Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
Lecture 11: Thales and Anaximander: The Beginning of Philosophy

Transcript
================================================================================

He knows whose son he is. But notice, it's more known to us that we came from our mother than that we came from our what? Father, huh? But the mother is more like the matter of which we're made, huh? When the father gets through with his role in generating the child, there's practically no matter there at all, huh? And so all those nine months, all the matter of which the baby grows, comes from the mummy, huh? And even after you're born, your mother's milk there, huh? There's food for a few months or something, right? I think I told this kind of funny story, you know, of my children when they were getting, you know, some of the facts of life, so to speak, firm in their mind, huh? And one day, you know, out of the blue, my son Paul, he's still quite young, and he says, out of the blue, you know, he says, Did I come from Mama? Did I hear this story? And I said, yes, you did come from Mama. And he said, Maria, that's his sister, did Maria come from Mama? And I said, yes, Maria came from Mama. And then he asked about his younger brother, Marcus. Did Marcus come from Mama? And I said, yes, Marcus came from Mama. Then he said, did you come from Mama? And I said, no. And he said, well, then you don't really belong here. But you can stay, he says. And we've laughed and laughed about this, but what does it indicate, see? What does it indicate, see? And the obvious point of connection between Paul and his sister and brother was they all came from Mama. And I didn't come from Mama, what the hell was I doing here in this house, see? But certainly it's more known that you come from your mother. Why, the father is more like a, what, maker. The mother is more like matter. So just as the mother is more known than the father as the origin, so matter is more known than the, what, maker, huh? And it's interesting that later on, with Heraclitus, when they begin to start to see the need for the cause called the move or maker, that Heraclitus speaks of it as a father. Why, matter was always associated with the, like, mother, huh, see? And that's one of the reasons why we call God a father, with respect to us, huh, rather than our mother, because he's a cause in the sense of the mover or the maker, and not a cause in the sense of matter, huh? So if you spoke of him as our mother, you would think of him as a cause in the sense of Mother Earth, of matter, and totally misunderstand the kind of cause of the universe. So it's very significant that the poet spoke of Mother Earth, thinking of that kind of cause, huh, that we call matter, so much tied to the mother, right, to get this name from the mother. And then when Heraclitus begins to see the need for the mover a bit, he starts to use the word father, huh? Very, very significant, huh? So all that helps to confirm the idea that matter is more known to us than the makers, so we ought to begin there. And if that, you know, proves to be enough, then we can stop, right? But if it doesn't, you'll go on to see the need for other causes. Okay. Now notice, huh, as you descend from the general to particular, you're going to find more, what? Or less disagreement. More. Well, that's, as you descend, see. Because, see, if we say God, for example, is the beginning of all things, right? We're talking about the beginning of all things, and we say there's one God, and he's all together, this simple, right? But he's not a beginning in the sense of what? Matter, right? Okay. That's it. As you descend from the more known to the less known, from the general to the particular, the things become less certain, huh? Okay. And less, uh, less agreement. Okay. Okay. We don't think there's one matter that's the beginning of all things, but we do think there's one simple thing that's the beginning of all things. Now, fifth step. Um, if there's one matter that is... It's the beginning of all things, huh? Is it reasonable to guess that it's a matter like water in being, what, formless, colorless, you know, shapeless, tasteless, and so on, right? Rather than a matter of definite qualities like red wine, see, is the beginning of all things, or sugar is the beginning of all things, huh? If you're looking for one matter, it's the beginning of all things, huh? Not necessarily, you know, saying that it's water, but something like water, a formless, huh? Is it reasonable to look for one formless matter than it's the beginning of all things? Well, notice, if I took, as the beginning of all things, red wine, everything is made out of red wine, everything would have to be red, it seems, huh? And that's contrary to what we see in the world, where you have opposite things, right? If sugar was the beginning of all things, everything would be made out of sugar, and therefore be sweet, huh? So you wouldn't have sweet and bitter things. So it seems that if there's one matter on which all things are made, there would have to be a matter that is formless. And when I use the word formless, I mean not just shapeless, but colorless, tasteless, and so on, right? But able to take on all different shapes, colors, tastes like water, can, huh? So even without yet guessing that this beginning is water, it would have to be something like water, wouldn't it? Do you see that? That's reasonable in the sense of having a reason. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. You see? Now, the sixth thing now is, I guess, most in particular now, that that one formless matter of which all things are made is what? Water. Okay? Water is the one simple formless matter, we're going to have a space here, out of which all things are made, right? Which is the beginning of all things, right? Okay? Is there any reason to think that that one simple formless matter out of which all things are made is nothing other than what I've been drinking here today? Water. Well, when Aristotle discusses Thales, huh? He says that Thales was influenced by living things, especially in guessing that water is the beginning. And of course, even today, the biologists would say that you and I are mainly water, huh? That makes up most of us. And you know if it doesn't rain, the things don't grow, and so on. But Thales is said to have pointed to also the fact that seeds don't germinate unless they are, what, moistened, huh? So water seems to be the beginning of life, huh? That's interesting from the point of view of baptism, right, huh? That baptism is not only symbolized by water, the sense of washing the soul of sin, but also being a source of life, huh? And we'll go on to that a little bit more. But, so as far as living things are concerned, water would seem to be a very good guess, huh? As the beginning of living things, if you had to choose one thing, huh? What better guess could you make, huh? But even if you take the non-living world, huh? Where you, the physical world as we call it, where you have gases and liquids and solids, huh? One way of dividing it up, huh? whatever is the beginning of all things would have to be able to become a gas, a liquid, and a solid. Otherwise, it couldn't be the beginning of all things, right? Now, in your daily ordinary experience, is there anything that becomes a gas, a liquid, and a solid that you know of? What is the only thing that I know of that becomes a gas, a liquid, and a solid, right? So even in that way, even in an un-living world, it seems the only thing could be the beginning of all things. Maybe in some lab, some special equipment, in some private experience, you could liquefy or solidify things of other sorts, but in our daily experience, water is the only thing that we know of, right? So especially from living things, but also from what? To the physical world, water would seem an eminently reasonable guess. And some people, of course, think that deities might have been influenced by Homer, who, in one tradition, came after Hesiod. Hesiod talks very much about Mother Earth. But Homer has the gods swear by the river Styx. Of course, we swear by the Bible, say, in court or something. Well, if the gods swear by the river Styx, what does that mean? Maybe water is the origin of the, what? Gods, huh? Otherwise, he wouldn't swear by water. So maybe Homer is anticipating the greatest poet there. Maybe, son. Okay? Now, I'll be making sometimes a scientific footnote, and sometimes a theological footnote, huh? But making a scientific footnote, huh? Obviously, the modern scientist would not say that water is the beginning of all things. In fact, I guess he thinks that water is H2O, right? But notice, son, even if water is H2O, hydrogen is of all the atoms, the, what? Simplest, isn't it? The most fundamental one, huh? The other ones seem to be almost multiples of hydrogen atom. So water is very close to hydrogen, huh? Okay? But to our senses, water appears to be homogenous throughout, huh? It's only by very roundabout ways and experiments and one would realize that water maybe is not as simple as it appears to be, huh? Okay? Let me continue on the theological footnote, huh? Now, again, the theologian would say, God is the beginning of all things, right? But it's interesting that God is metaphorically called, what? Water, huh? And you can see this in the Psalms, huh? You know, in the Psalms, when Augustine divides the Psalms, there's three groups of 50, right? And each has a significance, each of the 50. But when you read the 150 Psalms, there's a psalm of thirst, each one of the, what, 50, huh? There's a high and long for the water, right? Bring water. So I saw a long for God, huh? The one I'm most familiar with is Psalm 62, which appears in the second 50, right? O God, you are my God, whom I seek for you, my flesh, pine to my soul, thirst, like the earth, parched, life is without water, lest I gaze towards you in the sanctuary to see your power and glory. So the soul's desire for God is metaphorically described as, what, thirsting for God as if God is, what, water, right, huh? Okay, you're finding that in the three Psalms of thirst. Why is God metaphorically called water? He is in the water, obviously. But why is he metaphorically called water? What is the basis for that, huh? So principle of life. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And in fact, you know, as they say, when Aristotle discusses the opinion of Thales, he says, and he has more information than we have, right, that Thales was especially influenced by living things, huh? That water seemed to be the source of life, huh? And so we take water, which is the source of life, and material things, huh, or seems to be the source of life, and we say it metaphorically of God, huh? And we speak of the soul is thirsting for God, huh? Okay? And then, as I said earlier, I mean, that's part of the reason why water is chosen for baptism, because baptism is not only a cleansing of the soul, which we usually talk about that with the water baptism, but we also say it's a birth, huh? Well, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit. Well, why is water taken as a sign there to give us this new birth of grace, huh? Well, it's because water is naturally quite tied up as a source of what? Life in the material world, so it's appropriate to take that, huh? So it's very interesting, huh? Theologians say, well, no, water is not the beginning of all things. But the beginning of all things is metaphorically, in Psalm 41, 62, I forget the other one, metaphorically called water, huh? And to be learned, huh? Even for that. Of course, the metaphors of Scripture have to be taken from things that are quite obvious to the senses, huh, and therefore appropriate to everybody. So there's no metaphors taken from hydrogen or oxygen or anything like that, or H2O. But from water, yes, yeah, water is a very common metaphor. So I use this metaphor for grace, too, I think, water sometimes. I do like that of Hermon, which comes down upon the mountains of Sion, huh? It's water, huh? Okay, so you impressed with Thales now? Oh, that's from one sentence, yes. Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you notice that I'm following what I thought says, you know, which I'm particular. Now, we're going to see other opinions about what that one matter might be, huh? But, so not to repeat all these, you know, things down there, but it's understood, right? I do that when I, when you have to move again, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. You know what, a five-year-old brother or not? Okay. Is that good? First, you know what? Well, you can stay on that if you want. So at the house last night, we'll stop at 9 o'clock around about 10 o'clock, you know, and then my wife and I started watching this, an eternal word network, you know, the Mother Angelica, they had, they're interviewing a convert to the faith, right? He's a Baptist minister and his wife. It's kind of interesting just to give you an account of how they came in. It's very unusual. Of course, they had all these prejudices that people have against, you know, the Catholics at first, and her husband would go around sometimes and talk in other, you know, Protestant churches and so on, and his wife would go with him and so on, and they were in one parishes, and this woman came up to the minister's wife after the ceremony and so on, and she said, would you pray for my son, see? And, no, no, pray for my son, no, no, pray for my daughter, yeah, pray for my daughter. And, sure, and what was the problem? Well, the problem was that the daughter had married a Catholic. She was afraid, and so she was kind of a very, you know, good woman, this woman, so she started praying for this daughter, see, and she prayed for, I guess, seven years, huh, for her, and the place where she worked her regular family job, one day they had this new person coming in, and was a person she'd been praying for seven years, and so they became friends in the office and so on, and then the, finding this daughter, you know, wanted to confide in her problem, right, and it was the fact that there was kind of a struggle between her husband and her about how they were going to raise the children, and the husband wanted to raise them as Catholics, and she wanted to raise them as Baptists, and was kind of pulling their marriage apart, see, so, so she said, you know, she's kind of a practical woman, and she says, well, you've got to do one or the other, right, either you go to church with him or he goes to church with you, and since he's the head of the family, you go to church with him, and so she started going to church with him, see, and then finally she got started taking instruction, see, but then she started talking to that minister's wife and so on, and I missed the wife to know what to do exactly, because she thought this woman was really getting converted to Catholicism, right, and then finally, you know, this woman was getting interested in Mary and going to a Marian conference, and of course, to them that's idolatry, you know. And so, and then finally, this daughter was starting to say the rosary and so on, say. And so, there's a really big concern out of the map. And so she said, and she left the Mary in conference, you know, well, I'll bring you back the rosary, right? And do we say it once? And well, okay. And then she and her husband started saying the rosary, right? And they, in fact, it was still 15 decades, so. But they had some of the, you know, little things to describe the mysteries and so on. It took them two and a half hours to go for 15 decades. It's just fine, the whole thing, you know. Eventually, of course, they were, they got more interest in the church and so on. And they were kind of afraid they were going to be converted to Catholicism. And so they're checking everything they get, and they're checking it against Scripture, but they can't find any contradiction, right? And they're getting more and more, and they're looking for a sign and so on. And they did get, they do get eventually a sign. And, but they're also very influenced by the Catholicism of the Catholic Church. That really had tremendous effect upon them. They tied everything together. It's kind of interesting to hear, you know, kind of people, how they come into the church sometimes. It's kind of interesting, huh? But, you know, the problem was it was Mary for a while, so, you know, and then they began to realize that the church was really in harmony, and they began to see the passages in Apocalypse, you know, the Queen with the stars and so on. And one day they had this kind of, you know, the sun came down right over the road they were on, you know, and just like, you know, you said the road, the sun sits on the road, you know, just tremendous, you know. And then you had the tremendous stars at night, and then you had the moon, and this fit in perfectly with the passage. That was a sign that I looked at for. It's kind of interesting, you know. So, that's what happens when you get going, you know, and I get to watching that. Now, Anaximander here is the second legion, huh? And you might say that Anaximander is, I wouldn't say this here, a pupil of Thales, but he's aware of the thought of Thales, huh? And Aristotle, in his biological works, he mentions that Anaximander said that water animals come before land animals, that life began in the water rather than in the dry land. And if Anaximander said that, you could see how he could have been influenced by Thales, because Thales was especially emphasizing water as the beginning of living things, right? So, it would be a reasonable deduction from that to say that life began in water, and later on it was on land, huh? And I suppose man-bogists would tend to, you know, agree with that thought, too, huh? But Anaximander is said to have pointed to the frogs who begin their life as a kind of fish-like thing, and they call it anuta, I guess, and you kind of swim around, and then they become kind of a semi, what, land animal. So, you see, in that example confirmation of the deduction that the land animals came after the water animals, and life began in the water. It's very interesting, huh? But, instead of saying water is the beginning of all things, Anaximander says very strangely that the, a peirat, the unlimited, the infinite, is the beginning of existing things, huh? Now you say to yourself, well, what the heck is that, huh? And at first sight it might appear that Anaximander is not a natural philosopher because natural philosophy, as Aristotle and Einstein both say, it begins and ends in the senses, huh? And water is something you can sense, huh? But the unlimited is not something you've sensed. So how can he be talking about this as an actual, what, philosopher? But, does following your senses mean you can't talk about something you can't sense? Well, it means you can't talk about such things except through the things you can sense, right? But if you can reason from the things you can sense to something you cannot sense, that's not opposed to following the road from the senses and to reason. So like in the modern scientists, when they follow the path of an electron or something in a Wilson cloud chamber, right? You don't see the electron. What they see is the, what, tondulations, huh, of water particles in the path that it took, right? So they're deducing some... about the path of what they do not see through what they do see. That's not contrary to natural science. So following your senses, in other words, that's proper to the natural philosopher, yes. But following your senses doesn't mean you can't reason from what you sense. So if you reason what you sense and reason well from what you sense, you're not outside of natural philosophy or natural science. So we might ask ourselves, is there anything in our sense experience that would lead us to the conclusion that the beginning or the origin of things is the unlimited? Now, before we try to answer that question, we have to ask a little bit about what does the word unlimited mean? And of course, it's a negative meaning, isn't it? It means not what? Limited, right? But there's two ways in which you could call something unlimited. You could say it's unlimited in some quantitative sense, or in a qualitative sense. The formless is unlimited, unlimited to any what? Quality, right? Okay? But what, you know, was on forever, something that has an infinite multitude or something, that would be unlimited in a quantitative sense, huh? So, it could mean unlimited in quantity, or unlimited in quality, or even both, right? Okay? Now, the question is, is there any reason to think that the beginning of things is unlimited in either or in both of these senses, huh? And you come back to the sense of unlimited quality and say, hey, Thales was in fact thinking that already, wasn't he? He was thinking that the one matter of which all things are made can't be limited to inequality, like red wine is limited to being red, huh? Or sugar is limited to being sweet. He saw he had to take something formless, huh? And he chose what? Water, right? Right? Okay? Which seems to be shapeless and colorless and tasteless and so on, right? But, has he gone all the way? Is water entirely without qualities, huh? Well, in its natural environment, at least, water is definitely wet, and we even think of it as being cool in its natural environment, huh? So, water is not entirely quality-less, is it? It seems to be wet and cool. So, you still got the problem, haven't you? If the beginning of all things is wet and cool, and everything is made out of this same thing, everything should be wet and cool. How do you get anything dry made out of the wet? How do you get anything hot like fire made out of the cool, huh? You throw water on the fire, puts it out, how do you ever get fire started, huh? See? Well, we live in a world with hot and cold things, wet and dry things, right? Sweet and bitter things, and so. We live in a world of contraries, huh? So, maybe things hasn't gone all the way, is a wonderful thing, huh? But now, if you go all the way and remove even wet and cool, you have no qualities left whereby you could describe the beginning of all things. But you could say it's not limited even to wet and cool or any other quality. There's other ways the whole universe would be committed to that one thing. So, it is profound what he's saying, isn't it, huh? Okay? Is there anything in our experience that would make us think that the origin of all things is unlimited in some quantitative sense, huh? Well, every spring, what happens, huh? New things spring up, right, huh? And there seems to be no in, there seems to be endless new things coming to be in this world, huh? They never stop coming to be, do they? So, if things keep on coming to be forever, So, if things keep on coming to be forever, Without end, then it seems the origin of things must in some quantitative sense be what? Endless or infinite, huh? So there is something in sense experience that would lead us to think that the beginning of all things is unlimited in maybe both of these senses, huh? So strange as it may seem, right? Logic seems to be drawing us in that way, huh? Now, the second thing that Naximander says in DK1 is extremely interesting, huh? And we think that this thought is in the other Greeks too, but we have explicitly in Naximander. That from which existing things come to be, he says, is also that into which they are corrupted by necessity. So whatever things are originally made out of, when you break those things down again, you end up with what you started with, huh? Now, is that reasonable to think that? I started to give this simple example to students. Suppose you buy your little boy a bag of wooden blocks, right? And you can build all kinds of things out of these wooden blocks, like I did as a kid, towers and ships and even slot machines. And now, I build all these things out of it, but when I knock it down, right, would you expect me to have a Lego set? No, you expect me to have a bunch of wooden blocks, right? Okay. But now, if I bought my little boy a Lego set, you know, plastic, you know what those are, and he builds all kinds of things out of the Lego set, and then you can knock them down, take them apart, right? And he knocks down one of these things he's made, taken apart, would you expect him to have wooden blocks? What would you expect? Lego set, the very thing he began with, huh? Now, if I buy my erector set, which is kind of made out of steel or iron, you can make all kinds of things out of that, right? But now, when he breaks those things down, it takes them apart, would you expect they have a Lego set or wooden blocks? No. So, it seems that whatever is the beginning of things is also that to which, when they break down, they, what? Return, huh? Okay. And, as we go on to some of the later thinkers, you'll see some of the reasons more, but if you, you know, knock this wooden building down, or this wooden thing you're thinking of a Lego set, since the Lego set's not made out of the wood, right? Where'd it come from? You've got something out of nothing, right? And, what happened to the wood? It blocks, huh? As one of the later thinkers will say, what is cannot cease to be by being cut. Can you cut something up into nothing? You cut something up into what it's made out of. So, if you could cut something up into nothing, it could be made out of nothing, which is stupid, huh? See? So, whatever is the beginning of things, it seems reasonable, is also their, what? End, huh? So, here is, in the words of an axiomander, the idea that the beginning of things is also their end, huh? And, um, that's very interesting for the Christian, too, huh? Because we also think that the beginning of all things is also their, what? End, huh? I am the Alpha and the Omega, he says. Beginning and the end, huh? But notice, huh? Beginning and end would not have exactly the same meaning. When we say that God is the beginning of all things, we don't mean that he's the matter of which all things are made. We mean he's the maker of all things, huh? And when we say God is the end of all things, we're not talking about the destruction, huh? That we've broken down into. But he's the end in the sense of purpose, right? But nevertheless, there's a kind of a circle in reality, huh? And even the circle that we have in theology, in God, huh? Is, uh, in a way reflected here in matter, right? Whatever is the beginning is also the, what? End, huh? Um, but I much rather have a beginning and end in the sense of God. Than beginning and end, you know? We talk about that even, you know, on Ash Wednesday, we say, dust thou art. And to dust thou shalt return, right? You see? Circle there, right? And so this is the first insight that we have in work. The reality is basically circular. And of course, that's basically the order in theology. You talk about God in Himself, and then you talk about God as the beginning of things, the maker of things, and then you talk about God as the end. You see it very clearly in the Summa Cantu Gentiles. One of the Psalms says, Know that the Lord is God, He made us as we are. As people of the flock He tends. That's the three things, right? Because God's providence, you know, is tied up with His ordering all things back to Himself. He's also our maker. So, you see something like that here. And of course, in another way, God is unlimited too, but not in this sense here. God is one, simple, unlimited, beginning and end of all things. It's in similarity here. Thomas Aquinas speaks of the Greek philosophers as what, using Aristotle's phrase, coerced by the truth itself, to think that the beginning of things is in some way unlimited, huh? But not really understanding the way in which the beginning of things is unlimited. But in some way, God is unlimited, but in a different way than man would be. God is one and simple too, but in a different way than matter is. But there's some distant lightness there, huh? The mind is moving towards God without knowing it. Now, that second statement in DK1 is the reason for the statements in DK2 and DK3, which are basically the same thing. If the beginning of things is also their end, if the beginning of things is that to which they return, then that beginning of things is never, what? Corrupted, right, huh? The nature of the unlimited, he says, is everlasting and does not grow old. The unlimited is immortal and indestructible. Of course, that's another attribute of God, that he's everlasting, immortal, indestructible. Kind of amazing to see this, huh? Of course, it's of great interest to the scientists, too, because the scientists, he takes this as basic laws, the laws of, what, conservation, right? And they see something as, what, always remaining throughout, what, change, huh? It's always conserved, like energy or something of that sort, huh? So our mind is already, you can say, naturally moving towards something that is eternal and changing, huh? As the origin of things, huh? Already you see that here, huh? It's very interesting to see that. Ultimately, we try to understand the changing in terms of something unchanging. I'm in anticipation of the final argument that there'll be, you know, for the unmoved mover, huh? But our mind is already moving in that direction. The scientists move that way. Heisenberg and the scientists say that the most basic laws are physics or the conservation laws. Everything is based upon something that always remains. As if the mind actually thinks that. They reduce Newton's three laws of motion to the conservation of momentum now, right? That's the basic way they do it in science. Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and angular momentum. I give you some old passages here from the modern scientists that are interesting to compare, you know. Could you understand unlimited in this context as undefined, also, as universal? Well, it's the same word, undefined. The word philis in Latin means end or limit, right? So, same word, really. In Greek, it's the aperon in Latin, infinite, and in English, unlimited. But you're negating the ideal limit, huh? Now, the last sentence we didn't explain in the first fragment again of Maximander. For they render justice and give up injustice to one another according to the order of time. Someone might say, well, what's using words like justice and injustice and talking about the natural world? But we do the same thing when we talk about laws, huh? Because laws first used in human society in the city, huh?