Empedocles

Nietzsche portrays the various dimensions of Empedocles's character as follows: "He is a physician or a magician, poet or orator, God or man, scientist or artist, a man of politics or a man of religion, and Pythagoras or Democritus. He is a character fluctuating between different poles and is the most amazing figure of ancient philosophy. He is the one who put an end to the period of myth, tragedy, and the mayhem of religious feasts.The picture of a more developed (...) Greek is indeed manifested in his existence. He is a lover of freedom, a preacher, a rationalist, the creator of metaphor and irony, a man of science, and, in sum, the heir to two centuries of knowledge, philosophy, and thought. (shrink)

The intellectual history of evolutionary theory really does not begin in earnest until the late seventeenth/early eighteenth century. Prior to that, the idea that species might have evolved over time was not a serious possibility for most naturalists and philosophers. There is certainly no substantive debate in antiquity about evolution in the modern sense. There were really only two competing explanations for how living things came to have the parts they do: design or blind chance. Ancient Greek Atomism, for example, (...) taught that all composite bodies, including living things, are generated through the random collision of atoms as they rebel and move in the void. Plato and Aristotle both dismissed this possibility on the grounds that living things are too complex and too well-adapted to be products of chance. This eventually became the central premise in Galen’s own Argument from Design. That species forms might have gradually evolved over time by a process of natural selection was not seen as a plausible alternative. Of course, such a theory had been proposed by Empedocles in the fifth century BCE. But because his theory still relied heavily on chance, it was not taken seriously by any of the later ancient Greek or Roman thinkers. My aim in this paper is to investigate the reasons why evolutionary thinking failed to gain momentum in antiquity after its introduction by Empedocles. (shrink)

This book presents a new account of Thales based on the idea that Acheloios, a deity equated with water in the ancient Greek world and found in Miletos during Thales’ life, was the most important cultic deity influencing the thinker, profoundly shaping his philosophical worldview. In doing so, it also weighs in on the metaphysical and epistemological dichotomy that seemingly underlies all academia—the antithesis of the methodological postulate of Marxian dialectical materialism vis-à-vis the Platonic idea of fundamentally real transcendental forms. (...) Unbeknownst to many scholars, there are various Neo-Marxian thinkers that position the origin of coinage as the pivotal technological development giving rise to impersonal “metaphysical cosmology,” suggesting that the value of money was more-or-less projected back onto the cosmos in the form of “ideal substances.” While the arguments are incredibly sophisticated and persuasive, their conclusions (either stated or implied) are rather difficult to swallow: the self is merely an illusion, abstract ideas of an ultimate source of value, like God or the Good, are totally delusional (as is the soul, and presumably any notion of inherent human dignity), and essentially everything is reducible to mankind’s enslavement to commodities and the notion of our own objectified labor, which is the true source of all value according to Marx. Not only is this an alarming belief that many scholars (consciously or unconsciously) have adopted, since essentially any action could be “justified,” it is also demonstrably false, since it rests on a misunderstanding of Thales and misconception of philosophy as such. -/- My work rectifies that misunderstanding. In an important sense, it is an attempt at redefining philosophy as a “love of wisdom,” which I argue was accurate even in the Presocratic setting, and it uses the influence of Acheloios on Thales to do so. Throughout its pages I explore the etymology and historical uses of the word ὔδωρ, examine the archaeological context of 7th to 6th century Miletos, consider various aquatic myths Thales encountered, and highlight a hitherto overlooked tradition stemming from Thales and influencing such thinkers as Pythagoras, Empedokles, and Hippo, which culminates in a completely new reading of Plato’s Phaedrus, a dialogue in which Plato responds to the exact type of thinking employed by the Neo-Marxians. It is there that we find Socrates and Phaedrus surrounded by the iconography of Acheloios and the nymphs, all while they lie reclined like river gods (the sinews of Acheloios) on the banks of the Ilisos. And it is in that dialogue that Plato defines philosophy as a love of wisdom—the beholding of a multiplicity of hermeneutical frameworks—and alludes to the fact that it began with the sacrifice of Acheloios, the initial philosophical maneuver which he attributes to Thales. The book ends with a threefold rejoinder to the Neo-Marxian school, corresponding to the λόγος, μῦθος, and ἔργον of Acheloios. It turns out that, (1) the λόγος of Acheloios contained the ideal preconditions conducive to an abstraction to a more refined philosophical worldview in which divine water operated as the One among the Many; (2) the μῦθος of Acheloios actually encouraged the application of the notion of sacrifice to Acheloios himself (thus revealing his essence as divine water); and, (3), the ἔργον of Acheloios, in which he kneels in assent to sacrifice, is found on a coin that was probably designed by Thales. In the final analysis, I suggest that the tradition of Acheloios is reflective of a greater philosophical truth, and that by following Thales’ lead, we transcend the Marxian hermeneutic of doubt and reorient ourselves toward the οὐσια ὄντως οὖσα. (shrink)

French translation of three Empedocles’ fragments (B 30, B 110 and B 115 Diels–Kranz). — — — Traduction française de trois fragments d’Empédocle (B 30, B 110 et B 115 Diels–Kranz).

Portuguese translation of three Empedocles’ fragments (B 30, B 110 and B 115 Diels–Kranz). — — — Tradução para o português de três fragmentos de Empédocles (B 30, B 110 e B 115 Diels–Kranz).

The paper starts with reflections on Plato’s critique of the poets and the preference many express for Aristotle’s view of poetry. The second part of the paper takes a case study of analytic treatments of ancient philosophy, including the ancient philosopher poets, to examine the poetics of analytic philosophy, diagnosing a preference in Analytic philosophy for a clean non-poetic style of presentation, and then develops this in considering how well historians of philosophy in the Analytic tradition can accommodate the contributions (...) of philosophers who wrote in verse. The final part of the paper reviews the current enthusiasm for decoding Empedocles’ vague and poetic descriptions of the cosmic cycle into a precise scientific periodicity on the basis of the recently discovered Byzantine scholia on Aristotle. I argue that this enthusiasm speaks to a desire for definite and clear numerical values in place of poetic motifs of give and take, and that this mathematical and scientific poetic is comparable to the preferred poetic of analytic philosophy. (shrink)

This paper is about the history of a question in ancient Greek philosophy and medicine: what holds the parts of a whole together? The idea that there is a single cause responsible for cohesion is usually associated with the Stoics. They refer to it as the synectic cause (αἴτιον συνεκτικόν), a term variously translated as ‘cohesive cause,’ ‘containing cause’ or ‘sustaining cause.’ The Stoics, however, are neither the first nor the only thinkers to raise this question or to propose a (...) single answer. Many earlier thinkers offer their own candidates for what actively binds parts together, with differing implications not only for why we are wholes rather than heaps, but also why our bodies inevitably become diseased and fall apart. This paper assembles, up to the time of the Stoics, one part of the history of such a cause: what is called ‘the synechon’ (τὸ συνέχον) – that which holds things together. Starting with our earliest evidence from Anaximenes (sixth century BCE), the paper looks at different candidates and especially the models and metaphors for thinking about causes of cohesion which were proposed by different philosophers and doctors including Empedocles, early Greek doctors, Diogenes of Apollonia, Plato and Aristotle. My goal is to explore why these candidates and models were proposed and how later philosophical objections to them led to changes in how causes of cohesion were understood. (shrink)

When did kosmos come to mean *the* kosmos, in the sense of ‘world-order’? I venture a new answer by examining later evidence often underutilised or dismissed by scholars. Two late doxographical accounts in which Pythagoras is said to be first to call the heavens kosmos (in the anonymous Life of Pythagoras and the fragments of Favorinus) exhibit heurematographical tendencies that place their claims in a dialectic with the early Peripatetics about the first discoverers of the mathematical structure of the universe. (...) Likewise, Xenophon and Plato refer to ‘wise men’ who nominate kosmos as the object of scientific inquiry into nature as a whole and the cosmic ‘communion’ (koinônia) between all living beings, respectively. Again, later testimonies help in identifying the anonymous ‘wise men’ by associating them with the Pythagoreans and, especially, Empedocles. As Horky argues, not only is Empedocles the earliest surviving source to use kosmos to refer to a harmonic ‘world-order’ and to illustrate cosmic ‘communities’ between oppositional pairs, but also his cosmology realises the mutual correspondence of these aspects in the cycle of love and strife. Thus, if later figures posited Pythagoras as the first to refer to the universal ‘world-order’ as the kosmos, they did so because they believed Empedocles to have been a Pythagorean natural scientist, whose combined focus on cosmology and ethics exemplified a distinctively Pythagorean approach to philosophy. (shrink)

How did the ancient Greeks and Romans conceptualise order? This book answers that question by analysing the formative concept of kosmos in ancient literature, philosophy, science, art, and religion. This concept encouraged the Greeks and Romans to develop theories to explain core aspects of human life, including nature, beauty, society, politics, the individual, and what lies beyond human experience. Hence, Greek kosmos, and its Latin correlate mundus, are subjects of profound reflection by a wide range of important ancient figures, including (...) philosophers, poets and playwrights, intellectuals, and religious exegetes. By revealing kosmos in its many ancient manifestations, this book asks us to rethink our own sense of 'order', and to reflect on our place within a broader cosmic history. (shrink)

Plato’s references to Empedocles in the myth of the Statesman perform a crucial role in the overarching political argument of the dialogue. Empedocles conceives of the cosmos as structured like a democracy, where the constituent powers ‘rule in turn’, sharing the offices of rulership equally via a cyclical exchange of power. In a complex act of philosophical appropriation, Plato takes up Empedocles’ cosmic cycles of rule in order to ‘correct’ them: instead of a democracy in which rule is shared cyclically (...) amongst equal constituents, Plato’s cosmos undergoes cycles of the presence and absence of a single cosmic monarch who possesses ‘kingly epistēmē’. By means of a revision of Empedocles’ democratic cosmology, Plato’s richly woven myth is designed precisely to reject the appropriateness of democracy as a form of human political association and legitimate monarchy in its stead. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

The present piece, first presented on 19 November 2016 at the Centre Léon Robin (CNRS-Univ. Paris-Sorbonne-ENS Ulm) as part of the“Présocratiques” Seminar, is an investigation of the relationship between Empedocles and Freud. The analysis is divided into three parts: the first section examines the nature of Freud’s engagement with Empedocles; next, consideration is given to the similarities between their doctrines, based on the extant fragments of the Empedoclean corpus; finally, I offer a series of observations about Empedocles’ poetic style, which (...) shares strong affinities with the spoken word in a manner typical of the oral tradition and is freighted with corporeal and emotional significance. It is here that we see the emergence of one of the key concepts of psychoanalysis: the relationship between logos and alogon, between that which can be rationally analysed and that which can be intuited but which eludes the domain of logos. (shrink)

Contemporary criticism of religion, which itself mainly claims to be secular and “ideologically neutral”, has some difficulties in finding rational argu-ments that actually acknowledge the value of religious worldviews. Instead of reflecting on criteria for constructive and harmful religiosity, most of the current arguments set secular thinking as the mode and therefore seem to derive from “secularistic” ideology (Habermas). This problem intensifies considering the growing attraction of commercial esoteric teachings because “esoteric spirituality” blurs the conceptual distinction between secular spiri-tuality (Metzinger) (...) and secularistic religiosity. The essay therefore focuses on the argument that the spiritual should be seen as the rationality of religiosity in general and hence should be distinguished from the irrational will to belief which is frequently encountered on the esoteric market. (shrink)

> καὶ πῶς τις ἀνάξει αὐτοὺς εἰς φῶς, ὥσπερ > > ἐξ Ἅιδου λέγονται δή τινες εἰς θεοὺς ἀνελθεῖν; > > Plato Republic 521c This study reconstructs Empedocles’ eschatology and cosmology, arguing that they presuppose one another. Part one surveys body and soul in Empedocles and argues that the transmigrating daimon is a long-lived compound made of the elements air and fire. Part two shows that Empedocles situates our current life in Hades, then considers the testimonies concerning different cosmic levels (...) in Empedocles and compares them with the afterlife schemes in Pindar’s Second Olympian Ode and Plato’s Phaedo myth. Part three offers a new edition of section d lines 5–10 of the Strasbourg papyrus of Empedocles that reinforces the connection between transmigration and different cosmic locations for souls. Part four reconstructs Empedocles’ cosmology, identifies three different levels or habitats of soul, and, more tentatively, suggests that Empedoclean “long-lived gods” are best understood as stars. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

O propósito deste artigo é analisar a expressão que assegura a presença de partes da cosmologia de Empédocles no Ocidente latino nos séculos XII-XIII, qual seja, creatio mundi, esta que é a tradução do termo κοσμοποιία. A análise centra-se, por um lado, em três traduções latinas da Física II, 4, 196a 20-24, de Aristóteles, texto no qual aparece o termo κοσμοποιία e, por outro lado, em partes da obra de Tomás de Aquino na qual o autor discute a cosmologia de (...) Empédocles. Para tanto, o texto é composto de três partes. Na primeira apresento o problema suscitado pela tradução de κοσμοποιία como creatio mundi e como factura mundi respectivamente. Na segunda, por seu turno, exponho os termos que viabilizam uma certa visão de conjunto da cosmologia de Empédocles no século XIII. Enfim, na terceira parte, apresento brevemente o sentido da noção de mundo e sua possível configuração para Empédocles. (shrink)

The article concerns on the topic of vegetarianism in the context of the importance of animal sacrifice in ancient Greece and Rome. In the first part the author analyses the function of animal sacrifice in ancient world, focusing on the religious and social meaning of eating the meat offered to gods on an altar. In the second part she presents the figures of vegetarians, who had to face the problem of obligatory character of sacrifice. The author focuses especially on the (...) examples of inconsistency between their postulates and the real practice, and inquires its motifs. At the ending she presents the changes of the habit of animal sacrifice and the attitudes toward animals with the development of Christianity at the final period of antiquity. (shrink)

This article aims at clarifying some issues raised by a recent book of Daniel W. Graham about the Presocratic cosmology. It particularly intends to shed some light on the understanding of Anaxagoras’ universe by suggesting some reasons why, despite Graham’s opinion, it is still possible to think that the stars were flat according to him. Another goal is highlighting the importance of the comprehensive physical theory of Anaxagoras, based on a circular motion called perichoresis, which would explain diverse phenomena in (...) a consistent way by introducing simplicity in his cosmology. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

In this paper I review four texts in which Aristotle comments on Empedocles ' writing style. I show that Aristotle thought that Empedocles was a fine poet. That is fine, if a poet is what you want.

Le fragment 129 d'Empédocle fait état du savoir prodigieux et du pouvoir des prapides d'un Super-Sage du passé en qui les sources citatrices et les interprètes modernes reconnaissent trop facilement Pythagore de Samos. Le but de la présente étude est de reprendre à nouveaux frais l'examen de ces six vers afin d'ouvrir le débat autour de la sagesse et des pouvoirs attribués à la figure anonyme du Super-Sage. Interprétant « Empédocle à partir d'Empédocle », mais aussi à l'aide des références (...) culturelles majeures de son temps, on essaie d'examiner quel type de sagesse était attribué à cette figure par le poète philosophe, de quelles conditions, physiologiques ou autres, relève l'acquisition de cette dernière et en quoi consiste son caractère exceptionnel. Empedocle's fragment 129 praises the exceptional knowledge and the power of the prapides of a Super-Sage of the past. In this sage both ancient testimonies and modern interpreters all too easily recognize Pythagoras of Samos. The aim of the present paper is to re-examine these six verses in order to open up the discussion on the wisdom and powers attributed to this unnamed figure. Interpreting « Empedocles by Empedocles », and also taking into account the major cultural references of his time, we try to define what kind of wisdom was attributed to this distinguished sage, under which conditions, physiological or otherwise, he was able to acquire it, and what constitutes the exceptional character of his knowledge. (shrink)

Dans le fr. 128 DK d'Empédocle, Empédocle nomme cinq dieux en opposition à Cypris : Arès, Kudoimos, Zeus, Cronos, Poséidon. Pourquoi ces cinq dieux? Quelle relation peuvent-ils entretenir avec le mythe hésiodique des cinq races, qui semble être en arrière-plan du propos d'Empédocle? Pourquoi Poséidon est-il présent à côté de Zeus et non pas Aïdôneus? L'article tente de répondre à ces questions. Pour finir, il s'interroge sur la relation possible des hommes de l'âge de Cypris et des daimones, et conclut (...) sur la place du fr. 128 dans l'œuvre d'Empédocle. In fr. 128 DK by Empedocles, Empedocles lists five gods in opposition to Cypris: Ares, Kudoimos, Zeus, Cronos, and Poseidon. Why these five gods? What link could they have with the Hesiodic myth of the five races of men, which seems to be in the background of Empedocles' purpose? Why does Poseidon appear near Zeus and not Aïdôneus? The article attempts to answer these questions. Finally, it examines the relationship of the men of the age of Cypris and the daimones, and concludes on the place of fr. 128 in the work of Empedocles. (shrink)

This article aims at reconstructing the most damaged part of the Strasbourg papyrus of Empedocles (fragment f-d), by taking into account all the parameters at our disposal: palaeography, metre and, of course, content. According to this attempt, Empedocles would be describing the very moment in the phase of increasing Strife when the whole-natured creatures (the ολοφυ) were split into male and female beings. Thus, the first part of the fragment becomes very similar, in its content, to fr. 62 D.-K. and (...) to Plato's parody of Empedocles in Aristophanes' myth in the Symposium , while its second part emerges as containing new details of the process by which double creatures were split into two. If this reconstruction is accepted, its implication will be that Aetius' presentation of Empedocles' cosmic cycle as a fourfold continuous process is deeply inadequate. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).