BERTRAND RUSSELL. A HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY And Its Connection with Political and Social. Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the. History of Western Philosophy. Issam Pythagorean leader philosopher in the Pythagorus society who kept their findings a secret Bertrand Russell ~ RUSSELL HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY and its Connection with .. Its sacred history was Jewish, its theology was Greek, its government and.
|Language:||English, Dutch, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Science & Research|
|ePub File Size:||20.67 MB|
|PDF File Size:||19.17 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
History of Western Philosophy (Routledge Classics series) by Bertrand Russell. Read online, or download in secure PDF or secure EPUB format. An illustrated brief history of western philosophy / Anthony Kenny.—2nd ed . Fifty-two years ago Bertrand Russell wrote a one-volume History of Western Philo -. A History of Western Philosophy is a book by philosopher Bertrand Russell. A survey of . Print/export. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version .
I shall regard them as giving birth to theories which have had an independent life and growth, and which, though at first somewhat infantile, have proved capable of surviving and developing throughout more than two thousand years. The Greeks Geometry , in particular, is a Greek invention, without which modern science would have been impossible. But in connection with mathematics the one-sidedness of the Greek genius appears: it reasoned deductively from what appeared self-evident, not inductively from what had been observed.
Its amazing successes in the employment of this method misled not only the ancient world, but the greater part of the modern world also. It has only been very slowly that scientific method, which seeks to reach principles inductively from observation of particular facts , has replaced the Hellenic belief in deduction from luminous axioms derived from the mind of the philosopher.
In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is nether reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever.
When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking, and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind. There is unity in the world, but it is a unity formed by the combination of opposites.
From what survives of his writings he does not appear to be an amiable character. He was much addicted to contempt, and was the reverse of a democrat. His contempt for mankind leads him to think that only force will compel them to act for their own good. As might be expected, Heraclitus believes in war Heraclitus believed fire to be the primordial element, out of which everything else had arisen. Thales , the reader will remember, thought everything was made of water; Anaximenes thought air was the primitive element; Heraclitus preferred fire.
At last Empedocles suggested a statesmanlike compromise by allowing four elements, earth, air, fire and water. The chemistry of the ancients stopped dead at this point. No further progress was made in this science until the Mohammedan alchemists embarked upon their search for the philosopher's stone , the elixir of life , and a method of transmuting base metals into gold.
The metaphysics of Heraclitus are sufficiently dynamic to satisfy the most hustling of moderns: "This world, which is the same for all, no one of the gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling and measures going out. His belief in strife is connected with this theory, for in strife opposites combine to produce a motion which is a harmony.
There is a unity in the world, but it is a unity resulting from diversity This doctrine contains a germ of Hegel's philosophy, which proceeds by a synthesizing of opposites.
The metaphysics of Heraclitus, like that of Anaximander , is dominated by a conception of cosmic justice, which prevents the strife of the opposites from ever issuing in the complete victory of either. Heraclitus repeatedly speaks of "God" as distinct from "the gods. God, no doubt, is the embodiment of cosmic justice. When one thinks what would become of any modern philosopher if he were only known through the polemics of his rivals, one can see how admirable the pre-Socratics must have been, since even through the mist of malice spread by their enemies they still appear great.
The search for something permanent is one of the deepest of instincts leading men to philosophy. It is derived, no doubt, form love of home and desire for refuge from danger; we find, accordingly, that it is most passionate in those whose lives are most exposed to catastrophe. Religion seeks permanence in two forms, God and immortality. In God is no variableness neither shadow of turning; the life after death is eternal and unchanging.
The cheerfulness of the nineteenth century turned men against these static conceptions, and modern liberal theology believes that there is progress in heaven and evolution in the Godhead. But even in this conception there is something permanent, namely progress itself and its immanent goal. A dose of disaster is likely to bring men's hopes back to their older super-terrestrial forms: if life on earth is dispaired of, it is only in heaven that peace can be sought.
Philosophically inclined mystics, unable to deny that whatever is in time is transitory, have invented a conception of eternity as not persistence through endless time, but existence outside the whole temporal process. Heraclitus himself, for all his belief in change, allowed something everlasting. The conception of eternity as opposed to endless duration , which comes from Parmenides , is not to be found in Heraclitus, but in his philosophy the central fire never dies But fire is something continually changing, and its permanence is rather that of a process than that of a substance - though this view should not be attributed to Heraclitus.
Science, like philosophy, has sought to escape from the doctrine of perpetual flux by finding some permanent substratum amid changing phenomena. Chemistry seemed to satisfy this desire. It was found that fire, which appears to destroy, only transmutes: elements are recombined, but each atom that existed before combustion still exists when the process is completed. Accordingly it was supposed that atoms are indestructible, and that all change in the physical world consists merely in re-arrangement of persistent elements.
This view prevailed until the discovery of radio-activity, when it was found that atoms could disintegrate. Nothing daunted, the physicists invented new and smaller units, called electrons and protons, out of which atoms were composed; and these units were supposed, for a few years, to have the indestructibility formerly attributed to atoms.
Unfortunately, it seemed that protons and electrons could meet and explode, forming, not new matter , but a wave of energy spreading through the universe at the velocity of light. Energy had to replace matter as what is permanent. But energy, unlike matter, is not a refinement of the common-sense notion of a "thing"; it is merely a characteristic of physical processes. It might be fancifully identified with the Heraclitean Fire, but it is the burning, not what burns.
Passing from that small to the large, astronomy no longer allows us to regard the heavenly bodies as everlasting. The doctrine of perpetual flux, as taught by Heraclitus, is painful, and science, as we have seen, can do nothing to refute it. One of the main ambitions of philosophers has been to revive hopes that science seemed to have killed. Philosophers, accordingly, have sought, with great persistence, for something not subject to the empire of Time.
This search begins with Parmenides. Chapter V. Parmenides[ edit ] The south Italian and Sicilian philosophers were more inclined to mysticism and religion than those of Ionia , who were on the whole scientific and skeptical in their tendencies. But mathematics, under the influence of Pythagoras , flourished more in Magna Grecia than in Ionia; mathematics at that time, however, was entangled with mysticism.
Parmenides was influenced by Pythagoras, but the extent of this influence is conjectural. What makes Parmenides historically important is that he invented a form of metaphysical argument that, in one form or another, is to be found in most subsequent metaphysicians down to and including Hegel.
He is often said to have invented logic, but what he really invented was metaphysics based on logic. The doctrine of Parmenides was set forth in a poem On Nature. He considered the senses deceptive, and condemned the multitude of sensible things as mere illusion. The only true being is "the One," which is infinite and indivisible. It is not, as in Heraclitus , a union of opposites, since there are no opposites.
He apparently thought, for instance, that "cold" means only "not hot," and "dark" means only "not light. But it cannot be divided, because the whole of it is present everywhere.
The essence of his argument is: When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must he the name of something. Therefore, both thought and language require objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all times. This is the first example in philosophy of an argument from thought and language to the world at large.
History of Western Philosophy
It cannot of course be accepted as valid, but it is worth while to see what element of truth it contains. Philosophical theories, if they are important, can generally be revived in a new form after being refuted as originally stated. Refutations are seldom final; in most cases, they are only a prelude to further refinements. What subsequent philosophy, down to quite modern times, accepted from Parmenides, was not the impossibility of all change, which was too violent a paradox, but the indestructibility of substance.
The word "substance" did not occur in his immediate successors, but the concept is already present in their speculations.
A substance was supposed to be the persistent subject of varying predicates. As such it became, and remained for more than two thousand years, one of the fundamental concepts in philosophy, psychology, physics, and theology.
Chapter VIII. Anaxagoras [ edit ] Anaxagoras held that everything is infinitely divisible, and that even the smallest portion of matter contains some of each element. Things appear to be that of which they contain the most.
Like Empedocles , he argues against the void, saying that the clepsydra or an inflated skin shows that there is air where there seems to be nothing. He [Anaxagoras] differed from his predecessors in regarding mind nous as a substance which enters into the composition of living things, and distinguishes them from dead matter.
Mind has power over all things that have life; it is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with nothing. Except as regards mind, everything, however small, contains portions of all opposites, such as hot and cold, white and black.
A History of Western Philosophy Summary & Study Guide
It causes rotation, which is gradually spreading throughout the world, and causing the lightest things to go to the circumference, and the heaviest to fall towards the center. Mind is uniform, and is just as good in animals as it is in man. Man's apparent superiority is due to the fact that he has hands; all seeming differences of intelligence are really due to bodily differences. He [Anaxagoras] rejected necessity and chance as giving the origins of things; nevertheless there was no "Providence" in his cosmology.
In science he had great merit. It was he who first explained that the moon shines by reflected light, though there is a cryptic fragment in Parmenides suggesting that he also knew this. Anaxagoras gave the correct theory of eclipses, and knew that the moon was below the sun. The sun and stars, he said, are fiery stones, but we do not feel the heat of the stars because they are too distant.
The sun is larger than the Peloponnesus. The moon has mountains, and he thought inhabitants. Chapter IX. The Atomists [ edit ] Leucippus , if not Democritus , was led to atomism in an attempt to mediate between monism and pluralism , as represented by Parmenides and Empedocles respectively.
Their point of view was remarkably like that of modern science, and avoided most of the faults to which Greek speculation was prone. They believed that everything was composed of atoms, which are physically, but not geometrically, indivisible; that between the atoms there is empty space; that atoms are indestructible; that they always have been, and always will be, in motion; that there are an infinite number of atoms, the differences being as regards the shape and size.
As a result of collisions, collections of atoms come to form vortices. The rest proceeded much as in Anaxagoras , but it was an advance to explain the vortices mechanically rather than as due to the action of the mind.
Follow the author
It was common in antiquity to reproach the atomists with attributing everything to chance. They were, on the contrary, strict determinists , who believed that everything happens in accordance with natural laws. Aristotle and others reproached him [Leucippus] and Democritus for not accounting for the original motion of atoms, but in this the atomists were more scientific than their critics. Causation must start from something, and wherever it starts no cause can be assigned for the initial datum.
The world may be attributed to a Creator, but even then the Creator Himself is unaccounted for. The theory of the atomists, in fact, was more nearly that of modern science than any other theory propounded in antiquity. The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause. When we ask "why?
We may mean: "What purpose did this event serve? I do not see how it could have been known in advance which of these two questions science ought to ask, or whether it ought to ask both. But experience has shown that the mechanistic question leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not.
The atomists asked the mechanistic question, and gave a mechanistic answer. Their successors, until the Renaissance, were more interested in the teleological question, and thus led science up a blind alley.
In regard to both questions alike, there is a limitation which is often ignored, both in popular thought and in philosophy. Neither question can be asked intelligibly about reality, as a whole including God , but only about parts of it.
The conception of purpose, therefore, is only applicable within reality, not to reality as a whole. All causal explanations That is why it is no defect in the theory of the atomists to have left the original movements of the atoms unaccounted for. Like the other philosophers of his time, Leucippus was concerned to find a way of reconciling the arguments of Parmenides with the obvious fact of motion and change.
The result is a theory which he states as follows: "The void is not-being, and no part of what is is not-being; for what is in the strict sense of the term is an absolute plenum. This plenum, however, is not one; on the contrary, it is a many infinite in number and invisible owing to the minuteness of their bulk.
The many move in the void for there is a void : and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they provide passing-away. Moreover, they act and suffer action whenever they chance to be in contact for there they are not one , and they generate by being put together and becoming intertwined. From the genuinely one, on the other hand, there could never have come to be a multiplicity, nor from the genuinely many a one; that is impossible.
Chapter XI. Socrates [ edit ] A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something that he can understand. Chapter XIII. The Sources of Plato 's Opinions[ edit ] The most important matters in Plato's philosophy are: first, his Utopia , which was the earliest in a long series; second, his theory of ideas , which was a pioneer attempt to deal with the still unresolved problem of universals ; third, his argument in favor of immortality; fourth, his cosmogony ; fifth, his conception of knowledge as reminiscence rather than perception.
Plato possessed the art to dress up illiberal suggestions in such a way that they deceived future ages, which admired the Republic without ever becoming aware of what was involved in its proposals.
It has always been correct to praise Plato, but not to understand him. This is the common fate of great men. My object is the opposite. I wish to understand him, but to treat him with as little reverence as if he were a contemporary English or American advocate of totalitarianism.
The purely philosophical influences on Plato were also as to predispose him in favor of Sparta. These influences, speaking broadly, were: Pythagaros , Parmenides , Heraclitus , and Socrates. From Pythagoras whether by way of Socrates or not Plato derived the Orphic elements in his philosophy: the religious trend, the belief in immortality, the other-worldliness, the priestly tone, and all that is involved in the simile of the cave ; also his respect for mathematics, and his intimate intermingling of the intellect and mysticism.
From Parmenides he [Plato] derived the belief that reality is eternal and timeless, and that, on logical grounds, all change must be illusory. From Heraclitus he derived the negative doctrine that there is nothing permanent in the sensible world. This, combined with the doctrine of Parmenides, led to the conclusion that knowledge is not to be derived from the senses, but is only to be achieved by the intellect.
This, in turn, fitted well with Pythagoreanism. Plato, in common with most Greek philosphers , took the view that leisure is essential to wisdom, which will therefore not be found among those who have to work for their living, but only among those who have independent means, or who are relieved by the state from anxieties as to their subsistence.
This point of view is essentially aristocratic. These philosophers are affected by the loss of democracy and "the eclipse of the City State" after Alexander conquers the known world. In turn the thinking of these philosophers, which turns inward, has an effect on the "other-worldliness" of the Christian era. Diogenes is the founder of the Cynics, and Pyrrho is the founder of the Skeptics.
Epicurus founds a kind of cult in which people must adhere to a strict and dogmatic creed that is the opposite of hedonism. Zeno founds the philosophy of Stoicism, which advises cultivating nonattachment to the world. The author ends Book 1 with a summary of the rise of the Roman Empire and how the Roman appropriation of Greek culture affected both history and philosophy. The new religion of Christianity also absorbs Greek culture, particularly in the form of Neoplatonism, whose chief proponent is Plotinus.
Book 2: Catholic Philosophy Catholic philosophy dominates Europe for 10 centuries, and Russell roughly dates this period from to CE. The first part of the period is colored by the philosophy of Saint Augustine and the Platonists, successors of the Greek philosopher Plato, while the second period is colored by the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas , to which has been added Aristotelian influence.
Russell devotes a chapter to religious development of the Jews since Judaism is the seedbed of Christianity. Beginning with Constantine, the religion becomes more and more formalized and dogmatic, and Church leaders determine what will constitute orthodox belief.
Augustine establishes a the idea that the state must give way to the Church in religious matters, b the doctrine of predestination, and c role of Christianity as a champion of the downtrodden. In the 5th and 6th centuries barbarians from the north overran the Roman Empire and became the new rulers.
Saint Benedict established a monastic tradition in the West in the 6th century, and Pope Gregory the Great informally increased the influence of the papal office while acting as a force against anarchy. During the Dark Ages roughly to CE the pope and the emperor worked out an uneasy interdependence. The most important philosopher of this period is John the Scot, a pantheist who "refuses substantial reality to creatures," believing only in the principle of the One.
Islamic which Russell calls "Mohammedan" culture and philosophy significantly affected Christian philosophy because Muslims took over parts of Europe and introduced new cultural elements.
They brought with them the works of Aristotle in Arabic. These works were then translated for a Western audience, and Aristotle's philosophy thus made its way into Christian philosophy. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the Catholic Scholastic philosophers, introduced Aristotle to Christians in the 13th century. In Russell's view Aquinas does a good job of adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
Aquinas also has "sharpness and clarity" in distinguishing arguments derived from reason and revelation. In the last chapter of Part 2, Russell sums up the Catholic synthesis and its later disintegration in the 15th century. Book 3: Modern Philosophy Modern philosophy begins with the diminishment of Church authority and the increase in scientific authority.
The Church also lost power as a controller of culture because of democratic revolutions in the United States and France and the increasing democratization of other European countries. Finally, the Italian Renaissance ushered in secular culture, which substituted Church authority with the authority of "the ancients. What you can call and think must Being be For Being can, and nothing cannot, be. But why does the second line tell us that nothing cannot be?
Well, anything that can be at all, must be something or other; it cannot be just nothing. Parmenides introduces, to correspond with Being, the notion of Unbeing. Never shall this prevail, that Unbeing is; Rein in your mind from any thought like this. If Being is that of which something or other, no matter what, is true, then Unbeing is that of which nothing at all is true. That, surely, is nonsense. Not only can it not exist, it cannot even be thought of.
If I say no, then you may justly conclude that I am not really thinking of anything or indeed thinking at all. In that sense, it is true that to be thought of and to be are one and the same. We can agree with Parmenides thus far; but we may note that there is an important difference between saying Unbeing cannot be thought of and saying What does not exist cannot be thought of. The first sentence is, in the sense explained, true; the second is false.
Given the convolutions of his language, it is hard to be sure whether Parmenides thought that the two statements were equivalent. Some of his successors have accused him of that confusion; others have seemed to share it themselves. We have agreed with Parmenides in rejecting Unbeing. But it is harder to follow Parmenides in some of the conclusions he draws from the inconceivability of Unbeing and the universality of Being.
This is how he proceeds. How could it be born Or whence could it be grown? What need, Early or late, could Being from Unbeing seed? Thus it must altogether be or not. Nor to Unbeing will belief allot An offspring other than itself.
But not many have drawn the conclusion that Being has no beginning and no end, and is not subject to temporal change. Someone who first runs fast and then runs slowly, all the time goes on running; similarly, for Parmenides, stuff which is first water and then is air goes on being. Whatever changes may take place, they are not changes from being to non-being; they are all changes within Being, not changes of Being. Being must be everlasting; because it could not have come from Unbeing, and it could never turn into Unbeing, because there is no such thing.
If Being could — per impossibile — come from nothing, what could make it do so at one time rather than another? Indeed, what is it that differentiates past from present and future? If it is no kind of being, then time is unreal; if it is some kind of being, then it is all part of Being, and past, present and future are all one Being. By similar arguments Parmenides seeks to show that Being is undivided and unlimited. What would divide Being from Being? In that case the division is unreal.
In that case there is no division, but continuous Being. What could set limits to Being? Unbeing cannot do anything to anything; and if we imagine that Being is limited by Being, then Being has not yet reached its limits. The Way of Truth contains the doctrine of Being, which we have been examining; the Way of Seeming deals with the world of the senses, the world of change and colour, the world of empty names. We need not spend time on the Way of Seeming, since what Parmenides tells us about this is not very different from the cosmological speculations of the Ionian thinkers.
It was his Way of Truth which set an agenda for many ages of subsequent philosophy. The problem facing future philosophers was this. Common sense suggests that the world contains things which endure, such as rocky mountains, and things which constantly change, such as rushing streams.
On the one hand, Heraclitus had pronounced that at a fundamental level, even the most solid things were in perpetual flux; on the other hand, Parmenides had argued that even what is most apparently fleeting is, at a fundamental level, static and unchanging.
Can the doctrines of either Heraclitus or Parmenides be refuted? Is there any way in which they can be reconciled? For Plato, and his successors, this was a major task for philosophy to address. From these ideas he drew out two Figure 2 Parmenides and Heraclitus as portrayed by Raphael in the School of Athens detail. One was that pain was unreal, because it implied a deficiency of being. The other was that there was no such thing as an empty space or vacuum: it would have to be a piece of Unbeing.
Hence, motion was impossible, because the bodies which occupy space have no room to move into. Zeno, a friend of Parmenides some twenty-five years his junior, developed an ingenious series of paradoxes designed to show beyond doubt that movement was inconceivable. The best known of these purports to prove that a fast mover can never overtake a slow mover. Let us suppose that Achilles, a fast runner, runs a hundred-yard race with a tortoise which can only run a quarter as fast, giving the tortoise a forty-yard start.
By the time Achilles has reached the forty-yard mark, the tortoise is still ahead, by ten yards. By the time Achilles has run those ten yards, the tortoise is ahead by two-and-a-half yards.
Each time Achilles makes up the gap, the tortoise opens up a new, shorter, gap ahead of him; so it seems that he can never overtake him.
Another, simpler, argument sought to prove that no one could ever run from one end of a stadium to another, because to reach the far end you must first reach the half-way point, to reach the half-way point you must first reach the point half way to that, and so ad infinitum.
These and other arguments of Zeno assume that distances are infinitely divisible. This assumption was challenged by some later thinkers, and accepted by others. Aristotle, who preserved the puzzles for us, was able to disentangle some of the ambiguities. However, it was not for many centuries that the paradoxes were given solutions that satisfied both philosophers and mathematicians.
Plato tells us that Parmenides, when he was a grey-haired sixty-five-year-old, travelled with Zeno from Elea to a festival in Athens, and there met the young Socrates. This would have been about bc. Some scholars think the story a dramatic invention; but the meeting, if it took place, was a splendid inauguration of the golden age of Greek philosophy in Athens. We shall turn to Athenian philosophy shortly; but in the meantime there remain to be considered another Italian thinker, Empedocles of Acragas, and two more Ionian physicists, Leucippus and Democritus.
Empedocles Empedocles flourished in the middle of the fifth century and was a citizen of the town on the south coast of Sicily which is now Agrigento. He is reputed to have been an active politician, an ardent democrat who was offered, but refused, the kingship of his city. In later life he was banished and practised philosophy in exile. He was renowned as a physician, but according to the ancient biographers he cured by magic as well as by drugs, and he even raised to life a woman thirty days dead.
In his last years, they tell us, he came to believe that he was a god, and met his death by leaping into the volcano Etna to establish his divinity. One was about science and one about religion.
Of the former, On Nature, we possess some four hundred lines from an original two thousand; of the latter, Purifications, only smaller fragments have survived. As we have seen, each of them had singled out some one substance as the basic stuff of the universe: for Thales it was water, for Anaximenes air, for Xenophanes earth, for Heraclitus fire. These elements have always existed, he believed, but they mingle with each other in various proportions to produce the furniture of the world.
From these four sprang what was and is and ever shall Trees, beasts, and human beings, males and females all; Birds of the air, and fishes bred by water bright, The age-old gods as well, long worshipped in the height. Love combines the elements together, making one thing out of many things, and Strife forces them apart, making many things out of one. History is a cycle in which sometimes Love is dominant, and sometimes Strife. Under the influence of Love, the elements unite into a homogeneous and glorious sphere; then, under the influence of Strife, they separate out into beings of different kinds.
All compound beings, such as animals and birds and fish, are temporary creatures which come and go; only the elements are everlasting, and only the cosmic cycle goes on for ever. The cosmic force of Love is often personified as the joyous goddess Aphrodite, and the early stage of cosmic development is identified with a golden age over which she reigned. The element of fire is sometimes called Hephaestus, the sun-god.
We are accustomed to think of solid, liquid, and gas as three fundamental states of matter. It was not unreasonable to think of fire, and in particular the fire of the sun, as being a fourth state of matter of equal importance. Indeed, in our own century, the emergence of the discipline of plasma physics, which studies the properties of matter at the temperature of the sun, may be said to have restored the fourth element to parity with the other three.
Empedocles knew that the moon shone with reflected light; however, he believed the same to be true of the sun. He was aware that eclipses of the sun were caused by the interposition of the moon. He knew that plants propagated sexually, and he had an elaborate theory relating respiration to the movement of the blood within the body. He presented a crude theory of evolution.
In a primitive stage of the world, he maintained, chance formed matter into isolated limbs and organs: arms without shoulders, unsocketed eyes, heads without necks. These Lego-like animal parts, again by chance, linked up into organisms, many of which were monstrosities such as human-headed oxen and ox-headed humans. Most of these fortuitous organisms were fragile or sterile; only the fittest structures survived to be the human and animal species we know.
Even the gods, as we have seen, were products of the Empedoclean elements. A fortiori, the human soul was a material compound, composed of earth, air, fire, and water.But his geometry had a practical side: he was able to measure the height of the pyramids by measuring their shadows. Alinari Archives, Florence look forward to eternal rest at the table of the immortals, free from weariness and suffering. Chapter VIII.
It is clear that majorities, like general councils, may err, and in fact have erred. Franciscan Studies. With subjectivism in philosophy, anarchism in politics goes hand in hand. This view influenced Plato and Kant , and most of the intermediate philosophers.