Arche
Arche: Beginning, origin, first principle (a basic assumption/proposition that can't be deduced from any other proposition/assumption), substratum (Aristotle).
Water is the arche: Thales
Fire is the arche: Heraclitus
Air is the arche: Anaximenes
Earth is the arche: Outis
None of the above are the arche: Anaximander (re apeiron)
The basic idea is that the other 3 can be derived from the one identified as the arche via some process e.g. cooling/heating. However, if these 4 elements (earth, water, fire, and air) are inter-transmutable that would be what in modern science is called an equivalence (re mass-energy equivalence and acceleration-gravity equivalence, courtesy Herr Einstein) and to identify one as the arche would be pointless and yet, the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare?
Water is the arche: Thales
Fire is the arche: Heraclitus
Air is the arche: Anaximenes
Earth is the arche: Outis
None of the above are the arche: Anaximander (re apeiron)
The basic idea is that the other 3 can be derived from the one identified as the arche via some process e.g. cooling/heating. However, if these 4 elements (earth, water, fire, and air) are inter-transmutable that would be what in modern science is called an equivalence (re mass-energy equivalence and acceleration-gravity equivalence, courtesy Herr Einstein) and to identify one as the arche would be pointless and yet, the Greeks, for some reason, thought it necessary to find the arche. Quare?
Comments (140)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3KHT5JYdU
I still think it is necessary to find the Arche and I am disagree with being pointless. Aristotelian logic was founded on these basic pillars. Accroding to Aristotle there is a principia prima. Thus, the first principles of demonstration. One of the interesting points of Arche is the fact that, according to Aristotle, those not need to be proven because they are already "first principles"(principia prima) and self-evident (they are known to be true simply by understanding them). So, I guess Thales or Heraclitus saw water and fire as basic principles of logic to understand everything around us.
In the other hand, Kant says: synthetic a priori propositions are first principles of demonstration but are not self-evident. Yet, the debate starts in these premises again and over again etc...
Interesting. i was just wondering about how we would choose the arche from the available options if it's true that they're all different states of each other.
dao, or atomist void, or natura naturans ... :fire:
The arche goes by many names. To Anaximander, it's apeiron; not sure about this but in Christianity, it's the void; to Laozi it was the Tao. If you'll permit me take a theistic stance, God is seen as a creator i.e. His creative power is Ein Sof and what could be more creative than pulling something out of thin air i.e. [i]in the beginning there was ... nothing".
I intelligo.
For John, it was the Word. Augustine interpreted that to say:
What is the word?
Pardon me for saying, but you have a way of presenting these ideas in such a way that it trivialises them. Like you've reached into a scrabble bucket full of words and out pops one - 'arche' in this case. 'Let's riff on that!'
I'm not going to pretend that I have any deep insights into arche - only that I think it's one of those seminal terms in Greek philosophy and the subject of many a learned discourse (none of which I've read.) But even as a casual reader, I can't help but notice, on a superficial level, the etymological connection between arche, archetype and also perhaps architect. In any case, the 'first principle' or origin or ground of all that is. But I also think grasping the meaning of such ideas, at once archaic and profound, is not at all an easy matter. (I am sceptical, for instance, whether there there is any real equivalent in modern science.) It's a word that ought to convey a certain gravitas, something to be contemplated, not simply tossed onto the board to stimulate chatter.
I think I could also say that in the original context that these ideas were considered, there was a sense of vital importance in understanding it - as if your life depended on understanding it. I recall in the thread on the Phaedo from a couple of years back, for instance, Socrates' attitude towards the arche of Anaxagoras to which he was initially attracted, but which he finally rejected, because it provided only a mechanistic account of causation ('bones and sinews'), not an account in terms of the reason for acting as one does (ref). Socrates, Heraclitus and the other philosophers wrestled with these questions. Presumably the different formulations they arrived at weren't simply interchangeable, because they themselves felt the answer to the question made a really big difference, in a life-or-death kind of way.
Anyway, one thing which we nowadays possess, which the ancients certainly did not, is the internet, and the ability to retrieve with a few keystrokes information on what the different views of the matter were, but it still takes work to absorb them.
Fairport - Sandy Deny! Or Steeleye - Gay Woods?
(might/might not be paywalled, although it opened for me.)
Apparently, whatever G_d says ...
Are you asking that in the context of your OP saying it is pointless to look for an origin? Are you asking for a way to hear the Logos without the theological frame it was brought forward within? Are you asking how the Word is used within that framework?
An answer that might wrestle with one of those questions leaves the others uninvolved.
All 3: first substratum, first cause, first axiom
Quoting Agent Smith
:up:
I thought the same... but it looks like that we are convincing @Agent Smith to think otherwise!
Yes, he is capable of doing a merry dance amongst the partygoers here. :cool:
:smile:
I like to dance, but be warned, it might look like a seizure!
I'm just lookin' for a good reason to identify one substratum as primary among many when they're all interchangeable.
Any guesses as to what the first word was that issued forth from God's lips?
Well, you can identify the substratum as primary depending on what you consider as primary quality or the "beginning" of everything. What I mean is that is up to you. For example, I would choose Thales's water arche because without this substratum is impossible to survive.
First off, apologies if you feel I'm trivializing a profound idea. It's unintended. I only read the Wiki entry on the topic and it's obvious that the Greeks were tryin' ta reduce everything to a one from which everything arises (monism). The problem, as described in the OP, is that the four Greek elements (fire, water, air, earth) are equivalent to each other (being only different states, transmutable via heating/cooling) and there's no logic to isolating one as the arche. That Heraclitus thought the arche is fire, Anaximenes air, Thales water, is the symptom that confirms my diagnosis, oui?
P. S. I really appreciate your constructive criticism. I'm an amateur philosopher and it seems making silly mistakes is part and parcel of being one. Mes amie, bear with me. Danke for your patience and generous assistance.
Read me reply to Wayfarer (vide supra)
--
By way of a footnote to the origin of the term 'logos' - there is rather a good entry in the New Advent encylopedia, The Logos, from which:
A description which I find compelling and with some parallels, I feel, to the basic idea of (pan)semiotics. Of course, subsequently the logos became literally 'the Word', thence, 'the Bible', thence 'Religion', which kind of snuffed out the entire idea, or rather, kicked it into the long grass of mainstream theology.
I intelligo ... The excerpt you provided is strong evidence of real philosophers doing real philosophy and I see now what you meant when you called me out for trivializing deep ideas. Mea culpa!
The logos is an aspect of find-an-arche mindset, but notice fire, water, earth, air are physical contrariwise.
???????? (Ehyeh).
Amen! :pray:
Schopenhauer's The Will?
???
A broken link perhaps.
I think, lurking behind the search for the origin of being, there are states of realisation wherein the sage or seer attains direct insight into the 'principle of unity', which then he (it's usually 'he') tries to articulate in language, with various degrees of success. But in it, 'seeing' and 'being' are united in some fundamental way, which is beyond the comprehension of the hoi polloi (that's us). Our modern conception of knowledge embodies certain assumptions which likewise constitute a certain 'stance' or 'way of being', which, it can be argued, estranges us from the possibility of realisation of those unitive states of being which are preserved in those texts from the 'axial age'.
:up: Apologies,
I sympathize with your views - I read you as someone with a highly-developed spiritual side. Myself, I'm drawn to it, very mothishly, and I'm afraid I'm KIA, a long time ago. Sic vita est.
Back to topic now ... I'm a bit confused as to why you would question the physicality of the 4 Greek elements? It seems so obvious. Anyway, as Daniel Dennett of whom you don't have a high opinion says "obvious", "self-evident" are red-flag words of sophistry.
Sandy Deny, indeed! Janis Joplin, Grateful Dead, Albion Band! But this is a philosophy forum, therefore String Band or Bob Dylan. A words thing.
Only that the meaning of 'physus' was interpreted very differently in ancient philosophy, but I don't have anything further to contribute along those lines, so don't worry about it.
10-4!
Augustine was navigating between two distinctly different cosmologies, the one developed by the Greeks and the one brought forward in Genesis. Much ink and blood has been spilt over the results of this collision. For the sake of discussion, let's work with Augustine's' version where they become one big happy family.
Augustine speaks of the Logos being with God before the acts of creation. That places it outside of the realm of the 'basic ingredient' you employed to speak of ????. So, the story speaks of a start before the start of us and the cosmos. The 'basic ingredient' is not a self-sufficient concept but is conditioned upon Time, as happens in a process of becoming as contrasted with some Being that does not change.
One can see a similar role of 'basic ingredients' in Daoist cosmology. The principle of Yin/Yang generates the 5 elements of earth, fire, water, metal, and wood. Due to our circumstances, we are ill situated to say what brought the Tao into being. As that wizened metaphysician Dirty Harry once said, a man needs to know their limitations.
Bur what is the word?
Gracias for the history lesson, assuming it's accurate. It's a classic case of religious vagueness/obfuscation - the meaning is heavily dependent on the reader's own interpretation. Hermeneutics hence, oui? The Greeks on the other hand, A[sup]+[/sup] for clarity and probably an F for correctness.
Furthermore, the logos gives me the impression of immateriality which adds one more hurdle to the problem of identifying an arche for the world.
Danke for reminding me of limitations. It's apropos to do so. We're in a dark place, oui?
I do not see my comment in your reply.
:chin:
You don't wrestle with anything I have said but comment upon it like observing cows while riding a train.
We're all different mon ami. I hope you understand.
Plato's Timaeus said:
The problem, of course, is where to begin.
For every natural beginning is there something that stands outside that beginning? Must the story begin: "In the beginning ..." or, perhaps more accurately translated, "To begin ..."? In this story the backstory is presumed to be beyond our reach. This beginning, and all others that begin with some agent that begins, begins at the end. It begins with the consequence of some cause, something without which things could not be or could not be as they are.
Timaeus introduces the divine craftsman he calls poet and father'' of all that comes to be. (28c [correction])
He does not attempt to demonstrate or prove or defend the existence of the craftsman. We are led to ask how Timaeus knows of him. The suspicion is that Timaeus is the craftsman, the poet and father, of the divine craftsman.
The story of the divine craftsman is one of the many likely stories (ton eikota mython) he tells:
His imprecision is seen here as well:
Why not be more precise? Isnt it imperative to be precise in matters of metaphysics and cosmogony?
We are human beings, capable of telling likely stories, but incapable of discerning the truth of such things. In line with the dialogues theme of what is best, Timaeus proposes it is best to accept likely stories and not search for what is beyond the limits of our understanding.
[quote=The Buddha]Whether world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same.[/quote]
As I see it, the Socratic philosophers accept the human condition. There are no Buddhas who transcend it.
I wouldn't know. Like Paine and you said, we need to know our limitations.
As for the arche, it seems beyond our event horizon.
So the question then is where do we begin, with what do we begin?
The first word in Genesis is traditionally translated "in the beginning" but many scholars today give alternative translations such as "to begin" or "when God began ...". The difference is between God creating the formless void and the formless void already being there when he began.
But of course Genesis 2 tells a different story. In Genesis 1 there nothing is separate and distinct until God begins to separate things. In Genesis 2 things are separate and distinct but static. The question is, which is primary stasis or motion? It has been suggested that both accounts are included because we cannot make sense of things based on just one or the other.
.
Si, there are many fine points we have to work out. It all has to hang together somehow. As an eternal novice in philosophy, I'm not in a position to add much to the discussion as to truths, but speculate I/we can. Too, it seems people have given up on monism except for Gnomon and his Enformationism. I myself subscribe, half-heartedly, to duotheism.
I suppose people have abandoned the find-the-arche project precisely because, as Paine and you pointed out, it's beyond our reach, shelved for the time being, case to be reopened as when we develop new capabilities or insights. My question though was about something else entirely - what is the point to saying air is the arche when it's just water in a different form/state?
Because they were not thought of as different states of the same thing.
The koine greek translation of the Gospel of John employs 'logos' which is an Attic /Ionian concept used by philosophers to denote 'rational account'. I suspect the gospel scribe meant, given the scriptural context, 'story' In the beginning was th(is) Story which is 'divinely revealed' rather than a 'm?thos' written by (fallen / saved) mortals.
Quoting Agent Smith
Perhap 'the arche' is our reason's horizon ...
Roger!
An interesting take on the issue. The logos = lumen naturale (of flesh, flawed) OR lumen fidei/lumen gratiae (divine, perfect). These two modes of knowing have been at odds with each other since time immemorial ( :smile: ). In a sense ... bereshit ... quod est bereshit?
What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy? As I understand it, it's not strictly speaking synonymous with 'universe'.
??? (Bereshit logos)
:chin:
:lol: Well, he's the only scientist I know who thinks philosophy is a legitimate field/discipline. Too bad you have a dim view of him. Have you seen [hide=some viewers may find this distrubing]Lawrence Krauss' comments on philosophy and philosophers?[/hide]
Krauss was furious at this review and apparently launched into a massive hissy fit at the NY Times. Never mind that David Albert is a professor of philosophy, and lectures and has published books on quantum physics and philosophy. I don't think the episode reflected well on Krauss.
The wisdom of the ancients simply turns a leaf and emerges in the now. Nice commentary, though the NYT paywall is annoying.
Quoting Agent Smith
:up:
David Albert's just jealous that Lawrence Krauss thought of the idea first. Happens to all of us. :smile:
The ordered whole.
In my Great Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language, the main definition of the word "cosmos" (??????, kosmos) is simply "order". The secondary definitions also refer to "order" (but also to "beautiful"). So, this is the only "precise meaning of 'cosmos'", as a word in ancient Greek language. I don't think that there is such an exact meaning in philosophy, however. The first philosopher to refer to "cosmos" --not to the term itself but to the subject-- was Anaximander, who tried to explain the origin of the universe. It is said that Pythagoras, not much later, was the first to use the term "kosmos" to refer to the universe itself. And not much later, Anaxagoras introduced the concept of "cosmic mind". And so on.
So, I believe this is as far as the "precision" of the word "cosmos" can go in Greek philosophy. :smile:
Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings, under IV:
Given the context of the discussion, my statement about cosmogony from Timaeus, I took it that this is what Wayfarer was referring to. But yes, more generally it means order.
Interesting! Greek is such a beautiful language. We can learn a lot from your lexicon because of the origin of many words that complement our vocabulary, but I guess that's could be a subject of other thread: Specifically, philosophy of language!
I did a research in the R.A.E (Real Academia de la Lengua Española/ Real Academy of Spanish language), and it says about cosmos: [i]From lat. cosmos 'universe', and this from Geerk ?????? kósmos 'universe' and 'ornament'
1. Universe
2. Space outside the Earth
3. Plant of the family of compounds that comes from Mexico and has spread as cultivated in many varieties. [/i]
LMAO the third meaning of the word! :rofl:
Interesting too! Thanks for sharing the equivalence of English-Greek lexicon :up:
Right. Accordingly, I suggest that current culture does not have a cosmology as such.
Elaborate please.
Yes, this is the dictionary I was talking about :up:
I have the monolingual version (Greek). But the term "kosmos" contains no reference about or hint about a "whole". It mainly means simply "order", which has different applications (e.g. for goverrnment.) (Some secondary meanings of the word are used as derivations. E.g. the verb "kosmein" means "decorate". And the adjective "kosmios" means "well-behaved, decent"[s][/s].)
Anaximander expanded the application of the word "order", as he talked about the "cosmic order", which most probably was evolved into the concept of term "universe", the corresp. of the Greek "sympan", a word that did not exist yet at that time.
True. The "magic" of the ancient Greek language was --and still is!-- that the words themselves most often contain their meaning. This can be easily seen by examoning their etymology. (The Modern Greek has lost this magic of course.)
Quoting javi2541997
This interpretation does not only convey misinformation but it is totally stupid ... "cosmos" coming from Latin "universe"! This is a real pearl! Moreover, as I just mentioned to @AgentSmith, the word "universe" did not exist at that time. How could "kosmos" mean "universe"?
Godssake. What do these guys smoke?
Quoting javi2541997
This is quite laughable, indeed.
Xenophanes used the language of wholes and preceded Parmenides in speaking of the One:
I think the use of Kosmos in relation to ornament and decorum plays a part in how a Logos of Kosmos came to be discussed. There is this from Heraclitus:
I read a little more about "kosmos" to see why Pythagoras used that word and what it meant to him. According to his biographer Iamblichus, "Pythagoras was the first to name the area of all the cosmos, from the order in it." (Translation)
Also, in the same article, from the Greek Wikipedia (https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82), we read:
"The World, which according to Anaxagoras was put in order and decorated by Mind [Nous] is so wonderful that he clearly states that any sufferings of mortal life are nullified before the privilege of being able to 'consider the sky and the surrounding the whole world in order'" (Translation)
The connection of the concepts of "whole world" and "universe" with "order" --via the Greek word "kosmos"-- is clearly explained here.
***
On a second plane, but outside the current topic, we see a very interesting connection of the Universe with Mind [Nous], in fact a suggestion that the Universe was created by the Mind. This of course relates to "In the beginning was the Word" in the Book of Genesis, which is so much debated and misinterpreted in the English language, since the original word "?????" ("Logos") at the place of "Word", besides "speech", it also meant mind (nous) and reason (hence logic) and, by extention "pneuma" (spirit). Of course, the idea that the universe was created by Mind cannot be easily grasped and it is open to different interpretations, but the idea that the universe was created by "speech", well, I personally cannot grasp it at all!
Interesting information and yes, it seems that Greek lexicon is more effective for describing kosmos as "order". To be honest, we only use such word in poetical expressions. We tend to use "universe" with more intensity whenever we want to refer to "order", so I looked into RAE again and it says about universe (translated by me :lol: )
Universe: [i]From lat. universus.
1. adj. universal.
2. world (set of everything that exists)
3. Set of individuals or elements in which one or more characteristics are considered to be submitted to statistical study.[/i]
Then, I searched about "universal" and it says: [i]From latin univers?lis, and this formed on the Greek ????????? katholikós.
That comprises or is common to all in its kind, without exception of none. That comprises everything in the species of which it is spoken.[/i]
It seems that my language opts to understand universe and cosmos as "whole world" etc...
I think this interpretation is correct. The Greek word for "universe" is "??????" (sympan), which comes from the preposition"???" (= with, together) and the name "???" (= all, everything), i.e. "everything together".
And as you see, it doesn't mean just everything, but everything together, which makes a whole. And a whole is different than (all) its parts.
BTW, go back to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/780871 because I have added something quite interesting during the time you composed your post.
:up:
It looks like "arche" is indeed very important in philosophy. But only in a general sense,. E.g. for me, it isn't.
And of course I undestand why you brought up Siddhartha Gaudtama. who was against speculations and abstract ideas in general. Yes, hats to him!
(BTW, I like that you are addressing to him by his name, as a person, and not as "Buddha", which is too general, or even as "The Buddha", which kind of deifies him.)
Why do you say all this about Siddhy? :smile:
:lol:
Please pardon my sulk of yesterday.
What I was trying to say about the use of a beginning in John is that it is different from how arche is used in the narratives about the primary elements. The latter attempts to see the order that brings about the changes we observe. The primacy of one or the other is presented against the backdrop of cycles that continue from the past and will continue in the future. In Heraclitus, for example:
Heraclitus is interesting for actively cancelling a creation story where arche is understood as the beginning:
No problemo! It's interesting how chronos is the X factor.
It is also worth noting that what John says about the beginning is not what the story it alludes to says.
It is a case of arguing on the basis of authority and then changing what the authority said afterwards.
If he was not a saint it would seem sneaky.
?
Very Hindu of John.
Perhaps that element played a part in those early churches; We will never know.
But it does not reflect the expectation that the world was going to change because of their arrival upon the scene. Being a Christian is a job.
I see. Is it disappointment I detect or is it elation? Perhaps that's irrelevant to a non-Christian or, contrariwise, even more so to one.
What's important though, in me humble opinion, is what's implied by ?. Agree/disagree/don't give a damn?
Il est facile de voir que ... we're not in a position to answer that question. As Paine so eloquently put it, some things ... we'll never know.
I have many conflicting thoughts and feelings regarding these matters. Perhaps I should stay within an area of agreement we have reached when you said, "chronos is the X factor." John placed a significance in a moment in time that would be utter nonsense to Heraclitus.
Quoting Agent Smith
Whatever is implied, the meditation gives voice to a desire. Something like that is happening in this prayer:
Asking as a form of receiving some portion of the request.
If so, then why assume ? implies anything at all?
Good question. It's the only thing we got?!
Far from it, mi amigo. We temporarily have everything else too.
:ok:
I prefer the real.
Me too, but I can't imagine a person, living or dead, who doesn't have at least one unreal element in his/her weltanschauung. I e.g. have an unstable notion of God in my worldview. What about you?
I don't think that arche is an active principle in John 1. He says explicitly that the Logos was God. Note also that in the beginning God/Logos already was.
Of course. My hermeneutic preference is to first try and understand what an author is saying. In line with this to try and figure out what he is denying.
This dispute can be seen by comparing what he says with Heraclitus:
With talk of Logos what John says would have sounded familiar to an educated Greek or Roman, and perhaps to others as well.
With "in the beginning" what John says would have sounded familiar to a Jewish audience.
The key difference is a creator God who stands apart from His creation.
If John was aware of this difference he presents a brilliant rhetorical piece of writing. The word of God as opposed to the Word shifts the voice of authority.
I intelligo mon ami! I applaud your no-nonsense approach to life. It is for people like yourself, mon ami, that I'm, unfortunately, a reluctant (a)theist.
The connection to what? To Heraclitus? To your reluctant theism?
Si.
This is a translation of the Greek "?? ???? ?? ? ????? ??? ???? ?? ? ?????" (transliterated as "En archi in o logos kai Theos in o logos"), with which John managed to perplex everyone, including St. Augustine. As the ancient Greek priestess Pythia did with her oracular statements! :smile:
Augustine, talking about the Trinity, "not just in his theological writings, but frequently in his homilies, encouraging his audience to plumb the depths of this mystery even though they cannot fully understand it: 'It says and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1). We are talking about God; so why be surprised if you cannot grasp it? I mean, if you can grasp it, it isnt God.'" (https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2020/4/15/john-113-with-st-augustine).
Now, here's what I have to say about this big "riddle":
First of all, the word "logos" has been wrongly translated as "word", which does does not make any sense as Arche. So the English translation makes John's "riddle" even more difficult to solve!
In Greek, the word logos had --and still has-- different meanings: speech, logic, analogy, reason, to mention a few. The word "word" (a literal translation of the word "lexis" in Greek) is not even among them. But even if we take the word "speech" as the closest one to it, it makes no sense that everything was created by speech, does it? There are other meanings that are much more pertinent, the first of which being "logic", which has the same root with "logos" and it is also close to "reason".
As for the word "Om" that you have brought up as a parallel, the prime symbol of Hinduism, is has also different meanings and has been interpreted in various ways, but mainly to denote the essence of the supreme Being or God, the Absolute, consciousness, Atman, Brahman or the cosmic world.
So, Hinduism at least refers to ? as a symbol, not a word (although it is spoken as part of chants or songs).
I don't know of anyone referring to John's "Word" as a symbol of some kind. That at least would make more sense. But no, it is left "hanglng on the air".
At least, Augustine admitted he can't solve the riddle and (cunningly) stated: "If you can grasp it, it isnt God"! (It reminds of "God Works in Mysterious Ways", doesn't it? :smile:)
I have to say that's how some of us would interpret the story. The true meaning was probably lost in translation. This happens quite often I'm told. Still, arche, ex mea sententia, seems relevant ... somehow.
The alpha of the beginning is tied to the omega of the risen Christ. John says the only way to salvation is through the Son. The First Word becomes the Last.
It is difficult to imagine a country further from the domicile of Heraclitus who says:
Good point.
Unlike Christian eschatology where there is a beginning and end it time, for Heraclitus time does not play a significant role. The arche is not a point in time, it is not the beginning but, rather a cause or principle without beginning or end.
For John time is not the cause of what happens in time, God is.
I hope Heraclitus does not find this out. That would make the Oedipus story look like an ice cream headache.
Anyway, what I'm worried about is that we could be mistaken as to what the word "logos" means. Perhaps it doesn't have a meaning and is more like ... a reminder, a knot in the handkerchief.
The New Advent Encyclopedia entry is a starting point.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm
Quoting 180 Proof
Yep, that's what I suspected, although in a much plainer and simpler way than the great Wittgenstein thought
That means we're all being taken to watch the same movie, but we each return home with very different ideas of what the movie is about. @Gnomon, sound familiar? Happens all the time in me tiny world.
No need to remember it. It is right there in the quote:
That may be, but "meaning is use" means we must attend to how the word is being used. The etymology is helpful. The root 'leg -' means to collect or gather. When Heraclitus says:
this may be hard to understand, he is, after all, saying it. But if we think in terms of the root, he has gathered together in one place what he has heard from the logos itself. He is not speaking but allowing the logos to be heard.
If by "the Greeks" you mean philosophical thinkers, the necessity for knowing the "arche" is inherent in the frame of reference. Typically, most people, are proximate thinkers, restricting their observations to what's directly in front of them. But philosophers seem to be, by nature, ultimate thinkers. They see, with physical eyes, the proximate reality, but then look up and seek, with metaphysical vision, the beginnings & endings of the presumed continuum of reality. Generally, they do it by extrapolation (inference) from the known to the unknown. Hence, if they notice that nature has produced the inborn talent for rational thinking in humans, they presume that the ability to "seek" logical patterns must have originated in the eternal Essence of Reality.
Therefore, having no notion of a Big Bang beginning (something from nothing) they reasoned that a logical principle must have existed eternally, beyond space & time. Ordinary concrete-thinking Greeks referred to that immortal Source of human-like reasoning*1 as "God" or "gods". But, the abstract-thinking philosophers preferred a pure Source beyond the reach of human deception. And they labelled that hypothetical ultimate origin as "Principle"*2. Those un-real imaginary concepts were idealized as straightforward and non-devious, hence trustworthy.
Likewise, Pythagoras seemed to imagine all eternal principles as Mathematical abstractions of real-world geometry, with crystalline purity. Mathematics (art ; information) was understood as the underlying immaterial cause & structure of reality. But some of his concrete-thinking followers began to worship those mysterious mystical non-things as-if they were humanoid gods. So, it seems that most people prefer to think of their Arche in familiar personal real forms, instead of alien impersonal ideals. Which view is correct may depend on the pre-conceptions of the thinkers. :smile:
*1. Reasoning :
Inference from sensory knowledge (percepts) to extra-sensory (imaginary) knowledge (concepts).
Note -- Since most animals seemed to lack such extra-sensory perception, the average person assumed that it was a magical ability. Hence, from a divine source. But, philosophical thinkers tended to be skeptical of shamanic trickery. So, they offered the abstract notion of natural-but-non-human Ultimate or Eternal Principles.
*2. Principle :
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
I guess this explains why you are disengaged from the various attempts made in this discussion to distinguish between different possible meanings. But I don't understand what you mean by likening it to a "reminder."
I feel like I am standing at the boundary of a private language.
I don't have a private language, if that's what you're implying. It's a reminder in the sense of what's essential to philosophy.
So, more of a silence? Talking about logos won't help?
Perhaps ... what is philosophy?
I was asking you that since you seemed to suggest the discussion was missing the mark.
I may have misspoken mon ami. Anyway, I'm going with what you hadta say about the arche.
I think the Author of John's gospel was trying to rationalize the death of the Christian Messiah/King before his mission was accomplished. So, he argued that the messianic prophecies referred to an eternal spirit being instead of a temporal physical person. In other words, an abstract principle, not a flesh & blood human leader, as the Jews assumed. Hence, today a leather-bound book can be called "The Word" of God.
The original Greek term referred not to a messianic personal savior, but to a universal timeless Potential for rational thinking (expressed in words), that was Actualized in homo sapiens. Hence, John deliberately changed the referent to suit his own rationale for the death of the son of God : the god-man may have died physically, but the revelation (message) is immortal.
Heraclitus -- who died 3 centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus -- obviously was not an actual Christian. But his philosophical notion of an eternal principle of Logic was Christianized by a Greco-Jew, probably under the influence of Paul's spiritualized Judaism. Ironically, John's appropriated "Word" is now better-known than Heraclitus' original "Logos". My 2cents worth. :smile:
Logos :
What is the definition of logos? The Lexham Bible Dictionary defines logos (?????) as a concept word in the Bible symbolic of the nature and function of Jesus Christ. It is also used to refer to the revelation of God in the world. Logos is a noun that occurs 330 times in the Greek New Testament. Of course, the word doesnt alwaysin fact, it usually doesntcarry symbolic meaning. Its most basic and common meaning is simply word, speech, utterance, or message.
https://www.logos.com/grow/greek-word-logos-meaning/
The annointing of some of the Greek philosophers as 'Christians before Christ' was partially a recognition of Greek wisdom, and also a way of trying to harmonise Greek philosophy with Biblical revelation. This was a process of synthesis that took place over centuries or even millenia. But there were always deep tensions in that project, as foreshadowed by the Biblical exclamation, what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? and Jesus' wisdom as representing foolishness to the Greeks'. There nevertheless was a profound synthesis of the two in the early medieval period notably Eriugena and the mysterious 'pseudo-Dionysius'. But the tensions became truly manifest with Luther, I think, who excorciated Aristotle's influence on Aquinas.
Also don't overlook the ubiquitous presence of the word 'logos' in all of the disciplines with the suffix '-logy' (psychology, ecology, etc.)
Also interesting analysis of how Aquinas reconciled 'creation ex nihilo' with the Greek 'nothing comes from nothing' http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html
:up:
---
The logos has been hijacked by Christianity in which it's equated with Jesus; this proves how important the idea is, but unfortunately, not how true it is.
Most world religions are motivated by faith in a cultural worldview, and/or by obeisance to a politico-religious regime. Yet Christianity was unique in its adoption of critical Reason, in addition to compliant Faith : both mindless repetitious "works" (sacrifices ; rituals), and critical "faith" (justification of faith)*1.
The Jews of Jesus' era, with no central temple, had become characterized by argumentative critical faith, due in part to its decentralized local synagogues, and in part to the imperial influence of the analytical Greek culture. Early Christians merely built upon that foundation, even as they rejected the "primitive" origins of Hebraism/Judaism in idolatry.
So, yes. I think they were impressed by the superior "wisdom" of the Greco/Roman culture, that allowed it to dominate the known world militarily and culturally. Yet those who did not wish to "harmonize" with "barbarian" gentiles remained isolated as non-conforming Jews. And that "arrogant" independence has caused them to be persecuted outcasts, even among those who claimed to worship the God of Abraham. :smile:
*1. The fundamentalist religion of my youth was a "critical faith". We learned to defend our Faith with reasons, and to be skeptical of other people's Faith, that did not conform to our rationale. Ironically, I turned that outward skepticism inwardly toward my own bible-based-beliefs. The faithless result was a philosophical Agnostic.
Well, I know you're gone but your spirit lives on....I think of Spinoza and Leibniz's usage of "the divine mind" or the "the divine intellect." That's the only legitimate sense in which we can seek to conceive of the possibility of God. Maybe you will apprehend this somehow still, in your nebulous anonymity...
In its most basic conclusion, one can argue that the concept of "Arche" is the basis from which fire, water, earth and air, which were so prevalent in ancient Greek conceptions, become substances - that is, they become unto existence -.
"Arche", as a metaphysical idea, is, therefore the "Arche".