close
test_template

A Rational Account of Nature in The Theories of Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles

download print

About this sample

About this sample

close

Words: 2339 |

Pages: 5|

12 min read

Published: Jan 8, 2020

Words: 2339|Pages: 5|12 min read

Published: Jan 8, 2020

Table of contents

  1. Thales
  2. Anaximenes
  3. Heraclitus
  4. Empedocles
  5. Connecting the Four

According to Plato, living in a cave was symbolic to living a life under complete ignorance, without the true knowledge and understanding of the beautiful world around them. However, it is with this desire to look beyond the cave, that the early Greek philosophers inquired about the world around them and yearned to understand it. They were interested in explaining how things came to be by employing reason rather than mere faith. In other words, they sought a rational account of nature. In this paper, I will argue that certain Greek philosophers such as Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles all reached one underlying theme. In their metaphysical inquiry, they concluded that the cosmos came to be and come to be through an independent, definite, everchanging principle that is continually becoming. Therefore, in their philosophical inquiry, they sought to explain nature with nature. If their conclusion was composed of indeterminate matter, then their metaphysical inquiry would be no different than any mythological explanation—irrational and indeterminate.

'Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned'?

Thales

The first philosopher, Thales of Miletus, was an ancient Greek philosopher who was born around 625 BCE. Given how ancient Greece relied so heavily on the gods for explaining something as trivial as the origin of a tree, Thales sought to find the truth and explain nature independent from a belief in the supernatural. Because he sought to study and explain nature, it is said that he once predicted an eclipse based on his studies in astronomy, and it was even said that he once fell into a well, while gazing at the heavens. However, it is important to note that Thales’ account of metaphysics was only recorded through fragmented secondary sources provided particularly by Aristotle. Therefore, we cannot conclude without a reasonable doubt that our inferences or Aristotle’s documentations are precisely what Thales intended them to be.

Nonetheless, Aristotle provides us with enough information to analyze what Thales may have thought the originating point of the cosmos was. According to Aristotle, Thales stated, “All existing things are composed and that from which they originally come to be and that into which they finally perish (Cohen, Curd, and Reeve, 3).” With this Thales confirms what has been already said, that any metaphysical explanation must be grounded on nature (i.e. matter, something definite). Furthermore, this thing upon which all life comes to be and turns back into is what he referred to as the arche or the “originating point”. He described the arche to be water. He argued that water was and is present in every living thing and that every nourishing meal contains water or moisture. Moreover, water as the arche would then be the cause of life and every other thing, because it holds within itself the power to makes things come to be. Thales did not explain how water would evolve or cause this “becoming” of things, however, he did argue that all existing things are composed of what they originally were—water. Therefore, if water was from the beginning, and from it came what came to be and what will be then it must not be a finite definite matter for how can all existing things come to be from that which is limited and finite. Thus, Thales’ arche must by nature have an infinite property in order to justify water’s ability to makes things come to be.

Anaximenes

Anaximenes of Miletus, Anaximander’s student, also inquired into the beginning of the kosmos and sought to understand it with a rational account. He agreed with his mentor that there is one underlying singularity, however, he argued that the arche was not the divine mystical force of apeiron nor was it water, but rather air. His main line of argument was that the apeiron was incapable of explaining how from within its immaterial force made material things come to be. Therefore, ruling Apeiron as justifiable in its infinite nature but untenable in its metaphysical explanation. Additionally, water as the arche could not clearly explain the coming to be of the other elements. Therefore, by stating that air, a heavy transparent mist, was the originating point of the kosmos he could introduce his notions of rarifaction and condensation. Anaximenes argued that as air was rarified (or vaporized) it became fire and as it was condensed (or became dense) and continued to be condensed it became wind, cloud, water, earth, stone, so on and so forth. In offering an explanation to the process of becoming, which air as the arche provides, Anaximenes is then able to explain how air is an everchanging (always moving) singularity. He explains that air can only be made visible when either rarified, which was synonymous to becoming hot, or condensed, which was to get cold. Only when either of these two changes occurs is when it will become visible that air is always in motion. If always in motion, then air must, in turn, be everchanging, since to be everchanging implies it is always becoming and since it makes things come to be through becoming, air, in turn, must be infinite.

Anaximenes’ genius is found in combining yet providing what Thales and Anaximander lacked in their claims and explanations. His explanation implies that Thales was correct in saying that the arche had to be a principle that what was nature or definite. However, water could have never been the arche because, according to Anaximenes, water was a product of air simply condensed. Furthermore, Anaximander’s apeiron, to Anaximenes, lacked an important quality that he and Thales strongly agreed upon. Anaximander could not provide a rational account of nature because his explanation was not grounded in nature, his apeiron was indeterminate. Thus, he could never explain an everchanging world with apeiron, let alone any of the elements.

Heraclitus

Heraclitus of Ephesus was an ancient Greek philosopher who was said to be in line to become the King of Ephesus but decided to reject his life of nobility to spend his time philosophizing and seeking truth or as he put it—the logos. The word logos is literally translated to word, account, and where the word logic derives from, but to Heraclitus, it was much more profound and important. He said, “Although the logos is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding (Cohen, Curd, and Reeve, 20).” In other words, the logos to Heraclitus was an objective truth that everyone has access to, but almost everyone always never seeks after it. He even goes as far in his critique to state that they live life in such an illusory way that they have come to believe that truth exists outside of objectivity. Therefore, for Heraclitus, it is important to state that there is an objective truth, if subjective, then how can there be a rational account of nature without an objective truth to judge all forms of inquiry. Furthermore, he claims that the logos is infinite because it is what remains as everything continuously comes to be. In saying that the logos is objective and infinite because it is what remains, implies that the cosmos is always in flux and everchanging, this is exactly what Heraclitus concluded. To say that the logos is what remains is profoundly stating that it is what allows everything to become by staying the same because to change means that it must be the same. However, Heraclitus does not say that logos never changes but that in change it remains the same.

Heraclitus designated fire as the incarnation of logos since it literally demonstrated that despite it always changing and moving it remained the same. It is important to note that Heraclitus chose fire, not only for its physical properties that reflected the properties of the logos, but also because I believe that he understood the importance and necessity of having a definite principle explain nature. Nature such as water is exchanged for Fire (logos) or the coming to be. Moreover, fire is in that which is changing such as water, yet because of logos, water although changing must remain the same. In other words, no element is ever pure in the cosmos, however in its change logos keeps the element the same. If both water, fire, and all the other elements in the kosmos are changing, then logos is the principle that effects this “divine” order of becoming yet remaining the same. Therefore, Heraclitus is able to give a rational account of nature with nature, namely fire as a representation of the logos, rather than presenting the logos by itself and leaving it too indeterminate like Anaximander’s apeiron. In relation to the metaphysical thought of the previous philosophers,

Heraclitus would agree that they were right in choosing water and air because they are definite in nature but lacking in explaining the becoming of the other elements. Because the logos, to him, is an objective truth that allows the continuous becoming of things yet remaining the same, it is contradictory to say that nature such as air comes to be other things through either condensation or rarefaction. If this were true, then the logos does not exist because it would no longer remain being the same, but according to Heraclitus, it does. He argues this mainly by claiming that the cosmos were not created by gods nor by man, but rather created because fire along with all the other elements is constantly becoming through the unifying power of the logos. It is important to note that Heraclitus by stating that everything is in flux implies that destruction of something occurs in order for there to be a change. So, if the logos is an independent, objective truth that orders everything into continuous becoming, yet have it remain the same, and change is only possible if the destruction of it occurs. Then, the logos is the independent, objective truth that orders destruction in order to have what-is remain. If this is so, then Heraclitus’ metaphysical thoughts open the door to another philosophical inquiry on the becoming of the self that neither of the previously discussed philosophers could do with their explanations. Interestingly, Empedocles of Acragas had similar views of that of Heraclitus, specifically with the notions of destruction and unification.

Empedocles

Empedocles was born around 492 BCE in the city of Acragas known today as Sicily, Italy. He was known for having a colorful personality, which he expressed by wearing purple robes (which was usually worn by aristocrats) a golden diadem, and bronze sandals. He believed himself to be a god and even threw himself into the volcano, Mount Aetna, to prove his divinity in his “immortality”. While he was still alive, Empedocles contributed much thought not only in the philosophical branches of metaphysics, ethics, and religion but also in other disciplines such as physics and astronomy (despite the latter disciplines being considered “natural philosophy” they are known today as modern science). His thoughts on metaphysics sought to answer what the three philosophers before him inquired for. What is the rational account of nature?

According to Empedocles, nature can only be explained with nature, however, he thought that any explanation would not be exhaustive enough if nature was reduced to one singular element. For he believed there was a continuous mixing of elements that must be accounted for to obtain a rational account of nature, that no singular element could properly justify the existence of the whole. Therefore, Empedocles stated that there were four elements or as he referred to them, roots, that composed the kosmos. The four roots of all things are fire, water, earth, and air, and these roots are continuously mixed by two forces. The force of attraction called Love mixes the four elements together to form one, while the force of repulsion called Strife mixes the four elements with their own kind to form one causing there to be an infinite continuous cycle of becoming. Furthermore, it is important to note that the mixing of these elements forms one, even when mixed by these opposing forces, which may be wrongly understood to form order and the other chaos. Both produce a different form of order that become one. The elements remain the same “nothing is added to them or subtracted” (Cohen, Curd, and Reeve, 39), which in turn, implies their independence despite their continual mixing with each other through the forces of Love and Strife.

After establishing the independence of each root, how can they, in fact, come to be while remaining the same? Empedocles answers this by stating that while any of the four roots are brought together through Love their intermingling does not stop making it what-is at its core, yet this intermingling comes to be through the force of attraction. This implies that when Strife advances this coming-to-be ceases, thus making the notion on becoming limited, however, because this cosmic cycle is continuous, and thus infinite, the four roots are infinitely becoming despite their finite coming to be within either rule of Love or Strife. This must not be confused for a continual destruction, similar to the effects of Heraclitus’ logos, but rather that of being and of becoming through the eternal cycle. Despite Empedocles explaining the coming to be of the four roots through Love and Strife, the coming to be of Love and Strife must be explained. Empedocles answered this by presenting offspring as undeniable proof of the rule of Love. Under Love, humanity and nature’s offspring come to be and as both age and Love is weakened, Strife orders the elements composing the corpse, plant, and animal to return to their respective element.

Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.

Connecting the Four

All four philosophers, according to their reason, sought to find a rational account of nature with nature. They each understood that belief in the gods (the invisible and immaterial) was not reasonable to explain that which is material. Anaximenes argued the importance of having a material principle and strongly criticized Anaximander for presenting his apeiron as too indeterminate and an unsound explanation to the cosmos. Thales chose water. Anaximenes chose air. Heraclitus chose fire. Empedocles chose fire, water, earth, and air—the four roots.

Cite this Essay

A Rational Account of Nature in the Theories of Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles. (2020, January 03). GradesFixer. Retrieved March 19, 2024, from https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-rational-account-of-nature-with-nature/
“A Rational Account of Nature in the Theories of Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles.” GradesFixer, 03 Jan. 2020, gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-rational-account-of-nature-with-nature/
A Rational Account of Nature in the Theories of Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles. [online]. Available at: <https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-rational-account-of-nature-with-nature/> [Accessed 19 Mar. 2024].
A Rational Account of Nature in the Theories of Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Empedocles [Internet]. GradesFixer. 2020 Jan 03 [cited 2024 Mar 19]. Available from: https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-rational-account-of-nature-with-nature/
copy
Keep in mind: This sample was shared by another student.
  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Write my essay

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

close

Where do you want us to send this sample?

    By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

    close

    Be careful. This essay is not unique

    This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

    Download this Sample

    Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

    close

    Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

    close

    Thanks!

    Please check your inbox.

    We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

    clock-banner-side

    Get Your
    Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

    exit-popup-close
    We can help you get a better grade and deliver your task on time!
    • Instructions Followed To The Letter
    • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
    • Unique And Plagiarism Free
    Order your paper now