33 - A reas of disagreement with Parmenides a. Plu ralism -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: A reas of disagreement with Parmenides a. Plu ralism - t he four elements: Hear first the four roots of all things: Shining Zeus [ fire] a nd l ife-bringing Hera [air] a nd Aidoneus [earth] a nd Nestis [ water] w ho with her tears moistens mortal Springs. (34=B6) b. Qualitative difference: ... For these [ the four elements] a re all equal and of the same age, but each rules in i ts own province and possesses its own individual character, but they dominate in t urn as time revolves. (33=B17, line 27) c. Motion : A nd these [sc. the elements] never cease continually interchanging, at one time all coming together into one by Love, and at another each being borne apart by the h atred of Strife. (33=B17, line 6) ...For there are just these things [ i.e., the four elements], and running through one a nother they come to be both humans and the tr ibes of other beasts at one time coming together into a single cosmos by Love and at another each being borne apart by the hatred of Strife .... (51=B26) Note that Empedocles not only accepts the existence of motion, but offers an explanation of i t, in terms of two primitive forces, Love (which moves things t ogether) and Strife (which separates them). Generation and Change Apparent generation and apparent change are explained away in terms of the activity of the u nderlying elements, under the control of the motivating forces of Love and Strife. ... T hus in that they have learned to grow to be one out of many and in that they again spring apart as many when the one grows apart, in that way they come to be and their l ife is not l asting .... (33=B17, line 9) Whenever they [sc. the elements] a rr ive in the aither mixed so as to form a man or one of the w ild beasts or bushes or birds, that is when <people> speak of coming into being; and w henever they are separated, that <is what they call> the i l l-starred fate of death. They do not call it as is r ight, but I myself too assent to their convention. (47=B9). T here is ... only mixture, and separation of what is mixed, and nature [or, birth, p husis] is t he name given to them by humans. (46=B8) H Reductionism Empedocles’ theory is reductionistic. Such apparent stuffs as bone or blood, and such apparent entities as frogs and t rees, are, according to his theory, r educed t o complex combinations of elements. So although there a ppear t o be more kinds of stuff than just the elements, they are not “ real,” but only aggregates of the real entities (E , A , F , W): For from these [sc. the elements] come all things that were and are and wil l be in the future. T rees have sprouted and men and women, and beasts and birds and fishes nurtured in water, and long-l ived gods highest in honors. For there are just these things [ i.e., the elements] , and running through one another they come to have different appearances, for m ixture changes them. (35=B21) Empedocles even t r ies to quantify precisely the reduction of ordinary objects to compounds of elements: P leasant earth in her well made crucibles obtained two parts of bright Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaestus, and white bones came into being, fitted together divinely by t he glues of Harmonia. (42=B96) This gives us a kind of primitive chemistry with obvious Pythagorean overtones: Bone = 2W + 4F + 2E We’re told there are 8 parts in all, that some of them are earth, that 2 are Nestis (water) and 4 are Hephaestus (fire). So we solve for E : E = 8 - (2 + 4) = 8 - 6 = 2 T he formulas Empedocles gives (like the one above for bone) are reductionistic in character. E ntities in “common sense” ontology are reduced to (complexes of) the four elements - t he only genuine entities in Empedocles’ ontology. S umma ry Only the elements are real, and the elements don’t change. Thus, the r eal i s unchanging, j ust as Parmenides said. But there is some sort of change in a world without void, packed f ull of ungenerated and unchanging elements, when the elements mix with one another. ¨ P roblems for Empedocles a. Motion: how is motion possible if there is no empty space? How do things have room t o move? b. M ixture: how do the elements mix? How do they “run through one another” (50=B26)? Aristotle supposed that, to solve this, Empedocles would have to smuggle i n a notion of a void: elements would contain “gaps” into which other elements could f low. Here is how Ar istotle puts the criticism (GC 325b1): Leucippus maintains that all alteration and all being affected comes to be in this way, the d isintegration and corruption of things coming to be by way of the void - and similarly also g rowth, solid bodies slipping in through the gaps. Empedocles is bound to speak in more or less the same way as Leucippus does. A number of solid bodies exist, and are undivided, u nless there are continuous passages everywhere. But this is impossible, because there would be nothing else solid over and above the passages, but everything would be a void. So t he things which are in contact are necessarily undivided, and what is between them is a void, and this is what Empedocles calls ‘passages’. And this is how Leucippus too speaks of action and passion. ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online