History of Philosophyby William Turner, S.T.D.Ginn and CompanyBoston - New York - Chicago - LondonAtlanta - Dallas - Columbus - San FranciscoENTEED AT STAT!"NES# $ALLC"%Y!&$T' ()*+' BY,!LL!A- T.NEALL !&$TS ESE/ED%!NTED !N T$E .N!TED STATES "F A-E!CA+012(0The Athenaeum %ress &!NN AND C"-%ANY %"%!ET"S2 B"ST"N2 .SA2 ContentsHistory of Philosophy : Introduction Part I : ncient PhilosophySection: !riental Philosophy"abylonia and ssyria#$yptChinaIndiaPersiaSection " : Gree% and Greco&'oman Philosophy(irst Period && Pre&Socratic PhilosophyChapter I : #arlier Ionian SchoolChapter II : The Pytha$orean SchoolChapter III : The #leatic SchoolChapter I) : *ater Ionian PhilosophersChapter ) : The tomistsChapter )I : The Sophists1Second Period && Socrates and the Socratic SchoolsChapter )II : SocratesChapter )III : The Imperfectly Socratic SchoolsChapter I+ : PlatoChapter + : The Platonic SchoolsChapter +I : ristotleChapter +II : The Peripatetic SchoolThird Period. Post&ristotelian PhilosophyChapter +III : The StoicsChapter +I) : The #picureansChapter +) : The ScepticsChapter +)I : The #clecticsChapter +)II : The Scientific ,o-ementChapter +)III : Philosophy of the 'omansSection C : Greco&!riental PhilosophyChapter +I+ : Greco&.e/ish PhilosophyChapter ++ : 0eo&Pytha$oreanism and 0eo&PlatonismPart II : Philosophy of the Christian #raIntroductionSection: Patristic PhilosophyChapter ++I : Heretical SystemsChapter ++II : nte&0icene (athersChapter ++III : Post&0icene (athersSection " : Scholastic Philosophy(irst Period of Scholasticism : #ri$ena to 'oscelinChapter ++I) : (irst ,asters of the Schools Chapter ++) : .ohn Scotus #ri$ena Chapter ++)I : Gerbert Chapter ++)II : The School of u1erre Second Period of Scholasticism : 'oscelin to le1ander of Hales 23454&36447 Chapter ++)III : Predecessors of 'oscelin Chapter ++I+ : 'oscelin Chapter +++ : St. nselm Chapter +++I : William of Champeau1, the Indifferentists, etc. Chapter +++II : belard Chapter +++III : The School of Chartres Chapter +++I) : #clectics Chapter +++) : THe ,ystic SchoolChapter +++)I : The Pantheistic SchoolThird Period of Scholasticism : le1ander of Hales to !c%am 23644&38447 Chapter +++)II : Predecessors of St. Thomas Chapter +++)III : St. Thomas of 9uin Chapter +++I+ : Thomists and nti&Thomists Chapter +* : Henry of Ghent 2Chapter +*I : .ohn Duns Scotus Chapter +*II : -erroism in the Schools (ourth Period of Scholasticism : "irth of !c%am to ta%in$ of Constantinople 23844&3:587 Chapter +*III : Predecessors of !c%ham: Durandus, ureolusChapter +*I) : William of !c%am Chapter +*) : (ollo/ers and !pponents of !c%am Chapter +*)I : The ,ystic School Chapter +*)II : 0icholas of utrecourt Section C : ,odern Philosophy(irst Period && Transition from Scholastic to ,odern PhilosophyChapter +*)III : Scholastics of the Transition Period Chapter +*I+ : The Humanists Chapter * : Italian Philosophy of 0ature Chapter *I : The Scientific ,o-ement Chapter *II : Protestant ,ysticism Chapter *III : Systems of Political Philosophy Second Period && (rom Descartes to ;ant Chapter *I) : Descartes Chapter *) : Cartesianism Chapter *)I : Spinoing the results o4 scienti4ic in8estigation' and the constantl6 increasing com3le5it6 o4 these results necessitated the gradual de8elo3ment o4 3hiloso3h62 To each generation and to each indi8idual the 3roblems o4 3hiloso3h6 3resent themsel8es anew' and the in4luences' 3ersonal' racial' climatic' social' and religious' which bear onthe generation or on the indi8idual must be studied in order that the meaning and 8alue o4 each doctrine and s6stem be understood and a33reciated2 Such in4luences are more than a matter o4 mere erudition9 the6 ha8e their 3lace in the praenotanda to the solution o4 e8er6 im3ortant 7uestion in 3hiloso3h69 4or' as Coleridge sa6s' ;the 8er6 4act that an6 doctrine has been belie8ed b6 thought4ul men is 3art o4 the 3roblem to be sol8ed' is one o4 the 3henomena to be accounted4or2; -oreo8er' 3hiloso3hical doctrines' while the6 are to be regarded 3rimaril6 as contributions totruth' are also to be studied as 8ital 4orces which ha8e determined to a large e5tent the literar6' artistic' 3olitical' and industrial li4e o4 the world2 To-da6' more than e8er' it is clearl6 understood that without a knowledge o4 these 4orces it is im3ossible to com3rehend the inner mo8ements o4 thought which alone e53lain the outer actions o4 men and nations2The dangers to be a8oided in the stud6 o4 the histor6 o4 3hiloso3h6 are Eclecticism' which teaches that all s6stems are e7uall6 true' and Scepticism' which teaches that all s6stems are e7uall6 4alse2 A care4ul stud6 o4 the course o4 3hiloso3hical s3eculation will result in the con8iction that' while no single school can la6 claim to the entire truth' certain schools o4 thought ha8e ado3ted that world-conce3t which can be most consistentl6 a33lied to e8er6 de3artment o4 knowledge2 False s6stems o4 3hiloso3h6 ma6 stumble on man6 im3ortant truths' but a right conce3t o4 the ultimate meaning o4 realit6 and a correct notion o4 3hiloso3hic method are the essentials 4or which we mustlook in e8er6 s6stem9 these constitute a legitimate standard o4 8aluation b6 which the student o4 the histor6 o4 3hiloso3h6 ma6 :udge each successi8e contribution to 3hiloso3hical science2The method to be 4ollowed in this stud6 is the em3irical' or a posteriori' method' which is em3lo6ed in all historical research2 The s3eculati8e' or a priori' method consists in la6ing down a 3rinci3le' such as the $egelian 3rinci3le that the succession o4 schools and s6stems corres3onds tothe succession o4 logical categories' and deducing 4rom such a 3rinci3le the actual succession o4 schools and s6stems2 But' a3art 4rom the danger o4 misstating 4acts 4or the sake o4 methodic s6mmetr6' such a 3rocedure must be :udged to be 3hiloso3hicall6 unsound9 4or s6stems o4 3hiloso3h6' like 4acts o4 general histor6' are contingent e8ents2 There are' indeed' laws o4 historical de8elo3ment9 but such laws are to be established subse7uentl6' not anteriorl6' to the stud6 o4 the 4acts o4 histor62The historian o4 3hiloso3h6' there4ore' has 4or his taskA B(C To set 4orth the li8es and doctrines o4 3hiloso3hers and s6stems and schools o4 3hiloso3h6 in their historical relation2 This' the recitative or narrative 3ortion o4 the historian#s task' includes the critical e5amination o4 sources2 B0C To trace the genetic connection between s6stems' schools' and doctrines' and to estimate the 8alue o4 each successi8e contribution to 3hiloso3h62 This' the philosophical 3ortion o4 the historian#s task' 6is b6 4ar the most im3ortant o4 his dutiesA Potius de rebus ipsis udicare debemus! "uam pro magno de hominibus "uid "uis"ue senserit scire2D(EThe sources o4 the histor6 o4 3hiloso3h6 areA B(C Primary sources' namel6' the works' com3lete or 4ragmentar6' o4 3hiloso3hers2 !t is 3art o4 the historian#s task to establish' whene8er necessar6' the authenticity and integrity o4 these works2 B0C Secondary sources' that is' the narration or testimon6 o4 other 3ersons concerning the li8es' o3inions' and doctrines o4 3hiloso3hers2 !n dealing with secondar6 sources the rules o4 historical criticism must be a33lied' in order to determine the reliability o4 witnesses2The division o4 the histor6 o4 3hiloso3h6 will alwa6s be more or less arbitrar6 in matters o4 detail2 This is owing to the continuit6 o4 historical de8elo3mentA the stream o4 human thought 4lows continuousl6 4rom one generation to another9 like all human institutions' s6stems and schools o4 3hiloso3h6 ne8er break entirel6 with the 3ast9 the6 arise and succeed one another without abru3t transition and merge into one another so im3erce3tibl6 that it is rarel6 3ossible to decide where one ends and another begins2 The more general di8isions' howe8er' are determined b6 great historical e8ents and b6 ob8ious national and geogra3hical distinctions2 Thus' the coming o4 Christdi8ides the $istor6 o4 %hiloso3h6 into two 3arts' each o4 which ma6 be subdi8ided as 4ollowsA%AT ! -- ANC!ENT " %E-C$!ST!AN %$!L"S"%$Y SECT!"N A -- "!ENTAL " %E-$ELLEN!C %$!L"S"%$Y SECT!"N B -- &EEF AND &EC"-"-AN %$!L"S"%$Y SECT!"N C -- &EC"-"!ENTAL %$!L"S"%$Y %AT !! -- %$!L"S"%$Y "F T$E C$!ST!AN EA SECT!"N A -- %AT!ST!C %$!L"s"%$Y SECT!"N B -- SC$"LAST!C %$!L"S"%$Y SECT!"N C -- -"DEN %$!L"S"%$Y General "iblio$raphy2 -- The 4ollowing works treat o4 the $istor6 o4 %hiloso3h6 as a wholeA Erdmann' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 $ough B+ 8ols2' London' (G)*C9 .eberweg' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 -orris B0 8ols2' New York' (G10C9 ,eber' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 Thill6 BNew York' (G)HC9 ,indelband' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 Tu4ts Bsecond edition' NewYork' ()*(C9 St=ckl' Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie B0 Bde2' +2 Au4l2' -ain>' (GGGC' trans2 in 3art 4rom the second edition b6 Finla6 BDublin' (GG1C2For the histor6 o4 3arts o4 3hiloso3h6' consult %rantl' Geschichte der Logi# im $bendlande BI Bde2' Lei3>ig' (GJJ 442C9 Siebeck' Geschichte der Psychologie B&otha' (GG*-(GGIC9 Sidgwick' History of Ethics Bthird edition' London' (G)0C9 Bosan7uet' History of $Esthetics BLondon' (G)0C2Consult also ,illmann' Geschichte des %dealismus B+ Bde2' Braunschweig' (G)I-(G)1C' and Lange' History of Materialism' trans2 b6 Thomas B+ 8ols2' London' (G1G-(GG(C2For com3lete bibliogra3h6' cf& ,eber' op& cit&' 332 (+ 4427P'T I0CI#0T PHI*!S!PH>SECTION A!'I#0T* PHI*!S!PH>!N the doctrines b6 means o4 which the Bab6lonians' Chinese' $indus' Eg63tians' and other "riental 3eo3les sought to 4ormulate their thoughts concerning the origin o4 the uni8erse and the nature and destin6 o4 man' the religious element 3redominates o8er the natural or rational e53lanation2 An ade7uate accounto4 these doctrines belongs' there4ore' to the $istor6 o4 eligions rather than to the $istor6 o4 %hiloso3h62 ,hile' howe8er' this is so' and while the task o4se3arating the religious 4rom the 3hiloso3hical element o4 thought in the "riental s6stems o4 s3eculation is b6 no means eas6' some account o4 these s6stems must be gi8en be4ore we 3ass to the stud6 o4 ,estern thought2Sources2 The most im3ortant collection o4 3rimar6 sources is 'he Sacred Boo#s of the East' edited b6 -a5 -Kller B"54ord' (G1) 442C2 For a com3lete list o4 secondar6 sources and recent studies on the religious s6stems o4 the East' consult Lehrbuch der (eligionsgeschichte' 8on %2 D2 Chante3ie de la Saussa6e' Bd2 !! B02 Au4l2' Freiburg im B2' (G)1C2Consult also .eberweg' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 -orris BNew York' (G10C' /ol2 !' 332 (J' (H2 "">*!0I 0D SS>'I@6A,hen' 3robabl6 about the 6ear +G** B2C2' the Semites con7uered Bab6lonia' the6 4ound there a ci8ili>ation which is commonl6 called that o4 the Accadians and Sumerians' and is b6 man6 regarded as the source o4 all the ci8ili>ations o4 the East2 The religion o4 the Accadians was originall6 ShamanisticA e8er6 ob:ect' e8er6 4orce in nature' was belie8ed to 3ossess a s3irit B)iC who could be controlled b6 the magical e5orcisms o4 the Shaman' or sorcerer-3riest2D+E &raduall6 certain o4 these s3irits had been ele8ated to the dignit6 o4 gods' as' 4or instance' $nu Bthe sk6C' Mul*ge' or Enum Bthe earthC' and Hea Bthe dee3C2 !t was not' howe8er' until the time o4 Assurbani3al Bse8enth centur6 B2C2C that this 3rimiti8e s6stem o4 theogon6 began to de8elo3 into a s6stem o4 cosmogon6 based on the idea that the uni8erse arose out o4 a chaos o4 waters2 Be4ore that time' there 3re8ailed in Accadia a 8ague traditional belie4 that the 3resent cosmic s6stem was 3receded b6 an anarchical chaos in which there e5isted com3osite creatures' -- men with the bodies o4 birds and the tails o4 4ishes' -- Nature#s 4irst attem3ts at creation2 ,ith this creationist legend was associated an e7uall6 8ague belie4 in a gloom6 $ades' or underworld' where the s3iritso4 the dead ho8er like bats and 4eed on dust2From the earliest times the Accadians de8oted attention to the obser8ation o4 the hea8enl6 bodies' and it ma6 be said that among them Astronom6 4ound its 4irst home2 Their crude attem3ts at astronomical obser8ations were' howe8er' connected with astrological 3ractices' so that the Chaldaeans became 4amous among the ancients as ade3ts in the magic artsA +haldaeos ne consulito2 !n like manner' the 4irst e44orts at numerical com3utation and notation were made subser8ient to the demands o4 the magician28!t was through the %hoenicians' who inaugurated the tradeo4 western Asia' that the ci8ili>ation o4 the Ass6rians in4luenced the religious and artistic li4e o4 the &reeks and o4 the other nations o4 the -editerranean2 #G>PT@:A.3 to the 3resent time Eg63tologists ha8e 4ailed to reach an agreement as to what was the 3rimiti8e 4orm o4 religious belie4 in ancient Eg63t2 !n the 4irst 3lace' the chronological di44iculties ha8e hitherto 3ro8ed to be insurmountable9 and in the ne5t 3lace' the di8ersit6 o4 religious s6stemsin the di44erent nomes' 3ro8inces' into which ancient Eg63t was di8ided' renders di44icult e8er6 attem3t at 4orming a theor6 as to what' i4 an6' was the one religion which 3re8ailed throughout Eg63t at the dawn o4 histor62 $istorians are content with dating the 3eriod the se8enth centur6 B2C2 b6 d6nasties rather than b6 6ears' the 4irst d6nast6 being 3laced about the 4i4t6-4i4th centur6 B2C2 -enes' who established the 4irst d6nast6' 4ound alread6 a hierarchical s6stem o4 deities' to each o4 whom some cit6 was dedicated2 But what was the 3rimiti8e religion Eg63t' 4rom which this hierarchical s6stem o4 gods was e8ol8edL Monotheism! Polytheism! Pantheism! Henotheism! 'otemism! Sun*,orship! -ature*,orship' -- these are the widel6 di44erent answers which modern Eg63tologists ha8e gi8en to 7uestion2DJE Scholars are e7uall6 at 8ariance as to the origin and signi4icance o4 $nimal*,orship among the Eg63tians2 ,hen' howe8er' we come to the 3eriod o4 the great gods' chie4 whom were (a Bthe sunC' -ut Bhea8enC' and Set' or 'yphon Bthe earthC' and to the legends o4 .siris' %sis' and Horus' there seems to be 8er6 little room 4or doubt as to the essentiall6 naturalistic character o4 these di8inities2 ;The kernel o4 the Eg63tian state religion was solar2;DHE,ith regard to the speculative elements o4 thought contained in the m6thological conce3tions o4 the Eg63tians' mention must be made o4 the doctrine that e8er6thing li8ing' whether it was a god' a man' or an animal' 3ossessed a /a' or ;shadow'; which was in each case more real and 3ermanent than the ob:ect itsel42 This notion was 3resent in the 3ractice o4 animal worshi39 4or' although there is b6 no means a unanimit6 o4 o3inion among scholars in 4a8or o4 reducing animal worshi3 to mere s6mbolism' there is no doubt that the Eg63tian mind was dominated b6 the idea that e8er6 /a must ha8e a material dwelling 3lace2 Similarl6' when the abstract notion o4 the di8init6 3resented itsel4 to the Eg63tian mind and was identi4ied with each god in turn' and when' at a later time' there a33eared the notion o4 a 3antheistic di8init6 in whom all the great gods were merged' the dominant idea was alwa6s that o4 the /a or soul' whose dwelling 3lace was the indi8idual god or the uni8erse2 Another conce3tion which ma6 be traced 8er6 4ar back in the histor6 o4 Eg63tian ci8ili>ation is that o4 the magical virtue of names2The idea o4 ;shadow; and the belie4 in the magical 8irtue o4 names determined the Eg63tian cult of the dead and the doctrine of immortality2 From the monuments and the relics o4 ancient Eg63tian literature' es3eciall6 4rom the Boo# of the Dead'D1E it is clear that dee3 down in the 3o3ular mind was the belie4 that the continued e5istence o4 a 3erson a4ter death de3ended some how on the 3reser8ation o4 his name and on the 3ermanence o4 the dwelling 3lace which was to harbor his /a' or shadow2 $ence' the Eg63tians considered that the houses o4 the li8ing were merel6 inns' and that the tombs o4 the dead are eternal habitations2 !n the 3hiloso3hical traditions o4 the 3riestl6 caste there grew u3 a more rational doctrine o4 the 4uture li4e2 According to this doctrine' man consists o4 three 3arts' the /hat' or bod6' the /hu' or s3irit' which is an emanation 4rom the di8ine essence' and the soul' which is sometimes re3resented as a /a dwelling in the mumm6 or in the statue o4 the deceased' and sometimes as a Ba' or disembodied soul' which ultimatel6 returns to its home in the lower world2DGE !t is this Ba' or disembodied soul' which a4ter death a33ears be4ore "siris and the 4ort6-two :udges' and is weighed in the balance b6 $orus and Anubis while Thoth records the result2 The souls o4 the blessed are e8entuall6 admitted to the 9ha336 4ields o4 Aalu' there to be 3uri4ied 4rom all earthl6 stain and made more 3er4ect wisdom andgoodness2 The souls o4 the wicked are condemned either to the 8arious torments o4 hell' or to wanderings long and arduous through the regions between hea8en and earth' or to transmigration into the bodies o4 8arious animals' or' 4inall6' to annihilation2 The 4ate o4 the soul is determined 3artl6 b6 the good and e8il which it wrought during li4e and 3artl6 b6 the amulets' 3ra6ers' and gi4ts b6 which it secured the 4a8or o4 the gods2 But whate8er ma6 be the immediate 4ate o4 the soul' it will ultimatel6 return to its bod6' and on the great da6 o4 resurrection soul' bod6' and s3irit shall be once more united2From the cha3ter on @udgment in the Book o4 the Dead and 4rom the Ethical Ma0ims of /a#imma Bthird d6nast6C and Ptah*Hotep B4i4th d6nast6C it a33ears that the ideal o4 conduct among the ancient Eg63tians was 3ractical' o4 a high order o4 3urit6' and essentiall6 religious2 !n these documents charit6' bene8olence' 3rudence' chastit6' social :ustice' clemenc6' and the lo8e o4 intellectual 3ursuits are ranked among the 4oremost 8irtues2 And not onl6 e5ternal moralit6 is inculcated but also be moralit6 o4 thought and desire2 CHI0@BA,hen' about 0*** 6ears B2C2' the Chinese 4irst a33eared in the light o4 histor6' the6 alread6 3ossessed social' 3olitical' and religious institutions and a material and intellectual ci8ili>ation o4 ahigh order2 !t was not' howe8er' until the si5th centur6 B2C2 that the sacred books were collected and arranged' although some o4 them' es3eciall6 the Y-king' were assigned b6 tradition to the learned 3rinces and kings who' long be4ore the historical 3eriod' had in8ented the art o4 writing2 The sacred or authoritati8e books wereA!2 The 1ive +lassics' namel6' the 2*#ing' or Book o4 Changes Bdi8inationC9 the Shu*#ing' or Book o4 $istor69 the Shi*#ing ' or Book o4 %oetr69 the Le*#e' or ecord o4 ites9 and the +hun*tse3' S3ring and Autumn' a Book o4 Annals' com3osed b6 Con4ucius2!!2 The 1our Boo#s' namel6' Lun*yu' or Con8ersations o4 the -aster9 +hun*yung' or Doctrine o4 the -ean9 'a*heo' or &reat Learning9 and Meng*tse' or Teachings o4 -encius2The Fi8e Classics were collected' arranged' and edited b6 Con4ucius Bwith the e5ce3tion o4 the last' which was written b6 himC' and it is im3ossible to sa6 to what e5tent the editor introduced into the te5t doctrines and o3inions o4 his own2 The Four Books were com3osed b6 disci3les o4 Con4ucius2Be4ore the time o4 Con4ucius there e5isted a national or state religion in which the 3rinci3al ob:ects o4 worshi3 were heaven' and spirits o4 8arious kinds' es3eciall6 the spirits of dead ancestors2 $ea8en B'hianC is the su3reme lord BShang*tiC' the highest ob:ect o4 worshi32D(*E The deit6 carries on its work silentl6 and sim3l6' 6et ine5orabl6' in the order and succession o4 natural 3henomena' in the rain and the sunshine' the heat and the cold' etc2 ,ith this natural order are closel6 connected the social' 3olitical' and moral orders o4 the world9 or rather' all order is essentiall6 one' and 3er4ection and 3ros3erit6 in moral li4e and in the state de3end on maintaining the order which is not onl6 hea8en#s 4irst law' but hea8en itsel42 ,ith the worshi3 o4 hea8en was connected the worshi3 o4 s3irits BShanC2 These are omni3resent throughout nature9 the6 are not' howe8er' addressed as indi8iduals' but as a bod6 or aggregation o4 indi8iduals' as' 4or e5am3le' celestial s3irits' terrestrial s3irits' and ancestral s3irits2 The last are the ob:ect o4 3ri8ate as distinct 4rom o44icial worshi32 The Chinese' alwa6s inclined to look towards the 3ast rather than towards the 4uture' thought less o4 3ersonal immortalit6 in the li4e a4ter death than o4 the continuation o4 10the 4amil6 li4e b6 which the actions o4 the indi8idual were re4lected back and made to ennoble a whole o4 line ancestors2The 7ualities which characteri>ed the religious thought o4 4rom the beginning -- its eminentl6 3ractical nature' the com3lete absence o4 s3eculation' and the almost com3lete e5clusion o4 m6thological elements -- rea33ear in the writings o4 the great religious teacher Confucius B/ong*tse' JJ(-I1G B2C2C2 Con4ucius was no inno8ator9 he a33eared' rather' as the collector o4 the sacred literature o4 the 3ast and the restorer o4 the old order2 $e inculcated the strict obser8ance o4 the traditional 4orms o4 worshi3' discouraged s3eculation in matters theological' and while he taught the su3reme im3ortance o4 moral duties' he grounded all his moral 3rece3ts on the general order o4the world and the long-established tradition o4 the Chinese 3eo3le2 $e insisted on man#s 3olitical and domestic duties and em3hasi>ed es3eciall6 the im3ortance o4 filial piety2Lao*tse' a Contem3orar6 o4 Con4ucius Bborn about H*I B2C2C' and author o4 the Tao-te-king' introduced into China the 4irst s6stem o4 s3eculati8e thought' the 3hiloso3h6 o4 'ao Beason' ,a6C' which man6 scholars consider to be o4 $indu origin2D((E Lao-tse did not' howe8er' attem3t too8erthrow the traditional ideals o4 his countr6men' and' while the im3ortance which he attaches to s3eculation 3laces him in shar3 contrast with Con4ucius' the doctrines o4 the two great teachers ha8e man6 3oints in common2 For 'ao' the 4undamental conce3t o4 the 'ao*te*#ing' does not meaneason in the abstract' but Nature' or rather' the ,a6' -- the order o4 the world' the im3ersonal method which all men must obser8e i4 the6 are to attain goodness and success2 .ltimatel6' then' both Lao-tse and Con4ucius teach that conduct is to be guided b6 a knowledge o4 the unalterable' discriminating' intelligent order o4 hea8en and earth9 but while Con4ucius re4ers his disci3les to the stud6 o4 the writings and institutions o4 anti7uit6' Lao-tse re4ers them to the s3eculati8e contem3lation o4 'aoA the 4ormer encourages stud6' the latter ad8ocates contem3lation' as a meanso4 ac7uiring a knowledge o4 the eternal order on which moralit6 de3ends2 $ence' the tendenc6 o4 Taoism towards 7uietism and sel4-abnegation2 ;ecom3ense in:ur6 with kindness'; said Lao-tse9 to which Con4ucius is said to ha8e answered' ;ecom3ense kindness with kindness' but recom3ense in:ur6 with :ustice2;To the 4i4th centur6 B2C2 belong >an$&tse and 0ih&tse Bor Ma#C2 The 4ormer 3reached a kind o4 E3icureanismA man should en:o6 the 3resent and cheer4ull6 acce3t death when it comes9 8irtue is but a name9 good re3utation is a shadow9 the sacri4ice o4 sel4 is a delusion2 The latter maintained that one should lo8e all men e7uall6' that the 3ractice o4 uni8ersal lo8e is a greater bene4it to the state than the stud6 o4 anti7uit6 and the 3reser8ation o4 ancient customs2D(0E*ih&tse and Ch/an$&tse a33eared during the 4i4th and the 4irst hal4 o4 the 4ourth centuries B2C2 as re3resentati8es o4 Taoism2 The6 were o33osed b6 the distinguished e53onent o4 Con4ucianism' Meng*tse or -encius B+1(-0GGC2 !n his dialogues' which were collected in se8en books b6 his disci3les' he gi8es a more com3act e53osition o4 Con4ucianism than that 4ound in the isolated sa6ings o4 the master2 $e insists on 4ilial 3iet6' on 3olitical 8irtue' and on the 3ro3er obser8ance o4religious and other ceremonial rites2 $e reduces the cardinal 8irtues to 4ourA ,isdom! Humanity! 4ustice' and Propriety2I0DI@38AThe 5eda' or collection o4 3rimiti8e religious literature o4 the $indus' consists o4 books o4 sacred h6mns' the (ig*5eda' the S6ma*5eda' the 2agur*5eda' and the $tharva* 5eda2 !n each it is usual to distinguish the Mantras' or h6mns' the Br6hmanas' or ritualistic commentaries' and the 7panishads' or 3hiloso3hical commentaries2D(IE11The /edic h6mns' which are the oldest 3ortion o4 the /eda B(J** B2C2 being the date to which conser8ati8e scholars assign the earliest o4 themC' consist o4 songs o4 3raise and 3ra6er directed to $gni B4ireC' Soma Bthe li4e-awakening' into5icating :uice o4 the soma-3lantC' %ndra Bthe god o4 the wars o4 the elements' o4 thunder and rainC' 5aruna Bthe great' serene' all-embracing hea8enC' and other deities' all o4 whom 3ossess more or less de4initel6 the two4old character o4 gods o4 nature and gods o4 sacri4ice2 The gods o4 the /edic h6mns are st6led Devas Bshining di8initiesC and $suras BlordsC2 There is' in the 3oems' no e8idence o4 a sustained attem3t to trace the genealog6 o4these deities or to account b6 means o4 m6thogical conce3ts 4or the origin o4 the uni8erse2 !n the Br6hmanas' or ritualistic commentaries' a33ears the conce3t o4 a god distinct 4rom the elemental deities' a 3ersoni4ication o4 the act o4 sacri4ice' -- Brahmanas3ati2 From this conce3t the monotheistic and 3antheistic s3eculation o4 the $indus ma6 be said to ha8e started' although it is undeniable that e8en in the h6mns there is e53ressed at least ;a 6earning a4ter one su3reme deit6' who made the hea8en and the earth' the sea and all that in them is'; -- a 6earning to which e53ression was gi8en in the name %ragM3ati Bthe lord o4 all creaturesC' a33lied successi8el6 to Soma and other di8inities2 "4 more im3ortance' howe8er' than the name Prag6pati is the e53ression 'ad E#am Bthat "neC which occurs in the 3oems as the name o4 the Su3reme Being' o4 the First "rigin o4 all things2 !ts neuter 4orm indicates' according to -a5 -Kller' a transition 4rom the m6thological to the meta3h6sical stage o4 s3eculation2 ,ith regard to the word Brahman which succeeded 'ad E#amA as the name o4 the Su3reme "ne' -a5 -Kller re4ers it to the root brih Bto growC and asserts that while the word undoubtedl6 meant 3ra6er' it originall6 meant ;that which breaks 4orth2; !t ;was used as a name o4 that uni8ersal 4orce which mani4ests itsel4 in the creation o4 a 8isible uni8erse2;D(JE The word 8tman' which was also a name o4 the deit6' is re4erred b6 the same distinguished scholar to the root 6tma Bbreath' li4e' soulC and is translated as Self2 There grew u3' he sa6s' in the h6mns and BrMhmanas o4 the /eda the three words %ragM3ati' Brahman' and Ntman' ;each o4 which b6 itsel4 re3resents in nuce a whole 3hiloso3h6' or a 8iew o4the world2 A belie4 in %ragM3ati' as a 3ersonal god' was the beginning o4 monotheistic religion in !ndia' while the recognition o4 Brahman and Ntman' as one' constituted the 4oundation o4 all the monistic 3hiloso3h6 o4 that countr62;D(HE!n the 7panishads' or s3eculati8e commentaries' we 4ind the 4irst elaborate attem3ts made b6 !ndia to 4ormulate a s3eculati8e s6stem o4 the uni8erse and to sol8e in terms o4 3hiloso3h6 the 3roblems o4 the origin o4 the uni8erse and o4 the nature and destin6 o4 man2 !t must' howe8er' be remembered that 3robabl6 until the 4ourth centur6 B2C2 the .3anishads' in common with the other3ortions o4 the /eda' did not e5ist in writing' being handed down 4rom one generation to another b6 oral tradition2 The S9tras' or a3horisms' there4ore' which we 3ossess o4 the si5 s6stems o4 !ndian 3hiloso3h6 do not re3resent the 4irst attem3ts at 3hiloso3hical s3eculation2 The men whose names are associated with these SOtras' and are used to designate the si5 s6stems' are not' in an6 true sense' the 4ounders o4 schools o4 3hiloso3h6A the6 are merel6 4inal editors or redactors o4 the SOtras belonging to di44erent 3hiloso3hical sects' which' in the midst o4 a 8ariet6 o4 theories' and in a ma>e o4 s3eculati8e o3inions' retained their indi8idualit6 during an inconcei8abl6 long 3eriod o4 time2Be4ore we take u3 the se3arate stud6 o4 the si5 s6stems o4 3hiloso3h6 it will be necessar6 to outline the general teaching o4 the .3anishads2 This teaching belongs to no school in 3articular' although each o4 the si5 schools is connected with it in more than one 3oint o4 doctrine2 The .3anishads teachA(2 'he identity of all being in Brahman' the Source' or 8tman' the Sel4' which is identical with Brahman202 'he e0istence of m6y6 BillusionC' to which is re4erred e8er6thing which is not Brahman212+2 The worthlessness o4 all knowledge o4 things in their isolated e5istence' and the incom3arable e5cellence o4 the #no3ledge of all things in Brahman or 8tman2 This latter' the onl6 true knowledge' is di44icult o4 attainment9 still it is attainable e8en in this li4e2 !t is this knowledge which constitutes the ha33iness o4 man b6 uniting him with Ntman2 ;!n the bee#s hone6 one can nolonger recogni>e the taste o4 the single 4lowers9 the ri8ers which emanate 4rom the one sea and again return to it lose meanwhile their se3arate e5istences9 a lum3 o4 salt dissol8ed in water salts the whole water and cannot be gras3ed againA so the true being can nowhere be gras3ed2 !t is a subtle essence which lies at the 4oundation o4 all 3henomena' which are merel6 illusions' and is again identical with the ego2;D(1EI2 'he immortality of the soul2 ;The idea'; writes -a5 -Kller' ;o4 the soul e8er coming to an end is so strange to the !ndian mind that there seemed to be no necessit6 4or an6thing like 3roo4s o4 immortalit6' so common in Euro3ean 3hiloso3h62;D(GE E7uall6 sel4-e8ident to the $indu mind was the sams6ra' or transmigration o4 the soul2 !n some s6stems' howe8er' as we shall see' it is the subtle bod6 which migrates' while' during the 3rocess o4 migration' the soul' in the sense o4 sel4' retaining its com3lete identit6' remains as an onlooker2,ith the idea o4 immortalit6 is associated that o4 the eternit6 o4 #arman BdeedC' namel6' the continuous working o4 e8er6 thought' word' and deed through all ages2 !4 a man were' once in a thousand 6ears' to 3ass his silken handkerchie4 across the $imala6an mountains and thus at last succeed in wi3ing them out' the world would' indeed' be older at the end o4 such a long s3ace o4 time' but eternit6 and realit6 would still be 6oung and the deed o4 to-da6 would still e5ist in its results2 At a late 3eriod in the de8elo3ment o4 /edic s3eculation the immensit6 o4 the duration o4 Brahman was gi8en 3o3ular e53ression in the doctrine o4 #alpas BaeonsC' or 3eriods o4 reabsor3tion BpralayaC and creation2J2 Mysticism and deliverance from bondage2 All the !ndian s6stems o4 3hiloso3h6 recogni>e the e5istence o4 e8il and su44ering and concern themsel8es with the 3roblem o4 deli8erance b6 means o4 knowledge2 From the rise o4 Buddhism B4i4th centur6 B2C2C date a clearer 3erce3tion o4 the realit6 o4 su44ering and a more em3hatic assertion o4 the im3ortance o4 4reeing the soul 4rom the bondage which su44ering im3oses2 !t is to be remarked that' e8en in the .3anishads' e5istence is re4erred to as an e8il' transmigration is 3resented as something to be a8oided' and the 4inal goal o4 human endea8or is 3roclaimed to be a union with Ntman' in which all indi8idual e5istence is merged in the general Sel4' and indi8idual consciousness is 7uite e5tinguished2Turning now to the si5 great historical s6stems o4 !ndian 3hiloso3h6' we meet at the 8er6 outset the 8e5ed 7uestion o4 chronological order2 -an6 o4 the SOtras' or a3horisms' in which these s6stems are 4ormulated are o4 8er6 great anti7uit6' ranking with the .3anishads in 3oint o4 age2 Besides' the athors o4 these SOtras are more or less 8aguel6 historical or altogether m6thical 3ersons2 !t is ho3eless' there4ore' to attem3t to arrange the s6stems in chronological order2 The order 4ollowed will re3resent rather the 4idelit6 with which the s6stems Ball o4 which were considered orthodo5C adhere to the doctrines described as the common teaching o4 the .3anishads2(2 The /edMnta' or .ttara--PmMmsM'D()E is 4irst in im3ortance among the s6stematic e53ositions o4 the 3hiloso3hical teachings o4 the .3anishads2 !t is contained in SOtras com3osed b6 "CdarCyana' who is sometimes identi4ied with )yCsa' the author o4 the Mah6bh6rata Bone o4 the great e3ics o4 !ndiaC' and in commentaries com3osed b6 Sam%ara Babout A2D2 )**C2The 4undamental doctrines o4 the /edMnta are those o4 the .3anishads2 The /edMnta insists on the monistic conce3t o4 realit6A ;!n one hal4 8erse ! shall tell 6ou what has been taught in thousands o48olumesA Brahman is true' the world is 4alse' the soul is Brahman and nothing else2; ;There is nothing worth gaining' there is nothing worth en:o6ing' there is nothing worth knowing but 13Brahman alone' 4or he who knows Brahman is Brahman2;D0*E -ore em3haticall6 still is the unit6 o4all being in Brahman asserted in the 4amous words 'at tvam asi BThou art thatC' which -a5 -Kllerst6les ;the boldest and truest s6nthesis in the whole histor6 o4 3hiloso3h62; But' i4 the indi8idual isBrahman' how are we to account 4or the mani4old ;thous; and 4or the 8ariet6 o4 indi8iduals in the ob:ecti8e worldL The 5ed6nta*S9tras answer that the 8iew o4 the world as com3osed o4 mani4old indi8iduals is not knowledge but nescience' which the /edMnta 3hiloso3h6 aims at e53elling 4rom the mind2 This nescience Ba8id6MC is inborn in human nature' and it is onl6 when it is e53elled that the mind 3ercei8es Brahman to be the onl6 realit62 Samkara' the commentator' admits' howe8er' that the 3henomenal world' the whole ob:ecti8e world as distinct 4rom the sub:ect BBrahmanC' while it is the result o4 nescience' is ne8ertheless real 4or all 3ractical 3ur3oses2 -oreo8er' it is clear that 3henomena' since the6 are Brahman' are realA onl6 the multi3licit6 and distinction o4 3henomena are unreal Bm6y6C2,ith regard to the origin o4 the uni8erseA the uni8erse' since it is Brahman' cannot be said to originate2 And 6et Brahman is commonl6 re3resented as the cause o4 the uni8erse2 The $indus' howe8er' regarded cause and e44ect as merel6 two as3ects o4 the same realit6A the threads' the6 obser8ed' are the cause o4 the cloth' 6et what is the cloth but the aggregate o4 threadsLD0(ESince the 4initeness and indi8idual distinctions o4 things are due to nescience' it is clear that the road to true freedom Bmo#sha C 4rom the conditions o4 4inite e5istence is the wa6 o4 knowledge2 The knowledge o4 the identit6 o4 Atman with Brahman' o4 Sel4 with &od' is true 4reedom and im3lies e5em3tion 4rom birth and transmigration2 For' when death comes' he who' although he has4ul4illed all his religious duties' shall ha8e 4ailed to attain the highest knowledge' shall be condemned to another round o4 e5istence2 The subtle bod6' in which his soul B6tmanC is clothed' shall wander through mist and cloud and darkness to the moon and thence shall be sent back to earth2 But he who shall ha8e attained 3er4ect knowledge o4 Brahman shall 4inall6 become identi4ied with Brahman' sharing in all the 3owers o4 Brahman e5ce3t those o4 creating and ruling the uni8erse2 %artial 4reedom 4rom 4inite conditions is' e8en in this li4e' a reward o4 3er4ect knowledge2 The /edMntists' howe8er' did not neglect the inculcation o4 moral e5cellence9 4or knowledge' the6 taught' is not to be attained e5ce3t b6 disci3line2!!2 The P9rva*M:m6s6 is a s6stem o4 3ractical 3hiloso3h6 and is contained in twel8e books o4 SOtras attributed to Gaimini2 $ere the central idea is that o4 duty BDharmaC' which includes sacri4icial obser8ances and rests ultimatel6 on the su3erhuman authorit6 o4 the /eda2!!!2 The S6m#hya philosophy ma6 be described as a toning down o4 the e5treme o4 the /edanta2 !t is contained in the S6m#hya*S9tras or /apila*S9tras2 These' at least in their 3resent 4orm' date 4rom the 4ourteenth centur6 a4ter Christ' although the sage' ;apila' to whom the6 are ascribed li8ed certainl6 be4ore the second centur6 B2C2 "4 greater anti7uit6 than the SOtras are the S6m#hya*/6ri#6s' or memorial 8erses' in which the 3hiloso3h6 o4 Fa3ila was e3itomi>ed as earl6 as the 4irst centur6 B2C2 A still older and more concise com3ilation The SMmkh6a 3hiloso3h6 is 4ound in the 'attva*Sam6sa' which reduces all truth to twent6-4i8e to3ics2 This latter com3endium is taken b6 -a5 -Kller as the basis o4 his e53osition o4 the teachings o4 Fa3ila2D00E The Samkh6a 3hiloso3h6 is essentiall6 dualistic2 !t does not' like the /edMnta' assume that the ob:ecti8e world' as distinct 4rom Brahman' is mere illusion or ignorance9 it acce3ts the ob:ecti8e world as real and calls it pra#riti' or nature in the sense o4 matter-containing-the-3ossibilities-o4-all-things2 This 3rinci3le is o4 itsel4 li4eless and unconscious' and rises into li4e and consciousness onl6 when contem3lated b6 the soul BpurushaC2 ,hat we call creation is' there4ore' the tem3orar6 union o4 nature with soul' -- a union which arises 4rom a lack o4 discrimination2 $ow then is the soul to be 4reed 4rom the bondage o4 4inite e5istenceL This is 4or the SMmkh6a' as it was 4or the /edanta' the chie4 3roblem o4 3ractical 3hiloso3h62 But' while the /edanta 4ound deli8erance in the recognition o4 the identit6 o4 the soul with Brahman' the SMmkh6a 4inds it in the recognition o414the di44erence between the soul and nature2 This recognition con4ers 4reedom9 4or nature' once it is recogni>ed b6 the soul as distinct' disa33ears together with all limitation and su44eringA ;Pra#ritri' once recogni>ed b6 Purusha' withdraws itsel4 so as not to e53ose itsel4 4or a second time to the danger o4 this glance2; The assertion o4 the indi8idualit6 o4 the soul as o33osed to nature im3lies the multi3licit6 o4 souls2 And this is another 3oint o4 contrast between the /edMnta and the SMmkh6aA the 4ormer asserted the oneness o4 Ntman9 the latter a44irms the 3luralit6 o4 purushas2!/2 The 2oga philosophy is contained in the SOtras ascribed to Pata;gali' who is su33osed to ha8e li8ed during the second centur6 B2C2 !n these SOtras we 4ind 3racticall6 all the meta3h6sical 3rinci3les o4 the SMmkh6a and' in addition' certain doctrines in which the theistic element is insisted u3on2 Fa3ila had denied the 3ossibilit6 o4 3ro8ing the e5istence o4 Qs8ara' the 3ersonal creator and rulerA %ataRntiled9gali insists on the 3ossibilit6 o4 such 3roo42 "4 course' Qs8ara is not concei8ed as creator in our sense o4 the word' but merel6 as the highest o4 the purushas' all o4 which ma6 be said to create inasmuch as the6' b6 contem3lating nature' cause nature to be 3roducti8e2 Among the means o4 deli8erance 3ractised b6 the Yogins were the obser8ance o4 certain 3ostures' meditation' and the re3etition o4 the sacred s6llable .m2/2 The -y6ya 3hiloso3h6 is contained in the -y6ya*S9tras2 The 4ounder o4 the s6stem was Gotama' or &autama2 According to this s6stem' the su3reme resignation' or 4reedom' in which man#s highest ha33iness consists' is to be attained b6 a knowledge o4 the si5teen great to3ics o4 N6M6a 3hiloso3h62 These to3ics Bpad6rthasC are means o4 knowledge' ob:ects o4 knowledge' doubt' 3ur3ose' instance' established truth' 3remises' reasoning' conclusion' argumentation' so3histr6' wrangling' 4allacies' 7uibbles' 4alse analogies' and un4itness 4or arguing2 Taking u3 now the 4irst o4 these' namel6' the means o4 knowledge' we 4ind that there are' according to the N6M6a 3hiloso3h6' 4our kinds o4 right 3erce3tionA sensuous' in4erential' com3arati8e' and authoritati8e2 !norder to arri8e at in4erential knowledge Banum6naC' we must 3ossess what is called vy6pti' or 3er8asion' that is to ia6' a 3rinci3le e53ressing in8ariable concomitance2 So' 4or e5am3le' i4 we wish to in4er that ;this mountain is on 4ire'; we must 3ossess the 3rinci3le that smoke is pervaded b6' or in8ariabl6 connected with' 4ire2 "nce in 3ossession o4 this 3rinci3le' we ha8e merel6 to 4ind an instance' as' ;this mountain smokes'; whence we immediatel6 in4er that ;it has 4ire2; But' whilethis is the com3arati8el6 sim3le means o4 ac7uiring in4erential iowledge' we cannot im3art this knowledge to others e5ce3t b6 the more com3licated 3rocess includingA B(C $ssertion' ;The mountain has 4ire;9 B0C (eason' ;Because it smokes;9 B+C %nstance' ;Look at the kitchen 4ire;9 BIC $pplication' ;So too the mountain has smoke;9 and BJC +onclusion' ;There4ore it has 4ire2; The 3rocess' in both cases' bears a close resemblance to the s6llogism o4 Aristotelian logic9 and it is b6reason o4 the 3rominence gi8en to this means o4 knowledge that the N6M6a 3hiloso3h6 came to be regarded as a s6stem o4 logic2 Yet the N6M 6a 3hiloso3h6 is 4ar 4rom being merel6 a s6stematic treatment o4 the laws o4 thought9 4or the s6llogism is but one o4 the man6 means b6 which the soulor sel4 B8tmanC is to attain true 4reedom' a state in which all 4alse knowledge and all in4erior knowledge shall disa33ear' and all indi8idual desire and 3ersonal lo8e and hatred shall be e5tinguished2/!2 The 5aisheshi#a 3hiloso3h6' 4ounded b6 ;anCda' is contained in the 5aisheshi#a*S9tras' which' according to -a5 -Kller' date 4rom the si5th centur6 o4 the Christian era' although the /aisheshika 3hiloso3h6 was known in the 4irst centur6 B2C2 The s6stem is closel6 related to the N6M6a 3hiloso3h6' e8en its most characteristic doctrine' that o4 atomism' being 4ound in unde8elo3ed 4orm in the 3hiloso3h6 o4 &otama2D0+E $ere' as in the N6M6a' su3reme ha33iness is to be attained b6 the knowledge o4 certain pad6rthas' or 7uasi-categories' namel6A substance' 7ualit6'action B#armanC' genus or communit6' s3ecies or 3articularit6' inhesion or inse3arabilit6' and Baccording to someC 3ri8ation or negation2 The substances are earth' water' light' air' ether' time' s3ace' sel4 B8tmanC' and mind BmanasC2 The 7ualities are color' taste' number' etc2 These are calledgunas ' a word which occurs in the .3anishads and is a common term in all the si5 s6stems215The 4our substances' earth' air' water' and light' e5ist either in the aggregate material state or in thestate o4 atoms BanusC2 The single atom is indi8isible and indestructible9 its e5istence is 3ro8ed b6 the im3ossibilit6 o4 di8ision ad infinitum2 Single atoms combine 4irst in twos and a4terwards in grou3s o4 three double atoms9 it is onl6 in such combinations that matter becomes 8isible and liable to destruction2To these si5 great historical s6stems' which were orthodo5 in so 4ar as the6 recogni>ed the su3reme authorit6 o4 the /eda' were o33osed the heterodo5 s6stems o4 the heretics B-6sti#asC who' like the Buddhists' the @ainas' and the -aterialists' re:ected the di8ine authorit6 o4 the sacredwritings2 Buddhism' as is well known' was a distincti8el6 religious s6stemA it recogni>ed su44ering as the su3reme realit6 in li4e' and de8oted little or no attention to 7uestions o4 3hiloso3hic interest' e5ce3t in their relation to 3roblems o4 conduct2 ;To cease 4rom all wrong-doing' to get 8irtue' to cleanse one#s own heart'; -- this' according to the celebrated 8erse' ;is the religion o4 the Buddhas2;D0IE The 4our truths on which Buddhism is built areA B(C that su44ering is uni8ersal9 B0C that the cause o4 su44ering is desire9 B+C that the abolition o4 desire is the onl6 deli8erance 4rom su44ering9 and BIC that the wa6 o4 sal8ation is b6 means o4 certain 3ractices o4 meditation and acti8e disci3line2 !n connection with the second and third o4 these truths arises the 3roblem o4 the meaning o4 #arma and nirv6na2 !n the .3anishad s3eculations #arman' as we ha8e seen' meant deed' and its eternit6 meant the continuous working o4 e8er6 thought' word' and work throughout all ages2 !n Buddhistic s3eculation the substantial 3ermanence and identit6 o4 the soul are denied' and the onl6 bond between the s#andhas' or sets o4 7ualities' which succeed each other in the indi8idual bod6 and soul' is the #arma' the result o4 what man is and does in one e5istence or at one time being ine8itabl6 continued into all subse7uent e5istences and times2 The bod6 is constantl6 changing' the 7ualities or states o4 the soul are constantl6 re3laced b6 other 7ualities and states9 but the result o4 what a man is and does remains' -- that alone is 3ermanent2 ,ith regard to nirv6na' scholars are not agreed as to whether it meant total annihilation or a state o4 3ainlessness in which 3ositi8e e5istence is 3reser8ed2 -a5 -Kller and h6s-Da8ids ma6 be cited 4a8or o4 the latter inter3retation2D0JE h6s-Da8ids de4ines nirv6na as ;the e5tinction o4 that sin4ul' gras3ing condition o4 mind and heart' which would otherwise' according to the m6ster6 o4 Farma'be the cause o4 renewed indi8idual e5istence2;4ainism' like Buddhism' was a religious s6stem2 The onl6 im3ortant s3eculati8e doctrine in which it di44ers 4rom Buddhism is that o4 the substantial reality and permanence of the soul2 Accordingl6'the @ainas taught that nirv6na is the 4reedom o4 the soul 4rom the conditions which cause 4initeness' su44ering' and ignorance2 !n this res3ect the6 a33roach 8er6 closel6 to the s3eculation o4the .3anishads2P#'SI@6DAThe religion o4 ancient %ersia and that o4 ancient !ndia s3rang 4rom the same origin' namel6' the ideas and usages which were shared alike b6 the !ranian and the $indu branches o4 the original Ar6an 4amil62 There are' indeed' traces o4 a ci8ili>ation which e5isted in %ersia 3rior to the Ar6an in8asion' and which closel6 resembled the Shamanism o4 the Accadians o4 ancient Chaldea2 Little'howe8er' is known o4 3re-Ar6an %ersia2 All that can be said with certaint6 is that the Ar6an in8aders 4ound alread6 e5isting in Bactria and the neighboring regions a s6stem o4 3ol6theism' which the6 re3laced b6 a religion monotheistic in its tendenc6 and similar in man6 res3ects to the religion o4 the $indus o4 the /edic 3eriod2 The hea8en god' known in !ndia as 5aruna' became the3rinci3al deit6 o4 the !ranians2 Soma was also worshi3ed under the title Homa' and the distinction between De8as and Asuras B;shining ones; and ;lords;C was em3lo6ed in %ersia as well as in !ndia16to designate two im3ortant classes o4 di8inities2 &raduall6' howe8er' a change was introducedA a tendenc6 towards dualism became more and more strongl6 marked9 the Devas came to be recogni>ed as e8il deities' and the $huras Btransliteration o4 AsurasC came to be looked u3on as di8inities 4riendl6 to man2 ;The con4lict between these o33osites assumed a moral 4orm in the minds o4 the !ranian wanderers9 the struggle between night and da6' between the storm and the blue sk6' o4 which the /edic 3oets sang' was trans4ormed into a struggle between good and e8il2 !n3lace o4 the careless nature worshi3ers o4 the %an:ab' a race o4 stern and earnest %uritans grew u3 among the deserts and rugged mountains o4 Ariana2;D01EThis dualistic conce3tion o4 the uni8erse' this antithesis between good and e8il' was alread6 in 3ossession when Eoroaster' or Earathustra' the great religious re4ormer' a33eared' about the middle o4 the se8enth or the beginning o4 the si5th centur6 B2C2D0GE To him' according to %arsee tradition' is to be ascribed the ins3ired authorshi3 o4 a 3ortion' at least' o4 the $vesta' or sacred literature o4 the %ersians2 This collection consists o4 4i8e Gathas' or h6mns' written in an older dialect than that o4 the rest o4 the collection' the 5endidad' or com3ilation o4 religious laws and m6thical tales' and the )end' or commentar62 The 4irst two 3ortions constitute the A8esta 3ro3er' that is to sa6' ;law; or ;knowledge2; !n addition to the A8esta-d the human soul will be included2-a>deism Bthe religion o4 "rma>dC in its later de8elo3ment attached great im3ortance to the worshi3 o4 -ithra' the sun god2 !n this 4orm it a33eared in ome and was among the 4irst o4 the "riental religions to gain ascendenc6 o8er the minds o4 the omans2 ing' t63es o4 ethical characterA Achilles' the indomitable9 $ector' the chi8alrous9 Agamemnon' o4 kingl6 3resence9 Nestor' the wise9 .l6sses' the war69 %enelo3e' the 4aith4ul2 Hesiod gi8es us the 4irst crude attem3ts at constructing a world-s6stem2 $is cosmogon6' howe8er' is 3resented in the 4orm o4 a theogon69 there is as 6et no 7uestion o4 accounting4or the origin o4 things b6 natural causes2 The so-called !rphic Cosmo$onies had the $esiodic theogon6 4or their basis2 The6 did not ad8ance much 4arther in their in7uir6 than $esiod himsel4 had gone' unless we include as "r3hic those s6stems o4 cosmolog6 to which all scholars now agree in assigning a 3ost-Aristotelian date2 Pherecydes of Syros Babout JI* B2C2C more closel6 a33roaches the scienti4ic method2 $e describes ation2 According to Aristotle' Ana5imander' su33osing that change destro6s matter' argued that' unless the substratum o4 change is limitless' change must sometime cease2 Thus' whilemodern 3h6sics holds that matter is indestructible' Ana5imander maintained that it is in4inite9 4or there can be no 7uestion as to the cor3oreal nature o4 the apeiron it is an in4inite material substance2 Critics' howe8er' do not agree as to how Ana5imander would ha8e answered the 7uestions' !s the unlimited an element or a mi5ture o4 elementsL !s it 7ualitati8el6 sim3le or com3le5L $e certainl6 maintained that the 3rimiti8e substance is in4inite' but did not' so 4ar as we know' concern himsel4 with the 7uestion o4 its 7ualitati8e determinations222The apeiron has been likened to the modern notion o4 s3ace and to the m6thological conce3t o4 chaos2 !t is described b6 Ana5imander himsel4 as surrounding and directing all things' and b6 Aristotle it is described as to theion2 ,e must not' howe8er' attach to these e53ressions a dualistic or 3antheistic meaning2From the Boundless all things came' b6 a 3rocess which the PlacitaD(0E describes as se3aration Ba3okrithUnaiC2 Li8ing things s3rang 4rom the original moisture o4 the earth Bthrough the agenc6 o4heatC2 The 4irst animals were there4ore 4ishes' which a4ter the6 came on shore threw o44 their scalesand assumed new sha3es2 -an' too' was generated 4rom other kinds o4 animals2D(+E Ana5imander isgenerall6 belie8ed to ha8e taught an in4init6 o4 worlds2Historical Position2 Com3aring the doctrines o4 Ana5imander with what we know o4 the teachings o4 Thales' we 4ind that the 4ormer are 4ar richer in their contents and betoken a higher de8elo3ment o4 s3eculati8e thought2 The6 re3resent a higher grade o4 abstraction' as is e8ident in the substitution o4 the Boundless 4or the concrete substance' water2ANAS!-ENES*ife2 Ana5imenes o4 -iletus' who was an ;associate; o4 Ana5imander' com3osed a treatise the title o4 which is unknown2 $e died about J0G B2C2Sources2 Primary sources2 The onl6 4ragment o4 the work o4 Ana5imenes which has sur8i8ed is a sentence 7uoted in the Placita2 ;@ust as our soul' being air' holds us together' so do breath and air encom3ass the world2;D(IESecondary sources2 "ur 3rinci3al secondar6 source is Theo3hrastus' whom 3seudo-%lutarch' Eusebius BPraepratio Evangelica C' $i33ol6tus B(efutatio .mnium HeresiumC' etc2' 4ollow2 cf& Diels' op& cit&' 32 I1H2D"CT!NESAccording to all our secondar6 sources' Ana5imenes taught that the 3rinci3le' or ground' o4 all material e5istence is air2 BaFr must' howe8er' be taken in the $omeric sense o4 8a3or' or mist2C This substance' to which is ascribed in4inite 7uantit6' is endowed with li4e2 From it' b6 thinning BaraiGsisC and thickening Bpu%eGsisC' were 4ormed 4ire' winds' clouds' water' and earth2 The worldis an animal' whose breathing is ke3t u3 b6 masses o4 air' which it inhales 4rom the in4inite s3ace be6ond the hea8ens2Cicero incorrectl6 re3resents Ana5imenes as identi46ing the di8init6 with the 3rimiti8e Air2 St2 Augustine is more correct when he sa6s' ;Nec deos nega8it aut tacuit' non tamen ab i3sis aerem 4actum' sed i3sos e5aere ortos credidit2;D(JEHistorical Position2 Ana5imenes was e8identl6 in4luenced b6 his 3redecessors2 From Thales he deri8ed the 7ualitati8e determinateness o4 the 3rimiti8e substance and 4rom Ana5imander its in4init62 The doctrine o4 ;thickening; and ;thinning; is 4ar more intelligible than the doctrine o4 ;se3arating; which Ana5imander taught2'etrospect2 The Earl6 !onian 3hiloso3hers were students o4 nature Bphysiolo$oiC who de8oted themsel8es to the in7uir6 into the origin o4 things2 The6 agreed B(C in 3ositing the e5istence o4 a single original substance9 B0C in regarding this substance as endowed with 4orce and li4e Bh6lo>oismC2 The6 were d6namists2 $eraclitus' a Later !onian' who was in 4inal anal6sis a d6namist also' marks the transition 4rom the earl6 h6lo>oism to the mechanism o4 the Later !onianschool223D(E +f& ne B%aris' (GG1C9 ,indelband' History of $ncient Philosophy' trans2 b6 Cushman BNew York' (G))C9 History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 Tu4ts Bsecond edition' New York and London' ()*(C2To these add Erdmann' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 $ough B+ 8ols2' London' (G)*C 9 Benn' 'he Gree# Philosophers B0 8ols2' London' (GG+C9 'he Philosophy of Greece BLondon' (G)GC9 &om3er>' 'he Gree# 'hin#ers' /ol2 !' trans2 b6 -agnus BLondon' ()*(C9 .eberweg' op& cit&9 Schwegler' Gesch& der griech& Phil& Bdritte Au4l2' TKbingen' (GGHC2For a more com3lete bibliogra3h6' cf& ,eber' History of Philosophy' trans2 b6 Thill6 BNew York' (G)HC' 32 G9 .eberweg' op& cit&' /ol2 !' 332 () 4429 Erdmann' op& cit&' 332 (I 442D1E "n the manner o4 com3uting the date o4 Thales' cf& Burnet' op& cit&' 332 +H 442DGE Met&' !' +' )G+ b2D)E Theo3hr2' 4rag2 0' apud Diels' Do0ographi' 32 I1H2 D(*E Arist2' Phys&' !!!' I' 0*+ b2D((E ;That Ana5imander called this something b6 the name o4 phusis is clear 4rom the do5ogra3hers9 the current statement that the word arche' in the sense o4 a #4irst 3rinci3le'# was introduced b6 him' is 3robabl6 due to a mere misunderstanding o4 what Theo3hrastos sa6s2; Burnet' op& cit&' 32 J02"n the meaning o4 phusis in the writings o4 the earl6 &reek 3hiloso3hers' cf& Philosophical (evie3 B@ul6' ()*(C' /ol2 S' 332 +HH 442D(0E +f& Burnet' op& cit&' 332 +10 442D(+E %lut2' Strom&' 0' apud Diels' op& cit&' 32 J1)224D(IE Placita' !' +' I' apud Diels' op& cit&' 32 01G2 The Placita' or Placita Philosophorum' is a collection o4 the ;o3inions; o4 3hiloso3hers ascribed to %lutarch2 Like the Eclogae o4 Stobaeus' it is based on an earlier collection o4 o3inions called $Etii Placita' as this is in turn based on the 5etusta Placita' o4 which traces are 4ound in Cicero2 Bcf& Burnet' op& cit&' 32 +102CD(JE De +iv& Dei' /!!!' 0225CHPT#' IITH# P>THG!'#0 SCH!!*About the time the !onic 3hiloso3h6 attained its highest de8elo3ment in Asia -inor' another 3haseo4 3hiloso3hical thought a33eared in the &reek colonies o4 !tal62 As we turn to the %6thagorean 3hiloso3h6' the 4irst 3hiloso3h6 o4 the ,est' we are struck with the im3ortance which the ethico-religious as3ect assumes 4rom the outset9 3hiloso3h6 now is not so much an in7uir6 into the causes o4 things as a rule o4 li4e' a wa6 o4 sal8ation2 !t is remarkable' too' that this notion o4 3hiloso3h6 ne8er wholl6 died out in the subse7uent de8elo3ment o4 &reek thought2 %lato' Aristotle' and the Stoics constantl6 re4erred 3hiloso3h6 to li4e as well as to knowledge2The %6thagorean s6stem o4 s3eculation is sometimes contrasted with the !onian as being an embodiment o4 the Doric s3irit' which was artistic' conser8ati8e' ethical' while the &reeks o4 the !onian colonies were characteri>ed b6 worldl6 sense' 8ersatilit6' curiosit6' and commercial enter3rise2 Both 3hiloso3hies' howe8er' are wholl6 &reek2Life of Pythagoras2 Samos was the home and 3robabl6 the birth3lace o4 %6thagoras2 !t is certain that he :ourne6ed to !tal6 about the 6ear J+* B2C2' and that he 4ounded in Crotona a 3hiloso3hico-religious societ62 The stor6 o4 his :ourne6 through Eg63t' %ersia' !ndia' and &aul is 3art o4 the Neo-%6thagorean legend' though there is good reason 4or belie8ing that the accounto4 his death at -eta3ontum is true2Sources2 Primary sources2 The Neo-%6thagoreans mention an e5tensi8e %6thagorean literature as dating 4rom the da6s o4 the 4ounder2 -odern scholarshi3 has' howe8er' shown that B(C the reputed 3ritings of Pythagoras are certainl6 s3urious9 B0C the fragments of Philolaus Bperi phusiGsC are 4orthe most 3art genuineA it was 3robabl6 4rom these that Aristotle deri8ed his knowledge o4 the %6thagorean doctrines9 %hilolaus li8ed towards the end o4 the 4i4th centur69 B+C the fragments of $rchytas of 'arentum are s3urious' with the e5ce3tion o4 a 4ew' which do not add to our knowledge o4 the %6thagorean doctrines' as the6 bear too e8ident marks o4 %latonic in4luence2Secondary sources2D(E There is no school the histor6 o4 which is so o8ergrown with legend as the %6thagorean2 !ndeed' %6thagoras and his disci3les are seldom mentioned b6 writers anterior to %lato and Aristotle' and e8en the latter does not mention %6thagoras more than once or twice9 he s3eaks rather o4 the %6thagoreans2 Thus' the nearer we a33roach the time o4 %6thagoras the more scant6 do our data become' while the 4arther the tradition is remo8ed 4rom %6thagoras the 4uller the6 grow2 "b8iousl6' there4ore' the Neo-%6thagoreans o4 the 4irst centur6 B2C2 are not to be reliedon when the6 s3eak o4 %6thagoras and his doctrines2 The Pytha$orean School was a societ6 4ormed 4or an ethico-religious 3ur3ose2 !t was go8erned b6 a set o4 rules Bho tropos tou biouC2 The members recogni>ed one another b6 means o4 secret signs9 sim3licit6 o4 3ersonal attire and certain restrictions in matter o4 diet were re7uired2 Celibac6and the strict obser8ance o4 secrec6 in matters o4 doctrine were also insisted u3on2 The 3olitical tendenc6 o4 the school was towards the aristocratic 3art6 in -agna &raecia' a tendenc6 which led to the 3ersecution and 4inal dis3ersion o4 the societ62%YT$A&"EAN D"CT!NESAll that can with certaint6 be traced to %6thagoras is the doctrine o4 metem3s6chosis' the institution o4 certain ethical rules' and the germ idea o4 the mathematico-theological s3eculation' which was a4terwards carried to a high degree o4 de8elo3ment2 Conse7uentl6' b6 %6thagorean doctrines we must understand the doctrines o4 the disci3les o4 %6thagoras' though these re4erred 26nearl6 all their doctrines to the 4ounder2 B!ndeed' the6 carried this 3ractice so 4ar that the6 constantl6 introduced a 7uestion b6 7uoting the autos epha' the ipse di0it o4 the -aster2CThe 0umber Theory2 The most distincti8e o4 the %6thagorean doctrines is the 3rinci3le that number is the essence and basis BarchUC o4 all things2 To this conclusion the %6thagoreans were led;b6 contem3lating with minds trained to mathematical conce3ts; the order o4 nature and the regularit6 o4 natural changes2D0ETo the 7uestion' Did the %6thagoreans regard numbers as the 3h6sical substance o4 things' or merel6 as s6mbols or 3rotot63esL the answer seems to be that the6 meant number to stand to things in the double relation o4 3rotot63e and substance2 And i4 the assertion' ;All is number'; sounds strange to us' we must consider how 3ro4ound was the im3ression 3roduced on the minds o4 these earl6 students o4 nature b6 the 4irst 3erce3tion o4 the unalterable uni8ersal order o4 naturalchanges2 Then we shall cease to wonder at the readiness with which number -- the 4ormula o4 the order and regularit6 o4 those changes -- was h63ostati>ed into the substance and basis o4 all things that change2%hilolaus B4rag2 +C distinguishes three natural kinds o4 numberA odd' e8en' and the odd-e8en2 AristotleD+E sa6s that the %6thagoreans considered odd and e8en to be the elements BstoicheiaCDIE o4 number2 ;"4 these'; he continues' ;the one is de4inite and the other is unlimited' and the unit is the3roduct o4 both' 4or it is both odd and e8en' and number arises 4rom the unit' and the whole hea8en is number2;DJE From the dualism which is thus inherent in the unit' and conse7uentl6 in number' comes the doctrine o4 o33osites' 4inite and in4inite' odd and e8en' le4t and right' male and 4emale' and so 4orth2 From the doctrine o4 o33osites 3roceeds the notion o4 harmon6' which 3la6s such an im3ortant 3art in the %6thagorean 3hiloso3h6' 4or harmon6 is the union o4 o33osites2pplication of the Doctrine of 0umberA (2 'o physics2 True to their mathematical conce3t o4 the world' the %6thagoreans anal6>ed bodies into sur4aces' sur4aces into lines' and lines into 3oints2 From this' howe8er' we must not conclude that the6 concei8ed the numerical unit o4 all things as material9 the6 a33arentl6 used numbers and geometrical 7uantities merel6 as 7uantities' abstracting 4rom their contents' that is' without determining whether the contents were material or immaterial' a distinction which belongs to a later date2E8er6 bod6 is an e53ression o4 the number 4our9 the sur4ace is three' because the triangle is the sim3lest o4 4igures9 the line is two' because o4 its terminations9 and the 3oint is one2 Ten is the 3er4ect number' because it is the sum o4 the numbers 4rom one to 4our202 'o the theory of music2 The a33lication o4 the number theor6 to the arrangement o4 tones is ob8ious2 The stor6'DHE howe8er' o4 the disco8er6 o4 the musical scale b6 %6thagoras' as told b6 !amblichus and others' is one o4 man6 instances in which disco8eries made b6 the successors o4 %6thagoras were attributed to %6thagoras himsel42+2 'o cosmology2 Not onl6 is each bod6 a number' but the entire uni8erse is an arrangement o4 numbers' the basis o4 which is the 3er4ect number' ten2 For the uni8erse consists o4 ten bodies' -- the 4i8e 3lanets' the sun' the moon' the hea8en o4 the 4i5ed stars' the earth' and the counter-earth BantichthGnC2 The earth is a s3here9 the counter-earth' which is 3ostulated in order to 4ill u3 the number ten' is also a s3here' and mo8es 3arallel to the earth2 !n the center o4 the uni8erse is the central 4ire' around which the hea8enl6 bodies' 4i5ed in their s3heres' re8ol8e 4rom west to east' while around all is the 3eri3heral 4ire2 This motion o4 the hea8enl6 bodies is regulated as to 8elocit6' and is there4ore a harmon62 ,e do not' howe8er' 3ercei8e this harmon6 o4 the s3heres' either because we are accustomed to it' or because the sound is too intense to a44ect our organs o4 hearing227I2 'o psychology2 !t would seem that the earl6 %6thagoreans taught nothing de4inite regarding the nature o4 the soul2 !n the Phaedo'D1E %lato introduces into the dialogue a disci3le o4 %hilolaus' who teaches that the soul is a harmon6' while AristotleDGE sa6sA ;Some o4 them Bthe %6thagoreansC sa6 that the soul is identi4ied with the cor3uscles in the air' and others sa6 that it is that which mo8es Bto %inounC the cor3uscles2; The idea' howe8er' that the soul is a harmon6 seems to be 3art o4 the doctrine o4 the %6thagoreans2 The transmigration of souls is' as has been said' traceable to the 4ounder o4 the school' though it was 3robabl6 held as a tradition' being deri8ed 4rom the m6sterieswithout being scienti4icall6 connected with the idea o4 the soul or with the number theor62J2 'o theology2 The %6thagoreans did not make e5tensi8e a33lication o4 their number theor6 to their theological belie4s2 The6 seem to ha8e con4ormed' e5ternall6 at least' to the 3o3ular religiousnotions' though there are indications o4 a s6stem o4 3urer religious conce3ts which were maintained esotericall62H2 'o ethics2 The ethical s6stem o4 the %6thagoreans was thoroughl6 religious2 The su3reme good o4 man is to become godlike2 This assimilation is to be accom3lished b6 8irtue2 Now 8irtue is a harmon6A it essentiall6 consists in a harmonious e7uilibrium o4 the 4aculties' b6 which what is lower in man#s nature is subordinated to what is higher2 Fnowledge' the 3ractice o4 asceticism' music' and g6mnastics are the means b6 which this harmon6 is attained2 Finall6' the %6thagoreans used numbers to de4ine ethical notions2 Thus' the6 said' :uslice is a number s7uared' arithmos isa%is isos2Historical Position2 The chie4 im3ortance o4 the %6thagorean mo8ement lies in this' that it marks a dee3ening o4 the moral consciousness in &reece2 The old-time buo6anc6 o4 religious 4eeling as seen in the $omeric 3oems has gi8en wa6 to a calmer and more re4lecti8e mood' in which the sense o4 guilt and the conse7uent need o4 atonement and 3uri4ication assert themsel8es2As a s6stem o4 3hiloso3h6' the bod6 o4 %6thagorean doctrine must' like all the 3re-Socratic s6stems' be regarded as 3rimaril6 intended to be a 3hiloso3h6 o4 nature' and this is how Aristotle describes it2D)E !t is not concerned with the conditions o4 knowledge' and although the societ6 which %6thagoras 4ounded was ethical' the 3hiloso3h6 which is associated with that societ6 treats o4 ethical 3roblems onl6 incidentall6 and in a su3er4icial manner2As an in8estigation o4 nature the %6thagorean 3hiloso3h6 must be 3ronounced a 8er6 decided ad8ance on the s3eculati8e attem3ts o4 the !onians2 The %6thagoreans lea8e the concrete' sense-3ercei8ed basis o4 e5istence' and substitute 4or it the abstract notion o4 number' thus 3re3aring the wa6 4or a still higher notion -- that o4 Being2D(E +f& Burnet' op& cit&' 332 +*( 442D0E Arist2' Met&' !' J' )GH a' 0+2D+E Met&' !' J' )GJ b' 0I2DIE The term was 4irst used in the technical scienti4ic sense b6 %lato2 DJE "n the %6thagorean conce3t o4 the !n4inite' cf& $rchiv f& Gesch& der Phil& BA3ril' ()*(C' Bd2 /!!' $e4t +2DHE +f& e the 3henomena o4 the uni8erse2 !n 4act' it is one instance among man6 in which the desire to 4ind the one in the mani4old -- a desire which is the ins3iration o4 all 3hiloso3hical s3eculation -- is carried to the e5cess o4 monism2 For' i4 we are to acce3t an6 theor6 that will reconcile Seno3hanes# meta3h6sics with his theolog6' we must hold that he identi4ied nature' the one' immutable' eternal'with &od' who likewise 3ossesses these attributes2%A-EN!DES*ife2 %armenides' who was' 3erha3s' the greatest o4 all the 3re-Socratic 3hiloso3hers' was born at Elea about JI* B2C2 According to Aristotle' he was a disci3le o4 Seno3hanes' whose doctrines he took u3 and carried to their idealistic conse7uences2 $e had a more de4inite gras3 o4 3rinci3les than Seno3hanes had' and de8elo3ed them with greater thoroughness than his master had done2Sources2 The didactic 3oem peri phuseGs' com3osed b6 %armenides and 3reser8ed b6 Se5tus' %roclus' and others' consists o4 three 3arts2 The 4irst is a sublimel6 concei8ed introduction' in which the goddess o4 truth 3oints out to the 3hiloso3her two 3aths o4 knowledge' the one leading to a knowledge o4 truth' the other to a knowledge o4 the o3inions o4 men2 The second 3art o4 the 3oem describes the :ourne6 to truth' and contains the meta3h6sical doctrines o4 the author2 The third 3art' dealing with the o3inions o4 men' contains a h63othetical 3h6sics' a cosmolog6 o4 the a33arent2D"CT!NES,etaphysical Doctrines2 Truth consists in the knowledge that Being is' and that not-Being can neither e5ist nor be concei8ed to e5ist2 The greatest error lies in treating Being and not-Being as the same2DJE From this 4undamental error arise the o3inions o4 men2 Truth lies in thought' 4or ;nothing can be but what can be thought2; The senses lead to error2 Being' there4ore' is' and since not-Being is not' Being is one2 !t is conse7uentl6 unchangeable and un3roduced' des3ite the testimon6 o4 the senses to the contrar62 For how could Being be 3roducedL Either 4rom not-Being' which does not e5ist' or 4rom Being' in which case it was be4ore it began to be2 There4ore it is un3roduced' unchangeable' undi8ided' whole' homogeneous' e7uall6 balanced on all sides' like a 3er4ect s3here2DHE31From the com3arison o4 Being to a s3here it a33ears that Being is not incor3oreal2D1E !deas do not a33ear in 3hiloso3h6 e0abrupto2 The6 are graduall6 de8elo3ed in the course o4 s3eculation2 Thus' %armenides# idea o4 realit6 is not that o4 the !onians' who s3oke o4 a crude material substratum o4 e5istence2 Neither is it the highl6 abstract notion o4 Being which we 4ind in the 3hiloso3h6 o4 %lato and Aristotle2 !t is a something intermediate between these e5tremes' and is b6some likened to our notion o4 s3ace2Physical Doctrines2 Though right reason Blo$osC maintains that Being is one and immutable' the senses and common o3inion Bdo1aC are con8inced o4 the 3luralit6 and change which a33arentl6 e5ist around us2 %lacing himsel4' there4ore' at this 3oint o4 8iew' %armenides 3roceedsDGE to gi8e us(2 $ cosmology of the apparent2 $ere he is e8identl6 in4luenced b6 the %6thagorean doctrine o4 o33osites2 $e maintains that all things are com3osed o4 light' or warmth' and darkness' or cold9 o4 these' the 4ormer' according to Aristotle'D)E corres3onds to Being' the latter to not-Being2 The6 are united b6 a Deity Bdaim@n! he panta #ubernaC2 The6 are s6mbolicall6 described as male and 4emale' and their union is said to be e44ected b6 Eros' the 4irst creation o4 the Deit62D(*E02 $n anthropology of the apparent2 The li4e o4 the soul' 3erce3tion and re4lection' de3end on the blending o4 the lightwarm and the dark-cold 3rinci3les' each 3rinci3le standing' as we should sa6' in 3s6chical relation to a corres3onding 3rinci3le in the 3h6sical world2 !n his cosmolog6' as well as in his anthro3olog6' %armenides did not abandon the meta3h6sical doctrine that Being is one and that change is an illusion2 The 8iews :ust described are those which %armenides would ha8e held had he belie8ed in 3luralit6 and change2Historical Position2 %armenides is the 4irst &reek 3hiloso3her to 3lace reason in o33osition to o3inion2 Though he makes no attem3t at determining the conditions o4 knowledge' he 3re3ares thewa6 4or subse7uent thinkers and 4ormulates the 3roblem which Socrates was to sol8e b6 his doctrine o4 conce3ts2The doctrine o4 the unit6 o4 Being could not be 4urther de8elo3ed2 !t was le4t 4or oism o4 the 4irst 3hiloso3hers2D(E +f& Diog2 Laer2' !S' 12 e4erences are to the work 3eri ton biWn' dogmatikWn kai a3o3hthegmatWn tWn en 3hiloso3hia eudokimUsantWn Bed2 Cobet' %aris' (GJ*C' which is attributed to Diogenes Laertius2D0E Frag2 (G2 The numbers used are those used b6 Burnet' 4ollowing B6water' Her& Eph& (eli"uiaeB"54ord' (G11C2D+E Frag2 (H2DIE 'heaet&' (H* D' and +ratyl&2 I*( D2DJE Met&' !/' J' (*(*a' (+' and De $n&' !' 0' I*J a' 0J2 DHE Frag2 002D1E Frag2 II241DGE Frag2 H)2D)E Frag2 1)9 cf& note apud Fairbanks' op& cit&' 32 I02D(*E Frag2 IJ2D((E Met&' !/' +' (**J b2D(0E +f& $egel' Gesch& des Phil&' !' +*J9 ,er#e' S!!!' +*J9 trans2 b6 $aldane' !' 0G+2D(+E Frag2 1I2D(IE +f& oists had reached2!t was at -iletus that the !onian 3hiloso3h6 4irst a33eared' and it was -iletus that 3roduced Leuci33us' the 4ounder o4 Atomism' who 8irtuall6 brings the 4irst 3eriod o4 &reek 3hiloso3h6 to a close2 So little is known o4 Leuci33us that his 8er6 e5istence has been 7uestioned2D(E $is o3inions' too' ha8e been so im3er4ectl6 transmitted to us that it is usual to s3eak o4 the tenets o4 the Atomists without distinguishing how much we owe to Leuci33us' who b6 Aristotle and Theo3hrastus is regarded as the 4ounder o4 the s6stem' and how much we owe to Democritus' whowas the ablest and best-known e53ounder o4 atomistic 3hiloso3h62DE-"C!T.S*ife2 Democritus o4 Abdera was born about the 6ear IH* B2C2 !t is said -- though it is b6 no meanscertain -- that he recei8ed instruction 4rom the -agi and other "riental teachers2 !t is undoubtedl6 true that' at a later time' he was regarded as a sorcerer and magician' -- a 4act which ma6 account4or the legend o4 his earl6 training2 $e was 3robabl6 a disci3le o4 Leuci33us2 There is no historical4oundation 4or the wides3read belie4 that he laughed at e8er6thing2D0ESources2 !4' as is 3robable' Leuci33us committed his doctrines to writing' no trustworth6 4ragmento4 his works has reached us2 From the titles and the 4ragments o4 the works o4 Democritus it is e8ident that the latter co8ered in his written treatises a large 8ariet6 o4 sub:ects2 The most celebrated o4 these treatises was entitled me$as dia%osmos2 -ullach B1ragmenta' !' +I* 442C 3ublishes 4ragments o4 this and other Democritean writings2Aristotle in the Metaphysics and elsewhere gi8es an ade7uate account o4 the doctrines o4 Leuci33us and Democritus2D"CT!NESGeneral Standpoint2 "ne o4 the reasons which led the Eleatics to den6 3luralit6 and Becoming was that these are inconcei8able without 8oid' and 8oid is unthinkable2 Now' the Atomists concedethat without 8oid there is no motion' but the6 maintain that 8oid e5ists' and that in it e5ists an in4inite number o4 indi8isible bodies BatomoiC which constitute the 3lenum2 Aristotle is there4ore :usti4ied in sa6ingD+E that according to Leuci33us and Democritus the elements are the 4ull BplFresC and the 8oid B%enonC2 The 4ull corres3onds to Eleatic Being and the 8oid to not-Being2 But the latter is as real as the 4ormer2DIE "n the combination and se3aration o4 atoms de3end Becoming anddeca62The toms2 The atoms' in4inite in number and indi8isible' di44er in sha3e' order' and 3osition2DJE The6 di44er' moreo8er' in 7uantit6' or magnitude'DHE 4or the6 are not mere mathematical 3oints' theirindi8isibilit6 being due to the 4act that the6 contain no 8oid2 The6 ha8e' as we would sa6' the sames3eci4ic gra8it6' but because o4 their di44erent si>es the6 di44er in weight2D1EThe ,otion b6 which the atoms are brought together is not caused b6 a 8ital 3rinci3le inherent in them Bh6lo>oismC' nor b6 lo8e and hatred' nor b6 an6 incor3oreal agenc6' but b6 natural necessity'44b6 8irtue o4 which atoms o4 e7ual weight come together2 !t is' there4ore' incorrect to sa6 that the Atomists e53lained the motion o4 the atoms b6 attributing it to chance2 Aristotle ga8e occasion to this misunderstanding b6 identi46ing automaton and tuchF though it is CiceroDGE who is accountable4or gi8ing the misa33rehension the wide circulation which it obtained2The atomistic e53lanation was' there4ore' that atoms o4 di44erent weights 4ell with une7ual 8elocities in the 3rimiti8e 8oid2 The hea8ier atoms' conse7uentl6' im3inged on the lighter ones' im3arting to them a 3hirling motion BdinFC2 The Atomists' as Aristotle remarks'D)E did not ad8ert tothe 4act that in vacuo all bodies 4all with e7ual 8elocit62 Nowhere in the cosmological scheme o4 the Atomists is there 3lace 4or mind or design9 it is utter materialism and casualism' i4 b6 casualism is meant the e5clusion o4 intelligent 3ur3ose2nthropolo$y2 %lants and animals s3rang 4rom moist earth2 Democritus' according to our authorities' de8oted s3ecial attention to the stud6 o4 -an' who' he belie8es' is' e8en on accounto4 his bodil6 structure alone' deser8ing o4 admiration2 $e not onl6 describes as minutel6 as he can the bodil6 organi>ation o4 man' but' de3arting 4rom his mechanical conce3t o4 nature' takes 3ains to show the utilit6 and ada3tation o4 e8er6 3art o4 the human bod62 But o8er all and 3ermeating allis the soul2 Now the soul' 4or the Atomists' could be nothing but cor3oreal2 !t is com3osed o4 the 4inest atoms' 3er4ectl6 smooth and round' like the atoms o4 4ire2D(*E Democritus' accordingl6' does not den6 a distinction between soul and bod62 $e teaches that the soul is the noblest 3art o4 man9 man#s crowning glor6 is moral e5cellence2 $e is said to ha8e reckoned the human soul among the di8inities2D((E And 6et' 4or Democritus' as 4or e8er6 materialist' the soul is but a 4iner kind o4 matter2 !ndeed' according to Aristotle'D(0E the Atomists identi4ied soul-atoms with the atoms o4 4ire which are 4loating in the air2The Atomists# theory of cognition was' o4 course' determined b6 their 8iew o4 the nature o4 the soul2 The6 were obliged to start out with the 3ostulate that all cogniti8e 3rocesses are cor3oreal 3rocesses' and since the action o4 bod6 u3on bod6 is conditioned b6 contact' the6 were obliged to conclude that all the senses are mere modi4ications o4 the sense o4 touch2D(+EThe contact which is a necessar6 condition o4 all sense-knowledge is e44ected b6 means o4 emanations Baporroai' -- the term is Aristotle#sC' or images BeidGla, dei%elaC2 These are material casts' or shells' gi8en o44 4rom the sur4ace o4 the ob:ect9 the6 3roduce in the medium the im3ressions which enter the 3ores o4 the senses2 The6 are 3racticall6 the same as the E3icurean efflu0es' which Lucretius describesATuae' 7uasi membranae' summo de cor3ore rerumDere3tae' 8olitant ultro citro7ue 3er auras2 'hought cannot di44er essentiall6 4rom sense-knowledge2 The6 are both changes BheteroiGseisC o4 the soul-substance occasioned b6 material im3ressions2 Logicall6' there4ore' Democritus should ha8e attached the same 8alue to thought as to sense-knowledge' and since sense-knowledge is obscure BskotiUC' he should ha8e concluded that no knowledge is satis4actor62 $e sa8es himsel4' howe8er' 4rom absolute Sce3ticism' although at the e53ense o4 logical consistenc69 4or he maintains that thought' b6 re8ealing the e5istence o4 in8isible atoms' shows us the true nature o4 things2 The doctrine which AristotleD(IE attributes to Democritus is his o3inion as to what Democritus should ha8e taught' rather than an accounto4 what he actuall6 did teach2D(JE #thics2 Although most o4 the e5tant 4ragments which contain Democritus# ethical teachings are merel6 isolated a5ioms without an6 scienti4ic connection' 6et our secondar6 authorities attribute tohim a theory of happiness which is reall6 the beginning o4 the science o4 ethics among the &reeks2From what Democritus sa6s o4 the su3eriorit6 o4 the soul o8er the bod6' o4 thought o8er sense' it is natural to e53ect that he should 3lace man#s su3reme ha33iness in a right dis3osition o4 mind 45and not in the goods o4 the e5ternal world2 ;$a33iness'; he sa6s'D(HE ;and unha33iness do not dwellin herds nor in gold 9 the soul is the abode o4 the Di8init62; $a33iness is in no e5ternal thing' but in ;cheer4ulness and well-being' a right dis3osition and unalterable 3eace o4 mind2; The word which is here rendered cheerfulness BeuthumiaC is inter3reted b6 Seneca and other Stoics as tran"uillity2 Democritus' howe8er' was more akin to the E3icureans than to the Stoics' and it is 3robable that b6 euthumia he meant ;delight; or ;good cheer2;D(1E There is in the moral ma5ims o4 Democritus a note o4 3essimism2 $a33iness' he belie8es' is di44icult o4 attainment' while miser6 seeks man unsought2Historical Position2 The atomistic mo8ement is recogni>ed as an attem3t to reconcile the conclusions o4 the Eleatics with the 4acts o4 e53erience2 !t is not eas6' howe8er' to determine with accurac6 how 4ar the Atomists were in4luenced b6 their 3redecessors and contem3oraries2 E8en i4 the dates o4 $eraclitus' Ana5agoras' Em3edocles' and Leuci33us were known more de4initel6 thanthe6 are' it would still be a matter o4 no small di44icult6 to show in what degree each 3hiloso3her de3ended on and in turn in4luenced the thought and writings o4 the others2 "ne thing is certainA it was Atomism which more than an6 o4 the other 3re-Socratic s6stems 3re3ared the wa6 4or So3hism and the conse7uent contem3t o4 all knowledge2 !n the 4irst 3lace' atomistic 3hiloso3h6 was materialistic' and ;-aterialism ends where the highest 3roblems o4 3hiloso3h6 begin2; -oreo8er' the armor o4 the Atomist o44ered se8eral 8ulnerable 3oints to the sha4ts o4 So3hism2 $e 4allaciousl6 concluded that atoms are uncaused because the6 are eternal9 and' what is worse' he inconsistentl6 maintained the di44erence in 8alue between sense-knowledge and thought2 The So3hists might well argue' as indeed some o4 them did argue' that i4 the senses are not to be trusted' reason also is untrustworth6' 4or the soul' according to the Atomists' is' like the senses' cor3oreal2 Thus did atomistic 3hiloso3h6 3re3are the wa6 4or So3hism2D(E +f& Burnet' op& cit&' 32 +J*2D0E +f& ation' was germinall6 contained in the 3receding s6stems2 Atomistic materialism culminatedin the So3hism o4 %rotagoras9 the doctrines o4 $eraclitus 3a8ed the wa6 to Sce3ticism' as was demonstrated b6 Crat6lus' the teacher o4 %lato9 and &orgias the So3hist merel6 carried to e5cess the dialectic method introduced b6 ations need to be tested and controlled b6 criticism' because the6 are incom3lete and e5hibit merel6 what is accidental in the ob:ect2 !t was he too who' b6 the same method' 4irst showed that' i4 our sense-im3ressions are grou3ed' not according to the e5igencies o4 3oetr6 and rhetoric' but according to the re7uirements o4 logic' i4 the6 are articulated into a conce3t re3resenting the unalterable nature o4 the ob:ect' human knowledge will be built on a lasting 4oundation2Contents of Socratic Teachin$2 Socrates a33lied his heuristic method to the 7uestions o4 man#s dignit6 and destin62 (2 Physical "uestions were not discussed b6 Socrates2 For this statement we ha8e the e53licit testimon6 o4 Seno3hon and Aristotle2 And 6et' as we shall see' Socrates studied ada3tation in nature2 The truth seems to be that he was o33osed not so much to 3h6sical studies as to the wa6 in which 3h6sical 7uestions were being and had been discussed2 !t must' howe8er' be added that whate8er interest Socrates took in such matters was alwa6s subser8ient to his interest in man202 'heology2 As 4ar as we can gather 4rom our authorities' Socrates seems to ha8e ado3ted 4rom Ana5agoras the notion o4 an !ntelligent Cause B0ousC' but' going 4arther than Ana5agoras had gone' he 3ro8ed the e5istence o4 &od 4rom the 4act that there is ada3tation in li8ing organisms2 !n the course o4 his argument he 4ormulated a 3rinci3le which has ser8ed as ma:or 3remise in e8er6 teleological argument since his timeA ;,hate8er e5ists 4or a use4ul 3ur3ose must be the work o4 anintelligence2;D(IE ,e 4ind' moreo8er' traces o4 the argument 4rom e44icient cause2 !4 man 3ossesses intelligence' $e 4rom whom the uni8erse 3roceeds must also 3ossess intelligence2D(JE Ne8ertheless' Socrates acce3ted the current m6tholog6' at least so 4ar as e5ternal worshi3 is concerned' ad8ising in a well-known 3assageD(HE that in this matter each one should con4orm to the custom o4 his own cit62+2 %mmortality2 Although %lato re3resents Socrates as considering dilemmaticall6 ;either death ends all things' or it does not';D(1E there can be no doubt as to Socrates# belief in the immortalit6 o4 the human soul2 !t ma6 be that he thought the dialectical 3roo4 o4 the doctrine to be be6ond the 3ower o4 the human mind9 but the de3th o4 his 3ersonal con8iction cannot 4or a moment be 7uestioned2I2 Ethics2 !4 Socrates taught men how to think' it was with the ultimate intention o4 teaching them how to li8e2 All his 3hiloso3h6 culminates in his ethical doctrine2 !n 4act' he was the 4irst not onl6 to establish a scienti4ic connection between s3eculation and ethical 3hiloso3h6' but also to gi8e an anal6sis o4 ha33iness and 8irtue which was ca3able o4 4urther s6stematic de8elo3ment2The su3reme good o4 man is happiness' and b6 ha33iness Socrates meant not a mere eutuchia' which de3ends on e5ternal conditions and accidents o4 4ortune' but an eupra1ia' a well-being which is conditioned b6 good action2 To attain this' man must become godlike in his inde3endenceo4 all e5ternal needsA he must become abstemious' 4or moderation is the corner stone o4 all 8irtue2D(GE Yet Socrates' as is e8ident 4rom the dialogues o4 %lato' did not carr6 this doctrine o4 moderationto the degree o4 asceticism2 -ore im3ortant e8en than moderation is the culti8ation o4 the mind2 To be ha336' one must build his ha33iness not on the 3erishable things o4 the e5ternal world' but on the enduring goods which are within us' on a mind 4ree4rom care and de8oted to the ac7uisition o4 knowledge255For #no3ledge is virtue2 This is' 3erha3s' the most characteristic o4 all Socrates# ethical doctrines' -- the identi4ication o4 s3eculati8e insight with moral e5cellence2 2ho SG%ratFs7 epistFmas Get einai pasas tas aretas2D()E No man intentionall6 does wrong' he sa6s' 4or that would be intentionall6 to make himsel4 unha3362 Fnowledge is' there4ore' the onl6 8irtue and ignorance is the onl6 8ice2 Yet when Socrates comes to s3eak o4 3articular instances o4 8irtue' he lea8es the high le8el o4 8irtue-knowledge and descends to common3lace utilitarianism or customar6 moralit62 !n the dialogues o4 Seno3hon he almost alwa6s bases his moral 3rece3ts on the moti8e o4 utilit6A we should endure 3ri8ations because the hard6 man is more health69 we should be modest because the 3unishment o4 the boast4ul is swi4t and sure9 and so with the other 8irtues2 This inconsistenc6 is a de4ect which mars all the beaut6 o4 the Socratic s6stem o4 ethics2 Historical Position2 The 3hiloso3h6 o4 Socrates is best :udged in the light o4 the in4luence which it e5ercised on the %latonic and Aristotelian s6stems o4 thought2 $is 3u3ils' %lato and Aristotle' arethe best 3roo4s o4 Socrates# title to a 3lace among the world#s greatest teachers2 Looking at his 3hiloso3h6 as a bod6 o4 doctrine' we 4ind that it contains B(C a re4orm in 3hiloso3hic method -- the4oundation o4 induction9 B0C the 4irst s6stematic in7uir6 the conditions o4 knowledge -- the 4oundation o4 epistemology9 B+C the 4irst s6stem o4 ethics -- the 4oundation o4 moral science2!m3ortant as were these contributions to 3hiloso3h6' more im3ortant was the in4luence which Socrates e5erted b6 his li4e and character2 $e a33eared in an age that was tired o4 8ain s3eculation and 3retended wisdom' among a 3eo3le then as alwa6s more a3t to be im3ressed with concrete 3resentation than with abstract reasoning' and' b6 his man6 8irtues' as well as b6 his whole-souledde8otion to truth' he con8inced his contem3oraries that knowledge is attainable' and that a higher and nobler li4e ma6 be reached through a s6stematic stud6 o4 the human mind2 B6 li8ing the li4e o4an ideal 3hiloso3her he taught his countr6men to res3ect 3hiloso3h6 and to de8ote themsel8es to the 3ursuit o4 wisdom2D(E +f& %lato' $pologia' ++ C2D0E +f& S!C'TIC SCH!!*SAmong those who 4elt the in4luence o4 Socratic teaching' there were some who 4ailed to a33reciatethe 4ull meaning o4 the doctrine o4 the master' and merel6 a33lied his moral 3rece3ts to 3ractical 7uestions9 o4 these' the best known is Seno3hon2 There were two' %lato and Aristotle' who 3enetrated the s3eculati8e de3ths o4 Socrates# thought and de8elo3ed his teaching into a broader and more com3rehensi8e Socratic 3hiloso3h62 There were still others who' addressing themsel8es to one or other 3oint o4 the teaching o4 Socrates' de8elo3ed that 3oint in con:unction with some elements borrowed 4rom the 3re-Socratic schools2 These latter are known as the imperfectly Socratic philosophers2 The 4ollowing is a cons3ectus o4 the im3er4ectl6 Socratic schools' showing their deri8ationASocratic dialectics -egarian or Eristic School BEuclidC -- Eleatic element2 Elean School B%haedoC -- Eleatic element2 Socratic ethics C6nics BAntisthenesC -- borrowed 4rom &orgias2 $edonists BAristi33usC -- borrowed 4rom %rotagoras2 ,e$arian School2 The -egarian school' to which Euclid and Stil3o belonged' made Eleatic meta3h6sics the basis o4 a de8elo3ment o4 Socratic ethics2E.CL!D*ife2 Euclid o4 -egara' the 4ounder o4 this school' was a disci3le o4 Socrates' and i4 the stor6 told b6 &elliusD(E be true' was so de8oted to his teacher that' at a time when all -egarians were 4orbidden under 3ain o4 death to enter Athens' he would o4ten steal into that cit6 in the obscurit6 o4 e8ening in order to sit 4or an hour and listen to ;the old man elo7uent2;Sources2 ,e ha8e no 3rimar6 sources o4 in4ormation concerning the -egaric school' and our secondar6 sources are 4ew and unsatis4actor62 Schleiermacher' howe8er' has shownD0E that the 3hiloso3hers alluded to in %lato#s SophistesD+E are the -egarians2 !4 we make use o4 this 3assage o4 %lato' we ha8e the 4ollowing 3oints o4 doctrine2D"CT!NESThe Startin$ Point2 The -egarians started with the Socratic doctrine o4 conce3ts2 !4 intellectual knowledge is knowledge through conce3ts' then the conce3t re3resents that 3art o4 a thing which ne8er changes2 The De-elopment2 &ranted now that' as %armenides taught' change and Becoming are inconcei8able' it 4ollows that the unchangeable essences which conce3ts re3resent' the bodiless 4orms Basomata eidFC' are the onl6 realit6' and that the world o4 sense-4orms is an illusion2 Connected with this denial o4 Becoming is the assertion that the actual alone is possible2 For this we ha8e the e53ress testimon6 o4 Aristotle2DIE58The Doctrine of the Good2 The union o4 Socratic and Eleatic elements is 4urther a33arent in the -egaric doctrine o4 the good2 The good' according to Socrates' is the highest ob:ect o4 knowledge2Being' too' as the Eleatics taught' is the highest ob:ect o4 knowledge2 Euclid' there4ore' consideredhimsel4 :usti4ied in trans4erring to the good all that %armenides had said about BeingA the good is one' knowledge o4 the good is the onl6 8irtue' though called b6 8arious names' -- 3rudence' :ustice' etc2 The good is immutable9 it is insight' reason' &od2 !t alone e5ists2DJE#ristic ,ethod2 !n order to de4end their 8iews the -egarians a8ailed themsel8es o4 the indirect method o4 3roo4 4ollowing in this the e5am3le o4 ed that the dialogue a44orded him the am3lest o33ortunit6 o4 3resenting the li4eo4 the model 3hiloso3her in the words and acts o4 the ideali>ed Socrates2 %hiloso3h6 was 4or %lato a matter o4 li4e as well as o4 thought9 ;true 3hiloso3h6' there4ore' could onl6 be re3resented in the 3er4ect 3hiloso3her' in the 3ersonalit6' words' and demeanor o4 Socrates2;The %latonic dialogue has been well described as occu36ing a middle 3osition between the 3ersonal con8erse o4 Socrates and the 3urel6 scienti4ic continuous e53osition o4 Aristotle2D1E %lato' ado3ting a stricter idea o4 method than Socrates ado3ted' e5cludes the 3ersonal and contingent elements which made the discourse o4 Socrates so 3ictures7ue9 while at times' w