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)

Philosophical reflection on the conditions of knowledge did not begin in a cultural vacuum. Several centuries before the Ionian thinkers began their investigations, the Homeric bards had identified various factors that militate against a secure grasp of the truth. In the words of the ‘second invocation of the Muses’ in Iliad II: “you, goddesses, are present and know all things, whereas we mortals hear only a rumor and know nothing.” Similarly Archilochus: “Of such a sort, Glaucus, son of Leptines, is (...) the mind of mortal man, whatever Zeus may bring him for the day, for he thinks such things as he meets with.” When one adds the truism that the scope of human experience pales in comparison with the synoptic view of events enjoyed by the gods, it follows that for most matters it is for the gods to know and mortals merely to conjecture. Traces of the older ‘poetic pessimism’ can be seen in the teachings of many of the first philosophers. Alcmaeon reaffirms that “while the gods enjoy clear and certain knowledge of all things, mortals must conjecture from signs” (B 1). Although Xenophanes encourages inquiry into a wide range of phenomena, he concludes that “No man has known nor will there be anyone who knows the clear and sure truth concerning the gods and what I say about all things” (B 34). And when philosophers begin to affirm a more optimistic view they often do so in terms that invite comparison with the older outlook. The chief truth Heraclitus claims to have discovered is the logos or ‘basic formula’ which holds everywhere and forever (B 1, 30, 80, and 90). Parmenides provides reason to think that human beings can discover the truth even about things located “far off” (B 4). And both Empedocles and Democritus contrast the inferior awareness of those “who think in terms of what they have met with” with the wisdom available to those who have heard and ponder their teachings (B 131). For these thinkers, separation in space and time—the old ‘locality problem’—no longer posed an impediment to knowledge. -/- . (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 dissertation is about the early history of the concept of nature (φύσις or φυή/φυά) in Greek poetry and philosophy, and the significance of certain metaphors for that history, especially ones relating to plants (φυτά). The derivation of φύσις and φυή/φυά from the verb φύω/φύομαι (“grow,” but also “come to be”), which is likewise the source of φυτόν (“plant”), continues to nourish arguments about the historical role of the vegetal paradigm in the development of the Greek concept of nature. The (...) recent and widespread renewal of interest in nature and vegetation, in early Greek literature and innumerable other contexts, warrants a fresh assessment of the evidence, both with regard to the precise concepts of nature operating in the different corpora, and with regard to the precise significance of the vegetal metaphors. This dissertation focuses on two corpora, belonging to the fifth-century poets Pindar and Empedocles. In an era of conceptual revolutions and intense renewal and experimentation with metaphors in poetry and other discourse, both of these poets became famous for their metaphors as well as for their concepts of nature (for which Pindar uses both φύσις and φυά, Empedocles only φύσις). Novel analyses of their conceptualization of nature in Chapters 1 and 3 are paired with assessments in Chapters 2 and 4 of the significance of their plant metaphors, such as Pindar’s “fruit of the mind” and Empedocles’ elemental “roots.” Although it is commonly asserted that their vegetal imagery implies a concept of a universal Nature, it has been shown that their (and their contemporaries’) concepts of φύσις and φυά were limited to concrete individuals or groups; moreover, this dissertation argues, against the scholarly consensus, that both authors consistently use φύσις (and Pindar also φυά) to designate the “nature” or hypostatized collection of innate characteristics of an individual or group. One of the general tasks therefore of this dissertation is to show how vegetal metaphors bear on the explicit conceptualization of φύσις or φυά while also showing how certain metaphors prefigure the concept’s later history. Drawing on work in historical poetics, historical semantics, the history of concepts, and the history and theory of metaphors, this dissertation examines how the emerging concept of nature entered into original and powerful relationships with vegetal metaphors in the poetry of Pindar and Empedocles. (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)

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)

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)

The papyri transmit a part of the testimonia relevant to pre-Socratic philosophy. The ʼCorpus dei Papiri Filosofici‛ takes this material only partly into account. In this volume, a team of specialists discusses some of the most important papyrological texts that are major instruments for reconstructing pre-Socratic philosophy and doxography. Furthermore, these texts help to increase our knowledge of how pre-Socratic thought – through contributions to physics, cosmology, ethics, ontology, theology, anthropology, hermeneutics, and aesthetics – paved the way for the canonic (...) scientific fields of European culture. More specifically, each paper tackles papyrological texts concerning the Orphics, the Milesians, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, the early Atomists, and the Sophists. For the first time in the field of pre-Socratics studies, several papers are devoted to the Herculanean sources, along with others concerning the Graeco-Egyptian papyri and the Derveni Papyrus. (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)

From the publisher: "Comment la technique, thème par excellence de la réflexion poétologique archaïque, devient-elle aussi le paradigme qui rend intelligible la cosmogonie dans les discours philosophiques ? C’est la question à laquelle tente de répondre ce livre à partir de textes d’Homère, Hésiode, Parménide et Empédocle.".

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) decided to study all the ancient and medieval schools of philosophy, including the Pre-Socratics, in order to broaden his scope. Pico showed interest in ancient monists. He commented that only Xenophanes’ One is the One simply, while Parmenides’ One is not the absolute One, but the oneness of Being. Melissus’ One is in extreme correspondence to that of Xenophanes. As for Xenophanes, Pico seems to have fallen victim of ancient sources, who referred to Xenophanes and (...) Parmenides as members of the Eleatic “tribe”. In the case of Parmenides Pico draws mainly on the Platonic dialogues Parmenides and Sophist and not on intermediaries such as the Neoplatonists and other commentators. Despite of Pico’s knowledge of Empedocles’ philosophy, it is worth noticing that Pico was also strongly influenced by the medieval kabbalistic literature and the pseudo Empedocles. While Neoplatonists, such as Proclus, commented Empedocles and interpreted him according to the Neoplatonic spectrum, Pico’s appreciation of the philosophy of Empedocles was mediated through Arab and Jewish mysticism. Pico counted among his sources the Pre-Socratics, but the way he read them was not always direct and consistent. He intentionally chose to interpret them through the spectrum of intermediaries such as the ancient Commentators, the Neoplatonists, the Arabs and Jews mystics. (shrink)

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)

Diogenes Laertius (8.63-6) preserves a fascinating account of the Presocratic philosopher Empedocles' life. There, drawing on evidence from Aristotle, Xanthus, and Timaeus of Tauromenium, the biographer provides several anecdotes which are meant to demonstrate how Empedocles had, contrary to expectation, been a democratic philosopher - a paradox of itself in Ancient Greece. This article unpacks the complex web woven by Diogenes and argues that there is no good reason to assume that Empedocles was indeed a democratic philosopher, and moreover, that (...) neither Xanthus nor Aristotle thought him so. Indeed, what Diogenes actually preserves for us is the Hellenistic biographer Timaeus' critical dialectical engagement with the versions Aristotle and Xanthus, in his anachronistic bid to render Empedocles a democratic hero. (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)

The present book is the result of a conference supported by the Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung which was dedicated to the reception of the Presocratics in the western world from the 12th to the 19th century. The chapters of the book are based on papers given at the conference. For publication, they have been revised and some of them have been amplified to a considerable extent.

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)

The most fundamental communication paradox is that of the society communicating with itself. Culture's paradox is that in establishing itself as a culture, society has to create an impossible distance to itself in order to be able to remain within itself. Thus, society finds its bearings by putting itself into perspective, by giving itself a project which naturally takes its starting point in the culture but which always considers what is outside society itself. It is not necessary to be aware (...) of the paradox in order to be able to work with it. Still it is paradoxical that the very society which declares itself ready to work with itself is not capable of doing so. (shrink)

This article examines how the twentieth-century composer dealt with the paradox of communicating with the composer's own self and with other musicians, but not with the public at large.