אֶהְיֶה‎ (’Ehyeh). — 180 Proof

Amen! :pray:

Schopenhauer's The Will?

Schopenhauer's The Will? — Agent Smith

???

A broken link perhaps.

But are they? The modern idea of what constitutes 'the physical' is vastly different to the ideas of the ancients. The 'four elements' are a universal in ancient cultures, found just as much in Indian as in Greek philosophy (and I'd wager Persian, Chinese and Egyptian, although I don't know. Buddhists added 'space'. )

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'.

You've lost me again.

You've lost me again. — 180 Proof

:up: Apologies,

But are they? The modern idea of what constitutes 'the physical' is vastly different to the ideas of the ancients. The 'four elements' are a universal in ancient cultures, found just as much in Indian as in Greek philosophy (and I'd wager Persian, Chinese and Egyptian, although I don't know. Buddhists added 'space'. )

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'. — Wayfarer

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.

I'm puzzled by your preference for the Incredible String Band, when there were others who could sing...

Fairport - Sandy Deny! — Banno

Sandy Deny, indeed! Janis Joplin, Grateful Dead, Albion Band! But this is a philosophy forum, therefore String Band or Bob Dylan. A words thing.

I'm a bit confused as to why you would question the physicality of the 4 Greek elements? It seems so obvious. — Agent Smith

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.

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. — Wayfarer

10-4!

A word in the sense of a word in a language or something else? — Agent Smith

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 ἀρχή. 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⁺ 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?

Gracias for the history lesson, assuming it's accurate. — Agent Smith

I do not see my comment in your reply.

I do not see my comment in your reply. — Paine

:chin:

You don't wrestle with anything I have said but comment upon it like observing cows while riding a train.

You don't wrestle with anything I have said but comment upon it like observing cows while riding a train. — Paine

We're all different mon ami. I hope you understand.

Plato's Timaeus said:

With regard to everything it is most important to begin at the natural beginning. (29b)

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:

So then, Socrates, if, in saying many things on many topics concerning gods and the birth of the all, we prove to be incapable of rendering speeches that are always and in all respects in agreement with themselves and drawn with precision, don’t be surprised. But if we provide likelihoods inferior to none, we should be well-pleased with them, remembering that I who speak as well as you my judges have a human nature, so that it’s fitting for us to be receptive to the likely story about these things and not search further for anything beyond it. (29c-d).

His imprecision is seen here as well:

As for all the heaven (or cosmos, or whatever else it might be most receptive to being called, let us call it that) … (28b).

Why not be more precise? Isn’t 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.

Spoken like one who read the following.

Whether world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — The Buddha

As I see it, the Socratic philosophers accept the human condition. There are no Buddhas who transcend it.

As I see it, the Socratic philosophers accept the human condition. There are no Buddhas who transcend it. — Fooloso4

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.

As for the arche, it seems beyond our event horizon. — Agent Smith

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?

what is the point to saying air is the arche when it's just water in a different form/state? — Agent Smith

Because they were not thought of as different states of the same thing.

Bur what is the word? — Agent Smith

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 'mȳthos' written by (fallen / saved) mortals.

As for the arche, it seems beyond our event horizon. — Agent Smith

Perhap 'the arche' is our – reason's – horizon ...

Because they were not thought of as different states of the same thing — Fooloso4

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?

(My) arche :point: :fire:

:up: Resonates with what I said. In English, in the beginning the question "what was in the beginning (logos)?" In more abstract terms this :point: ? is the arche. The question mark (?) stands for our ignorance and our need for sense.

Isn’t it imperative to be precise in matters of metaphysics and cosmogony? — Fooloso4

What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy? As I understand it, it's not strictly speaking synonymous with 'universe'.

The Big Bang is not so much the beginning of the universe as it is an end of our understanding. — Sean Carroll (physicist)

??? (Bereshit logos)

:chin:

I know I'm not qualified to judge, but I suspect Sean Carroll, nice guy that he might be, is basically pretty crap at philosophy.