SECTION TITLE: Week Three

PAGE ONE: Xenophanes (DK21) “The rebel thinker of Ionia”-Paul Hopper

Xenophanese is Ionian from Colophon

More B roll from Xeno than any philosopher thus far (38 fragments).

Best known for his theological theory –though he most likely didn‟t use the word
“theological”, it probably comes from Aristotle who says is best in DK21A30: “Xenophanes first
taught the unity of these things… but he did not make anything clear, nor did he seem to get at
the nature of these things [e.g. definition or nature of the unity], but looking up into the broad
heavens he said: the unity is god (Gr: to hen einai phēsi ton theon).” Remember that “theos” means
(a) “god” and “gonos” or “that which is begotten, an offspring” (from Cokers 1st lecture).

There seems to be some controversy over Xeno‟s legacy. Some sources say he (or rather his
pupil-which is also in question-Parminedes) began the Eleatic School. Apparently the physical
distance and time frame are what casts doubt on this the most. Coker has his own theory which
will be talked about in more depth later on. But support for his theory comes from DK21B23:
“God is one (eis theos hen), supreme (megistos=greatest of all) amongst gods and men, and not
like mortals in body or mind.” This b roll is brought to us by Clement of Alexandria, one of the
first Christian theologians.

The phrase eis theos hen (God is unity) comes up a lot in this lecture about Xeno. The debate-
Bill Clinton be excited-is over what the meaning of is… is. Apparently, is can be the is of
identity or the is of predication (to proclaim; declare; affirm; assert *Courtesy of
Dictionary.com*).

Another of Xenophanes‟ theological views is against anthropomorphism (from Gr. anthropos

meaning human and morphē meaning form). We know this from his statement above (God is…
not like mortals in body or mind). He-and later Clement uses his words in his own arguments-
argues against the idea that the god(s) are born or die and that they hold human form.

He also suggests moral fault in the writings of Hessiod and Homer; because they attributed
“disreputable, blameworthy, and lawless deeds” to the gods such as Zeus who committed
adultery often times with mortal women. Xeno claimed these actions were not befitting a god.
These views will be expanded later in the course by Plato and Heraclitus.

Bottom Line: These actions were all significant because Xeno was challenging the religious
and cultural mainstream-and not just now mainstream, Homer and Hessiod were what was
„fact‟ then, so his challenging them makes him a Complete outsider. Thereby earning him my
nickname… The rebel philosopher of Ionia.

PAGE TWO: Xenophanes‟ God

Xenophanes is a henotheist because of his views on god.

Henotheism is “one of the transitional stages from polytheism to monotheism… a situation in
which there are many gods but one God prevails as the king of the gods or God of the gods.”
This definition is from a website linked in Coker‟s lecture. There‟s a lot describing this, but
that‟s the main point.

SIDE NOTE: It also talks shortly in that paragraph-more on the website-about how the 1st
Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” does not deny the existence or
forbid the worshiping of other gods, but merely ensures Christianity‟s God is above all others.
Mainstream Christianity is certainly completely monotheistic but certain sects it seems allowed
for some degree of henotheism.

Xeno‟s „god‟ is decidedly anthropomorphic. But it is written: “The whole sees, the whole
perceives, the whole hears.” This might make you think god has eyes and ears. But apparently
not; his whole being does these things and this view is further backed up by a passage saying
god sets things in motion using his mind. It does use the word “he” which is undeniably
anthropomorphic. Not explained anymore by Coker. Many of these comments come from
Sextus Empiricus, a later skeptic we‟ll read about in the course.

Finally Xeno‟s god apparently stays in the same place and it‟s stated that it‟s not fitting for it to
move from one place to another anyways. This latter claim makes me think of the all spoken
about in earlier authors who inhabit everything and everywhere. But this isn‟t mentioned by
Coker.

PAGE THREE: Xeno‟s Cosmology and Ending

Here we don‟t have much information except DK21B33: “For we are all sprung from earth and
water” and also DK21B29: “All things that come into being and grow are earth and water.” This
cements the view; however, because Xeno‟s god has no beginning or end, he is not included in
this and we must assume “all things” means humans and everything else but god. Interestingly,
he used fossils to prove his theory that the earth was drying out (first known use of empirical
evidence to support a theory).

He‟s also arguably the first philosopher who explains some epistemological views (from the Gr.
epistēmē (knowledge) and logos (rational account, reason, theory). Some later authors and
thinkers believed Xenophanes to be a forerunner to the later skeptics (this term would certainly
be an anachronism). This is said to be true because of the of some A rolls by Galen a much later
writer.

In the end, Xenophanes “can be given credit for being the first rational theologian in
Western history.”

PAGE FOUR: Pythagoras of Samos (DK14) 570-480BCE

Legendary philosopher (aka, big whig) who‟s progeny still attributed their findings to him. So
issue #1 is wading through the info to figure out which ideas are his and which are from his
followers. A long opening paragraph made short says we‟re only studying Pythagoras and
early Pythagoreanism because his influence spans some 700 to 900 years of philosophical
thought.

When ascribing thoughts to Pythagoras, there are two positions: The minimalist way, led by
Walter Burkert et all, which believes he was more of a religious leader than anything else and
therefore not a great thinker in his own right. The maximalist position is led by no respectable
scholar but would be a belief that everything ascribed to him was indeed done so correctly.
Coker lies in the middle.

Now to his doctrine (I use the word doctrine because it is established and agreed upon that
Pythagoras was a religious leader. He taught reincarnation and founded a lifestyle with his
followers.

He taught-and the first Greek to do so-the immortality of the soul, metempsychosis

(wondering soul, transmigration) and reincarnation.

SIDE NOTE: There is no B roll left of Pythagoras. Only testimonia (A roll).

Herodotus (yes the famous one) wrote in DK14A1 that he agreed with the orator Isocrates
(DK14A4) that Pythagoras did not invent these principles-that was done in Egypt-but he did
learn of them there and bring them back. Alright, there‟s a lot of info on this, but here‟s the
skinny: The soul is immortal (athanatos) and resides in all living things, not only humans but
plants and animals as well. The soul also “transmigrates” and is reincarnated into all manner of
living things. To correlate this it‟s quoted (not said by whom), “all living things should be
regarded as akin (homogenē).”

NOTE: The idea that everything has a soul is not only Pythagoras‟, the earlier authors (Thales,
„der and „nes) all believed this as well.

He also taught that the soul (psychē) was buried in the body-as in a tomb (en samati;
sama=tomb). Two sources attest to this. The alternative position is the body is a prison (phroura)
is probably from Orphic.

Some-including Xenophanes-mock Pythagoras in a quote stating: “Stop beating him [a dog], for
it is the soul of a dear friend; I recognized him upon hearing his voice.” This was true because
Pythagoras extended the view of reincarnation by adding that he could recall past
incarnations.

PAGE FIVE: Pythagoras and his Pythagorean Legacy

He left Samos for Croton in Southern Italia where he helped found a community. He was
known there not only for his teachings but also in the meticulousness with which he purified
the sacred temples. He was sort of a role model and a rock star in one, it‟s quoted from Isocrates
that “all the young men wanted to become his disciples.” Plato also remarks that his followers
stood out from all others, even after his passing because of their way of life. Coker remarks it‟s
impressive that no evidence exists Pythagoreans were in any way immoral; especially because
in the beginning it was viewed critically as a cult, but still no bad words.
To be inducted to the Pythagorean community one had to show good moral character, listen
to the teachings and lectures of Pythagoras, and remain silent for 5 years. The community
began becoming influential in politics (quite so) but then began threatening the existing power
struggles. So in Croton a house was burned where they were meeting and all but 2 died in the
fire. Afterwards, they withdrew from politics.

Initiation into this community involved sacred rights (aporrētois legomenos). In the community
itself there were men called “acousmatics” (from the Greek akousmatikōn or English acoustic).
They never spoke but rather committed Pythagoras‟ teachings to heart and are considered the
wisest if they know more akousmata (sayings of Pythagoras) than the others. Their own rituals
and such are completely unknown. Acousmatics did not concern themselves with mathematics.
For much of that work is actually ascribed to Hippasus. Minimalists therefore do not ascribe the
mathematical accomplishments of Pythagoreans to Pythagoras; but Coker goes in some length
to explain how there are sources that dispute this.

Next is a long paragraph debating Pythagoras‟ mathematical and cosmological teachings and
whether they are his or not. Moral of the story is, the minimalists‟ lay the burden of proof on
others‟ heads when it should probably be the other way around. There is no specific written
evidence that Pythagoras did make mathematical theories, but there are many A rolls which
point towards it.

Coker claims Pythagoras was the founder of both acousmatic and mathematic schools of
Pythagorism.

One support for this claim is a statement about the soul made by Pythagoras.

((Okay, I got lazy and didn‟t finish Pythagoras, should have I know.))

PAGE SIX: Heraclitus (DK22)

In the beginning-well through his whole life-not much is known of Heraclitus the man. We
aren‟t even sure of his exact birth/death dates. His legacy is certainly not in question though.

139 pieces of B roll are left to us from Heraclitus. He is always spoken about as ho skoteinos (or
the obscure, the dark, the gloomy). Thus is the temperament of his writings; but it was said by
Aristotle that once you understood his book it shone like the radiance of the sun.

Logos – We all hear of this, but it does translate in Heraclitus‟ works as “Word,” “Account,”
“Speech,” or “Reason.” This is important for what follows:

In B1 & B2 of his writings, he begins by saying “all things come to pass in accordance with this
logos.”This points to more than Heraclitus saying that his philosophy lasts through the ages, but
more to an abstract „this is how things are‟ notion. He goes so far as to say in B50-discussed
much more later-that people should not come to him for wisdom (I‟m paraphrasing) but they
should „hearken‟ to his logos.
This claim of logos being always true is like an ontological statement. Meaning, about the very
being of how things are. It‟s a later philosophical term Coker says. In B1 he says the information
presented in his book is axynetoi-from the “a” meaning “not” and “synetos” meaning quick to
apprehend, understanding.” Going so far as to say when men hear it the first time they‟ll
understand it just as well as they did when never hearing it at all. High bar right? The notion is
tossed around by some that Heraclitus is somewhat oracular in his writings of this; but that
would mean a god-or perhaps as in this case logos itself-is speaking through him.

Reasoning for this is supposed that the understanding of the topic is idiosyncratic and therefore
different for everyone but still common to us all. When it‟s said the logos is common to us all,
how is it we don‟t pick up on it ourselves? Coker introduces a German word to explain this:
Überhören. Basically, Über=over and Hören=to hear. In English it would be something like
“auditory overlooking” but Coker calls this a “atrocious mixed metaphor.” The moral of this is,
we see and experience the logos Heraclitus is writing about but we don‟t pick up on it because
it‟s apparently “white noise” (my word). Two reasons are given for this überhören. One, men
have barbarous souls-aka not civilized (e.g. truly Greek). And two, even if men do have a truly
Greek soul they lack the “sense or understanding” (phrēn or noos; phrēn actually means „wit‟ as
in “Keeps your wits about you” and noos is the word for mind). Basically, even with a Greek
soul, most people follow the crowd and listen to people who don‟t know what they‟re saying
(both reasons are from B107).

NOTE: This is Heraclitus‟ first criticism of Homer and Hesiod, who still in his day were
considered the foundation of traditional wisdom.

PAGE SEVEN: Heraclitus on Greek Poets and … Everything else.

In B42, Heraclitus proposes that Homer and Archilochus [a famous poet on the same plane as
Homer] should be taken out and whipped. In B57 he remarks how Hesiod did not know night
from day stating “for they are one.” In another set (B129 & B81) he remarks Pythagoras only
learned-in the strict English use of the word-facts and did not have true understanding or
wisdom. But the piece de resistance is B40 where he says: “Much learning (polymathiē) does not
teach (didaskei) one to have understanding (noon); else it would have taught Hesiod, and
Pythagoras, and again Xenophanes, and Hekataios.”

When he critiques Xenophanes further, he extends it into Greek religious practices in general.
Specifically, he criticizes the practice of purifying, relating it to washing your hands in mud.
And the practice of praying to idols as if you could talk to the gods. Add the rites of mystery
cults to that list (Demeter and Dionysus‟ cults). B5, B128, B129, B14, B15, B68, & B69 all go this
way, some are mentioned here.

He doesn‟t condemn everything apparently. But remarks there is some merit in oracles.

SIDE NOTE: A final throw back to why people don‟t get the logos comes in B17. Basically stating
that people are doggedly stuck in their own opinions and as such cannot grasp what is real. One
interpretation says: “Most men do not think things in the way that they encounter them, nor do
they recognize what they experience, but believe their own opinions.”
PAGE EIGHT: Finding the Logos

I like this quote in the lecture from B18: “If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find
it; for it is hard to be sought out and difficult.” Closely related to this is Heraclitus‟ opinion on
finding wisdom (sophia). The synopsis of these clips is that “wisdom is the governing principle
and purpose of all things” (Coker‟s words).

He breaches the subject of what he thinks god(s) is/are like. Saying basically that wisdom is
how god thinks, unlike humans. B78: “The way of man has no wisdom, but that of god has.”
And B102: “…for god, all things are fair and good and just, but men suppose that some are
unjust and others just.”

Here we see that the gods live in a universe where the division between just and unjust does not
appear. To god all things are just because god lives in a universe ruled by logos and thus all
things are right and together, even opposites.

To Heraclitus, both logos and sophia were epistemological (theories of knowledge, aka needed
to understand thought). But these are only two of the fabrics Coker has set out to weave
together for us.

The next weave comes from unity. B8: “Opposition unites. From what draws apart results the
most beautiful harmony.” I like this quote and it‟s my synopsis of his next piece of the
Heraclitus thought puzzle. Unity as we think of it is not what he‟s talking about. Unity in his
mind involves the “reciprocal exchange, perhaps an oscillation, between opposites” (Coker‟s
words).

To skip forward, he next discusses harmony. When he does so, he not only discussed it but also
demonstrates it in his sentences. To me, it seems harmony is that oscillation or reciprocal
exchange between opposites needed for unity.

The 2nd major weave we‟ll be doing after unity is the concept of “cosmic fire.” Some claim he‟s
stating that fire is his archē. There is some evidence to support this. This is not a fire as we
understand it because he says in B30 that no man or god has ever created it. There are hints of
animism-the fact that this fire is in everyone and everything.

The 3rd doctrine is that of change, often called the “Doctrine of Flux.” This is best summed up in
two of his quotes, B91 first: “You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for fresh waters are
ever flowing in upon you.” And then in B49a: “In the same rivers we step and we do not step;
we are and we are not.” The second quote ties in the duality, or unity-harmony doctrines with
his beliefs about change. Coker agrees that this also supports the theory Heraclitus believed the
cosmic fire was in fact the archē of all things.

As for the psychē, Heraclitus states it could be limited, but if so it is still beyond our
comprehension. And souls which become water are doomed to death, and those which are dry
that are the wisest. There‟s some mention of souls being able to discover themselves, and in the
end the unity-harmony doctrine comes in and states that it is the delight of souls to become wet.
Week Three‟s Assignment:

Well, this week's readers were certainly interesting. Even though the rebel of Ionia,
Xenophanes, was interesting in his divergence of thought from everything thus far, and
Pythagoras undeniably made an enormous impact on the world in general-not just philosophy.
I must say my favorite reading was about Heraclitus.

As I read, I certainly was struck with a great urge to know what it seemed that he knew. And I
wondered if it was the same for philosophers or any educated man who knew of his teachings.
To hear about a universal truth that was always repeating and existed in all things around us
but yet I would have had no knowledge of it until this point was tantalizing. And it sets my
mind to thinking if Aristotle had this in mind with the opening quote used to describe
Heraclitus‟ writings (that they were dark, gloomy, or obscure but then became radiant as the
sun). The fact they were gloomy at all seems to me to spring from the notion that Heraclitus was
certainly critical of many things and was not afraid to go against the status quo just as
Xenophanes was. His critiques of other thinkers and Greek practices would obviously make
him obscure, but also I would think his general view that logos was all around us yet we could
not (or rather did not) ünderhören its existence because of deficiencies in either our souls or our
experience in the world would also make it a seemingly gloomy philosophy. Did anyone follow
that?

But when one begins to understand there is apparently “hope” that you can understand the
way things are it makes me at least want to learn about it. Now about his actual writing, the
discussion of logos and “the all” (from previous philosophers) seem close to me. Did anyone else
pick up that vibe? The all or kosmos described by other writers was a being I suppose which was
everywhere and perhaps was what everything came from, or was a product of. And if
Heraclitus‟ logos was truly a pattern or rather an order of things which was always true,
wouldn‟t all things be a product of it as well?

I stated in my comments last week that I could see a description of the archē described by Thales
and Anaximenes as coming from the all which Anaximander discussed. If this is so, couldn‟t
fire-but not the elemental fire we think of-also come from the unity-harmony doctrinized by
Heraclitus? If everything comes from and returns to this cosmic fire and if it‟s truly animistic in
philosophy, then unity-harmony seem natural to it. Doesn‟t all fire combine with each other and
separate just as easily? I don‟t know-and actually think I am-reaching a little bit here. Perhaps
taking the idea of cosmic fire too elementally in nature. But it‟s a thought non-the-less.

If anyone reads this and doesn‟t get what I‟m trying to say-easy to do I know!-just post and I‟d
love to discuss it with you with specific writing examples.