Ionian Science & The Pre-Socratics.
It was the dawn of an era that would Mindset it was in its prime utterly
Define our own and yet it is really
Only from mere fragments that our world has
Moulded its vague distorted self image.
The task that we face today of living
Beyond eternal deceptive values
Is not the first such attempt. In ancient
Greece before the coming of the golden
Age, before the famous figures of later
Antiquity, there was an early effort
To transcend the metaphysical and
To understand the world in real terms.
Such inquisitive healthy mindedness
Did not last long, yet it was a first failed
Attempt at that which occupies us today.
This form of rational enquiry
Did not last long but it offered a brief
Moment of sanity in a history
That is otherwise devoid of it.
It was an era before the coming
Of Christianity and although it
Eventually lead to the Christian
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Costs” as the nihilists would have had it
Alien to it. For instance the Greeks
Had no notion of sin. For them all wrong
Doing was merely disapproval,
An error to be corrected. This was
A far healthier and responsible
Attitude than to suggest upon
Damnation, it appealed to people’s
Minds instead of scaring them into
Submission. With this and many of their
Other methods, the Greeks achieved a richness
Of human life, a full development
Of human gifts and faculties, which form
The basis for anything forward thinking
And progressive to this day. The stoic’s
Conception of morality was
A logical outlook. The essential
Nature of man lies in his reason, and
Goodness consists in obeying reason.
If anything defined these minds it was
A not trying to take things too easily
On ones mind, in a way a “truth at all
Or a “whatever is presently the most
Likely case” as stated by the stoic
And eclectic schools. They recognised
That nature is of itself and does not
Conform to any form of intelligence,
As the later thinkers would have it.
In a way many of their theories were
Completely wrong. They were not scientists
In the way we understand today
Testing theories against empirical
Evidence. Yet they were the founders,
The first to have a go at understanding
The world properly. These along with
The later Epicureans who were
Roughly contemporary with the time
Of Socrates and briefly posed something
Of an opposition to the Socratic
Method, which went against every instinct
Definably Hellenic. Anaximander
Was one of the first rational inquirers.
He brought a form of understanding
 To how the Greeks thought about the world
whilst
Some of his ideas almost showed an early
Form of Darwinism. His view being
In essence that the world that we live in
Was natural and not supernatural.
Democritus could be said to predate
Existentialism when he said,
“There is no more reason for a ‘thing’ to exist
Than for ‘no-thing’ to exist.” This became
A key issue in early twentieth
Century phenomenological
Theory, trying to understand why there
Is ‘something’ and not ‘nothing’. Democritus
Is of extreme interest for his healthy
Minded scepticism and his tendency
To question all accepted norms. He
Recognised plainly that “nothing is true
Or at least unclear to us” His early
Existential style of mannerisms
Characterise his attitude towards
The meaningless nature of the universe.
Hippolytus says while refuting
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
The supposed heresies of the ancients
That Democritus used to laugh at
Everything, since he regarded all
Human affairs to be ridiculous!
Antiphon the Sophist could have held
An idea towards authentic existence,
Which would come to dominate twentieth
Century thought. He recognised
The difference between acts performed
For their own sake and those performed for their
Appearance to others. He also
Questioned the discrepancies between justice
And natural law, and believed that
Just acts only counted if they became
Known, whereas acts against nature bring harm
Regardless. From this he concluded that
Man-made laws are hostile to nature,
And can be transgressed in order to
Follow laws of nature. This brings to mind
Thinkers of the Enlightenment with their
Debates on the difference between
Social liberty and natural laws.
Heraclitus is perhaps the most well
Known of the pre-Socratics, but not
Necessarily the best understood.
His writings, which have survive are perplexing
In their cryptic nature, yet it is in
The contradiction embracing essence
Of his thought that it most parallels
Contemporary dialectics.
It was his opinion that the things that
Exist are in fact harmonised by
The transformation of opposites, this
Is almost an anticipation of
Nineteenth century dialectics, with
Everything existing in its antithesis.
The most notable of Heraclitus’
Observations however was in his
Acceptance of the world as irrational
And not controlled nor created by any
Form of intelligence, which could be
In line with that of our own. He recognised
That the noblest harmony comes from
Things that differ and that everything
 Comes about in accordance with strife.
It was this recognition above all
That puts him in direct opposition
To the type of philosophy that would
Come to dominate the coming centuries,
The recognition that the world is hostile
Towards our temperament and is not
A play ground designed for us to inhabit.
We could here hazard a comparison
Between Heraclitus & Democritus.
For if he the latter was known as
The laughing philosopher, then he
The former was very much his counterpart,
Shedding bitter tears at the pointlessness
And stupidity of the world that he
Saw around him. Both are equally valid
Reactions still today. And whichever
We may choose as appropriate to
The insanity of our world is up to us.
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Gorgias had a similar line on
This form of enquiry, his argument
Having at its heart the problem of being,
Which would still trouble thinkers right up to
The present day. Aristotle tells us
That the words of Gorgias included these
That if there is nothing with being, then
He says demonstrations are deceptive.
For every object of thought must have
Being, and something without being, if
It has no being cannot be an object
Of thought. If this is so, there would be no
Such thing as a lie, not even if someone
Were to speak of chariots racing
In the sea as all such things would have
No being. This idea that there can be
No such thing as a lie, or untruth, takes
Onboard the post modernist conception
Of temporary and relative truths.
It does away with the illusion that
We have of any eternal values
And recognises the inherent flaws
That will occur when we even try
To work out exactly “what is the case”.
The Socratic philosophy was
A reaction against this materialist
Drift of physical science. In order
To discover the spiritual world
Philosophy abandoned the search for
Material substance in external
Nature and turned its eyes inward to
The human soul. This with time became known
As the Delphic injunction, characterised
By Socrates’ dictum: ‘know thyself’.
It is here that the initial
Characteristics of what would become
Christianity took root. The Socratic
Way is therefore against the nature
Of all things Greek. If earlier Greek thought
Had had the chance to develop its more
Healthy minded form of enquiry
The pagan world could have developed
Further into an enlightenment.
The Epicureans and Stoics briefly
 Continued into the Roman world yet,
The persecutions of the age of
Theodosius and the eventual
Ruin of the great library made sure
That all the work of the ancients had been
In vain. Stoicism would not direct
The minds of the ruling classes beyond
The decline of the classical age.
Thucydides was an example of
A Greek who boar a healthy mindset.
His speeches took the position that people
Care less for justice than for their own narrow
Interests, a more truthful acceptance
Of human nature than the Socratics
Naïve conception of ‘the good’. Hereafter
Christianity was able to take
The place of all other Hellenic thought
Systems. It was its veil of Maya,
Which enabled it to survive, its appeal
To the weak, contrasted to the strong willed
Nature of the Hellenic mind. It was
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Only when Epicurean physics
Were eventually rediscovered
In the seventeenth century that
The basis of modern science could
Establish itself. We can see through this
That if not for the Hellenic age’s
Deformity into Christianity,
Europe could possibly have bypassed
The dark ages and found itself a thousand
Years further ahead in progression.
Why did the early Greeks study nature
First not needing to “know themselves” until
The time of Socrates & Plato?
The essence of life in the modern world
Stems from two sources: Persia and Greece.
The condensing of the Hellenic religion from
The crude and unorganised traditional
Polytheism of Homeric gods
Into a rational belief in god,
Turned the pre-Socratic world view into
A literal account of the world and
Created the natural theology
Which Christianity came to use as
The substructure of its theological
Scheme. Originally the Hellenic
Conception of god was the “Idea of
The good” or “First mover” or “Ruling
Principle”. These concepts now took on
However, the purpose not of a healthy
Inquirous temperament towards
Origins but a fantasy to which
Submission was required. The Hellene
Begins with man and works his way to
The metaphysical, but it is always
Man that is essentially the issue.
As Sophocles stated: “There are many
Wonderful things and nothing more wonderful
Than man”. The Persian approach was more over
The opposite. God was taken as
The main premise, not the conclusion.
It is here that the two doctrines met
And also here that their main differences
Of emphasis were shifted into
 A synthesis. As Nietzsche has said
The difference between the two is in
The Western mind’s ability to give reasons
For what he believes. However with
The abstract now taking centre stage it
Was not long before the practical and
Life affirming qualities of the pre
Socratic mind were abandoned for
The sake of the metaphysical.
Inevitably religion replaced
Man in the centre of life as the greatest
Of interests. Speculatively it
Drove the invisible world out of
The depths and into the foreground, it filled
Men with the sense that behind the scenes
Of life their existed an ultimate
Reality which must hold the key
To their destiny and which therefore must
Hold the clue towards the correct form
Of conduct. Its main damaging effect
However was in its insistence that
The things, which are seen, are temporal and
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Therefore should be of no interest.
This pointed to a way of thinking that
If things are not seen they must be eternal
And of vital importance to one and all.
Socrates’ new conception of
The beyond then became manifest. With
His death at the hands of the Athenian
Government, he became a martyr in
The same sense and as a precursor
To Christ. Jesus and Socrates then both
Represent supposed “virtuous” men.
Socrates’ plagiarism by
Anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice
Led the way towards an escapist
Romanticism for dubious moral
Convictions. Socrates knew exactly
That which Nietzsche exposed centuries later,
That to be a martyr does not make
A cause more worthy and yet in the eyes
Of the Hellenic world about to come
Under the intellectual influence
Of Socrates’ protégés, he knew
That it would be perceived as such. Why else
Did he accept his fate so readily
Taking that final hemlock cocktail?
The Athenians were more in favour
Of his banishment than execution,
Socrates brought about his own end in
The knowledge of the mythical status
Which he would then take on. His warped
Philosophical exposition
Upon his death bed as to why it was
Pointless to fear death gave further credence,
In the eyes of those present, to his doctrine
Of the beyond. The way in which Socrates
Talks of and legitimises a beyond
Is insane by Ionian standards.
To suggest that death and life necessitate
Each other in turn as they are opposites,
Supposedly swinging between a ying
And a yang is a great simplification.
The fact that the natural cycle
Of life itself has an ‘eternal
 Recurrence’ does not point at all towards
An individual soul or person
Recurring throughout. Plato and his ilk
Were Socrates’ sidekicks and after
His death they submitted utterly
To the Socratic method. It is well
Known how Plato burnt all of his poetry
In order to become a disciple
Of Socrates. He negated himself
To become like Socrates. It is then
Perhaps an irony of Socratic
Proportions that Plato ignored himself
To follow through Socrates’ “know thyself”
He became other than himself, to become
Like his master. If Socrates therefore
Had been such an expert at knowing himself
And becoming what he was, does this mean
To say that Plato became what he himself
Actually was or rather that which
He mythologized Socrates to be?
The man of self-deception who then became
Contrary to himself in his obsession to be
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Like his master. Socrates himself never
Wrote a thing. It is to Plato, Xenophon
And the others to which we look to find
What at least they considered the man to be.
If we look at Socrates’ final words
As glorified by Plato that great
Mythologizer of humble men, we
May find the idea that things have
An essence of size. According to this
Some essences being ‘big’ whilst others
Are ‘small’. Following this line of inquiry
If a thing is in the middle ground it
Contradicts itself through its being bigger
Than tiny yet smaller than huge. This form
Of thinking defies logic! Things must be
Independent of one another; it is
Only in comparison that they can
Take on such terms. This out look then is
A mistake, things are not born into
Competition, and whether we compete
Or compare things socially is rather
Of another matter entirely
From this type of pure semiotic
Comparison. Here it is easy
To say that things usually are put
Into comparison with each other
Whether size or other wise. Yet they are
Not born out of it. Some pre-Socratic
Thinkers had the idea that there was
A plurality of things meaning that
All elements were alien to one
Another whilst some believed that all
Was one, meaning that all elements are
Forged from a primary element.
These thinkers predated the atomists
In their attempts to discover exactly
What the world really was. The tendency
To appropriate Socrates as
A precursor to Christianity
Was not at all restricted amongst
The pagan thinkers. The later Christian
Apologist Justin from the second
Century of the common era viewed
Socrates in the same light. Comparing
 His denouncement by the Athenian
Government, to the somewhat similar
Accusations of atheism made
Towards the Christians. He claimed that
Socrates was put to death as he had
Rejected the very existence of
The Olympian gods and urged worship
Towards the one “true” god. Socrates then
Is seen as having had a particular
Understanding of the coming age
When Christ would take his place as saviour.
If we look closely between the words
Of the Athenian comic play write
Aristophanes we can catch a glimpse
Of how Socrates’ contemporaries
Saw him. In Aristophanes’ The Clouds
He recognised in Socrates at least
Three different types which were never
United to perfection in any
Single person. Firstly the Sophist, who
Teaches the art of making a good case
jueves 17 de febrero de 2011
Out of a bad one. Secondly comes
The atheistic natural thinker
Like Anaxagoras. and thirdly we
Have the ascetic moral teacher, ragged
And starving through his own indifference
To worldly interests. Here we see that
Other connection between Socrates
And his logical successors
The Christians. In the Sophistic technique
Employed of “making the weaker argument
Defeat the stronger”, which was a slogan
Associated with the Sophist
Protagoras, and the combat between
The two arguments, in which the high
Morality of the stronger, juster
Argument succumbs to the sophistry
Of the weaker. This is exactly
The kind of destruction of healthy
Mindedness, which becomes over thrown by
The stupidity that has lamentably
Come to characterise epochs ever since.
As Nietzsche recognises with Socrates
Comes an abrupt paradigm shift
The “defeat of a nobler taste” He
Sees Socrates’ irony as
“The resentiment of the rabble” Reason
Being the light of day which casts aside
The dark impulses of the mind. Yet as
All earlier philosophers had
Understood it was precisely these dark
Desires that lead us to a deeper
Understanding. The Hellenic temperament
Until then had been that of a healthy
Acceptance of all our nature and
The irrational nature of the world.
This was characterised by the Greek gods,
Who were not so much aloof perfect figures,
But had human failings, desires
And insatiable passions, which they did
Not hesitate to fulfil. However
From then on desire was to be
Associated with sinfulness and
 The unending pursuit of ‘the good’ took on And the beyond, decided to run away
An altogether ethical paradigm. From the world and away from any other
It is this permanent daylight, which from Terrible or ugly truths. From then on
Then on blinded the Greeks to the fact that The only truth that could be tolerated
The pursuit of truth is no pleasant affair. Would be that which upheld beauty or goodness
From then on Greek thought ignored the healthy Whose scruples have since been followed at all costs.
Acceptance of the ecstatic state and
Would lead onwards but not upwards towards
Christianity and the debasement
Of all human passions and inner feeling.
It was only in tragedy that the Greeks
Came face to face with this awe-inspiring
Terribleness of reality and
A brave acceptance of the true nature
Of our instincts and passions along with
The world in which we must inhabit. From
Socrates onward philosophy, ever
More interested in metaphysics

jueves 17 de febrero de 2011