It seems that in the Sophist 'that which is' implies 'being', but 'that which is not' does not imply 'non-being', because as Parmenides says, non-being cannot be known, understood, discussed, etc., and rather 'that which is not' seems to imply 'non-form' or 'false-form' (i.e. non or false beauty). I find this interesting. Though perhaps 'that which is' actually implies 'form', more than 'being', if the two can be separate; in which case it makes more sense to use the terms 'that which is' and 'that which is not' in the same context. But what if 'that which is not' implies becoming (and 'that which is', being)?
'that which is' 'that which is not'
1. being non-being
2. form non-form
3. being becoming
Can these mix and match? I think these are merely different ways for describing the same multi-faceted concepts, depending on perception and the context in which it is discussed. Although thinking about the context in which 'that which is not' is used in Sophist, it implies non-form as in something lacking a specific form, but not necessarily a copy of a form, in the process of becoming form. But in another instance, it implies false form (the false appearance of a true form?), which brings back in the notion of non-form implying a copy of a form. But is non or false beauty or justice in a state of becoming (true) beauty or justice?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Pantheistic (Panentheistic) Monism in Parmenides
One of the underlying messages from Plato’s Parmenides is the concept of a pantheistic monist universe. This implies that there is really only one principle in the universe, which expresses itself in a multitude of ways, and therefore everything in the universe is a part of this one principle. This metaphysical breakdown reveals that the universe, (including every manifestation of the one principle), can be one, and not one, but many, simultaneously. How this is possible can partially be found in Parmenides.
Helpful to understanding this metaphysical perspective is how the unfolding of this one principle in the universe happens, which Plato explains in Timaeus.[1] The One (principle) desires to manifest itself and so labors through the task of emanating itself into the universe in a multitude of ways. As each emanation derives from the same source, every emanation is essentially that same source. To understand what Parmenides means by the One, according to this breakdown, one must look beyond the pure numerical value of the concept of oneness, though this is necessarily an important part of its nature, and perhaps the only part accessible to human rational thought. When the One desires the universe, it enters “being”, and at this moment becomes many. Timaeus explains this process as something “like” (Timaeus explains this process in metaphor because it is abstract) a sperm fertilizing an egg to create a being; save the sperm is the mind with the intention of the One, entering a receptacle, a complex substance that fertilizes the intention of the mind and produces the manifest universe; and the One now becomes multitude. The abstract (metaphysical) way in which the one is not many is when it is in a state of rest before it desires and manifests, and it becomes many when it begins the process of developing the universe. To change from one state to the other, it passes through a void, from one to many. This is permissible because though the one changes from one to many, it still remains one. It is always one; simply moving from ‘one’ to ‘one becoming many’ to ‘one as many’ (this third step is also ‘many becoming one’, eventually completing the cycle back to ‘one’). The many partake in oneness in a multitude of ways; in the abstract way, they partake, because the One is their very origin and essence. Though this abstract existence is not very clear and distinct in Parmenides, I will soon explain the other ways many partake of oneness. The one can also be one and many at different moments in the instance of perception, without really changing from one to the other, as one always remains. At one time it is perceived as one, and at another time it is perceived as many, though it actually always remains both in the purely numerical outlook.
Just as the one and many, in this breakdown, exist in the universe in both an abstract and numerical way, every element in the universe can be seen to have this same nature, setting up a microcosmic-macrocosmic universe, similar to the one Leibniz explains in his Monadologie (though Leibniz is not the father of this idea), who was himself influenced by a pantheistic monist thinker in Spinoza; this leads one to speculate if a pantheistic monism always has a microcosmic-macrocosmic feature, as all the parts are really images of the one on some fundamental level. As each emanation derives from the previous one, and essentially the source, the existence of an interrelation between parts seems plausible, as the microcosmic nature each part shares may be what make this relation and each succeeding emanation possible. Every part of the universe has its source in the One and is one part, but even that one part is a culmination of many other parts, and therefore each part mirrors the nature of the universe (“So things other than the one must be one complete whole with parts”[2]). This parallel between microcosmic elements of the universe and the greater whole of the universe in a numerical manner is clear, whether this is a sign of a more significant parallel, or a mere coincidence in this simple mathematical nature of the universe remains in question.
In Timaeus, as well as in Phaedo, when Plato refers to the soul as having the same nature as Forms, he is indicating at a more significant parallel, as it is this very parallel with the greater whole of the universe that allows one to be in a state of harmony and also leads one from becoming to being; the soul is remnant of Being and is the element that roots its source in the One.[3] Though this leads to a problem: which parts of the universe have souls, in the manner Plato describes such a component? Certainly not all of them, as not every part have access to Forms; though each part is a microcosm, it is not the soul Plato describes that entails microcosm status for all parts. Leibniz offers an interesting possibility by contending that every microcosmic part has what he calls a ‘monad’, within which every monad there is an internal mirror of the universe and also a distinct and different nature each desires to carry out which allows the universe to be in a state of harmony; harmony stemming from each monad fulfilling its desire to peak its nature, but also perhaps harmony in a way that all parts have a source in the One, and all have a mutual interest to become one, once the desire to be what it has a design to be is complete, and return back through the void to the source, and with such, each part has a parallel with the objective of the greater universe. Though for Leibniz, aside from the monads or souls of bodies that are internal mirrors of the universe, there is another element he calls spirit, or reasonable soul, which develops when monads achieve the rank of human, which mirrors, not only the entire universe, but the One or macrocosmic monad, itself, and is therefore capable of knowing the nature of the universe and imitating portions of it. [4] This appearance of the spirit answers the question as to which microcosmic parts have a more significant parallel to the macrocosm: humans. This greater parallel allows humans to actively become pure being, while other monads must wait for the ‘Great Breathe’ (One) to inhale.
With a breakdown of the very last sentence and conclusion of Parmenides, one can understand how this conclusion may point to a pantheistic monism. I will break it down in two parts, as Mary Louise Gill claims there are two conclusions in it.
“If one is not, nothing is-”[5]
This is the first and so-called “true” conclusion to Parmenides, as Gill claims, which simply implies that there is one, because there is obviously a universe before us. I think one can explain the above statement in two ways, which may essentially be the same. Firstly, before the one manifests, in the manner explained above, there is nothing, and therefore one is not. It is not yet in being, and therefore unknowable even to itself (which is the very reason of its desire to manifest), and again, is therefore nothing.
Second, for anything to exist, the One must exist, and this also applies in two ways. First, the more abstract way, everything that exists in the universe does so because of and requires the essence of the One to be its source, and manifest from the One’s desire; everything finds its existence in the One, as the One is the ‘Great Breathe’ that puts the eternal being -> becoming -> being cycle into motion. When it breathes out to manifest the universe, the lowest emanations (copies of Forms) are in a state in which they desire to become higher emanations of the One, or pure being (Forms). Second, the more understandable explanation, clear in Parmenides, that for anything to exist and be identifiable from other existing things it must hold the numerical principle of oneness, otherwise everything would be one (which is also paradoxically true) in the sense of a unified whole, and it is evident, as Parmenides points out, that we experience a world of individual units (many which hold the attribute of one).
“and also that, as it seems, whether one is or is not, it and the others both are and are not, and both appear and do not appear all things in all ways, both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other.”[6]
This is the second and so-called “false” conclusion to Parmenides. However, I will not agree that it is necessarily a false conclusion, as it shows insight into the nature of co-existing oneness, contrary to Gill’s statements.
Whether one is or is not implies that one can sometimes be known as it is, and sometimes as it is not. One always is, as it is the one true principle in the universe, before and during the presence of the universe, as it is the origin and the very universe itself, and therefore is even before the many. It is not or in a state of nothing, before manifestation; and it is simultaneously not when it manifests, as when the one enters being, it is now many. Therefore, one both is and is not when it is and when it is not.
The others (the many) are (exist) when one is to give each other a single, distinguishable identity, and when the desire of the one develops and infiltrates the universe; and the others are not when one is, as in when the one is resting before the development of the universe, and also when the others are seen as one collective whole, and therefore one, but not many. The others are when one is not, when there is visibly many, as in more than one (though this is only possible through each of the many being one unit); and the others are not when the one is not, as in when the others are perceived as a whole, without one acting as a distinguishing element between each (one) of the many, and when one is again, resting, as nothing, before the universe. Some of the statements have the same answer to break it down, because some of them are essentially pointing to the same state. When the one is perceived as not, but as in many, this is simply noted from a certain perspective. But even in these moments, one really is, to distinguish the many, and give each one its existence, and hence the one actually always is, and the many can only be at one point.
One, in relation to itself, hints at the existence of the true oneness, beyond the void of manifest existence. One in relation to many implies that there are many ones from a certain perspective, not just one whole, as the one expresses itself in multitude. Many in relation to one reveals the same thing, the many are many expressions of the same one substance. Many in relation to many can be understood as the many are obviously many expressions of the one, not one, when the universe is manifest.
One point considered, however, is the possible existence of the many as potential before the manifestation of the universe, and they would therefore always exist. This would help explain the many existing in all ways. The mysteries teach that once the desire is set in motion, it is an eternal cycle of breathing the desire out (universe as being ->becoming->being) and breathing the desire back in (universe as nothing). The one problem in this, if it were true, is the perception of the One in a state of nothingness before the universe, and potentiality implies something. But again, perhaps this doesn’t have to be all clear cut and dry as that, as it is seen in this explanation that contradiction is permissible (at least in terms of perception), and how the explanation all depends on the perception of each state, which can be from multiple angles (and nothing can simply imply potential being). To say the One has potential while resting in nothingness may not be farfetched (as if this whole layout may not seem farfetched to some), but when the One is in this state, it is across the void, or veil as some call it, and its nature cannot be known by its being or creation on the other side, obviously because its being is on the other side of the veil. Though, if we contain a microcosmic mirror of the universe, may this not also point to the possible nature of the One on the other side of the void? It will not, because the other side is not the universe, it is nothing. “If something is not, could anything belong to this thing that is not, or be of it?” - “How could it?” – “Therefore, no name belongs to it, nor is there an account of any knowledge or perception or opinion of it.”[7]
(What has been explained may be rightfully called panentheistic monism (as the One is also transcendent of the manifestation) as opposed to pantheistic, but these are just terms, and what is important is inherent in the description of this breakdown of the universe, not the name applied to it.)
[1] Plato. Timaeus. trans. Kalkavage, Peter (Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing - R. Pullins Co.2001) p. 80 (48D-53A)
[2] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p. 165 (157E)
[3] Plato. Timaeus. trans. Kalkavage, Peter (Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing - R. Pullins Co.2001) p. 66 (36E-37C)
[4] Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Monadology (and Other Philosophical Essays). Trans. Paul and Anne Martin Schrecker. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. 1965) p. 162 (82-84)
[5] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.175 (166C)
[6] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.175 (166C)
[7] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.147 (142A)
Helpful to understanding this metaphysical perspective is how the unfolding of this one principle in the universe happens, which Plato explains in Timaeus.[1] The One (principle) desires to manifest itself and so labors through the task of emanating itself into the universe in a multitude of ways. As each emanation derives from the same source, every emanation is essentially that same source. To understand what Parmenides means by the One, according to this breakdown, one must look beyond the pure numerical value of the concept of oneness, though this is necessarily an important part of its nature, and perhaps the only part accessible to human rational thought. When the One desires the universe, it enters “being”, and at this moment becomes many. Timaeus explains this process as something “like” (Timaeus explains this process in metaphor because it is abstract) a sperm fertilizing an egg to create a being; save the sperm is the mind with the intention of the One, entering a receptacle, a complex substance that fertilizes the intention of the mind and produces the manifest universe; and the One now becomes multitude. The abstract (metaphysical) way in which the one is not many is when it is in a state of rest before it desires and manifests, and it becomes many when it begins the process of developing the universe. To change from one state to the other, it passes through a void, from one to many. This is permissible because though the one changes from one to many, it still remains one. It is always one; simply moving from ‘one’ to ‘one becoming many’ to ‘one as many’ (this third step is also ‘many becoming one’, eventually completing the cycle back to ‘one’). The many partake in oneness in a multitude of ways; in the abstract way, they partake, because the One is their very origin and essence. Though this abstract existence is not very clear and distinct in Parmenides, I will soon explain the other ways many partake of oneness. The one can also be one and many at different moments in the instance of perception, without really changing from one to the other, as one always remains. At one time it is perceived as one, and at another time it is perceived as many, though it actually always remains both in the purely numerical outlook.
Just as the one and many, in this breakdown, exist in the universe in both an abstract and numerical way, every element in the universe can be seen to have this same nature, setting up a microcosmic-macrocosmic universe, similar to the one Leibniz explains in his Monadologie (though Leibniz is not the father of this idea), who was himself influenced by a pantheistic monist thinker in Spinoza; this leads one to speculate if a pantheistic monism always has a microcosmic-macrocosmic feature, as all the parts are really images of the one on some fundamental level. As each emanation derives from the previous one, and essentially the source, the existence of an interrelation between parts seems plausible, as the microcosmic nature each part shares may be what make this relation and each succeeding emanation possible. Every part of the universe has its source in the One and is one part, but even that one part is a culmination of many other parts, and therefore each part mirrors the nature of the universe (“So things other than the one must be one complete whole with parts”[2]). This parallel between microcosmic elements of the universe and the greater whole of the universe in a numerical manner is clear, whether this is a sign of a more significant parallel, or a mere coincidence in this simple mathematical nature of the universe remains in question.
In Timaeus, as well as in Phaedo, when Plato refers to the soul as having the same nature as Forms, he is indicating at a more significant parallel, as it is this very parallel with the greater whole of the universe that allows one to be in a state of harmony and also leads one from becoming to being; the soul is remnant of Being and is the element that roots its source in the One.[3] Though this leads to a problem: which parts of the universe have souls, in the manner Plato describes such a component? Certainly not all of them, as not every part have access to Forms; though each part is a microcosm, it is not the soul Plato describes that entails microcosm status for all parts. Leibniz offers an interesting possibility by contending that every microcosmic part has what he calls a ‘monad’, within which every monad there is an internal mirror of the universe and also a distinct and different nature each desires to carry out which allows the universe to be in a state of harmony; harmony stemming from each monad fulfilling its desire to peak its nature, but also perhaps harmony in a way that all parts have a source in the One, and all have a mutual interest to become one, once the desire to be what it has a design to be is complete, and return back through the void to the source, and with such, each part has a parallel with the objective of the greater universe. Though for Leibniz, aside from the monads or souls of bodies that are internal mirrors of the universe, there is another element he calls spirit, or reasonable soul, which develops when monads achieve the rank of human, which mirrors, not only the entire universe, but the One or macrocosmic monad, itself, and is therefore capable of knowing the nature of the universe and imitating portions of it. [4] This appearance of the spirit answers the question as to which microcosmic parts have a more significant parallel to the macrocosm: humans. This greater parallel allows humans to actively become pure being, while other monads must wait for the ‘Great Breathe’ (One) to inhale.
With a breakdown of the very last sentence and conclusion of Parmenides, one can understand how this conclusion may point to a pantheistic monism. I will break it down in two parts, as Mary Louise Gill claims there are two conclusions in it.
“If one is not, nothing is-”[5]
This is the first and so-called “true” conclusion to Parmenides, as Gill claims, which simply implies that there is one, because there is obviously a universe before us. I think one can explain the above statement in two ways, which may essentially be the same. Firstly, before the one manifests, in the manner explained above, there is nothing, and therefore one is not. It is not yet in being, and therefore unknowable even to itself (which is the very reason of its desire to manifest), and again, is therefore nothing.
Second, for anything to exist, the One must exist, and this also applies in two ways. First, the more abstract way, everything that exists in the universe does so because of and requires the essence of the One to be its source, and manifest from the One’s desire; everything finds its existence in the One, as the One is the ‘Great Breathe’ that puts the eternal being -> becoming -> being cycle into motion. When it breathes out to manifest the universe, the lowest emanations (copies of Forms) are in a state in which they desire to become higher emanations of the One, or pure being (Forms). Second, the more understandable explanation, clear in Parmenides, that for anything to exist and be identifiable from other existing things it must hold the numerical principle of oneness, otherwise everything would be one (which is also paradoxically true) in the sense of a unified whole, and it is evident, as Parmenides points out, that we experience a world of individual units (many which hold the attribute of one).
“and also that, as it seems, whether one is or is not, it and the others both are and are not, and both appear and do not appear all things in all ways, both in relation to themselves and in relation to each other.”[6]
This is the second and so-called “false” conclusion to Parmenides. However, I will not agree that it is necessarily a false conclusion, as it shows insight into the nature of co-existing oneness, contrary to Gill’s statements.
Whether one is or is not implies that one can sometimes be known as it is, and sometimes as it is not. One always is, as it is the one true principle in the universe, before and during the presence of the universe, as it is the origin and the very universe itself, and therefore is even before the many. It is not or in a state of nothing, before manifestation; and it is simultaneously not when it manifests, as when the one enters being, it is now many. Therefore, one both is and is not when it is and when it is not.
The others (the many) are (exist) when one is to give each other a single, distinguishable identity, and when the desire of the one develops and infiltrates the universe; and the others are not when one is, as in when the one is resting before the development of the universe, and also when the others are seen as one collective whole, and therefore one, but not many. The others are when one is not, when there is visibly many, as in more than one (though this is only possible through each of the many being one unit); and the others are not when the one is not, as in when the others are perceived as a whole, without one acting as a distinguishing element between each (one) of the many, and when one is again, resting, as nothing, before the universe. Some of the statements have the same answer to break it down, because some of them are essentially pointing to the same state. When the one is perceived as not, but as in many, this is simply noted from a certain perspective. But even in these moments, one really is, to distinguish the many, and give each one its existence, and hence the one actually always is, and the many can only be at one point.
One, in relation to itself, hints at the existence of the true oneness, beyond the void of manifest existence. One in relation to many implies that there are many ones from a certain perspective, not just one whole, as the one expresses itself in multitude. Many in relation to one reveals the same thing, the many are many expressions of the same one substance. Many in relation to many can be understood as the many are obviously many expressions of the one, not one, when the universe is manifest.
One point considered, however, is the possible existence of the many as potential before the manifestation of the universe, and they would therefore always exist. This would help explain the many existing in all ways. The mysteries teach that once the desire is set in motion, it is an eternal cycle of breathing the desire out (universe as being ->becoming->being) and breathing the desire back in (universe as nothing). The one problem in this, if it were true, is the perception of the One in a state of nothingness before the universe, and potentiality implies something. But again, perhaps this doesn’t have to be all clear cut and dry as that, as it is seen in this explanation that contradiction is permissible (at least in terms of perception), and how the explanation all depends on the perception of each state, which can be from multiple angles (and nothing can simply imply potential being). To say the One has potential while resting in nothingness may not be farfetched (as if this whole layout may not seem farfetched to some), but when the One is in this state, it is across the void, or veil as some call it, and its nature cannot be known by its being or creation on the other side, obviously because its being is on the other side of the veil. Though, if we contain a microcosmic mirror of the universe, may this not also point to the possible nature of the One on the other side of the void? It will not, because the other side is not the universe, it is nothing. “If something is not, could anything belong to this thing that is not, or be of it?” - “How could it?” – “Therefore, no name belongs to it, nor is there an account of any knowledge or perception or opinion of it.”[7]
(What has been explained may be rightfully called panentheistic monism (as the One is also transcendent of the manifestation) as opposed to pantheistic, but these are just terms, and what is important is inherent in the description of this breakdown of the universe, not the name applied to it.)
[1] Plato. Timaeus. trans. Kalkavage, Peter (Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing - R. Pullins Co.2001) p. 80 (48D-53A)
[2] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p. 165 (157E)
[3] Plato. Timaeus. trans. Kalkavage, Peter (Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing - R. Pullins Co.2001) p. 66 (36E-37C)
[4] Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Monadology (and Other Philosophical Essays). Trans. Paul and Anne Martin Schrecker. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company Inc. 1965) p. 162 (82-84)
[5] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.175 (166C)
[6] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.175 (166C)
[7] Plato. Parmenides. trans. Gill, Mary Louise (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc. 1996) p.147 (142A)
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Where are the Forms?
Arriving at knowledge through:
1. Perception
2. Developing in account (through the faculty of reason, see 185d and 186d)
3. Making a judgement
(notice how Kant claimed the same when reconciling empiricism with rationalism)
What is to say the above method is not the means to 'recollect' knowledge of the Forms?
I understand this method can be used to attain 'knowledge of convention' (mentioned by Matt), of which the forms are non-transcendental, but, again, what is to say this method cannot by applied to recollect the transcendent forms Plato mentions in his earlier dialogues, such as justice.
Does one begin to possess knowledge upon going through this method, and then 'has' or recollects it upon perceiving again (sensory or mentally) and recalling the judgement made, or does one possess knowledge prior to this method, and then recollects that knowledge when applying this method, and 'has' it everytime a perception is made (with the judgement)? (see198d)
1. Perception
2. Developing in account (through the faculty of reason, see 185d and 186d)
3. Making a judgement
(notice how Kant claimed the same when reconciling empiricism with rationalism)
What is to say the above method is not the means to 'recollect' knowledge of the Forms?
I understand this method can be used to attain 'knowledge of convention' (mentioned by Matt), of which the forms are non-transcendental, but, again, what is to say this method cannot by applied to recollect the transcendent forms Plato mentions in his earlier dialogues, such as justice.
Does one begin to possess knowledge upon going through this method, and then 'has' or recollects it upon perceiving again (sensory or mentally) and recalling the judgement made, or does one possess knowledge prior to this method, and then recollects that knowledge when applying this method, and 'has' it everytime a perception is made (with the judgement)? (see198d)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Questions
Just to clarify:
First Socrates says (though he openly says that he is not claiming that these are his views) everything is in motion in the sense that everything is becoming (in two forms: passively or actively)(156-157):
Is something considered to be in motion when it is producing something to be perceived (i.e. whiteness)? Though this thing needs a perceiver to produce something to be perceived? What is perceived is always becoming for the perceiver, and what is perceiving is always becoming for what is perceived? Can something become in some way without being perceived (i.e. metal turning to rust). (This makes me curious as to what Berkeley thought about becoming as opposed to being; "to be is to be perceived", but is perception required to become?)
Later on he says there are two forms of motion: alteration and spatial movement. (181d)
Is motion referred to as becoming the same thing implied as alteration? Or are both processes of becoming?
It is interesting to note, that though everything is in motion, everything relies on two factors (passive = percipient and active = perception) to seemingly exist (or be in the state of becoming). If one of the the factors is missing, then nothing exists (?) This again seems similar to Berkeley's line of thinking. As in a rock could not move/become without providing a perception, and if it is not becoming, it is not, because everything is becoming (?) And I again ask, can anything become without being perceived or perceiving? It doesn't seem that this line of thought that Socrates brings up would allow for it.
The whole concept an active and passive factor dependent on each other to exist, "And through the intercourse and mutual friction of these two there comes to be an offspring infinite in multitude..." (156b) is very similar to what is partially being explained in Timaeus.
As far as the spatial movement goes, Socrates asks how can one ever name (or perhaps even know?) something if it is always in motion? Though something is becoming, it may be moving in slow vibrations, slow enough for one to apply a name, and develop knowledge about it, while it is in the process of becoming.
First Socrates says (though he openly says that he is not claiming that these are his views) everything is in motion in the sense that everything is becoming (in two forms: passively or actively)(156-157):
Is something considered to be in motion when it is producing something to be perceived (i.e. whiteness)? Though this thing needs a perceiver to produce something to be perceived? What is perceived is always becoming for the perceiver, and what is perceiving is always becoming for what is perceived? Can something become in some way without being perceived (i.e. metal turning to rust). (This makes me curious as to what Berkeley thought about becoming as opposed to being; "to be is to be perceived", but is perception required to become?)
Later on he says there are two forms of motion: alteration and spatial movement. (181d)
Is motion referred to as becoming the same thing implied as alteration? Or are both processes of becoming?
It is interesting to note, that though everything is in motion, everything relies on two factors (passive = percipient and active = perception) to seemingly exist (or be in the state of becoming). If one of the the factors is missing, then nothing exists (?) This again seems similar to Berkeley's line of thinking. As in a rock could not move/become without providing a perception, and if it is not becoming, it is not, because everything is becoming (?) And I again ask, can anything become without being perceived or perceiving? It doesn't seem that this line of thought that Socrates brings up would allow for it.
The whole concept an active and passive factor dependent on each other to exist, "And through the intercourse and mutual friction of these two there comes to be an offspring infinite in multitude..." (156b) is very similar to what is partially being explained in Timaeus.
As far as the spatial movement goes, Socrates asks how can one ever name (or perhaps even know?) something if it is always in motion? Though something is becoming, it may be moving in slow vibrations, slow enough for one to apply a name, and develop knowledge about it, while it is in the process of becoming.
Monday, February 23, 2009
String of Thought
A series of thoughts I had from last class: Is there such a thing as earth (a whole - composition of things), or just the components that make it appear whole? Is any true form a composite of things? As in sun-ness. As in, there would be no such thing (form) as sun-ness, but only round-ness, hot-ness, bright-ness, etc. But to know the sun, the form of sun-ness must develop, which we (humans) create. But was the possibility of the creation of sun-ness (innate) in nature? (remember Keane's example of the possible form of boat being within nature in the form of log, though the log, being a composite of things would also not be a true form in this example) Does sun-ness exist only for humans? Can the sun exist without sun-ness? We only create sun-ness to know it
(?) Or was there a blueprint in nature to create sun-ness (the composition of other forms is part of the blueprint)? If there wasn't a blueprint, it was a mere matter of chance it (the sun in our solar system) came about. If this is true, the same can be said about humanity (the sun is required for our existence). (I know, I am starting to talk about design, which most of you, if not all, dispell). Something coming to be by chance, I will refer to as coming to be by mistake. Do mistakes stop happening when we willfully create forms of things (bringing together a composition of other forms, as in refrigerator)? Or are all of these possibilities already in nature (the possibility of refrigerator)? If so, why are these possibilities in nature? (by mistake?) Why do humans have the ability to stop everything that manifests (new manifestations, refrigerators) from being a mistake? Is it a mistake that we have this ability? If the potential for us to stop the manifestation of mistakes exists (sun was mistake, frige was not), it existed in nature (even if it was a mistake). It existed before us. It could have happened before us. But it didn't. Why? The universe always held the possibility of creating new forms, but needed the proper medium to come up, by mistake, to do so? If this medium is a mistake, it may never have developed. Why then have the possibility of new forms, without a sure medium to make them manifest? These possibilities could also be mistakes, but at least the possibility of stopping mistakes (frige) existed before us within nature, and any possibility existing before the medium it needs to come to fruition must exist on some plane absent of the medium.
I think more can be fleshed out from this, but I'll leave it at that for now.
(?) Or was there a blueprint in nature to create sun-ness (the composition of other forms is part of the blueprint)? If there wasn't a blueprint, it was a mere matter of chance it (the sun in our solar system) came about. If this is true, the same can be said about humanity (the sun is required for our existence). (I know, I am starting to talk about design, which most of you, if not all, dispell). Something coming to be by chance, I will refer to as coming to be by mistake. Do mistakes stop happening when we willfully create forms of things (bringing together a composition of other forms, as in refrigerator)? Or are all of these possibilities already in nature (the possibility of refrigerator)? If so, why are these possibilities in nature? (by mistake?) Why do humans have the ability to stop everything that manifests (new manifestations, refrigerators) from being a mistake? Is it a mistake that we have this ability? If the potential for us to stop the manifestation of mistakes exists (sun was mistake, frige was not), it existed in nature (even if it was a mistake). It existed before us. It could have happened before us. But it didn't. Why? The universe always held the possibility of creating new forms, but needed the proper medium to come up, by mistake, to do so? If this medium is a mistake, it may never have developed. Why then have the possibility of new forms, without a sure medium to make them manifest? These possibilities could also be mistakes, but at least the possibility of stopping mistakes (frige) existed before us within nature, and any possibility existing before the medium it needs to come to fruition must exist on some plane absent of the medium.
I think more can be fleshed out from this, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Monday, February 16, 2009
All is One and All is Many
All of these deductions/arguments argue in one way or another for the one being one and/or many (and one being not one and/or not many), showing that someone can logically argue that oneness and multiplicity co-exist in every facet of the universe. It doesn't seem to me that Parmenides only wishes to argue for one underlying principle in the universe (oneness), but also wishes to show, aside from showing that all is one, that all is also many (and one). There is also a change in the context in which one is used throughout the deductions; at times one is used to represent one object, and other times one is used to describe the universe as a whole. If each object can be one and many, and the universe is one and many, this could also be seen as an attempt to describe the microcosm-macrocosm connection, in which each component of the universe mirrors the universe as a whole through their nature (oneness and manyness). Perhaps it is an attempt to explain the possibility of a pantheistic monism. All is one through the essence of oneness, and this one expresses itself in many ways (all is many).
Monday, February 9, 2009
Trees and Tables
Back to the table... This is a possibility that came to mind: the wood (or tree) has an unhuman made Form (and can therefore be referred to as natural - I am also defining natural/artificial through this), and the table has a human made Form (and is therefore artificial). The (prehuman existing) mental (thought/conscious) element of the Form is in the wood/tree, within which there is a mental bluprint, and mental atom-like things to solidify/manifest the wood/tree. The table exists as a human manipulation (unnatural) of the Form of the wood/tree. I am working this around the notions described in Timaeus (and elsewhere). Thought must travel through a receptacle for something to manifest. One is dependent on the other, as can be seen in Parmenides explanation of the one and being. One is dependent on being, and being dependent on one (one is analogous to thought, and being to receptacle, or vice-versa; it doesn't really matter, no pun intended). The Form is thought which must travel through receptacle, of which the nature is partially the blueprint of the Form and the thinking atom-like things described above. The receptacle is molding-like-stuff to manifest thought/Forms, and also contains the potential for other thinking beings (humans) to mold what it contains (i.e. humans manipulating wood to mold a table). Whether through the nonhuman mind, within which is the realm of Forms (trees), or through the mind of humans (tables), the object exists as thought prior to being manifest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)