Philosophy or physics?

September 28, 2006 3:00 AM

The Pre-Socratic philosophers came up with a lot of theories on what primitive parts our world is made up of. What is it that makes these theories philosophy? Why aren't these guys called the Pre-Socratic physicists?

I've been studying these guys a little. Here's what I've got:

First of, Thales claims that everything is made up of water.

Then Anaximander basically says the world is made up of elements of earth, air, water, and fire.

Anaximenes says no: The world is made of air.

Pythagoras begs to differ, he says the world is an embodiment of numbers.

Heraclitus does not agree either: The world is made of fire.

What made these guys special was that they based their statements on observations, even argumentation sometimes, and not on myths. But how is it philosophy, and not physics?

posted by cheerleaders_to_your_funeral to religion & philosophy (13 comments total)

Why are you projecting the separation of scientific disciplines as we may know now back on ancient Greek times?
posted by ijsbrand at 3:16 AM on September 28, 2006

Well, originally all science was considered "philosophy." In the 17th century, what we would now call a scientist was a "natural philosopher." The word scientist did not come into general usage until the 19th century (see OED).

But I would say they were not called physicists because their hypotheses do not gradually give rise to the physicists and physics of today.
posted by grouse at 3:19 AM on September 28, 2006

@ijsbrand: Becase I don't get why we're calling them philosophers, today, when the distinction between philosophy and physics exists. Are you saying that we're calling them philosophers because they called themselves philosophers?
posted by cheerleaders_to_your_funeral at 3:24 AM on September 28, 2006

I don't think the fact that they used observations and arguments to develop their understanding precludes calling them "philosophers" (literally "lover of knowledge"). As I understand it, they were concerned with more than just "what things are made of," but also the origins of what we today call the universe.

Admittedly, my knowledge of the field is pretty limited, but I think even today the line separating the fields of philosophy and cosmology can get a bit blurred.

In addition, inertia is a powerful thing -- I don't think it would be that inaccurate to say that we call them philosophers today in large part because they called themselves philosophers.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 4:10 AM on September 28, 2006

They may have used some limited observations of the world as a starting point (even philosophers like to have something to talk about!) but not as evidence. Their views were not based on empirical criteria, like modern science. They used pure reason to support their conclusions, rather than systematic observations: they never carried out experiments.

That's why they're philosophers.
posted by Phanx at 5:21 AM on September 28, 2006

What Phanx said. I could say "Everything is made of green cheese"; that doesn't make me a physicist. Science implies the scientific method, which was still a long ways off when these guys were around.
posted by languagehat at 5:58 AM on September 28, 2006

aristotle wrote on physics, too.
First, the pre-socratics are generally just called "the pre-socratics" in my experience, although they are read in philosophy classes rather than scientific ones. But they're referred to as "the physicists" or "the naturalists" by plenty of later philosophers...

Second, in general their conclusions are reached through reason rather than empirical investigation. (of course, this is true for much of theoretical physics as well, but at least they read what the chemists are saying :)). Often the arguments come down to a claim that the world must be beautiful (although the greek for 'beauty' is also 'order' and the expectation of consistency means that they're not just saying it's prettier this way...) Parmenides wrote in poetic form, and pythagoras basically had his own religion. On the other hand, empedocles makes a case for chance and natural selection...

Third, we know about them because they are quoted by other philosophers, and they tend to be very concerned with questions that now have been segmented as metaphysics and theology as well as questions that are now considered physics. For them, the three were inseparable, whereas in the modern age it's rare enough to find metaphysics and theology [not christian, but the nature of the totality/divine] taken seriously in a philosophy dept.
posted by mdn at 6:00 AM on September 28, 2006

That and treating these as physics rather than metaphysics is a mistake. Heraclitus argued that the world was made of fire because his philosophy was one of eternal change. His was more of a comment on how humans relate to the world than the world itself.
posted by klangklangston at 6:15 AM on September 28, 2006

You have a somewhat simplistic understanding. Anaximander believed that the four elements, and everything on earth, arises out of an "apeiron," or "Boundless." Because of this, they must "pay penance" (to quote the fragment). The penance is inevitable decay; the crime, not being something else.

It's this element of fundamental justice, a divine law without a god, that makes this philosophy in a modern sense. They were not trying to answer the question, "How do we explain black-body radiation?" They were asking, "What is the nature of the fundamental unity of all things?"

I suggest Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks.
posted by nasreddin at 8:09 AM on September 28, 2006

They talked more about why and what rather than how. Physical science shouldn't talk so much about meaning.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:12 AM on September 28, 2006

they didn't make observations ... i'm at a loss as to how i could look at the world around me and say it was made out of fire or water, because it's not obvious that it is ... it doesn't look or feel like it

no, they just guessed, or imagined a poetic metaphor they liked and then rationalized around it

that's not science
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 AM on September 28, 2006

They talked more about why and what rather than how. Physical science shouldn't talk so much about meaning.

Newton talked often of meaning, but most people still consider him a physicist.
posted by malp at 9:37 AM on September 28, 2006

i'm at a loss as to how i could look at the world around me and say it was made out of fire or water, because it's not obvious that it is ... it doesn't look or feel like it

look at a tree: what is it made of?
it seems to be made of earth, water, air and sunlight (or fire) when you think about it. And yet if you throw those four elements together you don't get a tree... there's something else - but what? That's what aristotle called form, what Anaximander called mind, what democritus determined to be random collection and empedocles imagined was the accidental result of good outcomes surviving more than bad ones. In a way they're not wrong, just using different terminology, and much earlier in the investigation. but they weren't stupid, and they weren't just guessing or being randomly poetic. they were really trying to think about things that many of us today have forgotten to even think about anymore, because we think it's all been figured out by science.

But a tree really is made of earth, air, water & sunlight. We have a much better understanding of how those elements can be further broken into their chemical constituents, and how ribonucleic acids can direct formation, but the essential idea that all that exists is the same 'stuff' in different order remains insightful.

I don't think it would be that inaccurate to say that we call them philosophers today in large part because they called themselves philosophers.

well, except they didn't call themselves philosophers, technically. The greek for nature is "physis", and they were known as the physis-ists, or naturalists. That is how aristotle usually refers to them. The word "philosopher" was coined by socrates. in many ways, plato & aristotle are responsible for the merging of two distinct traditions - the sophists were like rhetoriticians, teaching people how to argue; the physis-ists were focused on comprehending nature. plato & aristotle explored both dialogue & human interchange, and the nature of being itself. And modern philosophers continue to do the same.
posted by mdn at 5:10 AM on October 12, 2006 [1 favorite]