 Introduction of History of Philosophy This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of Philosophy by William Turner. Introduction. The History of Philosophy is the exposition of philosophical opinions and of systems and schools of philosophy. It includes the study of the lives of philosophers, the inquiry into the mutual connection of schools and systems of thought, and the attempt to trace the course of philosophical progress or retrogression. The nature and scope of philosophy furnish reasons for the study of its history. Philosophy does not confine its investigation to one or to several departments of knowledge. It is concerned with the ultimate principles and laws of all things. Every science has for its aim to find the causes of phenomena. Philosophy seeks to discover ultimate causes, thus carrying to a higher plane the unifying process begun in the lower sciences. The vastness of the field of inquiry, the difficulty of synthesizing the results of scientific investigation, and the constantly increasing complexity of these results necessitated the gradual development of philosophy. To each generation and to each individual, the problems of philosophy present themselves anew, and the influences, personal, racial, climatic, social, and religious, which bear on the generation or on the individual, must be studied in order that the meaning and value of each doctrine and system be understood and appreciated. Such influences are more than a matter of mere erudition. They have their place in the pranottanda to the solution of every important question and philosophy. For, as Colleridge says, the very fact that any doctrine has been believed by thoughtful men is part of the problem to be solved, is one of the phenomena to be accounted for. Moreover, philosophical doctrines, while they are to be regarded primarily as contributions to truth, are also to be studied as vital forces which have determined, to a large extent, the literary, artistic, political, and industrial life of the world. Today, more than ever, it is clearly understood that without a knowledge of these forces, it is impossible to comprehend the inner movements of thought which alone explain the outer actions of men and nations. The dangers to be avoided in the study of the history of philosophy are ecleticism, which teaches that all systems are equally true, and skepticism, which teaches that all systems are equally false. A careful study of the course of philosophical speculation will result in the conviction that, while no single school can lay claim to the entire truth, certain schools of thought have adopted that world concept which can be most consistently applied to every department of knowledge. False systems of philosophy may stumble on many important truths, but a right concept of the ultimate meaning of reality and the correct notion of philosophical method are the essentials for which we must look in every system. These constitute a legitimate standard of valuation by which the student of the history of philosophy may judge each successive contribution to philosophical science. The method to be followed in this study is the empirical, or a posteriori method, which is employed in all historical research. The speculative, or a priori method, consists in laying down a principle, such as the Hegelian principle that the succession of schools and systems corresponds to the succession of logical categories, and deducing from such a principle the actual succession of schools and systems. But, apart from the danger of misstating facts for the sake of methodic symmetry, such a procedure must be judged to be philosophically unsound, for systems of philosophy, like facts of general history, are contingent events. There are indeed laws of historical development, but such laws are to be established subsequently, not anteriorly, to the study of the facts of history. The historian of philosophy, therefore, has for his task, one, to set forth the lives and doctrines of philosophers and systems and schools of philosophy in their historical relation. This, the recitative or narrative portion of the historian's task, includes the critical examination of sources. Two, to trace the genetic connection between systems, schools and doctrines, and to estimate the value of each successive contribution to philosophy. This, the philosophical portion of the historian's task, is, by far, the most important of his duties. Potios de rebuzipsis yudicare debemos quam promagno de hominibus quid quiscuescensir itsquire. The sources of the history of philosophy are, one, primary sources, namely, the works, complete or fragmentary of philosophers. It is part of the historian's task to establish, whenever necessary, the authenticity and integrity of these works. Two, secondary sources, that is, the narration or testimony of other persons concerning the lives, opinions and doctrines of philosophers. In dealing with secondary sources, the rules of historical criticism must be applied in order to determine the reliability of witnesses. The division of the history of philosophy will always be more or less arbitrary in matters of detail. This is owing to the continuity of historical development. The stream of human thought flows continuously from one generation to another. Like all human institutions, systems and schools of philosophy never break entirely with the past. They arise and succeed one another without abrupt transition and merge into one another so imperceptibly that it is rarely possible to decide where one ends and another begins. The more general divisions, however, are determined by great historical events and by obvious national and geographical distinctions. Thus, the coming of Christ divides the history of philosophy into two parts, each of which may be subdivided as follows. Part 1, Ancient or Pre-Christian Philosophy Section A, Oriental or Pre-Hellenic Philosophy Section B, Greek and Greco-Roman Philosophy Section C, Greco-Oriental Philosophy Part 2, Philosophy of the Christian Era Section A, Patristic Philosophy Section B, Scholastic Philosophy Section C, Modern Philosophy End of Introduction Chapter 1, Section A, History of Philosophy This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Tir Elyse History of Philosophy by William Turner Part 1, Ancient Philosophy Section A, Oriental Philosophy In the doctrines by Mainsovich, the Babylonians, Chinese, Hindus, Egyptians, and other Oriental peoples sought to formulate their thoughts concerning the origin of the universe and the nature and destiny of man, the religious elements predominates over the natural or rational explanation. An adequate account of these doctrines therefore belongs to the history of religions rather than to the history of philosophy. While, however, this is so, and while the task of separating the religious from the philosophical element of thought in the Oriental systems of speculation is by no means easy, some accounts of these systems must be given before we pass to the study of Western thought. Babylonia and the Syria When probably about the year 3800 BC, the Semites conquered Babylonia, they found there a civilization which is commonly called that of the Akkadians and the Sumerians, and is by many regarded as the source of all the civilizations of the east. The religion of the Akkadians was originally shamanistic. Every object, every force in nature, was believed to possess a spute, Z, who could be controlled by the magical exorcisms of the shaman or sorcerer priest. Gradually, certain of these spirits had been elevated to the dignity of gods, as, for instance, Anu, the sky, Mulge, or Enum, the earth, and Heia, the deep. It was not, however, until the time of Astrobanipal, 7th century BC, that this primitive system of Theogony began to develop into a system of cosmology based on the idea that the universe arose out of a chaos of waters. Before that time, there prevailed in Akkadia a vague traditional belief that the present cosmic system was preceded by an anarchical chaos in which existed composite creatures, men with the bodies of birds and the tails of fishes, nature's first attempts at creation. With this creationist legend, there was associated an equally vague belief in a gloomy Hades, or underworld, where the spirits of the dead hover like bats and feed on dust. From the earliest times, the Akkadians devoted attention to the observation of the heavenly bodies, and it may be said that among them, astronomy found its first home. Their crude attempts at astronomical observation were, however, connected with astrological practices, so that the Akkadians became famous among the ancients as adepts in the magic arts. In like manner, the first efforts at numerical computation and notation were made subservient to the demands of the magician. It was through the Phoenicians who inaugurated the trade of western Asia that the civilization of the Assyrians influenced the religious and artistic life of the Greeks and of the other nations of the Mediterranean. Egypt Up to the present time, Egyptologists have failed to reach an agreement as to what was the primitive form of religious belief in ancient Egypt. In the first place, the chronological difficulties have hitherto proven to be insurmountable, and in the next place, the diversity of religious systems in the different nomads or provinces into which ancient Egypt was divided, renders difficult every attempt at forming a theory as to what, if any, was the one religion which prevailed throughout Egypt at the dawn of history. Historians are content with dating the period preceding the 7th century BC by dynasties rather by years, the first dynasty being placed about the 55th century BC. Many who established the first dynasty found already existing a hierarchical system of deities to which some great city was dedicated, but what was the primitive religion of Egypt from which this hierarchical system of gods evolved? Monotheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, Hanotheism, Totemism, Sun worship, Nature worship, these are the widely different answers which modern Egyptologists have given to this question. Scholars are equally at variance as to the origin and significance of animal worship among the Egyptians. When, however, we come to the period of the great gods, chief of whom were Ra, the sun, Noot, heaven, and Set, or Typhon, the earth, and to the legend of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. There seems to be very little room for doubt as to the essentially naturalistic character of these divinities. Quote, the kernel of the Egyptian state religion was solar. With regard to the speculative elements of thought contained in the mythological conception of the Egyptians, mention must be made of the doctrine that everything living, whether it was a god, a man, or an animal, possessed a Ka, or shadow, which was in each case more real and permanent than the object itself. This notion was present in the practice of animal worship. For although there is by no means a unanimity of opinion among scholars in favor of reducing animal worship to mere symbolism, there is no doubt that the Egyptians mind was dominated by the idea that every Ka must have a material dwelling place. Similarly, when the abstract notion of the divinity presented itself to the Egyptian mind and was identified with each god in turn, and when at a later time there appeared the notion of a pantheistic divinity in whom all the great gods were merged, the dominant idea was always that of the Ka, or soul, whose dwelling place was the individual god or the universe. Another conception which may be traced very far back in the history of Egyptian civilization is that of the magical virtue of names. The idea of quote, shadow, unquote, and the belief in the magical virtue of names determined the Egyptian cult of the dead and doctrine of immortality. From the monuments and relics of ancient Egyptian literature, especially from the book of the dead, it is clear that deep down in the popular mind was the belief that the continued existence of a person after death depended somehow on the preservation of his name and the permanence of the dwelling place which was to harbor his Ka, or shadow. Hence, the Egyptians considered that the house of the living were merely ins, and that the tombs of the dead are eternal habitations. In the philosophical traditions of the priestly caste, there grew up a more rational doctrine of the future life. According to this doctrine, man consists of three parts, the Kaat, or body, the Ku, or spirit, which is an emanation from the divine essence, and the soul, which is sometimes represented as Ka dwelling in the mummy or in the statue of the deceased, and sometimes as Ba, a disembodied soul, which ultimately returns to its home in the lower world. It is this Ba, or disembodied soul, which after death appears before Osiris and the 42 judges, and is weighed in the balance by Horus and Anubis, while Thoth records the result. The souls of the blessed are eventually admitted to the happy fields of Alu, there to be purified from all earthly stain and made more perfect in wisdom and goodness. The souls of the wicked are condemned either to various torments of hell, or to wanderings long and arduous through the regions between heaven and earth, or to trans-migration into the bodies of various animals, or finally to annihilation. The fate of the soul is determined partly by the good and evil which it wrought during life, and partly by the amulets, prayers, and gifts by which it secured the favor of the gods. But whatever may be the immediate fate of the soul, it will ultimately return to its body, and on the great day of resurrection, soul, body, and spirit shall be once more united. From the chapter on judgment in the Book of the Dead, and from the ethical maxims of Kakima, 3rd dynasty, and from Tahotep, 5th dynasty, it appears that the ideal conduct among the ancient Egyptians was practical, a high order of purity, and essentially religious. In these documents, charity, benevolence, prudence, chastity, social justice, clemency, and the love of intellectual pursuits are ranked among the foremost virtues, and not only external morality is incalculated, but also the morality of thought and desire. China. When about 2000 years BC, the Chinese first appeared in the light of history, they already possessed social, political, and religious institutions and a material and intellectual civilization of a high order. It was not, however, until the 6th century BC, that the sacred books were collected and arranged, although some of them, especially the Yi King, were assigned by tradition to the learned princes and kings, who long before the historical period had invented the art of writing. The sacred or authoritative books were, 1. The five classics, namely the Yi King, the Book of Changes, Divination, the Shu King, the Book of History, the Shi King, or the Book of Poetry, the Le Ke, or Record of Rights, and the Chun Tu, Spring and Autumn, a Book of Annals, composed by Confucius. 2. The four books, namely Lu Niu, Ca'or Conversations of the Master, Chun Yong, or Doctrine of the Mean, Ta He'o, or Great Lendings, and Meng Tse, or Teaching of Mencius. The five classics were collected, arranged, and edited by Confucius, with the exception of the last which was written by him, and it is impossible to say to what extent the editor introduced into the text, doctrines, and opinions of his own. The four books were composed by Disciples of Confucius. Before the time of Confucius, there existed a national or state religion, in which the principal objects of worship were heaven and the spirits of various kinds, especially the spirits of dead ancestors. Heaven, the Yan, is the Supreme Lord, Shang Ti, the highest object of worship. This deity carries on its work silently and simply, yet inexorably, in the order and succession of natural phenomena, in the rain and sunshine, the heat and the cold, etc. With this natural order are closely connected to the social, political, and moral orders of the world. Or rather, all order is essentially one, and perfection and prosperity in moral life and in the state depend on maintaining the order, which is not only heaven's first law, but heaven itself. With the worship of heaven was connected the worship of spirits, Shang. These are omnipresent throughout nature. They are not, however, addressed as individuals, but as a body or aggregation of individuals, as, for example, celestial spirits, terrestrial spirits, and ancestral spirits. The last are the objects of private as distinct from official worship. The Chinese, always inclined to look towards the past rather than towards the future, thought less of personal immortality in the life after death than the continuation of the family life, by which the actions of the individual were reflected back and made to ennoble a whole line of ancestors. The qualities which characterized the religious thought of China from the beginning, its eminently practical nature, the complete absence of speculation, and the most complete exclusion of mythological elements reappear in the writings of the great religious teacher Confucius, Khan Tse, 551-478 BC. Confucius was no innovator. He appeared, rather, as the collector of the sacred literature of the past and the restorer of the old order. He inculated the strict observance of the traditional forms of worship, discouraged speculations in matters theological, and while he taught the supreme importance of moral duties, he grounded all his moral precepts on the general order of the world and the long-established tradition of the Chinese people. He insisted on man's political and domestic duties and emphasized especially the importance of filial piety. Lao Tse, a contemporary of Confucius, born about 604 BC, and author of the Tao Te King, introduced into China the first system of speculative thought. The philosophy of Tao, reason, way, which many scholars consider to be of Hindu origin. Lao Tse did not, however, attempt to overthrow the traditional ideals of his countrymen, and while the importance which he attaches to speculation places him in sharp contrast with Confucius, the doctrines of the two great teachers have many points in common. For Tao, the fundamental concept of the Tao Te King does not mean reason in the abstract, but nature, or rather the way, the order of the world, the impersonal method which all men must observe if they are to attain goodness and success. Ultimately then, both Lao Tse and Confucius teach that conduct is to be guided by a knowledge of the unalterable, discriminating intelligent order of heaven and earth, but while Confucius refers his disciples to the study of the writings and institutions of antiquity, Lao Tse refers them to the speculative contemplation of Tao. The former encourages study. The latter advocates contemplation as a means of acquiring knowledge of the eternal order on which morality depends, hence the tendency of Taoism towards quietism and self-abdignation. Quote, recompense injury with kindness, unquote, said Lao Tse, to which Confucius is said to have answered, quote, recompense kindness with kindness, but recompense injury with justice, unquote. To the fifth century BC belong Yangtze and Mi Tze, or Mac. The former preached a kind of epicurianism. Man should enjoy the present and cheerfully accept death when it comes. Virtue is but a name. Good reputation is a shadow. The sacrifice of self is a delusion. The latter maintained that one should love all men equally, that the practice of universal love is greater benefit to the state than the study of antiquity and the preservation of engine customs. Li Tse and Zhuang Tse appeared during the fifth and the first half of the fourth centuries BC as representatives of Taoism. They were opposed by the distinguished exponent of Confucianism, Meng Tse, or Mencius, 371-288. In his dialogues, which were collected in seven books by his disciples, he gives a more compact exposition of Confucianism than that found in the isolating sayings of the master. He insists on filial piety, on political virtue, and on the proper observance of religious and other ceremonial rites. He reduces the cardinal virtues to four, wisdom, humanity, justice, and propriety. End of section one. Chapter one, section eight, of history, of philosophy. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Tir Iluz. History of philosophy by William Turner. India. The Veda, or collection of primitive religious literature of the Hindus, consists of books of sacred Hindi's, the Rig Veda, the Saama Veda, the Yajur Veda, and the Atarva Veda. In each, it is usual to distinguish the mantras, or hymns, the Braamanas, or ritual commentaries, and the Upanishads, or philosophical commentaries. The Vedic hymns, which are the oldest portion of the Veda, 1500 BC being the date to which conservative scholars assigned the earliest of them, consists of songs of praise and prayer directed to Agni, fire, Sauma, the life awakening intoxicating juice of the Sauma plant, Indra, the god of the wars of the elements of thunder and rain, Varuna, the great serene, all-embracing heaven, and other deities, all of whom possess more or less definitely the twofold character of gods of nature and gods of sacrifice. The gods of the Vedic hymns are stoned devas, shining divinities, and asuras, lords. There is, in the poems, no evidence of a sustained attempt to trace the genealogy of these deities, or to account by means of mythological concepts for the origin of the universe. In the Braamanas, or ritualistic commentaries, appears the concept of a god distinct from the elemental deities, a personification of the act of sacrifice, Braamanas pati. From this concept, the monotheistic and pantheistic speculation of the Hindus may be said to have started, although it is undeniable that even in the hymns there is expressed at least, quote, a yearning after one supreme deity who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, unquote, a yearning to which expression was given in the name praga pati, the lord of all creatures, applied successively to summa and other divinities. Of more importance, however, than the name praga pati, is the expression tat ekam, that one, which occurs in the poems as the name of the supreme being, of the first origin of all things. Its neuter form indicates, according to Max Müller, a transition from the mythological to the metaphysical stage of speculation. With regard to the word brahman, which succeeded tat ekam as the name of the supreme one, Max Müller refers it to the root bhi to grow, and asserts that while the word undoubtedly meant prayer, it originally meant, quote, that which breaks forth, unquote. It, quote, was used as a name of that universal force, which manifests itself in the creation of a visible universe, unquote. The word atman, which was also the name of the deity, is referred by the same distinguished scholar to the root atma, breath, life, soul, and is translated as self. The grew up, he says, in the hymns and the brahmans of the Vedas, the three words pragapati, brahman, and atman, quote, each of which by itself represents in a noose a whole philosophy or a view of the world. A belief in pragapati, as a personal thought, was the beginning of monotheistic religion in India, while the recognition of brahman and atman, as one, constituted the foundation of all monistic philosophy of that country, unquote. In the Upanishads, or speculative commentaries, we find the first elaborate attempt made by India to formulate a speculative system of the universe and to solve, in terms of philosophy, the problems of the origin of the universe and of the nature and destiny of man. It must, however, be remembered that probably until the fourth century BC, the Upanishads, in common with other portions of the Vedas, did not exist in writing, being handed down from one generation to another by oral tradition. The sutras, or aphorisms, therefore, which repossess of the six systems of Indian philosophy, do not represent the first attempts at philosophical speculation. The men whose names are associated with these sutras, and are used to designate the six systems, are not, in any true sense, the founders of schools of philosophy. They are merely final editors or redactors of the sutras belonging to different philosophical sects, which in the middle of a variety of theories, and in a maze of speculative opinions, retained their individuality during an inconceivably long period of time. Before we take up the separate study of the six systems of philosophy, it will be necessary to outline the general teaching of the Upanishads. This teaching belongs to no school in particular, although each of the six schools is connected with it in more than one point of doctrine. The Upanishads teach, one, the identity of all being in Brahman, the Source, or Atman, the Self, which is identical with Brahmal. Two, the existence of Maya, illusion, to which is referred everything which is not Brahmal. Three, the worthless list of all knowledge of things in their isolated existence, and the incomparable excellence of knowledge in all things in Brahman or Atman. This latter, the only true knowledge, is difficult of attainment, still it is attainable even in this life. It is this knowledge, which constitutes the happiness of man, by uniting him with Atman, quote, in the bee's honey, one can no longer recognize the taste of the single flowers. The rivers which emanate from the one sea and again return to it, lose meanwhile their separate existences. A lump of salt dissolved in water, salt the whole water, and cannot be grasped again, so the true being can nowhere be grasped. It is a subtle essence, which lies at the foundation of all phenomena, which are merely illusions, and is again identical with the ego. Four, the immortality of the soul. The idea, writes Max Müller, of the soul ever coming to an end, is so strange to the Indian mind that there seemed to be no necessity for anything like proofs of immortality so common in European philosophy. Equally self-evident to the Hindu mind was the samsara, or transmigration of the soul. In some systems, however, as we shall see, it is the subtle body which migrates, while during the process of migration, the soul, in the sense of self, retaining its complete identity, remains as an onlooker. With the idea of immortality is associated that of the eternity of karma, deed, namely the continuous working of every thought, word, and deed through all ages. If man were, once in a thousand years, to pass his silken handkerchief across the Himalayan mountains, and thus at last succeed in wiping them out, the world would indeed be older at the end of such a long space of time, but eternity and reality would still be young, and the deed of today would still exist in its results. At a late period in the development of Vedic speculation, the immensity of the duration of Brahman was given a popular expression in the doctrine of kalpas, eons, or period of reabsorption, pralaya, and creation. 5. Mysticism and Deliverance from Bondage All the Indian systems of philosophy recognize the existence of evil and suffering, and concern themselves with the problem of deliverance by means of knowledge. From the rise of Buddhism, 5th century BC, date a clearer perception of the reality of suffering and the much more empathic assertion of the importance of freeing the soul from the bondage which suffering incoses. It is to be remarked that even in the Upanishads, existence is referred to as an evil, transmigration is represented as something to be avoided, and the final goal of human endeavor is proclaimed to be a union with Atman in which all individual existence is emerged in this general self and individual consciousness is quite extinguished. Turning now to the sixth great historical systems of Indian philosophy, we meet at the very outset the vexed question of chronological order. Many of the sutras, or aphorisms in which these systems are formulated, are of very great antiquity, ranking with the Upanishads in point of age. Besides, the authors of these sutras are more or less vaguely historical or altogether mythical persons. It is hopeless, therefore, to attempt to arrange the systems in chronological order. The order followed will represent, rather, the fidelity with which the systems, all of which were considered orthodox, adhere to the doctrines described as the common teaching of the Upanishads. The Vedanta, or Uttarami Mamsa, is first in importance among the systematic expositions of the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. It is contained in sutras composed by Badaryana, who is sometimes identified with Vyasa, the author of Mabarata, one of the great epics of India, and in commentaries composed by Samkara, about AD 900. The fundamental doctrines of the Vedanta are those of the Upanishads. The Vedanta insists on the monistic concept of reality. In one half verse, I shall tell you what has been taught in thousands of volumes Brahman is true, the world is false, the soul is Brahman and nothing else. There is nothing worth gaining, there is nothing worth enjoying, there is nothing worth knowing, but Brahman alone, for he who knows Brahman is Brahman. More emphatically still is the unity of all being in Brahman asserted in the famous words Tat Tvam Asi, Thou Art That, which Max Müller styles quote the boldest and truest synthesis in the whole history of philosophy and quotes. But if the individual is Brahman, how a way to account for the manifold vows and for the variety of individuals in the objective world? The Vedanta sutras answer that the view of the world as composed of manifold individuals is not knowledge but nescience, which the Vedanta philosophy aims at expelling from the mind. This nescience, avdya, is inborn in human nature, and it is only when it is expelled that the mind perceives Brahman to be the only reality. Samkara, the commentator, admits, however, that the phenomenal world, the whole objective world is distinct from the subject, Brahman, while it is the result of nescience is nevertheless real for all practical purposes. Moreover, it is clear that phenomena, since they are Brahman, are real. Only the multiplicity and distinction of phenomena are unreal, maya. With regard to the origin of the universe, the universe, since it is Brahman, cannot be said to originate, and yet Brahman is commonly represented as the cause of the universe. The Hindus, however, regarded cause and effect as merely two aspects of the same reality. The threads they observed are the cause of the cloth, yet what is the cloth but the aggravate of the threads? Since the finiteness and individual distinctions of things are due to nescience, it is clear that the road to true freedom, moksha, from the conditions of finite existence is the way of knowledge. The knowledge of identity of Atman with Brahman, of self with God, is true freedom, and implies exemption from birth and transmigration. For when death comes, he who, although he has fulfilled all his religious duties, shall have failed to attain the highest knowledge, shall be condemned to another round of existence. The subtle body, in which his soul, Atman, is clothed, shall wander through mist and cloud and darkness to the moon, and then shall be sent back to earth. But he, who shall have attained perfect knowledge of Brahman, shall finally become identified with Brahman, sharing in all the powers of Brahman except those of creating and ruling the universe. Partial freedom from finite conditions is, even in this life, a reward of perfect knowledge. The Vedantists, however, did not neglect the inculation of moral excellence, for knowledge they taught is not to be attained except through discipline. 2. The Purva Mimamsa is a system of practical philosophy and is contained in the twelve books of Sutras attributed to Gaimini. Here, the central idea is that of duty, dharma, which includes sacrificial observances and risks ultimately on the superhuman authority of the Veda. 3. The Samkhya philosophy may be described as a toning down of the extreme monism of the Vedanta. It is contained in the Samkhya Sutras or Kapila Sutras. These, at least in their present form, date from the 14th century after Christ, although the sage Kapila, to whom they are ascribed, lived certainly before the 2nd century BC. Of greater antiquity than the sutras are the Samkhya Karikas or memorial verses, in which the philosophy of Kapila was epitomized as early as the 1st century BC. A still older and more concise compilation of the Samkhya philosophy is found in the Tattva Samasa, which reduces old truth to 25 topics. This latter compendium is taken by Max Müller as the basis of his exposition to the teachings of Kapila. The Samkhya philosophy is essentially dualistic. It does not, like the Vedanta, assume that the objective world, as distinct from Brahman, is mere illusion or ignorance. It accepts the objective world as real, and calls it prakiriti, or nature, in the sense of matter containing the possibilities of all things. This principle is of itself lifeless and unconscious, and rises into life and consciousness only when contemplated by the soul Purusha. What we call creation is, therefore, the temporary union of nature with soul, a union which arises from a lack of discrimination. Hanven is the soul to be freed from bondage of finite existence. This is, for the Samkhya, as it is for the Vedanta, the chief problem of practical philosophy. But while the Vedanta found deliverance in the recognition of the identity of the soul over with Brahman, the Samkhya finds it in the recognition of the difference between the soul and nature. This recognition confers freedom. For nature, once it is recognized by the soul as distinct, disappears together with all limitation and suffering. Quote prakritri, once recognized by Purusha, withdraws itself, so as to not to expose itself for a second time to the danger of this glance. The assertion of the individuality of the soul as opposed to nature implies the multiplicity of soul, and this is another point of contrast between the Vedanta and the Samkhya. The former asserted the oneness of Atman. The latter affirms the plurality of Purushas. Four. The yoga philosophy is contained in the sutras ascribed to Patangali, who is supposed to have lived during the second century BC. In these sutras, we find practically all the metaphysical principles of the Samkhya and, in addition, certain doctrines in which the theistic element is insisted upon. Kapila had denied the possibility of proving the existence of Ishvara, the personal creator and ruler. Patangali insists on the possibility of such proof. Of course, Ishvara is not conceived as creator in our sense of the word, but merely as the highest of the Purushas, all of which may be said to create in as much as they by contemplating nature cause nature to be productive. Among the means of deliverance practiced by the yogans were the observance of certain postures, meditation, and the repetition of the sacred syllable om. Five. The Nyaya philosophy is contained in the Nyaya sutras. The founder of the system was Gautama or Gautama. According to this system, the supreme resignation or freedom in which man's highest happiness consists is to be attained by a knowledge of the 16 great topics of Nyaya philosophy. These topics, padartas, are means of knowledge, objects of knowledge, doubt, purpose, instance, established truth, premises, reason, conclusion, argumentation, sophistry, wrangling, fallacies, quibbles, false analogies, and unfitness for arguing. Taking up now the first of these, namely the means of knowledge, we find that there are, according to the Nyaya philosophy, four kinds of right perception, sensuous, inferential, comparative, and authoritative. In order to arrive at inferential knowledge, anuman, we must possess what is called vyapti, or provasion. That is to say, a principle expressing invariable concomitance. So, for example, if we wish to infer that this mountain is on fire, we must possess the principle that smoke is pervaded by, or invariably connected, with fire. Once in possession of this principle, we have merely to find an instance, as this mountain smokes, once we immediately infer that it has fire. But while this is the comparatively simple means of acquiring inferential knowledge, we cannot import this knowledge to others except by the more complicated process, including, one, assertion, the mountain has fire, two, reason, because it smokes, three, instance, look at the kitchen fire, four, application, so, two, the mountain has smoke, and five, conclusion, therefore it has fire. The process, in both cases, bears a close resemblance to the syllogism of Aristotelian logic, and it is by reason of the prominence given to this means of knowledge that the Nyaya philosophy came to be regarded as a system of logic. Yet the Nyaya philosophy is far from being merely a systematic treatment of the laws of thought, for the syllogism is that one of the many means by which the soul or self, atman, is to attain true freedom, a state in which all false knowledge and all inferior knowledge shall disappear, and all individual desire and personal love and hatred shall be extinguished. Six, the Vaisheshika philosophy founded by Canada is contained in the Vaisheshika sutras, which, according to Max Muller, dates from the 6th century of the Christian era, although the Vaisheshika philosophy was known in the 1st century BC. The system is closely related to the Nyaya philosophy, even its most characteristic doctrine, that of atomism being found in undeveloped form in the philosophy of Gautama. Here, as in the Nyaya, supreme happiness is to be attained by the knowledge of certain padartas or quasi-categories, namely substance, quality, action, karma, genus or community, species or particularity, inhibition or inseparability, and according to some, privation or negation. The substances are earth, water, light, air, ether, time, space, self, atman, and mind, manas. The qualities are color, taste, number, etc. These are called gunas, a word which occurs in the Upanishads and is a common term in all six systems. The four substances, earth, air, water, and light, exist either in the aggregate material state or in the state of atoms, anus. The single atom is indivisible and indestructible. Its existence is proved by the impossibility of division at infinitune. Single atoms combine first in twos and afterwards in groups of three double atoms. It is only in such combinations that matter becomes visible and liable to destruction. To these great historical systems which were orthodox in so far as they recognized the supreme authority of the Veda, were opposed the heterodox systems of the heretics, Nastikas, who, like the Buddhists, the Jainas, and the materialists, rejected the divine authority of the sacred writings. Buddhism, as is well known, was a distinctly religious system. It recognized suffering as the supreme reality in life and devoted little or no attention to questions of philosophic interest, accepting their relation to problems of conduct. To cease from all wrongdoing, to get virtue, to cleanse one's own heart, this according to the celebrated verse, is the religion of the Buddhas. The four truths on which Buddhism is built are 1. that suffering is universal, 2. that the cause of suffering is desire, 3. that the evolution of desire is the only deliverance from suffering, and 4. that the way of salvation is by means of certain practices of meditation and active discipline. In connection with the second and third of these truths arises the problem of the meaning of karma and nirvana. In the Upanishad speculations, karma, as we have seen, meant deed, and its eternity meant the continuous working of every thought, word, and work throughout all ages. In Buddhistic speculation, the substantial permanence and identity of the soul are denied, and the only bond between the skandhas, or sets of qualities, which succeed each other in the individual body and soul, is the karma, the result of what man is and does in one existence or at one time, being inevitably continued into all subsequent existences and times. The body is constantly changing, the qualities or states of the soul are constantly replaced by other qualities and states, but the result of what a man is and does remains, that alone is permanent. With regard to nirvana, modern scholars are not agreed as to whether it meant total annihilation or a state of painlessness in which positive existence is preserved. Max Müller and Rhys Davids may be cited in favor of the latter interpretation. Rhys Davids defines nirvana as quote the extinction of that sinful grasping condition of mind and heart, which would otherwise, according to the mystery of karma, be the cause of renewed individual existence. Jainism, like Buddhism, was a religious system. The only important speculative doctrines in which it differs from Buddhism is that of the substantial reality and permanence of the soul. Accordingly, the Jainists thought that nirvana is the freedom of the soul from the conditions which cause finiteness, suffering, and ignorance. In this respect, they approach very closely to the speculation of the Upanishads. Persia The religion of ancient Persia and that of ancient India sprang from the same origin, namely the ideas and usages which were shared alike by the Iranian and the Hindu branches of the original Aryan family. There are indeed traces of the civilization which existed in Persia prior to the Aryan invasion and which closely resembled the shamanism of the Akkadians of ancient Kaldia. Little, however, is known of a pre-Aryan Persia. All that can be said with certainty that the Aryan invaders found already existing in Bactria and in the neighboring regions a system of polytheism which they replaced by a religion monotheistic in its tendency and similar in many respects to the religion of the Hindus of the Vedic period. The heaven god known in India as Varuna became the principal deity of the Iranians. Soma was also worshipped under the title Homa and the distinction between Devas and Asuras, Shani ones and lords was employed in Persia as well as in India to designate two imported classes of divinities. Gradually, however, a change was introduced, a tendency towards dualism became more and more strongly marked. The Devas came to be recognized as evil deities and the Ahuras, transliteration of Asuras came to be looked upon as divinity's friendly to man. Quote, the conflict between these opposites assumed a moral form in the minds of the Iranian wanderers. The struggle between night and day, between the storm and the blue sky, of which the Vedic poet sang, was transformed into a struggle between good and evil. In place of the careless nature worshipers of the Punjab, a race of stern and earnest Puritans grew up among the deserts and rugged mountains of Ariana." This dualistic conception of the universe, this antithesis between good and evil was already in position when Zoroaster or Zarafustra, the great religious reformer, appeared about the middle of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century BC. To him, according to the Parsi tradition, is to be ascribed the inspired authorship of a portion at least of the Avista or the sacred literature of the Persians. This collection consists of five gathas or hymns written in an older dialect than that of the rest of the collection, the vendidad or compilation of religious laws and mythical tales, and the zand or commentary. The first two portions constitute the Avista proper, that is to say law or knowledge. In addition to the Avista zand, there existed the core of Avista, or small Avista, which was a collection of prayers. Zoroaster's share in the composition of these books is a matter which it is impossible in the present condition of our knowledge to determine. It is, however, beyond dispute that the sacred literature of the Persians reflects the beliefs which existed before the time of Zoroaster, as well as those which Zoroaster introduced. The religious reform affected by Zoroaster consisted in reducing to two or more less vague principles the good and evil elements in the universe. For him, as for his ancestors, the world is a vast battlefield in which the forces of good and evil meet in a mighty conflict, but instead of representing the contending forces as independent principles, manifold yet capable of being classified as good and evil, he reduces all the conflicting powers to two, the good and the evil, of which the individual forces are derivatives. The good principle is called Ahura Mazda, or Muist or Ormazd, and the evil principle is called Anra Mainyu, Ariman. The former is conceived as light and day, the latter is darkness and night. From the former proceed the Ahuras, or living lords, who were afterwards called Yazatas, or Injuals, and in general, all that is good and beneficial to man. From the latter proceed the Deivas, who opposed the Ahuras in the original conflict between day and night, and who became the, quote, demons, and quote, of latter Mazdaism, and in general, from Ariman comes all that is evil and injurious to man. It is man's duty to worship or Mazd. Fire, being the sacred symbol, is also to be honored by prayer, sacrifice, and the oblation of Homa, the juice of the sacred plant. It is also his duty to cultivate the soil and in other ways to promote the life and growth of the creature of Mazd, to destroy the works of Ariman, to kill all venomous and noxious things, and to rid the earth of all creatures injurious to man. At the end of 12,000 years, the present cosmic period will come to an end. Homa's will finally triumph, for although Ariman is not inferior in power to Homa's, he fights blindly and without adequate knowledge of the results of his actions. Therefore, he and his works will come to an end, and after the final struggle, storm and night will cease, calm and sunshine will rain, and all will be absorbed into Homa's. In this universal absorption in Homa's, the human soul will be included. Mazdism, the religion of Homa's, in its later development, attached great importance to the worship of Mithra, the sun god. In this form, it appeared in Rome, and was among the first of the Oriental religions to gain ascendancy of the mind of the Romans. Zoroastronism was introduced as a heresy into the Christian Church by Manes, the founder of the Manichian sect. Retrospect. In the systems of thought which flourish among the great historical nations of the East, there is as has been observed an almost complete lack of the rational element. In some of them, however, and especially in the Indian systems, there is an abundance of speculation. Living in a country where there was practically no struggle for life, where the means of sustenance were produced without much effort on the part of the tillers of the soil, and where for thousands of years war was unknown, save the war of extermination waged against the original dwellers in the land, the Hindus gave themselves unreservedly to the solution of the problems, whence are we come? Whereby do we live? And where do we go? In solving these problems, however, the Hindus, while they succeeded better than other Oriental peoples in separating the speculative from the mythological, failed to develop the rational or dialectical phase of thought. Their speculative systems are positive rather than argumentative. It was in Greece that philosophy is dialectical argumentative science found its first home. There can be no doubt that the systems which have just been sketched exercise the some, if only an indefinite influence on the speculative efforts of the first philosophers of Greece. The geographical contiguity and the commercial intercourse of the Hellenic colonies with the countries of the interior of Asia render such as a position probable. It was not, however, until Greek philosophy had run its practically independent course of national development that the religious systems of the Orient were finally united with a great current of Greek thought, the East and the West pouring their distinctive contributions into the common stream of Greco-Oriental Theosophy. Philosophy by William Turner Greek philosophy first appeared in the Ionic colonies of Asia Minor and never throughout the course of its development did it wholly lose the marks of its Oriental origin. Whether this influence was as preponderant, as rough and gladdish contend, or as unimportant as teller and others maintain, it is certain that the philosophy of Greece was countered from the beginning by a spirit which is peculiarly Hellenic. The Greek looked out upon the world through an atmosphere singularly free from the mist of allegory and myth. The contrast between the philosophy of the East and the first attempts of the Ionian physicists is as striking as the difference between an Indian jungle and the sunny breeze-swept shores of the Mediterranean. Greek religion exercised hardly more than an indirect influence on Greek philosophy. Popular beliefs were so crude as to their speculative content that they could not long retain their hold on the mind of the philosopher. Consequently, such influence as they directly exercised was antagonistic to philosophy, yet it was the popular beliefs which, by keeping alive among the Greeks an exquisite appreciation of form and an abiding sense of symmetry, did not permit the philosopher to take a partial or an isolated view of things. In this way, Greek religion indirectly fostered that imperative desire for a totality of you, which in the best days of Greek speculation enabled Greek philosophy to attain its most important results. In one particular instance, Greek religion contributed directly to Greek philosophy by handing over to philosophy the doctrine of immortality, a doctrine which in every stage of its philosophical development had retained the mark of its theological origin. Plato, for example, distinctly refers it to the Bacchic and Orphic mysteries. Poetry. The philosophy as well as the religion of the Greeks found its first expression in poetry, philosophical speculation, properly so-called, being preceded by the effort of the imagination to picture to itself the origin and the evolution of the universe. Homer presents without analyzing types of ethical character, Achilles the indomitable, Hector the chivalrous, Agamemnon of kingly presence, Nestor the wise, Ulysses the wary, Banelope the faithful. Hesiod gives us the first crude attempts at constructing a world system. His cosmogony, however, is presented in the form of a theogony. There is, as yet, no question of accounting for the origin of things by natural causes. The so-called Orphic cosmogonies had the Hesiodic theogony for their basis. They did not advance much farther in their inquiry than Hesiod himself had gone, unless we include as Orphic those systems of cosmology to which old scholars now agree in assigning a post Aristotelian date. Therocides of Cyrus, about 540 BC, more closely approaches the scientific method. He describes Zeus, Cronus, and Kthon as the first beginnings of all things. There is here a basic thought that the universe sprang from the elements of air and earth through the agency of time. This thought, however, the poem conceals under enigmatic symbols, referring the phenomena of nature not to natural agencies, but to the incomprehensible action of the gods. The beginnings of moral philosophy are found in the ethical portrayals of the Homeric poems, in the writings of the Gnomic poets of the 6th century BC, and especially in the sayings attributed to the Seven Wise Men. These sayings are characterized by a tone of cynicism and exhibit a knowledge of the world's ways, which is certainly remarkable if it belongs to the age to which it is generally assigned. Footnote. Plato's story, Protagoras 343a, of the meeting of the Seven Wise Men at Delphi, is totally devoid of historical foundation. Even the names of the Seven are not agreed upon. The enumeration which most frequently occurs is the following, Thales, Bias, Pythagus, Solon, Cleobulus, Kilo, and Periander. End of footnote. The division of Greek philosophy into periods and schools is partly chronological and partly dependent on the development of philosophic thought. The following seems to be the most convenient arrangement. One, pre-socratic philosophy. Two, philosophy of Socrates and the Socratic schools. Three, post-Aristotelian philosophy. In the first period, the era of beginnings, philosophical speculation was largely objective. It busied itself with the study of nature and the origin of the world. In the second period, Socrates brought philosophy down to the contemplation of man's inner self. It was a period in which the objective and the subjective methods were blended. In the third period, this objective element was made preponderant. The Stoics and the Epicureans concerned themselves with man and his destiny, to the almost complete exclusion of cosmological and metaphysical problems. First period, pre-socratic philosophy. This period comprises, one, the Ionian school. The philosophers of this school confined their attention to the study of nature and sought out the material principle of all natural phenomena. Two, the Pythagoreans, who made number the basis of their philosophical system. Three, the Eliatics, whose speculations centered in the doctrine of oneness and immutability of being. Four, the Sophists, who negatively showed the unsatisfactory nature of all knowledge, while positively, they occasioned the inquiry into the conditions and limitations of knowledge. Chapter one, earlier Ionian school. The Ionian school includes the earlier Ionians, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximinis, and the later Ionians, whose proper historical place is after the Eliatics school. Thales, life. Thales, the first philosopher of Greece, was of Venetian descent. He was born at Miletus, at about the year 620 BC, was a contemporary of Croesus and Solon, and counted among the seven wise men. He is said to have died in the year 546 BC. Sources, our knowledge of the doctrines of Thales, is entirely based on secondary sources, especially on the account given by Aristotle in metaphysics. Doctrines. According to Aristotle, Thales thought that out of water, all things are made. Historical tradition is silent as to the reasons by which Thales was led to this conclusion. It is possible, as Aristotle conjectures, that the founder of the Ionian school was influenced by the consideration of the moisture of nutrient, etc. He may have based his conclusion on a rationalistic interpretation of the myth of Oceanus, or he may have observed the alluvial deposits of the rivers of his native country, and concluded that as earth, so all things else come from water. The saying that, quote, the magnet has a soul because it attracts iron, unquote, is attributed to Thales, on the authority of Aristotle, who, however, speaks conditionally, quote, if indeed he said, unquote, etc. We must not attach importance to Cicero's historical interpretation of Thales, quote, Thales Mulesius Aquum Dixit Essa Initium Rerum Deum Autum Eum Mentum Quiaix Aqua Cumptafingaret, unquote. Such a dualism belongs to the time of Anaxagoras. Similarly, the saying that, quote, all things are full of gods, unquote, is but the expression in Aristotle's own phrasology of the general doctrine of animism, or Hilozoism, which is a tenet common to all the earlier Ionians. They maintained that matter is instinct with life, or as an Aristotelian would say, they did not distinguish between the material principle and the formal principle of life. Anaximander Life Anaximander was also a native of Miletus, was born about the year 610 BC. Theophrastus describes him as a disciple or associate of Thales. The date of his death is unknown. Sources Primary sources Anaximander composed a treatise or rather a poetical prose composition, which was extant when Theophrastus wrote, of this work two sentences only have come down to us, quote, all things must in equity again decline into that once they have their origin, for they must give satisfaction and atonement for injustice each in order of time, unquote. And the infinite, quote, surrounds all things and directs all things, unquote. Secondary sources 1. Ancient writers such as Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon and Theophrastus, in reference to pre-socratic and socratic philosophy. 2. Alexandrian authorities, such as Demetrius of Philaris, 3rd century BC, Ptolemy Philadelphius, 3rd century BC, Callimachus, 3rd century BC, author of the Pinakis or tablets. 3. Later writers, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Diogenes Laertius, about A.D. 220. 4. Modern critics and historians, Tiedmann, Ritter and Preller, Zeller, Vindelband, Diels, Teneri, Burnett, etc. Diels, Daxography, Gracchi, Berlin 1879, is of great value in determining the affiliation of sources. 1. Pre-socratic philosophy This period comprises, 1. The Aeonian school. The philosophers of this school confined their attention to the study of nature and sought out the material principle of natural phenomena. 2. The Pythagoreans, who made number the basis of their philosophical system. 3. The Iliathics, whose speculations centered in the doctrine of oneness and immutability of being. 4. The Sophists, who negatively showed the unsatisfactory nature of all knowledge, while positively they occasioned the inquiry into the conditions and limitations of knowledge. 1. Earlier Aeonian school The Aeonian school includes the earlier Aeonians, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximinis, and the later Aeonians, whose proper historical place is after the Iliathic school, Thales. Life Thales, the first philosopher of Greece, was of Phoenician descent. He was born at Miletus, about the year 620 BC. He was a contemporary of Crises and Solon, and was counted among the seven wise men. He is said to have died in the year 546 BC, sources. Our knowledge of the doctrines of Thales is based entirely on secondary sources, especially on the account given by Aristotle in Metaphysics Book 1, Section 983. Doctrines According to Aristotle, Thales taught that out of water all things are made. Historical tradition is silent as to the reasons by which Thales was led to this conclusion. It is possible, as Aristotle conjectures, that the founder of the Aeonian school was influenced by the consideration of the moisture of nutriment, etc. He may have based this conclusion on a rationalistic interpretation of the myth of Oceanus, or he may have observed the alluvial deposits of the rivers of his native country, and concluded that as earth, so all things else come from water. The saying that, quote, the magnet has a soul, because it attracts iron, unquote, is attributed to Thales on the authority of Aristotle, who, however, speaks conditionally, quote, if indeed he said, unquote, etc. We must not attach importance to Cicero's stoical interpretation of Thales, quote, Thales mellesius acum dixit esse initium rerum, deum autum ea mentem qui ex aqua cung ta fungerat, unquote. Such a dualism belongs to the time of Anaxagoras. Similarly, the saying that, quote, all things are full of gods, unquote, is but the expression in Aristotle's own phasology of the general doctrine of animism, or hylozooism, which is a tenet common to all the earlier Aeonians. They maintained that matter is instinct with life, or as an Aristotelian would say, they did not distinguish between the material principle and the formal principle of life. Anaximander, life. Anaximander, who was also a native of Miletus, was born about the year 610 BC. Theophrastus describes him as a disciple, or associate of Thales. The date of his death is unknown. Sources. Primary sources. Anaximander composed a treatise, or rather a poetical prose composition, a perificeus, which was extant when Theophrastus wrote, of this work, two sentences only have come down to us. One, quote, all things must in equity again decline into that once they have their origin, for they must give satisfaction in atonement for injustice, each in order of time, unquote. Two, the infinite, quote, surrounds all things, and directs all things, unquote. Secondary sources. Our chief secondary sources are Theophrastus, in the work Physicon dosai, of which the existing fragments are published by Deals, and Aristotle, especially in metaphysics, book 12, section 1069b, and physics, book 3, section 203b. Doctrines. From our secondary sources, it is evident that according to Anaximander, the originating principle, Archie, of all things is the infinite, or rather the unlimited, a pteron. Footnote, quote, that Anaximander called this something by the name of Vissus is clear from the doxographers. The current statement that the word Archie, in the sense of a first principle was introduced by him, is probably due to a mere misunderstanding of what Theophrastus says. The reasons, however, which led to this conclusion, are merely a matter of conjecture, as in the case of Thales' generalization. According to Aristotle, Anaximander, supposing that change destroys matter, argued that unless the substratum of change is limitless, change must sometimes cease. Thus, while modern physics holds that matter is indestructible, Anaximander maintained that it is infinite, for there can be no question as to the corporeal nature of the ateron. It is an infinite material substance. Critics, however, do not agree, is how to Anaximander would have answered the questions, is there limited an element or a mixture of elements? Is it qualitatively simple or complex? He certainly maintained that the primitive substance is infinite, but did not, as far as we know, concern himself with the question of its qualitative determinations. The ateron has been likened to the modern notion of space and to the mythological concept of chaos. It is described by Anaximander himself as surrounding and directing all things, and by Aristotle it is described as totheon. We must not, however, attach to these expressions a dualistic or pantheistic meaning. From the boundless old things came, by a process which the placita describes as separation, apocrite and I. Living things sprang from the original moisture of the earth through the agency of heat. The first animals were therefore fishes, which after they came on shore threw off their scales and assumed new shapes. Man, too, was generated from other kinds of animals. Anaximander is generally believed to have taught an infinity of worlds. Historical position. Comparing the doctrines of Anaximander with what we know of the teachings of Thales, we find that the former are far richer in their contents and betoken a higher development of speculative thought. They represent a higher grade of abstraction, as is evident in the substitution of the boundless for the concrete substance, water. Anaximenies. Life. Anaximenies of Miletus, who was an associate of Anaximander, composed a treatise on the title of which is unknown. He died about 528 BC. Sources. Primary sources. The only fragment of the work of Anaximenies, which has survived, is a sentence quoted in the placita. Quote, Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the world. Secondary sources. Our principal secondary source is Theophrastus, whom Pseudoplutarch, Eubesius, Prypate, Evangelica, Hippolytus, Refutatio, Omnium, Hyresium, etc. follow. Doctrines. According to all our secondary sources, Anaximenies taught that the principle or ground of all material existence is air. Air, however, must be taken in the Homeric sense of vapor or mist. This substance, to which is ascribed infinite quantity, is endowed with life. From it, by thinning and thickening, were formed the fires, winds, clouds, water and earth. The world is an animal whose breathing is kept up by masses of air, which it inhales from the infinite space beyond the heavens. Cicero incorrectly represents Anaximenies as identifying the divinity with the primitive air. Saint Augustine is more correct when he says, quote, Nekdeus negavit out takuit, nontamen ab ipsis airem factum, set ipsos ex aire autos creditit." Historical position. Anaximenies was evidently influenced by his predecessors. From thales he derived the qualitative determinances of the primitive substance and from Anaximander its infinity. The doctrine of thickening and thinning is far more intelligible than the doctrine of separating which Anaximander taught. Retrospect. The early Aeonian philosophers were students of nature who devoted themselves to the inquiry into the origin of things. They agreed, one, in positing the evidence of a single original substance, and two, in regarding this substance as endowed with force and life, hyelozoism. They were dynamists. Heraclitus, a later Aeonian, who was in the final analysis a dynamist also, marks the transition from the early hyelozoism to the mechanism of the later Aeonian school. End of chapter one. Chapter two of history of philosophy. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Greg Boethien. History of philosophy by William Turner. Chapter two, The Pythagorean School. About the time the Ionic philosophy attained its highest development in Asia Minor, another phase of philosophical thought appeared in the Greek colonies of Italy. As we turn to the Pythagorean philosophy, the first philosophy of the West, we are struck with the importance which the ethical religious aspect assumes from the outset. Philosophy is now not so much an inquiry into the causes of things as a rule of life, a way of salvation. It is remarkable, too, that this notion of philosophy never wholly died out in the subsequent development of Greek thought. Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics constantly referred philosophy to life as well as to knowledge. The Pythagorean system of speculation is sometimes contrasted with the Ionian as being an embodiment of the Doric spirit, which was artistic, conservative, ethical, while the Greeks of the Ionian colonies were characterized by worldly sense, versatility, curiosity, and commercial enterprise. Both philosophies, however, are holy Greek. Life of Pythagoras. Samos was the home and probably the birthplace of Pythagoras. It is certain that he journeyed to Italy about the year 530 BC and that he founded in Crotona a philosophical religious society. The story of his journey through Egypt, Persia, India, and Gaul is part of the Neopathagorean legend, though there is good reason for believing that the account of his death at Metapontum is true. Sources. Primary sources. The Neopathagoreans mention an extensive Pythagorean literature as dating from the days of the founder. Modern scholarship has, however, shown that the reputed writings of Pythagoras are certainly spurious. The fragments of Philolos, Perifusios, are for the most part genuine. It was probably from these that Aristotle derived his knowledge of the Pythagorean doctrines. Philolos lived towards the end of the 5th century. The fragments of Archaidus of Tarentum are spurious, with the exception of a few, which do not add to our knowledge of the Pythagorean doctrines as they bear two evident marks of Platonic influence. Secondary sources. There is no school the history of which is so overgrown with legend as the Pythagorean. Indeed, Pythagoras and his disciples are seldom mentioned by writers anterior to Plato and Aristotle, and even the latter does not mention Pythagoras more than once or twice. He speaks rather of the Pythagoreans. Thus, the nearer we approach the time of Pythagoras, the more scanty do our data become, while the farther the tradition is removed from Pythagoras, the fuller they grow. Obviously, therefore, the neo-Pythagoreans of the 1st century BC are not to be relied on when they speak of Pythagoras and his doctrines. The Pythagorean school was a society formed for an ethical religious purpose. It was governed by a set of rules. Ho-Tropus Taubaiu. The members recognized one another by means of secret signs. Simplicity of personal attire and certain restrictions in matter of diet were required. Celebesi and the strict observance of secrecy in matters of doctrine were also insisted upon. The political tendency of the school was towards the aristocratic party in Magna Gracia, a tendency which led to the persecution and final dispersion of the society. Pythagorean doctrines. All that can with certainty be traced to Pythagoras is the doctrine of methampsychosis, the institution of certain ethical rules, and the germ idea of the mathematical theological speculation, which was afterwards carried to a high degree of development. Consequently, by Pythagorean doctrines we must understand the doctrines of the disciples of Pythagoras, though these referred nearly all their doctrines to the founder. Indeed, they carried this practice so far that they constantly introduced a question by quoting the Otto Sefa, the Ibsae Dixit of the master. The number theory. The most distinctive of the Pythagorean doctrines is the principle that number is the essence and basis, arcay, of all things. To this conclusion, the Pythagoreans were led by contemplating with minds trained to mathematical concepts, the order of nature, and the regularity of natural changes. To the question, did the Pythagoreans regard numbers as the physical substance of things or merely as symbols or prototypes? The answer seems to be that they meant number to stand to things in the double relation of prototype and substance. And if the assertion, all is number, sounds strange to us, we must consider how profound was the impression produced on the minds of these early students of nature by the first perception of the unalterable universal order of natural changes. Then we shall seize to wonder at the readiness with which number, the formula of the order and regularity of those changes, was hypostatized into the substance and basis of all things that change. Phyllulus distinguishes three natural kinds of number, odd, even, and the odd even. Aristotle says that the Pythagoreans considered odd and even to be the elements, stocia, of number. Of these, he continues, the one is definite and the other is unlimited and the unit is the product of both, for it is both odd and even and number arises from the unit and the whole heaven is number. From the dualism which is thus inherent in the unit and consequently in number comes the doctrine of opposites, finite and infinite, odd and even, left and right, male and female, and so forth. From the doctrine of opposites proceeds the notion of harmony which plays such an important part in the Pythagorean philosophy, for harmony is the union of opposites. Application of the doctrine of number. One, to physics. True to their mathematical concept of the world, the Pythagoreans analyze bodies into surfaces, surfaces into lines, and lines into points. From this, however, we must not conclude that they conceived the numerical unit of all things as material. They apparently used numbers in geometrical quantities merely as quantities, abstracting from their contents, that is, without determining whether the contents were material or immaterial, a distinction which belongs to a later date. Everybody is an expression of the number four. The surface is three, because the triangle is the simplest of figures, the line is two, because of its terminations, and the point is one. Ten is the perfect number because it is the sum of the numbers from one to four. Two, to the theory of music. The application of the number theory to the arrangement of tones is obvious. The story, however, of the discovery of the musical scale by Pythagoras, as told by Ian Blicus and others, is one of many instances in which discoveries made by the successors of Pythagoras were attributed to Pythagoras himself. Three, to cosmology. Not only is each body a number, but the entire universe is an arrangement of numbers, the basis of which is the perfect number ten. For the universe consists of ten bodies, the five planets, the sun, the moon, the heaven of the fixed stars, the earth, and the counter-earth, Antikthon. The earth is a sphere. The counter-earth, which is postulated in order to fill up the number ten, is also a sphere, and moves parallel to the earth. In the center of the universe is the central fire, around which the heavenly bodies, fixed in their spheres, revolve from west to east, while around all is the peripheral fire. This motion of the heavenly bodies is regulated as to velocity, and is therefore a harmony. We do not, however, perceive this harmony of the spheres, either because we are accustomed to it, or because the sound is too intense to affect our organs of hearing. Four, to psychology. It would seem that the early Pythagoreans taught nothing definite regarding the nature of the soul. In the Phaedo, Phaedo introduces into the dialogue a disciple of Phyllis, who teaches that the soul is a harmony, while Aristotle says, some of them, the Pythagoreans, say that the soul is identified with corpuscles in the air, and others say that it is that which moves to canown the corpuscles. The idea, however, that the soul is a harmony seems to be part of the doctrine of the Pythagoreans. The trans migration of souls is, as has been said, traceable to the founder of the school, though it was probably held as a tradition, being derived from the mysteries without being scientifically connected with the idea of the soul, or with the number theory. Five, to theology. The Pythagoreans did not make extensive application of their number theory to their theological beliefs. They seemed to have conformed, externally at least, to the popular religious notions, though there are indications of a system of pure religious concepts which were maintained esoterically. Six, to ethics. The ethical system of the Pythagoreans was thoroughly religious. The supreme good of man is to become godlike. This assimilation is to be accomplished by virtue. Now virtue is a harmony. It essentially consists in a harmonious equilibrium of the faculties by which what is lower in man's nature is subordinated to what is higher. Knowledge, the practice of asceticism, music, and gymnastics are the means by which this harmony is attained. Finally, the Pythagoreans used numbers to define ethical notions. Thus they said, Justus is a number squared, Erythmos is Saki's isos. Historical position. The chief importance of the Pythagorean movement lies in this, that it marks a deepening of the moral consciousness in Greece. The old-time buoyancy of religious feeling as seen in the Homeric poems has given way to a calmer and more reflective mood in which the sense of guilt and the consequent need of atonement and purification assert themselves. As a system of philosophy, the body of Pythagorean doctrine must, like all the pre-Socratic systems, be regarded as primarily intended to be a philosophy of nature. And this is how Aristotle describes it. It is not concerned with the conditions of knowledge, and although the society which Pythagoras founded was ethical, the philosophy which is associated with that society treats of ethical problems only incidentally and in a superficial manner. As an investigation of nature, the Pythagorean philosophy must be pronounced a very decided advance on the speculative attempts of the Ionians. The Pythagoreans leave the concrete, sense-perceived basis of existence and substitute for it the abstract notion of number, thus preparing the way for a still higher notion, that of being. THE MEMBERS OF THIS SCHOOL WERE CONCERNED NOT SO MUCH WITH THE ORIGIN OF THINGS, AS WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE WORLD, OF THINGS AS IT NOW IS. THEIR INQUARIES CENTRATED AROUND THE PROBLEM OF CHANGE, AND IN THEIR SOLUTION OF THIS PROBLEM THEY INTRODUCE THE NOTIONS OF BEING AND BECOMING, THUS CARING SPECULATION INTO REGION STRICTLY METAPHYSICAL. The chief representatives of the school are Xenophonies, the Theologian, Parmenides, the Metaphysician, Xeno, the Dialectician, and Melissa, who shows a tendency to return to the views of the earlier Ionian students of nature. Sources. The work entitled Concerning the Opinions, or Concerning Xenophonies, Xeno and Gorgias, which contain an account of the doctrines as Xenophonies, Xeno and others, and which was at one time included among Aristotle's works, is now known to have been written neither by Aristotle nor by Theophrastus, but by a later writer of the Aristotelian school. Our knowledge of the Eliotic philosophy is derived from some fragments of the writings of the Eliotics themselves, from Aristotle's account of them in his metaphysics, and from the works of Simplicius, who had access to a more complete Eliotic literature than we now possess. Xenophonies. Life. Xenophonies was born at Caliphon, in Asia Minor, about the year 570 B.C. According to Theophrastus, he was a disciple of Anaxamander. After wandering through Greece as a Rhapsodist, he settled at Elia in southern Italy, and from this city he is derived the name of the school which he founded. The date of his death is unknown. Sources. It is important to distinguish here, one, the fragments of Xenophonies' didactic poem, and two, the accounts given by our secondary authorities. In the former we find merely a set of theological opinions. In the latter Xenophonies is represented as holding certain views on general metaphysical problems. Doctrines. In his didactic poem Xenophonies opposes to the polytheistic belief of the time the doctrine of the unity, eternity, unchangeableness, sublimity, and spirituality of God. With the enthusiasm of fine frenzy of a prophet, he invades against the notions commonly held concerning the gods. Each man, he says, represents the gods as he himself is. The negro is black and flat-nosed, the thracian is red-haired and blue-eyed, and if horses and oxen could paint, they no doubt would depict the gods as horses and oxen. 6. So also he continues, men ascribed to the gods' mental characteristics which are human. They do not understand that God is all eye, all ear, all intellect. According to our authorities, and we have no right to challenge their unanimous verdict in this matter, all that is said in the sacred poem of Xenophonies is to be referred to the unity and eternity of the totality of being. Plato and Aristotle describes Xenophonies as teaching the unity of all things. If this pantheism appears to us to be irreconcilable with the monotheism of the poem, we must not conclude that the contradiction was apparent to Xenophonies, who though he could rise above the popular concept of the gods, could not wholly free himself from the notion so deeply rooted in the Greek mind that nature is imbued with the divine. 1. In his metaphysical inquiry Xenophonies seems, according to the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise above mentioned, to have started with a principle that nothing comes from nothing, whence he concluded that there is no becoming. Now plurality depends on becoming. If then there is no becoming, there is no plurality. All is one, and one is all. The authority, however, of this portion of the treatise is doubtful, though it may with safety be said that if Xenophonies did not develop this line of reasoning as parmenides his disciple afterwards did, the premises of these conclusions are implicitly contained in the theological poem. For the same reason it is uncertain whether Xenophonies maintained the infinity or the finite nature of the deity, or whether he endowed the deity with a certain spherical shape. 2. In physics Xenophonies, in common with others of his school, forgets the unity of being, which as a metaphysician he had established, and proceeds to an investigation of the plurality which he had denied. He advocates empirical knowledge, though he holds it to be unworthy of entire confidence, teaching, Fragment 16, that truth is to be discovered by degrees. According to some of our authorities he held that the primitive substance was earth. According to others he held that it was water and earth. A few attribute to him the doctrine of four primitive elements. There is better foundation for the opinion that he supposed the earth to have passed from a fluid to its present solid condition, basing his belief, according to Hippolytus, on the fact that petrified marine animals are found on land and even on mountains. Thus, although the one total is eternal, the world in its present form is not eternal. 3. Historical position Xenophonies system is, so far, the boldest attempt to synthesize the phenomena of the universe. In fact, it is one instance among many in which the desire to find the one in a manifold, a desire which is the inspiration of all philosophical speculation, is carried to the excess of monism. For if we are to accept any theory that will reconcile Xenophonies' metaphysics with his theology, we must hold that he identified nature, the one immutable eternal with God, who likewise possesses these attributes. 4. Parmenides Life Parmenides, who was perhaps the greatest of all the pre-Socratic philosophers, was born at Elia about 540 BC. According to Aristotle, he was a disciple of Xenophonies, whose doctrines he took up and carried to their idealistic consequences. He had a more definite grasp of principles than Xenophonies had, and developed them with greater thoroughness than his master had done. Sources The didactic poem, Perithus Eos, composed by Parmenides and preserved by sexes Poclus and others, consists of three parts. The first is a sublimely conceived introduction in which the goddess of truth points out to the philosopher two paths of knowledge, the one leading to a knowledge of truth, the other to a knowledge of the opinions of men. The second part of the poem describes the journey to truth and contains the metaphysical doctrines of the author. The third part, dealing with the opinions of men, contains a hypothetical physics, a cosmology of the apparent. Doctrines Metaphysical doctrines Truth consists in the knowledge that being is and that not being can neither exist nor be conceived to exist. The greatest error lies in treating being and non-being as the same. From this fundamental error arise the opinions of men. Truth lies in thought, for nothing can be but what can be thought. The senses lead to error. Being therefore is, and since not being is not, being is one. It is consequently unchangeable and unproduced, despite the testimony of the senses to the contrary. For how could being be produced? Either from not being which does not exist, or from being in which case it was before it began to be. Therefore it is unproduced, unchangeable, undivided, whole, homogeneous, equally balanced on all sides, like a perfect sphere. From the comparison of being to a sphere, it appears that being is not incorporeal. Ideas do not appear in philosophy ex abrupto. They are gradually developed in the course of speculation. Thus Parmenides' idea of reality is not that of the Ionians who spoke of a crude material substratum of existence. Neither is it the highly abstract notion of being which we find in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. It is a something intermediate between these extremes, and is by some likened to our notion of space. Physical Doctrines Though right reason, Lagos, maintains that being is one and immutable, the senses and common opinion, Doxa, are convinced of the plurality and change which apparently exist around us. Placing himself therefore at this point of view, Parmenides proceeds to give us, one, a cosmology of the apparent. Here he is evidently influenced by the Pythagorean doctrine of opposites. He maintains that all things are composed of light, or warmth, and darkness, or cold. Of these the former, according to Aristotle, corresponds to being, the latter to not being. They are united by a deity, Daimon Hei Panta Kuberna. They are symbolically described as male and female, and their union is said to be affected by Eros, the first creation of the deity. 2. An Anthropology of the Apparent The life of the soul, perception and reflection, depend on the blending of the light, warm, and the dark, cold principles, each principle standing, as we should say, in psychical relation to a corresponding principle in the physical world. In his cosmology, as well as his anthropology, Parmenides did not abandon the metaphysical doctrine, that being is one, and that change is an illusion. The views just described are those which Parmenides would have held had he believed in plurality and change. Historical Position Parmenides is the first Greek philosopher to place reason in opposition to opinion. Though he makes no attempt at determining the conditions of knowledge, he prepares the way for subsequent thinkers and formulates the problem which Socrates was to solve by his doctrine of concepts. The doctrine of the unity of being could not be further developed. It was left for Zeno, the disciple of Parmenides, to give a more thorough dialectical demonstration of the monistic idea. Zeno of Elia Life Zeno of Elia, born about 490 BC, was according to Plato the favorite pupil of Parmenides. He defended the doctrines of his master, and showed by the use of dialectics the absurdity of common opinion. Sources Plato speaks of a work, apparently the only work, of Zeno which was a polemic against the common view that plurality and change are realities. It consisted of several discourses, logoi, in each of which were or suppositions, made with the intention of reducing them ad absurdum. The method is therefore indirect, and it is because of the skill with which Zeno applied this method that Aristotle, if we are to believe Diogenes and Sextus, regarded him as the founder of dialectic. The work, with the exception of a few extracts, reserved by Simplicius is lost. We are obliged consequently to rely almost entirely on secondary sources. Chief among these is the physics of Aristotle, in which we find Zeno's arguments against the reality of motion. Doctrines The arguments against motion are as follows. First argument. A body, in order to move from one point to another, must move through an infinite number of spaces, for magnitude is indivisible, add infinitum. But the infinite cannot be traversed. Therefore motion is impossible. Second argument. The problem of Achilles in the tortoise. Third argument. A body which is in one place is certainly at rest. Now the arrow in its flight is at each successive moment in one place. Therefore it is at rest. Fourth argument. This is based on the fact that two bodies of equal size must move past each other twice as fast, if they move with equal velocities in opposite directions, as one would move past the other if this ladder were stationary. Motion therefore is an illusion, because one of its fundamental laws that bodies with equal velocities traverse a certain space in equal times, is not true. Aristotle meets these arguments by defining the true nature of time, and by pointing out the difference between actual and potential infinity. Similarly, Zeno, according to our secondary sources, argued against plurality in space. One, Zeno argued directly against the testimony of the senses. If a measure of corn produces a sound, each grain ought to produce a sound. Two, against space. If being exists in space, space itself must exist in space, and so add infinitum. This argument is contained in one of the extracts preserved by Simplicius. Three, if the manifold exists, it must be at once infinitely great and infinitesimally small, because it has infinitude of parts which are indivisible. Therefore the existence of the manifold involves a contradiction. Historical position. Zeno's contribution to the philosophy of the Allatic school consists in what must be considered an irrefutable, indirect proof of the twofold principle on which the school was founded, namely that being is one and that change is an illusion. Melissa's Life Melissa's was, according to Diogenes Lertius, a native of Samos. We have no reason for doubting that he was, as Plutarch says, the commander of the Sammian fleet, which defeated the Athenians off the coast of Samos in the year 442 B.C. He was, therefore, a younger contemporary of Zeno, and it is possible that like Zeno he was a pupil of Parmenides. He wrote a work, Peritus Hontos or Perithucius. Sources. Of the work just mentioned, Simplicius has preserved some fragments. These fragments agree with the accounts given of the doctrines of Melissa's in the first part of the Pseudo-Aristotelian treatise concerning Xenophonies, etc. Doctrine's Method Melissa's undertook, as Zeno had done, to defend the doctrines of Parmenides, but while Zeno's method of argumentation was indirect, Melissa's employed the direct method. He took up the principles of the Ionians and tried to show points of union between the Ionian and Aliatic schools. Metaphysical Doctrine All that we know of Melissa's doctrine concerning Bean may be summed up in the four propositions. One, Bean is eternal. Two, Bean is infinite. Three, Bean is one. Four, Bean is unchangeable. His Metaphysical Doctrine is, therefore, identical with that of Parmenides, save in one respect. Parmenides did not pronounce Bean infinite, while according to Melissa's infinity is one of the attributes of Bean. But as appears from Fragment 8, Melissa's must not be understood to maintain the true infinity of Bean. Evidently he had in mind infinite magnitude. Again when he says, Soma may excite, we must not imagine that Melissa's had attained a precise notion of the incorporeal. His metaphysics was a blending of the Ionian school and the Aliatic doctrines, and we may suppose that there were many points of contradiction. The physical doctrines attributed to Melissa's by Stobias and Philiponus cannot safely be said to have been held by him. Historical position. Melissa's does not represent a development of Aliatic philosophy. His task was one of synthesis or reconciliation, and in accomplishing this task he did not wholly escape the danger to which such an undertaking is always exposed. He admitted into Aliatic doctrines notions and definitions which were antagonistic to Aliatic principles. Retrospect. With Melissa's the Aliatic school ends. What was left of Aliaticism drifted into Sophism, for which Zeno had prepared the way by his abuse of dialectical reasoning. But though the school disappeared, its influence continued, and may be traced through Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and the Atomus down to Plato and Aristotle. The Aliatics were the first to formulate the problems of being and becoming, problems which are always the center of metaphysical speculation. These were the problems that Plato and Aristotle were to solve by the theory of ideas and the doctrine of matter and form. Presocratic philosophy is, throughout, objective in spirit and aim. It is a philosophy of nature. To this, Aliatic philosophy forms no exception. It is true that the Aliatics gave to physics merely a hypothetical value and that they decry since received knowledge, contrasting it with reason. Yet on closer examination it will be seen that all their inquiry is concerned with the origin and the explanation of nature, and that the being which they maintain to be the only reality is a something extended in space or, as Aristotle describes it, the substrate of sensible things. Zeno indeed introduced dialectic into philosophy, but he treated it merely as an instrument of proof, unaccompanied by any inquiry into the nature and conditions of knowledge. The founder of the philosophy of the concept is Socrates, and Aristotle is right when he looks for the germ of Socratic philosophy, not in the Aliatic doctrine, but in the teachings of Democritus and the Pythagoreans.