EarlyGreekPhilosophers
.pdf
School
Colorado Technical University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
PSYC MISC
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 15, 2024
Pages
34
Uploaded by ProfessorGalaxyCat75
Warning Concerning Copyright Restrictions The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the reproduction of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are permitted to furnish a reproduction if used for “private study, scholarship or research.” A second condition is that only single articles or chapters of a work totaling no more than 15% of the total number of pages be reproduced. Any use of a reproduction that exceeds these guidelines may be considered copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse any request for reproduction that is deemed a violation of current copyright guidelines. This material has been reproduced from the following source: Date prepared: This material is presented for use solely by authorized faculty and students of the Pennsylvania State University. Further reproduction or distribution of this material is expressly prohibited. This material may be made available in alternative media upon request. Please contact Course Reserves Services at libraryreserves@psu.edu or by phone at (814) 863-0324. If you are experiencing problems viewing or printing this document, please visit http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/reserves/usingereserves.html for troubleshooting information. If further assistance is required, please send a description of the problem to libraryreserves@psu.edu that includes the course and instructor for which the material is on reserve, as well as the title of the material.
The Early Greek Philosophers The World of Precivilized Humans Imagine living about 15,000 years ago. What would your life be like? It seems safe to say that in your life-time you would experience most of the following: lightning, thunder, rainbows, the phases of the moon, death, birth, illness, dreams (including night-mares), meteorites, eclipses of the sun or moon, and perhaps one or more earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, or volcanic eruptions. Because these events would touch your life directly, it seems natu-ral that you would want to account for them in some way, but how? Many of these events-for example, lightning-cannot be explained by the average citi-zen even today. But we have faith that scientists can explain such events, and we are comforted and less fearful. However, as an early human, you would have no such scientific knowledge available. As men-tioned in the previous Chapter, thoughtful humans have always made empirical observations and then attempted to explain those observations. Although observation and explanation became key compo-nents of science, the explanations early humans offered were anything but scientific. Animism and Anthropomorphism Humans' earliest attempts to explain natural events involved projecting human attributes onto nature. For example, the sky or earth could become angry or could be tranquil, just as a human could. Looking at all of nature as though it were alive is called ani-mism, and the projection of human attributes onto nature is called anthropomorphism; both were involved in early attempts to make sense out of life (Cornford, 1957; Murray, 1955). Early humans made no distinctions between animate (living) and 26 inanimate objects or between material and immate-rial things. Another approach used to explain the world assumed that a ghost or spirit dwelt in everything, including humans, and that these spirits were as real as anything else. The events in both nature and human conduct were explained as the whims of the spirits that resided in everything. The word spirit is derived from the Latin word for "breath" (Hulin, 1934, p. 7). Breath (later spirit, soul, psyche, or ghost) is what gives things life, and when it leaves a thing, death results. This vital spirit can sometimes leave the body and return, as was assumed to be the case in dreaming. Also, because one can dream of or think of a person after his or her biological death, it was assumed that the person must still exist, for it was believed that if something could be thought of, it must exist (reification). With this logic, anything the mind could conjure up was assumed to be real; therefore, imagination and dreams provided an array of demons, spirits, monsters, and (later) gods, who lurked behind all natural events. Magic Because an array of spirits with human qualities was believed to exist, attempting to communicate with the spirits and otherwise influence them seemed a natural impulse. If, for example, a spirit was provid-ing too much or too little rain, humans made attempts to persuade the spirit to modify its influ-ence. Similarly, a sick person was thought to be pos-sessed by an evil spirit, which had to be coaxed to leave the body or driven out. Elaborate methods, called magic, evolved that were designed to influ-ence the spirits. People believed that appropriate words, objects, ceremonies, or human actions could
influence the spirits. As rudimentary as these beliefs were, they at least gave early humans the feeling that they had some control over their fate. Humans have always needed to understand, pre-dict, and control nature. Animism, anthropomor-phism, magic, religion, philosophy, and science can all be seen as efforts to satisfy those needs. Water-field (2000) elaborates this point: All systems of belief evolve to elucidate the order of things and to make sense of the world. In this sense, science is just as much a myth as anything else; it is a framework or model designed to explain and form reality for those people who accept it-that is, for those people who voluntarily become members of that society-and for only as long as there are enough people to accept it. If this is so, then so far from banishing gods, science has merely been the matrix for a new generation of scientific gods, children of the old gods. (p. xxxii) Early Greek Religion In the fifth and sixth centuries B.C., the Greeks' explanations of things were still predominately reli-gious in nature. There were two major theologies to choose from: the Olympian and the Dionysiac-Orphic. Olympian religion consisted of a belief in the Olympian gods as described in the Homeric poems. The gods depicted typically showed little concern with the anxieties of ordinary humans. Instead, they tended to be irascible, amoral, and lit-tle concerned with the immortality of humans. Within Olympian religion, it was believed that the "breath-soul" did survive death, but did so without any of the memories or personality traits of the per-son whose body it had occupied. Such a belief con-cerning life after death encouraged living one's life in the fullest, most enjoyable way. Typically, the ideal life was seen as involving the pursuit of glory through the performance of noble deeds: "In the thought of glory most Greeks found a consolation for the shadowy doom which awaited them in the grave" (Bowra, 1957, p. 51). The Olympian gods also personified orderliness and rationality and val-ued intelligence. In short, the Olympian gods tended to have the same characteristics and beliefs The Early Greek Philosophers 2 7 as the members of the Greek upper class; it hardly seems surprising that the Greek nobility favored the Olympian religion. The major alternative to Olympian religion was Dionysiac-Orphic religion. The wealthy Greek upper class was made possible, to a large extent, by a large class of peasants, laborers, and slaves whose lives were characterized by economic and political uncertainty. To these relatively poor, uneducated individuals, the Dionysiac-Orphic religion was most appealing. The Dionysiac-Orphic religion was based on the legend of Dionysus, the god of wine and frenzy, and his disciple Orpheus. Central to Dionysiac-Orphic religion was the belief in the transmigration of the soul. One version of this belief was that during its divine existence, at which time it dwelled among the gods, the soul had com-mitted a sin; as punishment, the soul was locked into a physical body, which acted as its prison. Until the soul was redeemed, it continued a "circle of births," whereby it might find itself first inhabiting a plant, then an animal, then a human, then a p !ant again, and so on. What the soul longed for was its liberation from this transmigration and a return to its divine, pure, transcendent life among the gods. The rites that were practiced in hopes of freeing the soul from its prison (the body) included fasting, spe-cial diets, dramatic ceremonies, and various taboos. Later in history, the Orphic idea that the soul seeks to escape its contaminated, earthly existence and enter into a more heavenly state following death gained enormous popularity and indeed became an integral part of the Judeo-Christian heritag.o. In their efforts to make sense out of themselves and their world, the early Greeks had the Olympian and Dionysiac-Orphic religions from which to choose. Then, as now, which type of explanations individuals found congenial was as much a matter of temperament and circumstances as it was a matter of rational deliberation. As we will see next, many of the first Greek philosophers leaned toward the relative rationality of Olympian religion. A few highly influential philosophers, however, embraced the mysticism of Dionysiac-Orphic religion; Pythagoras and Plato are two prominent examples.
28 Chapter 2 The First Philosophers Magic, superstition, and mysticism, in one fonn or another, dominated attempts to understand nature for most of early history. It was therefore a monu-mental step in human thought when natural expla-nations were offered instead of supernatural ones. Such explanations, although understandably simple, were first offered by the early Greeks. Philosophy (literally, the love of knowledge or wisdom) began when natural explanations (logos) replaced super-natural ones (mythos). Waterfield (2000) uses Kuhn-ian terminology to describe the importance of this development: "The presocratic revolution was a genuine revolution-a paradigm shift of the first importance" (p. xxiii). The first philosophers were called cosmologists because they sought to explain the origin, the structure, and the processes govern-ing the cosmos (universe). However, the Greek word kosmos not only referred to the totality of things but also suggested an elegant, ordered uni-verse. The aesthetic aspect of the meaning of the term kosmos is reflected in the English word cos-metic. Thus, to the early Greek cosmologists, the universe was ordered and pleasant to contemplate. The assumption of orderliness was extremely impor-tant because an orderly universe is, at least in prin-ciple, an explicable universe. Thales As noted in Chapter 1, seldom, if ever, is an idea born fully developed by a single individual. Thales (ca. 625-547 B.C.), often referred to as the first philosopher, had a rich, intellectual heritage. He traveled to Egypt and Babylonia, both of which enjoyed advanced civilizations that no doubt influ-enced him. For example, the Egyptians had pos-sessed for centuries the knowledge of geometry that Thales demonstrated. In Egypt and Babylonia, how-ever, knowledge was either practical (geometry was used to lay out the fields for farming) or was used pri-marily in a religious context (anatomy and physiol-ogy were used to prepare the dead for their journey into the next world). Thales was important because he emphasized natural explanations and minimized supernatural ones. That is, in his cosmology, Thales said that things in the universe consist of natural substances and are governed by natural principles; they do not reflect the whims of the gods. The uni-verse is therefore knowable and within the realm of human understanding. Thales searched for that one substance or ele-ment from which everything else is derived. The Greeks called such a primary element or substance a physis, and those who sought it were physicists. Physicists to this day are searching for the "stuff' from which everything is made. Thales concluded that the physis was water because many things seem to be a form of water. Life depends on water, water exists in many forms (such as ice, steam, hail, snow, clouds, fog, and dew), and some water is found in everything. This conclusion that water is the pri-mary substance had considerable merit. The most important of Thales' views is his state-ment that the world is made of water. This is nei-ther so far fetched as at first glance it might appear, nor yet a pure figment of imagination cut off from observation. Hydrogen, the stuff that generates water, has been held in our time to be the chemical element from which all other elements can be syn-thesized. The view that all matter is one is quite a reputable scientific hypothesis. As for observation, the proximity of the sea makes it more than plausi-ble that one should notice that the sun evaporates water, that inists rise from the su1face to form clouds, which dissolve again in the form of rain. The earth in this view is a form of concentrated water. The details might thus be. fanciful enough, but it is still a handsome feat to have discovered that a substance remains the same in different states ofaggregation. (Russell, 1959, pp. 16-17) Besides this achievement, Thales also predicted eclipses, developed methods of navigation based on the stars and planets, and applied geometric princi-ples to the measurement of such things as the heights of buildings. He is even said to have cor-nered the market on olive oil by predicting weather patterns. Such practical accomplishments brought great fame to Thales and respectability to philoso-phy. Thales showed that a knowledge of nature, which minimized supernaturalism, could provide
power over the environment, something humans had been seeking since the dawn of history. Perhaps the most important thing about Thales, however, was the fact that he offered his ideas as speculations and he welcomed criticism. With his invitation for others to criticize and improve on his teachings, Thales started the critical tradition that was to characterize early Greek philosophy: "I like to think that Thales was the first teacher who said to his students: 'This is how I see things-how I believe that things are. Try to improve upon my teaching"'(Poppet, 1958, p. 29). We will come back to the importance of this critical tradition later in this chapter. Anaximander Anaximander (ca. 610-547 B.C.), who studied with Thales, argued that even water was a compound of more basic material. (Notice that Anaximander took the advice of his teacher and criticized him.) According to Anaximander, the physis was some· thing that had the capability of becoming anything. This something he called the "boundless" or the "indefinite." Anaximander also proposed a rudimen· tary theory of evolution. From a mixture of hot water and earth, there arose fish. Because human infants cannot survive without a long period of pro· tection, the first human infants grew inside these fish until puberty, at which time the carrier fish burst and humans who were developed enough to survive on their own emerged. Anaximander urged us not to eat fish because they are, in a sense, our mothers and fathers. We can see how the physical environment can influence one's philosophizing. Both Thales and Anaximander lived near the shores of the Mediterranean sea, and its influence on their philosophies is obvious. Heraclitus Impressed by the fact that everything in nature seemed to be in a constant state of flux, or change, Heraclitus (ca. 540-480 B.C.) assumed fire to be the physis because in the presence of fire everything is transformed into something else. To Heraclitus, the The Early Greek Philosophers 29 overwhelming fact about the world was that nothing ever "is"; rather, everything is "becoming." Nothing is either hot or cold but is becoming hotter or colder; nothing is fast or slow but is becoming faster or slower. Heraclitus' position is summarized in his famous statement: "It is impossible to step twice into the same river" (Waterfield, 2000, p. 41). Heraclitus meant that the river becomes something other than what it was when it was first stepped into. Heraclitus believed that all things existed some-where between polar opposites-for example, night-day, life-death, winter-summer, up-down, heat-cold, sleeping-waking. For him, one end of the pole defined the other, and the two poles were insepara-ble. For example, only through injustice can justice be known, and only through health can illness be known. Heraclitus raised an epistemological question that has persisted to this day: How can something be known if it is constantly changing? If something is different at two points in time, and therefore not really the same object, how can it be known with certainty? Does not knowledge require permanence? It was at this point in history that the senses became a questionable means of acquiring knowledge because they could provide information only about a constantly changing world. In answer to the ques· ti on, What can be known with certainty? empirical events could not be included because they were in a constant state of flux. Those seeking something unchangeable, and thus knowable, had two choices. They could choose something that was real but undetectable by the senses, as the atomists and the Pythagorean mathematicians did (discussed later), or they could choose something mental (ideas or the soul), as the Platonists and the Christians did. Both groups believed that anything experienced through the senses was too unreliable to be known. Even today, the goal of science is to discover general laws that are abstractions derived from sensory experi· ence. Scientific laws as abstractions are thought to be flawless; when manifested in the empirical world, however, they are only probabilistic. Heraclitus' philosophy clearly described the major problem inherent in various brands of empiri· cism. That is, the physical world is in a constant
30 Chapter 2 state of flux, and even if our sense receptors could accurately detect physical objects and events, we would be aware only of objects and events that change from moment to moment. It is for this rea-son that empiricists are said to be concerned with the process of becoming rather than with being. Being implies permanence and thus at least the pos-sibility of certain knowledge, whereas a knowledge of empirical events (because they are becoming) can be only probabilistic at best. Throughout psychol-ogy's history, those claiming that there are certain permanent and therefore knowable things about the universe or about humans have tended to be ratio-nalists. Those saying that everything in the uni-verse, including humans, is constantly changing and thus incapable of being known with certainty have tended to be empiricists. Parmenides Taking a view exactly the opposite of Heraclitus', Parmenides (born ca. 515 B.C.) believed that all change was an illusion. There is only one reality; it is finite, uniform, motionless, and fixed and can be understood only through reason. Thus, for Par-menides, knowledge is attained only through rational thought because sensory experience pro-vides only illusion. Parmenides supported his posi-tion with logic. Like the earliest humans, he believed that being able to speak or think of some-thing implied its existence because we cannot think of something that does not exist (reification). The following is a summary of Parmenides' argument: When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must be of something. Therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves, and since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought or spoken of must exist at all times. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being and ceasing to be. (Russell, 1945, p. 49) Zeno of Elea (ca. 495-430 B.C.), a disciple of Pannenides, used logical arguments to show that motion was an illusion. He said that for an object to go from point A to point B, it must first go half the distance between A and B. Then it must go half the remaining distance, then half of that distance, and so on. Because there is an infinite number of points between any two points, the process can never stop. Also, the object must pass through an infinite mnn· ber of points in a finite amount of time, and this is impossible. Therefore, it is logically impossible for the object ever to reach point B. The fact that it seems to do so is a weakness of the senses. This rea· saning, usually known as Zeno's paradox, is often expressed in the following form: If one runner in a race is allowed to leave slightly before a second run-ner, the second runner can never overtake the first runner, no matter how slow the first runner or how swift the second. We have in Pannenides and Zeno examples of how far unabated reason can take a person. They concluded that either logic, mathematics, and rea-son were correct or the information provided by the senses was; and they opted for logic, mathematics, and reason. The same mistake has been made many times in history. Other misconceptions can result from relying exclusively on sensory data. It was not until science emerged in the 16th century that rationalism and empiricism were wed, and sensory information provided that which was reasoned about. Science therefore minimized the extremes of both rationalism and empiricism. Pythagoras Largely through his influence on Plato, Pythagoras (ca. 580-500 B.C.) has had a significant influence on Western thought. It is said that Pythagoras was the first to employ the tenn philosophy and to refer to himself as a philosopher (Guthrie, 1987, p. 19). Pythagoras postulated that the basic explanation for everything in the universe was found in numbers and in numerical relationships. He noted that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angle triangle is exactly equal to the sum of the squares of its other two sides. Although this came to be called the Pythagorean theorem, it had probably been known to the Babylonians. Pythagoras also observed that a harmonious blending of tone results when one string on a lyre is exactly twice as long as another. This
observation that strings of a lyre must bear certain relationships with one another to produce pleasant, harmonious sounds was, perhaps, psychology's first psychophysical law. Indeed, physical events (rela-tionships between strings on musical instruments) were demonstrated to be systematically related to sychological events (perceived pleasantness of ;ounds). In fact, the Pythagoreans expressed this psychophysical relationship in mathematical terms. Just as pleasant music results from the harmo-nious blending of certain tones, so too does health depend on the harmonious blending of bodily ele-ments. The Pythagoreans thought illness resulted from a disruption of the body's equilibrium, and medical treatment consisted of attempts to restore that equilibrium. (We will see later that the Pythagorean approach to medicine became extremely influential.) Pythagoras took these and several other observations and created a school of thought that glorified mathematics. He and his fol-lowers applied mathematical principles to almost every aspect of human existence, creating "a great muddle of religious mysticism, music, mathematics, medicine, and cosmology" (Esper, 1964, p. 52). According to the Pythagoreans, numbers and numerical relationships, although abstract, were nonetheless real and exerted an influence on the empirical world. The world of numbers existed inde-pendently of the empirical world and could be known in its pure form only through reason. When conceptualized, the Pythagorean theorem is exactly correct and applies to all right-angle triangles that ever were or ever will be. As long as the theorem is applied rationally to imagined triangles, it is flawless; when applied to actual triangles, however, the results are not absolutely conect because there are no per-fect triangles in the empirical world. In fact, accord-ing to the Pythagoreans, nothing is perfect in the empirical world. ·Perfection is found only in the abstract mathematical world that lies beyond the senses and therefore can be embraced only by reason. The Pythagoreans assumed a dualistic universe: one part abstract, permanent, and intellectually knowable (like that proposed by Parmenides) and the other empirical, changing, and known through the senses (like that proposed by Heraclitus). Sen-The Early Greek Philosophers 31 sory experience, then, cannot provide knowledge. In fact, such experience interferes with the attain-ment of knowledge and should be ;woided. This viewpoint grew into outright contempt for sensory experiences and for bodily pleasures, and the Pythagoreans launched a crusade against vice, law-lessness, and bodily excess of any type. Members of this school imposed on themselves long periods of silence to enhance clear, rational thought. More-over, they attempted to cleanse their minds by imposing certain taboos and by hard physical and mental exercise. The taboos included eating flesh and eating beans. Among other things, beans cause excessive flatulence, a condition contrary to the tranquillity of mind necessary for seeking the truth. In a sense, the Pythagoreans introduced an early version of the belief "You are what you eat"; they believed that "each kind of food that is introduced into the human body becomes the cause of a certain peculiar disposition" (Guthrie, 1987, p. 107). The Pythagoreans believed that the universe was characterized by a mathematical harmony and that everything in nature was interrelated. Follow-ing this viewpoint, they encouraged women to join their organization (it was very unusual for Greeks to look upon women as equal to men in any area), argued for the humane treatment of slaves, and, as mentioned, developed medical practices based on the assumption that health resulted from the har-monious workings of the body and illness resulted from some type of imbalance or discord. The belief that experiences of the flesh are infe-rior to those of the mind-a belief that plays such an important role in Plato's theory and is even more important in early Christian theology-can be traced directly to the Pythagoreans. Eventually, Plato became a member of their organization. He based his Academy on Pythagorean concepts, and a sign above the entrance read, "Let no one without an understanding of mathematics enter here." Pythagoras postulated two worlds, one physical and one abstract, the two interacting with one another. Of the two, the abstract was considered the better. Pythagoras also postulated a dualism in humans, claiming that, in addition to the flesh of the body, we have reasoning powers that allow us to
32 Chapter 2 attain an understanding of the abstract world. Fur-thermore, reasoning is a function of the soul, which the Pythagoreans believed to be immortal. Pythago-ras' philosophy provides one of the first clear-cut mind-body dualisms in the history of Western thought. We see many elements in common between Dionysiac-Orphic religion and Pythagorean philos-ophy. Both viewed the body as a prison from which the soul should escape; or, at the very least, the soul should minimize the lusts of the vile body that houses it by engaging in the rational contemplation of unchanging truths. Both accepted the notion of the transmigration of souls, and both believed that only purification could stop the "circle of births." The notion of transmigration fostered in the Pythagoreans a spirit of kinship with all living things. It is for this reason that they accepted women into their organizations, argued for the humane treatment of slaves, and were opposed to the maltreatment of animals. It is said of Pythagoras that "when he passed a puppy that was being whipped . . . he took pity on it and made this remark: 'Stop, do not beat it; for it is the soul of a dear friend"' (Barnes, 2001, p. 29). It was for the same reason that the Pythagoreans were vegetarians. The origin of other Pythagorean taboos is more dif-ficult to determine. For example, "do not urinate towards the sun" (Guthrie, 1987, p. 146). We will see later in this chapter that Plato bor-rowed much from the Pythagoreans. It was through Platonic philosophy that elements of the Dionysiac-Orphic religion became part of the heritage of West-ern civilization. Empedocles Empedocles (ca. 490-4 30 B.C.) was a physician and a disciple of Pythagoras. He claimed his soul had been migrating for quite a while: "For already have I become a boy and a girl and a bush and a bird and a silent fish in the sea" (Barnes, 2001, p.157). Instead of one physis, Empedocles suggested four elements from which everything in the world is made: earth, fire, air, and water. Humans, too, he thought, consist of these four elements, with earth forming the solid part of the body, water accounting for the liquids in the body, air providing the breath of life, and fire providing our reasoning ability. Besides the four elements, Empedocles postu-lated two causal powers of the universe: love and strife. Love is a force that attracts and mixes the ele-ments, and strife is a force that separates the ele-ments. Operating together, these two forces create an unending cosmic cycle consisting of four recurring phases. In phase one, love dominates and there is a perfect mixture of the four elements ("one-from-many"). In phase two, strife disrupts the perfect mix-ture by progressively separating them. In phase three, strife has managed to completely separate the ele-ments ("many-from-one"). In phase four, love again becomes increasingly dominant, and the elements are gradually recombined. As this cycle recurs, new worlds come into existence and then are destroyed. A world consisting of things we would recognize could exist only during the second and fourth phases of the cycle, when a mixture of the elements can exist. Along with the four elements, humans also possess the forces of love and strife, and these forces wax and wane within us just as they do in other material bodies. When love dominates, we have an urge to establish a union with the world and with other people; when strife dominates, we seek separa-tion. Clearly, the ingredients are here for the types of intrapersonal and extrapersonal conflicts described by Freud and others much later in human history. For Empedocles, the four elements and the forces of love and strife had always .existed. In fact, all that can ever be must be a mixture of the ele-ments and the two forces. Nothing beyond these mixtures is possible. He said, "From what does not exist nothing can come into being, and for what exists to be destroyed is impossible and unaccom-plishable" (Barnes, 2001, p. 131). This is similar to the modern law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can take different forms but can-not be created or destroyed. Empedocles also offered a theory of evolution that was more complex than the one previously sug-gested by Anaximander. In the phase when there is a mixture of love and strife, all types of things are created, some of them very bizarre. Animals did not
form all at once but part by part, and the same was true of humans: "Many neckless heads sprang up. ... Naked arms wandered, devoid of shoulders, and eyes strayed alone, begging for foreheads" (Barnes, 200 l, p.14 2). As these various body parts roamed around, they were combined in a random fashion: "Many grew double-headed, double-chested-man-faced oxen arose, and again ox-headed men-crea-tures mixed partly from male partly from female nature" (Barnes, 2001, p. 143). Elsewhere, Empedo-cles described what happens when the four elements are acted on by love and strife: "As they mingled, innumerable types of mortal things poured forth, fit-ted with every sort of shape, a wonder to see" (Barnes, 2001, p. 128). Most random pairings resulted in creatures incapable of surviving, and they eventually perished. Some chance unions pro-duced viable creatures, however, and they sur-vived-humans among them. What we have here is an early version of natural selection by the survival of the fittest (Esper, 1964, p. 97). Empedocles was also the first philosopher to offer a theory of perception. He assumed that each of the four elements was found in the blood. Objects in the outside environment throw off tiny copies of themselves called "emanations," or eidola (singular eidolon), which enter the blood through the pores of the body. Because like attracts like, the eidola will combine with elements that are like them. The fusion of external elements with internal elements results in perception. Empedocles believed that the matching of eidola with their corresponding inter-nal elements occurred in the heart. Because Empedocles was the first to attempt to describe how we form images of the world through a process similar to sensory perception, he is some-times referred to as the first empirical philosopher. His view was that we perceive objects by internaliz-ing copies of them. To the Pythagorean notion that health reflected a bodily equilibrium, Empedocles added the four ele-ments. Health occurs when the four elements of the body are in proper balance; illness results when they are not. Shortly we will see that the medical theo-ries of Pythagoras and Empedocles were to be highly influential on later thinkers. The Early Greek Philosophers 3 3 Anaxagoras Anaxagoras (ca. 500-428 B.C.), a close friend and mentor of Pericles, taught that all things in the world as we know it were originally mixed together. Fur-thermore, everything in our world, including humans, continues to be an aggregate of that pri-mordial mixture. Like Empedocles, Anaxagoras believed nothing can come from nothing. However, whereas Empedocles postulated four elements from which everything is derived, Anaxagoras postulated an infinite number of elements that he referred to as "seeds." As examples of these elements or seeds Anaxagoras listed water, fire, hair, bread, meat, air, wet, dry, hot, cold, thin, thick, wood, metal, and stone. However, these elements do not exist in isola-tion. Every element contains all the other elements. How then do objects become differentiated? Water-field (2000) explains, "Everything is present in every seed and in every item of the universe, but in differ-ent proportions" (p. 118). It is the difference in the proportion of the seeds present that give objects their characteristics: "Things appear to be that of which they contain the most. Thus, for example, every-thing contains fire, but we only call it fire if that ele-ment predominates" (Russell, 1945, p. 62). There was a single exception to Anaxagoras' claim that everything contains everything. Mind, he said, is pure in the sense that it contains no other elements. Also, mind is not necessarily present in other elements. Where it is present, life exists. For example, mind is present in humans and other liv-ing things but not in such things as stones or rivers. Anaxagoras was, therefore, a vitalist. There was no "Providence" in Anaxagoras' phi-losophy, and he said little about ethics and religion. He was accused of atheism by his contemporaries and according to Russell (1945, p. 63) this accusa-tion was probably trne. Democritus Democritus (ca. 460-370 B.C.) was the last of the early Greek cosmologists; later philosophers were more concerned with human nature than with the nature of the physical universe. Democritus said that
·,;I 34 Chapter 2 all things are made of tiny, indivisible parts called atoms (from the Greek atomos, meaning indivisible). The differences among things are explained by the shape, size, number, location, and arrangement of atoms. Atoms themselves were believed to be unal-terable, but they could have different arrangements; so although the actual atoms do not change, the objects of which they are made can change. Humans, too, are bundles of atoms, and the soul or mind is made up of smooth, highly mobile fire atoms that provide our mental experiences. For Democritus, therefore1 anilnate, it1anitnate1 a11d cog11itive events were reduced to atoms and atomic activity. Because the behavior of atoms was thought to be lawful, Democritus' view was deterministic. It also exempli-fied physical monism (materialism) because every-thing was explained in terms of the arrangement of atoms and there was no separate life force; that is, he denied vitalism. Democritus' view also incorporated elementism, because no matter how complex some-thing was, Democritus believed it could be explained in terms of atoms and their activity. Finally, Dem-ocritus' philosophy exemplified reductionism, because he attempted to explain objects and events on one level (observable phenomena) in terms of events on another level (atoms and their activity). Reductionism is contrasted with elementism in that the fonner involves two different domains of expla-nation, whereas the latter attempts to understand a complex phenomenon by separating it into its sim-pler, component parts. Attempting to explain human behavior in terms of biochemical processes would exemplify reductionism, as would attempting to explain biochemical processes in terms of physics. Attempting to understand human thought processes by isolating and studying one process at a time or attempting to understand complex human behavior by isolating specific habits or stimulus-response asso-ciations would exemplify elementism. Democritus was both a reductionist and an elementist. The explanations of sensation and perception offered by Empedocles and Democritus both empha-sized the importance of eidola (emanations). How-ever, for Democritus, sensations and perceptions arise when atoms (not tiny replicas) emanate from the surfaces of objects and enter the body through one of the five sensory systems (not bodily pores'. and are transmitted to the brain (not the heart). Upon entering the brain, the emanations sent by an object cause the highly mobile fire atoms tc form a copy of them. This match between eidola and atoms in the brain causes perception. Democritus stressed that eidola are not the object itself and that the match between the eidola and the atoms in the brain may not be exact. Therefore, there may be dif-ferences between the physical object and the per-ception of it. As noted in Chapter l, one of the most persistent problems in psychology has been deter-mining what is gained or lost as objects in the envi-ronment are experienced through the senses. Dem-ocritus was well aware of this problem (Waterfield, 2000, pp. 176-177). Democritus placed thinking in the brain, emo-tion in the heart, and appetite in the liver. He dis-cussed five senses-vision, hearing, smell, touch, and taste-and suggested four primary colors-black, red, white, and green-from which all colors were derived. Because he believed that all bodily atoms scattered at death, he also believed that there was no life after death. His was the first completely naturalistic view of the uni verse, devoid of any supernatural considerations. Although his view con-tained no gods or spirits to guide human action, Democritus did not condone a life of hedonism (pleasure seeking). He preached moderation, as did his disciple Epicurus, 100 years later. Early Greek Medicine In the Odyssey, Homer described medical practition-ers as roaming around selling their services to any-one needing them. The successful practitioners gained a reputation that preceded them; a few became viewed as godlike, and after their deaths, temples were erected in their honor. Other temples were named in honor of Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine. Asclepius was believed to be the son of Apollo and the father of Hygeia, the goddess of health. An ancient statue of Asclepius shows him with a snake wrapped around a rod. The snake sym-bolized mysteiy, power, and knowledge and was employed in several healing rituals. The rod and ~.-....................lllll!illllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiill----~i~
snake continue to symbolize the medical profession. At these temples, priests practiced medicine in accordance with the teachings of the famous deceased practitioners. The priests kept such teach-ings secret and carefully guarded. This temple med-icine became very popular, and many wonderful cures were claimed. In fact, insofar as the ailments treated were psychosomatic, it is entirely possible that temple medicine was often effective because such medicine was typically accompanied by an abundance of ritual and ceremony. For example, patients would need to wait before being seen by a priest, drink "sacred" water, wear special robes, and sleep in a sanctuary. During the period of sleep-a high point in treatment-the patient (it was claimed) often had a dream in which a priest or god would directly cure the patient or tell him or her what to do in order to be cured. Thus, any healing that took place was essentially faith healing, and medical practices were magical. Alcmaeon Among the first to move away from temple medi-cine and toward more rational, naturalistic medi-cine was Alcmaeon (fl. ca. 500 B.C.). Alcmaeon (perhaps a Pythagorean) equated health with a bal-ance of such qualities as warm and cold, moist and dry, and bitter and sweet. If one or more qualities dominates a person's system, sickness results. According to Alcmaeon, the physician's job is to help the patient regain a lost equilibrium, thereby regaining health. For example, a fever represented excess heat, and the treatment involved cooling the patient; excessive dryness was treated with moisture; and so forth. Diagnosis involved discovering the source of the disturbance of equilibrium, and treat-ment involved a procedure that would restore equi-librium. This Pythagorean view of health as a bal' ance, or a harmony, was to have a profound influence on medicine and has persisted to the pres-ent titne. In addition to promoting naturalistic medicine, Alcmaeon was important for other reasons. He was among the first (if not the first) to dissect human bodies. One of the important things he learned from The Early Greek Philosophers 3 5 these dissections was that the brain was connected to the sense organs. For example, he dissected the eye and traced the optic nerve to the brain. Unlike later thinkers such as Empedocles and Aristotle, who placed mental functions in the heart, Alcmaeon concluded that sensation, perception, memory, thinking, and understanding occurred in the brain. Alcmaeon's feats were truly remarkable, considering when they occurred. He did much to rid medicine of superstition and magic, and he used physiological information to reach conclusions con-cerning psychological functioning. As a physician interested in psychological issues, Alcmaeon started an illustrious tradition later followed by such indi-viduals as Helmholtz, Wundt, James, and Freud. Hippocrates Hippocrates (ca. 460-377 B.C.) was born on the Greek island of Cos into a family of priests and physicians. He was educated at a famous school in Cos and received medical training from his father and other medical practitioners. By the time Hip-pocrates moved to Athens, he had acquired remark-able proficiency in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of disease. He kept detailed records that gave precise accounts of mumps, epilepsy, hysteria, arthritis, and tuberculosis, to name on! y a few. From his training and observations, Hippocrates con-cluded that all disorders (both mental and physical) were caused by natural factors such as inherited sus-ceptibility to disease, organic injury, and an imbal-ance of bodily fluids. Hippocrates is often referred to as the father of medicine, but this is only correct if we view him as "a culmination rather than a begin-ning" (Brett, 1912-1921/1965, p. 54). Several important physicians before Hippocrates (such as Alcmaeon and Empedocles) had challenged medical practices based on superstition and magic. However, Hippocrates' great accomplishment was that he took the development of naturalistic medicine to new heights. As with Pythagoreans, it is difficult to separate what Hippocrates actually said from what his fol-lowers said. However, there is a corpus of ancient material consistent enough to be referred to as "Hip-
! ,, 36 Chapter 2 pocratic writings" (see, for example, Lloyd, 1978). Therefore, I will hereafter refer to "the Hippocrat-ics" rather than to Hippocrates. The Hippocratics forcefully attacked the ves-tiges of supernatural medicine that still existed in their day. For example, epilepsy was called the "sacred disease," suggesting possession by an evil spirit. The Hippocratics disagreed, saying that all ill-ness had natural and not supernatural causes. Super-natural causes, they said, were postulated in order to mask ignorance. I do not believe that the 'Sacred Disease' is any inore divine or sacred than any other disease but, on the contrary, has specific characteristics and a definite cause. Nevertheless, because it is coin; pletely different from other diseases, it has been regarded as a divine visitation by those who, being only human, view it with ignorance and astonish-ment ....It is my opinion that those who first called this disease 'sacred' were the sort of people we now call witch-doctors, faith-healers, quacks and charlatans. These are exact! y the people who pretend to be very pious and to be particularly wise. By invoking a divine element they were able to screen their own failure to give suitable treatment and so called this a 'sacred' malady to conceal their ignorance of its nature. (Lloyd, 1978, pp. 237-238) The Hippocratics agreed with Empedocles that everything is made from four elements-earth, air, fire, and water-and that humans, too, are made up of these elements. In addition, however, the Hippo-cratics associated the four elements. with four humors in the body. They associated earth with black bile, air with yellow bile, fire with blood, and water with phlegm. Individuals for whom the humors are properly balanced are healthy; an imbal-ance among the humors results in illness. The Hippocratics strongly believed that the body has the ability to heal itself and that it is the physician's job to facilitate this natural healing. Thus, the "cures" the Hippocratics recommended included rest, proper diet, exercise, fresh air, mas-sage, and baths. According to the Hippocratics the worst thing a physician could do would be to inter-fere with the body's natural healing power. They also emphasized treating the total, unique patient, and not a disease. The Hippocratic approach to treatment emphasized an understanding physician and a trusting, hopeful patient. The Hippocratics also advised physicians not to charge a fee if a patient was in financial difficulty. Sometimes give your services for nothing, calling to mind a previous benefaction or present satisfac-tion. And if there be an opportunity of serving one who is a stranger in financial straits, give full assis-tance to all such. For where there is love of man, there is also love of the art. For some patients, though conscious that their condition is perilous, recover their health simply through their content-ment with the goodness of the physician. (W. H. S. Jones, 1923, Vol. 1, p. 319) Other maxims concerning the practice of medicine are contained in the famous Hippocratic oath which reads, in part, as follows: I will use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment; I will abstain from harm-ing or wronging any man by it. I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will T suggest any such thing. Neither will I give a woman means to procure an abortion. I will be chaste and religious in my life and in my practice ....Whenever I go into a house, I will go to help the sick and never with the intention of doing harm or injury. I will not abuse my position to indulge in sexual contacts with the bodies of women or of men, whether they be freemen or slaves. Whatever I see or hear, professionally or pri-vately, which ought not to be divulged, I will keep secret and tell no one. (Lloyd, 1978, p. 67) According to V. Robinson, the work of the Hip-pocratics "marks the greatest revolution in the his-tory of medicine" (1943, p. 51). We will revisit the Hippocratics when we review the early treatment of the mentally ill in Chapter 15. About 500 years after Hippocrates, Galen (ca. A.D. 130-200) associated the four humors of the body with four temperaments (the term temperament is derived from the Latin verb tem/ierare, meaning "to mix"). If one of the humors dominates, the per-son displays the characteristics associated with that
Table 2.1 Galen's extension of Hippocrates' theory of humors. Humor Temperament Characteristic Phlegm Phlegmatic Sluggish, unemotional Blood Sanguine Cheerful Yellow bile Choleric Quick-tempered, fiery Black bile Melancholic Sad humor (see Table 2.1 ). Galen's extension of Hip-pocrates' views created a rudimentary theory of per-sonality, as well as a way of diagnosing illness that was to dominate medicine for about the next 14 centuries. In fact, within the realm of personality theory Galen's ideas continue to be influential (see, for example, Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985; Kagan, 1994). The Relativity of Truth The step from supernatural explanations of things to natural ones was enormous, but perhaps too many philosophers took it. Various philosophers found the basic element (physis) to be water, fire, numbers, the atom, and the boundless, and some philosophers found more than one basic element. Some said that things are constantly changing, others that nothing changes, and still others that some things change and some do not. Furthermore, most of these philosophers and their disciples were outstanding orators who presented and defended their views forcefully and with convincing logic. Where does this leave the individual seeking the truth? Such an individual is much like the modem college student who goes to one class and is convinced of something (such as that psychology is a science), only to go to another class to be convinced of the opposite (psy-chology is not a science). Which is true? In response to the confusion, one group of philosophers concluded that there is not just one truth but many. In fact, they believed that anything is true if you can convince someone that it is true. Nothing, they said, is inherently right or wrong, but believing makes it so. These philosophers were The Early Greek Philosophers 3 7 called Sophists. The Sophists were professional teachers of rhetoric and logic who believed that effective communication determined whether an idea was accepted, rather than the idea's validity. Truth was considered relative, and therefore no sin-gle truth was thought to exist. This belief marked a major shift in philosophy. The question was no longer, What is the universe made of? but, What can humans know and how can they know it? In other words, there was a shift toward epistemological questions. Protagoras Protagoras (ca. 485-410 B.C.), the first and best-known Sophist, summarized the Sophists' position with his famous statement: "Man is the measure of all things-of the things that are, that they are, and of things that are not, that they are not." (Water-field, 2000, p. 211) This statement is pregnant with meaning. First, truth depends on the perceiver rather than on physical reality. Second, because per-ceptions vary with the previous experiences of the perceiver, they will vary from person to person. Third, what is considered to be tme will be, in part, culturally determined because one's culture influ-ences one's experiences. Fourth, to understand why a person believes as he or she does, one must under-stand the person. According to Protagoras, there-fore, each of the preceding philosophers was pre-senting his subjective viewpoint rather than the objective "tmth" about physical reality. Paraphras-ing Heraclitus' famous statement, Protagoras said, "Ma11 never steps into the san1e river once," because the river is different for each individual to begin with. Protagoras emphasized the importance of rhetorical skills in getting one's point of view considered and, perhaps, to prevail. For a fee, which was typical of the Sophists, he taught his students to take both sides of an argument and created debating competi-tions where he introduced the disputants to the "tricks of the trade." Critics accused Protagoras of teaching how to "make the weaker argument stronger" or "to make the worse or morally more unsound argument defeat the more sound one" (Waterfield, 2000, pp. 205-206). However, Protago-
-.. "("~,..-_ .. 38 Chapter 2 ras was primarily interested in teaching the skills necessary for effective communication and under the Periclean democracy in which he lived, the value of such skills was considerable. In the direct democracy that prevailed in Athens at the time, speeches could make or break a politi· cal career, and the constitution almost guaranteed that every prominent figure was likely to find him· self in court at some time or other, where again a good speech could save his life, or at least prevent the loss of property and prestige. (Waterfield, 2000, p. 207) Although Protagoras taught that nothing is false, he believed that some beliefs are more valuable than others. For example, in the political sphere, some beliefs are more conducive to utilitarian harmony than others and, he believed, effective argumentation would demonstrate this (Waterfield, 2000, p. 209). Concerning the existence of the Greek gods, Protagoras was an agnostic. He said, "Where the gods are concerned, I am not in a position to ascer-tain that they exist, or that they do not exist. There are many impediments to such knowledge, includ-ing the obscurity of the matter and the shortness of human life" (Waterfield, 2000, p. 211). With Protagoras, the focus of philosophical inquiry shifted from the physical world to human concerns. We now had a theory of becoming that was different from the one offered by Heraclitus. Man is the measure of all things, and therefore there is no universal Truth or code of ethics or anything else. In Chapter 21, we will see that the extreme relativism of the Sophists has much in common with the con-temporary movement called postmodernism. Gorgias Gorgias (ca. 485-380 B.C.) was a Sophist whose position was even more extreme than Protagoras'. Protagoras concluded that, because each person's experience furnishes him or her with what seems to be tme, "all things are equally true." Gorgias, how-ever, regarded the fact that knowledge is subjective and relative as proof that "all things are equally false." Furthermore, because the individual can know only his or her private perceptions, there can be no objective basis for determining truth. Gorgias' position, as well as Protagoras', exemplified nihilism, because it stated that there can be no objective way of determining knowledge or truth. The Sophist position also exemplifies solipsism, because the self can be aware of nothing except its own experiences and mental states. Thus, Gorgias reached his three celebrated conclusions: Nothing exists; if it did exist, it could not be comprehended; and if it could be comprehended, it could not be communicated to another person. Insofar as Gorgias was referring to the physical world when he said, "Nothing exists," he was incon-sistent, sometimes saying that it does (Waterfield, 2000, p. 223). However, on the last two points of his argument, he was entirely consistent. First, he argues if there is a physical world, we can only expe· rience it through sense impressions, and the rela-tionship between the physical world and sense impressions cannot be known. Second, we do not think in terms of sense impressions but in terms of the words used to describe those impressions. There-fore, there is an unbridgeable gap between the sen-sory events caused by the physical world and the words used to describe those events. And third, since the meaning of the words that are used to express thoughts are unique to each individual, there is an unbridgeable gap between one person's thoughts and those of another. Therefore, accurate communication between individuals is impossible. Gorgias, like the other Sophists, emphasized the power of the spoken word. He likened the effect of words on the mind to the effect of drugs on the body (Waterfield, 2000, p. 223 ). He also believed that words were essentially deceitful. That is, words do not describe things as they are in the physical world but only beliefs about such things. Beliefs consist of words and therefore can be manipulated by words-thus, the importance of rhetorical techniques. The Sophists clearly and convincingly described the gulf that exists between the physical world and the perceiving person. They also called attention to the difficulties in determining the relationships among terms, concepts, and physical things. In fact, as we have seen, the Sophists were well aware of the difficulty in demonstrating the external (physical) existence of anything. We saw in Chapter 1 that
humans have always had a strong tendency toward reification-that is, to believe that because some-thing has a name it exists. Concerning this belief Gorgias said: If things considered [thought about] are existent, all things considered exist, and in whatever way anyone considers them, which is absurd. For if one considers a flying 1nan or chariot racing in the sea, a man does not straightway [sic] fly nor a chariot race in the sea. (Kennedy, 1972, p. 45) The Sophists also raised the thorny question of what one human consciousness can know about another human consciousness. No satisfactory answer has ever been provided. Xenophanes Even before the Sophists, Xenophanes (ca. 560-4 78 n.c.) had attacked religion as a human invention. He noted that the Olympian gods acted suspiciously like humans; they lie, steal, philander, and even murder: "Homer ... attributed to the gods all the things which among men are shameful and blame-worthy-theft and adultery and mutual deception" (Barnes, 2001, p. 42). Xenophanes also noted that dark-skinned people had dark-skinned gods and light-skinned people had light-skinned gods. He went so far as to say that if animals could describe their gods, they would have the characteristics of the animals describing them: Mortals think that the gods are born, and have clothes and speech and shape like their own ....But if cows and horses or lions had hands and drew with their hands and made the things men make, then horses would draw the forms of gods like horses, cows like cows, and each would make their bodies similar in shape to their own. (Barnes, 2001, p. 43) With regard to religion, Xenophanes can be seen · as an early Sophist. Not only do humans create whatever "truth" exists, but they also create what-ever religion exists. Moral codes, then, are not divinely inspired; they are human inventions. The relativist nature of truth on which the Sophists insisted was distasteful to many who wanted truth to be more than the projection of one's The Early Gr eel< Philosophers 39 subjective reality onto the world. As we will see, this debate became a constant theme in the history of philosophy and it continues to be. Socrates was the first to provide a serious chal-lenge to the relativism of the Sophists, with whom he both agreed and disagreed. Socrates Socrates (ca. 470-399 B.C.) agreed with the Sophists that individual experience is important. He took the injunction "know thyself," inscribed on the portals of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, to indi-cate the importance of knowing the contents of one's own mind or soul (Allen, 1991, p. 17). He went so far as to say, "The life which is unexamined is not worth living" (Jowett, 1988, p. 49). However, Socrates
40 Chapter 2 he disagreed with the Sophists' contention that no truth exists beyond personal opinion. In his search for truth, Socrates used a method sometimes called inductive definition, which started with an exami-nation of instances of such concepts as beauty, love, justice, or truth and then moved on to such ques-tions as, What is it that all instances of beauty have in common? In other words, Socrates asked what it is that makes something beautiful, just, or true. In this way, he sought to discover general concepts by examining isolated examples. It was thought that these concepts transcend their individual manifesta-tions and are therefore stable and knowable. What Socrates sought was the essence of such things as beauty, justice, and truth. The essence of something is its basic nature, its identifying, enduring charac-teristics. To truly know something, according to Socrates, is to understand its essence. It is not enough to identify something as beautiful; one must know why it is beautiful. One must know what all instances of beauty have in common; one must know the essence of beauty. It is important to note that although Socrates sought the essence of various concepts, he did not believe that essences had abstract existence. For him, an essence was a uni-versally acceptable definition of a concept-a defi-nition that was both accurate and acceptable to all interested parties. Once such definitions were for-mulated, accurate communication among con-cerned individuals was possible. Contrary to the Sophists, who believed truth to be personal and noncommunicable, Socrates believed truth could be general and shared. Still, the essences that Socrates sought were verbal definitions, nothing more. For Socrates, the understanding of essences con-stituted knowledge, and the goal of life was to gain knowledge. When one's conduct is guided by knowl-edge, it is necessarily moral. For example, if one knows what justice is, one acts justly. For Socrates, knowledge and morality were intimately related; knowledge is virtue, and improper conduct results from ignorance. Unlike most of the earlier philoso-phers, Socrates was concerned mainly with what it means to be human and the problems related to human existence. It is because of these concerns that Socrates is sometimes referred to as the first existential philosopher. In 399 B.C., when Socrates was 70 years old, hE was accused of disrespect for the city gods and oi corrupting the youth of Athens. Socrates wm charged with corrupting the youth of Athern because he caused them to question all things, including many cherished traditional beliefs. Per-haps on the latter charge he was guilty. In any case, Socrates was found guilty on both charges and sen-tenced to death. However, the end of his trial coin-cided with a religious observance during which exe-cutions were unlawful. During the month delay, Socrates was imprisoned but met regularly with his friends. Apparently it would have been easy for Socrates to escape from Athens at this time and he was encouraged by his friends to do so. It is even suggested that Socrates' escape would have been condoned by the authorities, "to whom the execu-tion of such a prominent figure may well have been an embarrassment (Taylor, 1998, p. 11). Socrates preferred death over exile from his beloved Athens and, in the end, he consumed a drink containing deadly hemlock, thus fulfilling the order of the court. What were the real reasons for Socrates' convic-tion? In the Apology (Jowett, 1988), Plato has Socrates, while awaiting his self-administered exe-cution, recall a story explaining how he (Socrates) came to be considered the wisest of men. According to the story, a friend of Socrates went to the oracle of Delphi and asked if there was any man wiser than Socrates, and the oracle said no. Socrates was amazed to hear this because he considered himself ignorant. He set out to find men wiser than himself so that he could refute the oracle. In his quest Socrates questioned anyone who had the reputation of being wise. After many such encounters, Socrates concluded that these individuals really knew noth-ing, although they thought they did. Socrates, on the other hand, neither knew anything nor thought he did. Perhaps, Socrates reflected, it was for this reason that the oracle proclaimed him to be the wis-est of men. So why was Socrates convicted? After the defeat of Athens by Sparta, democracy in Athens was replaced by the regime of "thirty tyrants," some of whom were associated with Socrates. When democ-
racy was restored in 403 B.C., Socrates may have been seen, because of his association with the tyrants, as a subversive (Roochnik, 2002, lecture 8). Also, Socrates' method of inquiry was abrasive. In his search for a person wiser than himself, Socrates questioned many of the leading citizens of Athens, including a number of politicians. As was the case with the youth of Athens, these encounters chal-lenged many cherished beliefs, such as those con-ceming justice, courage, and even democracy. So, perhaps in addition to his being viewed as subver-sive, leading "Athenians may just have been sick and tired of Socrates' endless questioning" (Rooch-nik, 2002, lecture 8). Following his death, it was Socrates' famous stu-dent, Plato, who perpetuated and greatly elaborated his philosophy. Plato The writings of Plato (ca. 4 2 7-34 7 B.C.) can be divided into two periods. During the first period, Plato essentially reported the thoughts .and methods of his teacher, Socrates. When Socrates died, how-ever, Plato went into self-imposed exile in southern Italy, where he came under the influence of the Pythagoreans. After he retumed to Athens, he founded his own school, the Academy, and his sub-sequent writings combined the Socratic method with mystical Pythagorean philosophy. Like Socrates, Plato wished to find something permanent that could be the object of knowledge, but his search for permanence carried him far beyond the kind of essences for which Socrates had settled. The Theory of Forms or Ideas As we have seen, the Pythagoreans believed that although numbers and numerical relationships were abstractions (they could not be experienced through the senses), they were nonetheless real and could exert an influence on the empirical world. The result of the influence, however, was believed to be inferior to the abstraction that caused the influence. As already mentioned, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely true when applied to abstract (imagined) triangles but is never completely true when applied The Early Greek Philosophers 41 to a triangle that exists in the empirical world (for example, one that is drawn on paper). This discrep-ancy exists because, in the empirical world, the lines making up the right angle will never be exact. Plato took an additional step. According to his theory of forms, everything in the empirical world is a manifestation of a pure form (idea) that exists in the abstract. Thus, chairs, chariots, tocks, cats, dogs, and people are inferior manifestations of pure forms. For example, the hundreds of cats that one encoun-ters in a lifetime are but inferior copies of an abstract idea or form of "catness" that exists in pure form in the abstract. This is true for every object for which we have a name. What we experience thtough the senses results from the interaction of the pure form with matter; and because matter is constantly chang-ing and is experienced through the senses, the result of the interaction must be less perfect than the pure idea before that idea interacts with matter. Plato replaced the essence that Socrates sought with the concept of form as the aspect of reality that was per-manent and therefore knowable. That is, Socrates accepted the fact that a thorough definition specified an object's or a concept's essence; whereas for Plato, an object's or a concept's essence was equated with its form. For Plato, essence (form) had an existence separate from its individual manifestations. Socrates and Plato did agree, however, that knowledge could be attained only through reason. The Analogy of the Divided Line What, then, becomes of those who attempt to gain knowledge by examining the empirical world via sensory experience? According to Plato, they are doomed to ignorance or, at best, opinion. The only true knowledge involves grasping the forms them-selves, and this can be done only by rational thought. Plato summarized this viewpoint with his famous analogy of the divided line, which is illus-trated in Figure 2.1. Imagining is seen as the lowest form of under-standing because it is based on images-for exam-ple, a portrait of a person is once removed from the person. Reflections iii the water are also images, because they are a step removed from the objects reflected. We are slightly better off confronting the
42 Chapter 2 OBJECTS The good Fonns INTELLIGIBLE WORLD WORLD OF APPEARANCES Figure 2.1 Mathematical Objects Visible things Images ST ATES OF MIND Intelligence (noesis) or knowledge (episteme) Thinking (dianoia) Belief (pistis) l1nagining (eihasia) Plato's analogy of the divided line. (From Comford's translation of Plato's Republic, 1941/1968, p. 222.) objects themselves rather than their images, but the best we can do even when confronting objects directly is to form beliefs or opinions about them. Beliefs, however, do not constitute knowledge. Still better is the contemplation of mathematical rela-tionships, but mathematical knowledge is still not the highest type because such knowledge is applied to the solution of practical (empirical) problems, and many of its relationships exist only by defmi-tion. That is, mathematical relationships are assumed to be true, but these assumptions could conceivably be false. To think about mathematics in the abstract, however, is better than dealing with images or empirical objects. The highest form of thinking involves embracing the forms themselves, and true intelligence or knowledge results only from an understanding of the abstract forms. The "good" or the "form of the good" constitutes the highest form of wisdom because it encompasses all other forms and shows their interrelatedness. The form of the good illuminates all other forms and makes them knowable. It is the highest truth. Later, in Christian theology, the form of the good is equated with God. The Allegory of the Cave In the allegory of the cave (Jowett, 1986), Plato described fictitious prisoners who have lived their entire lives in the depths of a cave. The prisoners are chained so that they can look only forward. Behind them is a road over which individuals pass, carrying a variety of objects. Behind the road a fire is blazing, causing a projection of shadows of the travelers and the objects onto the wall in front of the prisoners. For the prisoners, the projected shadows constitute reality. This corresponds to the lowest form of understanding in the divided line just discussed. Plato then described wl-,at might happen if one of the prisoners were to escape his bondage and leave the cave. Turning toward the fire would cause his eyes to ache, and he might decide to return to his world of shadows. If not, he would eventually adjust to the flames and see the individuals and objects of which he had previously seen only shadows. This represents an understanding of empirical events in the divided line. The fire is like the sun that illumi-nates those events. Plato then asks us to suppose that the prisoner continues his journey and leaves the cave. Once in the "upper world," the prisoner would be blinded by true reality. On! y after a period of adjustment could he see things in this world and recognize that they were more real than the shadows that he had experienced in the cave. Finally, Plato asks us to imagine what might happen to the escaped prisoner if he went back into the cave to enlighten his fellow prisoners. Still partially blinded by such an illuminating experience, the prisoner would find it difficult to readjust to the previous life of shadows. He would make mistakes in describing the shadows and in predicting which objects would follow which. This would be evidence enough for his fellow prisoners that no good could come from leaving the world of shadows. In fact, anyone who attempted to lead the prisoners out of the shadowy world of the cave would be killed (Jowett, 1986, p. 257). The bound prisoners represent humans who confuse the shadowy world of sense experience with reality. The prisoner who escapes represents the individual whose actions are governed by reason
instead of sensory impressions. The escaped prisoner sees the real objects (forms) responsible for the shadows and objects in the cave (sensory informa-tion) and thus embraces true knowledge. After such an enlightening experience, an effort is often made to steer others away from ignorance and toward wis-dom. The plight of Socrates is evidence of what can happen to the individual attempting to free others from the chains of ignorance. The Reminiscence Theory of Knowledge How does one come to know the forms if they can-not be known through sensory experience? The answer to this question involves the most mystical aspect of Plato's theory. Plato's answer was influ-enced by the Pythagorean notion of the immortality of the soul. According to the Pythagoreans, the highest form of thought was reason, which was a function of the immortal soul. Plato expanded this idea and said that before the soul was implanted in the body, it dwelled in pure and complete knowl-edge; that is, it dwelled among the forms. After the soul entered the body, sensory information began to contaminate this knowledge. The only way to arrive at true knowledge is to ignore sensory experience and focus one's thoughts on the contents of the mind. According to Plato's reminiscence theory of knowledge, all knowledge is innate and can be attained only through introspection, which is the searching of one's inner experiences. At most, sen-sory experience can only remind one of what was already known. Therefore, for Plato, all knowledge comes from reminiscence, from remembering the experiences the soul had before entering the body. In the Meno, Plato clearly presents his reminiscence theory of knowledge: Thus the soul, since it is immortal and has been born many times, and has seen all things both here and in the other world, has learned everything that is. So we need not be surprised if it can recall the knowledge of virtue or anything else which, as we see, it once possessed. All nature is akin, and the soul has learned everything, so that when a man has recalled a single piece of knowledge ... there is no reason why he should not find out all the rest, if The Early Greek Philosophers 4 3 he keeps a stout heart and does not grow weary of the search, for seeking and learning are in fact nothing but recollection. (Hamilton and Cairns, 1961, p. 364) We see, then, that Plato was a nativist as well as a rationalist because he stressed mental operations as a means of arriving at the truth (rationalism) and that the truth ultimately arrived at was inborn ( nativism). He was also an idealist because he believed that ultimate reality consisted of ideas or forms. The Nature of the Soul Plato believed not only that the soul had a rational component that was immortal but also that it had two other components: the courageous (sometimes translated as emotional or spirited) and the appeti-tive. The courageous and appetitive aspects of the soul were part of the body and thus mortal. With his concept of the three-part soul, Plato postulated a sit-uation in which humans were almost always in a state of conflict, a situation not unlike the one Freud described many centuries later. According to Plato, the body has appetites (needs such as hunger, thirst, and sex) that must be met and that play a major motivational role in everyday life. Humans also have varied emotions such as fear, love, and rage. However, if true knowledge is to be attained, the person must suppress the needs of the body and con-centrate on rational pursuits, such as introspection. Because bodily needs do not go away, the person must spend considerable energy keeping them under control-but they must be controlled. It is the job of the rational component of the soul to postpone or inhibit immediate gratifications when it is to a per-son's long-term benefit to do so. The person whose rational soul dominates is not impulsive. His or her life is dominated by moral principles and future goals, not the immediate satisfaction of biological or emotional needs. The supreme goal in life, accord-ing to Plato, should be to free the soul as much as possible from the adulterations of the flesh. In this he agreed with the Pythagoreans. Plato realized that not everyone was capable of intense rational thought; he believed that in some
,,-r''·' Ii !' 44 Chapter 2 individuals the appetitive aspect of the soul would dominate, in others the courageous (emotional) aspect of the soul would dominate, and in still others the rational aspect would dominate. In his Republic, he created a utopian society in which the three types of individuals would have special functions. Those in whom the appetitive aspect dominated would be workers and slaves, those in whom courage (emo-tion) dominated would be soldiers, and those in whom reason dominated would be philosopher-kings. In Plato's scheme, an inverse relationship exists between concern with bodily experiences and one's status in society. In Book V of the Republic, Plato forcibly stated his belief that societies have lit-tle chance of survival unless they are led by individ-uals with the wisdom of philosophers: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those of co1n1noner natures \.vho pursue either to the exclusion of the other are com-pelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils ....Then only will this our state have a possibility of life and behold the light of day. (Jowett, 1986, p. 203) We see that Plato was a nativist not only where knowledge was concerned but also where character or intelligence was concerned. He felt that educa-tion was of limited value for children of low apti-tude. To a large extent then, whether one was des-tined to be a slave, a soldier, or a philosopher-king was a matter of inheritance. With his discussion of the three character types, Plato created a rudimen-tary theory of personality. He also had a highly developed philosophy of education that combined his theory of forr;,,s with his belief in character types. This philosophy is prominently featured in his Republic (Jowett, 1986). Plato's Legacy Because science depends on empirical observation, Plato's philosophy did little to promote science and much to inhibit it. Plato created a dualism that divided the human into a body, which was material and imperfect, and a mind (soul), which contained pure knowledge. Furthermore, the rational soul was immortal. Had philosophy remained unencumbered by theological concerns, perhaps Plato's theory would have been challenged by subsequent philoso-phers and gradually displaced by more tempered philosophic views. Aristotle, in fact, went a long way in modifying Plato's position, but the challenge was aborted. The mysticism of early Christianity was combined with Platonic philosophy, creating unchallengeable religious dogma. When Aristotle's writings were rediscovered centuries later, they were also carefully modified and assimilated into church dogma. It was not until the Renaissance that Pla-tonism (and Aristotelianism) was finally questioned openly and largely discarded. Aristotle Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was born in the obscure Macedonian city of Stagira, located between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. His father was court physician to King Amyntas II of Macedon. Although his father died when Aristotle was a young boy and he was raised by a guardian, it is assumed that he received training in medicine. In 367 B.C., Aristotle journeyed to Athens and soon established himself as one of Plato's most brilliant students; he was 17 years old at the time, and Plato was 60. Aristotle continued to study at the Academy until he was 3 7 years old. When Plato died in 34 7 B.C., Aristotle moved to Asia Minor, where he engaged in biologi-cal and zoological field work. In 343 B.C., Aristotle returned to Macedon, where he tutored the son of King Philip II, the future Alexander the Great, for about four years. After a few more journeys, Aristo-tle returned to Athens and, at the age of 48, founded his own school called the Lyceum. Because the Lyceum had many teachers, regular lectures, a sub-stantial library, and large natural science collections, it is considered the world's first university (Esper, 1964, p. 128). When Alexander the Great died in 3 23 B.C., Aristotle fled Athens, and he died a year later in Challis at the age of 63. Why did Aristotle flee Athens? Macedon, where Aristotle was born, was an ancient Greek-speaking
r Aristotle country to the north of Greece. With the goal of unifying diverse Greek communities into a powerful Graeco-Macedonian nation, King Philip II of Mace-don invaded and conquered a number of Greek city-states, including Athens. When Philip II was assas-sinated in 336 B.C. his 19-year-old son Alexander (Aristotle's ex-student) became ruler, and his subse-quent military accomplishments are legendary. Although Aristotle had many disagreements with Alexander, both preferred "Greek solidarity to city patriotism" (Durant, 1926/1961, p. 94 ). When Alexander died in 323 B.C. at the age of 32, the Macedonian party was overthrown in Athens, and Athenian independence was again proclaimed. Undoubtedly because of Aristotle's association with the Macedonians, the trumped-up charge of impiety was brought against him. He was accused of having taught that prayer and sacrifice were ineffective. This, of course, is reminiscent of what happened to The Early Greek Philosophers 4 5 Socrates. Unlike Socrates, however, Aristotle chose to flee Athens rather than meet his inevitable fate, saying, "He would not give Athens a chance to sin a second time against philosophy" (Durant, 1926/1961, p. 94). Aristotle was the first philosopher to extensively treat many topics that were later to become part of psychology. In his vast writings, he covered memory, sensation, sleep, dreams, geriatrics, and learning. He also began his book De Anima (On the Soul) with what is considered to be the first history of psychol-ogy. Taken alone, Aristotle's contributions to psy-chology were truly impressive. It must be realized, however, that with the possible exception of math-ematics, he made contributions to every branch of knowledge. The influence of his thoughts on such philosophical and scientific topics as logic, meta-physics, physics, biology, ethics, politics, rhetoric, and poetics have lasted to the present time. It is z often said that Aristotle was the last human to know ~ everything that was knowable during his lifetime . • ~ 8 The Basic Difference Between Plato and Aristotle Both Plato and Aristotle were primarily interested in essences or truths that went beyond the mere appearance of things, but their methods for discov-ering those essences were distinctly different. For Plato, essences corresponded to the forms that existed independently of nature and that could only be arrived at by ignoring sensory experience and turning one's thoughts inward (that is, by introspec-tion). For Aristotle, essences existed but could become known only by studying nature. He believed that if enough individual manifestations of a princi-ple or phenomenon were investigated, eventually one could infer the essence that they exemplified. In the opening passage of his Metaphysics, Aristotle demonstrates that his attitude toward sensory infor-mation was much friendlier than was Plato's. All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for them-selves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only \.Vith a view to action, but even when we
46 Chapter 2 are not going to do anything, we prefer sight to almost everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things. (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 2, p. 1552) Aristotle's philosophy shows the difficulty that is often encountered when attempting to clearly sepa-rate the philosophies of rationalism and empiricism. As was noted in Chapter 1, the rationalist claims that logical, mental operations must be used to gain knowledge, and the empiricist emphasizes the importance of sensory information in gaining knowledge. Aristotle embraced both rationalism and empiricism. He believed that the mind must be employed before knowledge can be attained (ration-alism) but that the object of rational thought was the information furnished by the senses ( empiri-cism). Aristotle's position is not unique, however. Throughout history most rationalists have recog-nized and accepted the importance of sensory expe-rience, and most empiricists have postulated one or more mental operations that are presumed to act on sensory information. In other words, finding a pure rationalist or empiricist is very difficult, and a philosopher is usually categorized as one or the other, depending on whether he or she emphasizes mental operations or sensory experience. With this in mind, we can say that Aristotle was more of a rationalist than an empiricist. The general principles that Plato and Aristotle (and other philosophers) thought were real and knowable have been referred to in different ways through the years-for example, as first principles, essen_ces, or universals. In each case, it was assu1ned that something basic existed that could not be dis-covered by studying only individual instances or manifestations of the abstract principle involved. Some type of rational activity was needed to find the principle (essence) underlying individual cases. The search for first principles, essences, or universals characterized most early philosophy and, in a sense, continues in modern science as the search for laws governing nature. For Plato, first principles were arrived at by pure thought; for Aristotle, they were attained by examining nature directly. For Plato, all knowledge existed independently of nature; for Aristotle, nature and knowledge were inseparable. In Aristotle's view, therefore, the body was not a hindrance in the search for knowledge, as it was for Plato and the Pythagoreans. Also, Aristotle dis-agreed with Plato on the importance of mathemat-ics. For Aristotle, mathematics was essentially use-less, his emphasis being on the careful examination of nature by observation and classification. Here we see again the empirical component of Aristotle's philosophy. In Aristotle's Lyceum, an incredibly large number of observations of physical and biolog-ical phenomena were made. Categories into which the observations fit were then determined. Through this method of observation, definition, and classifi-cation, Aristotle compiled what has been called an encyclopedia of nature. He was interested in study-ing the things in the empirical world and learning their functions. Because Aristotle sought to explain several psychological phenomena in biological terms, he can be considered the first physiological psychologist (D. N. Robinson, 1986, pp. 81-82). Plato's philosophy followed in the Pythagorean, mathematical tradition, and Aristotle's in the Hip-pocratic, biological tradition. The views of Plato and Aristotle concerning the sources of knowledge set the stage for epistemological inquiry that has lasted to the present time. Almost every philoso-pher, and most psychologists, can be evaluated in terms of their agreement or disagreement with the views of Plato or Aristotle. Causation and Teleology To truly understand anything, according to Aristo-tle, we must know four things about it. That is, everything has the following four causes: • Material cause is the kind of matter of which an object is made. For example, a statue is made of marble. • Formal cause is the particular form, or pattern, of an object. For example, a piece of marble takes on the form of Venus. • Efficient cause is the force that transforms the matter into a certain form-for example, the energy of the sculptor.
r • Final cause is the purpose for which an object exists. In the case of a statue, the purpose may be to bring pleasure to those who view it. The final cause is "that for the sake of which something exists." Thus, although I have listed it last, the final cause (a thing's purpose) actually precedes the other three causes. Aristotle's philosophy exemplified teleology because, for him, everything in nature exists for a purpose. By "purpose," however, Aristotle did not mean conscious intention. Rather, he meant that everything in nature had a function built into it. This built-in purpose, or function, is called ent-elechy. Entelechy keeps an object moving or devel-oping in its prescribed direction until its full poten-tial is reached. For example, the eye exists to provide vision, and it continues developing until it does so. The final cause of living things is part of their nature; it exists as a potentiality from the organism's very inception. An acorn has the poten-tial to become an oak tree, but it cannot become a frog or an olive tree. In other words, the purpose, or entelechy, of an acorn is to become an oak tree. Nature is characterized by the change and motion that occurs as objects are slowly transformed from their potentialities to their actualities~thar is, as objects move toward their final causes or purposes, such as when an acorn becomes an oak tree. Aristo-tle also saw the final cause, or purpose, of something as its essence. According to Aristotle, all natural things, both animate and inanimate, have a purpose built into them. In addition, however, nature itself has a grand design or purpose. Although Aristotle believed that the categories of things in nature remain fixed, thus denying evolution, he spoke of a grand hierarchy among all things. The sca!a naturae refers to the idea that nature is arranged in a hierarchy ranging from neutral matter to the unmoved mover, which is pure actuality and is the cause of everything in nature. For Aristotle, the unmoved mover is what gives all natural objects their purposes. In his scala naturae, the closer to the unmoved mover some-thing is, the more perfect it is. Among animals, humans were closest to the unmoved mover, with all other animals at various distances behind us. The Early Greek Philosophers 4 7 Although Aristotle did not accept evolution, his scala naturae does create a phylogenetic scale of sorts, making it possible to study "lower" animals in order to understand humans. Such information will always be of limited value, however, because for Aristotle, humans were unique among the animals. Again, Aristotle's position was thoroughly teleolog-ical: all objects in nature have a purpose, and nature itself has a purpose. The Hierarchy of Souls For Aristotle, as for most Greek philosophers, a soul was that which gives life; therefore, all living things possess a soul. According to Aristotle, there were three types of souls, and a living thing's potential (purpose) is determined by what type of a soul it possesses. • A vegetative (or nutritive) soul is possessed by plants. It allows only growth, the assimilation of food, and reproduction. • A sensitive soul is possessed by animals but not plants. In addition to the vegetative functions, organisms that possess a sensitive soul sense and respond to the environment, experience pleas-ure and pain, and have a memory. • A rational soul is possessed only by humans. It provides all the functions of the other two souls but also allows thinking or rational thought. Because it is the soul that gives a living organism its distinctive properties, to ask whether body and soul exist independently was, for Aristotle, a mean-ingless question: "We can dismiss as unnecessary the question whether the soul and the body are one: it is as though we were to ask whether the wax and its shape are one" (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 1, p. 657). Sensation Aristotle said that information about the environ-ment is provided by the five senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. Unlike earlier philosophers (such as Empedocles and Democritus), Aristotle did not believe objects sent off tiny copies of themselves · (eidola). Rather, he thought that perception was
48 Chapter 2 explained by the motion of objects that stimulate one of the senses. The movement of environmental objects created movements through different media, and each of the five senses was maximally sensitive to movements in a certain medium. For example, seeing resulted from the movement of light caused by an object, hearing and smelling resulted from the movement of air, and taste and touching resulted from movement of the flesh. In this way, Aristotle explained how we could actually sense environmen-tal objects without those objects sending off physical copies of themselves. Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed we could trust our senses to yield an accu-rate representation of the environment. Common Sense, Passive Reason, and Active Reason As important as sensory information was to Aristotle, it was only the first step in acquiring knowledge. In other words, sensory experience was a necessary, but not a sufficient, element in the attainment of knowledge. In the first place, each sensory system provides isolated infonnation about the environment that by itself is not very useful. For example, seeing a baby tossing and turning provides a clue as to its condition, hear-ing it cry provides another clue, smelling it may give a clue as to why it is so uncomfortable, and touching may reveal that it has a fever. It is the combined information from all the senses that allows for the most effective interactions with the environment. Aristotle postulated a common sense as the mechanism that coordinated the information from all the senses. The common sense, like all other mental functions, was assumed to be located in the heart. The job of common sense was to synthesize sensory experience, thereby making it more mean-ingful. However, sensory information, even after it was synthesized by common sense, could provide information only about particular instances of things. Passive reason involved the utilization of synthesized experience for getting along effectively in everyday life, but it did not result in an under-standing of essences, or first principles. The abstrac-tion of first principles from one's many experiences could be accomplished only by active reason, which was considered the highest form of thinking. Aristo-tle therefore delineated levels of knowing or under-standing much like Plato's divided line: • Active reason: The abstraction of principles, or essences, from synthesized experience • Passive reason: Utilization of synthesized experi-ence • Common sense: Synthesized experience • Sensory infonnation: Isolated experiences To see how these levels of understanding are related, consider how electricity is experienced through the various senses: sight (seeing an electri-cal discharge), pain (being shocked), and hearing (hearing the electrical discharge). These experi-ences would correspond to the level of sense recep-tion. The common sense would indicate that all these experiences had a common source-electric-ity. Passive reason would indicate how electricity could be used in a variety of practical ways, whereas active reason would seek the laws governing elec-tricity and an understanding of its essence. What started as a set of empirical experiences ends as a search for the prii1ciples that can explain those experiences. The active reason part of the soul provides humans with their highest purpose. That is, it pro-vides their entelechy. Just as the ultimate goal of an acorn is to become an oak tree, the ultimate goal of humans is to engage in active reason. Aristotle also believed that acting in accordance with one's nature caused pleasure and that acting otherwise brought pain. In the case of humans, engaging in active rea-son was the source of greatest pleasure. On this mat-ter, Aristotle was essentially in agreement with Socrates and Plato. Also, because Aristotle postu-lated an inner potential in humans that may or may not be reached, his theory represents psychology's first self-actualization theory. The self-actualization theories of Jung, Maslow, and Rogers reflect Aristo-tle's thoughts on the human entelechy. With his concept of active reason, Aristotle inserted a mystical or supernatural component into an otherwise naturalistic philosophy. The active rea-son part of the soul was considered immortal, but
when it left the body upon death, it carried no rec· ollections with it. It was considered a mechanism for pure thought and was believed to be identical for all humans. It was not judged in accordance with the moral character of its prior possessor, and there was no union or reunion with God. The active reason part of the soul went neither to heaven nor to hell. Later, however, the Christianized version of the Aristotelian soul was to be characterized by all these things. Another mystical component in Aristotle's the· ory was his notion of the unmoved mover. As stated earlier, for Aristotle, everything in nature had a pur· pose that was programmed into it. This purpose, or entelechy, explained why a thing was the way it was and why it did what it did. But if everything in nature has a purpose, what causes that purpose? As we have seen, Aristotle postulated an unmoved mover, or that which caused everything else but was not caused by anything itself. For Aristotle, the unmoved mover set nature in motion and did little else; it was a logical necessity, not a deity. Along with Aristotle's notion of the immortal aspect of the soul, the Christians also found his unmoved mover very much to their liking. Memory and Recall In keeping with the empirical aspect of his philoso· phy, Aristotle, in his On Memory, explained mem· ory and recall as the results of sense perception. This contrasts with Plato's explanation, which was essen· tially nativistic. Remembering, for Aristotle, was a spontaneous recollection of something that had been previously experienced. For example, you see a person and remember that you saw that person before and perhaps engaged in a certain conversa· tion. Recall, however, involves an actual mental search for a past experience. It was in conjunction with recall that Aristotle postulated what have been called his laws of association. The most basic law of association is the law of contiguity, which states that when we think of something, we also tend to think of things that were experienced along with it. The law of similarity states that when we think of something, we tend to think of things similar to it. The Early Greek Philosophers 49 The law of contrast states that when we think of something, we also tend to think of things that are its opposite. Aristotle said that on rare occasions a strong association can be formed between two events after experiencing them together just once. More typically, however, the more often events are experienced together, the stronger will be their asso-ciation. Thus, Aristotle implied the law of fre-quency, which states, that, in general, the more often experiences occur together, the stronger will be their association. According to Aristotle, events can be associated naturally, such as when thunder follows lightning, or by custom, such as learning the letters of the alphabet or associating a certain name with a certain person. In both cases, it. is generally the frequency of occurrence that determines the strength of association. In On Memory Aristotle said, "For as one thing follows another by nature, so too that happens by custom, and frequency creates nature" (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 1, pp. 718-719). Aristotle's laws of association were to become the basis of learning theory for more than 2 ,000 years. In fact, the concept of mental association is still at the heart of most theories of learning. The belief that one or more laws of association can be used to explain the origins of ideas, the phenomena of memory, or how complex ideas are formed from simple ones came to be called associationism. Imagination and Dreaming We have seen that Aristotle's philosophy had both rational and empirical components. For example, his account of memory and recall was empirical. We see that component again in his explanation of imagination and dreaming. According to Aristotle, when sensations occur, they create images that long outlast the stimulation that caused them. The reten-tion of these images is what constitutes memory. These images also create the important link between sensation and rational thought, because it is the images provided by experience that are pon· dered by the passive and active intellects. Imagina-tion, then, is explained as the lingering effects of sensory experience. Aristotle did question the relia-bility of the products of imagination. Sensations, he
50 Chapter 2 said, tend to be free of error because of the close relationship between objects of sense and the sense organs. Because imagination is removed from this relationship, it is much more susceptible to error. Aristotle also explained dreaming in terms of the images of past experience. During sleep, the images of past experience may be stimulated by events inside or outside the body. The reasons that our residual impressions (images) may seem odd dur-ing a dream are (1) during sleep the images are not organized by reason, and (2) while awake our images are coordinated with or controlled by ongoing sen-sory stimulation, which interacts with the images of previous experience; during sleep this does not occur. Aristotle was extremely skeptical about a dream's ability to provide information about future events. Most often we dream about activities in which we have recently engaged, but it is possible that a course of action is dreamed about so vividly that it will suggest an actual course of action in the dreamer's life. However, according to Aristotle, most cases of apparent prophecy by dreams are to be taken as mere coincidences: Qust as] mentioning a particular person is neither token nor cause of this person's presenting himself, so, in the parallel instance, the dream is, to him who has seen it, neither token nor cause of its ful-fillment, but a mere coincidence. Hence the fact that many dreams have no "fulfillment," for coin-cidences do not occur according to any universal or general law. . . . For the principle which is expressed in the gambler's maxim: "If you make many throws your luck must change," holds good [for dreams] also. (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 1, p. 737) It is interesting to note that the eminent Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero (106-4 3 B.C.) agreed with Aristotle's analysis of dreams: From the visions of drunkards and madmen one might, doubtless, deduce innumerable conse-quences by conjecture, which might seem to be presages of future events. For what person who aims at a mark all day long will not sometimes hit it? We sleep every night; and there are very few on which we do not dream; can we wonder then that what we drea1n sometimes comes to pass? (Yonge1 1997, p. 251) There was a sense, however, in which Aristotle believed dreams were capable of predicting impor-tant future events. Because sensations are often exaggerated in dreams, subtle bodily changes may be reflected in dreams but not during wakefulness. For this reason, it makes sense for physicians to analyze dreams to detect the early signs of disease (Barnes, 1984, Vol. l, pp. 736-737). Motivation and Happiness Happiness, for Aristotle, was doing what is natural because doing so fulfills one's purpose. For humans, our purpose is to think rationally, and therefore doing so brings the greatest happiness. However, humans are also biological organisms characterized by the functions of nutrition, sensation, reproduc-tion, and movement. That is, although humans are distinct from other animals (because of our reason-ing ability), we do share many of their motives. As with other animals, much of human behavior is motivated by appetites. Action is always directed at the satisfaction of an appetite. That is, behavior is motivated by such internal states as hunger, sexual arousal, thirst, or the desire for bodily comfort. Because the existence of an appetite causes discom-fort, it stimulates activity that will eliminate it. If the activity is successful, the animal or person expe-riences pleasure. Much human behavior, then, like all animal behavior, is hedonistic; its purpose is to bring pleasure or to avoid pain. Unlike other animals, however, we can use our rational powers to inhibit our appetites. Further-more, our greatest happiness does not come ffom satisfying our biological needs. Rather, it comes from exercising our rational powers to their fullest. Given the fact that humans have both appetites and rational powers, conflict often arises between the immediate satisfaction of our appetites and more remote rational goals, On the portals of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, were two inscriptions. One was "Know thyself' which, as we have seen, so inspired Socrates. The other was "Nothing in excess." The
latter reflects the high esteem with which the Greeks held self-control, and Aristotle was no exception. In The Nicomachean Ethics (Ross, 1990), Aristotle described the best life as one lived in mod-eration; that is, one lived according to the golden mean. As examples, he described courage as the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, temper-ance as the mean between abstinence and self-indulgence, and generosity as the mean between meanness (stinginess) and extravagance. A life of moderation requires the rational control of one's appetites. Even the best of humans, however, are capable of acting hedonistically rather than ration-ally: "For desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men" (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 2, p. 2042). According to Aristotle, the lives of many humans are governed by nothing more than the pleasure and pain that comes from the satisfaction and frustration of appetites. These people are indistinguishable from animals. Appetites and reason are part of every human, but his or her character is revealed by which of the two dominates. The Emotions and Selective Perception In general, in Aristotelian philosophy, the emotions had the function of amplifying any existing ten-dency. For example, people might run more quickly if they were frightened than if they were merely jog-ging for exercise. Also, the emotions provide a motive for acting-for example, people might be inclined to fight if they are angry. However, the emotions may also influence how people perceive things; that is, they may cause selective perception. Aristotle gave the following examples: We are easily deceived respecting the operations of sense ... perception when we are excited by emotion) and different persons according to their different emotions; for example, the coward when excited by fear and the amorous person by amorous desire; so that with but little resemblance to go upon, the former thinks he sees his foes approaching, the lat-ter that he sees the object of his desire; and the more deeply one is under the influence of the emo-tion, the less similarity is required to give rise to The Early Greek Philosophers 51 these impressions. Thus1 too, in fits of anger, and also in all states of appetite, all men become easily deceived, and more so the inore their emotions are excited. (Barnes, 1984, Vol. 1, p. 732) We can engage here in a bit of presentism and note that Aristotle made several mistakes. For example, he assigned thinking and common sense to the heart and claimed that the main function of the brain was to cool the blood. He believed that the number of species of living things in the world was fixed and thereby denied evolution. He also believed the earth to be the center of the universe. However, compared to his many positive contribu-tions, his mistakes are minor. Although many of his observations were incorrect, he did promote empiri-cal observation as a means of attaining knowledge, and in doing so, he brought Greek philosophy to new heights. The Importance of Early Greek Philosophy To realize the importance of the early Greek philosophers, remembering Popper's philosophy of science is important. As we saw in Chapter 1, Pop-perian science consists of specifying a problem, pro-posing solutions to the problem, and attempting to refute the proposed solutions. What survives in such a process is a solution to a problem that, at the moment, cannot be refuted. Again, the highest sta-tus that a proposed solution to a problem can ever attain is not yet disconfirmed. The assumption. in Popper's view of science is that all scientific "facts" and "theories" eventually will be found to be false. What has this to do with the importance of early Greek philosophy? In Popper's view, science began when humans first began to question the stories they were told about themselves and the world. Accord-ing to Brett, "The Greek cosmologists were impor-tant because they broke loose from the accepted religious traditions and produced what they consid-ered to be better stories about the origin and stuff of the world. They speculated" (1912-1921/1965, p. 38). Not only did the Greek philosophers speculate, but they also respected the speculations of others.
52 Chapter 2 With the exception of the Pythagoreans, who cre-ated a secretive cult designed to perpetuate dogma, the Greek philosophers engaged in open, critical discussion of each other's ideas. For Popper, this willingness to engage in critical discussion was the beginning of an extremely important tradition:· Here is a unique phenomenon, and it is closely connected with the astonishing freedom and cre-ativeness of Greek philosophy. How can we explain this phenomenon? What we have to explain is the rise of a tradition. It is a tradition that allows or encourages critical discussions bet\veen various schools and, more surprisingly still, within one and the same school. For nowhere outside the Pythagorean school do we find a school devoted to the preservation of a doctrine. Instead we find changes, new ideas, modifications, and outright criticism of the master. (1958, p. 27) As we have seen, Popper attributed the founding of this new tradition of freedom to Thales, who not only tolerated criticism but encouraged it. According to Popper, this was a "mo1nentous innovation11 because it broke with the dogmatic tradition that per-mitted only one true doctrine and allowed a plurality of doctrines, all attempting to approach the truth via critical discussion. Coupled with this tradition of free, Summary Primitive humans looked upon everything in nature as if it were alive; there was no distinction between the animate and the inanimate-this view was called animism. Moreover, there was a tendency to project human feelings and emotions onto nature, and this was called anthropomorphism. A spirit or ghost was thought to reside in everything, giving it life. An array of magical practices evolved that were designed to influence various spirits. These practices gave humans the feeling that they had some control over nature. Early Greek religion was of two main types: Olympian, which consisted of a number of gods whose activities were very much like those of upper-class Greeks, and Dionysiac-Orphic, which preached that the soul was a prisoner of the body and that it longed to be released so that it could critical discussion is the realization that our inquiries are never final but always tentative and capable of improvement. Popper said of this tradition: It ... leads, almost by necessity, to the realization that our attempts to see and to find the truth are not final, but open to iinprovement; that our knowledge, our doctrine, is conjectural; that it consists of guesses, of hypotheses, rather than of final and certain truths; and that criticism and crit-ical discussion are our only ineans of getting 11earer to the truth. It thus leads to the tradition of bold conjectures and of free criticism, the tradition which created the rational or scientific attitude, and with it our Western civilization. (1958, p. 29) Aristotle's death, in 322 B.C., marked the end of the Golden Age of Greece, which had started about 300 years earlier with the philosophy of Thales. Most, if not all, of the philosophical concepts that have been pursued since the Golden Age were produced during this period. After Aristotle's death, philoso-phers either began to rely on the teaching of past authorities or they turned their attention to questions conceming models for human conduct. It was not until the Renaissance, many centuries after Aristo· tle's death, that the critical tradition of the early Greek philosophers was rediscovered and revived. once again dwell among the gods. Whereas Olympian religion tended to be the favorite of the wealthier Greeks, Dionysiac-Orphic religion tended to be favored by the lower classes. The first philosophers emphasized natural expla-nations instead of supernatural ones. They sought a primary element, called the physis, from which everything was made. For Thales, the physis was water; for Anaximander, it was the boundless; for Heraclitus, it was fire; for Parrnenides, it was the ao11e" or "changelessness"; for Pythagoras, it \Vas numbers; for Democritus, it was the atom; and for Hippocrates and Empedocles, there were four pri· mary elements: water, earth, fire, and air; and for Anaxagoras there was an infinite number of ele-ments. The earliest Greek philosophers were called
cosmologists, because they sought to explain the ori-gin, structure, and processes of the universe (cos-mos). Along with the four elements, Empedocles postulated the forces of love, which tends to bring the elements together, and strife, which tends to separate them. When the mixture of elements and forces is just right, parts of animals and humans form and combine into almost all possible arrangements. Only a limited number of the random arrangements were capable of survival, and humans were among them. The debate between Heraclitus, who believed everything was constantly changing, and Par-menides, who believed nothing ever changed, raised a number of epistemological questions, such as, What, if anything, is permanent enough to be known with certainty? and, If sensory experience provides information only about a continually changing world, how can it be a source of knowl-edge? These and related questions have persisted to the present. Most of the first philosophers were monists because they made no distinction between the mind and the body; whatever element or elements they arrived at were supposed to account for everything. In Pythagoras, however, we have a full-fledged dual-ism between the mind and the body and between the physical and the abstract. Numbers were abstractions but were real, and they could be known only by rational thought, not by sensory experience. Sensory experience could only inhibit attainment of abstract knowledge and was to be avoided. The mind, or soul, was thought to be immortal. Early Greek medicine was temple medicine based on superstition and magical practices. Through the efforts of such individuals as Alcmaeon and Hippocrates, medical practice became objective and naturalistic. Displacing such beliefs as that ill-ness was due to the possession of spirits was the belief that health resulted from a balance among bodily elements or processes and illness from an imbalance. The Sophists concluded that there were many equally valid philosophical positions. "Truth" was believed to be a function of a person's education, personal experiences, culture, and beliefs; and The EaTly GTeek Philosophers 5 3 whether this "truth" was accepted by others depended on one's communicative skills. There is much in common between what the Sophists taught and contemporary postmodernism. Socrates agreed with the Sophists that truth was subjective, but he also believed that a careful examination of one's subjective experiences would reveal certain con-cepts that were stable and knowable and which, when known, would generate proper conduct. Plato, influenced by the Pythagoreans, took Socrates' belief an additional step by saying that ideas, or concepts had an independent existence, just as the Pythagorean number did. For Plato, ideas or forms were the ultimate reality, and they could be known only by reason. Sensory experience leads only to ignorance-or at best, opinion-and should be avoided. The soul, before becoming implanted in the body, dwells in pure and complete knowledge, which can be remembered if one turns one's thoughts inward and away from the empirical world. For Plato, knowledge results from remembering what the soul experienced prior to its implantation in the body. This is called the reminiscence theory of knowledge. Plato believed that the rational pow-ers of the mind (rationalism) should be turned inward (introspection) to rediscover ideas that had been present at birth (nativism). Aristotle was also interested in general concepts instead of isolated facts; but unlike Plato, he believed that the way to arrive at these concepts was to examine nature. Instead of urging the avoidance of sensory experience, he claimed that it was the source of all knowledge. Aristotle's brand of ration-alism relied heavily on empiricism because he believed that concepts are derived from the careful scrutiny of sensory observations. He believed that all things contained an entelechy, or purpose. An acorn, for example, has the potential to become an oak tree, and its purpose is to do so. There were three categories of living things: those possessing a vegetative soul, those possessing a sensitive soul, and those possessing a rational soul. Humans alone possess a rational soul, which has two functions: pas-sive reason and active reason. Passive reason pon-ders information from the five senses and from the common sense, which synthesizes sensory informa-.............____ _,,,......, ........................................................................................................-.:1!1~~
54 Chapter 2 tion. Active reason is used to isolate enduring con-cepts (essences) that manifest themselves in sensory experience. Aristotle considered active reason immortal. He also postulated an unmoved mover that was the entelechy for all of nature; it caused everything else but was not itself caused by any-thing. Aristotle believed that nature was organized on a grand scale ranging from formless matter to plants, to animals, to humans, and finally to the unmoved mover. Because humans have much in common with other animals, we can learn about ourselves by studying them. Aristotle distinguished between memory, which was spontaneous, and recall, which was the active search for a recollection of a past experience. It was with regard to recall that Aristotle postulated his laws of association-the laws of contiguity, similar-ity, contrast, and frequency. Aristotle explained imagination and dreaming as the pondering of images that linger after sensory experience has ceased. Contrary to what almost everyone else at the time believed, Aristotle believed that dreams do not foretell the future, and if they appear to do so it is simply coincidence. However, because minute bod-ily events are exaggerated in dreams, dreams can be used to detect the early signs of disease. Humans are motivated by their very nature to engage their rational powers in an effort to attain knowledge. In addition, however, humans have appetites not unlike those of other animals. The presence of an appetite stimulates behavior that will satisfy it. When an appetite is satisfied, the person or animal experiences pleasure; when it is not satisfied, pain is experienced. Human rationality can and should be used to control appetites and emotions, but both sometimes overwhelm even the best of humans. The best life is one lived in accordance with the golden mean-a life of moderation. Emotions amplify ongoing thoughts and behavior and sometimes cause people to selectively perceive or misperceive events in the environment. Although Aristotle made several mistakes, his accomplishments far exceeded his failures. Early Greek philosophy was significant because it replaced supernatural explanations with naturalis-tic ones and because it encouraged the open criti-cism and evaluation of ideas. . Discussion Questions 1. Describe some of the events that may have con-cerned primitive humans and discuss how they accounted for and attempted to control those events. 2. Summarize the major differences between Olymp-ian and Dionysiac-Orphic religion. 3. What distinguishes the attempts of the first philosophers to understand nature from the attempts of those who preceded them? 4. What did the cosmologists attempt to do? 5. Why were the first philosophers called physicists? List the physes arrived at by Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus. 6. Su1n1narize Empedocles' view of th_e universe. 7. Summarize Empedocles' view of how species of ani-1nals, it1cluding h.u1nans, ca1ne into existence. 8. What important epistemological question did Her-aclitus' philosophy raise? 9. Give examples of how logic was used to defend Parmenides' belief that change and motions were illusions. 10. Differentiate between elementisrn and reduction-ism and give an example of each. 11. What were the major differences between temple medicine and the type of medicine practiced by Alcmaeon and the Hippocratics? 12. How did the Sophists differ from the philosophers who preceded them? What was the Sophists' atti-tude toward knowledge? In what way did Socrates agree with the Sophists, and in what way did he disagree? 13. What observations did Xenophanes make about religion? 14. What, for Socrates, was the goal of philosophical inquiry? What method did he use in pursuing that goal? 15. What are the charges brought against Socrates by the Athenians? What were perhaps the real rea-sons Socrates was convicted and sentenced to death? 16. Describe Plato's theory of forms or ideas. 17. In Plato's philosophy, what was the analogy of the divided line? 18. Summarize Plato's cave allegory. What points was Plato making with this allegory? 19. Discuss Plato's reminiscence theory of knowledge. 20. Compare Aristotle's attitude toward sensory expe-rience with that of Plato.
21. Provide evidence that Aristotle's philosophy had both rational and empirical components. 22. According to Aristotle, what were the four causes of things? 23. Discuss Aristotle's concept ofentelechy. 24. Describe Aristotle's concept of scala naturae and indicate how that concept justifies a comparative psychology. 25. Discuss Aristotle's concept of soul. 26. Discuss the relationship of sensory experience, common sense, passive reason, and active reason. 27. Summarize Aristotle's views on imagination and dreaming. 28. Discuss Aristotle's views on happiness. What for him provided the greatest happiness? What char-acterized the life lived in accordance with the golden mean? 29. Discuss Aristotle's views on emotions. 30. In Aristotle's philosophy, what was the function of the unmoved mover? 31. Describe the laws of association that Aristotle proposed. 3 2. Summarize the reasons Greek philosophy was impor-tant to the development of Western civilization. lnfoTrac College Edition ~-® Explore Info Trac College Edition, your online c;;;;; library. Go to http://www.infotraccollege.com/ I wadsworth/access.html. Search term: Aristotle Suggestions for Further Reading Allen, R. E. (Ed.). (1991). Greek philosophy from Thales to Aristotle (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Annas, J. (2003). Plato: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Barnes, J. (2001). Early Greek philosophy (rev. ed). New York: Penguin Putnam. Bremmer, J. N. (1993). The early Greek concept of the sou!. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cartledge, P. (1999). Democritus. New York: Rout-ledge. Guthrie, K. S. (Comp. and Trans.). (1987). The Pythagorean sourcebook and library. Grand Rapids, Ml: Phanes Press. Hicks, R. D. (Trans.). (1991). Aristotle: De anima. Buf-falo, NY: Prometheus Books. The Early Greek Philosophers 5 5 Mcleish, K. (1999). Aristotle. New York: Routledge. Robinson, D. N. (1989). Aristotle's psychology. New York: Columbia University Press. Robinson, T. M. (1995). Plato's psychology. (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ross, D. (Trans.). (1990). Aristotle: The Nicomachean ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, C. C. W. (1998). Socrates. New York: Oxford University Press. Waterfield, R. (2000). The first philosophers: The Preso-cratics and the Sophists. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press. Glossary Active reason According to Aristotle, the faculty of the soul that searches for the essences or abstract concepts that manifest themselves in the empirical world. Aristotle thought that the active reason part of the soul was immortal. Alcmaeon (fl. ca. 500 B.C.) One of the first Greek physicians to move away from the magic and super-stition of temple medicine and toward a naturalis-tic understanding and treatment of illness. Allegory of the cave Plato's description of individuals who live their lives in accordance with the shad-ows of reality provided by sensory experience instead of in accordance with the true reality beyond sensory experience. Analogy of the divided line Plato's illustration of his contention that there is a hierarchy of understand-ing. The lowest type of understanding is based on images of empirical objects. Next highest is an understanding of empirical objects themselves, which results only in opinion. Next is an under-standing of abstract mathematical principles. Then comes an understanding of the forms. The highest understanding (true knowledge) is an understand-ing of the form of the good and includes a knowl-edge of all forms and their organization. Anaxagoras (ca. 500-428 B.C.) Postulated an infinite number of elements (seeds) from which everything is made. He believed that everything contained all the elements and that a thing's identity is deter-mined by which elements predominate. An excep-tion is the mind, which contains no other element but may combine with other elements, thereby cre-ating life. Anaximander (ca. 610-547 B.C.) Suggested the "infi-nite" or "boundless" as the physis and formulated a rudimentary theory of evolution. ,_s:; .'.::/
56 ChapteT 2 Animism The belief that everything in nature is alive. Anthropomorphism The projection of human attrib-utes onto nonhuman things. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) Believed sensory experience to be the basis of all knowledge, although the five senses and the common sense provided only the information from which knowledge could be derived. Aristotle also believed that everything in nature had within it an entelechy (purpose) that determined its potential. Active reason, which was considered the immortal part of the human soul, provided humans with their greatest potential, and therefore fully actualized humans engage in active reason. Because everything was thought to have a cause, Aristotle postulated an unmoved mover that caused everything in the world but was not itself caused. (See also Unmoved mover.) Associationism The philosophical belief that mental phenomena, such as learning, remembering, and imagining, can be explained in terms of the laws of association. (See also Laws of association.) Becoming According to Heraclitus, the state of every-thing in the universe. Nothing is static and unchanging; rather) everything in the universe is dynamic-that is, becoming something other than what it was. Being Something that is unchanging and thus, in principle, is capable of being known with certainty. Being implies stability and certainty; becoming implies instability and uncertainty. Common sense According to Aristotle, the faculty located in the heart that synthesizes the informa-tion provided by the five senses. Cosmology The study of the origin, structure, and pro-cesses governing the universe. Democritus (ca. 460-3 70 B.C.) Offered atoms as the physis. Everything in nature, including humans, was explained in terms of atoms and their activi-ties. His was the first completely materialistic view of the world and of humans. Dionysiac-Orphic religion Religion whose major belief was that the soul becomes a prisoner of the body because of some transgression committed by the soul. The soul continues on a circle of transmi-grations until it has been purged of sin, at which time it can escape its earthly existence and return to its pure, divine existence among the gods. A number of magical practices were thought useful in releasing the soul from its bodily tomb. Dreaming According to Aristotle, the experience of images retained from waking experience. Dreams are often bizarre because the images experienced during sleep are neither organized by our rational powers nor supported by ongoing sensory experi-ence. That dreams sometimes correspond to future events was, for Aristotle, mere coincidence. How-ever, because bodily processes are exaggerated in dreams, physicians can sometilnes use drean1s to detect the early signs of disease. Efficient cause According to Aristotle, the force that transforms a thing. Eidola (singular, eidolon) A tiny replication that some early Greek philosophers thought emanated from the surfaces of things in the environment, allowing the things to be perceived. Elementism The belief that complex processes can be understood by studying the elements of which they consist. Empedocles (ca. 490-430 B.C.) Postulated earth, fire, air, and water as the four basic elements from which everything is made and two forces, love and strife, that alternately synthesize and separate those elements. He was also the first philosopher to sug-gest a theory of perception, and he offered a theory of evolution that emphasized a rudimentary form of natural selection. . Entelechy According to Aristotle, the purpose for which a thing exists and which remains a potential until actualized. Active reason, for example, is the human enrelechy, but it exists only as a potential in 1nany humans. Essence Those indispensable characteristics of a thing that give it its unique identity. Final cause According to Aristotle, the purpose for which a thing exists. Formal cause According to Aristotle, the form of a thing. Forms According to Plato, the pure, abstract realities that are unchanging and timeless and therefore knowable. Such forms create imperfect manifesta-tions of themselves when they interact with mat-ter. It is these imperfect manifestations of the forms that are the objects of our sense impressions. (See also Theory of forms.) Galen (ca. A.O. 130-200) Associated each of Hip-pocrates' four humors with a temperame11t) thus creating a rudimentary theory of personality. Golden mean The rule Aristotle suggested people follow to avoid excesses and to live a life of moderation. Gorgias (ca. 485-380 B.C.) A Sophist who believed tl1e only reality a person can experience is his or
i 0 1: her subjective reality and that this reality can never be accurately communicated to another individual. Heraclitus (ca. 540-480 B.C.) Suggested fire as the physis because in its presence nothing remained the same. He viewed the world as in a constant state of flux and thereby raised the question of what could be known with certainty. Hippocrates (ca. 460-377 B.c.) Considered the father of modern medicine because he assumed that dis· ease had natural causes1 not supernatural ones. Health prevails when the four humors of the body are in balance, disease when there is an imbalance. The physician's task was to facilitate the body's natural tendency to heal itself. Imagination According to Aristotle, the pondering of the images retained from past experiences. Inductive definition The technique used by Socrates that examined many individual examples of a con· cept to discover what they all had in common. Introspection The careful examination of one's inner experiences. Law of contiguity A thought of something will tend to cause thoughts of things that are usually experi· enced along with it. Law of contrast A thought of something will tend to cause thoughts of opposite things. Law of frequency In general, the more often events are experienced together, the stronger they become associated in memory. Law of similarity A thought of something will tend to cause thoughts of similar things. Laws of association Those laws thought responsible for holding mental events together in memory. For Aristotle, the laws of association consisted of the laws of contiguity, contrast, similarity, and fre· quency. Magic Various ceremonies and rituals that are designed to influence spirits. Material cause According to Aristotle, what a thing is made of. Nihilism The belief that because what is considered true varies from person to person, any search for universal (interpersonal) truth will fail. In other words, there is no Truth, only truths. The Sophists were nihilists. Olympian religion The religion based on a belief in the Olympian gods as they were described in the Homeric odes. Olympian religion tended to be favored by the privileged classes, whereas peasants, laborers, and slaves tended to favor the more mys· The Early Greek Philosophers 5 7 tical Dionysiac-Orphic religion. (See also Dionysiac-Orphic religion.) Parmenides (born ca. 515 B.C.) Believed that the world was solid, fixed, and motionless, and there-fore that all apparent change or motion was an illu-sion. Passive reason According to Aristotle, the practical utilization of the information provided by the com-mon sense. Physicists Those who search for or postulate a physis. Physis A primary substance or element from which everything is thought to be derived. Plato (ca. 427-347 B.C.) First a disciple of Socrates, came under the influence of the Pythagoreans, and postulated the existence of an abstract world of forms or ideas that, when manifested in matter, make up the objects in the empirical world. The only trne knowledge is that of the forms, a knowl-edge that can be gained only by reflecting on the innate contents of the soul. Sensory experience interferes with the attainment of knowledge and should be avoided. Protagoras (ca. 485-410 B.C.) A Sophist who taught that "Man is the measure of all things." In other words1 what is considered true varies with a per~ son's personal experiences; therefore, there is no objective truth, only individual versions of what is true. Pythagoras (ca. 580-500 B.C.) Believed that an abstract world consisting of numbers and numeri-cal relationships exerted an influence on the phys-ical world. He created a dualistic view of humans by saying that in addition to our body, we have a mind (soul), which through reasoning could under-stand the abstract world of numbers. Furthermore, he believed the human soul to be immorta I. Pythagoras' philosophy had a major influence on Plato and, through Christianity, on the entire Western world. . Rational soul According to Aristotle, the soul pos-sessed only by humans. It incorporates the func-tions of the vegetative and sensitive souls and allows thinking about events in the empirical world (passive reason) and the abstraction of the concepts that characterize events in the empirical world (active reason). Recall For Aristotle, the active mental search for the recollection of past experiences. Reductionism The attempt to explain objects or events in one domain by using terminology, con-cepts, laws, or principles from another domain. ~---llllllBI-----------------
-~----------------------------------------------------58 Chapter 2 Explaining observable phenomena (domain1) in terms of atomic theory (domain2) would be an example; explaining human behavior and cogni· tion (domain1) in terms of biochemical principles ( domain2) would be another. In a sense, it can be said that events in domain1 are reduced to events in domain2. Remembering For Aristotle, the passive recollection of past experiences. Reminiscence theory of knowledge Plato's belief that knowledge is attained by remembering the experi· ences the soul had when it dwelled among the forms before entering the body. Scala naturae Aristotle's description of nature as being arranged in a hierarchy from formless matter to the unmoved mover. In this grand design, the only thing higher than humans was the unmoved mover. Sensitive soul According to Aristotle, the soul pos· sessed by animals. It includes the functions pro· vided by the vegetative soul and provides the abil-ity to interact with the environment and to retain the information gained from that interaction. Socrates (ca. 470-399 B.C.) Disagreed with the Sophists' contention that there is no discernible truth beyond individual opinion. Socrates believed that by examining a number of individual manifes· rations of a concept, the general concept itself could be defined clearly and precisely. These gen· eral definitions were stable and knowable and, when known, generated moral behavior. Solipsism The belief that a person's subjective reality is the only reality that exists and can be known. Sophists A group of philosopher-teachers who believed that "truth" was what people thought it to be. To convince others that something is ntrue/' one needs effective comtnunication skills, and it was those skills that the Sophists taught. Teleology The belief that nature is purposive. Arista· tie's philosophy was teleological. Temple medicine The type of medicine practiced by priests in early Greek temples that was character· ized by superstition and magic. Individuals such as Alcmaeon and Hippocrates severely criticized tem· pie medicine and were instrumental in displacing such practices with naturalistic medicine-that is, medicine that sought nantral causes of disorders rather than supernatural causes. Thales (ca. 625-547 B.C.) Often called the first philosopher because he emphasized natural instead of supernatural explanations of things. By encour-aging the critical evaluation of his ideas and those of others, he is thought to have started the Golden Age of Greek philosophy. He believed water to be the primary element from which everything else was derived. Theory of forms Plato's contention that ultimate reality consists of abstract ideas or forms that cor· respond to all objects in the empirical world. Knowledge of these abstractions is innate and can be attained only tl<rough introspection. Transmigration of the soul The Dionysiac-Orphlc belief that because of some transgression, the soul ls compelled to dwell in one earthly prison after another until it is purified. The transmigration may find the soul at various times in plants, animals, and humans as lt seeks redemption. Unmoved mover According to Aristotle, that whii:h gave nature its purpose, or final cause, but was itself uncaused. In Aristotle's philosophy, the unmoved mover was a logical necessity. Vegetative soul The soul possessed by plants. It allows only growth, the intake of nutrition, and reproduc-tion. Xenophanes (ca. 560-478 B.C.) Believed people cre· ated gods in their own image. He noted that dark· skinned. people created dark-skinned gods and light-skinned people created light-skinned gods. He speculated that the gods created by nonhuman animals would have the characteristics of those animals. Zeno's paradox The assertion that in order for an object to pass from point A to point B, lt must first traverse half the distance between those two points, and then half of the remaining distance, and so fortl1. Because th.is process n1ust occur an infinite number of times, Zeno concluded that an object could logically never reach point B.