Pre-Socratic philosophers

Choose one of the elements defended by the pre-Socratic philosophers (water, fire, numbers, and so on) and argue for it as well as you can, preferably with a friend or a few friends who will try to prove you wrong. For example, if you choose fire, an immediate objection would be that fire could not possibly be the essential element in cold objects—a block of ice, for example. A reply might be that cold objects simply contain much less fire than hot things. You might also argue that not all fire manifests itself as flame, and soon, no doubt, you will find yourself moving into more modern-day talk about energy instead of fire as such. The point of the exercise is (1) to see how very much alive we can still make these ancient theories in our own terms and (2) to show how any theory, if it has only the slightest initial plausibility, can be defended, at least to some extent, if only you are clever enough to figure out how to answer the various objections presented to you and modify your theory to meet them.

Describe the Form of some ordinary objects around you, in accordance with Plato’s theory. How do you know whether an object is defined by one Form or another? What can you say about the Form of an ordinary object, in the fashion of Plato’s discussion of the Form of triangle? If an object changes, does it change Forms as well? Can an object have conflicting Forms? Can we understand our recognition of objects without some conception of Forms to explain how it is that we recognize them?

Categories in philosophy often seem too rigid or too simple- minded to classify the complexity of our views, but perhaps the following checklist will help you understand your own position in the history of philosophy:

  • Are you a materialist? An immaterialist? Do you believe that ultimate reality can be discovered by science? Do you believe that ultimate reality is a matter of religious belief?
  • What are the basic entities in your ontology? What is most real?
  • Are you a monist? A pluralist? If you are a pluralist, what is the connection between the different entities in your ontology? Rank them in order of their relative reality, or explain their relationship.
  • Are the basic entities in your ontology eternal? If not, how did they come into being?
  • Are you an idealist? (Do you believe that the basic entities of your ontology are dependent on the existence of minds?)
  • How do you explain the existence of (or how do you deny the existence of) the following? Minds, numbers, God, tables and chairs, the law of gravity, evil, moral principles, dreams, Santa Claus.
  • Is the experience of seeing a green flash nothing other than having a certain brain event go on inside your skull? Why would someone want to say that? What problems are there with that suggestion?
  • Could a computer have a sense of humor? What would it have to do to have one? What would it have to do to convince you that it had one? (Would it be enough to print out “Ha Ha” and shake around a bit?)
  • Does the universe have a purpose? (Sometimes, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”)
  • What does the word real mean to you? Using your definition, run once again through the items in Opening Question 1 and rate them for their reality in your view.
  • Do you think this world is the real world? Or do you believe that there is an existence more real than our own?