Showing posts with label Heraclitus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heraclitus. Show all posts

Monday, June 3, 2024

From Shipwreck to Fire

Remembering Heraclitus: Themes


If the dry, fiery soul is the wise, “enlightened individual” (Sweet, p. 59, 2007), then the damp, wet, or even drenched soul needs genuine, philosophical insight. And how curious to encounter this footnote in Remembering Heraclitus: “Ortega y Gasset in his Loss of Self in Art suggests that the philosophic impulse arises from ‘feeling shipwrecked upon things’” (Geldard, p. 96, 2001). The image is striking: a sopping-wet captain and his crew attempting to flee their ship that has crashed on craggy rocks! How far from being dry are those souls and in that sinking moment, when lives and fortunes are ruined, they are left wondering what has become of them. What twisted turn of events in navigation, reading bearings, and accounting of weather did they go afoul? They have become shipwrecked and now the process of recovery and the path to dryness and even fire begins – their first impulse to philosophy commences.

Perhaps the analogy can be further considered. Will the shipwrecked crew try again? Will they take the lessons they learned to heart to avoid a future shipwreck, or even despite their best efforts to avoid misfortune, will they nonetheless run aground unforeseen shallow rock? Is this never-ending cycle of flux their fate? Do their daimons lead them down this looping path to the point that their fate defines their character? And lastly, if they are to tread the endless path of flux, do they ever stop and wonder what their purpose is – what their telos is? Perhaps, like Zeno of Citium, a shipwreck offers transcendence and brings deep and fundamental discernment to the unfortunate soul, thus revealing their telos, and they never return to their former endeavor (see Long, p. 109, 1986). Is misfortune truly fortune? This essay will ruminate on these questions using Richard Geldard’s Remembering Heraclitus (2001) as the backdrop for the discussion.

Your Character is your Daimon

Fragment 119 is translated in various ways. Geldard (2001) notes that most translators translate it as “character is fate.” Sweet’s (2007) translation is “one’s character is one’s divine fortune” while Robinson’s (1991) is “a person’s character is his fate (divinity). As for Geldard (2001), he translates it as, “for human beings, character is the divine force.” There is a spectrum of interpretations for how one may grasp the meaning of this fragment. We may suppose our fate is entirely out of our hands and we seemingly resign ourselves to the fates the gods have doled out to us. Or we may interpret this fragment as a declaration of our freedom in which we get to control our attitude, narrative, and volition – we are the authors of our character. Geldard reviews various analyses of this fragment, one of which represents both ends of the spectrum as one and the same.

We have no say in the matter of which life we are thrown into. We don’t get to weave our DNA and choose our parents, nor even choose the best traits and aspects of our parents. In fact, we may even be chained with generational baggage, emotions, and “debt” if you take an Eastern philosophical view of the matter (see Geldard, p. 89, 2001). From this perspective of the fragment, our daimon is exerting destiny and fate upon us the moment our cells begin to replicate. But that is only one side of the coin, to reference the analogy Geldard uses. The other side of the coin represents the “so what?”

The character Andy Dufresne from Shawshank Redemption (Darabont, 1994) faced stacked odds against him, but how he responded to his fate (his daimon) ultimately defined his character. Indeed, our fate or perhaps our daimon, as our guardian spirit, senses the required obstacles we must face which act as catalysts for us to either succumb to defeat or to achieve a defining moment. From this side of the coin, then, we should not moan or gripe in the face of impediments, but rather we should thank the gods for showing us the way to finding our true character. As the well-known Marcus Aurelius passage teaches, regarding other people, the elements, and even wild animals, these are “hindrance[s]” and “obstacles” that indicate the “path” on which we can advance (Meditations 5, 20). In sum, our fate and impediments point the way to our character.

However, in a cosmos that never rests from change, we must be cognizant of the unending myriad of obstacles. We may think our character has been refined through the process of managing an impediment, but the reality is that the constant state of flux will demand we confront barriers endlessly.

Constant Flux

Fractals are intriguing mathematical constructs that exhibit self-similarity at different scales yet are vastly complex and ever-evolving. In other words, they are shapes that look similar or even identical depending on the focus and scale of the perspective. They're often intricate and detailed, yet they are built on simple repeating patterns or processes. Fractals can be found in nature, such as in the branching patterns of trees, the distribution of galaxies, the structure of coastlines, and even in the shape of clouds. Perhaps fractals are an apt metaphor for reality and existence as a whole: infinite, ever-changing, ever-evolving. Once set in motion, the math behind the fractal iterates and expands endlessly.

One of the major themes of Heraclitus is the nature of flux and the cause of it. According to Heraclitus, part of the process of acquiring wisdom is to be awake and conscious to comprehend “the thought that directs all things through all things” (Geldard, p. 46, 2001). Geldard then makes an interesting connection by quoting Anaxagoras who noted, “mind is infinite and self-sustaining, is unmixed, alone, and by itself …. [and] drives the whole revolution, so that it revolved initially, first in a small area and now more widely, and eventually more widely still” (p. 46, 2001). Could this description be applied to a fractal? Perhaps. And if this is the true nature of the Cosmos and as humans are intricately entwined in the details of the Cosmos, we must accept the idea that our own minds are tiny fractals in a larger fractal both of which are constantly changing and evolving and part of a massive chain which is infinite. Consider Fragment 45: “One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road - so deep a measure does it possess” (Robinson, 1991). Succinctly stated, change causes change and never ceases.

However, what does flux mean to the individual? First, the individual must heed the wisdom Heraclitus states. We must accept that change is constant and never-ending. To wail at the passing of every dead skin cell or formation of a wrinkle or to be overjoyed at the birth of a kitten or bloom of a rose is not wisdom. Implied in these overextensions of emotion is a desire for something to remain the same. A better reaction to change is to accept it and even embrace it.

Secondly, the individual must look both deeper into and take a wider perspective of the fractal. Upon further reflection of flux, and the more one becomes familiar with change, he will begin to note that there is a cyclical nature to existence. Seasons change; families shrink and grow; history seems both different, yet the same. If one becomes discerning enough, he will realize that feeling sadness or anxiety about change is folly, especially since he may have a chance to experience something anew. Spring flowers are never lost. Embracing a loved one on their death bed may seem to be final, yet sometimes we may feel we love the same soul in another person, such as the way a grandmother may have cooked a particular dinner is revealed again in the way a grandchild mimics the meal.

Lastly, for the individual facing endless change, perhaps the most important lesson for them to embrace is this: given the constant change and given the fact that the more change happens, the more we see similarity, then perhaps the long-term response to all flux and cycles is to live in harmony with the Cosmos – to live according to Nature as the Stoics would propose. One could argue that the individual should assume a long-term perspective and attitude about life. If change is constant and if we encounter repeat obstacles, then we ought to seek the choice that most aligns with the nature of existence. While an entire paper can be spent on this topic, instead of reading that essay, the reader may wish to watch and ponder two videos regarding the well-known economics game theory model called The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Video one (Agar, 2014) explains the prisoner’s dilemma, while video two explains the fascinating strategies employed while playing the game repeatedly (Agar, 2016). One, brief commentary on these videos is that the successful, long-term strategies used in iterative prisoner dilemma games are not unlike living a moral, virtuous life based on Stoic ethics.

Recurrence, to what end?

While applied ethics may be one reason to assume a long-term perspective, a related idea worth discussing would be the topic of ultimate ends for the individual. Geldard (2001) dedicates an entire chapter on telos and what we can learn from Heraclitus on this topic. This essay began by discussing philosophical and actual shipwrecks and how they are catalysts for change. The literal shipwreck must have been caused by one or many variables. Was the cause a faulty rudder, an incompetent navigator, or a lackadaisical captain, or were the elements – Nature – the sole causes of the ship crashing upon waves and rock? Were the captain and the crew completely helpless and only had God to blame for the crash? Once recovered on dry land or perhaps while drowning in the deep sea, they may have wondered: who’s in charge of all this or is it all chaos? What’s the purpose behind all this? Geldard contends that in Heraclitus’ perspective, there is “someone or something at the helm, which in turn implies a vessel with a rudder going somewhere” (p. 109, 2001). And with that implication, an aim for the individual could be found.

While Heraclitus does observe natural cycles and emphasizes constant change, he does not explicitly formulate a doctrine of recurrence or eternal return in the same way that later philosophers, like the Stoics and Nietzsche, do. However, there are a couple of gems found in Robinson (1991) and Sweet (2007) that indicate recurrence is a theme of Heraclitus and that with it, there is a heading to be found for the individual. Robinson quotes Aetius who wrote, “Heraclitus held that the recurrent fire is everlasting, and that destiny is a logos which fashions existent things through the contrariety of the directions in which they tend to run” (p. 173, 1991). Sweet, in his commentary on the themes of life, death, and the soul, discusses the dry and wet soul analogies of Heraclitus. He notes that Heraclitus proposes the soul gains power through wisdom and “becomes a dry soul” and “to the extent that it is identified with the universal fire” (p. 67, 2007). Furthermore, the truly wise person can attain such a degree of wisdom that their soul is unified with the universal fire and achieves a type of immortality. However, upon death, the wet or unwise soul turns to water and then earth and is merged into nature. While Sweet is not explicit, it could be assumed that the unwise person is reincarnated to try again, as it were.

Therefore, if it were assumed that flux is endless and recurrent and that individuals are tossed into the mix over and over again until they get it right and only when they become wise do they find an exit through unity with the universal fire, is this our answer to what our telos or aim in life is? One perspective Geldard brings into the analysis is that of Fowles. In this endless flux (what Fowles calls “The Situation”), “the only telos possible is an existential one” (p. 112, 2001). He quotes Fowles who writes, “To accept one’s limited freedom, to accept one’s isolation, to accept this responsibility, to learn one’s particular powers, and then with them to humanize the whole: that is the best … for this situation” (p. 112, 2001). In brief, one perspective is to simply accept existence as is. However, if this may seem distasteful, perhaps a more transcendental attitude of existence might invigorate life. Geldard offers the aim of unity with the Cosmos, or to be more precise, metaxy.

Fragment 10 focuses on the unity with the whole. “Seizures – wholes and non-wholes, being combined and differentiated, in accord and dissonant: unity is from everything and from everything is unity” (Sweet, 2007). Fragment 30 similarly notes, “this cosmos [the unity of all that is] was not made by immortal or mortal beings, but always was, is and will be an eternal fire, arising and subsiding in measure” (Geldard, p. 129, 2001). Geldard proposes that “the unity is the telos” of the human and that many texts from the same period of Heraclitus reflect this desire for transcendence away from the human existence Fowles describes and towards a metaxy or “in-betweenness” – a place between human existence and the Logos (p. 113-114, 2001). Geldard then reviews similarities between the teachings of the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah, the Buddha, and Lao Tse and the fragments of Heraclitus, all of which offer ideas for achieving unity.

Practice Again and Again

Since the individual finds himself in an endless flux that recurs, and his telos is to transcend into metaxy, what key lessons must he practice repeatedly to achieve his telos? Geldard notes similarities between Heraclitus and his peers of the time. The first is Jeremiah who calls the people, like a shepherd to his sheep, to “feed [on] knowledge and discretion” (p. 116, 2001). Geldard notes that this call to knowledge and discretion invokes a greater individual responsibility for people to come to God’s terms and perspective. In a similar vein, Heraclitus teaches that “to God all things are beautiful, good and just” (p. 116, 2001) and humans irresponsibly assume a narrow, closed-minded perspective. If we are to achieve our telos, we must practice abandoning our restricted point of view and practice embracing the perspective of the Cosmos.

Related to the practice of assuming a Cosmic attitude is the work of letting go of the ego and its related attachments and embracing the will of the Universe. Geldard references the Buddha’s doctrine of separating the selfish ego of one’s identity and in its place, assuming an identity equal to that of Divinity. When we cease being fearful of losing ourselves and cease the longing for fame and ego, we begin to break “the bonds of attachment” (p. 118, 2001). Heraclitus similarly admonishes in Fragment 2 that we must “obey the universal” and not be like common people who cling to their own “private understanding” (p. 119, 2001). To achieve our telos, we must practice relinquishing our selfish egos every day. Every flinch or snap judgment towards grasping at some portion of fame, or power or status should be met with practicing a desire to flow with Nature and being unified with the Nature of things.

Lastly, Lao Tse noted the tension of justice in the Universe by observing that tautness is needed for a bow to succeed. If there is no tension because the string is too long, then the string must be shortened and if there is not enough string, then it must be lengthened (see p. 120, 2001). A sage practices and demonstrates his knowledge rather than simply retaining it. True, divine understanding and judgment is not simple learning, but rather, being truly awake and aware and acting accordingly. To this end, Heraclitus teaches us to not heed him, but the Logos (Fragment 50) and that common humans do not have good judgment, but only divine judgment is good judgment (Fragment 78). Therefore, to achieve our telos, we must avoid the common and instead practice observing true wisdom. It will take skill to know when to apply a virtue and how much or how little for the right amount of tension.

Conclusion

The idea of a philosophical life beginning from a shipwreck is not novel. Many observers through the years have found the analogy quite compelling. Vidauskytė (2017) notes that not only is a shipwreck a metaphor for the initiation of a philosophical life, but that seafaring also signifies the human discontent with staying on land and the desire to transcend the human domain of land and venture out to the beyond. She rightly observes Diogenes Laertius commentary on Zeno of Citium, who survived a shipwreck and traded his lost cargo of purple dye for living a philosophical life on dry land. But not everyone’s fate is a shipwreck. Our character is defined by our fate, through the endless flux of impediments and obstacles. And sometimes, the monotony and recurring nature of existence forces us to wonder what our ultimate aim is. Perhaps after enough voyages and challenges, we arrive at true wisdom and begin to see the Cosmos as it really is – we lose our common ego and pivot to a desire to be at one with Nature. With enough practice of taking the Cosmic perspective, laying aside our ego, perhaps we achieve transcendence, return to land, and dry our soul by a flaming, wise fire.

References

Agar, J. (2014, October 4). The Prisoner’s Dilemma. Www.youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw&ab_channel=ThisPlace

Agar, J. (2016, July 2). The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and The Evolution of Cooperation. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvAbjfJ0x0&ab_channel=ThisPlace 

Aurelius, M. (2014). Meditations (M. Hammond, Trans.). Penguin Classics, An Imprint Of Penguin Books.

Darabont, F. (Director). (1994, September 10). The Shawshank Redemption. Columbia Pictures.

Geldard, R. G. (2001). Remembering Heraclitus. Lindisfarne Books.

Long, A. A. (1986). Hellenistic philosophy : Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. University Of California Press.

Robinson, T. M. (1991). Heraclitus : Fragments. University Toronto P.

Sweet, D. (2007). Heraclitus : Translation and Analysis. University Press of America.

Vidauskytė, L. (2017). Metaphor of Existence: Seafaring and Shipwreck. [Egzistencijos metafora: kelionė jūra ir laivo nuskendimas] Filosifija Sociologija., 28(1), 11-19.


Thursday, August 11, 2022

Phil 302 - Anonymity and Justice

 Anonymity and Justice

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of justice.  Since humanity and various cultures hold different meanings of justice and injustice, the Ring of Gyges thought experiment can be leveraged to explore this topic and how it still plays out in modern society.  The movie Batman Begins offers multiple character examples of how anonymity is like wearing the Ring of Gyges, and how anonymity is used to commit injustices as well as to fight injustices.  Perhaps anonymity simply demonstrates the on-going challenge of defining justice and Heraclitus’ claim that “strife is justice” and “war is father of all” aptly sums up the problem (Graham).  Or perhaps there is a lesson to be learned in empathy in how to apply justice by way of another thought experiment called the empathy machine (Groothuis).  Thought experiments like the Ring of Gyges and the empathy machine, and movies like Batman Begins, are valuable because they prompt discussion and dialogue of what it means to be just and how to act accordingly.

Glaucon and Socrates discuss the concept of justice in book two of  Plato’s Republic.  Glaucon contends that the just person would ultimately run the same course as an unjust person.  He explains through the thought experiment, called the Ring of Gyges, that the wearer of the ring could become invisible and commit any act they wish; and subsequently a person claiming to be just would ultimately commit injustice if granted invisibility (Plato, et. al., 359c – 361a).  Does anonymity make everyone unjust?  Or are there examples of people who use anonymity to fight injustice.  The film Batman Begins offers insight into various characters who have the power of quasi-anonymity.

Batman Begins is a 2005 film which explores the origins of the comic book hero Bruce Wayne, whose parents were murdered when he was a boy (Nolan).   When Bruce was a college student, the murderer of his parents, Joe Chill, was to be released on parole.  At the hearing, Bruce comes prepared with a handgun with the intent to kill Chill.  He is about to shoot Chill, when an assassin for the mobster Falcone, kills Chill.  Bruce watches intently as Chill dies.  Later, his close friend, Rachel Dawes, discovers Bruce’s intent.  When she learns this, she slaps him across his face, telling him that his father would be ashamed of him for bypassing the justice system.  Feeling the sting of shame, Bruce vows to fight injustice by immersing himself in the criminal underworld for seven years.

While exploring the criminal underworld, Bruce is recruited by a man named Henri Ducard, who belongs to the League of Shadows and whose leader is Ra’s al Ghul.  As a member of the League of Shadows, Bruce learns martial arts and arts of deception and disguise.  At the pinnacle of his initiation, he is forced to decide whether to behead a murderer or part ways with the league.  Having determined that he would never kill, he escapes the League of Shadows, saving his friend Ducard and thinking that Ra’s al Ghul dies in a fire at the home of the League of Shadows.

Bruce returns to his home in Gotham and crafts his alter-persona: Batman.  As he assumes anonymity, he begins to fight the Gotham criminal underworld, using his quasi-invisibility to exact justice on the mobsters of Gotham.  Through the course of his detective work, he learns that Ra’s al Ghul still lives, and in fact, is his friend Ducard.  Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows have plotted to destroy Gotham, intending to commit injustice.  Batman fights Ra’s al Ghul, who dies in a train wreck, and subsequently, Gotham is saved.

Both the protagonist and antagonist of Batman Begins wrap themselves in invisibility and disguise.  Bruce Wayne does so to fight injustices on the streets of Gotham which the police department is powerless to fight because of corruption.  Bruce’s choices demonstrate that a cloak of invisibility does not align with Glaucon’s contention that a proverbial Ring of Gyges corrupts the wearer.  On the other hand, while the antagonist Ra’s al Ghul has a warped sense of justice by destroying everything to force civilization to reboot, he is willing to commit significant injustices to accomplish some justice in the world.  Ra’s al Ghul is an example of what Glaucon contends: that invisibility only encourages the person to commit injustices.

It does not take much imagination to make the leap from the fiction of Batman Begins to the non-fiction of the real world.  Today, cyber criminals and malicious actors work in hidden shadows and the dark web to steal people’s identities and commit all types of injustices from buying and selling drugs to human trafficking.  Also cloaked in anonymity and invisibility are justice warriors from governments and military organizations and even vigilantes.  Like Batman, the cyber world is full of invisible actors, many committing grave crimes, and others, such as vigilantes, fighting them in the name of justice (e Silva).

Is Glaucon’s thought experiment, resolved?  Does invisibility turn all people into actors of injustice?  Applying the analysis of Batman Begins and the battles being fought on the Internet, it can be stated that invisibility does not turn all into actors of injustice.  Therefore, what is to be learned from this thought experiment?  Perhaps the real lesson from Batman Begins and the gift of anonymity is that it reveals humanity will always be locked in a struggle to define what is just and unjust.  What happens overtly also occurs anonymously as the fight for justice and against injustices simply moves to a meta world.  Consequently, when Heraclitus says, “We must recognize that war is common, strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity” and that “war is father of all and king of all” it simply denotes the endless fight over the definition of justice (Graham).  Ra’s al Ghul felt compelled to fight injustice in his own way, and in turn Batman felt compelled to fight Ra’s al Ghul and the criminal underworld.  Humanity is trapped in a perpetual struggle to define and execute justice and how to fight injustice.  But is humanity truly trapped in this unending battle?

To begin to address injustice, all people need to gain self-awareness and empathy.  One University of Sydney academic philosopher wrote, “invisibility may be self-induced through self-justifying rationalizations, and ignorance may be manifested and expressed as lack of self-reflection and self-knowledge” (Edward, 564).  This idea of ignorance and lack of self-examination and reflection may be key to unlocking a universal understanding of justice.  What if justice began with self-examination and reflection?  If more people were to be instilled with empathic awareness, could humanity step closer to universal justice?  Two scenes from Batman Begins show two characters with a sense of empathy and how these acts of kindness had knock-on effects.

One scene shows a young Bruce at the police station, shortly after his parents were murdered by Chill.  With empathy and kindness, a police officer named James Gordan took time to think of the feelings of a frightened child.  His act was to simply put a coat around the young boy and offer comfort.  Later in the film, in difference scene, the hero similarly shows empathy for a young boy whose life is full of stress.  While surveilling a rough part of the city, a young boy walks onto the balcony to leave a heated argument between his parents.  To his surprise, he sees Batman on the terrace.  He explains to Batman that none of his friends would believe him if he told them he saw Batman.  Without saying a word, Batman hands the boy a surveillance tool and the boy breaks out in a wide, happy expression.  Having the ability to understand what it feels like to be in another person’s shoes and then to treat that person, accordingly, may be the right thought experiment to advance the conversation of justice.

One professor of philosophy proposes that moral virtue, including justice, may be better understood with a thought experiment called the empathy machine.

When one is hooked up to the empathy machine, there is a radical shift from the third-person and second-person to the first-person; from propositional knowledge to experiential knowledge … from hearing about pain and observing pain to being in pain and thus knowing it from the inside out. It is a shift from hearing-about or being-near to being-there (Groothuis, 86).  

Experiencing the pains of injustice may begin to shape humanity to reconsider actions which may be unjust.  Instead of allowing baser instincts of protection, revenge and survival to guide humanity, perhaps there ought to be greater focus on tapping into emotional intelligence in an effort to expand not only self-awareness, but other-awareness.

While humanity may long argue over what justice is and is not, the thought experiments of the Ring of Gyges and the empathy machine, along with the plot of Batman Begins help to sort out how humanity can apply justice at the interpersonal level.  Indeed, Heraclitus may always be correct about humanity being trapped in a perpetual cycle of strife and war.  Or, perhaps there may be some hope in a more enlightened civilization, in which the citizenry taps into the rich potential of empathy and reaches escape velocity from the ceaseless cycle of conflict. 

Works Cited

e Silva, K. K. “Vigilantism and Cooperative Criminal Justice: Is There a Place for Cybersecurity Vigilantes in Cybercrime Fighting?” International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, vol. 32, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 21–36. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1080/13600869.2018.1418142.

Edward, Howlett S. "The Sixth Estate: Tech Media Corruption in the Age of Information." Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, vol. 18, no. 4, 2020, pp. 553-573. ProQuest, https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/scholarly-journals/sixth-estate-tech-media-corruption-age/docview/2499028149/se-2, doi:https://doi-org.ezproxy1.apus.edu/10.1108/JICES-02-2020-0014.

Graham, Daniel W. “Heraclitus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford.edu, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/heraclitus/.

Groothuis, Douglas. "THE EMPATHY MACHINE: A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT." Think, vol. 19, no. 55, 2020, pp. 85-94. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/empathy-machine-thought-experiment/docview/2384820659/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175620000081.

Nolan, Christopher. Batman Begins. Warner Bros., 2005. 

Plato, et al. A Plato Reader : Eight Essential Dialogues. Hackett Pub. Co, 2012.

Saturday, July 9, 2022

Raphael's School of Athens: Is it Heraclitus or Epictetus?

Towards the end of 2020, while doing some work on a college research paper, I found an image of Epictetus I had never seen before.  I was exploring my college's various research engines and one of my searches yielded an image from the British Museum; an drawing of Epictetus.

You can find the print here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1935-0828-5

The description states, "Epictetus: bearded man seen head and shoulders, head resting on his left hand; on white ground; detail from the School of Athens, after Raphael"

The artist who drew this image of Raphael's School of Athens is Antonio Regona and he would have drawn it sometime between 1775 and 1853, according to the site's data on 'production date.'

He drew other objects from the School of Athens; see this link to his works at the British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG191367
  • Epicurus
  • Zeno of Citium
  • Diogenes
  • Plato
Now to the question.  As I've studied a bit about the painting, I've come to learn that there seems to be wide consensus that the image that Antonio Regona claims is Epictetus, is in fact Heraclitus.

The wikipedpia page on the painting claims it is Heraclitus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens

The site Art in Context claims it is Heraclitus: https://artincontext.org/the-school-of-athens-raphael/

But perhaps the best information or analysis on this figure comes from the BBC and talks a bit more extensively about him: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200910-the-school-of-athens-a-detail-hidden-in-a-masterpiece

This article, too, claims he is Heraclitus, but also notes that this figure and many of the other figures are deliberately ambiguous.

So, perhaps, Antonio Regona may have known more about this figure or he chose to not claim this figure as Heraclitus, but Epictetus.  Perhaps Regona had seen another image of Epictetus by William Sonmans - the image that many of us may be more familiar with (link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Epicteti_Enchiridion_Latinis_versibus_adumbratum_(Oxford_1715)_frontispiece.jpg)  This image would have been created prior to 1715 and would pre-date Regona's drawing.


Both images show Epictetus, holding his head up with his left hand, while writing.  Perhaps these two clues are why Regona claims the figure in the School of Athens is Epictetus and not Heraclitus.

In conclusion, it's a interesting mystery and piques my curiosity about why would Antonio Regona call that figure Epictetus and not Heraclitus.

Monday, November 9, 2020

Essay on David Hume reductio ad absurdum Argument

Originally written August 2020

The Creation and the Creator

The context of this essay revolves around if the world (perfect or not) was created by a perfect or imperfect God.  Scottish Philosopher, David Hume, argues the world was not created by a perfect God.  He advances this claim with an analogy by comparing the world to a ship, which was created by a carpenter who finally succeeded by mimicking superior craftsmen, through repeated failures, attempts and successes.

Presented in the reductio ad absurdum form of argument, Hume claims:

To prove: the world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

Assume the opposite: The world does have a creator in the way a ship does.

Argue that from the assumption we would have to conclude: an imperfect world must have been created by an imperfect god.

Show that this is false (morally or practically unacceptable): God cannot be imperfect.

Conclude: The world does not have a creator in the way a ship does.

This essay will first question the validity of Hume’s analogy and then respond to Hume’s premise that the world is imperfect.  If the analogy is not valid, then the argument breaks down.  Also, if it can be demonstrated that the world is indeed not imperfect, then Hume’s argument can be further refuted.  The essay will also elaborate on the Stoic concept of God, in response to the idea of perfection and imperfection.

Hume’s Analogy Not Quite Valid

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy is as follows:

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

Hume’s creator of the ship analogy fails in a few ways.

First, a ship is an inorganic object which floats on water.  Earth, on the other hand, is organic, teeming with life inside an atmosphere.  The earth exists in the vacuum of space instead of a body of water or a dry dock.

Secondly, the degree of complexity between ship and a planet is wide and the required maintenance of each varies.  The actual mechanisms to manipulate the ship are simple compared to those of the earth.  A ship merely needs a rudder and an engine, from something as simple as a sail or a motor.  After that, the ship requires a captain and crew to steer it and maintain it (removing barnacles, replacing rotten wood, etc.).  The earth, however, has a core, layers of earth, complex life support systems in the land, water, and layers of atmosphere, to maintain its viability to sustain life.  And despite its complexity, the earth requires no intervention of a crew for on-going maintenance and repairs.  A simple ship would crash and rot without a crew.  The complex earth needs no crew to persist.

Thirdly, the purpose of a ship and the purpose of the world are different.  The goal of a ship may range from being a pleasure boat for people to explore exotic islands or it may be to transport thousands of passengers across the world to another continent or it may be designed to carry munitions in a war, to fire them on an enemy.  Broadly speaking, a ship’s purpose is for transport of people and things over water – its purpose and scope is finite.  The world, in contrast, may have a multivariate purpose, some of which may be deeply philosophical.  But it is evident, the world is not strictly a means of transportation.  There is no port from which the world has departed nor to which it will return – there is no evidence to support this idea.  And there is no clearly defined goal and universally understood mission or purpose of the world – it is not finite.

The other part of Hume’s analogy compares the creator of the ship to God.  This part of the analogy does not quite seem relevant to the scope of argument.

When most people who believe in a God, think of the concept of God, they will “go up the chain” as a matter of speaking, as far as possible.  Even the deeply seated philosophical question of “who created me” hits at the very essence of the question.  Of course, we know that my biological mother and father created me – that is how I literally came into existence.  But we want to go further, to the point of asking, who created the first human.  And even then, we may not know if whoever created the first human is indeed God or not.  Perhaps Hume was trying to limit his analogy to the scope of a creator of a ship, but in fact, he should have found an analogy that assumes a broader scope, such as one that asks the question of who designed the creator of the ship, or who is the original architect of the design of ships.  The goal would be to get to the ultimate fount of creation, instead of focusing on an intermediary.  In sum, the scope of his analogy is too limited.

His creator of the ship analogy falls apart on a few levels.  Comparing the ship to the world does not equate.  And the creator, in the analogy, is too limited in scope.

Even if we were to grant that Hume’s analogy is valid, it still fails on the point of God creating an imperfect world.  The concept of perfection versus imperfection must be addressed from a Stoic perspective.

Refuting the Idea of Perfection Versus Imperfection – a Stoic Response

The Stoic God is everywhere and is everything.  Nature is God, to the Stoics.  Everything flows from Nature, including the world.  As such, Nature is greater than the notion of perfection and imperfection.

The idea of perfection (or a superior standard), is a difficult definition to pin down, in time and space.  Things are in a constant state of change regarding time and space.  Humans have created the idea of perfection (or a superior standard), which simply means any standard they think should exist is perfect.  Without evidence of perfection, or a standard to refer to, the idea of perfection and imperfection, does not exist; rather it only exists in our minds.

As opposed to this dichotomous thinking (perfect vs imperfect), we have evidence of a hierarchy of tension in objects in the cosmos.  At the foundational level of tension are things that have no consciousness and are always acted on.  Next would be things that have consciousness but may act on other things.  At higher levels would be things that are conscious and usually act on other things.  At the highest level resides the Stoic God: Nature, which is conscious and acts on everything.  From Nature flows all things, both conscious and unconscious, both things that are acted on, and things that act.

In sum, if there is only one fount, from which all the universe, and the cosmos and everything in the cosmos, flows, then everything within the cosmos has continually changed, and simply exists now, and is in a constant state of change in the future, due to things acting on other things.  Therefore, as the universe is in a constant state of flux, if such an idea of perfection existed, it would only exist in the now.  More succinctly stated: Nature is.

The Stoic God

Marcus Aurelius explains the Stoic view of God in one concise verse:

Think always of the universe as one living creature, comprising one substance and one soul: how all is absorbed into this one consciousness; how a single impulse governs all its actions; how all things collaborate in all that happens; the very web and mesh of it all. 2

Stoic physics describe God as a philosophical God, “a living being” who is “rational, animate and intelligent.” 3  The basis for arriving at this conclusion comes from the logic that since humans are rational, animate and intelligent, therefore the cosmos cannot give rise to something which it does not possess.  Zeno stated, “that which employs reason is better than that which does not.  Now nothing is superior to the cosmos; therefore the cosmos employs reason.” 4

Beyond Nature is only void.  Consequently, there is nothing with which to compare Nature.  Nature simply exists and is “governed by reason” and exists as “the best possible organization … as there is only one possible organization.” 5

Perfection vs. Imperfection

Traditional Christians and Skeptics suggest that God is either perfect or imperfect.  Hume outlines this argument through the voices of Philo, Cleanthes and Demea.

The Christian argument might focus on the perfection of God with God’s intent to design the world preceding the creation of it.  On the other hand, the Skeptic might argue that the world was a lesser production than the creator intended.

But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiple trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving. 1

The Stoic view might respond to the debate between Philo, Cleanthes and Demea that this is dichotomous thinking.  How do we know what a perfect world is?  By what standard can we point that our world is the final result, stemming from a long string of mishaps and misfires?  It would seem the Skeptic is not skeptical enough!

To a Stoic, things, including our world, simply are.  There is no notion of perfect or imperfect.  Whereas the average person might question why brambles and bitter cucumbers were made and point to such things as evidence of an imperfect world, a Stoic, such as Marcus Aurelius, demonstrates the correct way of contemplating these things.

A bitter cucumber? Throw it away. Brambles in the path? Go round them. That is all you need, without going on to ask, 'So why are these things in the world anyway?' That question would be laughable to a student of nature, just as any carpenter or cobbler would laugh at you if you objected to the sight of shavings or off-cuts from their work on the shop floor. Yet they have somewhere to throw their rubbish, whereas the nature of the Whole has nothing outside itself. The marvel of its craft is that it sets its own confines and recycles into itself all within them which seems to be decaying, growing old, or losing its use: and then creates afresh from this same material. This way it requires no substance other than its own, and has no need for a rubbish-dump. So it is complete in its own space, its own material, and its own craftsmanship. 6

To reiterate, the Stoic response to the claim that the world is either perfect or imperfect, is to say that it is neither; rather, “it is complete in its own space.”

Marcus further emphasizes this point by demonstrating the philosophy of unity of the Whole.  Nature, and everything in it, is one whole and complete in its own space.

Everything is interwoven, and the web is holy; none of its parts are unconnected. They are composed harmoniously, and together they compose the world.

One world, made up of all things.

One divinity, present in them all.

One substance and one law—the logos that all rational beings share.

And one truth . . .

If this is indeed the culmination of one process, beings who share the same birth, the same logos. 7

In sum, Stoic physics explain the concept that everything is encompassed in Nature (God).  Things within may need to discard shavings, as evidenced in the metaphor of the carpenter.  But for Nature as a Whole, there is nowhere to place such things to be discarded.  Instead, Nature is able to self-regulate and use everything to its advantage.

The concept of self-regulation can be further explained through the concept of the hierarchy of tension of pneuma of things in the cosmos.

The Hierarchy of Tension

Stoic physics explain differing levels of tension or tonos of things in Nature.  At the low end is simple cohesion (hexis).  Things such as rock would have cohesion.  Moving up the hierarchy of tension is nature (phusis).  Things that have this level of tension would be classified as alive.  The next level up is soul (psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be animals that possess the power of perception, movement and reproduction.  And still higher would be the tension of rational soul (logike psuche).  Things with this level of tension would be adult human beings. 8

Taking this hierarchy one step further, we know that which is higher than the rational soul would be the rational Cosmos.  While the adult human being possesses a rational soul, she is still only “a fragment of matter that constitutes the cosmic body” of Nature.  From this basis of reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion that from Nature, all things flow, both things that are acted upon and things that act. 9

Observing this cosmic perspective of things and events, therefore, helps us to avoid the entire debate of things being perfect versus imperfect, or even good versus evil.

If we accept the premise that all things flow from Nature and that Nature (God) is rational, then we can assume that Nature has accounted for all and is able to self-regulate.

Therefore, as rational beings, we can observe the movement of the stars and the changes of the earth and the life cycle of the animals.  These things naturally manage themselves, without the need of oversight.  A weed grows, it dies, it replenishes the earth and enriches the soil.  If a person chooses to see a weed as an imperfection, then that person has not widened his aperture to the right level of perspective.  He should try to look at the weed in a broader, more cosmic perspective, and he may begin to not see the weed as imperfect, but as a necessary part of Nature’s way of self-regulation.

Summary

The essay has attempted to first, refute the validity of Hume’s creator of the ship analogy, by claiming that a ship does not equate to the world, nor does the scope of the creator quite arise to the scope of God.

The essay went on to also question the premise of God creating an imperfect world, by attacking the notion of perfect versus imperfect.  In so doing, it explained the macro framework of Stoic physics, including the Stoic God.  The Stoic God, which is Nature, encompasses things which have differing levels of tension, from simple cohesion such as in stones, all the way up to the fully rational, self-regulating organism of Nature itself.

Within Nature, some people have assumed the wrong perspective regarding perfection or imperfection.  If a person thinks our world is either perfectly made or not, then he has not considered the grand perspective of Nature, wherein all things are managed and in a constant state of change.  If he takes the correct perspective, he will appreciate that, to God (Nature) “all things are fair and good and just” and that it is “people [who] hold some things wrong and some right.” 10


Notes

1 David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part V

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4583/4583-h/4583-h.htm#chap05 

2 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4, 40

3 John Sellars, Stoicism p. 93, 95

4 Sellars, Stoicism p. 93

5 Sellars, Stoicism p. 99  

6 Aurelius, Meditations 8, 50

7 Aurelius, Meditations 7, 9

8 Sellars, Stoicism p. 91

9 Sellars Stoicism p. 104-105

10 Heraclitus, DK B102, from Porphyry, Notes on Homer, on Iliad 4.4