In my attempt to save philosophy, I have returned to its beginning.
I am studying Greek philosophy and right now I am just finishing up
the pre-Socratic philosophers. The early Greeks until Socrates were
about the question of the one versus the many. they were interested in
what the universe was made up, was it one, everything was one,
or was the universe made up of the many, diverse objects and what were these
diverse objects. If the universe was one, then how come we see a multitude of
diverse objects. Some pre-Socratic philosophers believe that the one was something
like air or water or breath or fire and everything came from that one.
The one or the many, we seemed to have solved that dilemma with modern
physics with the knowledge of the atom. The Greeks were right, everything is one and
that one is atoms. reduce everything to it basics and we can take atoms from
lions and tigers and bears and tables and people and those atoms can be something else.
When I die, my atoms, that which made me, me, will be released into the world to be recreated
into something else. My atoms might become a TV or a bear or a cat or another person, a tree,
a fish and as time flows that atoms will be released into something else. Because my atoms can
become something else and my atoms at one time were something else, I can say we, and everything
we see at one time or another was something else, everything is one, diversity is just another collection
of atoms which one day will become something else. Our mistake is thinking everything is solid and
forever when in reality it is here today and created into something else tomorrow, even us.
Socrates was the first to really bring philosophy down to earth and made it about us.
He didn’t ask how there was one or many, he asked, how do we live, instead of asking, what are we made of.
Socrates was the first to create the subjective-objective problem.
[quote=“Erik_”]
I’ve been exploring the pre-socratics, as well. They were simple philosophers, but still interesting to learn about. My favorite one is Pythagoras.
K: personally, I am leaning toward Heraclitus, but I am still thinking about it.
E: In regards to the atoms, are they not made of even more particles, and those particles made up of more ad-infinitum?
K: this question is best left in the science forum.
Isn’t that essentially philosophical question? Isn’t the “final” indivisible atom a metaphysical construct? Is a single unique type of atom enough for constucting reality or are multiple different atoms necessary? Etc, etc.
And Erik pointed to another relevant philosophical question: If we repeat dividing something into smaller and smaller parts, how do we know when we have found the indivisible?
One should not relegate truth to popular science, especially not on a philosophy forum. Science is but one philosophy and religion.
As Erik’s Heraclitus proclaimed, one can only point to the logos of truth. It is up to the listener to reason his way into being able to truly see it. What was deemed an “atom” turned out to not be as atomistic as thought. But in science, it kept the name. The atom was discovered to be splittable. The sub-atomic parts were dubbed “sub-atomic particles”. And it turned out that they were not only varied, but also splittable. But that is where the splitting ends.
Once a sub-atomic particle is divided or destroyed, it becomes radiant electromagnetic energy, EMR. Such radiant energy is infinitely divisible (despite myths to the contrary). And it can be (and has been) reasoned that there are no particles on any lower level.
Heraclitus was right so very long ago. He deduced without the need of science that the entire universe is at all times in flux. Science can now greatly substantiate what was deduced thousands of years ago.
So why are these things still a mystery to anyone?
…because as Heraclitus said, "one can point to the truth of it, but each man must see it for himself" … or not. Guess which the greatest population does. And because of that lack of going to the trouble to see, they create confusion, the fire in societies that is used to destroy more than build. There is relevant philosophy to be known well beyond that of Heraclitus and all the Greeks and Mesopotamians.
The Earth is a compost heap, (Heraclitus’ “World of Fire”). The relevant philosophy is concerned with what to do about it, not merely proving and suffering it.