Back To CourseHistory 101: Western Civilization I
16 chapters | 173 lessons | 8 flashcard sets
As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 75,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.Try it risk-free
Look out the window at the world around you. What do you see? Whether you said the curtains, a dog, trees or the sun, what you're talking about is matter. Now look harder at those things you saw. What are those things doing? The curtain billows in the breeze. The dog scratches itself. The trees grow. The sun shines as it moves across the sky. All this moving, growing, billowing and scratching are examples of change. As you reflect on what you see, you might wonder 'What is matter?' and 'What are all these things made of?' You might also wonder 'What causes these changes?'
If you were an ancient person, you would look to religion to answer these questions. The sun is the god Helios, driving his fiery chariot across the sky. As a modern person, you know that this answer is wrong. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor, floating in the void of space. It only appears to move across the sky because the earth is spinning beneath it.
So, what differentiates our modern understanding of the sun from the ancient one? The ancient perspective looks to religion for explanations. Religious explanations tend to be rather inflexible things, so people end up believing ridiculous things for centuries, like the sun is a fiery chariot or a dung beetle pushing a giant flaming turd across the sky. Despite the fact that no one has seen any horses or beetles (at least, not sober).
By contrast, we look for our explanations in nature, in forces we can perceive and understand. Though none of us has ever been to the sun, we can observe similar phenomena here on earth. After observation, we can come up with general rules about nature. We can then apply what we learned about nature on earth to make conjectures about the sun. Moreover, we're not married to any specific theory. 'The sun is fire' is not a law or a dogma; it's just an idea. And because it's just an idea, we can identify problems with it:
Because we subject our theories to critical analysis, false explanations can be refuted. And as we take in new observations, we can come up with new theories to overcome these problems, making refinements along the way. In short, by observing nature, we can understand how it works. We can explain the universe, not by reference to the divine, but by reference to the mundane experiences and observations that make up our lives. Today we call this process science. In ancient Greece, they called it philosophy. The word 'philosophy' is composed of the Greek word philos, meaning 'love of,' and sophia, meaning 'wisdom.' Philosophy is literally the 'love of wisdom.'
When we think of Greek philosophy, our minds leap immediately to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Yet Greeks had been engaging in philosophy for nearly 200 years before Socrates was born. These philosophers are known today as the Presocratics. Presocratic philosophers attempted to tackle the same questions we began this lecture with: 'What is the universe made of?' and 'Why do things change?' These questions seem to have begun as a matter of linguistics rather than science.
The heart of the problem was the word esti, the Greek word for 'to be.' If the sun is gas, then the sun is not a man in a chariot. If the sun is here, then the sun is not there. These may seem like perfectly logical statements to us, but logic had not yet been invented when the first philosophers began writing in 600 BCE. What upset the Presocratics was not so much whether the sun was a gas or a man in a chariot; no, what worried the Presocratic philosophers was that the sun both is and is not. It seemed wrong to the Presocratics for the sun, or anything else, to not be. Everything must be something at all times, no matter what changes we might see.
For Thales' student, Anaximander (610-546 BCE), the constant could not be something with set characteristics, like water. Instead, he argued that the universe was made up of some stuff without any characteristics at all and that matter gains its characteristics (hot and cold, hard and soft, wet and dry) from being separated from this undefinable whole.
Anaximander's student, Anaximenes (585-528 BCE), decided that this stuff without qualities was air. The other basic elements, earth and water, were made by compressing air, while fire was made by spreading air out thinly.
We call these first three philosophers the Monists because they believed the universe to be made of just one material. They are also called the Milesian School because they all came from the city of Miletus.
Meanwhile, on the Island of Samos, Pythagoras (582-496 BCE) proposed a very different constant for the universe: numbers. We all remember Pythagoras for his famous theorem, a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but Pythagoras was not trying to help you calculate the sides of a right triangle when he came up with this theorem. He was trying to explain a basic constant in the universe. He would demonstrate this constant like this:
Pythagoras would have a person draw a right triangle. He would then use tiles to make a square on each side. (This is where we get the word 'squared.') He'd then have people count the number of tiles on each side, and lo and behold, the number of tiles on the hypotenuse always equaled the sum of the tiles from the other two sides. Pythagoras had realized through doing this over and over and over again that no matter the size or shape of the right triangle, the number of tiles in the squares of the sides always equaled the number of squares on the hypotenuse. While the many triangles we perceive might seem different, they all follow the same constant rule.
This was not the only constant Pythagoras discovered. Pythagoras was also the first to explain the mathematical ratios of music. No matter how long a string is, another string, one-sixth its length, would produce a chord. Realizing that these sorts of ratios pop up everywhere, Pythagoras supposed that numbers and ratios were the main constants of the universe.
Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BCE) had a very different idea. For Heraclitus, the only constant was change. He believed the opposing forces of the universe were constantly trying to tear the world apart. These opposites were only held together by natural law, or logos. He compared this to the two ends of a bow pulling away from each other. This pulling is meaningless on its own. Left to their own devices, the two opposing ends will just make a worthless stick. Yet held together by the string of natural law, they make a powerful, dynamic tool. Like Pythagoras, Heraclitus had decided that the constants of the universe were not in matter itself, but rather in how matter behaves. From him, we received the adage 'All things change, so that all things may remain the same.' His ideas would later be revived in chaos theory.
Directly opposed to Heraclitus was Parmenides of Elea (510-440 BCE). Parmenides was so hung up on the is/is not problem that he denied all change or difference in the universe. His work is some of the most difficult to understand, but basically, he postulated that the entire universe was one giant sphere of unidentifiable stuff. In this, he copied Anaximenes in thinking that to have the characteristics of everything, the main stuff of the universe had to have no characteristics of its own. Yet Parmenides went further by denying that this stuff ever broke up to form other things. For him, the universe just is. It never was not. It always will be. To suggest that an apple is different from an orange is to say that the apple is not an orange, and this is not acceptable. He also insists that things cannot move. To say that the apple falls from a tree is to say that the apple is not on the tree any longer. Of course, to believe in Parmenides' account, one must ignore all the evidence of one's senses. This might not seem very scientific, but it is certainly philosophical. Parmenides' philosophy would have lasting implications on future philosophy, by placing ideas on a higher order than observation.
Another resident of Elea, Zeno (490-430 BCE), attempted to demonstrate Parmenides' theory with a series of paradoxes. In these paradoxes, Zeno tried to prove that things like change and motion were impossible. A single example should suffice:
Imagine you fire an arrow from a bow to a target. Between the bow and the target are a series of halfway points. Halfway from the bow to the target is point A, halfway from point A to the target is point B, halfway from point B to the target is point C and so on. Zeno's point is that there is an infinite number of halfway points between the bow and the target. Though the arrow will always get closer to the target, it can never reach it. It will always be halfway from where it was to where it was going. This idea flies in the face of normal observation, suggesting that we cannot trust our senses to see the truth. Zeno's paradoxes would later pave the way for Einstein's theory of relativity. Parmenides' account and Zeno's paradoxes would later inspire Plato's notion of Ideal Forms, which are likewise unchanging, eternal and often hidden from our senses.
Just two more philosophical schools require our attention: the Pluralists and the Atomists. These two schools of thought bear some remarkable similarities to modern scientific theory.
The Pluralists, Empedocles (490-430 BCE) and Anaxagoras (500-428 BCE), took ideas from their predecessors and mixed them into a single coherent system. Like the Milesians, the Pluralists insisted that matter had to be eternal and unchanging. Unlike the Milesians, they had no problem with there being more than one sort of matter. Empedocles believed that there were four sorts of matter: earth, air, fire, and water. Combinations of these basic elements resulted in the wide variety we see. Anaxagoras held that there was an infinite variety of basic materials to work with. Flesh is made out of flesh particles, eyes are made out of eye particles, thought made out of thought particles and so on. Empedocles believed that these pieces flopped around, forming different shapes at random until they found arrangements that made the animals, plants and materials we know today. This makes him the earliest precursor of the theory of evolution.
Like Heraclitus and Pythagoras, the Pluralists also believed in a force outside of matter that made matter behave as it should. Yet, Empedocles and Anaxagoras disagreed on the number and nature of this force. Anaxagoras agreed with Heraclitus that a single natural force held the disparate forces of the universe together, though he called this force nous, or 'mind,' instead of logos. Empedocles, by contrast, thought there were two forces, love and strife, that governed the universe. Love brought disparate elements together, while strife tore them apart. These two forces ran in cycles. Love brings all the matter of the universe into a mixed up singularity (like Parmenides' sphere of everything), then strife spreads it out across the universe until love drags it back in again. With this, Empedocles made the first philosophical description of a cyclical universe. Replace love with gravity and strife with energy, and you've got our modern big bang theory.
Finally, we come to the Atomists. Today, we understand atoms as the basic building blocks of the world. We tend to think of this as a modern discovery. But the existence of atoms was first suggested 2,500 years ago in the fifth century BCE by a philosopher named Leucippus. We know almost nothing of Leucippus, but the works of his student Democritus (460-370 BCE) have survived in fragments.
Democritus seems to have been the first universal philosopher. His works included writings on physics, mathematics, literature, history, anthropology, causation and religion. Yet since none of these books survived, his overall impact on philosophy is unknown. We know Plato hated him, and Aristotle respected him, which means that both were familiar with his ideas. But we know not much else. Democritus' greatest achievements from a scientific perspective are the theory of void and the theory of atomism.
Unlike all his predecessors, Democritus had no problem with is not. In fact, he insisted that at least some of the volume of the universe must not be; that is, it must be empty. Otherwise, nothing would be able to move at all, since everything would be pressing against something else. He called this empty space the void. We call it a vacuum. With the help of technology, we discovered that vacuums exist out in space and even within atoms. We can create a vacuum in a lab. Heck, you've probably got a vacuum in your closet. Democritus had none of this helpful technology. What is remarkable is that Democritus, without any means of observing a vacuum, came up with the notion of the void through reason and imagination alone.
But he did not stop there. Democritus suggested that the universe is an infinite void. Within this void are tiny, indivisible units called atoms. These atoms come in a variety of shapes. Some shapes complement each other, fitting together to make a particular substance: Water atoms mix with grape atoms and spirit atoms to make wine. Other shapes are opposed and cannot fit together in any arrangement. Water atoms and oil atoms cannot fit together and will always separate. These shapes also give larger materials their qualities. Things taste sour because they are made up of sharp atoms that cut the tongue. Things are heavy because their atoms are smushed tightly together. Things are light because their atoms are spread out and only loosely connected. It is mind boggling to imagine that someone, without the aid of electron microscopes and advanced mathematics, could possibly have simply thought his way to atomic theory. Yet, it seems Democritus did just that.
Like all the Presocratics, a lot of what Democritus postulated was wrong. Democritus thought that atoms were indivisible. Today, we know that atoms can indeed be divided (you just don't want to be nearby when it happens) just like we know that everything is not made of water and that it is not love but gravity that holds the universe together. Yet, the Presocratics made the first step toward scientific knowledge. They postulated theories for how the universe worked based not on gods and myth but on observation and reason.
To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member.
Create your account
Already a member? Log InBack
Did you know… We have over 160 college courses that prepare you to earn credit by exam that is accepted by over 1,500 colleges and universities. You can test out of the first two years of college and save thousands off your degree. Anyone can earn credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level.
To learn more, visit our Earning Credit Page
Not sure what college you want to attend yet? Study.com has thousands of articles about every imaginable degree, area of study and career path that can help you find the school that's right for you.
Back To CourseHistory 101: Western Civilization I
16 chapters | 173 lessons | 8 flashcard sets