The ancient philosophers have influenced every part of western living. Everywhere we look, we can see it and hear it, incorporated into sayings, explanations and behaviors. When something bad happens to us, would-be philosophers will try to soothe us by saying, it is all a part of the larger picture and one door closes to facilitate the opening of another door to a better place. Many times this actually proves to be true, especially for optimists who believe it, but sometimes for the skeptics as well. This, in part, confirms Plato’s concept that the “real world” exists only in our minds and is a superior or perfect place full of higher abstract eternal forms. (White 46)
Most of those modern-day philosophers do not know, they are simply parroting the ideas of the first philosophers in ancient Greece. Anixamander refers to “justice, giving satisfaction and making reparation.” This could be the beginnings of the concept of Karma. Justice being served to those who do evil and blessings being brought to those who do good. Or maybe it came from the Bible book of Galatians 06:07 “…whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.”
Some say that Anixamander’s explanation of reality seems strange at first, but I do not see it that way at all. He was acknowledging the abstract concept that the nature of reality cannot be experienced with our physical senses. His understanding of the nature of reality was far ahead of his time. “…unpredictability and chaos, so characteristic of nature were a part of a larger process that led to harmony.” (White 38) Anixamander’s is the most convincing theory of reality out of the three from the Milesians, in my opinion.
Anaximenes’ contribution to ancient philosophy is responsible for connecting mathematical orchestration to the nature of all reality. Even though his theory that something is alive because it breathes, is most certainly an over-simplification, his mathematical connection is profound and has been proven over and over.
Here is an interesting example: We know that music is based on mathematical formulas. This link will take you to a video showing the musical notes interpreted from positions of wild birds perched upon outdoor electrical wiring: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=267029866807388&set=vb.100005011299063&&theater
This musical piece is good illustration of how mathematics is embedded in every fundamental part of nature. The fact that physical reality can be described numerically is the most critical part of the insight contributed by Anaximenes, in my opinion. (White 42)
Each of the three ancient Greek fathers of philosophy contributed important concepts about the nature of reality and each of them expanded upon the views of the former. They tried to address perceptions overlooked by the predecessors. We can learn from their example by trying to analyze what we may be missing and examining our beliefs and language for fundamental flaws or omissions.
When I contemplate the concept of what I may be missing, I begin to conjure up all sorts of abstract concepts. One of my favorite, pet mysteries is defining consciousness. I would like to know what determines that this is indeed “me” inside this particular body with this particular mind and experiences. Why am I me? Am I an alien parasite residing inside this physical body? Am I the product of my physical memory?
Philosophy seems to be the only discipline that dares to address queries of this nature. Until now, almost everything I have experienced academically has deliberately and systematically sidestepped the issue.
George Berkeley writes of this concept in “A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge.” “This perceiving, active being, is what I call mind, spirit, soul, or myself.” (White 54) It was interesting to discover that Berkeley is also behind the theory that nothing exists until perceived by someone. (White 55) I had heard many different versions of the idea but did not realize where it originated until now. Remember the question of whether the cat in the box is alive or dead?
Plato’s explanation of reality, that ideas are more real than objects, could be the basis for the law of attraction, which is in my understanding: Universal Connectivity and Abundance. The main principle is: If we are grateful for the good things in our lives and focus on the positive then it attracts in like manner, bringing more good and positive things to us. This theory holds true in the opposite situation, in that when we focus on the negative, in our minds, it brings more negative into our lives. We are thus, creating our own reality from inside our own minds. While the physical world most certainly exists, it also becomes clear that it can be guided by idealism. The Dualism alternative concept of realism makes the most sense to me.
Despite my strict religious upbringing, I do not agree with those who want to execute scientists and philosophers for impiety. Berkeley was also criticized for his belief in God and references to Him in his definition of reality, however the simplicity of his explanation lends it credulity. I have always believed science and religion to be complementary to one another and in my mind, each provides substantiation of the other.
The writers of the Holy Scriptures were early philosophers with timeless insight to the future. The apostle Paul, writing to the Christians in the first century, in his letter to the Romans (12:02) told them to be transformed by making their minds over, that they may prove to themselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Much of the advice found in the Bible is still beneficial for life as we know it today.
There is something to be said about the fact that most humans seem to have a basic instinctual need for religion. No matter what corner of the globe we find ourselves in, there are more people believing in some type of religion than people who do not. Yet the tradition of deep thinkers and philosophers down through the ages is to question the beliefs of the majority and dispute the obvious. If we are to remain open-minded and unbiased, we must consider the possibility that religion is anthropomorphic folk lore.
Yet, no matter how adamant philosophers are in rejecting religion, the common thread I see in all attempts to define reality and explain our world, is a power, force or “form” as you will, at the top of the food-chain, binding it all together and determining the limits, so-to-speak, even if it is simply described as the power of change or chaos, it is still a force.
This “higher power,” or force, such as Plato’s “Good,” or Parmenides “Eternal One” can almost always be identified as synonymous with some sort of god or god-like substitution. Plato asserts that there are abstract perfect forms in the highest realm of reality and the loftiest of these is “the Good.” How much does that idea sound like what we just heard from the apostle Paul?
Maybe I am oversimplifying, but even though philosophers labor to dispute this very viewpoint by saying abstract forms are eternal and do not care about people or interfere with life on earth, I see that as a direct contradiction. (White 53) Abstract forms that are perfect and stable and eternal most certainly have a direct effect on life on earth. Especially if those concepts are bound together with the energy of the universe and dictating a mathematical order to promote harmony and justice from chaos and defining concepts of beauty and perfection. Maybe these abstractions have no emotions to care about people with, or maybe they do. I choose to believe they do.
Look inside your own heart. Is the deep knowledge that we should do good works and love our neighbor fundamental? I believe it is. Can all persons be a combination of good and evil? [clarification: good and bad behavior] Does evil exist alongside the good in everyone? Absolutely!
This is the underlying theme of the movie “Crash.” A review of the plot and behavior of the characters reveals good and evil in most of them. Consider those who go to church, spend time with their children, contribute to charity and post pious messages on social media about equality and peace, yet the same persons drive their automobiles offensively on the freeway trying to be first.
Some oversimplify by saying these people are hypocrites, saying one thing and doing another, but the issue goes much deeper than that. These are just people struggling to be what they claim they are and they are trying to become better persons but they get tripped up by the pressures of limited time and the stress of survival. The fundamental nature of humans is do good and be good because we were made in God’s image but the complex nature of the world we live in makes it difficult. Thus, Plato’s highest form: “the Good.” (White 50)
Genesis 08:21 declares that “…the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up…” The contextual setting was after the flood of Noah’s day and God was speaking about His decision to never again call down evil upon the ground because of what mankind had done. If God can regret something He has done and decide to modify His behavior, then certainly humans can and should.
Order versus chaos, God versus science, good versus evil, reality versus dreaming, passion versus apathy, conservatism versus liberalism, ultimate importance of the one or the many, states rights versus federal laws, parental privacy versus children’s right to know, these are struggles as old as humankind. I have a good friend with whom I debate serious fundamental issues. We debate in writing because she lives in another state and we use email because our sleeping schedules are opposite. We both think very highly of each other and value the other’s opinion. She is the only person I know who can debate at this level and she tends to have opposite views on many of the issues. She is very annoying in this capacity because she makes me think deeply about the reasoning behind my opinions. That is a positive thing because I have to think very critically in order to defend myself to her.
We usually end up agreeing to disagree and move on, but not before the issues have been thoroughly dissected and biopsied and placed under a microscope. They are then bagged and tagged and catalogued according to our separate conclusions. It is interesting to see how many basic values we have that are the same, yet our conclusions can still be very different. This is the same concept I see happening with the philosopher’s perspective.
This type of relationship explains bipartisanship in government. Think: Welfare, immigration, abortion, separation of church and state, religious freedom, right to die, equal opportunity, capitalism. If our congress persons could compromise as well as she and I do, then we would all be better off. Some issues are so complex that there are no right or wrong answers, we have to simply strive for common ground.
My conclusion is that all stories lead to the same destination and the choice of language is the only difference. Science is a language, religion is a language and math is a language. The textbook asks the question: Is a mathematical reality superior to a physical reality? (White 57) After consideration of some opinions from historical philosophers as well as modern science, I say: there is no difference, only language.
Works Cited (2014). Retrieved from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=267029866807388&set=vb.100005011299063&&theater
Croenberg, D. (Director). (1996). Crash [Motion Picture].
Holy Scriptures (Vols. Galatians, Genesis, Romans). (n.d.).
Rasing, M., Hernandez, J., & Luna-Contreras, E. (2004). Women's Studies 350 Blog Project- Crash. Retrieved from Blogspot: http://ws350ol.blogspot.com/2007/10/critical-analysis-on-crash-classism-and.html
White, T. (2008). Basic Issues in Philosophy. New York, NY: Long.