of showing how our actions, our institutions and our
descriptions of things hang together or coalesce. He was not concerned with reaching final solutions or
offering an epistemological foundation for his perspective. Rorty believed that edifying philosophical
discourse should be pursued for its own sake.