A Pre-Socratic Crush

I am fascinated by the Pre-Socratic philosophers. Why the general tendency towards monism? Thales' water, Anaximander's eternal indeterminate, Anaximenes' air, and of course Heraclitus' fire all try to pinpoint the one thing upon which all else depends. What is the one "stuff" from which the multiplicity arises? They were, in general, materialists. Material monists, if you will. The only problem with saying they were materialists is that they had not yet developed the kind of dual (material/spiritual) understanding of reality from which contemporary ideas of materialism have their provenance. Their dualism, if we can say that they had one, was the one and the many.

I am fascinated that they honed in on that one thing. Why was the problem of the one and the many a problem? Consider, Thales. Why does he ask the general question, "What is the ultimate nature of the world?" Why go there? That he settled on water as the answer is noteworthy, but not as interesting. It's why he searches for that one thing, that is what fascinates.

When we look at the world we see many things. The multiplicity is evident. We also see change. Things come into existence, linger, and then decay. Why assume that behind the multiplicity and change is one thing? I am inclined to say it wasn't the influence of religion. The religion that influenced was a multiplicity of gods.

Anaximander seems to have the least material, monist tendencies of those mentioned above. He's materialist, but the primary arche or "element" of the multiplicity is the "boundless." This aperion does seem to have a family resemblance to the chaos of some ancient cosmogonies and religious, origin accounts. But, for Anaximander, the aperion seems to have a function. It is not chaotic, in that sense. On the contrary, it resolves and justifies any encroachment of bounds. Here we see not just a search for that one element, but a desire to try and explain the change we see and experience.

I would have to say, of the four mentioned above, Heraclitus is the one who fascinates most. How I am fascinated by this obscure, weeping philosopher! "The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one." "Though the logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own." Here, we see a continuity between the one and the logos. Human word/reason is potentially in harmony with the one. And maybe, the one and the logos are the same. One does not step in the same logos twice, but the logos that all step in is the same. 😛

I assume with others that philosophy, as we understand it in western culture, began with these Pre-Socratics. I find their predilection for the one/many problem to be instructive. Philosophy began with a desire to understand in metaphysical terms. What is the ultimate nature of the world?

What I wonder is, do we still have an urge to understand our world in the way that the Pre-Socratics did? I am inclined to say we do have just that urge. I think there is a very human desire to understand our world in a holistic way. And yet, in current culture there is this tendency to think of our world in atomistic terms. Ours is a world of particulars. It's not just science, but it's "sciency" to think atomistically. There seems to be this common assumption that there are in fact many things, and perhaps some laws too, but there is no over-arching unity. And, if there is a unity it is a matter of perception, or perhaps projection, but it is not a feature of the world. Unity is not real.

What happens when we reject the possibility of some underlying unity? What happens when we believe that there are many things, but no primary arche? I am inclined to think that meaning and purpose depend on seeing some unity in the world. But, it does us no good if we assume, first rattle out of the cage, that this unity is merely perceived.

There is an ethical consideration here, as well. We live in a culture where this atomistic tendency has bled into how we think of humanity. In fact, we no longer have a tendency to think in terms of "humanity." It is the particular, alone, that has reality. It is me and my group and our tribe and.... This will not do. If we court the divisiveness of unconnected particulars, we gamble losing whatever unity still remains.