WORKSHOP: The Presocratics
By Don Finkel
I. (15 minutes) In answering the following questions, please put aside anything you have learned about science. Imagine that there is no science yet, and that all you have to go on is what you can observe, and the conclusions you might naturally (there's that word) draw about what you observe.
Look carefully at the burning candle. Individually, write down your answers (your intuitions) to the following questions about the candle. Don't take too long for any one question; you have only 15 minutes to get through them all.
a. What do you see?
b. Where does the smoke come from?
c. Where does the smoke go to?
d. Is the flame you saw on the match the same flame as the one you see on the candle?
e. As the candle burns, where does the missing wax go?
f. Where did the heat come from? Where does it go?
g. Where does the light come from and where does it go to?
h. Where did the color of the candle go to? Where did it come from originally?
i. Do the wax and wick vanish from the universe and are the heat and smoke and light created at just the same time? If so, how do you account for the coincidence in time?
j. If not, do the wax and wick get transformed into heat, light, and smoke? If so, then must they not be made of a common underlying substance--something which is neither wax, nor wick, nor smoke, nor heat, nor light, but which is more real than any of them?
j. If we accept the latter idea, that wax and wick on the one hand and smoke, heat, and light, on the other are all made out of the same substance, what makes them each appear different to us?
II. (90 mins.) Divide up into groups of four. Find a comfortable place to work somewhere in this building. Discuss each of the following questions and try to agree on an answer. Appoint a scribe to be responsible for writing down the group's answer to each question. Everyone should try take some notes of what is going on; you can draw on the scribe's records afterwards to complete your notes. In addition, appoint a "clock-watcher." These workshops only make sense if you get through them, and you will only get through them if you stick faithfully to the allotted times. It will be hard to do this, since the questions will absorb you, and can often be discussed endlessly. Thus, the clock-watcher's job is to keep the group moving along according to the times indicated. (She participates in group discussion, too, of course, as does the scribe.)
A. Milesians (25 mins.)
1. Thales asserted "The first principle and basic nature of all things is water." (F1-p.44) What could he mean by this? How could he possible have believed such a thing? (5 mins.)
2. If Thales were describing what happens as the candle burns down to "nothing," what might he say? (5 mins.)
3. In the practice of interpretation, there is a slogan that says, "Make it good!" This is closely related to "The Principle of Charitable Interpretation" which we shall encounter in our study of Critical Reasoning next quarter. The idea behind "Make it good!" is to assume that what you are reading is sensible, intelligent, and has something important to say, even if on your first or second reading it does not appear to. That is, make the text good yourself, by finding what is good in it. Use this principle with Thales' assertion F1. Given your current understanding of nature and the world, what is the partial truth expressed in Thales assertion? Paraphrase his assertion so that it is both true and important in today's world. (5 mins.)
4. (10 mins.) Wheelwright says that what is important about the Milesians is not the conclusions they reached, but their new way of asking questions.
(a) What question is Thales trying to answer with his assertion above?
(b) Do you think this question is an important one?
(c) Is it a question Homer could have asked?
----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
To deepen your understanding of the Milesians, you should proceed through questions 1 - 4 above for Anaximander, and then for Anaximenes, using the following assertions for each. There will not be time to do this during the morning workshop: Work through these questions on your own this evening as part of your study of the Presocratics.
Anaximander: F1-p. 54. According to one commentator, Anaximander believed that "the most important forces at work ... were what were later called 'the opposites': pairs of opposed entities of which the most frequently invoked were 'the hot' and 'the cold', 'the wet' and 'the dry'. ... The 'opposites' were above all forces, agents of physical change, each present in varying degrees at different places." (E. Hussey, The Presocratics, p. 20) Moreover, as Wheelwright, explains, "Each actually existing thing ... is a usurper; for during the time that it exists it "commits injustice" by preventing its opposite from existing; accordingly it must eventually pay the penalty by yielding up its overt existence and returning to its submerged place in the great qualitative reservoir [the Unlimited]." (p. 53)
Anaximenes: T6-p. 62.
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
B. Eleatics (35 mins.)
Though the text treats Heraclitus before Parmenides and the Eleatics, in some ways it makes better sense to consider him after the Eleatics. That is what we shall do.
1. According to Wheelwright, the Eleatic position can be summarized in two somewhat staggering general propositions: (1) Being is one, and (2) Being is unchanging. Or as Parmenides puts it: "Indeed, there is not anything at all apart from being, because Fate has bound it together so as to be whole and immovable. Accordingly, all the usual notions that mortals accept and rely on as if true--coming-to-be and perishing, being and not-being, change of place and variegated shades of color--these are nothing more than names." (F7(D)-p. 98)
In a way, this position is not so far removed from Thales' claim that the first principle of all things is water. Explain the connection between Thales' claim and Parmenides'. In what way are they saying the same thing? In what way are they saying different things? (5 mins.)
2. Now let us try to appreciate the kinds of argument that the Eleatics used to support their conclusions. Read Melissus F1. (p. 113). Paraphrase this argument in your own words; see if you can make it convincing to each other. (10 mins.)
3. Do the same for section (D) of F7 on p. 115. (5 mins.)
4. Can you take the Eleatic position and "make it good"? This is a challenging task, but try it. (5 mins.)
5. (10 mins.) Both the Milesians and the Eleatics force us to create a distinction between "appearance" and "reality." Ever since, this distinction has taken an unshakable grip on the minds of Western thinkers (i.e., all of us).
(a) Is the distinction an important one in the world of the Odyssey, the world Homer created for us in that work?
(b) If so, is it the same distinction, that the Presocratics are obsessed with?
(c) Try to imagine what it would be like living in world without the presocratic version of this distinction. Discuss what this might feel like.
C. Heraclitus and the Problem of Change (30 mins.)
1. The Eleatics are left with a problem: How are they going to describe what is going on when the candle is burning? Discuss what you think they would say. After a brief discussion, check out Melissus F8 (115-116), and see if that helps you. (10 mins.)
2. Heraclitus' thought is not easy to grasp. Plato summarizes it by saying it is Heraclitus' opinion "that all things move and nothing abides." (p. 79) Consider the following fragments (see p. 4 of worksheet). Read them all first and then discuss them. As best you can, try to summarize them as one coherent position. (10 mins.)
Fragments 20, 21, 23, 26, 33, 43, 45, 98, 110. (pp. 70-78)
3. How would Heraclitus describe what is going on as the candle burns down to "nothing"? (5 mins.)
4. Consider Heraclitus as someone who appreciates the appeal of the Eleatic position, but who wishes to pose an insurmountable problem for it to solve. Formulate a statement of this problem. We will discuss these as a whole class. (5 mins.)
BREAK - 15 minutes
III. (15 mins.)
The whole class will reconvene to examine the formulations you came up with in answer to the last question.
IV. (30 mins.) Make new groups of four. Each group will work on one of the following four philosophers or schools. Choose the one that interests you the most: Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Atomists, Pythagoreans.
Each group's job is to review and clarify for each other the position of their philosopher or school, and then to agree on answers to the following:
1. How would you describe the phenomenon of the burning candle? Be as specific and detailed as you can. Make sure each of you has a good written version of the description to bring to seminar. (15 mins.)
2. In more general terms, how does your philosopher try to resolve the dilemma that comes out of the intellectual encounter between Parmenides and Heraclitus? Make sure each of you has a good written version of this description to bring to seminar. (15 mins.)
In seminar this afternoon, you will have an opportunity to hear how the other three philosophical schools responded to these questions and to discuss the differences. In addition, you might want to discuss the following questions in seminar:
1. Which of the four positions is the best?
2. When you answered 1., what criteria were you using for "best"?
3. How would modern science today explain the phenomenon of the burning candle?
4. How different or how similar are modern science's approach to the candle and the Presocratics' approach?
5. Compare the "state of nature" as we find it in: Homer, the Presocratics, and modern science today. Of the three, which two are the most similar?